Lyghter

@Spine: The theory behind WP having Mag 3 instead of 4 for the taunt aura is because of how overpowered WP would be if the effort to keep baddies within RttC's range was effortless. In regards to Wanted_NA's question about the justifications... it seems to me the theories could go a few different ways:

Theory 1: WP needs baddies within range for survivability. The other powersets need it for max damage dealing... except that depending on the WPs secondary, the same could be said for WPs and their ability to deal damage. Also, INV relies on Invinc for DEF, which relies on baddies within range too. However, INV has its RES to fall back on for survivability. WP has RttC and MaxHP only for the most part... but INV reaches MaxHP with Dull Pain as it is... which leads to theory #2

Theory 2: WP is the INV that the Devs *really* wanted from the get go and just decided to make it the way they originally intended. Think about it, conceptually, in CoH at least, there's not much difference between WP or INV, unless your INV is costumed in an armor set.

From INV perspective: If you run purely a DEF build and want to reach the soft-cap, getting Tough and Weave is pretty mandatory. If you want to max your RES to 90%, Tough is mandatory... so unless you are happy somewhere in between those two schools of thought, I'd say taking Tough never hurt anybody :-)

I'd take it on my WP tank as well to help mitigate incoming damage to supplement the HP regen.

All in all, Tough has way more pros than cons.

If your team doesn't mind the wait, and if you don't mind taking the stairs, or going around. :-)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because durability is what we don't have in real life.

In real life, offense is king of the battlefield -- we can destroy stuff from the edge of space with satellite-guided precision munitions. We have nukes, for crying out loud.

What we don't have in real life conflict is high durability. Sure, there are isolated examples like composite armor and battleships and the NORAD bunker. But in general, weaponry is to be avoided because our power to destroy far outstrips our power to endure. We don't even need high-tech...even improvised explosive devices kill and wound quite readily.

So in-game, offense is fun...but it's not a paradigm shift. Sure, the team's Blasters leveled the bank robbers. But we already expect bank robbers to get leveled by SWAT teams in the real world.

But the ability to go into hideously dangerous situations with (at least some) confidence -- the durability to go right into the teeth of all that deadly weaponry and stay standing -- that's the fantasy we do not get to live out in the real world.

Durability, defense, mitigation, whatever you want to call it -- THAT'S superhuman.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was unexpectedly insightful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur with this.

Well done, Sailboat.

I agree with everyone here who believes that Inv/SS is a great combo. There's NOTHING in the game the combo can't handle without minimal use of insps, and as always, a well planned/slotted build with and even without IO sets.

There's also versatility with the build, you can make a very damaging, yet uncapped RES tanker that you can supplement easily with insp, or you can make a near god-like maxed RES, soft-capped DEF build that can stand up to Recluse on the STF nearly as good as a Stoner can.

It's a win-win combo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some people seem to be forgetting the difference between kins that sometime SB and those who NEVER. If you don't wanna SB anyone then just don't take the power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even then -- a Kin who never uses Speed Boost ranks pretty darn low on my list of possible problem players. It is nothing that has ever bothered me or is likely to bother me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the OP would make a post about "OMG this kin didn't take SB wtf???"

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a reason for resist elements and resist energies so late or not at all? They both provide significant resists (10%, 15% enhanced) and protects against endurance drain and slows? I personally feel those two powers should be as important in the build as any other powers.

The original plan for the future was Rage at 35, Footstomb at 38. The remaining powers would be from secondaries or the epic pool.

[/ QUOTE ]

The high DEF build helps mitigate against the effects that would be covered under the passives. It's your choice though, CMA's build is high DEF and capped RES, with the soft-cap of DEF with only one mob in your Invinc aura. You can tweak here and there and make it to where you are soft-cap with two or three mobs in the aura and supplement with insp accordingly if you are fighting exotic DMG AVs.

Kicking a comatose horse... but if the flyspeed cap is raised to 75.00mph from 58.63mph (is there a balance explanation for this number?), then I think a lot of people here wouldn't be as disgruntled at the disparity of speed between flight and SS, which caps at 92.50mph.

In summation: My only gripe I can come up with is the gap between 58.63 and 92.50.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My rad corr was use the last time I tried the Nictus first strategy. As I recall the Nictus were either highly resistant to debuffage if not outright immune. Romulus however is another matter.

Nowadays I just pummel Romulus into the dirt 4 times, much for satisfying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only more satisfying but more rewarding. You don't get xp, inf or drops from the nictus as far as I know. And yes, Rom can be debuffed and held. I've heard that some of the powers from the Cold Domination set work on the nictus. I'm just trying to find out if that's true and how effective it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Nict are virtually impervious to any debuffage from what I've seen. Better to just smash Romulus 4 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what archetypes you have in your team how you go about doing this. All the guides I have read have a different strategy and claim it to be the best. I have done the TF three times (not claiming to be an expert) and each time went about it differently. First time we took out the nictus and then Rom last. It was quick and easy. Though I should explain that it was during beta, and at the time the healing nictus was not healing at the time. Second run we tried that and went for the spawning nictus first. We then took out the mire nictus and attempted at the healer. We were there for the longest time. Some of the team left. In the end we then went to rom and defeated him, let the nictus suicide res him and beat him up a second time. Third time we were in there for hours dying left and right. Everyone argued, "healing nictus first, healing nictus first." But he healed himself and every other av within the healing range. And I don't care what people say, you can argue with me till the end of time. That nictus healed himself and the others. And I checked the attributes of that twilight grasp, it's pretty wicked. So after six or seven wipes I decided to take charge and told everyone to get the summoning nictus first. If you are going to take out the nictus first I believe the spawning one is the primary target in debuff/buff heavy teams. People argue all the time about it, but taking it down first was our reason for victory in this instance. My reasoning: those nictus blasts have slow effects. The heals, taunts and holds were all affected by the slow and we just couldn't hold out. After that one was down everyone decided to go after rom again. We did, and got him down, the mire nictus ressed him. There was a surgeon, and the team argued who ressurected rom, but it was the nictus because at this point it was only rom and the healer. We then had a tank solo the healer while another tank pulled rom around the corner while close enough so the healer wouldn't follow him. Being around the corner, we were "blocked" targets and the nictus couldn't feed off all of us. We defeated rom again. At this point, he was out of range for the nictus to res him. At this point we all charged the healer and took it down VERY slowly. I would have preffered letting it res rom and fight him again.

There are many ways of going about it and I think any tactic that leads to victory is a good tactic. I don't believe there is a "perfect" way to do it after all I have read and experienced. You should go about it how it works best for your team whether you go for either of the nictus or rom first. Either way, it takes a bit of time and can be extra challenging. Just don't give up because it's obviously not impossible. Best of luck to everyone!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key here in all of your situations was to take Rom away from the fight period whether that's by not targeting him, or pulling him away out of aura range. I only base this off my latest ITF run where I occupied him while the rest of the team nailed the healing nictus first. I suppose the healing nictus only reacts to damage going to Rom, but otherwise has no feelings of self-preservation it seems.

Anyways, whatever works and gets the job done is all that matters.

I think Crimson's and Tony's points are a bit of the same except from different vantage points.

Crimson thinks that the team shouldn't be affected by players dropping from the TF because what they start as a team fighting spawns of 8 shouldn't change because someone leaves. The team is affected by the loss of a member by losing their assistance. That's real. Adjusting a spawn size during a TF is totalitarian and shows too much control over a miniscule aspect of the game and robs the experience a player should have going through the loss of a teammate. The main point of this view is that the team's reward is affected, which I wish wasn't the case.

I agree.

Tony thinks that since everything is so team oriented, every aspect of your gaming experience in a TF should reflect the "team" and that if someone leaves, you should feel the penalty of losing a member by forcing the game to adjust to your new group size. This makes complete sense and follows the old Statesman's desire that COH be team oriented. This forces people to stay on the TF (another difficult thing to do, this game isn't exactly for kids who have all the time in the world) and in essence on a personal gaming level, affects you socially as a team.

I also agree... but Tony is addressing more on a social level, when Crimson is addressing it on a more game-based level.

Say hello to the Devs and the never ending dichotomy of providing either a great gaming experience, or a great social gaming experience. In order to achieve this they have to weigh both of these ideas.

Social gaming experience requires rules to keep everything "social" related.

Great gaming experience means having to make the game as such to provide riveting gameplay that may or may not stress you out enough to where winning a level or beating a mish gives you satisfaction in your efforts.

Because either way, you will be affected by losing a member. The only real difference between these points of view is that Crimson is willing to accept the added difficulty of a TF if a member drops because that's a team dynamic he wants to be able to experience if that be the case.

So here's my simplistic idea that will prevent manipulating the TF mob loads based on team numbers and still keep a reward system that is attractive for teams to do the TF. (Feel free to make this more complicated)

1. Instead of auto-adjusting mob size to fit team number... keep it the same size mob so that the experience of losing a member is felt by the added difficulty. This is a great gaming experience.
2. If the team drops below a certain number let's say 3. Enable the TF to automatically fail.

These two concepts solve both Tony's and Crimson's desires...

Tony gets his idea that team members dropping should affect the TF in terms of win or lose in regards to the importance of "teaming" by making the reward not so significant or easily attained. Blame your team if you fail.

Crimson gets to keep his idea that mob size shouldn't be affected by an 8 man team that drops down to 4 or 3 committed players. With the penalty being for 2 or lower being an auto-incomplete.

Thirdly, the TF gains its rightful reputation for being something that you and some friends must commit to, and that it is not intended nor should be allowed to be some kind of solo-able stack of missions that can be exploited by anchors or farms.

***I know... I personally wish that if my team drops to just me, I would like the opportunity to finish the TF by myself with my tank and try to grind through the seemingly impossible.

***At the same time, PUGs (least good ones) seem hard to come by unless you are a certain AT and it seems rare to find people who actually want to play the game and not just farm all the time.

All in all this is a big beast to fix, and I think that the game is back on track in terms of IOs, and I think the Ouroboros addition opens the door to some other good things in the future.