ProcessedMeatMan

[ QUOTE ]
I warned everyone that Elec Melee was going to suck.

Elec Armor however.. is a swiss army knife... If you can't take advantage of the fact it has almost no real build weaknesses, then you're not playing with the right tactics....or you're trying to solo things you shouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you're not willing to devote half of your powers on power pools, thereby actually not taking many of the powers in the set.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it quite odd that Electric Melee is more smashing damage than energy damage. I was kinda expecting it to be the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brute actually got this quite a bit more favorably than Blaster, the Brute versions are a much more even split. The Blaster versions are almost completely smashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Charged Brawl and Havoc Punch (Blaster versions) are more Energy than Smashing. In fact, I'm near positive this is how it is.

The Blaster Thunder Strike, on the other hand, is almost entirely Smashing.

I'm seriously hoping the Devs are using their famed "Weak now so we can buff it later after testing" approach to these sets... because, quite frankly, Electric melee and Electric Shields are decidedly sub-par.

Hey Voodoo, I think you may have posted that in the wrong thread! D'oh!

[ QUOTE ]
Without relying on Bitter Freeze Ray + Freeze Ray + Char + Shocking Grasp. That would be Mag 12, shhhhhhh some people don't know about this still.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apologies in advance for the hijack, but I'm curious.
Do you know if it's possible to cycle enough mezzes with an Electric/Electric/Electric Blaster (Tesla Cage, Shocking Grasp, Shocking Bolt) to overcome a Brute/Tank/Scrapper's mezz protection?
I've never slotted them for it or ever really tried. Is this within the realm of possibility though?

/end hijack

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed that many people seem to consider Conserve power redundant when a set already has Energy Drain or Power Sink.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think it's redundant because the power is in Energy Armor already. Kinda takes away from the uniqueness of the set.
All of the extra utility powers should be unique to that particular set, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Also would add -recovery to lightning field.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch... that has the potential to be overly powerful in PvE and downright devastating PvP. However, that would justify it's ridiculous end cost

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a problem with that statement, and it's part of why so many good suggestions get completely lost on the devs.

Reading through 44 pages of bickering back and forth about ONE aspect of the set makes it really hard to pick out the -handful- of posts offering -suggestions- to fix the hole.

Hence, the bickering posts DO affect the devs' ability to read through this thread and find the suggestions and/or other issues that need to be addressed. Hell, if I were a dev, on about the 20th page of "ELA has no KB protection, this sucks!" I would probably have started skipping pages to skim to the end.

K. I. S. S. Keep It Simple, Stupid. The shorter and more concise a list of feedback and suggestions is, the more likely said feedback and suggestions are to be read, and actually given a fair chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world, I would agree.
However, if there was no bickering about the lack of KB protection, then the severity of the argument might be lost on the Devs. It's a double edged sword.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where we have a problem is when I'm forced to play as if that shield doesn't exist because it is routinely being being affected by toggle drops. So if someone who can't stack enough stuns or holds want to mez me with those effects, they should get a teammate who can stack them. Notice how that says absolutely nothing about who should be that teammmate. While cute in that sleepy loud kid way, Front_Loaded's incorrect reply about adhering to a rigid game model was his creation, not mine. I don't care if it's 2 Ice/ blasters who hold me or if its a single controller, as long as it's done by overcoming the magnitude of the shield.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think some people are taking "only a dominator or controller should be able to stack enough mez to break a melee's mez shield solo" to mean "you should always need a controller or dominator to stack enough mez, solo or teamed." I also think there's some weird conflation of "mez" with "defeat." IME, mezzing doesn't always mean defeat, and defeat does not always require mezzing.

And Uberguy, a dominator managed to keep me held for a very long time in Recluse's Victory the other day and then managed to lay a hold on my again within seconds of the first set of holds wearing off. I'm not sure how long suppression is supposed to be, but I'm not sure it kicked in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reported a very weird bug I encountered in RV when a Plant Dom used Seeds of Confusion on me and I was perma-confused until I died. I asked the Dom to help me replicate it and I found that, when the power was used when Domination was up, I would 'sometimes' become perma-confused. However, it didn't always happen. I'd say maybe 1 out of 3 times. Very, very weird.

The last time, I spent about 5 minutes confused and went around slaughtering everyone I saw until I finally decided to commit harey carey on a drone.

I bugged it, but I haven't heard of anyone else having this problem. It's entirely possible that I experienced a fluke or my perception of the duration was way off, but we were able to duplicate it. or at least it seemed we were able to.
I dunno, maybe this has something to do with the lack of suppression you had? Maybe something is screwy with the way Domination-boosted control powers are interacting with mezz duration and suppression.

The only Immobs I know of that "slow" when not actually immobilizing are Crush and Crushing Field from Gravity and web grenades. Maybe the Ice immob does as well, but I can't recall.
In my experiences, unless it's a gravity-type Immob or a web'nade, you're either Immobed or you're not. No slowing involved.

Perhaps the resistance could be the type that shortens the duration of the Immob, kinda like the Sleep resistance in Health (from the Fitness Pool).

[ QUOTE ]
b) See my name? That's my, y'know, name. Tina. It's a girl's name.

[/ QUOTE ]



Oopsy, sorry about that

Your argument isn't lost on me. I agree with just about every word.
I think what we have here is more a problem of "getting in the last word" and e-peening than it is playing the "Yes it is! No it isn't!" game.

I also read your suggestions and edited my earlier post to reflect that. However, I didn't focus too much on what you proposed, mostly because they're all new powers. We could all sit in this thread and brainstorm the most awesome new balanced powers for this set ever, but they'll probably fall on deaf ears. Call me a pessimist.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that finding fault with ONE comparision a person makes, and then refusing to listen to ANYTHING else they say about ANYTHING while telling them, essentially, that they're playing every other character they have wrong in a tone that approaches belittling and arrogent, has ANYTHING to do with what we're "supposed" to be doing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How in the world did you get that out of my post? That's not what I was trying to say at all.

[ QUOTE ]
THEN WHY IS EVERYONE ATTACKING EVERYONE ABOUT EVERYTHING???

Yes, it's a sweeping generality, but it sure FEELS like that in here. Also, the top post says they want discussions, not isolated comments. Also, I doubt they mean flamewars when they say discussions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, however there are some that post here that only want to flame others for not agreeing with them. It's unfortunate, but welcome to the Internet.
This thread has already been Mod-Chopped once because of exactly that kind of attitude. Thing is, there are only a small handful of posters bringing that attitude in here.

The tone of my response that you quoted was annoyed, I'll admit, but what can I say... He's complaining about those of us that continue to debate the merits of the set. You, yourself, just quoted Cricket's initial post which ask for us to do that very thing. His complaint isn't warranted in that sense.
He's also complaining about no one giving attention to his idea. It sucks that people glossed over his suggestion, but hey... nobody's made any comments about mine either and you don't see me complaining about it.

EDIT: I went back and read his suggestions.
The burn-esque idea is a neat one, but not very probable. Neither is any sort of healing. I've focused my suggestions on what I believe may be probable implementations based on what the set already provides.

Those, IMO, are the 'best' ways of getting anything done to the set. Asking for all new powers just isn't going to happen. I can't think of a single time this has ever occured. Sure, there's a first time for everything, but history speaks volumes.
Personally, they can keep the holes. I just like to see more justification for them by improving what the set already offers: i.e. better endurance management and better resistance.
I'd like to see higher non-S/L base resistance numbers. This way, it would still be inferior to Invul in terms of S/L damage, but offer more in other areas to compensate for no healing ability. I'd also like to see Conserve Power replaced by Quick Recovery - a passive Stamina, which will allow Elec Brutes ot reliably opt out of Fitness. I'd also like to see Repel added to Power Surge, which fits thematically with the set going "balls out" (as it already has Immob and KB for it's duration).

Adding Immob to Grounded seems a good idea, but it's a passive. Passive Immob protection in a set that doesn't have it at all? Not sure if they'd buy that, but I guess it's cool.

Those ideas, at least in my mind, would justify the lack of heal/imoob/KB. It offers a solution, IMO, that maintains the holes, but gives something equal in return.
They also stay within the parameters of what the set already offers.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why this thread annoys me so much. Because the number of cogent suggestions is tiny, and they're mostly overlooked. Not because people are sick of lack of KB protection, not because people think the set has holes, but because they're so busy explaining why they're right that this is an issue or how horrible it is they have to work around it that they forget to address possible ways to fix this, which in a thread posted on the TEST server forums about a set where the devs are ACTIVELY SEEKING FEEDBACK is extra-super-duper sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to flame or anything, but this isn't the suggestions forum, this is the Test server. The only thing they want us to do here is Test the set and look for glaring bugs or problems.
The bugs with the set, so far as I can tell, or virtually non-existent... unless one of those "bugs" is faulty damage mitigation or incorrectly entered base resistance numbers.

We are doing what we're supposed to be doing.
We have to explain why we think the set lacks. Otherwise, what's the point? Should we limit our posts to how Lightning Field makes minions do the Siphon Life animation? That is a real, honest bug. If that's what you believe shoudl be done here, then this thread would be all of one page long.
Making suggestions on new powers to add to the set is not what this thread is for, but there's nothing to stop you from doing so.

With that said, the set doesn't have may bugs (so far), so I don't see any problems with debating the merits of the set itself.
Technically, this thing is in beta. If those of us that think it's sub-par can make any headway in proving this to the Devs, you know... by explaining why we're right, then maybe it can be improved before going Live... or at the very least, be considered for a future update.

Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey I heard they still haven't put in toxic resistance! And you know what, still no knockback resistance or immob resistance!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know what?? There's still no reason for it to be missing!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is: I'm a horrible Stalker lol

[/ QUOTE ]

It's your mouth-watering, meaty aroma. We can always tell when you're close by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn... guess it's time I took that shower I've been putting off since Issue 3...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With all the circular arguments being made in this thread, I'm beginning to think that this recent change is a great balance move. Neither side has been able to show how the other is better off in a team environment.
Add in my own recent experiences on Test and I'm damn near completely convinced.

This is coming from someone that PvPs primarily with Tanks and Blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pfft, it doesn't matter what you say. You have a stalker! Therefore everything you say is suspect. You and your stalker conscpiracy, I'm on to you Meat man, oh yes, I'm on to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foiled again!

Funny thing is: I'm a horrible Stalker lol

With all the circular arguments being made in this thread, I'm beginning to think that this recent change is a great balance move. Neither side has been able to show how the other is better off in a team environment.
Add in my own recent experiences on Test and I'm damn near completely convinced.

This is coming from someone that PvPs primarily with Tanks and Blasters.

Hehe, I like the way you think PorkChopSandwiches

Havoc Punch (Blaster verison) has always had that animation. It's nothing new. The Charged brawl animation is a different story though.

Well, having never played a non-/Elec or non-/EM Blaster, I'm only going off of what I read here and what others have told me.
I'm thinking it further discourages them because toggle dropping was all they really had to go on with their melee powers. Elec and EM had massive damage and mezz effects to accompany that.

So now, Elem and EM still have great melee damage and mezzeffects, but /Ice, /Fire, (to a lesser extent) /Devices don't even have toggle dropping to look forward to.

Again, I'm assuming here as I've never played these sets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it comes down to the issue of melee not wanting to be weak against anything. I can back that up with statements from melee players concerning the new electric set. The set has built in weaknesses and the players are complaining up a storm about how it is retarded for any melee set to have a weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

you realize that most of the complaints are due to the fact not that the set is weak but it forces them in SJ just like fiery aura. that is the complaint

[/ QUOTE ]

Look past that and see the root of the problem. The melee player does not want to have the weakness of knockback or immobilization and thus feels compelled to eliminate the weakness. Otherwise, what is forceing them to get SJ? If they accepted the weakness then they could pick any travel pool they wanted, but melee players don't want any weakness. They can't handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why most of us with any sense are willing to accept the weaknesses of set if they're justified. Many of us don't feel that the current numbers and situational protections do that. It's a much different argument than what you're making it out to be, at least from my view.

As someone that plays Blasters and Tankers almost exclusively in PvP, I'd have to say that you're exaggerating your position immensely. Toggle Dropping was too much and yes, it did render certain Tanker Primary's useless in many situations against certain Blasters. The problem is, it wasn't a universal issue. Not for Granite Tanks and not from non-/Elec and /EM Blasters.

It did need to get reduced, maybe not by this much, but it did need to be hauled in. I remember your "compromise" from the Tanker forums as well. I thought it was horrible idea then and I doubt my opinion will change now. Just becuase you and a few of your forum followers thought it was great doesn't mean that it was a good idea. Compromises have to be agreed upon by both sides. A 'compromise' isn't created by one side and shoved into the face of the other side and told that it's the greatest solution ever. Doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, this current change does little to encourage non/Elec and /EM Blasters to PvP, which creates more powerset imbalance. That is not a good thing.

EDIT to add:
For a few Blaster-side anecdotes. I play a lvl 50 Elec/Elec Blaster as my primary Blaster in PvP. I've done a load of 1v1 fights under Issue 7 rules now and I gotta tell you, the toggle dropper situation makes the fights much more interesting. I can't rely on them like I used to, which means smarter tactics need to be used. I've beaten an SS/Invul Brue, Katan/Regen Scrapper, Claws/DA Scrapper, EM/DA Brute and a Fire/Stone Tank. Yes, I kept a list. I lost quite a few matches as well (all against EM Tanks/Brutes, go figure), but hey... rock, meet paper.
these fights were MUCh harder to win than they were before. Many of those guys I beat would not have stood a chance under the Live rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Some dev slacker(s) didnt want to make a new animation. I'm not crazy about the animations either.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were too busy making pumpkin and chicken dance emotes.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm going to offer up what is probably going to be a completely wacky idea: change power sink to have the same effects as Energy Absorption from the Ice Armor line. This would give it pretty much the same qualities it has now but with the added bonus of +Def. It wouldn't be much, but might help in large battles so that you get hit a bit less.

Sure, it's no self-heal, but it could help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool idea.

Which is why our testing needs to quantitatively show that the set can't take a hit as well as the other sets do.

If we can show that the set actually "does" perform subpar, then changes could come to improve it. Maybe not in Issue 7, but later on down the road (the set won't change much from what's on test, I almost guarantee it).
On the other hand, if our testing shows that the set actually performs decently on par with the others, then... well, we suck it up and deal.
So, git testin'! Don't let bias skew your posts though. Honestly. That goes for both sides of the debate.

Also, my comment you quoted was directed towards the idea of adding completely new powers to the set, in place of what's already there. Something as drastically different as this pseudo-Rooted thing fits that bill and is just not that realistic.
I have suggested Conserve Power be replaced with Quick Recovery, which technically is removing a power and replacing it with another, but those powers both deal with endurance management, just differently. I don't see a suggestion like that outside the realm of possibility, but who knows.