Memphis_Bill

Can't help it. I have a KM/SR Brute. Love playing her... but the sound effects just are jarringly *funny* to me. So I'll admit getting stuck on those. (And the animations. Swirly-swirly-punch! "Guess what I've got in my hand... and spin and spin and PUNCH to the head!")

But ignoring it and going with values and secondary effects, yeah, I can see it being more helpful.

Oni, I think I'm just so used to how it is NOW that I'm having a hard time thinking of how it'll play the way you're suggesting. Which isn't really a count against the idea itself.

(As an *overall* MM buff, I'd like to see MM attacks do a bit more damage - so I can actually finish off a runner, instead of shooting them and hearing them yell "Damn mosquito!" But that's neither here nor there. Though it "feels" more of an issue in bots and ninjas, to me.)

All of the above, seconded.

Though what removes some "bugged about" feelign with proliferation is having sets customized a bit - so it's more "following a theme" than "direct port." I *would* like a little more uniqueness, but on the flip side, I'm an altaholic and like all the choices.

Having one power be decided to get that out of bounds doesn't mean the guideline (such as it is) is any more lenient. It's that that power was so out of whack that the devs couldn't find a better way to repair it.

And I really *can't* think of any other powers that fit that description - most I can think of fixing can stay as they are, but with tweaks (such as making into a toggle and/or adjusting values.)

I'm suspecting that's a "We're not done with the story everyone can play through yet, we'll do that before anything regarding a PEAT."

That said, I still basically consider the Incarnate system the PEAT.

Yep, the stalker. (Yes, I'm kidding.)

For quite some time, the Stalker was generally considered the villainside sorta-equivalent of the blaster. Damage in exchange for squishiness. Blasters get snipe (the old "range as defense,) among other things - but then again, they also get some pretty hefty melee attacks, as well. (Can't always say AOEs, really, though they're rarely hurting in that department.)

The stalker's issue *does* seem to be the single-target focus, really. Yeah, I can really knock down a single foe's health... meanwhile, the fire/claws brute has turned the rest of the group into ground chuck (and dave and sarah.)

Part of it *may* have been a PVP focus for the AT. Not having designed it, I don't know.

I like playing Stalkers - but there are so few places where their abilities are really allowed to shine. Stealth? OK. Skip all the fighting in the middle and PL yourself through newspaper missions... which doesn't help in other situations. (Or we get some rather blatant catering such as the bunkers in Keyes - "HELLO, you MAY want someone who can SNEAK IN THE SIDE DOOR! I WONDER WHO THAT COULD BE?" Ugh.)

I do think Stalkers need... *something.* They've gotten some decent buffs and adjustments, yes. I'm not sure AOEs are "it," but I wouldn't turn them down. Something that makes them more wanted on a team, like debuffs (aside from the chance to terrorize on a non-lethal AS) might help.

Edit: Hmm. instead of Melee Blasters, think more Melee Corruptor. Each set has some secondary effect *anyway.* Increase that effect, put it in an AOE radius - of course, stalker survivability is still in question there. But it's adding value in a team situation.

Read the link again. no, it's not eliminated. It's pretty basic design. As for why the change... we're probably looking at "worked against the AT and wasn't taken, and just readjustments wouldn't fix it."

1. Don't think you have to worry about changes to doms. They were underperforming before, then we got the domination change - I don't think they're up for a major change,

2. Repulse -> Disrupt = Fold Space -> Wormhole/Singularity and TK -> Ally Fly to Enemy Hold/Repel. (Though I could argue it's less dramatic of a change - it's still a PBAOE control.)

It's heroside.
It's tied to a specific bit of lore, and has storyarcs of its own.
It's an archetype.

Already deserves the title, thanks.

As for the rest, no.

What makes PVPing fun for PVPers? What makes RPing fun for RPers?

If your response is "There's no one answer," well...

The one I can understand (not being a badger myself - other than the "born in WI, has supported these teams" type) is that they're "mini goals." I have friends who chase after the badges, and when they finally get something (over-#-badges, or a master-of, or a particularly difficult or grindy one,) they're thrilled.

It's a bit like some of the Steam achievements, I suppose, which can let you change your gameplay or try something a bit more difficult ("Hey, let's go for gold on the survival level," or "Let me try to take out that Tank by myself!") to keep things interesting.

So stop being that way.

*points up to Arcanavilles post*

Unsurprisingly, I think she highlights something I was overlooking as not being obvious - as the above "documented" demand shows.

I have, several times, with examples. As have at *least* two others.

You want it pared down to essence, in plain terms? Here:

Any change done to a power will not alter its fundamental purpose.

Examples of times they've broken this - both prior to Issue 1:
- Removing Fold Space, moving Wormhole up and inserting Singularity.
- Changing Telekenesis from an Ally Fly to a ranged repel/hold.
(You could argue about Defiance, perhaps, but that's not so much a "power.")

Examples brought up in the past as it being "broken" when it hasn't been:
- Conserve Power to Energize: The powers original purpose, providing an END discount "buff," didn't change. It did, however, get a heal added to it.
- Burn gaining a fear - or losing it later.
- Instant Healing going from a toggle to a click.
- Or for a more recent one, shields becoming AOE, and/or Null the Gull's effect on the speed modification portion of some buffs.

The changes to total focus, to use your example, were changes within the cottage rule. Timing. Base purpose of a power. They do not invalidate slotting or anything else a player had worked for.

What you're *not* seeing is the difference in the degree of trust the developers maintain by having that guideline in place. Someone else mentioned SWG. That's trampling all OVER what we'd call the cottage rule. Or, for a COH example - PVP, pre and post I13. Or, for that matter, the "respect" Jack is held in for little gems like "We arent' making any more wholesale changes to powers" ... just before ED.

It's not "People would quit over a change." People do, no matter how large or small. But without that assurance in place - and using it, forum-side, as a counterargument to massive, thoughtless changes that are at times proposed by the playerbase because, for instance, "I don't like Dimension Shift and want to see it ripped from the game!" - what's to keep you at *all* trusting the devs DO have a "bigger picture" to follow? Or to swap some dev team members and turn Regen, for instance, into a passive defense set, invalidating a set's entire playstyle, not to mention what could be quite a bit of work and time on the behalf of the player to get it IO'd out "just right?"

Plus, just read what you yourself are saying. First, you're making some claim that it restricts the devs. It does not. IF they feel a power is SO out of whack it needs wholesale replacement, they *will* do it. But it won't be their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth choice.

Second, you've basically said "get rid of the cottage rule... but keep following it." So what's the point in arguing for it to be gone anyway? They ALREADY make changes with "the bigger picture in mind." The cottage rule does not prevent that. Don't paint it as if it does.

Essentially, you have no argument for getting rid of the cottage rule making *anything* different, much less better.

Assuming you mean Jayboh, he doesn't have an actual reason. He just wants to get rid of it for "developer freedom" or something. Then decides not to give examples to why. Don't bother with him.

Basically, nobody *for* this has shown understanding of the rule, what it is, why it's in place as a guideline, etc. They just "want it gone" in some belief that it's actually hampering the developers or some such. Or that "I don't like this power, it should go away," ignoring the last time the devs did that they were nearly lynched.

Essentially, the conversation's not worth having.

Ahh, not true. If it worked, you could use it as an AOE hold, and stack your single target hold with it. (Poison Trap - placed AOE hold/sleep/-end.)

IF it worked.

At which point you could send your melee in with Noxious Gas to beat on and debuff that held group.

IF Poison Trap worked.

Poison Trap's biggest problem?

It doesn't work.

While I don't recall it having a performance hit, I do agree - it'd need testing with Ultra mode.

And fewer boards showing the same ad.