Seermark

I'm taking bids on the next huge "game-breaking" tactic that will be blamed for "minor changes" in either "powers" or "AI" in the near future...herding has already been taken care of...twice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I really don't like getting demonized and told I'm "repressing" and "controlling" for suggesting an option that doesn't even exist in game right now not be carried through fully. It's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be in denial.

Your argument seems to have changed to "I don't want to control you, I just think you should be controlled".

You are not going to get around the fact that you are in favour of having less options available. There is no way you can spin that as anything but a reduction in creative freedom.

The new costume items have been made. The costumes exist. They're going to be on our system. The game engine is perfectly capable of rendering a Hero with any or all of these options. The only thing standing between a Hero and a Pirate Hat is an omission in the Costume Editor program. That, and the ridiculous idea that a handful of "unique items" will actually make CoV feel different from CoH.

It's bad enough that you continually misrepresent my argument, but you don't even seem to understand your own. You think Heroes and Villains should be visually different, so you think that difference should be enforced. That impacts on other players, and yes, represses their creativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my last post on this. Yes I think Villains and Heroes should have some unique costume options. That's it. End of story. They should have some unique visual distinctions.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm impinging on your own creative freedoms. But as it stands now, unless this gets coded, you never had the freedom to select those costumes unless you play CoV. Me suggesting reasons why I don't think heroes should get those options, is not stifling ANY of your current creative freedoms. As a matter of fact, as I said, I'm all for making a majority of the CoV costumes carry over to CoH, thereby increasing your current creative freedoms...but since I didn't want them all, I'm back to repressing them...strange.

I am not in denial, and I did not misrepresent your argument. I merely think your argument is inane since it basically is summed by saying: I want everything because it's coded and anyone who says otherwise is repressing me and trying to control me.

And the making of broad generalized statements that demonize everyone who didn't think it was a good idea to have fully shared costume selections was quite silly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of your skulls, leather-wearing, monster types fall into the anti-hero crowd not the hero crowd. So somewhere between CoH and CoV. But if you had to pick a side, most would be on the CoV side in most heroes eyes. You think Superman would allow Spawn to kill someone in front of him?

[/ QUOTE ]

They would fall on the CoV side on most heroes' eyes, sure. But from the eyes of a player? Which types of missions sound more like what Ghost Rider, the Punisher, or any of the other "anti-heroes" would do:

A) Break up a gang war, save an office building from rampaging criminals, stop criminals from distributing a new drug.
or
B) Kidnap the daughter of a crime boss and turn her over to a rival crime family, rob a bank, steal a bunch of drugs and sell them for your own profit.

A is clearly the more appropriate mission set - and since that's the type of mission you get in City of Heroes, it makes a lot more sense to play characters in the mold of Ghost Rider or the Punisher on City of Heroes than it does to try to play them on City of Villains.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

To be quite honest, if you were truly going for that "anti-hero" Spawn, Punisher type fellow, I doubt he/she'd be doing any of the missions, if you wanted to keep true to the character. They are street vigilantes, generally taking down thugs mugging people, or thugs who have done harm to either them or their close loved ones. Played like that, they could be played in either game, just street-hunt and aid those people who need your help in their missions.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea if you are singling me out, or just everyone who suggested that perhaps heroes shouldn't get all villain options.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not singling you out. It's just the nature of this board that you have to reply to someone.


[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wonder why you think it's okay to put words in my mouth though. No where did I say I wanted to "control" what other people could do or wear.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you did. In fact, you say it again right here:

[ QUOTE ]
I merely stated my reasoning behind keeping some options unique to CoV and CoH to create some visual distinction between the two games' characters,

[/ QUOTE ]
and here:

[ QUOTE ]
I merely stated that it was MY opinion that certain things should be specific to each game. <snip> I merely weighed in with my reasoning and opinion for not allowing a full crossover of costume options.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to place restrictions on what costume options are available to Heroes or Villains, then you ARE trying to control what other people can do or wear. It's like saying "I don't want you to have any food, ever, but that doesn't mean I want you to starve to death".


[ QUOTE ]
But apparently my opinion on the matter automatically means I'm trying to repress your personal creativity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinion IS that my personal creativity should be repressed. X = X. There is no question of my personal interpretation in this whatsover. You want my options limited. You've said so repeatedly. I haven't put any words in your mouth. You put them there yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I can't repress your personal creativity since the options don't currently exist! If they existed and I was saying, get rid of them, or you can't use these because I said so! Then I would be repressing your creativity. Saying I'm trying to control what you do in game is also ridiculous.

I'm not trying to "control" it, I already said that if the option existed, I wouldn't go about trying to get it repealed. I merely stated that I had reasons for not wanting it implemented to keep some unique visual boundary between the two games, so sue me.

Bringing food and starvation into this is ridiculous, you don't NEED costume options to play the game, especially costume options that aren't even available yet in CoH and might NOT be. If you want to bring in food, this entire thing could be summed up as such: A chef says he might cook a 10 course meal, I suggest that perhaps 8 is enough, and then I get told that I'm repressing and controlling people gastronomically...awha?

I'm suggesting that because they are seperate games, SOME visual distinction should be made between the two for the sole purpose of making the crossover trial have the ability to create unique heroes and villains in more than just AT. I think that villains and heroes who crossover should get ALL options, but heroes and villains who start on one side or the other should have SOME unique costume pieces. I already said tha most of the new stuff from CoV should be carried over, I just don't see the reason to have a hero covered in barbed wire, or a heroine who's rotting away, or some giant wolf festooned with skulls...unless they are reformed villains. Yes yes, I know, I'm sure there are tens of people who there who've been waiting for barbed wire for their heroes since they started CoH!!

Seriously, if I suggested that an in-game power should do something other than what it does, would that mean I'm also repressing you creatively and "controlling" what you did in game? Or perhaps if I suggested that an emote should do something a little different, am I also controlling what you do in game? You should check out the suggestions and ideas area, after all, there are tons of people trying to control what you do in-game over there, what with all their ideas and suggestions and such.

And let's face it, if the Dev's are trying to use the Golden Age of Comic Book Culture as some kind of archetypal basis for this game, then in most cases there most certainly were very black and white visual distinctions between villains and heroes.

I'll stand by my opinion that not all the options should be immediately available for both villains and heroes. Like I stated in my original post, I think 2/10 should be unique to CoV, 2/10 to CoH, and then 6/10 crossover. When and if it does get implemented, fine, I certainly won't whine and complain about it.

But I really don't like getting demonized and told I'm "repressing" and "controlling" for suggesting an option that doesn't even exist in game right now not be carried through fully. It's ridiculous. If States doesn't go through with this, are you going to start telling him that he's "repressing" and "controlling" you?

[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if the people objecting to costume crossover would come out and admit that they just want to tell other people how to make their character.

We're basically seeing two kinds of arguments.

1) Heroes and Villains should look different.
- Seriously, why should they?

2) I don't want to see Heroes with skulls/chains/barbedwire/horns/etc...
- Why should we have our options limited because of what YOU want?

There are all kinds of character types and names that I can't stand seeing in CoH. I'm not going to bother mentioning which ones, because it's my problem if I don't like them. It's not my place to tell other people how to design their characters and how to have fun. And it's not anyone else's place to tell me what my characters should look like.

I can understand if the art department doesn't have the time or motivation to make all the costume items I'd like to see in this game (there can never be too many options), but when the items are already made and on my system, I'll be damned if I want to be prevented from using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if you are singling me out, or just everyone who suggested that perhaps heroes shouldn't get all villain options. I certainly wonder why you think it's okay to put words in my mouth though. No where did I say I wanted to "control" what other people could do or wear.

I merely stated my reasoning behind keeping some options unique to CoV and CoH to create some visual distinction between the two games' characters, especially for when we start being able to complete the crossover trial.

No where did I say heroes shouldn't wear this because it's not heroic. I merely stated that it was MY opinion that certain things should be specific to each game. I'm sorry if you automatically assume that means I'm telling you that you can't wear something. I could care less what people wear if they are given the choice. I merely weighed in with my reasoning and opinion for not allowing a full crossover of costume options.

But apparently my opinion on the matter automatically means I'm trying to repress your personal creativity.

If and when it happens as Statesman says it might, I won't be campaigning to have it changed, nor will I really care. Hell, I certainly will use some of the costume options myself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK - here's the most likely outcome...

If you own both games, you get all options - the new CoV sets will be accessible for your heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so I can already see I'm in the minority after reading through this thread, but, I really don't think this is the way to go. Yes, I'd say share all of the "neutral" options, the new faces, masks, other innocuous clothes that don't scream "hero" or "villain". I'm all for that, however, I'm also all for certain options being relegated solely for villains...

[/ QUOTE ]
I could live with that, but as soon as you would limit something like that, some individual, comic, cartoon, movie, or the like would come along and break the mold of what a villainous/heroic costume or character should look like. Over the years comics have proven over and over again that heroes and villains aren't about how they look but about what they do and stand for. As soon as someone says "a villain/hero should look this way..." it is a safe bet that shortly thereafter one will be created that doesn't look that way at all.

I'm not for limiting it in any way. All that ends up doing in the long run is stifling someone's options in excercising their creativity, and it still won't provide any significant distinction between the look of heroes and villains except in some incredibly narrow circumstances. Besides, you really shouldn't be able to tell if someone is a hero of villain just by looking at his or her costume or body-type...it isn't that way in the comics and it shouldn't be that way in the game either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, see, the advent of the cross-over trial would ensure that there were heroes that look like villains, and villains that look like heroes. That's why I say give some unique options to both CoH and CoV, because then folks who go through that trial will be unique in both costume AND AT. They would truly represent a unique entity and give more incentive to the entire idea of fallen heroes and reformed villains.

I'm also not sold on the whole "well, it happened in the <insert comic title and #> so therefore it should happen in CoH as well" argument. I can understand if say this was a Marvel MMORPG and something happened in Issue #5 of <insert Marvel comic here> where someone would argue that it required a change in the game, but this is a generic MMORPG in it's own universe that has at it's heart premises based in comic book culture. That does not justify using famous (or obscure) comic references to justify why something should or should not be true in CoH and CoV, at least in my humble opinion.

Anyway, that's just my take on it, I'd love if some of the many costume options would remain unique, but the masses have spoken. Heh.

[ QUOTE ]
OK - here's the most likely outcome...

If you own both games, you get all options - the new CoV sets will be accessible for your heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so I can already see I'm in the minority after reading through this thread, but, I really don't think this is the way to go. Yes, I'd say share all of the "neutral" options, the new faces, masks, other innocuous clothes that don't scream "hero" or "villain". I'm all for that, however, I'm also all for certain options being relegated solely for villains.

Monstrous options, zombie options, most of the giant skulls (share the chest emblems since as has been pointed out, 3 comic book anti-heroes have them, so they must be heroic) but leave the giant fanged skull shoulderpads and gloves for the villains, and all the gear that lets you look like an extra from a NIN or Marilyn Manson video (barbed wire/chain wraps) should be relegated solely for villains, imho.

I'd say maybe, 3/4 of the current CoV options can (and should) be included with the CoH options because they are potentially neutral, but I simply don't agree that ALL of them should be shared.

I say if you really want a hulking wolf hero festooned with skulls or a zombie that looks like it's held together with barbed wire then wait for the crossover trial.

What I'd really like to see is to have some unique CoH stuff coded solely for CoH (and fallen heroes). Honestly, I'd love to see 2/10 unique to CoV, 2/10 unique to CoH, and 6/10 crossover gear that can be used by everyone. Adjust ratios as necessary to achieve visionary balance.

Just my two influence.

Dunno if this has been suggested, but here's something that's been kinda jumping around my brain for a few days. (I need to let it out, it's lonely in there)

Why not tie this to the endurance bar, and reverse it. The more endurance you have, the greater the chances of partially avoiding an attack. Basically 100% end = full passive damres, and as you hit benchmarks, 50%, 33%, 20%, whatever they are, you lose that little edge as you get tired and start getting sloppy in your evasive maneuvers. Makes sense, no?

You then have a choice in the matter (more choices are good right?), mount an all out assault and drain your end faster in an attempt to overcome your foe(s) with brute strength in a speedy fashion and thereby endangering yourself by removing your ability to partially dodge the attacks you can't quite get out of the way of OR conserving your energy, ducking and weaving, feinting and flowing with the battle and await those opportunities to ram in there with a quick one-two punch.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont get it . How resisting blows is related to Super Reflexes ? While that solution could make the powerset better , i really dont see how that is making sense .

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy: dodge and get mostly out of the way, getting grazed by the bullet. Roll with the punches. Leap and make it most of the way out of the explosion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, because it's much easier to get partially out of the way of a bullet, an explosion, or a punch AFTER you've already been shot, blown up, or punched a few times.

This makes sense to some degree, but again, it appears to be a band-aid used to try and staunch the bleeding from an amputation.

[ QUOTE ]
While I do hate to be the one pouring salt in the wound...

The only REAL difference that matters for an Ice Tank between I5 and pre-I5 is then they will be the butt of many, many jokes whereas now they are only the butt of many jokes. Since beta the Ice primary has been a set you chose just to try and prove it could be made to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only sad thing is the fact that Ice Tankers were actually able to do their job in I4. Certainly not to the extent that Invuln and Stone were doing it, but definitely enough to actually tank for a decent sized team. But most of that tanking ability was based mainly around EA, and it's ability to stack. It would allow Ice Tankers to actually BE the kings (and queens) of defense...and it seems no one but the players realize that even flooring to-hit reliably still didn't allow us to perform on par with the resistance based tankers. But hey, defense is sooo much better than resistance, right States?

Now not only has EA been tweaked (understatement of the year) down, but so have ALL our other defensive powers. It's like Muhammad Ali decided that Ice Armour tankers needed the ol' one-two. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

So in I4 (and before) we were the red-headed stepchildren of the Tanker community. We could do our jobs for the most part, but generally speaking not as reliably as the other primaries. We were golden against sappers, and other things that needed defense, rather than resistance, to nullify the inherent danger.

Now? After 32 heart-breaking, hospital-ridden levels we can be glorified ice sculptures...for 30 seconds anyways.

Go Team Ice Tanker!

[ QUOTE ]

Intersting idea. It at least deserves debate.

You pointed out one of the biggest flaws for making it a toggle: you won't be able to stack it. I think we all know that if the Devs made it a toggle they would not let us use the stacked defense value of current EA to determine the static defense of the toggle. They would most likely just keep the 0.5 value and that scares me. Without stacking EA is now a sad, sorry little power when it comes to defense.

Another strike against the idea is that it takes away choice. In general I think it's a good idea (and more "fun") to let players make the choice of when to activate powers. I really don't want to see another "click and forget" power in Ice/, or any other set.

Having said that, I think your idea would help solve some of the problems EA has. And it would certainly make life easier on us. Hmm...something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah well, personally I think if they did even contemplate something like this, I would hope it would get bumped up to be at least on par with Invincibility (which is what?..1.5 melee, and 0.75 ranged?). Then instead of the tohit bonus we'd get the extra end recharge and end drain. I know this would never happen after reading Statesman's infuriating dissertation on why, in theory (does theory ever shake hands with reality?), defense is better than resistance.

Yeah, I know it eliminates choice. However, sometimes choices like those that EA makes you make are not terribly fun. In many instances, EA never actually gave me a choice. It generally boiled (froze?) down to "come on you stupid power FIRE off already!!" As I inevitably CHOSE (HAD?) to use it almost every encounter anyway in order to keep myself alive after the alpha strike knocked me into next week: it would get fired off immediately and then whenever it was up again. That, to me, wasn't much of a choice, merely more micro-managing to ensure I could actually tank.

I'd turn this into a toggle, and rework (read change altogether into something other than a PBAoE) icicles into another click power that would do something useful, turn it into some form of ablative smash/lethal resistance or something. Heh.

Ah well, pipe dreaming at work. Good times, good times.

So I dunno if it's ever been suggested before, or even if it would be feasible. But change EA into a pulse toggle a la Invincibility and/or PBAoE damage auras.

Have it provide a static +def per mob in range like Invincibility. This would eliminate some of the problems I see that EA has: surviving long enough to use it, choosing an appropriate time to use it, hopefully not right before a patrol rounds the corner, and having it actually provide defense ALL the time without having to rely on perma-hasten or a boat load of recharge reducers.

In addition, add a pulse effect that drains a bit of end from the enemies in the radius and adds a bit to the users end bar. This effect would be enhanceable. The benefits here are that it could be used to effectively lock down some of the mobs in the radius from using big attacks in a long battle as it's a constant end drain, as opposed to a one shot deal until it recharges. Have the +end be enough to make it useful, but not so much to overdo it. Maybe have it even out at a zero sum around 2-3 enemies, after that have it be a positive net gain.

Yeah, it might be overpowered, and yes, it's yet another toggle. In addition we'd lose the ability to stack the +defense as well, which I'd counter by just increasing the static +def per mob a bit. But I dunno, EA has always rubbed me the wrong way to some extent simply because it's a click power that in many cases is the lynchpin in our defenses, and especially now in I5.

Oh well, time to wake up and stop dreaming. Heh.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot myself for a second there and thought we had at least a minor leg up on some of the other tanker sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice's niche is "anything I can do, someone else can do better."

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I dunno, we faceplant pretty good...better than average I'd say! I dunno about you, but sometimes keeping an eye on that wily floor for signs of danger helps out the team...right?...RIGHT?!?

I GOT IT!

Whenever we faceplant, our toggle armours melt across the floor creating a controller sized Ice Slick. At least that way, our constant falling down will do something for the team.

"The only tanker that'll tank better AFTER we faceplant!"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman, could we, at the very least, get some Psi defense outside of EA...3 sheaths of frozen water must do something to block mental energy? I mean, it's a small bone, but at least it's something.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean at all. EA doesn't offer Psi DEF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot myself for a second there and thought we had at least a minor leg up on some of the other tanker sets.

That's it. I've decided after reading through all these posts. I'm going to make my Ice/Stone my main. Call me crazy, call me a masochist, but dammit...I like the concept behind Ice...so what if that's ALL it has going for it right now.

It's gonna be a long road ahead because I almost feel guilty about LFT with an Ice Primary tanker...do you hear that Statesman? I FEEL GUILTY about advertising as a tanker with the Ice Armour primary!! (if that's not an indication of something wrong, I don't know what is)

I just wanna say thanks to everyone who fought so valiantly to try and wedge an icicle of common sense into Statesman's thick skull. Perhaps there is still time to get him to see the glacier for the ice, perhaps not.

So, here's to the debt badges by level 15! Hip hip, hooray!!!

Statesman, could we, at the very least, get some Psi defense outside of EA...3 sheaths of frozen water must do something to block mental energy? I mean, it's a small bone, but at least it's something.

I think we should all just delete our Ice Tankers as SOON as I5 hits Live if they don't roll back some of these changes or tweak them a bit more.

I wonder what the datamining would look like if a gigantic drop in Ice Tanker numbers happened within hours of I5 going Live.

It'll be like a giant Ice Tanker strike. After all, not playing an Ice Tanker is the only way we'll be able to avoid attacks given I5's defense numbers. <chuckle>

Oy...that's all I have to say...oy.

My faith is melting away faster than my Frozen Armor at this point.

[ QUOTE ]


But that's no reason to talk about ice patch (or any other Ice Melee power) as if it's joined at the hip with Ice Armor.

[/ QUOTE ]

<sigh> Look. Ice Armour is not terribly viable when put side to side with the other Tanker sets. Yes that is part opinion and part personal experience. It just doesn't have the resources necessary to make it a reliable tanker. Tweaking defense numbers just doesn't seem to really make any of the problems go away. Perhaps the damage debuff in CE will make a difference, I personally don't know.

I also never "kept on talking like Ice Patch was attached to the hip with Ice Armour". I merely stated my opinion that I believe Ice Patch would increase an Ice Armour tanker survivability (moreso than other tankers in similar situations) and still remain consistent with the rest of the set and provide a patch for some of the gaps that a defense oriented set tends to leave wide open.

I am also speaking from my own personal experiences, which is as a, as you put it, "kneecapped" Ice/Ice Tanker. I can't dish out damage as well as Stone, or Axe, or EM, but the addition of Ice Patch sure does make a helluva difference in my teams survivability. Sure, my xp/hour sucks, but hey, that's not how I rate the effectiveness of a power.

If I had my way, Ice Armour would be a completely different frozen novelty. I seriously don't even know what I can say to the Devs that Circeus and others haven't already said. The Devs seem oblivious and it's terribly disheartening. So many good ideas presented, and so many bad ideas implemented. In any case, I shall trudge forward with both my low xp/hour Ice/Ice and because misery loves company, an Ice/Mace tanker.

If nothing else, at least I'll leave enough shaved ice in my wake to put all of Paragon City's ice cream trucks out of business. Anyone else like blue raspberry syrup on their slushies?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Although I hope they aren't balancing around this, I do hope they take a cue and realize that alot of Ice Armour tankers take Ice Melee for Ice Patch. Ice Patch is one of those skills that just makes the Ice Armour tanker that much more effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice Patch provides far more benefit to Fiery Aura than Ice Armor.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's debatable, IMHO. It provides a huge benefit to ANY tanker who takes it. Fire gets a huge benefit in terms of Burn to offset the piddly damage that Ice Melee gets for its attacks. However, I feel that Ice Patch actually provides Ice Armour tankers with a tool that let's them actually tank on par with some of the other sets. The difference I saw before and after Ice Patch with my tanker was like night and day. Your mileage may vary.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone I ever talk to just assumes that if yer an Ice Tanker you take Ice Melee, because Ice Patch makes you into a "real" tanker. Sad to say that there is some degree of truth in that statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much everyone you talk to is pretty silly, then. Tankers have six other secondaries that aren't Ice, and they should all be viable with Ice Armor.

I play an Ice/Stone, and I've teamed with Ice/Energy, Ice/Fire, and Ice/Axe. I've never even seen an Ice/Ice tanker in the game, although I've certainly heard they exist. I've only seen Fire/Ice when it comes to Ice Melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that an Ice Tanker without Ice Melee was NOT viable. I was merely stating my experiences with Ice Patch. The fact that it makes a hugely noticeable difference in my tanking ability leads me to believe it has a great synergistic effect with Ice Armour. Which it does to the point that I actually think it should be included in the Ice Armour set itself.

I'm surprised you haven't seen Ice/Ice Tankers, they seem to be the ones I run into most. Different experiences I guess.

After I picked up Ice Patch, my life as a tanker became easier. I now had a tool that I could actually count on to keep a large portion of the mob group from attacking me OR my teammates. Could I do my job before Ice Patch? Yes. Could I do it much better after Ice Patch? Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kk, Here's another thought.
When I use 'Hoarfrost', I think of it as an Ablative Ice Armor that breaks off in chunks as it absorbs damage. When the extra hit points are gone, weather due to damage or time, the armor is all gone.
But Ice is hard. If you don't hit it just right, it doesn't crack. So what I see is missing is some extra Defence to reflect this hardness. Maybe +7.5% that lasts only as long as the 'extra hit points' do. That would give the Ice Tank a non toggle defence, albeit a low one.
Conceptually it makes sense. And even if you were to raise the end cost a bit, it would still help the Tanker Tank...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Ablative idea is interesting. I've actually been typing up a proposal for a separate ablative armor set, but the more I think about it Ice Armor should be an Ablative type of set. I don't know I'll have to think on it some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just apply the concept above to ALL the armours in the set. Make them all reasonably priced/timed/rechargy clicks that provide a certain level of resistance/defense AND an initial HP boost above base when you activate them. I'd say let them keep the defense that the power provides, i.e, each power has a base defense, say a non-ablative portion that will only run out at the end of the power's duration. So for example, you activate Click X, it provides 15% defense and +20% base HPs for 3 minutes. You have 15% defense for 3 minutes, and the +20% HPs for as long as they last (any left over after 3 minutes are subtracted). Having purely ablative armour I think would be much more difficult to code in under the current system, but having just an ablative portion certainly doesn't seem terribly difficult to imp.

It's entirely feasible and certainly keeping in tune with the idea of ice. Of course, no one really likes clicks so much...or at least an over-abundance of them. Heh.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem is we are looking at numbers of our defense shields, while the devs are looking at those and the ability to use ice patch and drain end as defenses too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the devs aren't looking at the ability to use ice patch as a defense, as it's not in the Ice Armor primary and never has been, and why do people keep talking like Ice Armor and Ice Melee are the same powerset?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I hope they aren't balancing around this, I do hope they take a cue and realize that alot of Ice Armour tankers take Ice Melee for Ice Patch. Ice Patch is one of those skills that just makes the Ice Armour tanker that much more effective.

Pretty much everyone I ever talk to just assumes that if yer an Ice Tanker you take Ice Melee, because Ice Patch makes you into a "real" tanker. Sad to say that there is some degree of truth in that statement.

Seriously, I'm not sure States really understands the whole concept of static defense vs. dynamic defense. For an Ice Tanker static defense is key. EA is great and all, but it's terribly prohibitive in its use. Great, 14 mobs? So you want me to a) gather up 14 mobs in one area (which probably includes at least 1 boss and a few lts) b) get them all in a fairly tight pattern around me and THEN c) fire off EA so I can get that extra defense I need to survive against those 14 mobs? Come again?

Seriously. EA has always been a Catch-22 of sorts, and it just gets worse when it gets factored in as a necessary means of defense.

I need EA to survive in that group of bad guys!, however, I need to survive in said group of bad guys before I can get the benefits of EA! Oy.

EA should simply be another one of those controllerish powers used by an Ice Tanker to turn the tide of battle, not a lynchpin of our defensive countermeasures. It's silly. There I said it, relying on EA to balance our static defenses is just downright silly.

That's 4 cents so far today, better bust open the piggy bank.

I posted this in the suggestions and ideas forum, where it quickly got buried in a myriad of other suggestions and ideas...go figure. In any case, on with the show:

So, the way I see it the tanker primaries are as follows: Invuln is the top dog for straight up resists (should be, was, might be?), Stone is a jack of all trades, mixing in the defense with the resistance, Fire trades in some resistance for pure offense (past tense...god knows what they're supposed to do now), and then there's the red-headed stepchild of the Tanker sets that always gets left out in the cold (couldn't resist..sorry) with straight up defense...

The way I see it, if they are going to base a set solely around defense, it needs some way of boosting said defense. We have the beginnings of that in Chilling Embrace, which in and of itself a very good power in my estimation, and conjures up what the Ice Armour set SHOULD be set around: cutting down on the incoming attacks and then having a good chance of dodging the attacks that do make it through. So, instead of offense a la Fire Tanks to supplement their shortcomings, we would get a measure of control.

This is all leading up to a very simple idea that simply requires the swapping of two powers and some number tweaking: Simply put, swap Icicles for Ice Patch. Icicles would help the Ice Melee set out with a bit of extra damage (up the damage to match the end cost) and Ice Patch would provide Ice Armour tankers with that extra pure defense they so desperately need. It wouldn't require overhauling the set, nor adding new powers, just a simple swap. Tweak both powers (end, rech, etc.) as is seen fit.

Seriously, I could tank before to a certain extent, but after I picked up Ice Patch, I actually felt like I was able to pull closer to the levels of performance I've seen other Tanker sets perform.

In summary, if you want to build a power set solely around defense, you need to supplement it with something to augment that defense. I sincerely believe that a combination of CE and Ice Patch would go a long way to making Ice Armour viable in the Tanker lineups. And it makes sense (to me), the two elementally opposed Tanker armours would be polar opposites: Fire is resistance and offense (one laid down patch, and one PBAoE) and Ice would be defense and control (one laid down patch, and one PBAoE).

Basically what I'm saying is that as a tanker, who's supposed to take alot of agro, and take a beating, pure defense without any real way to mitigate incoming attacks will ALWAYS come up short because it's a numbers game, you can tweak the numbers till the cows come home and they still won't be as reliable (or perform as well) as a resistance based tanker on a regular basis because you simply don't know what Lady Luck will hit you with, will that AV hit you twice in a row despite your defense, you simply don't know.

Ah well, 2 cents, what the hell else was I gonna spend it on?

[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying, I have an Ice/Ice Tank, and he's fun. I have no real problems with him on Live or Test. Now that that is over with...

No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].

As for Chilling Embrace, (possible) cool beans.

Cyclone Jack

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay...Devs make changes...in order to test these changes (like they tell us) they should give numbers...ESPECIALLY for stuff like defense where there is no convenient way for players to test out besides say, going up against 1000 even con minions and crunching THOSE numbers. In which case you end up with a number that should be CLOSE to accurate and possibly you end up with even further debate depending on what that number is. If it's high or low enough, you start wondering if it's a bug. So you start clamouring on the boards trying to figure out wth is going on. Instead...we could bypass all that crap, get the numbers straight from the horses mouth, do theoretical calculations and then work from there.

No one is forcing you to read through the posts about numbers, or look at all the math. I, for one, enjoy reading through it and looking at all the calculations. It's a way of testing out the changes without spending 5 hours wailing on mobs in the Test server. And the thing is, looking at these numbers, most of us can safely say that Ice tankers just AREN'T going to be able to cut the mustard anymore, or at the very least don't stand up under close scrutiny compared to some of their other brethren.

Yes, 1% really isn't THAT big a deal under most circumstances. But sometimes, 1% can be a very significant amount.

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, I realize Statesman had the math a little wrong, but it was only off by about 1%. I don't think it was making that much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just the 1%. It's the fact that it's a math error being used to justify or argue for the reason behind a HUGE reduction in defensive power for an entire powerset. It's also another hit to the entire idea that the Devs are making changes based on correct numbers...we all assume they are, but what if they aren't? <coughinternalserverandscrapperscough>

Basically, it's the principle of the thing. If you're gonna post as a leader of the Dev team on a board of players, it just might be better to make damned sure your numbers are correct.

Of course, he skews the numbers on the mobs in Invincibles range to make Ice look better, but I'm assuming all numbers for Ice tankers come from being able to hit 14 mobs with EA...with the new defense of Ice Armor somehow I think agro'ing 14 mobs with EA for about 17% defense will reduce the Ice Tank to a pile of smoldering slush. And let's not even get into the fact that gathering mobs together without getting alpha'ed or whittled down to death before firing EA has ALWAYS been tricky at times...even before I5