HacknSlash

[ QUOTE ]
Secondary effects are not considered when balancing a power's primary effects.


Psi is crappy for two reasons:

Psychic Shockwave and Drain Psyche (less so for Drain Psyche)

If Psi Shockwave got the nerf it so badly deserves, that power could be redistributed to the rest of the set making the leveling experience of /Psi Assault that much smoother without overpowering the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fulcrum shift and granite first, please.

[ QUOTE ]
How are those values overpowered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz it can stack enough mag to stun Hamidon?

[ QUOTE ]
What other power has the potential to get you killed like the AoE immobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fireball.
Rain of Fire.
Lightning Field.
Blazing Aura.
Ball Lightning.
Gale.
Force Bubble.
Snow Storm.
Challenge.
Provoke.
Sunless Mire.
Assassin's Blade/Claw/Blow/Eclipse/Impaler.
etc.



Edit: Damn you, Grace!

[ QUOTE ][*]Of your Dominators, how many have their AoE immobs, when did they take them, and how much do they use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

L47 Mind/psi: No AoE immob available.
L28 Grav/Nrg: Taken L18, Proc'd. Spammed like a lunatic.
L50 Plant/fire: Taken L30. 2 slots, ACC. Used after every toss of SoC, and to keep mobs in place for AoE's.
L50 Fire/psi: Taken L4. 3 slots, ACC/END. Used after Flashfire, spammed before I got shockwave.
L20 Fire/fire: Not taken yet.
L26 Ice/ice: Not taken yet.

[ QUOTE ][*]What would you think of this hypothetical fix: Swap Roots with Seeds of Confusion, swap Fire Cages with Flashfire, swap Frostbite with Ice Slick, swap Crushing Field with Wormhole?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say mind gets seriously screwed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think either a damage increase or an End discount on Incinerate would be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because fire needs the help?

[/ QUOTE ]In the early levels, yeah, I think so. Flares blows, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, those first 3 levels are really rough...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As much as Psi did when the Devs finally fixed the End discrepancy with Psi Dart, yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should they also fix ice sword to match the tanker set, to be consistent?

<Shrug>

[/ QUOTE ]

Dominator Ice Sword costs more Endurance than Tanker Ice Sword because Dominator Ice Sword does more damage and has a longer recharge. If you then look at Blaster Ice Sword, it has a longer recharge and more damage along with higher endurance cost compared to Dominator Ice Sword.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, which means that, currently, dominator IS is more DPA efficient than tanker IS.

If tanker sets are to be the "base", then dominator ice sword should have the lower damage, faster recharge... no?

[ QUOTE ]
Dominator Incinerate costs more Endurance than Brute/Tanker Incinerate, has a SHORTER Recharge, and has LOWER Damage.

That's where the problem lies in.

Perhaps I should have broken it down into Damage Scale to better show my point..

Incinerate for Tankers and Brutes does not follow the rule of DS*5.2 = End Cost. When Dominator Incinerate IS following DS*5.2 = End Cost. While all versions of Ice Sword are properly following DS*5.2 = End Cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means it's tanker/brute incinerate that's technically "busted", not the dominator one.

[ QUOTE ]
It always been my thinking that the reason Incinerate has such a low end cost was because of that 4.6 duration DoT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. IIRC, Shadow Maul gets the cone effect for free.
OTOH, look at the immobilizes...

[ QUOTE ]
If the dev's are going to be unwilling to give us that Endurance Discount, then give us Cremate instead. On average, Cremate will do the same damage as Incinerate, sometimes less sometimes more depending on the luck of the roll but at least Fire wouldn't be ham-stringed by a long DoT that is not costing the "right" amount compared to other versions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire... ham-strung...
See, that's the part I don't buy, even if the numbers are right.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that really boggles my mind about this.. Is how the heck did they justify Psychic Shockwave breaking the AoE rules so thoroughly, when they didn't even allow Fire to have a proper Incinerate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, I think they simply normalized all the first melee attacks. Fire probably got incinerate instead of fire sword simply for aesthetic reasons - they didn't want two sword sets.

Psi-Shockwave? I suggest a drinking binge... or, maybe, they figured out just how bad some of the high-level psi-resists/defenses were and over-compensated.

[ QUOTE ]
As much as Psi did when the Devs finally fixed the End discrepancy with Psi Dart, yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should they also fix ice sword to match the tanker set, to be consistent?

<Shrug>

[ QUOTE ]
I think either a damage increase or an End discount on Incinerate would be in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because fire needs the help?

[ QUOTE ]
The Ultra-Rare sets are exemplar friendly, with the set bonuses continuing to affect you no matter how low you go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. So they are, in part, a perk to go with the way-back machine.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that sets need to be balanced within themselves, however, when a power is duplicated across an AT, if it has something 'special' about it it should keep that specialness. I'd rate this discrepancy as equal to the discrepancy in Total Focus being only a mag 3 Stun for Dominators.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like they simply normalized the first melee attacks, for whatever reason.

Which also explains "not-so-great" ice sword.

In the tanker set (the only other set to get both), IS does less damage but recharges more quickly, whereas GIS was a straight port.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
with Purples

[/ QUOTE ]

you can only have one purple set per toon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also...

1. Aren't all the +RCH in purples in the form of set bonuses?
2. Don't set bonuses vanish at min_set_level - 3? [Or is it IO_level - 3? ]
3. Purples are L50 only?

[As opposed to globals like LotG: +RCH]

Or am I missing something?

[ QUOTE ]
anyone got a pic of it they can link..last time I asked it was still kinda new

now I am afraid no one takes that APP.

so by odd chance...

I would really like to see it.

tyvm in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a high level character, you've probably seen it already.

The Mercenary Commando and Council Vortex Cor Leonis Archon both have it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jump around in various mobs with AA unslotted. Jump around in various mobs with AA slotted. Note difference in behavior. It's been a while.

[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely want something more scientific than that. The biggest problem is that you know what the slotting is in each case, and have expectations of what is going to happen. It's very hard to be objective in that case. You could try it with a friend, and do a few runs, they don't know if it's slotted or unslotted each time, and ask them if they can tell the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, CoD shows it as a 50% chance of 2.98 second flee every 2 seconds. Even maxed-out, that's only a 5.8 second flee effect against an even-con... who's already under the effect of a slow.

That's going to be bloody hard to measure.

Perhaps try testing against grey-conning Tsoo Inkies?

Their Siphon Speed should help mitigate the slow, while providing a clear notification of who is really fleeing (or not).

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing Gravity/ a bit recently, and have to say that I don't notice any significant difference between its holds and those of other sets for aggro. I regularly use GDF as an opener, and don't suffer return fire from hit enemies. It's nothing like Wormhole which is well acknowledged to have this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, do you have stealth/SS? If so, try firing it off from within stealth range at someone looking at you.

There are circumstances in which the NPC's react more quickly than others. Longer ranges tend to cause more of a pause (thus enabling pulling), as does facing.

I don't have a gravity dominator, but I do know the effect exists with regard to strangler from plant. Firing off a dominated hold at a boss only to get hit with return fire *anyway* is something you generally notice and recall.

[OTOH, maybe they fixed it since the last time I ran E. Alatus.]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, it would be great if the triggered raids would be three to four zones, each side. And have them staggered out enough for people to be able to get there and participate in more than one. Time enough for the TF who did it to get to the right zone, and for others to cobble together a group.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the Rikti War Zone itself should be subjected to a raid upon every successful LGTF.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
# Disorient duration too short for Wormhole. (Lemur_Lad September 5th)

[/ QUOTE ]

i just checked in a builder (mid's hero designer) and it list wormhole as lasting only for 2.7 sec ?! O_o
(no other AoE control is under 11.9)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a 2.7 second delay in Wormhole's teleport and stun.
The base duration at L50 is 14.9.

[ QUOTE ]
So this has been sitting here in the list for over a year and a half now (wow), so I think it's time we came to terms with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Endurance costs of some sets (Jan 13th)

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the Damage per Endurance numbers my Attack Chain Generator (see my sig) spits out, I'm happy to add the issue "Icy Assault is too endurance intensive". Do people support this? The thing is that Icy Assault is the canonical set in many ways, average damage, standard powers, and yet it has the worst endurance costs.

DPE vs. 3 targets:

Energy: 7.55
Fiery: 10.13
Icy: 7.91
Psionic 10.46
Thorny: 9.42

DPE vs. 1 target:

Energy 6.72
Fiery: 7.58
Icy: 6.09
Psionic: 6.70
Thorny: 7.55

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this had been gone over before, and the DPE were right in line with the standard settings (5.2 end per BI?); it's only the fast animations in the set that let you burn the blue quickly.

[I could be wrong, but that's my recollection.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AI of pets with both melee and ranged attacks is very poor. (Kane1 March 16th)

[/ QUOTE ]I think that can be removed. Supposedly Jack's getting fixed, and the discussion about Audrey is pretty mixed right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd really love to remove this, but until I can have some definitive statements that Venus is in fact fixed, I can't. Perhaps we'll have I10 tomorrow, and I'll be able to verify it for myself. Should probably take her for a spin now as comparison.

Edit: Wow, that was cutting it close, I just got her out to test, and I10 hit half way through the mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Venus isn't broken!

Supporting evidence: EvilRyu says she is gimpy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to popular belief, redraw does not delay attack times. If you attack with an unslung rifle, versus drawing one by attacking, the time taken is the same. Don't hesitate to take powers from your secondary for fear of redraw, it's all in your head.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious where people got this idea from. I've done arena tests, and between two side by side computers hitting attack at the same time, the drawn weapon always hit first. It wasn't by terribly much, but it was noticeable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Queue up an attack *after* the weapon-draw one and see if they don't hit at the same time.

AFAIK, the redraws are basically "time-shifted". If no redraw is needed, you get dead air at the end instead of the draw animation at the front... but the total time remains the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Thud!............................................. .Thud!........................................Thud !.....................................Thud!

( Beating of the dead horse with the MoG stick)

MoG is horrible, everyone knows it, end of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but what else do the regen scrappers have to complain about?

[ QUOTE ]
Common mistake. Don't want a buff. Want a power that can be used more often. Not the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the threads on the subject, I've been trying to come up with outside-the-box ideas.

How does this sound?

MoG: Click, 1800 second timer. Instantly recharges all powers except active toggles (and itself, obviously).

[ QUOTE ]
I would be happy if they slightly reduced the effectiveness of Elude but turned it back into a toggle also.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... just enough defense to keep you capped with your other toggles running, and just enough recovery to pay for the extra toggle itself?

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is amazing. Thanks for doing this.

As a quick, dirty, and unscientific roundup I averaged all the damage types at the bottom of the lists. IIRC Toxic and lethal averaged 0.92, smashing and psi averaged 0.94, and the rest 0.97. It is odd that lethal is more resisted than smashing. It is also suprising that toxic tops the resisted chart, and psi is tied for third with smash. That is all unexpected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.
I did the same. ... broke it down by minion/lt/boss, even.

However, remember that that's not a weighted average by frequency of appearance.

It'd be interesting if we could get some estimates on "average spawn" type setups.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is the goal. We really like the animation since it is such a signature move. No promises, but we really don't want to change the look of the power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your keeping in mind that, for reasons of your own design, we can't respec out of our Patron Powers. Changing animation or even the fact Break Frees now work may have changed the Patron Pool someone would have chosen in the first place.

Changing anything on any Patron Power, even for "balance", should be an indication that you need to seriously look into a method allowing us to change Patrons after one is chosen.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

QFE.


THIS is why un-respecable Power Pools are such a bad idea. My main didn't take GW, but if I did and the powers got changed AFTER I chose GW, I'd be mighty upset.

IMHO, this is worse than the bugged Smoke Grenade of I1-I2. At least you could drop the 'nades in a Respec, if you thought they weren't effective anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can drop Soul Storm in a respec as well.

[ QUOTE ]
At minimum, the ones affected should get Respec, since that hold may have been the only reason they chose the power.

Really though, PPPs being un-respecable has gotta go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given your line of reasoning, I don't get why you're limiting this to the PPP's.

[ QUOTE ]
People who make true statements don't mind being asked to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide supporting evidence for this statement:

"Since doms have less damage than any other CoV AT, they live and die by whether a team needs a dom's control more than it needs what other ATs can provide."

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that if some of the people here who are so satisfied with doms actually experienced the full gamut of the game, instead of just solo and PuGs, they might have a better idea of what those of us who feel doms are lacking on large teams are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

... because 8-man PuG's running on relentless aren't large teams?