Jagged

I think the most important thing we should be getting across to the Devs is this:

This is a super hero game and aerial combat is a big part of the genre and should be part of the game. Its not. That alone should be worth your investigation.

Before ED I used to run Hover with 6 slots.

My flying Defenders and Controllers still use 3 slotted hover for combat but for everyone else I consider it pointless.

I dropped hover from my mains build.

Suggestion:
If they could just work out some code so that purchasing and slotting Hover increased the speed of Suppressed Fly then it might be worth considering again. Currently its a dead power for many of my characters.

Suggestion:
Still waiting for that FLYING MOVE-THROUGH

You know, something like this > Cov Launch Movie

[ QUOTE ]

You could use superspeed to reduce the number of attacks you took, by breaking line of sight and otherwise kiting. You would still take attacks, but you could survive a bit longer if you were able to control the encounter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough these are all things that would naturally occur to you if you actual could run at super speeds!

*smacks forehead*

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, the ability to control the encounter was too uber.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the forums I got the impression that with certain mobs you could trick the AI to swap between melee or range attacks or that with some mobs once they went to melee attacks they never went back to ranged.

I never once heard of a problem with travel powers, always with mob AI. So where did they apply the "fix" ?

I still believe travel suppression is the single biggest genre-breaking thing in the game.

SG Mission Story Arcs
Originally suggested by: Loads of people in various forms
Category: Missions
Customizable? N
Type: Unlockable
Description:
SGs need multiple story arcs. A basic story arc should be unlocked simply by starting a base. Future arcs should be unlocked in a variety of different ways. Completing an arc should unlock "something."

In short I'd like some PvE reasons for having a base please

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love how the idea that having heals and buffs causing aggro somehow translates to "crippling the ATs with buffs and heals." Clearly, all kinds of actions already draw aggro, and I believe buffing and healing draws some as well (but not as much as pure damage).


[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct Kali - buffing already draws aggro and different Groups aggro differently - Freaks have buffing very low on their list and you have to work hard to draw aggro by healing in the vicinity of a Freak but other groups like the old 5th Column (I'm not sure whether the Council has the same aggro priorities) would aggro very strongly on a buffing toon.

I noticed all this when Taunt was single target and I had to work harder to keep the aggro (hence talking about the 5th) but with the changes to Taunt it is a lot harder to notice who is aggroing on what because Taunt overides all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The very first time I went to the Hollows I went as a Defender with my usual team. The pre-Invinc tank went and smacked some trolls and then I preceeded to heal him. In doing so I pulled ALL the aggro and face-planted immediately.

They did re-tune the Hollows and I've not experienced anything like that since.

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers dependent? What game are you playing? Controllers solo almost as well as blasters now on heroic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So true. I started my Controller Alts entirely because the manual "suggests" that solo-ing with a controller might be hard. "Extreme Caution" is the phrase it uses. Now-a-days my controllers solo as well as any of my characters and a great deal easier than my defender.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the def/troller group should certainly talk about this if this would even be considered. It seems like a dramatic change that should be thought out and tested.

I do think it makes sense. Also, I wouldn't see this requiring tankers in particular since buffers would only need protection. Tankers might make a great choice (since that's their role) but Scrappers and Blasters could switch targets.

But the devil is in the details (i.e. what generates aggro, how much aggro etc.). For example, what if buffs only produce aggro in nearby bosses and lts since they are the "smart" mobs? They're the ones that figure out "hey, that Scrapper is still standing bc of the funny looking guy glowing green!" The minions act the same ol' stupid way, to avoid def/trollers being mobbed by everyone.

From a priority standpoint, I'd go with a less dramatic change like increasing non-S/L RES.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument/idea does have merits though since the idea is supposed to be about being "active" and "at risk". These terms were used liberally through out the explanation of I5 and ED being necessities. I for one would like to see it tested (on a limited or event base scale).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. That seems like another step on the road to "fixed team requirements"

I do not believe a defender should need a tank any more than I feel a tank should need a defender.

One of the things I (and seemingly all the reviews I ever read) liked about this game was free flowing combat and easy teaming.

You shouldn't need the perfect team but when you have one you should bump up the difficulty. That is why there is no problem with tanks being powerful when buffed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His one posted test involved using the broken version of Invincibility. He also completely glosses over the fact that when buffed, any AT can Tank, so what then is so special about Tanks?


[/ QUOTE ]

The goal of the game is to make sure there isn't an ideal team composition. So, yes, a Scrapper, with buffs, can tank, but not as well as a Tanker. Why? Because 1) a Tanker starts with higher resistances/defenses and 2) he has Punchvoke and thus can manage the aggro better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is your goal why do you keep ignoring the fact that tanks in situations where tanks "might" be useful, need support. Yet that same support is more than adequate to let any damage dealer fill in the tank role?

I see this every time I play my defender. The tank need the exact same amount of support as the scrapper. Therefore the tank is detrimental to a team.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, the Tanker is tough to balance with the other ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly seems to be doesn't it. However I really don't know why?

My chief causes for complaint currently are:

1) The imbalance between damage types. I don't mind having negative protection from Psi but as to the rest I believe that at 40+ all tankers should have approximately balanced defenses. My defenders might have similar holes against Psi but they do not suffer the same imbalance, why should my tank?

2) My defenses should be better on their own than that given me by a defender.

3) Toggle dropping.

4) Game play style. Recent changes have resulted in the fact that my Inv tank plays virtually identically to my Regen scrapper. Which is just madness! Turn on status protection, occasionally click dull pain and if things go pair shaped click IH Or Unstoppable. Not sure whether than is because Regen no longer regens or because Invuln no longer resists or both

[ QUOTE ]

Masterminds are pretty neat at parties - all the minions in different areas, playing music!

[/ QUOTE ]

Zombies are lousy conversationalists.

...


But they dance surprisingly well!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you run some tests that are obviously biased in the tanks favour and the performance is still lack luster then you will have powerful amunition. If.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought. What would be tests that would be biased in the tank's favor? Pocket defenders?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking things like 14 melee based s/l etc etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I really like Foo's AV concept. It might be an enjoyable experiment with our 50s. I might raise a note of caution on that one, however. If we find that a duo combination massively outperforms all others either the DEVs or other players may be tempted to call for nerfs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back in the pre-I5 days the most efficient AV killers I every witnessed was a Defender/Blaster Duo. They were lethal. I didn't think they needed nerfing then and I wouldn't think they need nerfing now. I think Tanks need a boost, plain & simple.

On a different note I think you should come up with some scenarios that give tanks the utmost advantage. If you run some tests that are obviously biased in the tanks favour and the performance is still lack luster then you will have powerful amunition. If.

[ QUOTE ]
See, and when I read: Tanker = Frontline Fighter in the manual, I don't think of them as "support ATs." But then again, my only other MMO experiance was about 9 months of SWG, so I don't have Tank=Meatshield ingrained into my brain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah! See a lot of us thought we were front line troops as well, but Statesman came along and put us right on that one. We are a Support AT (apparently)

[ QUOTE ]
Empaths are all defensive and mostly busy during a fight. In a team with a good tank, the Empath should generally only be worrying about healing that tank. In a team with no tank or, worse, a bad tank, the Empath will likely be busier. The fewer people the Empath has to heal, the better for the team. So Empaths, with a great deal of single target heals, work best in a team with a tank so that they can minimize the number of people they have to heal.


[/ QUOTE ]

2 single target heals vs 2 AoE heals.

Once upon a time having a tank meant that being an Empath I could concentrate less on heals, more on buffing and more on my Secondary. Now I find that I have to concentrate on healing, tank or no tank.

You may consider not having to switch targets for heals as a good enough reason to have a tank on a team. As an Empath I don't and as a Tank I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think the one you should be comparing is:

Tank + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

vs

Defender + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

[/ QUOTE ]

Any team of good players that know each other well should work. Regardless of AT complement. The playstyle involved, however, will be different.

By substituting a Defender for a Tanker, you immediately cause the aggro to be shared a lot more. Your battle will have to be more mobile and, likely, more swift. The team would need to avoid presenting a solid target and also avoid aggroing extra opponents. The blasters will be less able to concentrate on specific targets as they will have to watch their own life more often. The defender will be busier healing, assuming you have a healing defender.

A controller would be a more equivalent trade for a tank. Tanks and controllers do the same basic job=keep the enemies from attacking the vulnerable party members. In a team with a tank, the controller's job is to handle flankers and specific threats while the tanker holds the front. In a team without a tanker, the controller takes responsibility for holding the main enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Defenders and Controllers and Tanks are all Support ATs. The point of the test is to see how one support AT plus some Damager dealers does against another support AT with the same damage dealers. The performance SHOULD be just as effective all things being equal.

Feel free to add Controller + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

PS: I tend to focus on Defenders because since I stopped playing my Tank my Defender has become my Main and he out performs by Tank by a significant margin IMO.

[ QUOTE ]

I would suggest we do solo, 4 man teams, and 8 man teams. I would also suggest you have various team builds.
.
Like:
.
Tank
Blaster
Scrapper
Defender
.
Tank
Tank
Tank
Tank
.
Blaster
Scrapper
Defender
DEfender
.
Blaster
Blaster
Blaster
Blaster

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the one you should be comparing is:

Tank + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

vs

Defender + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

and

Tank + Scrapper + Defender + Controller + Blaster

vs

Scrapper + Defender + Controller + Blaster


I believe that in the last one in particular you will find that the average tank bring nothing to the mix that couldn't be bettered by replacing with any other AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: PorkchopXpress
.
I feel sorry for States sometimes.
.
He comes here and posts his results, probably in very good faith - and hoping to possibly help us to reach some AT determinations and move forward.
.
What he gets is a verbal beatdown that his tanking A) sucked and B) that the AT sucks. Well, both are probably true , but at least he tried. Maybe this will help to promote some future dialog amongst Devs and players about the seemingly widespread discontent amongst the Tankers AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel sorrier for the team that invited him expecting him to tank and all he did was target S/L minions (Strongmen) that were the least threat to the team. I mean $deity at least aggro an LT that is a little more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. When was the last time you were on a team that called up a tank to deal with S/L mobs?

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers manage aggro better than any other Archetype. They also have the highest combination of hit points and defenses in the game. Their role is to take the brunt of a spawn's aggro just long enough in order for the rest of the team to be able to eliminate the mobs.
.
Should a skilled Tanker be able to corral EVERY mob? With a lot of skill, it should be possible - but it's certainly not required to be a good Tank. As long as the Tanker can hold onto aggro so that his teammates are facing less than they'd normally face (i.e. 3 minions), then the team has an advantage. Namely, each teammate can quickly eliminate his opposition...and then come to the Tanker's aid at the end.


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about low expectations! That is not enough, that is simply not enough. Do you believe this is enough to continue play a character? Obviously you do

Performance like that would not get you a second invite onto any team I was running and $diety knows I am not fussy.

*walks off in disgust*

[ QUOTE ]
Scrapper Mez protection abilities were reduced somewhat by intent. I was not involved in the change, so I don't know the specific reasons behind it, so I won't comment further at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are the only red name to comment so far perhaps you could chase up the patch notes. Loads of PMs have been sent and still no update.

As a general rule I would like to see more Gladiators that can buff/debuff etc. So some interesting DE would be great.

[ QUOTE ]

You're lucky, cause I made such lists for City of Villains and City of Heroes

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh! Villains can get a Sorcerer!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
erm wow why the heck is my name red?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick Edit Statesman's posts now!

Anounce all Tanks getting a base 20% resist vs all!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for nothing but a flat 20% base for tanker resists would be great. A new inherit power that actually does something useful to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I'd even accept a drop in HP to balance it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yep - this is the AI change to "fix" herding...

[/ QUOTE ]

So how did you stumble across the number 17? My tank doesn't use Taunt and can control more mobs than that and you regularly get more mobs than that in TFs. So why?

[ QUOTE ]
erm wow why the heck is my name red?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick Edit Statesman's posts now!

Anounce all Tanks getting a base 20% resist vs all!

[ QUOTE ]
Seemingly, we lost sight of a basic principle of Design: players shouldn’t make uninformed choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you brought up the subject:

How about we look at the very first choice an Inv Tank has to make i.e. to choose between Temp Invuln and Resist Physical Damage. An uninformed player might reasonably be expected to select RPD, but doing so before lvl 30 is probably a very unwise thing to do. So can we change the choice to something reasonable, like between Tough Hide and Temp Inv?

I know someone on the Dev team can see the logic of this because of things I am not allowed to talk about in this forum.


Then there is the choice that is Unyielding. The uninformed player might reasonably select this power and expect their defenses to improve. The informed player knows that this power will actually make them take more S/L damage. Therefore can we get rid of that stupid debuff now because $deity knows it serves no purpose.

thanks.

*Jagged grabs shovel and head to the elephant enclosure*