Phoenix_Lord

[ QUOTE ]
Let me run something by you, you tell me what you think. What if unlockable contact were left completely unreferred to and completely unmentioned, but once you found them, they gave missions straight away, or told you in plain English exactly what you need.

That way they would still be rewards for the explorrs, as a lot of them are so out of place I've personally never seen them, let alone unlcok them, but it would be simpler once you actually find them.

What do you think about that, just as a concept off the top of my head?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is still the problem of outlevelling them unknowlingly or outlevelling them in an efforto meet their requirements.

I do not like the current implementation of the unlockable contacts, either. Without seeing information on the boards, I would never have known about them, or their requirements. Once I did find out about them, I found I had already outlevelled most of them (I just had Johnny Sonate and Leery left).

For one, I don't like missing on content I never knew existed. I know I missed some SFs, but I can go back and do those any time with the auto-exemp feature. Adding this to the unlockables (in addition to expanding the level range) might go a long way to helping the problem -- autoexemp upon entering a mission. (Actually, this should be done for all missions/contacts that we may have missed along the way -- particularly those badge-giving contacts in the 10-15 range I always outlevel)

Another problem, as I see it currently, is that in the late game, you actually need these contacts to continue levelling in story content. Without Leery and Sonata, I would have fallen short of making it to 40 with mission content. Actually, even with them, it required doing other people's missions, etc. in order to get there.

I definitely agree with those wanting more in-game clues to the existance of these contacts. Scratch was added to our contact list immediately, as are the brokers. Once we unlock a contact, we should get "Badge Earned" and "Contact Unlocked" messages on the screen, and the contact should either be placed in our list. We should get hints about the contact location/requirement before unlocking, as well. Either through civilians, contacts, or the newspaper (it could pop up level appropriate stories that don't link to specific missions like "Mysterious Slot Machine urges heroes to kill Family", or somesuch).

[ QUOTE ]

• Fortunata Mistresses: These level 30+ Bosses look like Fortunata Seers, but the detailing on their costumes is bright red instead of black. They are Fortunata Seers on steroids, whipping off nasty attack chains from the entire Psi Blast line of powers. Prepare to be stunned, knocked back, immobilized, slept and generally be dealt a boatload of damage at range. They do not use melee attacks. They also have both Leadership/Tactics and Leadership/Maneuvers, and (at close range at least) they can see through at least pool stealth with Tactics.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still having nightmares about running across one of these ladies +1 to me. She wiped the floor with my Dominator 4 times before I took her out. More challenging than any elite boss has been so far (except Aurora Borealis as an EB).

They also seem extraordinarily resistant to mezzes (at least the ones I have). Even with Domination up, it took multiple hits to lock her down. Her damage was scary. The mez resistance was compounded by the -recharge she has on a number of powers. All in all a scary opponent (for a dom), which required Domination and a trayfull of Inspirations to defeat. In other words, I needed to treat her like a tough EB.

I'm with most questioning the classification of Superior Invisibility as a basic stealth power. First it's superior. Second it's invisibility, not simple stealth. Third, it's a primary power from a set based on being a master of illusion.

I'm also in the camp that does not understand the need or rationale for supressing the defense portion of any stealth power. If you're hard to see, you're hard to see (a la Predator). You'll be difficult to target.

With the stealth suppression, I'm not as sure. I do think that nothing should be suppressed until after an affect actually affects the target, not at initiation. I do see why stealth should be reduced (you are making your presence known) if you attack, but not eliminated. The aggro rules already seem to handle what needs to be done. The target hit and a small number surrounding are made aware of your presence. This is already stealth suppression.

The part about stealth suppression upon being hit makes little sense as well.

If there does have to be a suppression, 10 seconds seems too long. 4-5 sec seems more reasonable.

Also, if there is suppression, I think that while stealth powers are active, there should be an active - aggro effect. This means that mobs quickly lose track of you while you are stealthed. Simpler stealth would take longer, more advanced stealth (invisibilty) would be more robust in its - aggro effects.

All in all, I hate suppression. I hate suppression on advanced movement powers, I hate suppression on stealth powers (although I must grudgingly admit that this makes at least a little sense in some ways). It is a poor and intrusive game mechanic which breaks the suspension of disbelief and the flow of what was previously an excellent game in terms of feel and dynamics.

They say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are a few things that were broken and needed fixing for I5, this wasn't one of them. This change, above all others stinks of being solely derived from PvP balance issues. There were no PvE exploits that I am aware of.

You've said many things States, and been misquoted many times. But one thing you said, a clarified explicitly, was that you would not make any changes solely for PvP. Please, why is this necessary under any consideration for PvE?

BTW, I also like the confusion effect put forth. I think that mobs need to be more confused in general at the start of combat. Shot out of the darkness? Immediate, accurate response. Friend disappears into thin air? (TP Foe) Immediate running to the arrival point, even if behind walls. And the mob teleported? Often gets it's swing in before the teleporter can ready an attack. This is something that has been broken for the longest time, but receives no attention -- probably because, while more realistic and believable, actually makes players more powerful, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

I tend to fall on one side or the other of the story, "heroism" and pacing issues, balancing out to be slightly put off by the new series.

But one thing that really bothers me is Stateman's origin. I can deal with the Zeus thing, classic comic book. But he becomes Paragon's (Earth's?) most powerful hero just because he was hiking around and took a drink? How hard was this fountain to find? Why haven't inumerable others also drank from this fountain and become godlike?

I just think that becoming an Incarnate would have been more impressive, involving some proof that you would be worthy of such a mantle of power. Origins don't always have to be long, involved, or profound, but for such an Iconic figure, is that the best that they could come up with? Taking a drink from a fountain he happened upon?

Anyways, I have less and less respect for the Statesman character having read these two issues. Will he redeem himself in the future? Maybe. But my impression of him has changed dramatically for the worst.

Yes, but also many more mapserver issues, at least until this last patch, which seems to have improved both quite a bit for me. Not sure if it's a coincidence...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a tendency in this game to stack drawbacks - tanker and Kheldian design come immediately to mind. Now it's extended to wolf missions. "You get this beneft, so you'll get this penalty, and this penalty, and this penalty." Eventually, the idea of risk vs. reward gets skewed and people feel punished for trying to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've noticed this tendency too, and find it very annoying. Statesman says that the new change is intended to make it so that less people will do rewarding but unfun things by making one of the unfun but rewarding things less rewarding. Taking that at face value, it still comes down to the fact that some people farmed the wolf missions and as a result of that the developers made a change that, potentially, impacts everyone negatively. Once again we see the phenomenon of the few ruining somethign for the many. I think that, at base, a few people finding some weird tricks and using them over and over is responsible for a lot of this Benefit-penalty-penalty-penalty-penalty business.

I'd like to see solutions that make less people do unfun behavior but don't put additional penalties on the people who never engaged in the unfun behavior in the first place. Unfortunately, sometimes that simply isn't possible. With mission, though, maybe it is. AS it stands, each character can have no more then 3 missions at a time anyway. What if, in addition to tracking the missions that characters had while the character is offline, the game also tracked the number of mobs left alive in the mission when you last visited. Let's get a tiny bit more sophisticated and track the number of minions/lieutenants/bosses/AVs separately for each mission so that, we may not get the exact mobs right, but we can get the mobs approximately correct when you go back in. We could even recall the number of people that was in the team for the mission last so that it still adjusts the mobs based on team size. The upshot is that if you go into the mission after logging out or resetting the mission it doesn't really reset the mission. The mobs may get repositioned slightly, but there won't be any more mobs, so you can't farm missions. You can't behave in "unfun" behavior in this way. Yet, any benefits (badges, killing AVs, taking your time, doing the mission with a team of friends who don't all happen to be on when you get it, all of that is still possible.

Sounds reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

H, this is very similar to a suggestion I posted yesterday in the Suggestions Forum -- saving mission status . I think it has to apply to glowie status as well, since those are farmable missions, too.

Note: All of this is proposed given that the devs feel that mission farming is a problem. I make no claims as to my personal opinions on farming and don't wish to enter that debate, I merely want to try to offer another solution to the farming "problem" which might be less of a penalty for everyone else playing the game "properly" (according to devs).

Chances are they've been doing a lot of internal testing on these ATs before saying anything else. At least I hope that's the case.

What I would like to know is when the changes will make it to Test (with the rest of I4) so that we can re-evaluate our builds, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

What States is referring to is the fact that a human-form Kheldian in a full team has a (probably) 30 or 40% damage resistance - base - that doesn't even count any toggle shields (at another 27% base resist each).



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this is not the case. As of right now, human Kheldians start out with a -30% base resist. That means that in a balanced 8-man team (assume 3 "resist-givers"), the Kheldian will be at 0%. With unslotted shields, 27%. In order to get to 30 or 40% base defense, you'd need to be surrounded by "resist-givers" currently.

True, if the changes mentioned a while back go into effect (still not on Test even), you can make that claim, but right now, on live, those numbers are wrong.

Now, you can get to about 59% resist on everything (little higher for energies) by six slotting all shields and being in the "balanced" eight man team. Surround yourself with "resist-givers" and you can hit the cap

This, of course, does not take light form into account.

Keep in mind that the same comments can be said of the damage potential as well.

Just for the record, soloed three missions last night. Two against Sky Raiders, one against Banished Pantheon. None had any indication that there would be a boss. All three had bosses. One had a named boss. I bugged all three.

I have another concern which I did not notice being brought up. I have been suprised by Timed missions during my gameplay in CoH. This is bad enough. Those timed missions have had Bosses in them. I could solo them with care/preperation. If bosses are made to the point that they cannot be soloed, please remove them from all timed missions, or at least the ones which are unavoidable or not clearly marked. And, yes, there are timed missions which are either not clearly marked or are linked to the completion of a hunt, etc. which cannot be avoided or delayed.

Even if I were willing to draw a team for such missions, I might not be able to. So you force me to fail a mission by placing an undefeatable foe in a timed mission which I did not have warning before initiating.

Please consider this.

Ever since release, we have had "suprise timed" missions. We've asked to fix them. No dice. The boss changes now compound the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
Food for thought. If they elimate the -30 penalty in human form and lower hit points down, the lower hp is going to effect our Nova and Dwarf play(since our shapeshifted forms dont have the -30 penalty, but all forms share the hp) in a negative manner, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and posted similar concerns in the Dev Corner

Also, lowered HP will make us even more susceptible to Quantum weapons/Voids. Not a good thing as these guys are almost too much as they are.

I think this proposed change is a step in the right direction. It may effect the ability to tank, have to go on to Test to find out.

More importantly, with the reduced hit points, this puts the Nova form at a significant disadvantage. Since they have no defense aside from range, blaster HP and a -15% resistance will spell defeat all too often. The Nova forms need their resistances set to 0% as well for this to work.

There is still the question of damage penalties being assessed in one way and the bonus being assessed in another. Please look at this. The penalty should not affect the base, it should be like a negative enhancement. Affecting the base has far too much influence on the scaling and future enhancements.

The other option is for the grouping bonuses to effect the base as well, which would make the grouped Kheldians very desireable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. What did they fix that wasn't broken? Smoke grenade? Or was it the fire imps?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Fire Imps

Statesman has said as much directly. I don't have the reference quote, may be in the 100+ page thread on them in the controller forum, but Fire Imps were were reduced because they were too effective, not because of a bug.

Before you point to the classification of Imps, they could have altered the class without dramatically altering the stats.

They changed Imps in a substantial way, to their detriment. They were not broken. Perhaps overpowered, but not as a result of a bug (like SG), but as a result of failing to balance them propoerly in them first place. Now they have been hit hard (let me hear you not complain if your biggest attack is reduced by over 50%).