FromBelow

The first one was while I was in the zone. The second has my final impression after leaving it.

OK well I just finished my first night of PvP since I got back from Iraq and tried it under the new rules. I went in there with an EM/EA brute with standard IOs (no set bonuses) on a build that will one day hopefully be a good LRSF build.

Of course I got owned quite a bit. But, I have to say I loved the experience. I did get some kills, and the fact that I was not built for PvP was a disadvantage (I almost lost a 1v1 melee with a kin/elec defender, lol!), I was able to make contributions quite a bit with my taunt, and did get a number of kills through the evening. Regardless of how good or bad I did, though, I really loved the new rules. Now my brute currently is an EA with nothing to boost his standard shields. So yeah, I was running 26% defense. It's an aid self build, but I didn't get aid self before 30. So I was getting hit a good bit, but it wasn't like before I13 where even with all the IOs and power pools in the world, it was like I didn't even have a secondary. I mean they missed me SOMETIMES. I saw the occasional deflected over my head. I LOVE the lack of status protection, but that the mezzes were shortlived. Like there was a point where a defender and controller were tearing into me with slows and endurance drains, and trust me, life was not good. But it didn't put an utter end to me. Sometimes they were able to get me, but it took them a while, so if a buddy came in he could shew them away. But if I got no help, then yeah, those two squishies would have taken me out with their debuffs and sands of mu, lol. It's like there are grades now. Before, you were either fine or you were done. Now, you are fine and then they get you and they have to work on you to get you and you still have a chance to get away. I just loved it. I came out of there pretty bad off. I still got owned a lot. It's not like te new game requires no skill or experience or toon building, but I got the impression that if I did rebuild my toon and did get more experience, then I could be good at this. It's like there is still a learning curve, but not so steep.

Overall, it was a great experience. And now I see that I need to spread the word among others who have given up on PvP. The devs have fixed PvP. They just haven't got the word out. Maybe they need to come up with different and better PvP rewards to lure the standard CoX player. I don't know. But I do know that I totally love the new system.

So I just wanted to thank the devs from the bottom of my heart for making PvP a valid part of the game again. Not something for a particular type of player on a particular path that most of us know nothing of.

OK as I write this I am currently in Siren's. Actually, I am dead on the street in Sirens. It's my first time PvPing under the new rules. Frankly, I like them quite a bit. I particularly like the lack of status protection. But I am confused about dimishing returns. Everyone on the forums gripes about them. But we've currently got this defender and controller in Sirens who are tearing us up. I mean I doubt any of us are experts. I am no expert and am just in there tooling around checking out te new rules. So it could be that these guys are experts. But nonetheless, this defender and controller are owning the zone. So why all the whining and complaining? The New PvP rocks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expect it's about the same with COH. A lot of the hiring was done in the last half of last year so I'd expect the payoff to come in the second half of this year. Time will tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think the PvP system was broke, and I never PvP'd. I thought this because I had toons that I made just to play the game and as it turns out, they weren't good sets for PvP. Guess what. I was not alone. Only a tiny fraction of the subscribers PvP'd, precisely for this reason. So how can you tell me that the devs were ignoring the customer base? Sorry, dude, but you ualone are not the customer base.

The problem is, the solution they proposed to to turn more normal players into PvPers has not increased the number of PvPers. So I can't say they were successful. I'd love to take my EM/EA brute into RV and do some PvP now that I have a fighting chance. But whenever I go there, there's still nobody there to PvP against.

You don't seem to get the problem. It's not that the programmers aren't smart enough. It's their management. You're a manager, you should know. Imagine this scenario: your customer base specifically tells you what they want from your product. You completely ignore everything they say, and instead redesign the product into a totally different program. Your customer base has no idea why you did that, and hates you for it, with many of them simply choosing to not use your software anymore.

Are your programmers at fault here? No, you are, as the guy that speficially told them what to do.

And in our case, the problem is that the management is telling the programmers to do the exact opposite of what the customers are actually asking for. Even the best programmer in the world can't fix that kind of idiocy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah well honestly I was OK with the set before. I quite liked it. So I am perfectly happy with the changes. I personally LOVE conserve power, and am so glad it survived the onslaught. I am in total agreement with you about the thematic thing.

I do hope that the set is portable roughly as is. I would hate for scrappers and tankers to get a different version that is largely perceived as better by the player community. Since tankers have such a different role and different expectations, I guess I could live with an altered EA for them. But scrapper EA should be virtually identical to brute EA, if you ask me. But if brutes are the only AT with conserve power, that would really hack me off.

At this point I can't say I have read too much of the recent stuff on this thread. But I am wondering what the problem is with EA these days. I just got back from Iraq and spec'd and refitted my EM/EA brute and I am quite liking him. They seem to have made Energy Drain the central power in the set now, making it a cornerstone power kind of like RttC for WP or invincibility for invuln. I tooled around with him and the heal was barely noticeable (but I slotted for endurance, not healing). I had heard there was a taunt in energy drain now, but I still had trouble getting fury on large teams especially with masterminds. It did not seem as hard as before, though. In any event, I am still glad to have taken taunt from my primary and slotted it well. Overall, I think they made the EA set a little more like the rest of the sets, making it a bit tougher and a bit better able to keep aggro, but they did not amp it up so much that it loses its distinctiveness. part of EA's coolnes was always to be able to fight some foes while others stood by clueless. This can still be done. And the set is still the stalker of brutes. But just a little tougher and more able to play the role of brute on large teams. I actually like the changes. And yes, I was thankful to have conserve power, which I used regularly, being a staminaless build.

So what's so wrong with the set now?

[ QUOTE ]
Biggest reasons behind the changes were:

1. Address various imbalances. Some of these were addressed but even more were created.

2. Eliminate FotMs. This succeeded - in a way. It managed to choke off some of the old FotMs but all it did was replace them with new ones.

3. Remove entry barrier. Nope, skill factor is still there.

4. Get more people involved. Maybe - there are some people around that weren't before. But there are a lot less overall because the changes drove away a lot of the really good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I get a recap of the details behind your assertions? What new imbalances were created? What are the new FotMs and why?

I am on virtue, and whenever I head into RV there is either nobody there or just a couple of people who don't want to PvP or a few people just joking around. Can anyone tell me what the good times of day and days of the week to PvP in RV?

Hey I am over here in Iraq and have recently moved to a location with an internet situation such that I am now having problems logging in. It looks like I won't be playing much, if at all, for the next 3 months. So now that open beta is on, I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the changes are. Are they still the same as Castle's initial announcement? I heard the 2% heal was increased to 3%. Were there any other additional changes? Did we get any more energy defense? Did they buff up the passives? One thing I was hoping for was some real attention to the energy theme. (Regardless of whether or not it actually makes the set more powerful, I was hoping it would feel like a toon that is really tough against energy and weak to negative energy. Rather than just yet another toon with a psi hole.)

So if anyone could let me know what the numbers are at this point I would appreciate it.

Also, has anyone taken an EA brute into a PvP zone yet?

Wow. No traffic on this thread in a while. Are we all waiting for news from beta? Let's not let up folks. Keep chattering until I13 goes live.

We might only get one shot at this. What we'll get we will have to live with for a long long time.

Is everyone satisfied with the heal and toxic resist? Do we need anything else?

Focused Accuracy needs to go villainside. I'm sick of all the villainside defense sets being worthless while SR scrappers do just fine.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder... do you think the devs were/are hesitant to give EA capped energy defense because of how the defense intrinsically works? Think about it, unlike energy resistance (a la Electric Armor), capped energy defense would provide capped mitigation against all energy and dual typed attacks, not just part of it.

So, a Chief Soldier's melee attack deals (roughly) 2/3 lethal and 1/3 energy damage. An Electric Brute (w/o pools) would have 41% lethal res and 90% energy res, mitigating ~57.3% of the hit. EA would have 90% mitigation.

The specifics change depending on the balance of the attack, so something like Total Focus (28% smash, 72% energy) would be ~76% mitigated by Electric. (Still 90% by EA.)

That's just a guess, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can promise you that's exactly what the devs were thinking. And they have done more playtesting than I have. But I am wondering if the set can get away with more defense just for the purposes of feel. To make the set feel like the themed toon it is supposed to be. And yes, I think capped is too much. But 40% might not be. At least I am assuming. But with the accuracy bonuses that things get, I think 40% defense might not be too much. It really depends on exactly how much two-typed energy damage there is out there. If there is a ton of it, then it would overpower the toon. If there is not, then it won't overpower the toon. The devs know this stuff more than I. The defenses against non-energy damage are quite low. So I was just posing the possibility of increasing energy some. As it stands right now, EA's defense against its major type is only at the level of what SR has to everything. This strikes me as too low. Maybe only a couple more percentage points? Maybe my recommendation of an extra 5% that could be slotted to give the toon 40%? Who knows the exact details. But I want the devs to at least consider the possibility of tweaking it up some. It's been a long time since EA has come out. In I7 they changed the defense formula so that higher level mobs give accuracy bonuses. So the net tohit number has become less important than it was before. So I think after all this time and after all these changes, the actual defense values of EA should be looked at, rather than just ignored and take the heal. Maybe the energy defense stat of EA could accept a little upward adjustment.

As it is, the set really does not do much to make the toon feel like it has a decisive advantage against energy, its supposed theme damage type.

The other option is to leave the defense as is but give some real energy resistance. I would prefer not to use this option, but if defense really cannot stand to be increased, it is an option worth looking at.

I am more interested in seeing the player feel like he is really protected from energy by taking he energy aura secondary. This just isn't the case as is. And while the heal may do much to help survivability, and while I do not think the heal is contrary to EA's concept, the heal definitely does not contribute to the concept. EA is still a set that doesn't give you much more vs energy than it does against the other damage types.

I mean the devs will do what they will do after tons of datamining and beta testing. So if it doesn't happen, I am not going to lose sleep over it. But I want them to take a serious look at how to make the set have a stronger theme of being tough against energy. Adding some energy defense seem logical to me. If the game does not allow it, they should look into something else. The heal is good, but does not enhance the theme. Not having endruance drain protection or a respectable amount of energy defense or resistance has been a complaint from players for a long time, not just about gameplay, but about concept.

[ QUOTE ]
I just did a little math, and did anyone realize that fully saturated, the heal will give 1.33 % health per second?
in comparison, Dull pain/earth's embrace/hoarfrost only gives .685% (accounting for boosted hp) per second,
rooted only gives .8% per second (for a total of 1.484 for stone out of granite)

and even fully-saturated RTTC only gives 2.85%/sec... That's only a little over twice the healing bonus

healing flames is 2.37%/sec. That's a little UNDER twice the healing bonus.

of course, at over 6%/sec, dark armor's healing blows away every set, including regen (if brutes had it) and willpower... if it weren't for that whole 'blue' thing.

but still... That healing is enough to make me start thinking of new /ea as a 'regen' set :P

edit- on thinking about it, I think that the heal should be 'curved' a little so that it's not quite so powerful at the high end, and a bit more powerful at the low end. say 6% heal, +1.2% per additional opponent. That would make it about a quarter as powerful as siphon life against a single opponent (14.4% heal every 30 seconds capped) and fully-saturated it won't turn /ea into as much of a heal set (18%, 36% every 30 seconds capped, or 1.2% hp/sec.)

I mean, just an idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get too wrapped around the axle on this math. The fact that the heal is mob dependent and that players will choose healing versus endurance recovery (yeah I know there will be some genius method of maximizing both, but many players won't find it or want to take it - I may be the latter type) means that playstyle will be tremendously important for determining what the heal actually does. My brute fights with super speed on at all times, and I make heavy use of positioning myself on a map and fighting who I want to fight in order to keep people from stealing my aggro and my fury. I may build slower in some cases and utilize a little luring here and there, meaning a lot of time I am fighting fewer foes. Having a build with conserve power and overload up a lot (my recharge is 50% + hasten and I am planning a build with over 80%), I am often quite satisfied with end draining just one opponent. I just don't see myself getting huge gains from the heal. Not to say that another player is not going to try to make his EA tanker and get tons of benefit from the heal. Particularly those with electric and fire primaries - the so-called farm builds. EA wil gain a lot of footing to get built into brutes that play a lot differently than the stalker/brute soloer that EA was originally optimized for. But many of us are going to continue to play the old way.

I'm not saying the heal is not great. I am just saying that playstyle is going to be more important than math at guaging the overall effect. A lot of us are just not going to be 'fully saturated' that often. Castle himself stated in the announcement that the change was designed to give some 'minor healing' in order to boost survivability somewhat. I am sure he is aware of potential for the heal to be a lot more than 'minor healing' if someone wants to build a very specific type of brute and play it a very specific way.

Now as for the defense, a lot of it is based on concept, and some of it is just based on fairness. Gameplay is only one of the issues. There's the emotional factor. Fire, ice, and elec have situations where their toons just laugh at the enemy. EA is a themed toon like those others. Now in all honesty gameplay effects would not be terribly great, as we've been able to use pool powers and some IOs to get sick energy defense for a while now. The result of increased energy defense will be twofold. First, it will shut up those who whine about the lack of endurance drain protection, as the most common drainers do energy or partly energy damage (freaks and arachnos). Second, it will increase the utility of the build. It will lessen the pressure to dip into pool powers. The players will seek to cap their defense. No doubt about it. It's just too common of a standard. "Is your defense at cap like my SR scrapper/brute? No? You suck then." So the players are going to do it. Even if they have to sacrifice their build and diversity to do it. Now if you add some energy defense, then smashing can be capped with a couple of kinetic combats, combat jumping, maneuvers, and perfect zinger, and energy defense can be capped with very little help from pool powers as well. Basically, the urge to try to cap something is tremendous. Pushing the basic energy defense up to about 40% will allow players do do it without ruining their builds. Then when you talk about EA as a standard defense set, you'd wind up with SR having about 35% to everything (with just the set powers and SOs), which EA has a mere 25% to everything, a weakness to negative, but a whoppping 40% vs. energy. To me that doesn't look terribly out of balance. I'd like to reaction from possibly arcanaville or some of those really in-tune math types.

You'd probably say that with the heal and the passives, this would be too much. But I'd like to really hear why. I don't see it as too much. Perhaps we won't know more until we get to beta. But I kind of think of the resistance from the passives about like SR's scaling damage resists. In both cases, the mathematicians are telling me it's there and it's supposed to help, but I can't honestly say that I have felt them. Either I see a bun ch of avoids and deflecteds above my toon, or I see the health drop to nothing in no-time. I am honestly wondering if the mathematical tricks we are telling ourselves about the scaling resists and the EA passives are a bunch of hogwash that does not translate into real play. Now SR brutes have a taunt aura and better all around defense. The heal on EA, unlike tiny increases to passives, will definitely get felt. Exactly how much is going to be dependent on build and playstyle. But in any case, a higher energy defense I think would be acceptable in terms of gameplay and more true to concept and fairness. I'm really looking for a good reason why it would be too much. The math you post above is FAR too insensitive to the situational usefulness of the heal to be meaningful.

I also think that just raising overall defense is not the way to go. The heal should account for 'protection from all' kind of stuff. If someone wants to make an EA tanker, they can take a pool power or two to get maximum use of the shields and then rely heavily on the heal, which may be pretty impressive for that type of playing. If there were not going to be a heal, then raising ALL of the EA shields would be a valid argument. Raising energy is more about being true to theme and giving the player a comfort area where his toon is pretty freakin awesome (energy damage is quite common).

With the heal, the current shield levels are more than adequate. But EA just does not feel like a toon that is truly blessed against energy users, like electric feels. It's filling a psychological hole more than anything else.

It's stated that the changes listed in the I13 announcement are the major changes, but that there are still many minor changes to come. I really want to push for increased energy defense for EA at this point. Another 5% in kinetic shield sounds about right.

EA is missing good, strong protection to its themed damage type. Fire, ice, and electric armor get to be pretty much impervious to their themed damage type. EA gets protection equivalent to what an SR scrapper gets against everything. I know defense is a different ballgame than the resistances that other sets get, and EA does have some resistance to energy in its passive, which more people would be taking now because of the toxic resistance. So I think the suggestions to capping it would not really be necessary. But this would give a very prestigious 40% or so to energy with just SOs, which could then be capped by pool powers and set bonuses.

Does anyone else want to push with this? I think the heal and toxic resistance are great changes and fit with my desire to see the set made more consistent. But everyone is so happy with the listed changes to EA that I think the devs might call it good. But I think more energy defense fits thematically and would not overpower the set. I'd like the devs to at least tinker with some more energy defense during beta. Is anyone else on board with this?

I'll agree with a lot of what you said.

I want to remind everyone that this kind of announcement is fairly unorthodox. They normally make changes in closed beta and we just get whatever they came up with When the changes go to open beta or even straight to live. They are testing our reaction. So if people are not quite happy with the changes, they need to keep this thread going.

I think the toxic works OK with energy protection conceptwise. Like the basic change to the character's handling of energy (an auto-power) causes him to suck very minute amounts of energy from whatever touches him. In the case of bacteria and viruses, this actually kills the micro-organism.

The heal is, as you say, uncreative and not particularly thematic. Now any energy concept can be conceptually linked to healing. But elec does not have a heal, even though modern medicine has used electricity to great effect to stimulate healing. But conceptwise, healing can work with an enery themed toon.

Gameplay wise, the heal creates lots of headaches for slotting, forcing one to frankenslot. I would like to propose a larger heal (maybe 3.5%) unenhanceable, if this heal is indeed something that we would like to see go live.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bah. Blueside :P
I was thinking controller, for some weird reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I mean the only reason I know this is Mids. Not like I'd ever roll another hero to 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heroes are lame, they all want tanks and heal0rz for their teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

And travel powers for their mighty, mighty, zone size and no phone numbers for the contacts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the primary allure of villainside is that it's just a better game. You don't have to do several kill 10 missions in several different zones before you can get a map mish....in a different zone. Over here in Iraq I have been introduced to the world of major lag and being a slow loader. I am not going to play blueside until I get back to my cable modem in the States.

When they get back to doing another content issue, they need to go through and do a sweeping revision of the bluside mission arcs and make them more conducive to play in addition to adding a zone or some new missions.

But isn't this thread about EA? So when is beta for the new issue 13 going to start? When will we be able to get some info for the newfound love for EA and other sets?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe turn Overload into a toggle and disable the other +defensive powers in the set? Just an idea, and maybe get rid of the +recovery in Overload for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a great idea if the goal was to be able to play the game while sleeping. This in fact does seem to be the goal of most players, so why not?

Of course before level 38, the toon would be unplayable, so why not make overload available at level 1?

[ QUOTE ]
Going on about how EA is based basically on bubbles...I saw it mentioned that one of the FF bubbles gives an unenhanceable 30% resist to toxic.

If EA is thematically equivilant to bubbles I want that 30% toxic resist. Its a hole the set doesn't need, and if that spackle job is good enough for bubblers its good enough for me.

This might have been mentioned before. Lord knows I can barely recall the contents of this big [censored] thread.

In case my second hand data is wrong and there is no bubble in the FF set that gives an unenhanceable 30% toxic resist...I still want it, and you can give it to them too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. I am all about eliminating the holes in EA. At this point I am thinking that something for psi and something for toxic would be the biggest help. I have also advocated defense debuff resists being enhanceable, but I am not as stuck on that as I once was. I think the set's only weakness should be negative energy.

I kind of think the basic highlights of EA should be:

1 - slightly lowish but still workable amounts of protection from all damage types, except...
2 - a weakness to negative energy. Not a complete hole, but a weakness. basically like it is now.
3 - inarguably awesome protection from energy. Like softcapped awesome or so close to it a minor IO bonus could get you there.
4 - inarguably the best godmode in the game
5 - several powers of minor value that when taken together can help a fair bit, or just not be taken to add flexibility to the build.
6 - unlimited endurance

EA is kind of close to there, but not quite. modest number tweaks could get it there. The result would be a slightly underprotected set that has the schticks of being a great utility set (stealthy, no endurance problems, and lots of optional powers) and a great godmode set. This is basically what the set is now. However, the lack of consistency prevents the set from really being what it seems like the devs originally intended for it to be. Part of this was that it was made in the era where everything had a psi hole and there was far less psi content in the game. So what was once not really a problem for consistency is a noticeable problem now.

Adding heals and HP and taunts and all kinds of new and different facets to the set would mess up the original concept of the set in terms of gameplay. The only issues that need to be fixed really are those of consistency.

Now these solutions really do not require any power changes. Point 6 is already accomplished. For point 5, we've already got the passives and conserve power. 4 is pretty cloes too, but as others feel, granite is still argued as a contender. 3 would just require a slight increase in defense. Completely in line with buffs of other sets. I would prefer to just see power shield or even kinetic shield increased for energy than see energy protection increased. Really, one of the benefits of the passives are that they are skippable. Point 2 is also working as intended. That leaves point 1. The psi and toxic hole. I really think these holes should go away. Really, they kind of ruin the intended thematic hole to negative. I don't sweat negative anywhere near what I do psi. And so many sets just don't have a psi hole. WP, SR, ninjitzu, regen, and even fire if you put a lot of credence into healing flames, which I do. Why give a psi hole to a set that is already struggling to handle standard damage types and has a thematic weakness to negative. Concept? OK then tell me why electric armor can get away with psi resist but EA gets a psi hole? Elec gets more or less standard brute resistance numbers, but EA gets subpar defense numbers. Elec gets capped energy resistance, but EA gets 36% (fully slotted) resistance and a tiny passive? Yet electricity and the auras of EA are both forms of energy that can both possibly have psyhological effects on the toon when those energies are coursing through or swirling around them. Those energies can also kill toxins. There is no conceptual need for a psi hole. I can see why fire would have a psi hole, and certainly can for invuln. Ice too. But EA does not need it. it detracts from the negative vulnerability.

I really think stuff like this can be taken care of with a very conservative approach. A 10% resistance to toxic in each of the passives would be great. Conceptually valid too, if you ask me. Then either get rid of the psi hole at all, or at least add psi to the godmode to reinforce point 4.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Granite already is the ultimate godmode. and that wouldn't likely displace it. Too little, too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granite has no defense or resistance to psi, am I right?

I've never played a stone brute or tank to any high level because it's just so annoying. You can't use granite and minerals at the same time, if I remember correctly.

With psi protection, overload would still have a crash and still not be permanent. But due to synergy from the set, the crash is almost completely painless. Granite's only weakness is that it lacks synergy, so you can't get psi protection while in it.

Granite also kills recharge. So you have to spend your IO set slotting options just getting back to zero.

I'd take overload over granite any day. Frankly, and this is just me, I would take overload over granite as is. I personally think that with psi protection, there would be very few objections to granite being worse than overload.

And to supid_fanboy, I already acknowledged that the +HP in overload was a form of psi mitigation. But it really is not that great. See my post above.

OK how about this for concept. People seem pretty convinced that the defense in EA is based on the concept of deflection, and therefore it should not have psi defense because there is nothing mental about it. What about the idea that overload sends such energy coursing through and around the character that it has an effect on him kind of like electroshock therapy or being on some kind of psychotropic drug that his brain is impervious to psi. Basically, in game terms, add 40% enhanceable psi defense to overload. Just like everything else. This would have the effect of giving into the 'complaint' that many have that EA relies too much on its godmode. But the general consensus is that overload may just be the coolest godmode in the game. It is the only one that grants +HP as far as I know and EA with its endurance management makes it the easiest godmode in the game to recover from. But this point can be argued that it is not the coolest godmode in the game because it does not offer full protection. Retzu and elude offer full protection to everything but toxic, which I don't really consider when I talk about full protection because it is so unique and so many toons have a problem with it. But back in issue 7 when I had a build with 40% defense to S/L, I felt like overload was useless because the only time I ever needed it (which was against a lot of psi), it didn't really help. Now this was kind of noob ignorance, because I was not making use of the increased defense debuff resistance or the +HP. So I was unaware that there were times where overload helps a lot, and other times where it helps a little. So I would be on a psi map and want to pop overload and be impervious and play stupid and overload would not get the job done and I thought it was useless. I hould have popped overload and played slightly less cautiously. So the point is that overload DOES protect against psi and toxic....a little. But I think adding psi defense would give the player a lot more consistancy and a feeling that his godmode truly is uber in many more situations.

Giving psi defense to overload would absolutely eliminate any and all doubt that overload is the game's best godmode and EA is the best set to play if you want to build a toon that lives in godmode and is completely tough based on it.

There would be those who still whined about the set because it needs its godmode and this makes the set a late bloomer. But EA would offer the game something unique in being the game's ultimate godmode set.

What do you guys think about that?

50% (or a few percentages more) at level 50 if you have all your toggles running. Over 80% (I think about 84%) with overload up.

OK I honestly think all this other stuff is not going to happen. Check all the other buffs and nerfs they have been doing to sets over the years. It's always: change an animation, add/remove a little damage, add/remove a percentage here in there in a crit, defense, resitance, etc, add/remove some time from an activation time, recharge time, etc. I mean look at the changes they did to the stalker AT set recently. Look at the changes to the martial arts set. Heck, even all the changes in the game between I1 and I7, adding ED, etc. and the invuln set is STILL the same set of powers. Is there a historical precedent ANYWHERE for an AT or a powerset like adding a whole new dimension to its play? Where has a resistance power ever become a HP boost power? Where has a set all the sudden come up with a brand new self heal?

It just doesn't happen. Sometimes the little tweaks have had MAJOR effects on gameplay, but the set overall maintains its same look, feel, concept. Even with the burn nerf and the healing flames buff and all the many changes that the fire sets have gone through, it's STILL kept to its basic design as a set that does a little more damage and is a little squishie.

I just don't see energy drain turning into invincibility on the EA set. I just don't see conserve power becoming a self-heal. These things just aren't going to happen.

Maybe in coming up with sober and responsible and likely to really be seriously considered by the devs changes to the set, we need to be thinking about where we would like to have a couple of extra percentage points or where we would like to have a couple of a fractions of a second to play with. Such changes have the potential really make EA a much better set, but keep the concept the same. They also have the chance to really be accepted by the devs. But they are hard to find. Saying we want an extra 10% defense across the board is just going to unbalance the set. We've got to keep the set balanced while making it more satisfying to play and pretty much keep the defining features of the set the same. Not many people are doing that here. They are saying things like 'I think EA would be cooler if we switched out conserve power with granite.' or something. I think we lose the serious attention of the devs when we do that.

Positional defense is honestly too drastic to really be considered if I think about it. And if the psi hole were removed, it would be the first in the game.

So if you could only get some tweaks in the numbers, what would they be? Enhanceable defense debuff resists? Capped energy defense? Are these things too drastic? Or could they actually happen? They would be some of the most serious buffs to a set that a set has ever gotten.

I want the devs to take me seriously when I ask for stuff. So I am trying to gauge what would just be too much, and what, if we got it, would really make the set better.

What do you think about just going to positional defense on the shields? Basically keep everything else the same, but go positional defense? Maybe put the actual levels up to what SR has, but leave the defense debuff resistance at the levels that it currently has? So you would get somewhere between ninjitzu and SR in protection. But FF has positional defense, it could work along the same concept. But all holes would be gone. The only 'hole' left would be defense debuffing mobs, which would create a reliance on overload. Basically make the shields themselves the same value as the SR toggles, and energy cloak the same as the passives.

I'd have to spend billions to re-IO the toon, but I'd do it. What do people think about that?

Frostweaver,

You can't hide from me. I saw your post in the corruptor forums where you plead with the community to help you not give up on corruptors as unplayable. Now I deleted my rad/rad corruptor as unplayable at level 30. Yet most people say that's about as solid a soloer as you will find.

Different players are going to run into different experiences. I don't think the criteria people are complaining against is that EA is unplayable. The deficiencies that you mention are the ones that are complained about. It takes a few more inspis and too much caution against too many mobs with EA.

Now I defended EA for a long time, and I to this day would not call it 'broken.' But I would like to see some slight modifications to make it a little more solid against a wider variety of mobs. It's supposed to be a great soloing toon on account of the stealth, but there are too many mobs that require team support. While there are certainly a number of 'EA needs t3h h33lz' contributions to this thread by people who won't play any set any differently than they learned in the WoW tutorial, there are a number of good complaints by people asking for sensible changes to make the set more reliable in more situations.

Would you like to see EA ported to scrappers as is? Or do you think it would need some work before that AT could handle it? It seems that right now the only AT other than brute that the devs think EA is playable for is stalker. But brutes aren't stalkers. Brutes fill something of the tanker role and something of the scrapper role. As a damage dealer, an EA brute almost has more in common with a blaster than a scrapper in a relatively large number of situations. Those situations need to be llessened.

[ QUOTE ]
nin is a bit harder to softcap. Maybe hard enough... except that with that heal, a softcapped nin "scrapper" (why stalk when you're practically a tank?) is really very tough.

Still, only SR has that crazy defence resistance.

Don't get me wrong, I think that def set imbalance is something that should be looked at (and again, even just changing gaussian might be enough), just not as a best and final solution for the /EA issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am playing with ninj builds in mids. I can get mighty defense, but they never come out with the recharge I would want.