T_Immortalus

Edit: D'oh, I failed to notice the words I must have read.

Try Oppressive Gloom instead of Grant Invisibilty. Mezzing enemies helps survivability a lot more than a little bit of defense, plus the health cost for each enemies is negligible and easy healed.

1) The game is not balanced around Incarnate powers, especially since many will not even have access to those now or just not want Clarion.

2) You can only carry so many break frees.


Yes, you are right that you can do that. I'm just saying it's not as good as simply being tougher.

Try telling a brute to "just take break frees and skip the mez protection, it provides less protection overall and costs you endurance".
You may be right saying that, but it doesn't make it the easier/better choice or the one they want to take.




Given the choices available and numbers and how it plays, I find Time Manipulation lacking compared to Force Field and likely Sonic as well.
Force Field and Sonic are just better for consistent performance and tanking.


Oh yeah, the biggest factor is that Force Field and Sonic focus on buffs to self and allies. Time Manipulation focuses on debuffs that can miss, be resisted and have "max number of targets" limits.
Buffs to self and allies are always better against more enemies and tougher enemies than resistable debuffs with target number limits.

I've actually just recently started using Demons since trying Thugs as my first MM back in 2006, then Zombies and quickly settling on Robots ever since.

Demons are clearly more powerful than Robots and more survivable.


As for the secondary, I have found Demons/Time to be very good, rather survivable even in the Praetorian content that eats most characters. My Demons/Time is only level 19, but it should be, and is a bit, showing some of the power Masterminds get.

BUT, Time Manipulation, as I gain more of the powers, is definitely lacking compared to my favorite set, Force Field. I am guessing the same is true for Time compared to Sonic due to more constant higher protection and mez protection, just like Force Field.

Time Manipulation is good, but it is a bit too busy and certainly not as consistently strong as Force Field or Sonic.



Time Manipulation is just lacking, but it seems to be average as far as MM secondaries go rather than poor.




The most obvious place my Demons/Time MM saw trouble, apparently due to the nature of Time's powers, was the mission to capture Shen for Bobcat in Praetoria where each ambush is 6-9 minions. They just overwhelm the capabilities of Time Manipulation at that level. Distortion Field certainly helped quite a bit, but the chance to hold was too low for that and the amount of enemies still overwhelmed it.
My Robots/Force Field Mastermind didn't have any trouble on that mission so this was surprising.

Perhaps the problem is most of the Time Manipulation powers are enemy debuffs with lower max target counts than the amount of enemies Masterminds tend to be up against often. Buffs don't have that issue as they mitigate all attacks without regard for some shut off point when too many attacks come in.

I always prefer long term buffs rather than any debuffs, especially when the debuffs have a max target limit and can be resisted.




Anyway, Demons are just the best pet set by far. They have more varied damage than Robots(apparently higher DPS as well), definitely many more debuffs and varied ones(also highly desirable slows and -res) and much more resists than Robots have.

I think Demons are my new favorite pet set. I wish I had not avoided them for so long after I bought Going Rogue. If I had known they were that good then I would have one at 50 already.

It only makes it harder for you to be hit, and only while it is still active.


The first mez that manages to hit you takes down the offensive toggle Time's Juncture and you lose ALL your -to-hit.

You get mezzed and you're screwed.





Honestly, Time Manipulation is really good for a mastermind, but it is not my choice for best survivability and ease of use.

I still prefer Force Field(possibly Sonic as well) for keeping myself and pets alive easily, despite the lack of a heal. It's just better to have always on damage mitigation than the only really reliable thing being heals(if you're not mezzed at the moment and prevented from using anything).


So no, Time Manipulation is not great for "tankerminding".
I'm pretty sure the above mentioned Thugs/Time was just gaining initial aggro which was then shrugged off on the pets as they did damage.

1) Forget comics!
I never ever said anything about the game "not adhering to comics traditions".

A) Comics can write in an ant taking down the Hulk if they want. They allowed Janet Pym/Wasp to take him down on at least one occasion I remember well.
B) This is a game that has to make sense.


2) They can have the "grand cosmic enemies" like the Hamidon if they want. Those do make sense when they eschew certain things like intelligence for raw power.
BUT, they have far too many "ordinary humans" that "become gods" all too easily and thus require gimmicks and an entire team.


3) Emperor Cole is an incarnate.
Our characters are incarnates.

They are supposed to be on equal footing when they finally clash. We're supposed to be "as strong or stronger then Emperor Cole".


4) Forget comics!
They do not have to be logical because the whole world is never portrayed and mathematics doesn't run the comics.




The game has to abide by logic, especially when it allows "an ordinary citizen" to become " a superhero/villain".
It's stupid to say "oh this ordinary guy can attain that level of power but players can't ever attain that level of power because we say so for no good reason".


Ever hear of the term "Mary Sue"? It's a character that has been given godly power and intelligence and everything so that they can never lose or appear weak.
People hate that for good reason. It's boring and annoying and sucks when your own character is not the "Mary Sue".


If the game isn't fair and balanced for both players and NPCs then there is no balance or fun or challenge. It's just "another sack of health to whack for 10 minutes", "and another....and another....".

They did and do choose who leads them.

They do so either through willingly giving power or by doing nothing, thus willingly accepting the rule of that one person.


No dictator can stay in power without the support of the people, not even Emperor Cole.

Why else would he be trying to hide the truth from people? Obviously, he needs their support. Though, hiding the truth never works well enough or long enough. So the Resistance, the warden side, pops up, and other people probably know but still just don't want to change things because they are happy/content.


Anyway, they elected Cole and the majority still support him, otherwise he wouldn't have power anymore or there would at least be an all out civil war rather than an underground resistance movement.

Ok, clarifying my statements and the revolutionary war reasons.




It was against specific "acts of tyranny".

Obviously, people were more happy with their king in Britain than in America. There was a reason for that. The reason was different treatment.

If there wasn't all the "taxation without representation" and other issues then the American Colonies would not have rebelled.



People just want to live and live happily. Good people really do.
They don't want to harm others, don't want to steal and don't want to even think about government.
They just want the "essential liberties" such as the freedom to live and the freedom to pursue happiness.





Also, you're applying "tyranny" to describe acts that may not be "tyrannical".

For example, if the laws of Praetoria are all "tyrannical" then the laws of our real world are as well, even in the most democratic government.

It is only "tyranny" if the acts of the government are "tyrannical".



Sure, there probably are "tyrannical acts" in Praetoria making the government a "tyranny", but the same can be said of any government in the real world, such as the USA's regulation of the finances of all the people and their addiction to raising taxes instead of fixing their idiotic budgeting.


So really, Praetoria certainly isn't any worse overall than the real world, better in fact. It has some worse things that need to be dealt with, but the system needs far less changes than the real world's completely broken systems.





Look at Praetoria from an objective point of view, the point of view of an ordinary citizen that just wants to live happy and safe with the freedom to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others(thus robbing others of freedoms).

Would you rather have the freedom to rob freedoms from others, absolute freedom, or would you rather have a system that brings peace and justice and has far less fear?

Would you rather tolerate fearing every one of your fellow humans being able to do evil or tolerate just a couple bad programs in the government that actually do bring you more peace and security and freedom from fear despite the few other fears they bring?


It's not an easy choice. But, at least Praetoria is relatively free from rampant crime and fear compared to the real world and certainly a LOT better than Primal Earth where villains such as Lord Recluse are left in power by the UN due to international laws on sovereignty and even Paragon City is overrun by villains.





You want to call Praetoria evil and a horrible place to live? Shovel the crap covering everywhere in your home of Primal Earth first.

We have to truly make Primal Earth(and our own real world) as good or better than Praetoria before we can call Praetoria "bad".

Primal earth(and our real world) is far from "as good as" or "better than" Praetoria.
Stop throwing stones in your glass houses and see the truth. Primal Earth(and our real world) is easily proven to be worse.








Edit:
I also don't see Praetoria having any law preventing people from having too many children like one huge country in the real world. I bet the people of that country would rather live in Praetoria if given the choice, as well as anybody else from any worse off country.

You really need to look at all the factors before you jump to "omg, they have one person with power over everyone....they're absolute EVIL!".

"Those who would give up essential liberty"

There is a reason Benjamin Franklin(as far as I know, according to your post as well) chose carefully those words, especially "essential".

Liberty is an extreme term.
There is the "I'm not at liberty to say" statement which prevents free speech about certain topics due to legal reprisals, even if the speech isn't harmful. There is "liberty" to kill others, either if there is no legal recourse or it is legally sanctioned as in wars.

He chose "essential liberty" to recognize and differentiate the liberties that are essential from those that are not; the liberties of the people that they need from those of the king who had liberties he did not deserve nor did anyone deserve, such as the liberty to tax without representation because of no consequences until the revolution.



It's funny how the meaning of words, which determine the meaning of an entire phrase and point of view, are lost to many people.

Benjamin Franklin knew the essentials. His colleagues knew. They tried to secure them in the Constitution, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the right to life and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

It's funny that they wanted to make George Washington the king of the USA even while maintaining the liberties that people need and deserve, which Britain eventually adopted with an elected leadership while still retaining a royal family.





This is why I say "it is not bad so long as they have the essential freedoms" and make ti a point to cite "the freedom to harm" as a freedom nobody should have.

If nobody is free to harm another without consequence then nobody would have reason to fear harm from another human.
They could live life with "freedom from fear of other humans", which I would consider an essential freedom.


If you look at things from the proper perspective of a normal average person....Praetoria looks far from bad.
Given the fears and evils of our real world, that we know about, and the fears and evils of Praetoria....it's easy to see that Praetoria is closer to "heaven" than our real world has ever been. Sure, it's not perfect, but it is a lot closer than the real world.
In fact, Praetoria probably exemplifies our "essential freedoms", that the founding father's of the USA wanted for us, much better than out own country, especially these days.






But anyway, I don't want to get into a political debate, and I shouldn't post here anymore on this topic. It has gone too far.







Edit:

Yes, I consider it a battle between "absolute freedom" and "justice". The Resistance want "absolute freedom" at the cost of safety, security, peace, justice and even happiness. The Loyalists, the good Loyalists, want peace and happiness and justice at the expense of "the freedom to harm" and such.

It's like the "I would rather have freedom and be miserable than not have freedom and be happy" without ever explaining what you mean by "freedom", as in what freedoms you want.
Also, nobody would "rather be miserable" as they would fight to make things better, probably taking essential freedoms away from others in the quest for happiness.


I guess the question of the Praetorian faction choices is:
"Do you value absolute freedom above all else or do you value justice while retaining essential freedoms?"

That can be applied to both factions, as well as each faction as a whole, as the Crusaders and Power groups both value their own absolute freedom over justice while the Wardens and Responsibility group both value justice and essential freedoms, such as the lives of the people.

It's still hard to believe.

1) Why would she run into conflict where death is much more likely when she is trying to escape capture/death? That's a rather dumb tactical move for somebody supposedly smart.

2) I didn't say the meeting her was by chance, but it seems random chance that you happen to be going through the one part of the tunnels that is infested by Hamidon so massively.

3) Ok, she's so much more powerful than players that she can go completely unnoticed and unharmed(at least to the end nearly) through a war-zone and through a SEALED AND LOCKED door. She didn't open it or they would have opened fire and at least noticed her.

I don't like more examples of "players are so normal compared to the godly NPCs" "Mary Sue" crap.


My point was the whole thing depends on highly unlikely circumstances(even for CoH's world), an NPC again(or two considering Desdemona's immunity and necessity) being much more powerful than players and Vanessa and/or the players carrying the "idiot ball" that is the only way either would be so stupid as to not think of a better way to go than waltzing into this horrible situation.

After all, how could she hide from all those IDF and DE and pass right through their security barrier and not be able to hide from the other forces(PPD and seers?) chasing her?


Something does not add up.
"I'm going to hide from my pursuers by going through more well-trained and skilled members of the same force. They'll never find me even though their subordinates can."


I know, we can't expect them to make everything logical, but it gets tedious and annoying when we're forced to play idiots and adhere to gimmicky mechanics that make NPCs obviously a lot stronger/invincible while us players are never able to attain invincibility even through gimmicks.

Seriously, look at Dr. Aeon with his drones that give him a shield that you can't damage him through. We never have that option. We get a powerful shield but it has to be balanced so that we never reach that power level, such as not allowing us to attack.

1) I enjoyed them, the first time, and the time after that when I actually could enjoy the story because I wasn't desperately trying to figure out how to win, but 50 times later and....I'm just a "little"(sarcasm of course) sick of it.

If I wanted to raid every day for months then I would go to that competing game with over 10 million subscribers.
I'm still here though so obviously that isn't high on my list of "fun things", nor is it even on that list.


2) Yes, groups are great for "one small group against an army", but they lose their luster when "generic human bad guy #56" can only be defeated by 4-8 of us, or 12-24 or 30-40(Hamidon). (Edit: ....or only through a gimmick that you have to do or the bad guy is invincible, despite our players not being invincible ever.)

I'm not saying "do away with group content"; I'm saying "make content logical and fun".


Groups, either official or unofficial, should be required to get to the big bad guy, like beating through the army guarding him, but then the final bad guy should be soloable and soloed by each person.

This is sort of like what Guild Wars 2 is planning with their grouping, and like an old game called Tibia does with 4-person limiting quests locked behind areas of enemies that take much more to get through.

That way you preserve grouping and soloing and story and immersion and fun.


The game would be so much more fun if only it was logically designed to be so.
Fun games make more money as well, especially those that allow both grouping and soloing with scalable content rather than the "I can't ever find a group during my play hours because I play at night" or "I can't find a group on my empty server" or "I can't find a group for this unpopular content".

Relying on groups for everything without making everything absolutely equally rewarding and fun and populated(because doing so is impossible) will always result in problems.

I don't know about low rewards. I think the group rewards are already too slow.

I definitely don't want to see anymore "dailies" where we can't get a reward more than once per day. Those are annoying, to say the least.(weekly? that sucks completely)


I think it is far better and more interesting to solo the story and save groups for "ZERG!"(or at least something that doesn't depend on everyone listening).
It's definitely more epic, and still plenty challenging, with an AV for each person, like the Positron TF or those doppelganger tips(while solo).

That bugs me about game design.

They make all these gimmicks, which are necessary to win(despite players supposedly, as far as story, being as strong or stronger and not being invincible without certain gimmicks that need to be done before they can be defeated; "Mary Sue" NPCs again anyone?), and the gimmicks are hard to, or nearly impossible, to pick up during the fight so you can win.

This expectation that every player must read a strategy or fail the first run(despite the story implications of failure meaning failure forever), just to complete content, is annoying at best and not fun at worst.


It just doesn't make much sense and isn't much fun when you need to really work hard before a run, or after a failure or several, to succeed.

What ever happened to learning during the fight instead of "omginstadeath!" gimmicks?



I know. suspension of disbelief is key to the game story and fun, but we're supposed to be superheroes, incarnates in fact. We're supposed to be rivaling the power of Lord Recluse and Statesman and Emperor Cole(soon at least) and even Hamidon, but we still need 12-24 incarnates to take down one supposedly "non-incarnate" AV(Siege/Nightstar are not incarnates for one example).

That just doesn't seem right.
If we're really supposed to be more powerful than level 1, and "more powerful than Statesman", then why do the mechanics make us look even weaker?



Yes, I enjoy the game, but I am not such a fan of the type of "Emperor Cole speed run, PST" and possible "farming Emperor Cole, PST, price 100 mill" gameplay just for the rewards after you beat it once for story and twice for fun and a third time for friends when we're not allowed to ever be able to legitimately solo the big bad guy to truly say "I'm just as powerful/more powerful".

Which would ruin the game faster? requiring multiple runs for rewards or fostering actual story immersion with solo battles, one incarnate player against one incarnate NPC?




If you ask me, group content should be full on open battles, like the Rikti or Praetorian invasions and some giant monsters or an archvillain for each player(like the Posi part 1 TF with the shadow/clone guys), while signature archvillain/hero content should be solo stories where the player proves their superiority in an epic one on one fight for the ages.

It just doesn't make sense that players are told, in the NPC dialog, that they "will become more powerful than statesman or Lord Recluse or Emperor Cole or Rularuu or Hamidon" and then we come to face a generic "War Walker" AV and we need 12 people to take it down.




We haven't even had a hint of facing Emperor Cole directly, but I wouldn't be surprised if it requires a few gimmicks("without which failure is guaranteed") and 24 full incarnate players, just to barely defeat him to where he can talk before he is finished.

That is not going to be very "epic" if we end up still being much less powerful than the big signature guy, despite the world of City of Heroes being predicated upon the characters, both player and NPC, having access to the same sources of power and the same amounts of power.
For example, we were given the Incarnate System as a sort of "way to become as powerful as Statesman" to "emphasize the importance of the player instead of the (Mary Sue) signature characters".


If they're going to keep the challenge level intact, so groups are required, all the way to the tip-top of the villain/heor heap....then we're going to end up feeling a lot less powerful than we did when at level 1 when we finally "need a lot of help to beat 'solo Emperor Cole' and 'solo Hamidon' ".







I think this punch-line is apt right now:

"In Soviet City of Heroes....Emperor Cole solo you!"

(insert AV/GM/Hero of your choice in place of "Emperor Cole")



I feel less like a superhero with every "new challenge" and more like an ordinary foot-soldier.





Edit:
What is this game? "City of (that big competitor)"?
It's starting to look that way with all the "raiding" just to defeat one guy who we should be just as powerful as, and thus able to solo, by the time we are able to face him.

Edit 2:
"In Soviet City of Heroes....generic elite boss one-shot you!"
This is also apt.

I made 2, bots/ff and demons/time, but I like to stick with one toon rather than a lot of them.

I mostly just made the demons/time one to have another option and to test it. I'll either continue having a hard time deciding between the two or just abandon one for the better of the two.

Awww poo.

I was told by one person that it was included with Going Rogue(previous purchase), but it sounds like that is wrong despite VIPs getting Going Rogue free while subbed.

I kind of like the pieces, but I have to really like them to justify a purchase, however small.

Well, Thermal is out of the question. I just wouldn't be that good at it compared to other sets.

I was thinking Sonic would be good because of the -res on top of all the other goodies.
With enough -res you won't need -regen, except for certain big guys.

I don't know, but I'll probably go bots/ff just for simplicity.



I'll save demons for a demons/time MM.

Most of the posts in this thread were exactly: "Cole is evil and the Loyalists are evil and villains and the Resistance are the heroes".

The idea that "no side is fully right or wrong in Praetoria" was not common in this thread, unless you mistook my multiple posts as multiple posters instead of just me.



So, let me rephrase the quote you objected to:

"Somebody finally admits to Praetoria being morally gray instead of Loyalists being villains no matter what".

Or....

"Finally, the Resistance are just as much villains as the Loyalists."


I'm done with this topic now. It's tiresome.

Ummm....last I checked there are 2 Protector Bots who each cast one bubble on each pet and yourself to add up to "2 bubbles".

The only pets that get only a single bubble are the Protector Bots who can't bubble themselves.

It's the same thing as Deflection Shield and Insulation Shield from the Force Field power set. 2 different users can stack bubbles on a single target for double the benefit(compared to a single bubble total).

Not that I condone this but, you do not need super glue and the gravel size is best at just a pebble size of ordinary sand/limestone gravel.
I know from personal experience that rollerblade wheels pretty much guarantee any little rock will stop the wheels and toss you forward. It's not easy to stay up even when you are expecting it.

As for skateboards, I think the same works for their wheels, being made of the same materials.


But after all, what are they hurting by skating in the parking lot?
Do you use it for anything other than parking cars?

I think it's fine so long as they aren't causing accidents or close calls. If they do, then you can always try having them arrested for endangering public safety or take them to court for damages to any vehicles or people or property such as handrails.

No, I believe the one that kicked up the hornet's nest of "Loyalists are evil, that is what the devs said and so they are" was moderated probably for trolling.
Golden Girl did get moderated at least once with one of her posts saying that, somewhere.


Anyway, I certainly did not go off on the tangent until it was said that "Cole is just making himself look good after brainwashing Duray into claiming the idea as his own" and the eventual "the Resistance are the heroes and Loyalists are evil, that is how they are supposed to be"(despite the story in game making both sides both evil and good, depending on sub-faction choice).
(Edit: After all, the theory that Cole implanted the idea into Duray's brain is not stated in this story. It's just a wild conspiracy theory by the "Cole is pure evil, and so are the Loyalists" "cult" on the forums here.)


The argument that I was talking about was "Loyalists are evil"-"not all of them or even most of them" and "Resistance are good"-"not all of them or even most of them".

I can see why the confusion with a lot of emphasis on "Cole IS the Loyalists, all Loyalists support him as a man, not the people or the ideal of the system" kept coming up and I kept saying "Cole is not the system, it can exist without him".(Edit: Also, Cole isn't without redeeming actions, such as this very story if taken at face value.)