Eldagore
-
Posts
311 -
Joined
-
The game has changed....or not....irrelevant. Players have been asking for changes to blasters for pretty much forever. And not just little changes, but core mechanics changes too. The devs tried a couple things that have changed blasters, but have not "fixed" them, or the constant stream of change requests would have stopped.
they have not.
In short, blasters have been.... goofy ..... for pretty much forever in the eyes of many as evidenced by the endless requests.
Whether the game has changed and how is a discussion for AFTER the devs decide that indeed, it is time to change blasters and make them un-goofy. Even at such a time, it is my hope people will not use the past of the blaster AT as a basis for changes, or more importantly as a limiting factor on what can be changed, but instead look at the current game standards of the other AT's and create changes to fit the blaster to them. In such a discussion, what a blaster did for the last 7 years will be worthless, it is what the blaster WILL do, what players want it to do, going forward that is important. Sometimes getting people to think outside the 7 year old rut they are in is exponentially harder then the actual discussion about changes. -
This is easy.
Crushing impact, but for TAOE. Good enhancment value, can pick if you want more rech or end reduction and still have good acc and dmg values, can frankenslot pieces of it to make uber values if you want, and the bonuses are pretty good. Plus it isnt a rare set, its just uncommon.
And that is the real issue- the two uncommon sets we have for this type are just, well.....barf. I would add another one modeled after CI, and then come up with a sort of "opposite" to Posi blast as a rare. For instance, Posi blast has overkill on dmg, but lacks rech but offers some range too. I would make a rare set that might be a tad shy on dmg, but then hits rech pretty well, and skips the range. As bonuses, it could be the standard fare, though a little better then posi blast due to the skipping of range enhancment- whatever fits well, except for sure in slot 5 instead of a rech bonus there is a 3% dmg bonus. That way, there is more variety, a set for OMG dmg, and a set for more rech for lighter more oft used powers like ball lightning, a set with range for cones, and a way to frankenslot a bit of all the sets to get very nice values for TAOE.
Right now we dont have most of those options where they are available in other types. I kind of think it is some diluded "balance" mechanic to make some kind of attempt at curbing mass TAOE onslaught. It of course fails at this, and only succeeds at making players annoyed when they try to figure out how to get the enhancment values they want out of the invention system and still come up with at least one usefull set bonus.
if i had to pick any one thing to look at out of the entire invention system, and I mean anything, this lack of options for TAOE would be it. it is the only area of the invention mini-game/crafting stuff that I find irksome to deal with when planning and then building characters. -
Quote:Search for your own name again did we?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
1. When did I manage that trick?
2. Electric Blast is overshadowed by Energy Blast?
3. The technical redress for endurance drain effects has been on the table for quite some time since I first suggested it: add -EndDiscount to endurance drain powers. This will cause the critter's own attacks to drain out their endurance faster, *and* eliminate the ability to use higher endurance (and presumably more powerful) attacks while the critter is drained and can only use a single tick of recovered endurance at a time.
your item 2 supports my theory to a point.
Electrical blast needs more then a new form of endo drain. A lot of players dont give a hoot about endo drain. Electrical blast of itself has been the background of many comic book heroes or villains. many players want to use the set for the graphical FX, for the role playing aspect of "shoots thunderbolts from his hands" as my nephew puts it. the set needs to be able to function as a viable blast set on its own, without endo drain. Right now it does not do this at an acceptable level in the opinions of a lot more people then just me.
Fixing endo drain as a mechanic is also a good idea. but it will not fix electrical blast completely. -
Electrical Blast. No other set in the game is overshadowed by it's stablemates like Electric blast.
Tesla Cage is way out of whack compared to the other holds available to blasters, by duration vs endo cost vs recharge time vs animation time vs dmg(pick two of any and compare to freeze ray, bitter freeze ray, or abyssal gaze)
VS stinks. Needs a new avatar. needs more powers available to it, like the current form of tesla cage, lightning field, maybe short circuit or shocking grasp.
Electric blast supposedly gets the endo drain meta game as a substitute for a tier 3 blast. but it cant drain on it's own. And Short circuits never ending animation required in melee is just asking to get your face pounded in if you have to use it twice to drain a mob.
Unfortunatly Arcanaville has Positron talked into changing energy blast first. Oh well at least energy melee was also on the list. -
Quote:I disagree with this. It is far more likely that in the planning phase for the design of the "new" or "original" power that part of the reason it was given the go ahead was for the very idea of being able to re-use it in different ways.Originally Posted by Draeth Darkstar
This is my problem with these kinds of items too, as well as the Magic Carpet for 600, which is just the Rocket Board reskinned.
I don't mind paying a few bucks for a from-the-ground new power when the time is invested into making it, but I do mind when you sell the exact-same-power with a different model or animation, or especially just a different texture, at the same price-point as the original, and don't even offer any sort of discount for people who already bought the original.
I imagine there were some quick estimates of cost/time to develop and then this was countered with "needs to be useable x times" so that they could sell the new tech for a profit and pay for the investment. In the case of rocket board, maybe "x" will equal 2, or 3, or 10 and we will see no more or 8 more versions of the tech offered at 600 points so that sales evententually pay for the investment of developer time. NC soft isn't stupid or lazy or they would be bankrupt now instead of being a major player in the MMO market. -
Stone armor. I tried 3 times, but not since before CoV came out. I can't play the set with rooted as it is. The set still has nonsense mechanics from the begining of the game.
/fire for blasters. made two characters, a long time ago. maybe if they made the toggle auras suppress instead of detoggle when I get hit with a 1 second duration mag 1 stun i would feel differently.
/elec for blasters. i hate blapping.
/dark for blasters. I havent even made one of these, and i already know just from looking at it I wont like it, because i hate blapping.
elec blast. I made one in I2. I tried it again quite recently. it is just too gimp. why doesnt tesla cage do any dmg? Why havent the devs updated the avatar for VS from launch? Why wont they let VS have more then one power? It is really a shame, I really enjoy the graphic FX of the set.
broadsword. god this set is boring. i dont care how many fancy new weopon skins they make for it, the set animations and mechanics are just plain ol button mash. its the kind of set you can put your character on autofollow on a tank and watch Tv while pressing 1-3-2-4-1-2-1-etc-etc with a free hand. -
If the devs let me make anything, it would be this:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=278037
I think the idea if this thread though is to make a ZOMG character, so i would make the above but with blaster base dmg and scrapper crits and tanker base def values instead. And ancillary pool powers of all tier 3 pet summons. -
Here is what the OP is looking at, if anyone wants to take a peek.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=278037
If you have comments about the AT I proposed, please put them in that thread, or copy your thoughts from here into that one also so it is consolidated. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The vast majority of controllers I've seen, including me, do not wait for a tanker (or brute) to establish aggro before applying controls. If you're a brute and you've acquired aggro before I've dropped controls into a spawn, its because you can run really really fast or my PC is lagging that day. However, even if this were true, controls landing *after* aggro is acquired would still have a very serious impact on Fury. Due to the mechanics of fury, it takes several seconds for Fury to reach maximum equilibrium during which time controls would sap a significant amount of incoming attacks. Fury has a throttle which limits the maximum amount of fury you can acquire per second baked into its mechanics which forces this to be true.
I don't see how your evaluation of why people bring tankers to teams is relevant to whether tanker damage stacks with tanker damage. If a controller is brought onto the team specifically because of controls, does that mean controller buffs don't stack? Does perception somehow affect performance?
As to your assessment of tanker vs controller damage, there are a lot of low damage controllers and a lot of high damage tankers. The notion that one of them significantly outdamages the other on average across the archetypes is in error.
The point that was being made in other threads is not that people specifically go out of their way to herd, its that taunt auras collapse the area that spawns naturally start off in, and then prevent NPCs from running or scattering. This simultaneously makes them a better target collectively for AoEs and also easier targets for melee to attack - which also reduces the advantage of having ranged damage and increasing the relative utility of melee damage commensurately.
Sure, controllers do play in a variety of styles, and control in general lowers fury generation. So does defeating mobs, and aggro managment. And yet, there isnt this persistant string of new threads and comments about how brute fury is too hard on teams, or how brutes need help, or how brutes are just meh in general like seen on the tanker boards. Brutes are fine. hell tanks are fine IMO, but I think a new inherent would make them awsome, instead of fine.
More then one tanker on the team is 9/10 overkill on aggro management. In an overall team performance evaluation, once you have one tank to manage aggro, you look for other stuff, including more dmg. A tanker brings more dmg, but not as much as an AT designed for it. Hence, tanker dmg dosnt "stack" as a dmg AT like a blaster will bring a whole lot more to the team. Blaster dmg stacks because as a whole, the blaster AT brings the most dmg to a team. other dmg AT's can do the same in various ways. tankers are surpassed in both AOE and ST by another more dedicated dmg AT.
Tanks and Controlers are not that far apart on dmg. Except controlers have force multiplier sets for a secondary. So even though their dmg is comparable, the controler secondary, even with mulitple controlers on a team, will still aid the team where multiple tank aggro managment will not.
As far as collapsing spawns, eh. Any AT can do that is they can survive the heat. And tankers dont get to cpndense a spawn eigther if they play with your controler which you admit throws down mass control before aggro is established on these taunt auras. if a team waits a few seconds for the spawn to collapse, then a scrapper can do the same by taking the alpha. or a brute, or a kheldian dwarf, or a SoA, or a sufficiently IO'd or buffed character even somtimes.
I do agree taunt effects can help mellee from time to time, what with the sort of newish "run away" AI the foes have now. but you dont need to play a tank for that, brutes get punchvoke too. And really on a big team there is enough ranged dmg thrown around a runner or two is just insignificant clean up for a team mate or two while the pointmen/women begin trecking to the next fight. -
Quote:1. Ususally a controller does not take an alpha. The brute would have gained fury and the aggro before the controller would lay down fury deminishing powers. When a tanker takes an alpha, the brute loses this opportunity. Outside of this, as the battle wages on yes there are numerous things that deminish fury, including foes being defeated. I suppose if a team were to play in such a manner as the controler was taking alpha strikes this would be more of an issue.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
1. Why do you count fury loss against tanker taunt, but not against controller control?
2. Why do you count blaster damage "stacking" but not tanker damage stacking?
3. Recently there was a discussion about taunt auras, and how they should be considered essential damage multipliers because they reduce scatter and increase critter density for AoEs. Shouldn't taunt, taunt auras, and taunt effects count as offensive multipliers in at least some capacity?
2. blasters and tankers are simply not brought to a team for the same reason. if a team wants more dmg, the tanker would be the last AT on the list to seek- even some controler types, in fact a good many of them as the game progresses, bring more dmg. Because of this, i would not consider a tankers dmg to stack with another tankers dmg for team output, as the con's of not having an actual dmg AT outweigh this so heavily.
3. Eh sort of. It falls into the grey area I mention earlier. For the most part, "herding" is useful at the begining of a fight. The other 90% of the fight it is greatly deminished. The grey area is too big- brutes can herd, scrappers with dmg auras can herd, all sufficiently well for the 90% of the time that is key to having foes clumped up. As such, I would compare taunt to more traditional force multipliers as TO's to the rest of the enhancments. Yes, it does perform a function and can be included in the group, but it is surpassed mightily by the entirety of the rest of said group.
Also, the fix to the inherent I propose would not eliminate the power taunt, or taunt auras, or even punchvoke. tanks have punchvoke and bruising as an inherent. Brutes also have punchvoke, but it isnt counted as an "inherent" when sat alongside Fury. Bruising is a fart in the wind compared to Fury as an inherent mechanic. So, with a new kheld based inherent-while a tankers ability to aggro control would only be diminished in the tanks ability to absorb dmg,(and only when team make up creates the situation) the major downside of multiple tanks on a team(or brutes and tanks, and scrappers) would be mitigated by the inherent increase in dmg output. This plays in to your point #2- tanker dmg would be situationally buffed based on team make up that the tanker AT dmg would then "stack" like other dmg AT's. -
Quote:You have given a very accurate description of how tanking works right now.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The problem with defining the Tanker's role is that comic books and other MMOs disagree on what a tank is.
In comic books, the "tank" is the invulnerable super-strong stereotype. They are usually the toughest member of a team, and usually deal quite a bit of damage. This is problematic in video game design, because you cannot have one AT that is simultaneously the toughest AND among the top damage dealers. Dealing exceptional damage and being the toughest member of a team at the same time is not fair to other members of that team.
Comic books have writers that can decide who is going to win a given fight beforehand, regardless of the actual power levels involved. (See Squirrel Girl defeating Dr. Doom for a prime example) If they want Superman to lose to a toddler with a sharpened stick, they can make it happen. Video games have no such ability. Everything in a game is determined by the numbers involved. To that end, tanks have lower damage so they don't outshine the other melee ATs in every measurable way.
Other MMOs view the "tanker" as nothing more than a punching bag. Your average fantasy MMO tanker builds to be as indestructible as possible within the confines of that game. That almost always means the tanker sacrifices all or most of their damage dealing ability. Especially when you consider that, quite frequently, Tank and Melee DPS are two different ways of building the exact same character class.
The difference there is the fact that in CoH a tank is actually a viable damage dealer. If you don't believe me, go play any other game and watch how much damage the appointed tanker is actually dealing compared to their teammates.
I see CoH's Tanker role as being a mix of the two ideas of what a tank is. They are meant to hold the agro of attacking enemies, and they are capable of adding a respectable amount of damage to the fight as well.
If there is a tank on the team, they are the one that picks the fight. Their job from that point forward is to ensure that they remain the primary target of the enemies in question. They do that through passive taunt auras, and active taunting, which includes both the power Taunt, and attacking with their own damage dealing powers.
They are NOT meant to be the primary damage dealer on a team. If they were capable of the same kind of damage output as a blaster, they would make pretty much every other AT in the game redundant. Insane levels of survivability and extreme damage output should not be found within the same AT.
I personally believe that Brutes should have their survivability reduced somewhat to preserve that balance. The only reason I find it tolerable is that a Brute cannot even hope to reach Tanker levels of survivability by itself, it absolutely requires outside support to reach that point.
When you want additional melee damage, invite a Scrapper, Stalker, or Brute, because they have more damage than a Tanker.
If you are specifically looking for someone to keep the battlefield under control, invite a Tanker, because no one in the game can do that job better. A Tanker can move the battle to any point in the map they choose.
A GOOD Tanker is the team's strategist, choosing which enemies are engaged, and when. The more difficult the task ahead of you is, the more important the Tanker's role becomes.
A BAD Tanker is one who engages enemies willy-nilly with no thought to the agro they have spilling off them onto their teammates.
It is not difficult to tell a good Tanker from a bad Tanker. It's usually apparent within the first couple fights in a mission.
here is the issue: taunt is an anomoly in this game in that stacking it with more then one character on a team ends up reducing the characters performance.
What I mean is, compared to other AT's, having more then one taunt/aggro manager on a team turns into a mess. eighther the team is missing out on dmg because they have two tanks with sub-par dmg output, or the brute is missing fury, or both.
take now for instance, 2 blasters. Result? MOAR dmg. the effect "stacks"
now two controlers. Result? Containment all over, double dmg all over. Also, while there can be "too much control" containment stacks, and the controler has access to force multiplier sets as a secondary which.....
Also stack: see corruptor/defender
Scrapper: yeah there is no downside to more then one scrapper. The AT is self contained.
This really comes down to brutes and tanks, because of the same reason: taunt and aggro. Multiple brutes can reduce their own dmg output with loss of fury generation because of shared aggro. tanks are already shy on dmg, and having more then one aggro controler is usually redundant.
I agree 100% with your assesment of indestructable + high dmg output. This is why I have started a new thread about an inherent derived from the Kheldian one, wherein a tanker could have it both ways- just not at the same time. this would eliminate the aggro share issue for tankers. Brutes not so much, but then I do not think anyone would argue brutes need some kind of help nowdays- plus brutes would stay faster at soloing then tanks with what i propose so there is that yet. -
[QUOTE=kangaroo120y;4046472][QUOTE=New Dawn;4045962]Not trying to be argumentative but you can't be one shotted anymore.Quote:Well, thats sort of the idea behind this. It really wouldnt be a big deal to step on brutes and scrapper toes so much on a team full of brutes, tanks, and maybe scrappers. The 3 AT that are in contention here have a little to big of a gray area when it comes to aggro ability. brutes and tanks are sufficiently close when it comes to team tanking now days that it has caused a good number of threads on the tank boards here about it.
I know, I mentioned the one shot rule, but if you get hit with 2 damage types hard enough it doesn't seem to matter, so no matter what tools you might have, you can't use them quick enough.
Also, I agree, I don't think tanks really need to be looked at. Sure more damage would be nice but how much before we start stepping on brutes and scrappers toes
With this new inherent mechanic, a team full of aggro managers would get more normalized in the dmg dept, where a team that really needs a tank to tank(team full of squishies) could have a single tank "buffed" through inherent to really fulfill the role of indestructable point man at the cost of dmg. If two tanks are present, they each would lose a bit of durability and gain a minor amount of dmg output as they could then share aggro control. if lots of tanks are present, aggro control is a non issue so durability is down considerably and dmg up substantially.
In this way, tanks get to tank for squishy teams, and on teams with a bunch of brutes or scrappers, who cares if brutes can "play tank" good enough for a team, the tank will have the dmg buffed some and can fill that role also.
Currently, multiple "tank" characters on a team gets to be superfluous; only one tank is really needed to aggro manage and currently we have at least 2 if not 3 AT's that can do it in normal play circumstances. new inherent mechanic: instead the multiple tanks all get their dmg buffed some so that while they are not needed for aggro managment they can be doing more dmg to aid the team that way rather then having taunt contests.
I do not have all the plus/minus bits of this mechanic worked out yet. I was hoping for some input on this part from numerous people to get some kind of consensus going on that. Likely the plus/minus doesnt have to be that substantial. IMO though, I do not see a reason that a single tank on a team of 7 blasters couldnt be buffed to be even more durable then the current tank standard, while on a team of 8 tankers they could all be doing 80 or so percent of brute dmg with scrapper lvl defenses. And then all the variations in between depending on team make up of course. Thats sort of how I see this working anyway. -
So,
What if tanks got a new inherent mechanic derived from the peacebringer one? More dmg on the team? tanks get tougher,taunt is more effective. More tanks or brutes on the team? tanks do more dmg.
basically, the tanker AT becomes the Melee At that adapts the best to team dynamics and can "fill the hole" by design in the inherent.
The idea could not be a copy paste obviously, but i think this would be a start of a new mechanic to give tanks that unique play feel everyone seems to be griping about lately on the tank boards. it would need additional attributes as some would be removed, like the mez one. maybe some rech or recovery bonuses instead. Or regen.
Just a thought I had. Maybe this has been suggested before. -
I want to comment on the OP with just a bit on the rest of this thread.
The tankers role needs to be evaluated based on the current game. History of the game and what tanks did 5 years ago is great, and should be considered when thinking about how players react to changes etc. But really, when you go to roll a new lvl 1 tank right now, what you did 5 years ago really doesnt matter anymore. the game evolved.
that said, the tanker roll as an AT is simple. To provide a playstyle different then that of scrappers, brutes and Stalkers. At this, the tank AT succeeds- on its face. No other AT is as easy to make into a very tough, takes a beating without a sweat character. it is true that specific IO bonus and build considerations can blur the lines, but, in general tanks can be made tougher still using the same methods.
Whether or not this is a "required attribute" for team play is largely irrelevent; no AT has a "required" attribute. They do have pro's and con's, and some do certain things better then others, but this is not Everquest in tights. A team of 8 tanks can beat pretty much whatever in the game, a team of blasters can, etc. Outside of content specifically designed to be extra difficult, or designed specifically for mixed teams. Usually, these require force multipliers to succeed.
Now then, that said i think there is something to be said as for "what do players feel a tank should do on a team" and also how that compares to "how do players actually play tanks".
to me, the tank is the extra durable point man. Solo, the tank is the AT used to make super tough characters that like to get in to the fray and throw punches. On a team, its pretty much the same thing really, with the added mechanic of being able to help protect your teammates. All the aggro gathering tools make it possible. the methods used and the varying degrees of success that follow are on the player.
the tank is the point man. A good tank drives the team- as such a good tank will have to gauge and trust his team mates possibly more then any other AT which is a little odd considering how durable the tank is. The tank will be the first one in, and will set the pace. The tank will use AOE and taunt to help manage aggro, and position enemies. This of course, is where the whole subject of "what do tanks need" gets its foundation.
because
"Brutes can do it too!! Scrappers do it almost as good and do tons more dmg!!" This is true...sort of. it is a matter of deciding how much gray area should be allowed. After all, a peacebringer can hit the res cap easily on a team, and there are enough buffs and debuff mechanics in this game a team full of defenders can make mincemeat out of hoardes of foes and laugh and eat cake while they do it. But, it takes some special circumstances or team composition etc to accomplish this. I think the biggest beef here, out of all the AT comparisons, is the gray area between brutes/tanks/scrappers is too big. The amount of "special circumstances" required to effectivley allow the non tank AT's to perform that roll of point man and aggro manager is too low.
now, that said, that isnt really a problem of itself. in fact, the idea that the dev team of City of could create such a situation in a game with such an unprecedented amount of force multiplying mechanics is really profound. City of really has pioneered this aspect of MMO mechanics and balance.
So then, what does one do to give the tank AT that little something special that makes the AT play differently enough from the other melee AT to make it feel more unique? IMO, the answer will not be found anywhere in the realm of AT modifiers. it used to be found in available powersets a long time ago, but proliferation and CoV has eliminated that. it used to be gauntlet and taunt effectivness, and AT modifyers and caps, but CoV to some extent, and IO's to a much larger extent removed that. So, they added bruising. Bruising was something, but not enough at all.
The answer falls in the AT inherent ability and how it has essentially been massively diluted by giving brutes so much taunt ability. Now, they can not take that away from them as the fury mechnic is balanced around it. They need to give tankers a new mechanic.
IMO, it needs to be some kind of mix of kheldian team based mechanics(honestly the peacebring AT inherent would fit tanks to a point except the mez part) and somthing else that yes I will say it, specifically affects dmg output- though mostly for solo purposes and AT uniqueness rather then team dmg output. For instance, once upon a time like 5 years ago i read a suggestion that tanks get a dmg bonus to objects or non-living entities like robots. because you know, superman would cut loose on stuff when he knew no one was going to actually die from it. Now I am not saying that is the right mechanic, BUT something to that effect, an outside the box AT mechanic is needed here.
This would solve the tanker woes. it is also going to be really difficult to get something going on these lines in a game that is this old and established. but it is possible. The tanker AT is old, and stuck in a game designed 7 years ago that doesnt exist anymore. The Tankr At needs a new inherent mechanic that brings it into the "new" game we have now. No more taunt bots, herd bots, or well, tank really. not by the Everquest standard anyway. We need a City of point man AT.
On that note, perhaps a new thread for brainstorming such new inherent mechanics is needed? -
That base is AWSOME.
-
yes please.
my double stacked rage IO'd inv/SS tank would love to TP into a crowd and two shot them with footstomp/fireball.
or in other words, what Arcana said above. -
Quote:I agree with JayboH on this.Originally Posted by JayboH
Why not combine the two? Out of combat, it does double/triple damage what they do now.
ED broke snipe attack functionality, and it has never been revisited. When it used to get 6 slots of dmg SO's, it had a lot of use as an opener to a fight. Now, not so much. I still use them on a few solo blasters I have and only then if there is a mob in the spawn that gives me a moments pause, but the power gets parked if i join a team.
And electrical blast needs hella more help then "another tier one" attack. I would make snipes act like a tier two at least. Elec blast specifically: make tesla cage like abyssal gaze, make VS a longer duration, and give it a lower mag tesla cage, lightning field, and static discharge to go along with its current single blast. but thats not really on topic. -
Quote:Thank you for proving this is indeed a video game forum.Originally Posted by Ironblade
hmm... Should I laugh, mock or scoff? Tough call.
I'll take the high road and explain that my calculations (i.e. FACTS) contradict your assertion.
Fixed that for you.
(Couldn't resist some snark. His post was just too ridiculous.)
The amount of snark and condescension in this thread is rather disturbing. Way to show how good the community of this game is gang.
If one were to consider the OP post....
I can count on one hand the amount of MID's builds I have seen on here that are NOT lvl 50. it is also increasingly common to see purples and pvp IO's considered normal for a build. People are shooting for T3 incarnate/purpled out/pvp IO builds now. MAXIMUM POWAH! as it were. And indeed, many times the 3rd slot in some of these powers he lists do provide benefit to a build. More and more though, they do not. At least not at lvl 50. Especially with the new boosters we can use.
So in a way, I agree with the OP. The bit about green yellow red is a bit off IMO though. Normally it is pretty easy to get a power at least into yellow range, and going from green to yellow does provide a respectable amount of benefit. Really though, the times where going deep into the red is beneficial are few and far between. A few power/builds were brought up, like phantom army, where it is useful. but for the most part, on say, a standard attack power, going from 93 or so % to 99% in rech reduction is going to result in decimal points of rech time on the power. So for instance, if I needed a slot to get a 6th slot for gaussian's or somthing, I wouldnt think twice about losing 5-10% rech reduction enhancment out of a power.
But i think I am missing the point here as i re-read my post. I havent insulted the OP intelligence or made him feel sour enough to not post in his own thread again yet. Although I think that may have been taken care of plenty well enough already. -
Quote:This right here, this is something any long time player can relate to. My 1rst character, my namesake was started in I2 when unyielding was unyielding stance, Invincibility had a major bug in it, you could self cap S/L, and permahasten Rage in SS would totally bypass the crash. I cant count the changes I made to his build over the years, and even with IO's he isnt the same, the game has simply changed too much.Originally Posted by Wrend
My main problem with EM is not with it's effectiveness, it is based on the "feel" of the set compared to how it used to be. I have a 50 WP/EM tank and he was one of my favorite toons. I left the game for a while and now that I am back the toon just does not feel like it used to, and the change in feel is enough to make me not want to play the toon anymore, and that is mainly due to the length of the animations of ET and TF.
I understand why they were changed, and I am not really arguing that the changes were needed, but the last 2 attacks just feel too cumbersome to me now. I would be greatly in favor of adjusting the animation speeds to be quicker than they are now and will gladly accept any additional changes needed to the numbers behind the power to keep it balanced.
not that this makes your point moot. in fact a lot of what you have here is the underlying cause of why people feel so strongly about the sets performance.
What I did, was start a new character right from lvl 1 to play through the game as it is right now. i made a EM/dark brute and he is lvl 22 right now. I went through one DFB when he was lvl 6, and then I went to KR and did a little street sweep, and then went on to steel canyon and ran the midnighter arcs and went on to faultline etc. Now I run tip missions and the lvl 20 midnighter arcs.
I dont have ET yet on this character. I do have TF, but it isnt slotted really yet. I do not have stun, and I plan on skipping it. I kow it would stack well with dark and other stuns, but, I hate the baseball pitch animation with a passion.
otherwise, I know its early, but he has played out fine. I am running standard difficulty as a means to compare him, and I also mostly solo him. I will probably make a point to team some in the 20's here to see how the pre- ET team dynamic works so I can compare it later. I have an IO build planned for him, but i will not start on that until he gets into the 30's.
One thing I have noticed is the dmg is a little light when the enhancments get weak. I know dark armor blooms a little late, but boss fights can get a little hairy if I dont use any inspirations when the ehancments are going yellow/red. This happens on other sets, but it feels more pronounced on this character for some reason. I do not know why really, but it is likely the dark armor side of the character rather then the EM side.
Anyway, reading a bit more in this thread i realized Stun would also need a change. I hadnt considered it in my earlier post as quite frankly I forgot all about it as I skipped it on pretty much every EM toon I have ever made. Mostly for the animation. If I want to watch my guy wind up for that long drawn out baseball pitch, I will just hit TF instead and do a crapload of dmg at the same time. Stun needs to be faster, or, do a good amount of dmg too. I prefer faster, mostly because I despise the animation.
Or, my personal fav, make stun into a 30 foot range power and use the power push animation/fx. And then have it do one of two things- either power bolt scale dmg with a mag 2 stun, or keep the mag 3 stun and double the current dmg from "basically nothing" to "well maybe it is worth a dmg enhancment" . This does two things: one, makes the power much more useful as both a stun/dmg power, or dmg/stun power, and two, adds the always fun single ranged attack power to the melle set like claws and kin melee get. Only thing is it would be a pretty large scale revamp of the power including IO set allocation, so I am not sure they would go for this. but I can dream. -
Quote:Telepathists are now immune to knockback, knockup, repel, and teleport, and highly resistant to intangible (phase).Originally Posted by Redlynne
And once again, Gravity Control gets the short straw ...
You know, I havent even run this trial- but - I find it somewhat lousy that this list of not oft used, but rather interesting powers would get the immune treatment. Really? no middle ground? No way to reward players for using interesting tactics to get around the challenge?
Again I havent played this trial, but my gut reaction was "hey someone found a use for repel! And wormhole!!" awww, i guess not. Back to obscurity with you tp foe! -
On the topic of communication...
I dont use facebook. Or twitter. But thats my choice obviously.
I can look on youtube. I can search the forums.
But-
Would it really be so hard to have a forum area, right under announcments, called "Coming Soon!" that has brief dev posts about features they are working on? Then, lock them, and post a link from them to a discussion thread.
It would be like the announcments, except way more focused, And much much easier to search or look into to see if there is somthing you like on the way.
Also, it would make it really easy to find the discussion thread for it, for both forumites and dev team to track.
I dunno, I mean it seems like it would be easy. For referance, I come here farily often, and I did not know about the Astoria revamp until like late last week because of an off handed post in a totally unrelated thread. Same with Archtype O's, enhancment converters, etc. A thread with posts from POsi and crew with like a paragraph or two about the ideas would really be nice. -
I have a MA/regen scrapper. He is good fun. No redraw, quick recovery makes it so you can pretty much ignore the endo bar and do whatever you want. Makes slotting pretty easy too. Gives a really really diverse offering as far as what works for IO bonus, rech helps with IH and dull pain, +HP is always good with regen, +regen is actually somewhat useful to stack on the set, res and def are both good, really the only thing you dont get as much use of is +recovery.
Basically you can build the character numerous ways, with no real downsides. MA itself lends to that, sure there are a few powers people say are must haves, but IMO you can pretty much pick for style on MA and you wont totally gimp yourself. The powerset combo really is a pretty relaxed build. Just turn on integration, and go kick stuff in the face. -
Quote:ME-262 is a longtime fav of mine.Originally Posted by Stormbird
A-10, sure.
P-38... eh.
The FW-190, now... or *looks to left at forum name* the ME-262 - though I've become more fond of the HE-162 from that era.
More recently, the F-5 just "looks right." (And the F-15, for all its capability, is downright boring to look at.)
A-10 looks ok, but its coolness factor is a 10x multiplier because of GUNS.
Personal favorite though, F-4U Corsair. Something about those curved wings. Whistling Death.
Heres a neat vid!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQxb-V-rZqA -
Quote:Here is how I would look at it.Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Does Fire Melee do significantly more damage than Katana? This will indeed be my main (and only) melee incarnate raider most likely. I'm rerolling the Joan character in my signature from a Broadsword/Fire Scrapper to a Brute. I could always fall back to the Broadsword/Fire Scrapper. But I do like Katana's animations much more.
Do you use Parry on your BS/fire scrapper? A lot?
If the answer is "yes I use it a lot! it keeps me alive!!" then you better use katana.
If the answer is "no, parry is ok, but really I just use headsplitter to smash faces!! then fire is an option.
Now, I made a fire/fire brute waaay back like issue 7 I think. Still got him I bet if I go look on victory server.... anyway, I found he could lay out dmg like no ones buisness. but then he got his butt kicked almost as much most of the time. Relied on inspirations too much for my tastes. of course, IO's make a big difference. This guy was SO's obviously in I7.
You must consider IO's in this decision. katana is a solid set. If you cram crazy recharge into an IO build for katana, it's ST dmg output increases enormously as the tier 8 and 9 are up more often. IMO, fire does not respond to crazy recharge the way katana does. If you arent going to go into high rech bonuses, fire will win the dmg hands down. i think katana potentially can outdo it when you hit that sweetspot of recharge. fire armor is not the easiest to get recharge bonuses out of though so the whole point might be moot
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Mallerick
My belief is that Back Alley Brawler is on a "back burner", in a holding pattern, until he replaces Citadel. Citadel, in my feverish world, is the Coming Death. (Like Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation, he is sentient, and therefore alive, and therefore can be killed)
Once Citadel is killed, BABS will become a Phalanxer (officially for real this time), be called from the police station where he's hiding out, and take over Citadel's Task Force.
Citadel will be cropped (quite easily) from all the game with BABS repalcing him.
At least that's the dream I had while drugged up on nyquil.
You know, i hadnt thought of that. However, it also would work rather well as a way to not really have anyone die after all, I mean, Citadel could just transfer his electronic mind into something else.
it would make for another signiture arc where you have to "save Citadel from the interwebz"
Actually i think that was a plot arc from the animated reboot series- one of the main characters was lost out in cyberspace for quite some time.