Genesis_NA

Really quick, and just going off the first post as an example of suggestions.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Hurl changes. Bump Hurl up to Superior damage (change of graphic to match Propel would be nice too, but certainly secondary). Increase recharge time to 16s (this is to bolster the SS line with a second Superior or better damage power to match all of the other Tanker secondaries). Many people are asking for Extreme damage considering the double KB effect being proposed for this by Geko (and SS has no Extreme category damage power currently).


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no desire to see the recharge time of this power doubled. This power is useful to me in situations that require it being available on demand. Doubling its recharge time lessens the chance of it being ready as the tool I use it for. To me, it’s not a power that represents “yet another button that deals damage”. I have more than enough offensive attacks and do not require an additional one to add into my cycle. I do, however, require it to be ready when I need it for specific circumstances. Many of the higher-end powers work this way.. they are situational attacks, not extra damage opportunities. Fast re-use time fulfills one of those roles while higher damage does not.

[ QUOTE ]
4) KB changes. While currently in the works and in line with what has already been proposed by Geko, we would like to see the Knockdown rule apply across the board for all SS powers (all Tanker secondaries really) that currently have Knockback in them (including Hurl and Handclap) with the ability to add Knockback enhancements in them as the player chooses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’m completely against this suggestion if it does not come with the following feature (that I have backed since it was first mentioned):

[ QUOTE ]
Additional suggestion is just to have a KB/KD switch that a player can run in game to choose whether to have knockback or knockdown. The rationale being that players who like knockback shouldn't be penalized moreso for having to replace a damage enhancement with a knockback enhancement on top of the DPS penalty for the actual knockback itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the latter, I am completely against the former.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Exchange Footstomp and Knockout Blow on progression order (important for build schedule). If Hurl changes (#3 above) are implemented then place Hurl at the L38 spot, Knockout Blow in place of Hurl in progression and finally Footstomp in the L20 spot in place of Knockout Blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems more like a personal request and I disagree with it for likewise reasons. This may be important to his build schedule, but it’s not to mine (and in fact would have interfered with my build schedule). Hurl is a power I feel I have to wait long enough for as is, and knockout blow was useful when it became available (so I wouldn’t want to have to wait any longer for it either).

[ QUOTE ]
6) Handclap. Add the ability to enhance Handclap with Taunt Duration enhancements. Buff base Taunt Duration slightly. Allow enhanceable knockback but knockdown by default. Decrease recharge time to 12s. This would be a replacement power for Provoke ideally (#8 below).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no interest in seeing yet another power be stripped of it’s knockback and replaced with knockdown, nor using an enhancer to recover the knockback on this attack.

Heck, I still remember the day I landed on the catwalk high above the streets of Terra Volta and had more Sky Raiders than I could count swarming all over me. The only thing that saved me at that moment was breaking out the handclap and sending at least half of them over the railing and crashing far to the street below with a single move, leaving a manageable amount for me to deal with until the main force could slowly path their way back to my location in smaller packs. Tell me why I don’t want Handclap to do knockback again?

Obviously I’m not going to sit here and say “No, attack-X should not do an ounce more damage!”, as that would be silly. If the developers want to make it do more damage, then sweet. I may not necessarily agree that it needs to be more damaging, but I’m not going to oppose it until someone starts trading in features to get their request considered (i.e. “more damage, but less speed!”)



Warspite:

[ QUOTE ]
The I do a problem with one thing you said earlier, Genesis, in telling people that are unhappy with SS to get a different powerset. You state that you are a concept player that makes a character, but you deny that luxury for someone else. Or is that that you expect people with a character concept to have weaker characters by design? I am honestly curious and completely non-hostile about this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Warspite, I’ll put it this way.

Let’s say the two of us agree to fund a one-slot snack machine together at our office. I only buy into the idea because you assure me it’ll be filled with cookies. However, being a candy person you really don’t like cookies, but assume that after I’ve invested time and money into the idea you can eventually get things changed so that the machine will be stocked with candy, which I abhor. Now ask me why I’d be annoyed.

This is how I feel when people want to change the powers that make up the character I spent time leveling up, powers that I picked for a reason. Personally, if I was looking for the type of character some Tankers seem to want, I would have said "Doesn't exist, I better come up with something else", and I've had to do just that on many concepts. Never did it cross my mind to try and convert an existing one into what I want it to be by campaigning for change on the forums. I'm willing to make the best of the options I'm handed, and while there's nothing wrong with trying to reach for something more, it becomes wrong when you start stepping on others to get there.

Losing knockback on Haymaker (unless you're willing to sacrifice a valuable enhancer slot) was the first such example and casualty of this, in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you had actually read the first post of this thread you would have realized that these changes are being suggested as a balancing point within the AT, not the current game's lack of balance (which I did specifically address).



Why do I play a Tanker? Because I want to. Why do I lobby for changes? Because I would like to see this game improved. Don't begrudge me the opportunity to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game improved for whom? For you? Because it’s not for me. I don’t consider these improvements.

And to be frank, you don’t seem to want to play City of Heroes version of a Tanker. You seem more interested in playing an archetype that doesn’t exist that you want to call Tanker. So again, with the archetypes options in mind, why did you choose an existing archetype you didn’t want to play? Because you were hopeful that you could convince the developers to modify it for you?

See, I didn’t enter this game thinking “I want to be a tank type!”. I came into the game with an idea of what kind of hero I wanted to make, perused over the powersets that CoH offered, and decided which matched most closely to my character concept. The Invulnerability and Super-strength pools (and not the names, the individual powers within) were the closest match on this particular idea, and so I ended up being a Tanker simply because it was the archetype that had these pools. And, for the most part, I’ve found most of the powers to be fine. The ones that aren’t (to me) I avoid picking.

Now, maybe Tanker-type-X kicks more rear than I do, but I’m frankly oblivious to that because I don’t sit there running trials against Tanker-type-X to see how I stack up. All I know is that I seem to kick rear too. Does it matter that Tanker-type-X can kick more rear than me so long as I can kick it also? I guess, if you’re the type that feels insecure about that sort of thing. I don’t.

So, when someone comes on here and says “We must make these changes in order for SS Tankers not to suck!” and I comment “I seem to do fine, I certainly don’t feel like I’m sucking..”, and then someone tries to point out “Yes, but compare yourself to Tanker-type-X and then you’ll see how much we suck!”, I’m kind of left thinking “Who the [beep] cares? Did I miss the contest sign-in sheet?” And then, to want to change around the powers I carefully and purposely chose for that silly reason? Nuh-uh. I can’t jump behind a cause like that.


[ QUOTE ]
Finally: 94011 Registered User(s).

That's 50% of the current subscriber base. And a far greater majority of those people who play this game on a long term basis (the target demographic if you will).



Because Statesman wants to be disingenuous about the vocal opinions of those on these boards, doesn't mean he's actually telling the truth..

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize this figure includes everyone that registered in beta, and registration from pre-orders. Three of those registered users are actually me, as I've registered two pre-order boxes (one at the last moment after deciding which prestige power to go with) and a beta account. Of course, I only actually have one real account, but it’s counting all three. It also includes players that don’t even have accounts here anymore because they’ve cancelled their service, and players that registered once and never returned to the forums, and those who simply use it for technical hardware issues. You’re kidding yourself if you think the number of players that actively make comments on balance issues is anywhere close to 50%.

And the idea of the forums being a vocal minority is not a new concept that can be pinned on Statesman. It is the way it has been on virtually every MMO and normal video game to date. Any long term gamer knows that. Most players that pick up a game never visit the forums tied to it.

Anyway, this is veering off track and I’ve said my bit, so someone suggest again that a power like Handclap needs to be completely redesigned or removed so that I can sigh to myself and wonder if people actually play the same game I do.

[ QUOTE ]
If the vast majority are "busy playing and enjoying their powers" that's great. This is just trying to make those powers even more enjoyable to an even wider population.

If you have opposing viewpoints, present them. This isn't a dictatorship.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality it does no good to present opposing viewpoints. I’ve expressed my viewpoints on tankers since the wee stages of beta and have nothing new to add, nor do I have a desire to restate my point of view in every “fix the tanker” thread that pops up. These threads will always exist until the game comes to an end, regardless of how decent the archetype is or ends up being in the future.

Sure, I can list examples and ways the powers and features of super-strength are useful to me. If you don’t personally find the same properties useful, you’re not going to agree with me. Chances are you won’t even believe me to begin with. Oh, you’ll probably believe that I believe they're useful, but you’ll assume that I just haven’t had the opportunity to run into the same problems you have, but inevitably am doomed to do so, and then I’ll see the light. If I then counter with a comment that I’ve taken a tanker into the end level game, you’ll just assume I’m willing to settle for playing a weak archetype when you’re not. There is nothing I can gain from debating against your beliefs. But I can point out that they’re not universal by any stretch of the imagination.

As for making the powers more enjoyable to an even wider population, no, you’re trying to make them into something you’ll enjoy, which may change them in such a way that suddenly many other players are not enjoying them. And while I can understand the desire to look out for your own personal interests, let’s not suggest we’re making things better for tankers everywhere by pushing for these changes.

[ QUOTE ]
The bulk actually seems to be supportive of many of these changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the boards represent an incredibly small minority of the playerbase. And within this tiny sampling there are players that simply choose not to comment in threads like this one because they not only disagree with what is being said, they also don’t feel like stepping into the middle of (what feels like) a super-strength bash session and state “I disagree!” because it’s pointless. Your minds are already made up and you’re not looking for opposition, just agreements.

For the record, I disagree with a lot of what’s being said here. I disagreed with the changes to knockback. I do fine with my tanker and while I believe there are many large problems with balance in this game, I don’t believe changing tankers powers left and right to work best within that imbalance is the correct way to go about things. I believe players perceive tankers as broken because they compare them against broken systems with problems that have nothing to do with tankers.

On an end note, I have to say I’m curious (and this is a rhetorical question). Why did you all bother to stick with super-strength when you obviously aren’t happy with it? Honestly, it doesn’t take very long to get a feel for this powerset. That is, super-strength leaves very little room for surprise as it is a very simple and straightforward set of powers. You can tell whether it’s a powerset you’re going to like or not long before you've invested a whole lot of time into it. Obviously many of you don’t like it. Personally, I wish those of you that don’t would find which powersets you do like and play those instead, rather than attempting to change existing ones into something they’re not (and into something I didn’t sign on for when I chose my powersets).

Obviously this isn’t going to happen, but do understand there are players who like super-strength just fine and don’t comment in threads like these for one reason or another. The vast majority of players don’t even visit these forums, probably because they’re busy just enjoying the game and their powers in the first place.