Moonlighter

From what I can tell, a well slotted Cloak of Fear often pins minions in place cowering, preventing them from running. Damage ticks give them an opportunity to attack, but the fear keeps them from running.

If the splash screen was drawn such that the entire layout drew my eyes to an exaggerated view of Statement's nostril I would still not like the picture. It has nothing to do with sexual preference, and everything to do with questionable layout.

I apologize if my comment came out an overly negative. I love scrappers, and can't wait to reroll my main as Staff. I really like Staff/Energy aura on test.

Um, my main is a scrapper and I far prefer the scrapper play style to that of a Brute.

Interesting. That is not my experience. Early before substantial damage enhancement Fury makes my Brutes hit *much* harder until SOs were my scrappers catch up.

There has been a lot of discussion over whether a scrapper offers advantages that make it worth playing over an equivalent Brute, and there are players on both sides of the fence with a variety of opinions and arguments there. I think it was established early on in most of these discussions that /Shield Defense was definitely a set that favored Scrappers for a variety of reasons previously discussed.

If someone wants to jump on add anecdotal evidence that Scrappers offer as much as Brutes then Shield Defense is probably not the set to use to make that comparison. It is pretty well established that the set is awesome on scrappers.

Um, it's the fact that Fury dilutes the big AAO damage bonus, and chasing Fury means sometimes opening with a Shield Charge means you'll be doing less comparative damage. The scrapper higher damage modifier really makes a big difference here and isn't boosted by Fury like damage auras are. And yes, it has a taunt aura as well.

PS: Taunt aura or bust!

Yes, when using Shield Defense as the comparison scrappers are awesome. They have the brute advantage of a taunt aura, and they are one of the few secondaries that work better on scrappers because of the AAOs and the mechanics of Shield Charge.

We are not talking about new players though.

Yep.

There is some percentage of players that will have no problems coming back to a game and spending 30 minutes to an hour of busy work running around to make their characters playable.

There are also many players that when confronted by a long set up period for a game will not bother.

Guess whose money is valuable to this company. All of those players.

Making some design decisions to give players a smooth transition back into the game when they return and try to play their old characters is generally a smart move. It won't inconvenience you. You will read up and spend your time futzing with builds before you play. Other types of players will be able to try out content immediately and the chance of retaining them is increased. Everyone wins, provided a method can be implemented in a reasonable time frame and the revenue stream is not compromised.

I am not suggesting IOs simply be free. I am only suggesting some ways the game can make it easier for returning players to jump right into the action.

Returning players have no way of knowing about this trial. Most wouldn't even know about the second build. You know what a returning player probably doesn't want to do? Research the game and its options after 4 years and doing 30 minutes or an hour of busy work before they go and bash heads.

In my experience of trying to get my friends back to the game the most likely scenario is this.

They ***** about whatever game they are playing and I mention I still love City of Heroes. We talk about MMOs and I reiterate the game's strengths; the best endgame of any MMO I play, sidekicking and exemp, the best customization of any game, and much improved content.

At this point almost every single one logs in some night while I'm not around out of curiousity. The game has that one shot to give them a good experience. If they are turned off, that's it I lose them. If they log onto their main and can't try the game out because their whole slotted character is functionally unslotted they will log off and go play their normal games. I've seen this multiple times.

These are people who have no problem spending money, but if they are forced to go through the process of spending money immediately to play they won't, not because they have an issue spending money but because it's easier to log off and play another game they are familiar with rather than go through the hassle.

When a returning player is in the "dip my toes in the water" phase of returning, it is my experience that hassles make them abandon the process not because they don't want to spend the money, but more because they don't want to be confronted with research to try out recent game developments. Forcing a player to swap builds and make decisions on powers and slotting after 4 years away makes them log out.

This is only my anecdotal evidence of what I have seen from getting friends to come back to the game so take it with a grain of salt.

Sorry, where did I suggest that the AI needed no improvements? My point is exactly what you said; that "fixing" dumpster diving wasn't so much a giant improvement in AI as not allowing creature stacking, having definitive AoE caps, and having an agro cap.

The person I was replying to was suggesting that any AI fixes we were talking about (ie. less sensitivity to debuffs and DoTs when checking for a flee condition) would re-introduce dumpster diving, and one could even interpret their response to suggest that the goal of those who wouldn't mind AI tweaks would be to re-introduce dumpster diving and similar tactics. I was refuting that, pointing out that the "solution" to dumpster diving wasn't really an AI solution in the first place, and the changes we are talking about wouldn't allow us to replicate those tactics.

Agreed. If we are discussing AI tweaks, we are only suggesting making enemies somewhat less sensitive to low grade debuffs.

The problem with dumpster diving wasn't an AI issue. It was the game allowing enemies to stack / overlap each other combined with no real AoE caps. A character with a taunt aura can still get enemies to clump, and no one is suggesting a change to the agro cap.

Let's be reasonable here, I think if we are talking AI tweaks we are looking for the AI to be somewhat less sensitive to low grade debuffs.

That's fair.

Wait, what point are we discussing here? I am responding to the suggestion that at least part of the problem with blasters is melee with taunt auras, because the logical next step to that suggestion is that removing taunt auras would help balance blasters. I don't believe it would, I don't believe it's necessary, and I do believe that doing that would make other top builds pull away from melee without improving Blaster's lot in virtual like. Blasters would still need help against the other top builds, and melee would dip slightly from middle of the pack.

You seem to be arguing that the lack of taunt auras do not make scrappers useless and that, if I read this response right, blindly adding taunt auras to scrappers is a solution you would rather avoid.

If that's your point I don't entirely disagree.

I am not advocating blindly adding taunt auras to scrappers. I do believe that the AI's sensitivity to low grade debuffs is currently a problem which Brutes do not need to face. I also believe that I should be able to overcome the lack of a taunt aura on a scrapper in a high end build using the Incarnate system or the IO set bonus system. I would even support having a taunt aura power in the power pools. My current favorite suggestion is having a Reactive alternate that adds a taunt aura.

Making the AI less sensitive to inherit low grade debuffs could also help the situation.

That said, the taunt aura issue is only one small factor in the question "Why make this a scrapper?"

In my opinion the health difference between the two is substantial enough to warrant the small damage difference. The Brute's extra health is not only a buffer to incoming damage, but it makes heals bigger and regen better. That's great, that's their thing, and I fully support this. In my mind if Brutes had only this advantage things would be roughly balanced. Brutes have better health, heals, and regen. Scrappers have better burst damage and DPS over time.

But Brutes get two "freebie" benefits that really make scrappers fall behind. Setting the taunt aura aside for a second, the 90% resistance cap is really a big deal. It wouldn't be an issue if Brutes and Scrappers couldn't exceed 75% without outside buffs or inspirations. The advantage is exaggerated because some secondaries can exceed scrapper resists by themselves, and the game is structured in a way to allow characters to leverage those resists. Specifically, the fact that Brutes can with no outside buffs hit 90% Fire resist (for Fire) or 90% Energy resist (for Elec) is a big advantage. Because the game has an end game that is heavy in Energy and a way to manipulate content that has only Fire damage this side benefit is exaggerated to a large degree. I have as big of an issue giving up 90% Energy resistance to play a /Electric scrapper as I do giving up a taunt aura for a Katana character.

As for taunt auras, I think one reason I see this as a bigger deal is I have different definitions of offense. My definition of "offense" is time based, not statistic based. In other words, offense translates in my mind to "How much time will it take me to complete this combat oriented content." I am looking at survivability versus time to complete content. Because of the taunt aura and weird AI idiosyncrasies, my Brutes take less time to complete combat oriented content than my scrappers, at least once I pump up the number of enemies. To me, that means Brutes have better offense.

You can argue with that definition, and that's cool, but the ultimate resource for me as a professional is time so time to complete is the most real definition of offense I can use. It's a personal definition.

With that in mind, when I look at the balance here I see scrapper falling behind in offense (since on higher difficulty killing off the runners makes the entire task take longer than Brutes with a taunt aura) and in defense by a set percent because of lower health, *and* a Brute can seek out content where they are also taking 2/5 incoming damage when resists are capped at 90%.

Still, all these discussion points are meant to support two things:

1.) Removing the taunt aura from melee is not a good way to balance blasters. Blasters have bigger balance issues.

2.) Having a way to add a taunt aura to high end scrappers through Incarnate powers, IO sets, or power pools would be a desire of mine and would not overpower scrappers.

MA/SR is just a bad example. Since it has no debuff built in to all of its attacks, and since it has no damage aura, and since its AoE does knockdown, and since it has a lot of built in control it doesn't suffer nearly as much from runners. While runners are occasionally annoying on MA/SR, that combination simply doesn't see the large scale scatter that Katana or Broadsword see when they PBAoE and lay a defense debuff on 10 foes who all run in different directions as a result.

It may seem strange to some, but I'd rather have an AT that is weaker but still provides an alternate playstyle (such as blaster versus Brute) than a situation where an AT is superfluous because although the playstyle is the same one is vastly superior in survivability and quality of life (such as scrapper versus brute.) In other words, I have an answer when someone says "Why do you play your blasters over your Brutes?" One the other hand, I am having a hard time answering "Why do you play your scrapper over a Brute with the same sets." My stock answer of "hate chasing fury" just isn't cutting it anymore. Fury is easy to maintain, it makes the lower levels much easier by providing much more benefit to pre-slotted characters, and the survivability and taunt aura of Brutes completely overwhelms the small advantage scrappers are seeing in pylon runs.

I agree that blasters don't really have a champion. This not only causes blasters in general to fall behind, but blasters are wildly imbalanced from set to set. One thing I like is that the scrapper sets are very well balanced from set to set, and that is IMO largely due to a high level of good discussion and math from this forum. Blasters sets vary so much in effectiveness that you can really choose some lackluster set combos. The good sets for blasters are far superior to the bad sets - something that the scrapper forums have kicked to death long ago.

You have a good point about taunt auras and blaster advantages. The big advantage to ranged sets should be a large damage zone where they can threaten and damage foes in a huge area without wasting time traveling. Taunt auras do serve to negate this advantage by collapsing the enemy group into a small area. I recognize that point.

Personally I don't find chasing runners to be compelling, and have no desire to "balance" Brutes versus Blasters or Scrappers by removing taunts. I think that would make melee far more annoying to play, which I don't want to do, and also do nothing to address blasters versus other sets. But I have never been a fan of the "make them pay for their power by making their gameplay less fun" philosophy in balancing.

Plus, in the greater scheme of things people often act like Scrappers and even Brutes are on top of the food chain. But honestly those ATs are middle of the pack in effectiveness. Crabs and Widows, Doms and some Controllers, well built Masterminds, and some corruptors and defenders can all eclipse scrappers and even brute in raw effectiveness over a wide range of tasks. There's nothing wrong with Scrappers and Brutes, and I'm not saying they needs buffs, but what I am saying is that knocking down scrappers and brutes by getting rid of taunt aura or anything else will not make blasters balanced.

Fixing the AI would work fine. It is also in my mind the least likely solution to the problem, not only because it's more difficult to do but because the devs have said that it wasn't an issue.