Sir_Zane

Hmm, what if Tankers got an Endurance Discount that like beginners luck dwindled down as we approached 20. I realize this help is doubly diminishing as End cost are actually escalating during this period. But anything would help.

Alternatively, I have taken to getting CLUBBER as my first Day Job Badge for the extra out of combat Endurance regain and it seems to have been helping some on my baby Tanks. Maybe something like the Clubber bonus for <20 Tanks.

Yeah, the AV Nosferatu was kicking our collective behinds.

Well, under the current rating system you have to give the benefit of the doubt that all ratings are honest and personal opinions of the arc, given that there are no "rating criteria" other than personal opinion ( and nor should there be ).

Otherwise, the current rating system does not work. If any rating is in doubt than all rating are in doubt and become meaningless.

That being said, I think the current rating system needs to change. To what I am not sure. I have been leaning to a , + (-1,0,1), voting system. The current gradient of 0-5 does not any more meaningful information. Better to move it back down to "I liked it" (+1), "It was okay/not bad" (+0), or "It was horrible' (+-1).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.

All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.

P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.

Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.

This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but if you nerfed Scrapper/Brutes' protections and buffed Tanker damage, why on earth would you ever play a Scrapper or Brute?

[/ QUOTE ]

The change to Scrapper/Brute protection would be in lieu of making any change to Tankers. Basically it's just coming at the perceived problem from the other direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just give Tankers thier Tankiness back. Reset the armor values to reflect what had been possible AFTER the GDN but before ED. You could do this by increasing the base armor values or by changing the schedule on the enhancements.

As it is, most Tanks choose Fitness and IOs to get to the DEF softcap or RES hardcap and it really is overkill for the game. Once you've reach a line in survivability in the game any more is just fluffy icing except in extreme situations.

So as I see it, this would allow a greater variety of Tanker builds as players would not need to use Fitness or other power pools to enhance their basic survivability and could instead choose Concealment or some other pool not normally found on Tanks.

But since a debuff would reduce the strength of a value no matter what the source that means that if you entered a "fatigued" state then inspirations would function at a lesser value as well.

I find it interesting that the "Risk vs Reward" has been forwarded as a reason when the Devs abandoned that smoke screen with the introduction of Merits. The game is about TIME vs Rewards, Risk has little to do with anything. The Devs have time-frames which they think the average player should be able to achieve "X", X including levels, IOs, Accolades.

Activity which breaks their accepted time-frame will be acted upon IF it becomes a statistically relevant. For example, if I was the only player capable of running 10 min ITFs, it would not be statistically relevant to the game as a whole. IF I teach 10,000 other players how to do it, it then becomes relevant and the Devs will move to make changes to the game.

And that is why the Devs will not specify their yardstick. Some have argued that this is good because it prevents people from working to being just under the yardstick markings. I can see that reasoning, but it is not the only reason. If the Devs came out and said "We expect you to take 200 hours to reach Level 50", they will have told each player exactly how much it is going to cost in real money as well as playtime.

Anyhow, there is no risk there is only time.

I would go with an E 8500 CPU, a Gigabyte Mobo, the 4 GB of memory and use the Windows 7 RC.
Whichever CPU you decide to go with, verify that it has Intel virtualization first as that is necessary to utilize the "virtual XP" inside of Win 7. Stay with NVidia and pick up a GTX 260. NVidia plays "nicer" with COH than ATI.

You might want to go with 2 Drives, One fast one for the OS (like a WD Raptor) and the other for Programs and Data. Just keep in mind that within 5 years you will be upgrading your hard drive to a SSD when the price points become reasonable.

I have used COX on a Samsung NC 10 upgraded to 2 GB. I had it attached to an external 19" flatscreen runnning at 1280 x 1024 and did not have much of an issue. It was very playable. But this was before the release of I14 and not in any laggy zones. I would not want to play it on a 10" monitor although it was doable. I was also on my own wireless network and have not tried it out being linked in via a public hotspot.

If you can wait I'd go with one of the Nvidia ION net/notebooks when they become available.

Server: Virtue / Justice
Character Name: Ian Gunn / Officer MacDonald
SG/VG Name: the Highlanders / Paragon Security Force
When do you crash: randomly when zoning into Atlas Park or when accessing Wentworths
Does it affect all characters: only happened on two so far
Does it affect only characters in one or more SG's or VG's: n/a

I think the original should stay as is as the first Tues of each month. The Tanker Tuesday Traveling Road Show (TTTRS) should be done on other Tuesdays. Personally, I'd show up no matter which server it was on. Either I have a tank there already or I'd make a new one.

I was on at 9 last night and did not see anyone so I thought the TF might have been postponed.

[ QUOTE ]
Count me 85% in at this point. If I can get my PB Barak Obackup the minimum level 20 by then I'll run it with him; if not then I'll re-run it with Coors L1ght, who is sittin' @ 25.

I know Sir Zane is interested in this too. The question is -- is he still reading the forums?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yep I'm reading them right now.

* is doubly tingly for I 14

No, but we can try again tonight if anyone is interested.

Sister Psyche TF @ 7:30 pm?

[ QUOTE ]
Okay so no particularly strong sentiment for Saturday... Sunday afternoon perhaps? Maybe at the 3PM start time?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can get to level 20 before then, count me in!

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to add that Team Turg (really just Zane and me) ran one Freakshow mish on Unyielding, and I had a great time watching the defender take first aggro on a regular basis. My scrapper has a new meatshield, and its name... is Zane.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yep just a leftover reaction from all the Tanks I normally play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sure hope the problems can be fixed. It would be nice for ATI/AMD but it would be really great for this game. I shudder to think how many customers have been lost because they were crashing and getting weird graphic errors with a high end ATI/AMD card.

Now we need to wait and see. "No timeline" doesn't exactly fill me with excitement, but it's not a message of doom, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all fairness though, things do seem to have gotten a bit better with ATI compatibility over time. Before I switched to Nvidia, I remember the random crashes, missing textures and alt+tab bugs, but since I switched back to ATI recently, I don't have any of those nagging bugs anymore, just the lingering inability to mix FSAA with high water effects or depth of field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It was because of those lingering problems that I returned a 4870 card and got a 260 instead.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think these 2 changes should pretty much balance EA in PvE. It cuts down the toxic hole, leave psy as the common hole. Then gives a potential 40% heal with a sacrifice to end recovery or recharge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for me it won't. The toxic resistance isn't much, and I won't get anywhere near that "potential" 40% heal. But any little buff is nice, even if it doesn't balance the set sufficiently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was expecting a bit more from Castle and what was proposed left me a bit underwhelmed. My DA/EA brute will not use or need the changes to Energy Drain. For a brute, the animation of Energy Drain is so slow that I find it is a Fury killer to use in battle which is why I respecc'd out of it and went with Dark Consumption. But then again I know I am an outlier case and all the other /EA brutes that went with Aid Self for a heal can drop those powers for Eng Drain instead.

I was reviewing the numbers on my DA/EA Brute and I noticed that Entropy Shield is displaying a value of 0 for Teleport Protection. Is this a display bug or is Entropy Shield's Teleport Protection bugged?

I have a 35 Kin/Rad defender which I would like to volunteer if you don't have a need for another inv/ss tank.

I think some discussion on the types of defenders and controllers that would be included in either the core pentad or as a tank substitue is needed. If we are not testing each type, then perhaps we should chose those build types which would highlight the potential difference in team performance when subbed in for the tank.

Maybe because I play one and am biased, but, I think a Kin/* defender should be considered as one of the Tank subbing ATs. I feel this way because a Kin/* defender makes a tremendous difference to the total core functionality of the entire team. A Kin/* increases every teammates Recharge Speed, End Regen Speed, and Damage Output. Faster greater damage out equals mobs dead quicker. By supercharges all aspects of the entire teams attacks, a Kin/* lessens the need for any long-term aggro control. A lot of the alpha strike damage can be mitigated by the initial use of FS which will lower its damage total.

The Kin/* defender in the test should have at least the following primary powers: transfusion, syphon power, syphon speed, increase density, speed boost, transference and fulcrum shift.

I'd be happy to help with the testing.