Sylph_Knight

Everyone, I grew up with the CoH community through high school, college, and my current career. I am so proud to have known all of you in spite of any differences we may have had. Thank you all for these fond memories and friendships. I hope you will find a bright future somewhere down the road.

It breaks my heart to accept this isn't some nightmare I'm having while trying to sleep this afternoon. I honestly feel like a part of my life is being stripped from me. I know that sounds pathetic, but there's more than digital currency at play here - there was a living, breathing community of players unmatched in all the internet. The people who played CoX are an intelligent and deep-thinking tribe. You all brought out the best in me, in the game and in real life.

Fare well, and always believe in your Justice.

I looked at all the changes and new options for my Tanker and nearly broke into tears.

Pride is definitely talking here, but on the live servers my build cannot be packed any tighter. With I24, to keep maximized performance current Sylph Knight will require something just short of an overhaul. I can barely begin to tweak my build with all the modified IO sets and bonuses, PPM changes, and power options now without a Mids update to help track of all the variables. For the moment, all I can do is test the new powers and start laying out the floor plans for an upgrade based solely on observation while attempting to purge as much Recharge Toxicity from my attack powers as possible to find more idealized configurations with my Procs.

For the most part, I'm elated. But with rumors flying around about Tanker changes following sometime in the near future, I'm about ready to have a heart attack. For good or ill, I'm feeling quite overwhelmed. On the positive end of things, I now have a reason to come back and play again. A God Am I certainly does qualify for the resulting potential of these collective possibilities.

Without being condescending, I reinforce this message because any Tanker changes could implicate a shift in the balance of all melee archetypes. There are many points to consider.

And this is precisely why I don't want Tankers toyed with. A proper Tanker build using all the existing end-game upgrade methods available can make nearly any Brute look like a one-trick pony and in some cases can even exceed their performance given that a Tanker's default burst output will not diminish when consistent DPS is interrupted for whatever reason (utilities, mobility, etc.), unlike a Brute who depends on maintaining their chains to keep themselves at optimal capacity. I believe this is the Dev's standpoint as well, which leads me to believe that there won't be a "buff" to the existing framework so much as a complete makeover.

Maybe it's just my overbearing manliness, but I don't like makeovers.

Thank you.

Frankly I'm not interested in playing the debate game, so I'll bite the bullet.

Poor wording and a case of mismanaged subject matter are to blame. Allow me to clarify my position - I do believe the Dev's see the feedback, but when the results don't match the expectations they simply choose to ignore it. In the case of PPMs in particular, this was evidenced in that they released a broken system that was repeatedly railed against, more or less stated it was working as intended, and then abruptly backpedaled after player investments were made in the system. If the concern was a matter of balance or pay-to-win, then all the warning signs were there and they chose to ignore them for months. I find this to be irresponsible behavior and in no way endorse it.

A poor choice of words on my part. In my eyes, the situation is more like the route that was taken with Mass Effect 3's new endings - they DID add an ending for the players who did not wish to play along with the poorly-scripted options presented to them, but it was more or less a big "Don't want to do things our way? Screw you!"

In short, the behavior of the developers as of late has trounced my faith in their willingness to improve the game with the expectation of their community seeing changes as an improvement, and in that place have shown a willingness to be bullish on changes that make absolutely no sense to me. Therefore, I cannot in good faith believe they will change Tankers in a way that does not somehow also take away from something else in return, and I would not call that an improvement from my standpoint.

I interpreted your original statement as accusatory to my character, to which I must state that I am not so foolish as to think that the world revolves around me. However, I do believe my opinion matters on some scale and if I disprove of something I'm not afraid to say it. If my opinion did not matter, you would not have acknowledged it. No one in their right mind wastes their time acknowledging something that is insignificant.

The difference between debate and discovery is that one requires both sides to be immalleable or at least resistant to another's approach, while the other involves a willingness to accept that another's perception holds greater relevance.

Arcanaville has seen me on the forums enough to know that while I am considerably bull-headed, I am also wise enough to apologize for my mistakes and learn from them. Nothing on the internet is more dangerous than someone with the courage to accept that they are mistaken. Those people become increasingly more intelligent with the passing of time.

So you see, intent is the key to the relevance of the topic. Despite our common generosity, she and I can both come across as abrasive and frankly at times I simply cannot tell with her.

Before we proceed, are you attacking my choice of words or are you attacking me?

Undoubtedly.

And I agree. However, that doesn't mean I cannot reserve the right to judge whether I agree with their decisions or state what I perceive to be the obvious. More specifically - the third options that are being taken as of late appear less-fulfilling than some of the offerings we have seen in previous Issues.

In other words, I am not disagreeing with their tactics in general; I am disagreeing with the directions they have ultimately selected as of late, which I feel renders their current tactics to be an inferior option. I truly wish that was NOT the case. However, when a team of developers begins to build content around ideas that seem vastly inferior to those of their community, there's something lacking. This is my opinion, and I would not expect everyone to agree. That said, it is my personal opinion based on their recent decisions that any change they plan for Tankers would ultimately weaken a majority of builds in general in some way.

Say what you will about Castle but the man also had a talent for pleasant surprises, so perhaps I was spoiled during his run. But I'll be damned if he didn't know how to push nerves - including mine - during the development period for each change.

Die! >.<

Just think - this was the mere mention of a nerf. Can you imagine what making that into an actual objective would look like?



I can.

Several of the situations above are a result of introducing extreme factors that remove many of the tools built into Tankers that give them their edge in survivability and reduce us to an extra-large bag of hit points.

In other words, it is terrible game design placed for the sole purpose of providing the illusion of added difficulty, but in many cases will instead simply result in cheap deaths. This is doubly true considering you are already trying to hold aggro, do damage, manage utilities, and watch your health - because it is likely the group will be in disarray and unable to focus. Having to monitor your environment and move while trying to stay alive against overwhelmingly dangerous new factors because your mitigation is rendered nearly meaningless can take fun into a proverbial uncanny valley.

And the response from the pessimist in me: Crap.

Burn~!!

Golden Girl has just crossed the Trolling Event Horizon. There is no saving her now.

I agree with this opinion, but that it should remain an exception rather than the norm or that there should always be some lore to back said opponent's exponential combat ability even if they don't physically appear that threatening. We have many scenarios in CoX that fail in this department, so that's where my argument comes from. Both the lore and visual representation of our ever-increasing challenges typically do not follow the sliding scale of villain threat or the sorting algorithm of evil.

Yes, I know tropes should not always be followed but they are useful for a reason.

To follow the DBZ example - I could understand Cell's eventual power level because he started out fairly weak (relative to the main characters), but his unique body chemistry steadily adapted to fight opponents much stronger than himself from the outset WHILE he was absorbing other beings to further increase his power. However, seeing a bunch of Ki-less androids wipe the floor with Vegita and Trunks felt extremely rediculous considering that Trunks just put Freeza AND his Father down with almost no effort whatsoever not long before this happened. If memory serves, there was no Applied Phlebotinum or secret origin explaining their vast power which is precisely why this felt so absurd to me.

That would be a pen-and-paper definition of palette-swapping, although if you were to give them magical glowing armor, demon wings, and bulk them up a bit then there would be visual queues that they're not your typical cannon fodder. Goblins are a CR of 1/3 or 1/4 if memory serves, and they are not player characters. Unless you're reading a certain webcomic. I could be mistaken, but I think it was 3.5 that provided the most opportunistic methods for template conversion.

Besides, the intended point was that the concept of exponential (or even incremental) statistical scaling without equal perceptive escalation scaling ruins the illusion of progress. Most people would not desire to start out fighting dragons only to ultimately reach level 20 and fight a mouse who is infinitely more powerful only because the DM said so. The Vorpal Rabbit of Monty Python was played out as a parody of this scenario, perhaps only without gaming as a consideration for the joke.

A-

Men.

Zone events, story arcs, and the like are much better and more entertaining storytelling tools than the iTrials could ever hope to be. The construction of iTrail instances is a chore unto itself, let alone the coordination required once you're in there unless you're running with a fully-experienced team. I could say the same about Hamidon, but let's digress from legacy content as Mothership Raids, Seed of Hamidon Raids, Invasions, and Zone Events are all much easier to coordinate. iTrails are not a pastime - they're a necessity to be fulfilled for completion or improvement, little more.

Regardless, SSA2.1 deserves a TON of praise for the direction it takes after the poor design choices we have experienced recently. We need more of everything it offers.

EDIT: On another note, I thought Neo-DA, short of lacking a Zone Event, was the perfect archetype of what CoX should follow for future content. Instead of Task Forces with member requirements, we are presented Story Arcs that are functionally Task Forces without the prerequisites and lock-in. I have taken friends through some of these multiple times and had a blast.