Katahn

[ QUOTE ]
That... or the fact that i5 may have hit some people in the wrong place.

You know this may actually be the change in gameplays fault and lack of and end game... Imagine that

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: i5 made the game more fun for me even though in some respects it depowered some of my characters. I've also seen more old and familiar faces back and playing again, so my experience is counter to the ones presented.

The point being: personal experiences are just that... Personal. Since we associate with like-minded people its natural to assume that someone who hates i5 is going to associate with people who hate i5 and who may just move onto another MMO if they disliked it.

As for the CoV beta, I know a few people in it who are likewise positive and upbeat about i5 (or who just don't consider it a big deal at all) and I never see them in CoH either. Mostly because they're either busy with non-MMO life or they're playing in the beta itself.

If I were invited to it, as positive as I am about CoH/i5, one would hardly see me on either! That would hardly be grounds to say "See? Even Katahn hates it!"

If we could do in the real world what we can do to the virtual world then the options outside of moving further from the target would include altering the laws of physics, causing the tagets to dodge, diminishing the hand-eye coordination of the marksmen, etc.

If I were doing this in a d20 tabletop game, I might think the players are having too easy of a time hitting the enemies and not being hit by them. I can increase the +tohit of the enemies by 5, or I can decrease the AC of the players by 5, or maybe I could decrease the AC of the players by 2 and increase the tohit of the enemies by 3.

Ultimately the measure of power in an environment is a relationship between the character and the environment. Whether I give all enemies the ability to ignore 20% of damage resistance or I lower all player damage resistance by 20% is largely irrelevant. Player characters take more damage on resist-oriented builds.

Like or dislike the changes (I like some and dislike others) the entire "don't nerf me but boost the environment" argument is irrational. A boost to the enviornment is just another kind of nerf after all.

[ QUOTE ]

Quite correct. A Tank now requires support.

You just downed every Tank+Blaster duo as "needing additional support". This concerns me, even though I don't play that combination.


[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely, I don't have issues running missions on heroic with any duo, let alone tanker/blaster or tanker/nova kheld.

[ QUOTE ]
Making Toons need additional support complicates play for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't noticed characters requiring a level of support from their teammates of any archetype that those archetypes couldn't fulfill by adapting tactics or trying differant approaches.

[ QUOTE ]
Also true. I'm sure every group with just one Controller is crying...and not for joy. Do you even play in pickup teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

A team of four people that consists of 3 blasters and 1 controller would be crying?

Maybe for joy....

And oh yes, I play on pickup teams quite regularly. I see all sorts of 8-ball team configurations work well and all sorts that don't. The only common denominator I can pick out is the teams that make no effort to coordinate and work together are debt waiting to happen and far moreso than in i4.

[ QUOTE ]
Here you aren't just opinonated, but actually wrong. Power pool defenses were nerfed more than LT/Boss accuracy was reduced. Overall, by a factor of two. That argument has little weight. 66%-8%=57%, 60%-3%=57%

[/ QUOTE ]

-looks at signature-

Yep, I am wrong about blasters and the real benefit of pool power defenses.

When I stopped, in i4, trying to boost my +defense from power pools and substituted the medicine pool and aid self, my survivability went up, not down. In i5, I don't have and I don't miss the medicine pool and I didn't pick up pool defenses.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone does less damage fighting +level cons. The higher level you fight, the more important Blasters become. Directly opposite of what you're trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I was getting at. Fighting +level cons means enemies inherently hit more often and hit harder, and one's own defenses and powers and accuracy are lowered versus them. Taking return fire from +0 to +2 level minions is a lot differant than taking return fire from +3 to +5 or higher level minions. My blaster can two-shot a +1 minion without much stress and in 3-4 shots knock out a comparable Lt.

Taking aggro from a +0 to +1 minion/lt means I'll take a couple lumps but I can put it down fast. Taking aggro from something +3 to +5 or more means it will take more hits since higher level means more hit points, which will have a lower accuracy, and the actual damage I do will be lessened and the mobs chance of resisting useful secondary effects like knockback that buy me more time to deal with it before it faceplants me means I'm more likely to be faceplanted.

Groups going after content that is closer to everyone's level plays directly into making me more survivable, and that plays directly into me providing a better benefit to my team.

After all, a defeated blaster deals no damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Lucks were too good, now they are shockingly effective. This really doesn't have much to do with Blaster in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except inspirations drop like candy and it isn't entirely out of the question to hit a handy nearby contact between missions to stock up on the ones you need the most. My blaster used to stock up on break frees (2 rows), lucks (2 rows) and respites (1 row) for missions. They kept me alive and when I got new inspirations during a mission that I didn't need I deleted them or burned them immediately.


[ QUOTE ]
Next time I can't recruit a Tank, I'll tell my team "That's ok, guys, we'll just wait until one shows up, since the Scrappers here can't tank a little any more". That will comfort them, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only content I would really want a tank for would be fighting an arch-villain, and even then a couple controllers work wonders, or a defender-buffed scrapper, or even a dwarf-form kheldian.

Heck, on the training room myself on my blaster and a level 50 empathy defender played by a friend were nearly capable of handling Maurader and I've hardly got an uber/optimal build!

[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how boosting Scrapper damage makes Blasters more needed on a Team. Just the opposite. You're allowed to support my arguments, but it feels weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it did, but the "no you can't be a tank and really good damage" levels the playing field between scrappers and blasters considerably. It used to be "why get a blaster when you can get a scrapper who can do almost as much damage and require almost no looking after?" Now its "we need damage, any blasters or scrappers LFT?" Seems good to me.

Maybe I'm just dumb though.

[ QUOTE ]
Empaths, perhaps. I'm not burning a respec on mine in order to take advantage of an Inherent power. Issue 6 is coming soon, you know.

You are also failing to understand that Vigilace does absolutly nothing for FF and Sonic. It isn't helping Kinetics, Dark, Rad or Storm that much, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err... really? Hmmm.... Well lets see, my sonic defender seems to enjoy the benefits of Vigilance. It gives me a lot more latitude to contribute damage to help defeat the bad guys, while sustaining disruption field, and using sonic siphon on tougher mobs, without worrying about having enough end for the next round of sonic bubbles....

[ QUOTE ]
Reactive powers are the province of Empathy, and to a lesser extent, Kinetics. I don't see that you understand the Defender AT very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you aren't good at thinking outside the box either. You are aware that you don't need a respec to buy new enhancements and change how the power is slotted rather than the number of slots it has right? I mean instead of slotting a really nice attack that includes endurance reduction and now substitute those for damage. Defender damage may not be much, but in a bad situation every little bit helps.

[ QUOTE ]
Invincible was a challenge in Issue 4. Sometimes I was playing experimental "weak" toons. Sometimes I was playing with inexperienced players. Sometimes I was fighting Carnies. Sometimes I was fighting Tsoo. On other occasions I was fighting in large teams.

In every case, in every occasion, Invincible was brutally difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, play on heroic where things are your level (boosts your real accuracy, real damage, and real survivability in comparison), complete missions faster for the mission xp bonus, enjoy the increased experience overall, and stop thinking that invincible is a standard for anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you're playing powerful power sets with close friends at high levels against weak villain groups, then Issue 4 Invincible was easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see....

Invincible vs. Malta...check.
Invincible vs. Carnies...check.
Invincible vs. Rikti...check.
Invincible vs. Nemesis...check.
Invincible vs. Knives of Artemis...check.
Invincible vs. Freakshow (Dreck)...check (gogo farming).
Invincible vs. Warwolves....check (gogo nerfed farming).
Invincible vs. Circle of Thorns...check.

Guess you sure showed me.

[ QUOTE ]
Props to you. I fail to see ho this helps me or any of the PUGs I join.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a PUG is doing fine, I roll with it. If its not I start making suggestions about how we might change tactics. If I find a team where people aren't willing to stop and figure out a new approach where the current one isn't working then I thank them for the team and bow out. Honestly though, in everything from the Hollows to Peregrine Island I haven't seen many i5 PUGs where that was even remotely an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
You're assuming good tactics and/or powerful toons and/or good players. I can't, and don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The friends I tend to hang out with can only be counted on to work together and use teamwork. FOTM builds aren't real common among role-players and in PUGs I'm dealing with the same wide range of playstyles and skill levels you are. I make no such assumptions or requirements of uberosity in my teammates as your reply would seem to indicate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an unhelpful attitude for every n00b, every lazy player, and everyone with an experimental toon. Bad Tactics happens. Sloppy play can be fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the do and yes they can. Unlike you though I have not seen such widespread problems among PUGs at any level of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here for "challenge".

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want every victory to be easy, a guaranteed win? Are you hear for level 50 or the journey thereto?

[ QUOTE ]
I used to be able to set my own level of challenge, in fact. Now, I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I can. Are the Herocorps Field Analysts broken for you or on your server? When I find missions ar too easy I can ratchet up my difficulty. When I find they are too hard I can ratchet it down.

Yes I realize my answer is deeply sarcastic, but I find your assertion that you are constantly in over your head to be disengenuous at worst and indicative of a stubborn refusal to learn new tactics that aren't dependant on abilities that make fights trivially simple and reduce the "risk" in the risk vs. reward equation to near-zero consistently.

[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a Invuln Tank without Invincibility, because he was fun to play with only +Resists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take that rant elsewhere. I'm already on record as saying I disagree with Invulnerability not being a +res defined set in i5.

[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a AoE-centric, no-pet, no-damage Fire Controller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Controllers can now do damage and AoE holds as they were implemented trivialized fights far too fast and pretty much made controllers a "get one and you're set" archetype for teams.

[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a Empath with no Blasts except the Level 1 power.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you ignore your entire secondary and wonder why you aren't as effective? /boggle.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm (usually) here to blow off steam playing a Super Hero, and Issue 5 is specifically making the random-team, random-mission "ah, whatever" style of play obsolete, and for no good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you maybe. Hasn't really done that for me.

[ QUOTE ]
You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do. On a pickup team, there may only be one Tank, or one Controller, or one Defender, or one Blaster. There may not be another available. There might only be a certain AT available...of a bad power set.

I see that Issue 5 has ganked teaming so that everyone can feel needed, and that's a bad thing, overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed an increase in teaming and teaming being more fun and this is in PUGs and among friends.

If I can't find a tanker or some other "we need" archetype, we make do with what we have and expect things to be more challenging as a result.

The entire argument that "I play to be a superhero" tends to be based on the unspoken last-half of that sentence "...compared to the others on my team." Now that everyone on a team has to actually play their charcters to make more than a "how fast do we win" differance, those that used to win or lose team-level content without needing a team to win or lose are suddenly "not super" and feel "the game sucks".

-shrugs-

Nothing can change that opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each additional player added to the team contributes more to the team now than in I4, where all you may have needed for success on an 8 man invincible team was a single tank or a single controller, and everyone else was just there to help move things along more quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really?

[ QUOTE ]
Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning a tanker now actually requires the support of their team to handle team level content. Meaning adding a tanker to any group will now be beneficial to the group.

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning they cannot single handedly manage the control needs of an 8-man team without breaking a sweat. Meaning you are ignoring critical holds and containment. Meaning you are ignoring perma-pets. Meaning adding a controller to any group will now be beneficial to the group.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning you're ignoring their raised damage caps. Meaning you're ignoring that minions aren't a threat to blasters and haven't been and that lieutenant and higher mob accuracies are reduced. Meaning you're ignoring that the "invincible" standard of acceptable on missions worked against a blaster's accuracy and damage dealing due to the rapidly diminishing returns that come from going after things higher than your level. Meaning you are glossing over blasters derived very little benefit from pool defenses compared to just popping a luck once in a while.

[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning they aren't capable of being substitute tankers and simultaneously being effective melee range damage dealers. Meaning you're ignoring that i5 boosted their base damage. Meaning that a scrapper can and does contribute effective damage on teams. Meaning that a scrapper can still handle sustained aggro from a small group of enemies.

[ QUOTE ]
The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning vigilance is being ignored or not being taken into account in a slotting strategy. Meaning defender contributions on a team now actually matter instead of being "nice".

[ QUOTE ]
However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning invincible is now a challenge. Its the hardest setting in the game. This somehow surprises you or strikes you as unreasonable that the hardest setting is actually, well, hard?

8-man on heroic now with good tactics is still easier than invincible was for an 8-man team back in i4. Defeats in an instanced mission map are half debt. Experience rewards are up in or out of a mission.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this point of yours, in fact, it seems (unless I'm interpreting you wrong) that you're factually incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the problem is perceptual. You seem to be wanting to build teams in i5 along i4 conventions. You are viewing an i5 tanker as being weaker than an i4 tanker and ignoring that an i4 tanker could eliminate the need for a controller on any sized team and didn't derive much benefit from a defender (inspiration drops could cover them, re: herding/farming by invuln and fire tankers with very little risk).

You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.

I5 has corrected a lot of "man that's just plain broken" that existed in CoH. While I disagree with the method of the corrections in some cases I cannot argue with the result.

[ QUOTE ]

On the other (more important) Hand, Making a Tank Not Redundant Is Functionally Identical To Needing More Than One.

If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be reasonable to say there is a differance between "another person functioning in a role helps" and "another person functioning in a role is necessary" or "another person functioning in a role is redundant"?

There is a world of differance in my mind between saying "we must have two tankers" and "adding another tanker or (another) controller on our 6+ man team would be helpful"

[ QUOTE ]
Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or... 1 tanker and 1 controller
Or... 2 controllers
Or... 2 control-strong defenders
Or... 2 defenders who can debuff enemies to give everyone virtually tank-like defense.
Or... 2 defenders who can buff the team to decimate enemies in 1/2 to 1/3 the time and give them i4 scrapper-level defenses.
Or... A couple dwarf-form kheldians.
Or...

To be honest there isn't really a need to completely control a spawn patch in an 8-person team. Just control it (via taunt or controller powers) enough so the team can manage to beat it. Its actually preferable to me as a player to see a situation where my contribution in any capacity matters. Where my teammates' contributions don't make mine effectively meaningless and where together we triumph.

I much prefer that over feeling like I could /afk and /em boombox at the mission door.

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the RES vs. DEF issue, my main beef with I5 is that it is dictating a certain playstyle on people. I think they should have left to door open to us to be able to maintain our I4 level defenses at the cost of slotting attacks. Sure, that would kill the soloability of the ultimate meatshield, but who cares? You only need that much defense on a team anyway. It's a fair tradeoff. If you want to solo, you skrimp on defenses a little and pick up only what you need to survive your own missions and slot your attacks, if you want to tank for large groups, you should have the option to grab, and survive the aggro of an 8 man team by slotting up your defenses as opposed to your attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically the tradeoff I have with my peacebringer. I can deal lots of damage in nova form or I can take lots of damage in dwarf form. I'd personally love it if invulnerability (and other tankers) had that option in i5 instead of what we currently have. It would be for tankers what completely focusing on their primaries is for defenders: a very powerful team-player who is going to equally suffer outside of teams.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, that scenerio probably wouldn't work for PvP, and I think that's the biggest reason Inv was hit the way it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll actually disagree with you on this. Even with 90% resistance to everything, having only default-slot or 2-3 slotted at best attacks is not going to let a tanker win PvP battles. They'll take forever to bring down but it would take them an equally long time to bring others down, and in PvP protracted battles tend to go badly for the player with a defensive posture.

The reason is defenses can be overwhelmed, and players have the means to circumvent defenses (aim + buildup + teleport foe + total focus + bonesmasher is gonna play havoc with a tanker's toggles) or eliminate the ability of a character to use them (electric and end drain) or use their attacks even as weak as they are to begin with (accuracy debuffs, damage debuffs, etc.) Furthermore debuffing resists via sets like sonic resonance exacerbates the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually believe States when he says herding and PLing aren't that big a concern for him. Inv tanks are still running Dreck just like in I4, they're just doing it on Rugged now in 5 man teams. The XP is the same for the lowbies with the XP increase in I5, so that's a moot issue. But Inv has certainly been crippled for PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand by the reasoning being primarily that if 1 person can provide 100% of the team role of their archetype for a large team then the second member of that archetype that arrives is at best "emergency backup". If one tanker can handle the tanking of an 8-person team (primarily this is in terms of aggro-redirection) then a second tanker is basically redundant.

Whereas the AoE limits and particularly the ones on taunt mean while with good support a tanker can handle the punishment of an 8-man spawn patch, they are going to have a noticeably harder time with keeping aggro off the squishies. A second tanker in that group now is making a definite contribution towards making the team safer. They're keeping the 1st tanker from needing to deal with a full spawn patches' damage and two tankers taunting and benefiting from gauntlet means less stray aggro.

Likewise a controller on a team with a tanker is now more than pet-spamming "defender". Their controls and holds (single target) aid in defeating enemies and aid in locking down stray aggro or the most dangerous enemies. Two controllers on a team mean added safety as opposed to a controller and the controller understudy.

I recognize this is purely my opinion, and I'm not intending for this to come off as fact per se, but I really see the primary intention in the nerfing of area controls, taunts, and even tanker defenses as part of allowing tankers and controllers better stacking in teams and to better differentiate controllers and defenders with containment and AoE hold changes providing a greater incentive for a controller to focus on slotting their primaries instead of their defense secondaries.

[ QUOTE ]
Invincibility is an almost useless power in PvP and I think that's how the devs intended it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I am missing something, invincibility has never been good in PvP since it depends on a large number of enemies in immediate proximity of the tanker. I haven't see that kind of behavior in any PvP I've participated in.

[ QUOTE ]
They also made Inv extremely weak to ranged attackers with its pitiful +RES to elements and energies. Most blast type powers chew right through an Inv/* tank now...while most melee is still s/l based (for the most part).

[/ QUOTE ]

This I agree with. I imagine my energy blaster or a nova form kheldian would find it a lot easier to deal with a tanker in PvP, particularly invulnerability. Then again, in i4 I had no chance versus tankers so perhaps its more balanced now. Then again, a tanker in PvP that can't get at their enemy will need to find a way to use the terrain or their other powers (or their allies) to get their enemy to come to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really care for the flavor of Inv now. I may still play my 50 once in a while, but honestly, my blaster is more consistent now and I don't have too much fear that her playstyle will be forcibly changed anytime soon. I'm looking forward to COV where I won't care so much about defense and will just kill, kill, kill. Evil for teh win!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't particularly care for invulnerability now either. The new invulnerability doesn't gel with my internal conception of a tanker as resistance-defined instead of avoidance-defined. If I do play a tanker in the future and nothing changes I'll most likely end up playing a fire/* tanker. Conceptually I liked resistance-defined invulnerability as being the best way to model a character like "Golden Boy" from Wildcards or a certain "last son" of a exploded world.

[ QUOTE ]
Tanking for large teams against non s/l damage dealers is more of an issue. And actually, the biggest issue seems to be play style. For those of us who enjoyed being damage sponges and holding the aggro of very large groups of mobs, COH is no longer the same. For the Skrankers and solo tankers, I5 didn't bring a huge change to their playstyle.


[/ QUOTE ]

By the same token, being a non-tanker on a team with a i4 invulnerability tanker was best described by me playing a blaster as "tanker's pet", "redundant", or "bridge so I can PL people."

I'm sympathetic to people who can't play the old way anymore and lost what they enjoyed most about being a tanker in i4. I really am. But I tended to feel as non-heroic as a tanker felt heroic in those situations. I noticed teams generally didn't look for or want a second tanker or a controller to do anything other than spam pets, with an i4 tanker. I've seen 2nd tankes invited because "my buddy wants to play" and I've seen 2nd tankers leave teams where they weren't the 1st tanker and "felt useless."

The i5 tanker is still pretty darned tough, they just now have the same limitations (more or less) that all players do: they cannot handle team-level challenges without their team's support. Leaving it the way it was in i4 where a tanker could handle team-level challenges without team-level support was pretty clearly broken and equally clearly not healthy for the game long-term.

I don't agree with the approach i5 took to reducing tankers from over-powered to in-line, I believe especially that invulnerability as a powerset should be resist and not defense defined, but that doesn't change the fact that i4 tankers were desperately in need of an adjustment.

[ QUOTE ]
I ask whats really NEW about the game in the last few issues since Issue 3? some rehashed models? Zones?... same old tasks and NO new content for high lvls

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this depends on how you define "new content". In my experience with other MMOs, reusing models with new skins and content that other than intensity of power (ie. mobs use the same tactics but just hit harder, faster, have differant resistances or player debuffing, etc.) is the norm. CoH has actually addded new content in the form of hostage escort missions and waves of attacking bad guys.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you did make some new ATs so we could do the same thing over again and a hat to put on a toons head and make us wait around a lake for countless hoursfor a lochness wanna be. Heres a word GamePLAY, or is it GameWAIT?

[/ QUOTE ]

New content added and you're not happy with it? While I can sympathyze with not liking the form new content takes I can't really sympathize with criticizing them for not adding new content and then criticize them for adding it in a form you dislike.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the LOOK and FEEL of the game, How about putting some effort into the enviroment? Croatoa is cool, but why does every building look the same inside? Are you not getting tired of that office map within every building? (oh I forgot you do have a lab map). What about skinning some new walls to match the acrhitecture and feel of the zones? would that bust the budget? What about NPCs such as waiters and patrons in the cafes that are always empty? What about Gas stations? they could blow up real good? Airports? a Train Mission where you are actually on the train saving people (look at spiderman 2) Its the little things that add flavor.

[/ QUOTE ]

New mission types have been added.
- Hostage escort
- Villain waves

Mobs now actually fight one another and injure one another.

New NPCs were added to the Paragon Dance Party.

Croatoa is a very cool zone (and incidentally your non-power-10 SOs are for sale in the stores in that zone).

New taskforce with a tangible reward (ie. new costume option)

[ QUOTE ]
How come there are no Bank maps? Banks are prime targets for villians yes?...what would it take to create a 'Foil a bank heist' mission? Throw use something slightly different please at least try to continue creating on the superhero world theme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rome wasn't built in a day. New things are coming, but not everything can be done at once and priorities are chosen. Like you I may not agree with all of them but I have to call "unreasonable" on accusations that they aren't putting work and new content and new features into the game on a regular basis.

Bear in mind, if this were SOE and not Cryptic/NCSoft we'd have needed to purchase the "Ruins of The Hollows", the "Scars of Striga", and the "Shadows of Croatoa" expansions. They'd have real loot associated with them that you couldn't get if you didn't pay them too.

[ QUOTE ]
What about building more complex interaction with NPCs?
there are several ways to do this...

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed their are, but again "Rome wasn't built in a day". Take a look at everything that has been added and realize that with all of that and everything else that is coming that not everything can be done at once. I completely support and agree with the idea that having more ways to interact with the environment and NPCs would positively be awesome, but that falls under the category of "suggestion" not "valid criticism of i5"

[ QUOTE ]
1. Nerfing Hamio's was not the answer... you POed alot of people that put effort into earning those fair and square. If PvP was a problem and you want balance why not just neutralize ALL enhancements upon entry to the arena? I am sure there is some code that would do that just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have hami-o's on my blaster, and I had no problem with the nerf. Possibly I'm in the minority, but I take at Statesman's word that while nerfign hami-o's was in part for PvP it wasn't entirely for PvP. A power that is 6-slotted with hami-Os is the equivilent to a 12-slotted power, and that alone is tremendously beneficial, compounding this with having the hami-o's be about 1.5x as powerful as an equivilent SO would make them the equivilent of a power with 18 enhancement slots.

Regarding PvP and hami-o's, as Positron noted it is impossible to know if certain powers are being used in a PvP setting or not. Is my fire shield from pyre mastery being used to resist a mob attack or a player attack? Am I in a PvP zone and only fighting PvE content? Am I using Aim so I can snipe a mob or a player? The number of "what ifs" that need to be resolved would (as Positron noted) crush the servers under the computational strain.

[ QUOTE ]
At LEAST bump them to 53 so those that ditched theirs in place of the 50% get a fair shake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? They're already twice as powerful as SOs in terms of the number of aspects of a power they're enhancing.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Same as nerfing peoples powers? Why not just scale it back upon character entry into a PvP zone? Why nerf INV and all the other ATs as you did? To make everyone the same? FOR teamwork? That just adds to mediocrity, we all dont like Vanilla but it seems thats the only flavor CoH is coming in.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if I enter a PvP zone and engage in PvE content? Do you really want powers to have differant levels of effectiveness depending on where you go? I don't.

Secondly, the power adjustments were made for what I see as valid PvE reasons as in my opinion I find PvE gameplay far more fun and exciting in i5 than I did before.

[ QUOTE ]
You need better creative direction for this game not technical.
Its always easier to take away then it is to ad...but there seems to be stratigic vision implementaion that your public can understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "better" in terms of creative direction. CoH has some very interesting and detailed lore and backstories going on here. Just because you or I may not like the specifics does not mean they aren't "creative" or anything other than "we would have done it differantly."

[ QUOTE ]
I have been in the creative business for 15 years and have done a few games in my day (way back before the cd rom market crashed). I now consult for Fortune 500 companies in online marketing and branding and man! You do have some brand issues States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy to claim credentials on the internet isn't it? I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, or the degree of exaggeration or not, nor does anyone else. In terms of this medium of exchange its also largely irrelevant unless you can either provide proof or the substance of your arguments self-supports this claim. Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I do not see your preceeding arguments providing support for your claimed credentials.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a real cool job States, I envy you, Now be a CREATIVE director rather then a number cruncher. If its not fun for you anymore pass the torch or hire some people with a clear vision. Give us back the PvE we came here for.

[/ QUOTE ]

An integral part of being a game master (and as an aggregate Statesman & Co. are functioning in this capacity) is balancing the game-play on numbers. This is necessary so that the most content and fun can be provided to the most number of people.

A number of players (particularly tanker players but not limited to them) who were used to feeling like "super heroes" in comparison to their fellow players are now feeling pain as a result of now actually needing their teammates in order to handle team level content. What I am seeing in the particulars of complaints at a high level amounts to "I don't want to learn new tactics!" and "I shouldn't need 7 other people to handle an 8-person mission!"

Specific complaints such as those directed towards how sets like invulnerability were changed in i5 are differant. Criticizing that invulnernability has become a defense-defined set instead of a resistance defined one and providing the numbers and hard facts to back it up are fair and I absolutely agree that it amounts to a very legitimate criticism.

Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Burn was ridiculously overpowered in my opinion and was desperately in need of a hardcore nerfing. All this change means, by the way, is that you actually need to use and slot your secondary powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you have a fire tank? Or is this the opinion of an outsider? Have you lived through the first 17 levels of pain till you get burn? Then another 5 to slot it so it does some good? Or is this all from things you’ve seen and heard?

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing is that ignoring burn doesn't hurt a fire tanker's ability to deal damage in a team setting with team support, and it certainly isn't required for soloing a single-person mission set to heroic difficulty. Dealing damage is a function of tanker secondaries, not primaries, and damage in the primaries is basically "gravy".

[ QUOTE ]
I will admit, and I’ve read other posts that agree, burn was over powered, I would have shrugged off having the damage decreased. I would have grudgingly lived with the excessive recharge rate. But having a HUGE fear component goes too far. Burn 5 slotted for damage does less then many other powers, but mobs run from it now. Statesman Sez. It’s because no one would willingly stand in fire. But mobs do that all the time. Blazing aura burns anyone that gets into melee with me, and they still do.
They get into melee with scrapers
They attack tanks while ignoring scrappers and blasters.
The stand around in AOE debuffs instead of getting away from the anchor.
Mobs are stupid. They should stand in fire and keep fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our opinion of what should happen is irrelevant. I think what should have happened was for invulnerability as a primary to be a resistance-defined set, not a defense-based set by way of invincibility and herding. As a player in even a tabletop game I've disagreed with rulings of game masters at various times or the house rules they've implemented.

But do you know what? It was their game, their decision to construct the hows and whys of it the way they did. In the case of burn it is a power that creates a duration-sustained firey field seperate from the hero and that has the primary use of freeing the hero from immobilization effects and motivating mobs to not run through it or stay in it.

Used when a group of mobs have aggroed to a squishy teammate, burn immediately functions to get the nearby mobs to stop attacking that teammate and start running for their lives. That sounds like an incredibly useful tanker ability to me. It can be used to block doors and form choke points to control how mobs enter an area. That sounds pretty cool too. Remember, a tanker is "a melee-based controller" just as a scrapper is a "melee-based blaster". A tanker's role on a team is similar to a controllers, they just do it differantly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, just for kicks, you could invite a controller or a controllerish defender

[/ QUOTE ]
And if I don’t like to team? If I can’t find a team? If I can’t find a controller/defender? What then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I'd suggest adapting and figuring out how to meet the challenge. I'd also suggest that the notion that anyone should have an expectation to be able to perform solo in single-player-missions at a reputation level higher than heroic is unrealistic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that massive area affecting control powers were making combat too easy/predictable? I thought so. After all, where is the challenge in hitting one button and 100% (or close to it) locking down everything and being able to do that fight after fight after fight after....?

[/ QUOTE ]
100%? So you’ve never played a controller either.
AOE Control powers have an accuracy penalty so you need to add an Acc SO to get it to hit like every other power without any Acc.
Then you have bosses (have to hit twice successfully to hold)
AV’s (Look for the Invisible arrows)
It’s not 100% without a lot of work.
If you do manage to hold every one then:
Solo: you’re going to get killed when they get out of the hold
Team: Mobs already dead and the team is moving on to the next group.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I've been on teams at all levels of the game, and I've watched my friends who played controllers function in those teams. While its not "never" that one sees a few mobs escape an AoE hold they don't generally appear to have nearly the difficulty you allude to.

What I witness in having watched them, as well as controllers in PuGs at various levels of gameplay, is that AoE controls basically resulted in "stand/hover there and spam attacks until everything was defeated". It made missions, even at invincible, rather easy.

Reducing the duration and frequency of usability of AoE holds has done wonders to add a feeling of being something other than a controllers player-controlled pet.

[ QUOTE ]
Teams are looking for controllers to help with bosses. Holding the minions is a bonus. One that we can now do every 3-4 groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Single target holds weren't given the AoE hold nerf. Since bosses rarely appear in numbers greater than 2 or 3, and that being on an 6-8 man team where one might reasonably have a second tanker, extra scrapper, more than one defender...

Well, one controller shouldn't be able to provide 100% of the controlling needs of a 6-8 man team flawlessly or without downtime to let their powers recharge. The explanation is simple: if they could, why would a team want to invite a second controller? Barring the occasional emergency or badly timed add, a second controller is little more than a pet-generator and mission padder.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was "fun" for those tankers because it was strong enough without counterbalancing downsides to greatly contribute to trivializing content.

[/ QUOTE ]
Without downsides?
Fiery aura has the worst defense out of any tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

As an aside, I am amused to point out that players of invulnerability tankers have been known to disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
We need Tough from the fighting pool to cap slashing/Lethal defense

[/ QUOTE ]

Or one can recruit a defender to join one's team. Sonic directly buffs resistance, forcefields boost defense, dark miasma debuffs accuracy (often being able to floor it), storm debuffs mob accuracy, empathy provides fortitude which buffs resitance and damage. These buffs are also available from controllers in their secondaries.

Controllers and defenders being support archetypes should have a reasonable expectation of their team members needing that support.

[ QUOTE ]
We need Weave from combat jumping to resists knockdown/back (Critical now)

[/ QUOTE ]

Or hover works too as far as I know. Just 4-6 slot it for flightspeed and you have something pretty darned zippy and useful for chasing aerial foes too.

Also while KB is annoying as heck (believe me I know) it doesn't detoggle you and doesn't prevent a tanker from performing their role in a team: meat shield and aggro manager. It might slow down being able to cast the taunt power, but with an aura effect going Guantlet is alive and well.

[ QUOTE ]
Our Toxic Resistance is tied to a healing power with a slow recharge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sonic and Forcefield defenders and controllers can protect you against toxic damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Those are the downsides we pay for burn. And why we don’t have slots left over for our secondaries, or for that mater a lot of secondaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

For pure tanking, a fire tanker only needs +10 slots to be added to Fire Shield and Plasma Shield (bring each to 6-slots) and with even SOs has 66% res to S/L/E/N, 90%+ res to F, 30-40% (I believe) to C, and then situational res to Toxic from Healing Flames and its default slot.

Since Toxic damage is not an especially common form of damage in the game, I daresay the situation isn't as grim as you describe. Factor in that Tough from the fighting pool can cap a fire tankers S/L resists (or come close enough) and I will have to call you on exaggerating the plight of fire tanks in i5. I will definitely call that on claims that the purported weaknesses of fire "balanced" pre-i5 burn.

[ QUOTE ]
My experience is that we also don’t do well in teams,

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? That's not been my experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Teams looking for tanks need tanks to take damage and agro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which fire tankers can still do nicely, its just they might actually need a team to support them when tanking team-level content. Odd concept for some people it seems.

[ QUOTE ]
Compared to other tanks I’m squishy. And now with the fear component of burn I can’t hold agro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire tankers are more squishy than other tankers? Funny, I read quite a bit about invulnerability primary tankers complaining that fire tanks were better....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Odd, but every issue that's had major power changes has included giving out free respecs. I also recall getting a free respec at Christmas and another at the 1yr anniversary. Oh yes, and we got one with i5 too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was using an example from another game system so you misunderstood. I have a level 26 Fire/Ice Tanker. I chose that because the powers worked best for how I play. Mostly solo, few hours at a time. They have now changed the powers so I can’t continue playing as a Fire/Ice Tanker. I want to be an Inv/Ax Tanker, or a TA/A Defender. There is currently nothing in place that allows me to do this short of deleting my character and starting over. It’s not my fault that my Fire/Ice tanker doesn’t work for me any more the devs changed his powers on me. They can give me a repec a day for the rest of my life, but he will always be a Fire/Ice Tanker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing that happened in i5 shoudl have rendered you unable to solo your own missions on heroic. If you cannot, I suggest you consult with your fellow tankers regarding your build and look for advice on respeccing.

[ QUOTE ]
I just had to comment on this Burn-related argument.
[ QUOTE ]
Burn was ridiculously overpowered in my opinion and was desperately in need of a hardcore nerfing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You obviously haven't played a fire tank in a while Katahn, or else you wouldn't be making such statements. Was burn overpowered "once upon a time"? Yes. Was it overpowered in I4? No. At the most it needed a slight trim, and it wasn't any more "overpowered" than a dozen of other powers for various powersets. In I5 burn is almost as useless as temperature protection - I don't want to burden any controllers by asking them to time their holds with my burn patches, and without holds only thing burn good for is making pretty fire.
The only thing that made fire tanks different, their offensive capabilities, have been taken away from us.

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion on Burn prior to i5 is unchanged and based on watching it be used as well as reading about how to best use it in the tanker forums. This opinion evidently is in harmony with the developers' opinions since they took pains to reduce it to something more appropriate.

Burn retains its usefulness as a means of freeing oneself from status effects and can be used to position enemies or block them from getting at squishies.

Fire tanker offense has not been taken away (as in eliminated or reduced in levels below what is appropriate for a tanker to be able to solo their missions on heroic - which identifies the appropriate minimum standard of power) in i5, to insinuate that is disengenuous. Firey aura in the primary still does damage and nicely helps with aggro lock on nearby mobs. Fire as a primary also has a buildup type damage boosting power with 3x the duration as that in the energy melee secondary or otherwise available to other archetypes. Fire tankers also have all of their same secondaries available to them besides.

[ QUOTE ]
So let me ask you how often during one of your campaigns do you tell a character that a power you've let them have for over a year isn't working like you're original concept so they can't use it anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on your perspective... Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
As a GM you should be outraged by these changes. you can't make this kind of drastic changes in the middle of a game and give either lame, or no excuses and expect the players to keep showing up to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but I do and I'll explain why.

As a GM its my job to make sure my players are having fun and appropriately rewarded for the challenges I assign them. If they are not appropriately rewarded either because the challenge is too much or not enough, its incumbant on me to make adjustments.

The key differance is that being the GM of a tabletop game or a LARP means I can directly and immediately adjust the content. I can modify the challenges my players face.

Are they too damage resistant? I increase the damage their enemies do.

Are they too able to evade being hit? I increase the tohit bonus of their enemies.

Is a power, spell, or ability disruptive or overpowering in the setting? I can adjust the setting with less than a snap of my fingers. Rather than nerf the power, I can buff the content. I can on the fly adjust the rewards assigned.

In a MMO there isn't 1 GM for every half-dozen to dozen PCs. It isn't possible to fine tune the content to handle group "A" that has all uber builds and optimal group and group "B" that does not have uber builds and is decidedly suboptimal level or archetype wise.

What can be done in a small setting like a tabletop game quickly breaks down to impossibility when you contemplate the scale of a virtual world like CoH. For an example, go back and read about how long it took the datamine for badges when they first came out: 3 months. Something "so simple as just datamine it" wasn't "so simple" after all.

If I had control would I have changed things differantly than the devs did? Maybe, but then again I don't have all the facts.

I will say though that the nature of gameplay in i5 has (for me and at all levels) become more dynamic, more fun, and I have yet to feel like I was dead weight or mission padding on a team. I'm happy with the result of the changes even if I am unhappy with the specifics in some cases.

[ QUOTE ]
"No one likes feeling like they've had their toys taken away." I feel like I've had my car taken away. And the only way to get it back is to go all the way back to the beginning and start again.

I have a level 26 fire tank. Statesman took a bat to him, then a steel pipe. And if I want to make him an invulnerability tanker I have to delete him and start over. Badges, inf, missions, levels GONE. Why would I want to scrap my fire tank, because my main attack, the power that I created him for in the first place is now is less then 1/4 as effective as it was in I4.

Just for those tuning in late count with me
1. It has 1/2 the Duration
2. It has 2X the Recharge Time
3. It does les damage.
4. It has a limit on the number of targets it will hit (I never came close to the limit but it still is a limit.)
5. MOBS RUN FROM IT. My blaster can do I don't know how much more damage with a Fire ball, but they don't run from him. Oh and they keep burning after a Fire ball but step out of a Burn patch and have no more problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Burn was ridiculously overpowered in my opinion and was desperately in need of a hardcore nerfing. All this change means, by the way, is that you actually need to use and slot your secondary powers.

[ QUOTE ]
States answer to the complaints above, use control powers to keep them in the burn patch. Tankers being know for there great control powers. Oh wait no. But that’s alright I planed ahead and have Ice as my secondary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, just for kicks, you could invite a controller or a controllerish defender like storm or dark and they will actually have an active and useful contribution to make outside of padding mission size. You can invite an AoE heavy blaster. You could invide a dark, radiation, or sonic defender who will debuff your enemies to the point where they die so quickly it won't matter. You could as a empath to buff you with recovery and regeneration auras and fortitude. You could ask a sonic or bubble defender to boost your defenses.

[ QUOTE ]
But wait her comes statesman with that steel pipe I mentioned. AOE control powers are boring so once again. Ice Slick now is now is less then 1/4 as effective as it was in I4.
1. It has 1/2 the Duration
2. It has 2X the Recharge Time
3. It has a limit on the number of targets it will hit (I never came close to the limit but it still is a limit.)
And of course we won’t change the end usage after dropping the effectiveness. That would make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be that massive area affecting control powers were making combat too easy/predictable? I thought so. After all, where is the challenge in hitting one button and 100% (or close to it) locking down everything and being able to do that fight after fight after fight after....?

Personally, I'd like to see a group with two controllers where BOTH controllers feel needed and like they are making a differance. I'd like to see a group where one tanker doesn't just handle everything for the team with or without anyone else's support. My casual canvassing of tankers in-game has not revealed any that have had issues soloing single-person missions at levels higher than heroic even.

[ QUOTE ]
I can’t stop being a tank. I can’t change my primary or secondary, I can change the powers I have with in them but why would I want to I created my too because burn sounded fun. And it was. Repeat WAS.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I already stated, I found that burn was overpowered. For a great many fire tankers it functioned as their only major attack outside of (maybe) firey aura. It allowed them to mass destroy swarms of bad guys. It was "fun" for those tankers because it was strong enough without counterbalancing downsides to greatly contribute to trivializing content.

[ QUOTE ]
The only other MMOG I've played is AC and one of the things they added was a respec type thing where you could sell back powers you no longer needed...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
COH has been a lot of fun, but it seems that with every update fear becomes more of a factor. Not fear powers in the game MY FEAR that my toons won’t be the same any more. Stop making these changes. Stop giving reasons like Our original concept, It was never supposed to work like it has been for over a year. Or you new favorite. We forgot to post about that. It wasn't intentional - it was an administrative error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd, but every issue that's had major power changes has included giving out free respecs. I also recall getting a free respec at Christmas and another at the 1yr anniversary. Oh yes, and we got one with i5 too.

Amazing huh?

There really isn't a reason to be afraid of changes the devs are going to make unless you become dependant on a use of a power that allows you to easily handle content that is self-evidently not meant to be handled solo. When one can easily handle content designed for a team as a single person one should be expecting the nerfbat is going to come swinging.

I've honestly been expecting to see tankers get beaten stupid with the nerfbat after watching them join a mission with 7 other people set at invincible and their 'team' is AFK at the mission entrance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

QFlight and NForm were being used by kheldians as "travel powers with perks" and now their use as "travel power" is non-existant. That is a fundamental change, and players who respecced and obviously didn't know it was coming deserve a chance to rebuild characters around what the power will now do.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the way from The introduction to the Kheldians in I3
“Neither Peacebringers nor Warshades can access the Flight or Teleport Power Pools. At first glance this looks like a major drawback, until you learn that Peacebringers inherently have Fly at Level 1, and Warshades can inherently Teleport. Kheldians can augment their travel powers with powers such as Group Energy Flight from the Luminous Aura set and Starless Step from the Umbral Blast set.”
Looks like they were supposed to use these as travel powers since the account needed to have a lv 50 toon they already did their time with out one. So what do the Kheldians do for travel powers now? (Freely admint I might not know that I'm talking about for the Kheldians)

[/ QUOTE ]

Peacebringers are "supposed" to use energy flight (identical to the flight power from the power pool, but inherent at level 1. Warshades are "supposed" to use starless step (identical to teleport from the teleport power pool. They still have them.

What was happening was because it was always max flight speed, and provided a useful secondary feature in phasing (for QFlight) or as combat-jumping boosted a lot combined with the phasing effect, slot-starved kheldians devoted slots to those powers to get a double-benefit.

Since the phase portion has been given a similar adjustment as the power pool version they can't be used as a travel power and the slotting of the powers has been to support them as a travel power. The degree of slotting they're usually given is unecessary and overkill when applied strictly to an "escape" power.

This change should accompany an archetype-specific free respec since it came long enough after i5 that quite a few kheldians used their free respecs already.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its a game where tankers can do their job but can't do a team-level job without team-level support.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what's the name of this game? Because it certainly isn't City of Heroes.

I would love it if COH were this game.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a game where two or three tankers on a team isn't one or two too many.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes it is. But not for the reasons you would cite. A team with three tankers is going to be much less effective than a team that has something else in their place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you or your friends' tankers are having so much trouble. The tankers I've teamed with have been certainly capable of handling their job on a team.

They just couldn't do it with us /em boombox at the door though.

This to me is a good thing, I'd like to have the feeling that me being on a team matters for more than padding the spawn sizes. I like thinking that the increase in mission difficult in response to my presence is mitigated by my contribution and that without my contribution things will be a lot harder for everyone.

I happen to think that the i5 changes have been overall very healthy for the game and have added a real degree of challenge to it that I rarely saw outside of the 1-20 game.

Its a game where tankers can do their job but can't do a team-level job without team-level support. Its a game where two or three tankers on a team isn't one or two too many. Its a game where blasters can do excellent damage but can be buffed up by their teammates to do more. Its a game where one controller doesn't bring along their own personal army of pets and single-handely locks down full-team-sized spawns flawlessly but rather where they can handle some and their teammates are there to do more than pad mission size.

No one likes being depowered, no one likes feeling like they've had their toys taken away or reduced. I get that, but as someone who also is a GM for tabletop and live action games I can see where it needed to happen. I see the results of these changes as being very healthy for the game long-term.

That said, I do believe that every kheldian character in the game should be given another free respec due to the changes in QFlight and NForm. Had these changes been announced in advance during i5 or included in i5 then this wouldn't matter. I may not like the reasoning behind the change, but I'm not angry about it like some of the more vitriolic posters are.

QFlight and NForm were being used by kheldians as "travel powers with perks" and now their use as "travel power" is non-existant. That is a fundamental change, and players who respecced and obviously didn't know it was coming deserve a chance to rebuild characters around what the power will now do.

As a defensive boost late game, defiance just doesn't work. The increasing abundance of status effects and high-damaging foes combine to make the majority of my defeats happen while I am stunned or otherwise under a status effect; or they have been substantial enough to knock me from 30-40% health to 0% in a shot.

My feedback, adding to before, is this. In terms of being a level 50 blaster I found this inherent ability useless to me defensively and of less offensive benefit. Thematically it simply does not suit blasters at all. The entire idea of doing more damage (getting stronger) as a result of being severely injured (getting angrier) is more in line with a certain green-skinned tanker-type with anger management issues. Its certainly not reminiscent of blaster-type heroes that I've seen.

Please scrap this power for blasters altogether. Just take it away and please think of something new. This does not help/fix us. We don't want it. We'd rather not have it and have the developers thinking this represents a fix for the problems blasters have.

Here's my report from test, I'll preface it by asking that if the devs have done internal testing with defiance could they provide information as to builds, levels, missions, and so on? So far, as the following report indicates, I'm disappointed.

Feedback on defiance from the perspective of a level 50 energy/energy/fire blaster I copied to the test server specifically to take a look at it. This character has all 4 pyre mastery powers, and fire shield is 6-slotted with 1 resistance/endurance reduction “hammi-o” and 5 resistance single-origin enhancements.

I firstly found that the health and defiance bars seemed very laggy in their responses, sometimes being almost half a minute to respond. This made testing much more difficult as one might imagine.

My first test was versus 4 level 49 minions. I got their attention and then stood in the middle of them with fire shield running while they beat me down. I fought back normally, and defeated them with 60% health reporting since they were largely doing smashing type damage and that being a type fire shield provided resistance to. Next there was a group of 3 minions and 2 lieutenants. In this group I got knocked so that my health bar was in the yellow, I did not see defiance kick in. Then one of them got a stunning hit on me that went past the clear mind the defender was keeping on me, and dropped my fire shield. Two hits later (about 3 seconds) and I was face down on the ground.

The second test was later in that same mission, we cleared the mission of all of the bad guys except for Marauder the AV at the end. We decided to give him a try and buffed up to attack. Marauder repeatedly knocked me into yellow and red health ranges and I was paying very close attention to the defiance meter while we battled. Again, it was very slow to respond, never going above approximately 40% before the empathy defender healed me back up which caused it to immediately vanish. It’s worth noting that with fire shield running that one of his hits was capable of taking me from full health to 20-30% health. He also occasionally detoggled me with stunning attacks that stacked beyond the protection afforded by clear mind from the defender. Fortunately the defender was watching me, and that in turn meant she could keep me (mostly) alive.

Defiance pegged once at 100% for an instant in that fight. A stun detoggled me and dropped me to the ground, it faded quickly and I got fire shield back up an instant before Marauder smacked me with a melee attack that knocked me 20-30 yards away and left me somewhere between 1-5% health. It also stunned me again, and before the empathy defender noticed due to some occasionally extreme lag in health bar updates Marauder ran up and clocked me to defeat. Fortunately I have Rise of the Phoenix and activated that to get back into the action immediately. I consumed a couple of “Catch A Breaths” and a couple of “Respites” and re-activated hover and fire shield.

We ended up losing after getting him to about 40%, she had faceplanted once and was revived by me via the medicine pool, and then faceplanted again a moment before I did and only about halfway through the recharge time on RotP. We left the mission and recruited a team.

In the mission I tried defiance twice more against larger groups and with now two defenders (the second was a FF defender) and an illusion/kinetics controller. Each time I tried I either wasn’t getting hurt enough to activate it, or when the team intentionally agreed to allow me to try it and have the aggro necessary, I would invariably get stunned/detoggled and then faceplant. All without seeing the defiance meter register much more than a 5% or so.

The tanker in the group had the infamous warwolf herding mission from before it was changed to be a timed mission, so we decided to try that out. I tried on two other occasions to see if defiance would help. On both of those occasions the results were the same. The defiance meter would be slow to respond, and before it did I would typically get stunned by an attack which would drop hover (to stay out of melee range) and fire shield (without which it never took more than a couple of attacks at best to drop me from whatever health I had to defeated.) Once stunned/detoggled I would very quickly be face-down in defeat.

Final score: Defiance 5, Blaster 0. Defiance added less of a damage boost to me than simply chewing on rage inspirations would have or simply relying on the damage boost from fortitude from the empathy defender or from the kinetics defender. Trying to use defiance encouraged a style of play that was needlessly reckless and resulted in an overall sharp drop in my damage as while defeated I was clearly doing zero damage.

One teammate asked me if I felt any stronger. I responded that “Nope, not really”. They then asked me if I felt silly, a question I had to respond to with one word: “Yep”. Defiance as it is structured right now was nothing more than a new way for me justify taking Rise of the Phoenix as my level 49 power. Fortunately, since its test and I’m level 50 I have twice the reason to not be concerned with debt, although I was amused to notice I was immediately awarded the fourth and fifth debt badges the instant I first logged into Test.

Start a level 1 character and go through the tutorial. The first "mission" is to deliver the sample to the doctor outside the hospital who then tells you to read the info display. The info display tells you all about how the mediporters work. They work off a patch the heroes wear, that registers when their vitals indicate they are about to die. That activates the teleportation sequence that takes them to the nearest hospital.

In terms of RP, I'd say that's good enough. In terms of stories, since its a patch I'd say it can get or be removed and in either case it could be damaged/destroyed in a fight.

I need to respectfully disagree that PvP is "ridiculous" and "totally opposite of creative roleplaying" in terms of settling disputes. Just as the previous poster alluded to in backgrounds, that one was tacitly agreeing to adhere to the background and setting of the CoH genre, I would assert that game-mechanics are the means for resolving the question: "Can you do that?"

The entire point of game mechanics, or rules governing how powers work and how they interrelate is to address the very topic of conflict among supers. That we primarily use them against NPCs does not somehow invalidate them as rules for determining the results of conflicts vs. PCs. Saying that a level 50 character is more powerful than a level 30 character should be self-evident. Saying that one hero may be unable to beat another in a one on one fight should likewise be self-evident. I'm reasonably sure we can think of enough examples of that from the various comics we read.

"But what about the time Batman gets the armored suit and synthetic kryptonite in 'The Dark Knight Returns' and beats Superman in a fight?" Those are comic book manifestations of what in game mechanics we call "temporary powers". Batman went on a Hami-raid and instead of getting a golgi hami-o got a 10-minute PBAoE "Kryptonite Aura" power and saved it in his power window until that fight.

So to the guy who claims that he can one-shot me because his power of kinetics lets him stop my heart? My answer is: "Ok, lets go to the arena and set up a 1v1 and we'll start the RP right at the point where you declare that action and with my gentleman's agreement that I'll not have anything activated there that I didn't here and you get the first shot."

"Oh, you mean you can't one-shot my level 50 blaster with your level 20 kinetics defender? And you wouldn't dare go into the arena to actually let the game mechanics settle it? You aren't 'creative' you're the kind of role-player who has to always win."

I mean, the rules may not be perfect, or what we want. But then life seldom is. I personally am terrible at PvP, I get my butt kicked regularly at it. But by the same count I find it silly to come up with rules to resolve conflict when the game system and universe we play in has already provided them. If you don't like/want to PvP then don't start or participate in RP scenarios that would result in a battle between supers. Role-play your way out of the situation, or simply run away.

Standing outside the arena and claiming to be all-powerful while having to cower from a nearby level 8 Eidolan and trying to face down the level 50 invulnerability tanker who would squish it if he sneezed hard isn't "creative" its "munchkinism"

As has been stated, Atlas Park is more crowded and its layout is definitely not friendly to the pre-travel-power hero. As a result, I always started in Galaxy City. Now the only time I don't start in Galaxy City is if I happen to play a peacebringer (since their contact is Sunstorm and located in Atlas Park) but fortunately as a peacebringer we get flight at level 1, so AP isn't all that bad at all.

Leadership won't give you enough of a bonus to offset the loss of accuracy from dropping an SO, on top of which its a toggle and an expensive one at that. Fair warning though, right now you are still not at the point where it starts to really get difficult for blasters. That primarily happens post-35, and sans teaming post-40 its worse.

My suggestions are to drop the Combat/Fighting Pool, tough and weave aren't that great really. Slot up combat jumping for +defense since as a toggle its low endurance and very fast refresh. I also seriously suggest dropping Combat/Fighting in favor of adding Flight. As an energy blaster your knockback will be aggravating to your teammates, something that can be easily mitigated by hover-blasting and slotting hover with 4 or 5 flightspeed SOs makes it extremely zippy for 3-dimensional movement.

Lastly, while the melee attacks are the most damaging blasters have, the simple fact is that a blaster in melee range is often a soon-to-be defeated one. Outside of PvP I would never recommend taking and slotting them that heavily. As for your choice of APPs, my personal experience is that Pyre Mastery seemed to be a better fit for energy, but your mileage may vary of course. Just avoid bonfire, its situational even moreso than Nova is.

[ QUOTE ]

The thing that bothers me the most is that I have no role in a high-level team. Tanker needs to herd. Defender needs to buff. Scrapper needs to help whittle down the AV faster. Controller needs to debuff while pets chew up minions. Blaster needs to stand way back so he doesn't get one-shot by the AV's AOE.


[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, post-40, blasters are desired in teams. I certainly had no shortage of teaming invites post-40 even when most of my supergroup has been busy playing lowbie alts. Duo with a scrapper friend, join a pickup team, the biggest complaint I had was I couldn't do many story arcs because I outlevelled them pretty fast that way

No joke, its a sort of complaint, I *DO* enjoy doing arcs and really can only do them solo. Even on heroic, the prevelance of arch-villains and positively lethal-to-the-solo-blaster groups like Malta and Knives of Artemis rendered soloing nearly painful. As energy/energy (no blapping) I couldn't street hunt much due to large spawn sizes (compared to street-hunting in say Atlas Park as a newbie where you get one or two at a time).

But back to team desirability. I have heard comments like:

"No wonder this AV is taking so long, we only have 1 dedicated damage dealer" - said when I was the only blaster on a team. That team went on to get another blaster...

"Hey we really need more DPS for this team, think you could help us?" - sent to me as a tell from a total stranger.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to stand way back. All my best attack powers (most damage, least time) are close- or no-range. All the AOE buffs and heals are happening in the melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to sound sarcastic here, because my intent and feelings are genuincely wanting to be helpful. I really think you'd be happier as a scrapper. They do very well at the sort of up-close fighting you describe as being fun/enjoyable compared to having to "stand way back".

[ QUOTE ]
What's the point of having a damage AT if I have to get every defensive power pool I can find and 6-slot all those powers, giving my attacks only the left-over slots? I like to play specialists teamed with other specialists, but I'm the only one on the team that has to wait for the Controller to AOE hold before I do anything significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Statesman has acknowledge blasters are too squishy, so expect some love to come to us in the form of some reworked secondaries (pure guesswork). I tend to favor adding non-toggle based sustained defenses intermixed with some "active defenses" such as the holds of the ice blaster. This would make status effects still dangerous (no mez protection) but not doubly lethal in the form of dropping toggles. However it happens though, I would expect some good things "soon(tm)".

In my experience...

Sniper (1acc, 1 interrupt, 4 dmg SOs) by itself will not reliably one-shot an even-level minion. With +3 SOs, and the above slotting, Sniper + Buildup will reliably take out an even-level minion in one shot. Otherwise to reliably take out an even level or +1 level minion takes aim and buildup.

Mind you, I'm a fan of slotting for accuracy even when I don't necessarily "have" to. While my burst damage is a bit lower at times, I've found it far more useful to my playstyle to not _need_ to pop aim to necessarily hit a difficult target, or to have that aim bring me up to the effective acc cap. Better that alpha-strike hits than not.

With Nova (energy's equivilent to the electric ultimate mentioned above) doing about the same BI as Sniper, and with heavier damage slotting (1 acc, 5 dmg) I am able to more reliably take out +1 or even +2 minions (if not resistant to smashing or energy or excessively to either or both). Again, LTs and bosses are generally left with slivers of life. If I am backed by a group, or have ample Catch A Breaths and Lucks (to get end back and survive the return shot) its situationally quite useful.

What's missing though, in the minds of my non-blaster (and especially scrapper-main) friends is that while it may LOOK horribly impressive its not in reality terribly useful. Its a nice little trick for groups and herding, but lacking reliable defense and the vaguaries of resists and even occasional whiffs, its simply not a tool a blaster could even hope to use to solo massive groups of anything. That same attack, in the hands of a scrapper or tanker would be game-breaking because they'd be able to use it in ways a blaster simply can't.

Well, not until they get Rise of the Phoenix in the Pyre Mastery APP anyway (Of course, that still involves debt...)

I'd trade Nova in a hot second for something even 1/4 as good as scrapper or tanker status protection or even 1/4 scrapper-level defenses without needing to dip into my power pools or wait for the APPs.

Some thoughts on pools and what's kept me alive as an energy/energy blaster and in general not more than one deaths worth of debt at a time.

1. Mission difficulty.

For blasters, unless they take the "stealthy-superspeeding-sniper- route and are AE heavy, our heroic = tankers impossible soloed when padded with 8 people. Ok, maybe not quite that bad, but, its rough. Unless you are falling asleep at heroic, leave it there.

2. Medicine Pool

This little gem of a power pool is grotesquely undervalued IMHO. With two SO interrupt reducers in Aid Self, anything less than a constant DoT effect I can get a heal off during. Two +heal enhancers is enough to give me back 1/3 my life, and with 1 interrupt reducer (no, I don't have hasten) I can do that every 15 seconds.

Doesn't sound like much, does it? I can't mez-protect myself, stimulent is other only, but two blasters with this pool tricked out can mez-protect each other, self-heal, and if they buddy-up, heal each other too. Plus there's a rez. Quite handy indeed. I've also found myself in team environments where I've spent more time playing "empathy wannabee" at 40+ than blasting because either the mobs were so purple my hits were for 1/100th normal damage (when they hit) or the extra healing really was simply that necessary.

While it doesn't sound like much, I effectively have a perma-green inspiration that recharges every 15 seconds or so.

3. Flight

Hover, take it, 5 or 6-slot it with +flightspeed. You'll be faster inside missions than anyone except superspeed and you have full and unrestrained 3-dimensional movmenet. Furthermore, it has a relatively low endurance cost and provides +5% defense (all). Defense, as a blaster, is godly so long as you keep your fights in the green-to-white range. Get higher than that, and level based to-hit chances and diminishing effects of powers (such as +def powers) make them largely worthless.

Hover with 6-flightspeed SOs is as fast as unslotted Fly. Bearable as a travel power (hardly desirable) and pretty darned zippy. Also, this lets you take group fly which is panned by the power-builders but can be a real godsend for teams post-40 if you want to play in the shadow shard. Successful blasting and levelling post-40 means teaming, so little "quality of life" things you can do can really help.

4. Leaping

If only for Combat Jumping, this pool is worth it. Very low endurance cost per second and a fast recharge and activation time. Base +5% defense (all) and little boost to jumping when flying isn't real practical (cave missions for instance). Fully slotted with +defbuff SOs and you have +11% defense (all) which when stacked with hover is +5% defense (all). you get to +17%

Combat jumping also provides minimal immobilize resistance, and if you get jump kick or superjump, you can get acrobatics which provides minimal hold resistance. You're still vulnerable to sleeps and disorients, and it doesn't take much to overwhelm the resistances from those pools, but they help.

5. Leadership

If blasters had the same base values for this as controllers or even better: defenders, then this pool might be worth its insane endurance-per-tick cost. One power pool that provides +defense (maneuvers), +damage (assault), and +accuracy (tactics) would be a bargain if running all three didn't completely compensate for fully-slotted stamina and each provided a base benefit higher than 7.5% where controllers get 11% and defenders get 15%. Since enhancements enhance on base value, leadership on a blaster is really a team-benefit option. Combined with medicine and you can really get a "blast-fender" build that can benefit more survivable teammates (and their pets) so long as you are in range.

6. Fitness

I can't say enough good things about this pool. Well, about Stamina. Swift (meh), Hurdle (feh), and Health (bleh) are about worthless. But Stamina, sweet Stamina, will allow you to recover end faster, and thus run more of our only defense options (namely toggles) successfully. If you want to heal fast, go reread medicine. Even 6-slotted with +healing, health will make about .3% more hit point regeneration than 1-slotted health.

Mind you, if Health provided a fixed +hp regen instead of +%hp regen, then it would probably be far more worth slotting it out for low-hp archetypes like ours. If it provided some kind of status resistance to disorients and sleeps then along with leaping one could get mez protection in two pools and would also help. As it stands, take it as a prerequisite for stamina.

Here's a goofy idea.

What if Aim and Buildup were treated as linked attacks? In other words, they are a "type 2" attack whereas something like Power Bolt would be a "type 1". A "type 2" attack damages its target whenever the source of the power damages that same target with a "type 1" attack. The damage dealt by a "type 2" attack would be a set percentage of the damage of the linked attack.

To prevent rampant abuse of the system, only one "type2" damage source could be active, and would be the most recently activated.

5 dmg + Aim + BU (now) = 432% (capped 400%)
5 dmg + Aim + BU (proposed) = 266 + 100 = 366% (aim's bonus got overridden in damage, but its accuracy bonus is still there)

Here's where the magic happens.

A defender gives the blaster a 25% damage buff.
(now) 5 dmg + aim + BU = 432% + 25% = 457% (still capped at 400%)

(proposed) 5 dmg + BU = 366% + 25% (type 1 buffed) + 25% (type 2 buffed) = 416% damage

I am using buildup since its a 100% damage buff. The results if one can stack assault on top of it become even nastier, especially if one has multiple assaut leaders on a team.

Each individual power is capped at 400% damage bonus. However by allowing blaster-self buffs to be treated as "additional damage sources with damage variable and determined by the curent activated power" it allows a blaster to be a true offensive monstrosity on a team when buffed by others, and do precisely what the game manual says blasters are supposed to do compared to scrappers (overshadow them).

You know, I think I could live without any defenses outside of power pools based on that change alone? I can solo my missions at heroic at 41, even the annoying malta/knives of artemis missions. But right now with a higher damage cap and a same base damage modifier, and with range meaning not a lot (if anything), the "strong soloist" archetype derives a larger benefit from being buffed on a team than the more "team dependant" blaster.

Something I don't understand is why there is this need for complexity in game mechanics when a simpler mechanic would eliminate the need for "the numbers" and would reduce the number of places and points where possibly exploitable bugs could happen. As a software developer I know that the more complex a system I write that a) the harder it is to maintain over time and b) the more prone to errors and unforseen interactions with other systems it is.

Take resistances. Why isn't resistance instead of being a percentage reduction of damage of a given type taken, a simple literal damage reduction. So the base resistance to smashing is 100, that means the first 100 points of smashing damage taken is ignored. Then, each enhancement increases the amount of damage reduction as appropriate. Then, "resistance" becomes trivially easy to balance against damage. Balancing the resistance defenses of a tanker against the offfenses of a blaster (which seems a good benchmark) is a simple comparison.

Similarly, recharge reductions, endurance reductions, etc. Instead of a scaling reduction. Have each reduction offer a set % reduction of 5 (training), 10 (DO), or 15 (SO) and then worst case with 6 SO enhancements in a power deveoted to reduction you get a new value that is 20% (6*15=80) of the base. If they are all +3 then its 2%, or effectively instantly recharging, so perhaps 2,7,12 or thereabouts.

The point being that by simplifying how powers work numbers become less necessary, balance becomes easier to achieve, and focus can be on providing challenge in content, not in trying to guess whether or not you're at a cap. Just design powers such that 6 enhancements of the most powerful type is within the desired power liimts.

Its smaller in scale, but its still a raid and it still produces loot and its definitely farmable. One only has to look at the impact this has had on games like EverQuest to see the eventual outcome of this. While I don't begrudge the nifty toy suprise to those who have defeated Hamidon, and someday I'll be part of defeating him myself, my game designer instincts tell me that this is a recipe for "Mony Haulism" in CoH.

Put simply, Hamidon should be a trial, not a "raid" and the enhancements drop once per character. That way they are a nifty bonus, and one rightfully earned, but don't subject the game to the sort of power-inflation (that is, power improves outside of a level-based measurement) that made max-level content in EQ so hard to balance can be avoided.

Alternatively, equivilent or near-equivilent enhancements should be found from other content. Ideally, both would be in place so there wouldn't be "farming" of anything. Just challenging top-level events that provide rewards.

I know in MMORPGs that players are often unwilling to entertain the notion of "I've reached the end, lets roll up something new and try it again only differantly." Perhaps those folks should accept that and do that. Its not all that hard really.