StratoNexus

I am interested in in why you think toggles are what eats endurance. Attacks eat the most endurance and blasters are compelled to attack or die.

If only people could be trusted. Sigh.
I am generally an optimist and I actually have a very strong belief in the inherent goodness in most people. But even I am doubtful of the rate of honesty you would get.

Besides, the devs can already see which sets people make, play, and keep playing.

Everybody wins!
1) Increase range damage mods (1.3 blaster, 0.9 corruptor, 0.8 defender)
2) Change each tick of Rain of Fire to be (these all use melee pet mods):
Blaster - 0.052 scale
Corruptor - 0.036 scale
Defender - 0.032 scale
3) The corruptor version scourges for 0.036 scale
4) Leave the slows as they are currently (and allow it to be slotted for slows, including slow IO sets)

Indeed, one should play as they like. I almost never DFB, preferring the other content, since I enjoy the low levels as much, if not more than, the rest of the game. But I have run it and find it fun. If others prefer to get to the 20s, I can't think of a better way to implement a level skip than the way the devs did it.

Rather than just starting at 20, here is an opportunity for those who prefer to quickly move to higher levels, while not also leaving the low end game entirely without population. Even if many skip the other low end game and DFB, new people can still come in and get a team to play and level.

Even with Build Up, the ET on my stalker does not one shot +1 sappers. They have strong resistance to Nrg and good resistance to Sm.

Psi Melee maybe?

Edit: Scooped.

I hope that pain is something you enjoy.

I never said it didn't work or it didn't make sense. It was just odd.

I brought it up precisely to demonstrate the point that different is good. Just because I expected and would still love a more defensive oriented armor set, doesn't mean Shield should be changed.

Just because I am an AoE nut and think control is overrated, doesn't mean EM should be changed.

OK. Show me. With numbers. Give me attack chain sequences showing how badly EM is outpaced by the other sets. Last I knew, it was still at or near the top for single target DPS and had solid mitigation due to the prevalence of stuns.

I am curious why you think that. /Dev and /Ice are the only two secondaries that lacked end management; since /Dev is getting some added, it seems reasonable that /Ice would get a similar amount.

You could be right, but I am curious what makes you think /Ice is going to get considerably less, since I see no obvious reason it should.

I am kind of sad that /Fire and /Dark are going to be left with the long recharge end management powers and I am sure I will lobby for a change (again).

This is true. Sadly, for you, Energy Transfer and Total Focus are not lackluster. You may not like them. You may take exception to a set with 3 quick activating attacks and 2 long activating ones (I know you said you want your sets to have 3 sub-2 second animations, maybe you thought EM didn't when you typed that). You may take exception to a set with only one AoE damage power. But you will have a hard time arguing that it underperforms or is lackluster.

It is not only OK, but necessary to make changes to stuff that underperforms or are lackluster. Sometimes those changes will annoy some people who like the status quo, but they are still necessary. That doesn't mean things should change just because some people don't like some things.

Really, I find AAO odd. Shield users, in the history of RPGs, have been about giving up damage to gain survivability. But CoH designed the set to boost damage? So wrong to me. AAO should give a stacking resist buff or something for survivability and something in the set should likely penalize damage. Shield should be a turtling armor set, like Stone. More survivability, less damage. Should we remove the damage buff in AAO?

Lots of things about blasters are true and clear before you choose to play them, yet they are getting significant changes. Clearly being able to see a sets warts is not a reason to leave them (it is also not a reason to change them).

Note, I agree the set has advantages that counteract the warts. I don't know if it is a completely equitable trade, but I still don't think EM is bad off.

13

It will work everytime if you disengage for just a few seconds (10ish). It will work most of the time even if you do not disengage, although that lucky hit could come in at just the wrong time.

I do wish Unstoppable on a scrapper would be a bit stronger.

It is arguable that all of those combined may be an issue. I play EM on a stalker, so the set is pretty much perfect for that AT, so I am happy on a personal level. I have always been more concerned with how the set functions for brutes and tankers.

Those ATs normally have more AoE capability, although not necessarily damage. It is not so bad for tankers, because both ET and TF have massive gauntlet radii, so they can still provide good control for the team. It is hard for me to argue for any brute buffs.

So I can't argue for changes to EM. I just can't. But at the same time, something feels off about it. So while I don't jump on board that EM is bad off, I sort of sympathize and understand where people who want changes are coming from.

While I agree with the premise that powers should be significantly changed only if very needed, it certainly could be argued that those of us who played EM before the animation changes are not without a case. You can't really defend keeping EM as is by saying, "I love the way it was originally designed".

Otherwise, I can tell you to talk to the hand.

I should note, I love the new ET animation and prefer it to the old "talk to the hand" one.

I disagree. We end up overusing it, but that is how any game with limited moves and tons of fights is going to work. We overuse Foot Stomp and Golden Dragonfly and Fire Ball too.

I like most movie scenes with a dramatic attention grab move. Sometimes they do make me groan, but usually I enjoy that over-the-top, cocky maneuver.

Other times, I like it when Indy pulls out the gun and just kills the guy. I wouldn't want Taunt to be the only way to generate aggro, but I do like its existence.

Because I like it. Nothing more than that.

I am confused. Isn't that what we already have? Unless when you say less, you mean none.

I kind of like that there are powers that are not attacks that can draw aggro. I greatly appreciate that punching things in the face also taunts and generates hate and I like that those are the vast majority of my actions. But I do like having something like Taunt that is different from just attacking.

Yes, and sadly the time and large capital outlay was used to make all those old arcs and I am not seeing that kind of time and capital outlay likely in the near future. This means we will likely only see SSA arcs and the occasional story arc for villains.

The ironic thing is, I see a few people talk about how much better the villain arcs are, but I just don't see it. I'd much rather run the old hero content.

It is not a matter of like. I like the PYTF fine (I think it could use another mission, but that is a personal preference and it works fine as is). It really is like they took SPTF and removed a bunch of missions. Same story, same enemies, same map types (sure they used some fancy versions, but none of them were new maps).

Thawed bread doesn't taste bad, but it isn't the same thing as fresh from the oven.

That is new like thawed bread from the freezer is fresh.

Most players range of balance tolerance is this big:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The devs range of tolerance is this big:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

Many forumites range of tolerance is this big:
|-------------------------------------------------|

And Rakeeb's range is this big:
|----------------------|

Did dug say tankers could not solo? I thought he was countering the argument that tankers should be buffed because brutes and scrappers soloed better than tankers?

Tankers were designed with teams in mind. That is why they do lower damage, so that teammates will do the damage they cannot (and they will take the damage their teammates cannot).

How is that making stuff up?

I am not sure it will go that far, but I am surprised at the significant shortening of the recharge. 3 or 4 minutes and no crash seemed reasonable. The proposed versions are more impressive, for sure.