Toastyr

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Does Flurry still have silly high damage in PvP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only the fite klubers use it. Flurry does about the same damage as knock out blow in pvp.

Never thought I'd see the day when flurry would need a nerf. It kinda tells you something about the new pvp system...

[/ QUOTE ]Of course, the animation will probably still get you killed, but I think it's hilarious that it does so much damage.

Last I checked, Dominators do the most PvP damage with it, too. Also hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the life expectancy of dominators in PVP about 3 seconds? Considering that's about 0.07 seconds shorter then flurry's activation time, it probably should do a lot of damage for them.

I joke though. seriously, If I understand the PVP damage chain change correctly, Damage is based on activation time but short activation powers and long recharge powers get a bonus. So while flurry has some crazy numbers, chaining blaze + Fire blast + Flares takes slightly more time and does significantly more damage.

The quirk is, flurry is no longer horribly underpowered for the amount of time it takes to activate. That's more a problem with the current game numbers though. PVE is balanced around damage numbers that only work within the PVE environment.

For instance, in PVE it doesn't really matter if a 1 second activation power can far outdamage a 3 second one, just so long as the AI dies first. PVP is a different beast though. Before I13 using flurry in PVP was the hallmark of an total noob, there were so many far better powers to choose from. Now, it actually has uses, although it's probably not the greatest power around still.

Hmm, so based on that logic, maybe we need a stalker that can turn itself into random propel style objects.

Suddenly it turns out that the forklift everyone was standing behind turns out to be a gadgets stalker in disguise!

heh, Assasins BURN PATCH comes to mind.

Dunno, I'll forgive all kinds of weirdness of mixing hide with burning flame effects so long as the AS for fire is Spontaneous Combustion.

yep, its Amerime, but the art studio in Korea I think.

I was more suprised that Cartoon network paid for a cartoon that didn't insult the intelligence of anyone over the age of 12.

I'm not a purist though, any show that can mix buddhist ideals with spectacular fight scenes gets tops marks in my opinion.

hmm,

Always been sort of "meh" about cold, but I imagine the extra HP and Defense would be pretty useful with those freakishly squishy Imps.

Besides, since Jack has squat for defense, Ice/Cold would be really nice for making him a much better pet.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If only earth assault was like this.

[/ QUOTE ]


I might make a Earth/Earth just for that

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooo, someone knows awesome anime. Yeah, if it's half that good it'll be a really fun set to play. Of course, I'm just imagining what it would be like to play a those incredibly fast activating Stone Melee powers combined with Earth control and am absolutely ecstatic about it.

It would be amazing if they could take powers customization and make some of the other elemental set types have martial arts themes like in Avatar. Having Shaolin based Fire Melee would make a martial artist like me extremely happy.

Of course, then we would need a Air Assault and Water Assault set to go with it. There's certainly enough material in Avatar to pull from to make a good control set to match though.

[ QUOTE ]

Or dig up the archives of the old EQ1 forums, from the time it was the king of MMOs.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOL

Ironic that you should post that in relation to doms. At just about the time CoH came out, Enchanters, were useful for dispensing mana buffs and attack speed buffs instead of running crowd control. The Devs were gearing up the future expansions to have more and more Magic resist so enchanters were nearly incapable of landing anything on a target. I was one of the crazy ones soloing an enchanter and not camping the small selection of charmable mobs. And of course, following the forums.

Having played that for a years, COV beta showed dominators to be what I really liked in a class: Controls and attacks. One catch, the Jekyll and Hyde damage drove me crazy, so I stuck to blastrollers.

Over the weekend I hopped on a grav/nrg, and Ice/Fire, a Mind/Plant, and an Earth/Psy.

I've liked every one of them, and only the mind/plant didn't make it to at least 10. Heck, even my /Fire made it past 10, and the first one I rolled got deleted after its first experience with a mayhem mish. I still hate DOT's, but taking Air sup instead of chilblain rounded out the character nicely.

My old Grav/Nrg was playing at level 33, and after a quick respec and updating some SO's it played insanely nicely. Once it gets power burst it's going to have unbelievable ranged damage. I'm looking at a new version which only has TF for melee, and making an entirely range oriented Dom.

I have to say, if the I13 changes drove out this guy, maybe it was a serious step in the right direction.

I get a kick out of this, isn't this guy essentially saying: "I13 is making it harder for me to tele-gank and grief other players, so I'm quitting"

Or as his blog puts it: "It’s my last paid subscription day, after canceling my account ahead of some disappointing game designer decisions and because I’ve really more or less run the course of what I find interesting inside the game"

Funny, why does an unbiased writer of a thesis on social interaction care about "disappointing game designer decisions" and "run the course of what I find interesting".

At this stage, I don't care how he tries to intellectualize it, there were only 2 reasons to quit at the I13 changes.

1) It was too hard to grief players with his chosen tactics, and his opinion of I13 had nothing to do with leaving, or 2) For some paradoxical reason he was so disappointed with the changes that he decided he no longer wanted to grief other players in the name of "unbiased research".

The second seems more likely. This was a person who had their tactic down solid, and would have continued griefing other players if he could. Actions speak louder then words here. Quitting over "disappointing designer changes" is pretty telling.

In the long run, this is another disenfranchised PVPr who lost their favorite "I win" button. Apparently he took it even farther and deliberately provoked players. I wonder if his "statistical sample" includes the players that he may have driven away from PVP.

However, his loss is apparently the community at large's gain. If his only way to enjoy PVP was to make others angry, then he really needed to go away for the sake of everyone else. Perhaps if the I13 changes were making this cheap trick harder to pull off and driving out players who abused the system, then maybe the dev's really are moving in the right direction.


I may take a look at this book, but not for any literary content. This book will go down as the most intellectualized example of abusive sadism I can imagine, and all over what is ultimately an insignificant game. This is someone who deliberately abused their fellow players, and enjoyed creating anger and frustration amongst their fellow players.

At the same time, I pity this guy. Apparently his favorite form of entertainment really did include upsetting people and creating frustration. Ultimately, this is a very bitter person, who really enjoyed every angry reaction as a reaffirmation of other's powerlessness to do anything about it. Sadly, this "Unbiased Thesis" is only another intellectual con game following the same pattern. Something tells me this person may not be able to escape this cycle for a long time.

The final irony of the whole situation, if he was really interested in the unbiased social dynamics of the situation, he would have spent more time studying the reactions of the different segments of the game population towards the PVP changes. Between the anger of the PVP players and the confrontations between the Casual and hardcore PVPers, the dynamics would have made for a much more userful study.

If he really wants to tick people off, maybe he should take up a job as a PVP dev on some other game next. I'd be sure to stay far away from it though.

Just to toss a couple numbers into the mix:

Using Total Focus since it has the exact same Act and Recharge available to both blasters and tankers:

Tanker: 197 dmg
Blaster: 240 dmg

While Blasters get overall more damaging attacks, and more high damage attacks, they're at most definitely not at double the damage of tanks. Not sure how that relates to lower damage tank sets versus lower damage blaster sets though.

As for Hitpoints:

Tanks HP: 1874, 3212 capped
Blaster HP: 1204, 1606 capped

So even if both were running 50% resist due to DR, tanks at HP cap still have twice the effective hitpoints. That's also not counting any Regen bonuses, since tanks would be regen'ing twice the hitpoints.

Hmm, the poor soul actually made a forum accou... ahem erm..

Welcome to the forums!

So, is that shield Fire-proof? Pity Shield isn't an attack set, you might need it to club the annoyingly perisistant PM'rs off. Whoever they might be


Joking aside, Congrats!

Reading comprehension ftw! You have played Warmachine


...

[ QUOTE ]

I suspect... [---]


[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, Lady Athyna, usage of that word may be monitored.

Lol, I can't believe I couldn't place the name Douglas Shuler. I have several Magic Cards I got personally autographed by you from various conventions!

Your work has always been one of my favorites!

Lol, a robot bartender, sounds perfect.

I set up a Bar in the entry room. Perfect place to kick back with a snifter of cognac and a good book, get everyone together for movie night and a some good on-tap brews, or get the crew together for a night of hard core drinking and gaming.

Hmm, thats what my base needs: a lan party room.

Hmm, so with cage suppression 50% of the time, we go from

7 Sonics for keeping 7 opponents out of the game,

To

4 sonics to keep 4 opponent out of the game, and then alternating to the other half.

yaaaay suppression!

Maybe it needs to be nerfed more, so it does absolutely nothing more of the time.

I'm still 7:
Penalty to target damage and buff/debuff
Bonus to target mitigation.

Target can still do damage and function, and cager isn't completely removing someone from the game.

[ QUOTE ]
If they are hitting with base damage and can't use Inspirations, Enhancements, Buffs, or BU+Aim then melees are still affected.

The caged player is also still fully targettable, they are just unaffected if damage/debuffs are being thrown out. With this change, it becomes a force multiplier like any debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, soo, target would be unaffected by buffs/debuffs, including SO's and BU, which would limit them to base damage only?

Also, target would also be untargettable by opponents or allies, and get a -ranged to limit them to melee range?

I'd vote for that. Except might want to make it base damage -50%, being untargettable is a pretty hefty buff, especially for naturally high damage dealers like scrappers or blasters.

Maybe a better way to handle it would be eliminate armor effects and just give a straight +75% resist and +mez, protection. Makes the target hittable, like a partially phased opponent.

A *really* good idea, but two possible problems:

-rng won't affect melee AT's, they already fight at that range.

Second, the caged player is fully targettable by all opponents. It would be a nasty debuff, but cage is supposed to make the target difficult to damage as well. Without that penalty it would be a really disgusting uberpower.

If it was possible to make it so all other players get a -rng debuff when targetting the caged player it might work, except for the melee jousting.

7: Make cage less binary: -75% dmg buff and buff/debuff effect, and +50% dmg resist, does not stack. No remove from combat effect in pvp since there is no resist.

Why? There are 2 things broken about cages: It removes the player from play, and that player cannot function. 2: Making it suppress or be resisted elimnates a survival tool from bubblers.

The basic idea behind cage is it removes a threat from the game, but the penalty is nothing can target that threat.

In keeping with that idea, it significantly diminishes the damage and debuff effect the target can do, but makes the target very difficult to damage.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Zone PvP rankings should not be fluid. They should be an accurate representation of the talent and skill level of the individual...


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd second this one. Pvp ranking is essentially the characters skill level indicator. It needs some tweaking to accurately reflect how well the player does overall.

[ QUOTE ]

PVE & PVP build that I can toggle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely! PVP requires a different spec from PVE. The two can mix, but only with sacrifices to one or another.

Irregardless, I still see no reason for normal players to put up with PVP in its current format. It does nothing to advance the characters in level or capability, and there is no incentive to PVP except the joys of listening to some jack*** spam hate tells.

Furthermore, players are either playing a pvp capable pri/sec AT, or their getting owned by far more capable builds. No amount of pvp specing is going to help a Elec/Emp def function vrs a EM brute. Even Psy/ Defs fall apart vrs well played Psy resistant AT's.

Switchable builds fixes the imbalance between PVP and PVE requirements. However, it doesn't resolve the two underlying problems, the imbalance between AT's in PVP, and that PVP simply leeches off the PVE game.

Hence my two original assertions: EXP in pvp, and Balance AT's for 1v1.

[ QUOTE ]

ummm, Rad/Psy defenders can pretty much 3 shot kill squishies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do tell.

Ya, the balance in PVP is pretty borked. I've been kicking around a lot of ideas on how to balance it out for solo and group based PVP. The basic problem is, forced team based pvp didn't work very well, especially since well played blasters and stalkers could drop squishies and most AT's in a matter of seconds. With Brutes and Scrappers having good defense when compared to everything but blasters and stalkers damage, they ended up being the rest of the majority


So here's some really wild ideas:
<ul type="square"> [*] Balance all AT's for 1 on 1 combat[*] Exp in PVP, bonus for team combat[*] Fix Binary Holds, give holds a debuff effect when resisted.[*] Remove detoggling.[*] Give all AT's a hold and stun resist temp power.[/list]
Needed AT fixes to balance AT's in PVP 1V1.
<ul type="square"> [*] Def's need a dmg boost. Probably via a replacement to vigilence.
FF, Sonic, and Emp need a defense boost. FF &amp; Sonic can be resolved by giving the AOE bubble a def/res increase. Emp, not sure about.
[*] Tank's need Axe, Mace, Ice brought up to par. Especially considering S/L resists. Ice needs a high damage attack.
[*] Controllers need holds revamped so they provide some form of defense when resisted. Possibly have resisted holds provide a -res for a dmg bonus, to replace containment.
[*] Stalkers need to be able to stay in melee range once AS is completed. Remove the reliance on hide, so perception doesn't wreck stalkers. Sorry stalkers, but AS is horribly unbalanced in pvp. No AT should be able to take out another AT in 2-3 hits.
[*] Blasters, same is true as stalkers, overbalanced on offense vrs squishies. Blasters need some form of damage mitigation, otherwise they are forced to strictly hit and run.
[*] Scrappers, should be fairly on par with the increase in defense to squishies.
[*] Brutes, same as scrappers.
[*] Dom's need complete rewiring of Domination. Jekyll and Hyde needs to be dragged out into the street and shot. My fav fix, AT needs to have a 0.9 melee/range base dmg, and domination should be a chainable 1 min buff with a -40% dmg. Holds also need to provide -dmg, so if resisted it will still provide defense.
[*] MM's have adequate defense, although something to prevent TP foe from stripping them of defense may be in order.
[*] Corrs seem a little light on damage as well, especially when taking on heavy armored opponents. Thermal, Traps, and Sonic need to provide better protection for the player.[/list]

Here's why:

- Balance AT's for 1v1. Team based PVP didn't work. Without adequate teaming incentives, players just picked the best possible solo AT. That means 2 average players should be able to play each AT, and have a reasonable chance at defeating the player. As it stands now, no average Def has any chance of taking out any sensible stalker or brute. (experienced Defs yes. average, no)

A possible fix: Several AT's are well below average either defensively or offensively. Ideally there should be a target *length of time* for a combat in PVP. However, some AT's can take AT's out in 4 seconds, and others will take 10 minutes to defeat anyone. Times vary, but usually about 25 seconds for a non-twitch game is normal. Especially when taking into 8 way combat, where it can go with 8 vrs one enemy team member at a time.



- Exp in PVP, and bonus exp for groups - There is little incentive to PVP, either in groups or solo. Also with PVE being the only way to advance the character, there is even less incentive to PVP.

The Fix: Players and Teams need to be awarded Exp based on the length of combat, irregardless of whether they win or lose. Probably slightly more for winning. Every time a team member hits an opposing team member, it starts a 10ish second timer for each group. Every time any player hits an opponent it extends the timer. Every time a team member is defeated, each team gets Exp based on how long those timers have been active.



- Binary holds - any hold using class can completely incapacitate an opponent. This should never happen, one power completely shutting down a player is broken.

On the other hand, Holds are completely negated by BF's and mez resist toggles. One single power or Insps are completely shutting down another AT's defensive tools.

The possible fix: Holds have a -dmg component, therefore any resisted hold still provides defense for the AT. To balance controller damage, controllers may need a -resist component, replacing containment. (Same effect as containment, so this essentially replaces it.)


- Remove detoggling - Holds should not negate all armors on a player. This would be balanced by the -dmg penalty on holds.


- Give all AT's a temp mez resist power. - only vrs holds and disorients. Holds should never negate a player in PVP (or PVE), especially squishies. Again, balanced by the -dmg on player holds.


- Possibly add more powers that temporarily disable travel powers - With Teleport, SS and SJ, it can make actually defeating good defensive players nearly impossible. It also encourages too many hit and run attacks. With defense balancing and combat time based EXP bonuses, it may not be needed though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because you know, despite the doomsaying about alting dying, I have this strange desire to make a mace tanker and an AR blaster. Something I can say unequivocally I had no desire to before.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rolled up an axe tank this very evening (and won him a million in a costume contest fresh out of the tutorial- maybe I am just naturally lucky!).

but take my word for it- stay away from AR.
if you ignore this voice of experience, for the love of sanity at least take something besides /dev for your secondary.
=(

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've been thinking of rolling up an AR for a while, this may Cinch it for me. The Vanguard Gauss Rifles are awesome looking, and I hope I can get one of those weird snub nose Nemesis gatling guns, the gold one with huge multi-barrel look. Here or Here

I'm trying to decide though, Elec manip for Meleeing or Ice manip for defense. (I like Elec's earlier attacks and utility powers better then energy's, and I don't often pvp)

Whats your take on best secondary for Rifle?

[ QUOTE ]
Posi and I did want to make this the year where we gave fans what they've been asking for!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'd give this issue a 100%. Power customization for all levels, costume junkies and casual players, new powersets to support Alt-itis, PVP and PVE, and Rare IO's for the hard core players. Effectively hits all the kinds of players I can think of. Many thanks and I'm really looking forward to it.

Want to make the year 100% tho, serious revisions need to be made to Dominators and possibly Stalkers to make them more attractive to the PVE players.

The playerbase doesn't care if they are balanced, only if they want to play them. Given that Dominators and stalkers are below the 10% of online player categories, I'd say players are waiting for a serious fix to their PVE capabilities. Also, given that many players are avoiding 2 out of 5 AT's, it's seriously damaging whether players want to support their Alt-itis (IE replay) in COV.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goes against everything I've seen in the game. I've seen /Stone tankers out control me, and most every other tanker secondary can out-damage me. Based on my experiences in the game, I don't get how the above is true at all. The mathematical experiments we've run in versions of Tundara's thread don't back it up either.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with most mathematical experiments I see here in the forums is that they are measuring the extremities of performance. The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game. The two are related, but there is often a vast gulf between what a set is capable of and what it is typically asked to do in gameplay.

Edit: Also, the quote you referred to is across all AT/Powerset combinations. */Ice outperforms many other AT/Powerset combinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I see no denial that ice melee is underperforming for tanks. When it comes to all powerset combinations I would definatly put it at the low end of mid range as well. However, that doesn't mean its going to be popular with tanks that have significant defense already and every other tank melee set is outperforming in offense.

So why so much problem with improving Ice Melee? A rarely played set may have survivability, but if no one wants to play it, then it adds little to the game.

I'm mystified by this preference to create new sets over improve existing sets. Players love their Alt-itis, and any reasonably good buffs and people want to play it like a whole new set. Look at the Fire armor when it recieved a single power buff, a lot of fire tanks we're created since players had a little extra motivation to try it.

Seriously, If 1 or 2 rarely played sets recieved a few buffs every issue, a lot of players would be simply ecstatic. Since players haven't been playing it, it's practically a new set that doesn't require a lot of animator/modeller/programmer time to add. Just play-tester time to check game balance.

Another thing that baffles me, if all this data mining is so good, why can't it find out that players are avoiding specific sets/AT's. The measure of success in any AT isn't survivability, damage or whatever, it's simply whether or not the players want to play it. Just like the measure of success for any game is whether or not players want to play it.

It seems that in a game where Alt-itis is considered the best feature in the game, having sets that the general game population doesn't want to play is one of the biggest flaws. Of course I may be biased.

OooOOOooOOOooo

Some nicely done stuff here!

[ QUOTE ]
Then don't spend too much time on it - it is optional, remember?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough

However, its either the option of using the market system, or having my high level chars farming to twink my chars with SO's.

The drop rate on SO's improved very nicely, but not that much.

*edit* Although that does seem like the option of: ignore half the game content now. I'm not sure that a professional game reviewer would write a good review of a game that they had a hard time using some of the functionality.

*re edit for clarity. yeesh. *