Rakeeb

Do it, then. Let's see your analysis that demonstrates that the game is in balance, if not numerically than in relative proportion.

Demonstrate conclusively that the game is closely enough balanced that the obvious break points are not relevant enough to be fixed rapidly and I'll call that a win for you.

EDIT: Of course, I know better than to think you'll do so. Not ONE PERSON has been able to look at what I'm saying and disprove it outright, folks are simply saying that they're alright with it being bad. Since I'm the only one who seems to be bothered by a blatant imbalance, I'll take my leave. Enjoy your ****** game, Junior.

I totally get this point, Grim. The dev team still views this ability as a viable crowd control; the proof is its presence in other Electric Melee-esque sets and also in Super Strength variants. While I think a few players are going to argue against change for its own sake, I'm sure most folk understand your concern.

We'll have to see what they do in i24, and then judge.

Are you asking for quantifiable proof?

I'm good at quantification. When you're good at something, never do it for free. PM me to work out a price for a thorough statistical analysis of the game's shortfalls.

Please demonstrate that a rebalancing to nerf the top end and bring everyone else up to 90% of that top end would cost subscribers.

I'd ask a different question... how many new players came into the game, tried out Energy Blast because they wanted to be Dragon Ball Z characters, died to thugs beating them up with tire irons while their SS/Fire brute buddy devoured the whole room in one fight, and stopped playing? One can only wonder at the lost potential there.

You are exactly correct, it's totally unrealistic. Your reasons are also valid, but the biggest reason that you're correct is that this dev team has given up on trying to balance their own game.

I don't even have to reach for arguments folks, they present themselves to me.

Correct - there's a homogenization line that has to be carefully respected when you're bringing sets into alignment. Now I'm totally fine with a large degree of homogenization, so long as core flavor is left in, and I recognise that I'm a rarity in that sense. I don't expect to get that. I just don't want a situation like we have now, where ATs and powersets are so far away from each other that it's actually stupid - like really dumb - to play certain sets because they're just that bad comparatively.

It's not cool for players to roll up bad sets out of ignorance, because they're new, and then be a bystander to a team of steamrolling melee types.

When they fix their game, they prove that they're not bad. Until they fix their game, or give real indications that they're trying to fix their game (i.e. not talk - roll fixes onto the beta server for testing, and be willing to go through a process of rapid iteration... Bio Armor's test cycle is a perfect example of this), then they've decided to continue to be bad, because the problem feels too big to solve.

On the Bio Armor example - I think that's what's really got me up in arms. Synapse demonstrated that when he cares, when he's engaged, he can do it right. Bio Armor went through a real wringer in a two-week period. We had something like 6-7 iterations, lots of commenting, fixes being issued for problems encountered during the test cycle. That was great work! The end product looked and felt capable, was strong and suited itself to multiple playstyles.

Would that they'd be willing to do that with ongoing fixes. They should have rolled the Snipe change immediately onto the beta servers for player interaction, to see where the system broke and where it needed fixing. Did they? No, of course not. Rather, they'll pack them all into a massive beta test for i24, with tons of other variables ALSO changed, and not be able to iterate on set balance properly prior to launch.

If other, more successful games can all do it, then I think that Arbiter Hawk and Synapse can do it if they really want to.

One last thing - Arcana, you don't know me or what I do for a living. Don't you dare judge me. If you want to know what I do for a living, make a visit to Arlington.

So now because true balance is "impossible", ie folks don't want to work that hard, we're trying to compromise with "fair"?

I didn't realize that Arbiter Hawk and Synapse were actually Castle.

No compromises. Fix the game. It's not hard; it simply requires commitment.

I had no idea, was oblivious to that at the time. Probably wasn't subscribed. I find it completely believeable that there was an argument over it.

More evidence that the devs are bad, I guess. The idea that you'd write off a game system change because it's been set in stone for years is one of the core issues afflicting the dev community.

Fear of nerfing to bring your game into balance because of player response? Says a lot about the dev community.

I'd honestly go with that, swap out some of the +Def for +Res. The diversity would do the IO system good.

I'd still want to turn down the numbers, though.

Or, you know, you could put a stop to defense proliferation and bring defense focused sets back into the conversation as relevant.

It's Rakeeb versus bad design team, and I'm largely unconcerned with the rest of the playerbase.

I don't expect the playerbase to support me because if the dev team follows through on my design ideals, the playerbase will initially react poorly. You guys like being ridiculously overpowered and making a mockery of the game's content. If all sets could do it, then I'd be in favor of it and just making content to that level to challenge the sets - but hey guess what, turns out Fire Melee is demonstrably superior in all ways to Radiation Blast. Mental Manipulation is clearly better than Ice Manipulation. Scrappers are demonstrably, quantifiably better than Blasters.

Until they're balanced, I'm going to continue to argue for it and for nerfing things like IO sets that make things like Super Reflexes and the Cold Domination armor buffs useless. At least until my sub expires as it's not being renewed, so if you wait long enough, I'll probably go away.

About the only thing that'll bring me back is an i24 that actually balances the game, or puts demonstrable effort into trying to reach that goal. You can bet that I'll come back with every analysis piece I can conjure up to underline effects of the changes and impact to the game, and which sets then need numerous small changes to get them in line.

You are correct that the game is balanced around SOs. Please witness by the raw volume of IO'd SS / Fire brutes just how well the game is "balanced".

If the devs were good, they'd balance around all tiers of gear. They're bad and therefore don't do it.

You'll still be good. You just won't be +4x8 good. Deal with it.

Very late reply to this... Super Reflexes (along with other Defense focused sets like Force Field) lost their luster when Defense got passed around too cheaply in IO sets. My response to this issue would be to give those two sets a minor pass to give them more game, and to nerf the crap out of +Def in sets. Kinetic Combat giving 3.75% defense on 4 slots? NOPE. All IO defense would be cut by 50-75%.

"highest dps in the game if you can survive that long"

Seriously, do the numbers for an IO'd / Incarnate Energy or Fire Manipulation alongside Fire Blast or something else that can fill the natural hole in their attack strings.

Yeah, I don't think it's consistently possible because as Dug indicates they die alarmingly fast. But as long as they're alive, they do incredible single-target DPS.

If the devs do a fantastic job of buffing Blasters otherwise, I might reconsider dropping my subscription... assuming nothing else good has come along.

You're not necessarily wrong. I like the angle you're taking wrt: Blaster modifications, arguing for a fundamental change to the AT, and removing the "blasters cannot do X" mindset. I think you'd make a great DM in a tabletop game, for instance.

I just don't think the devs can back you up, is all.

Being a Peacebringer player, animation customization is something of a sore subject.

Big talk. Let's see the devs back up all that.

We'll see how things are in i24.

Very broad strokes:

Figure out what you want each AT to contribute
Build measureables to match those goals into each set for the given AT, and understand your system completely
Make sure your system is coherent, internally consistent, and makes sense
Do the math! Run analyses for the set at various levels of loot and keep an eye on performance

It's not easy, no. It requires diligence and complete comprehension of what is actually being built.

You'd have to be professional designers to do it.

It's very possible to design a set to react well to all sets of enhancements across the spectrum, from TO to DO to SO to IO and including Incarnate levels. The low end and high end aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to set balancing.