Vicar

[ QUOTE ]
Vicar,

I respectfully agree with your opinion and have been trying to veer in that direction myself as of late. I have been attempting to only post when endorsing or presenting constructive ideas regarding Tankers. I think we should all start focusing less on retaliating against the few individuals who tend have disruptive habits and focus more on creating and supporting ideas.

To add to your second post: thank you very much for the endorsement. The idea was definitely to detract from souping-up Tankers against softer targets (which are largely met in Soloing) as my observations have been that they are not the issue at hand. The -Regeneration idea stemmed from a couple of things: A) Johnny's consistent basis that Tankers should appear more fearsome against bigger foes, but also acknowledge the fact that mundane foes are scarcely an issue. Bosses, EBs, AVs, and Giant Monsters are notorious opponents by virtue of their regeneration, and these foes are most prominently fought in teams. B) -Regeneration is, to my knowledge, scarcely used in the game but quite powerful where it is seen. I think Radiation sets are the only ones that really have a viable -Regeneration element, if any at all, and they can floor regeneration in foes to nearly zero. I would not want a Tanker to reach that level of utility, but chopping off a solid fraction of a GM or a AV's Regeneration would make it possible for smaller teams to go against these monsters without increasing their damage directly.

In conclusions, the idea was to grant the advantages of having a Tanker in the vicinity to permit requiring fewer members to be necessary to defeat more powerful opponents and give them the added benefit of appearing more fearsome against tougher types of enemies. Scrappers and Brutes can surely deal more individual damage, but -Regeneration assists an entire team, just like Gauntlet, which increases team utility.

To add to the other suggestion: It's also a very good alternative but it seems like it would require a great deal of creating coding to implement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dark Miasma has -regen in twilight grasp and howling twilight.

Kinetics has -regen in transfusion.

Poison has it in one of the debuffs. Sad that I cant rember that one because my first 50 red side was a thugs poison lol.

Cold and Therm might as well. Cannot remeber, not really a fan of the sets so I stay away from them.

Anyway those are about the extent of the -regen mechanics I believe. I could easily be mistaken. Even if I am you are correct that it is one of the less used debuffs.

The more I think about that the more I like it. AV regeneration has been the bane of a few tfs that I have been on. Sometimes you just cannot get the right mix and you end up short damage or debuff and that regen kills ya.

If a -regen component was put into gauntlet I do not think it would need to be removed for pvp. For example brutes and tanks have the same base damage in pvp now but brutes still get their fury. So I do not think it would be completely out of line to keep that effect.

I havent been paying much attention to the pvp discussions of late. I heard that heal decay might be coming out. If so maybe a VERY minor form of heal decay on the gauntlet inherrent might work. To prevent the perma healing of blasters and dominators. With the ridiculous 40% base resistance they get killing them through someone able to spam heals on them would be nearly impossible.

That last bit is pure speculation though and would not have any bearing on pve. Pve is what I am mainly concerned with.

On the brute survivability topic. My DM Stone at 47 is able to withstand Babs, States, Citadel, and Synapse all at once as level 51 heros. If I could have found Manticore on the map I had made I think I could have it him into that as well. That was solo, no buffs and no inspirations. If I put Posi, Numina or Sister Psyche into the mix bad things were done to me.

So if a brute, admitedly imo the most surviveable brute build you can make, can survive 4 or even 5 avs at once I dont think they will have any issue for most teams and TF's running as the "tank". Also that character is only about halfway Io'd. He has a ways to go yet.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking up an alternative that meets the criteria I met in my last post and I figured I'd toss this out there (although I'm sure this has been suggested in the past in some form):

Breakdown: Enemies affected by Gauntlet (not Taunt) suffer a percentage of loss to their regeneration and recovery. For kicks, we could say this is non-stackable with other Gauntlet effects in the party (multiple Tankers), or the inverse - the amount of Gauntlet in place (more attacks over time) causes a scaling Regen reduction in targets.

The idea is simple: Instead of increasing Tanker Damage, make it so that Tankers (or teams with them) have one less obstacle to contend with against foes of increasing strength and HP: Their high Regeneration values. Minions would barely feel this. LTs would probably be barely phased by it. Bosses would require fewer blows (in the early game, this would make things far less taxing for the current endurance-heavy Tanker), and AVs would seem far less resiliant. Further complicating the mix, faster attacks (usually weaker ones) would provide a better benefit to this inherit than constantly using the strongest attacks in your arsenal, creating an option for alternating attack styles to keep opponents softened up.

It's said that the little things are what truly break a man down.

And, in the case of dealing with AI opponents, I've always considered regeneration to be an absurd obstacle. It exists solely to remind you that no matter how well you can break through their resistances or defenses, they're still better than you because you can't deal enough DPS to stay above the damage treadmill.

In PvP, this would obviously have be reduced (or removed entirely). Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops I lied im not done with this thread. Lol this is one of those good ideas that I mentioned that get missed because its buried in 30 pages of flame wars.

Only reason I seen this was I hit the back button instead of what I wanted to hit. Glad I did.

I agree that the regeneration mechanic is one of those annoying absurdities in MMO's. It is a very uncreative way to make an encounter difficult.

I like this idea. However imo it would have a very minimal effect for soloing. Regular mobs simply do not have enough regen to really be worth mentioning. However I think it would be great when fighting AV's. I still like the fellow who had the idea for a single target anchor that boosted his damage against that one target.

However I would not complain one bit if this idea was implemented. I can deal with the slow soloing because I usually team anyway. And I do belive that this would be good for end game content. Where I think tankers would stand the most danger of being replaced.

*edit* Decided to look up who had the idea.

Rangle_M_Down
Informant


Reged: 05/18/08
Posts: 36
Re: Nutty Tanker Damage Idea [Re: LifeGuardian]
#13527180 - 05/22/09 06:19 PM
Reply Quote Quick Reply

I threw out an idea similar to this in another thread awhile a go. I didn't call it "fury-lite" but "single target fury (STF)".

The idea would be that the longer you fight against a single target that you're "fury" would build until that target was defeated. That way you would slowly unleash the full might of your "tankdom" against only the biggest foes. You're first foe would become a pseudo anchor for your STF. If you switched to another target you wouldn't get the fury on the new one until the "anchor" was defeated. That way you wouldn't penalize you for punchvoking or taunting the surrounding targets to hold aggro. It would force you to make sure you attacked the biggest and baddest foe right off the bat so that you're STF would be on them, but it certainly would be a pain if that target ran, just like it does with other anchors.

I'm certainly not thinking it would be brute fury level of damage bonus, but a little probably wouldn't hurt. Once you're original target/foe was done, the STF would drop waiting for the next big target to build it up. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Mind you, that idea had about as much of a positive response as asking all your friends to help you move.

Well I read about half of this thread before I gave up. Ironicly its not JB's posts that bug me. Maybe thats because I agree with alot of his ideas just not how he says them. However I believe its more because Im tired of reading a good point by anyone, and then having to read 4 pages of JB bashing.

One thing that I would like to point out is it is disgraceful how the devs/moderators will put up with 30 pages of people bashing someone they dont like (in this case its JB).

However if that person retaliates at all against one of their favorites the post gets deleted.

Ive seen this happen many many times. In the past I read page after page of someone insulting me or another over and over. Finally when I or someone else has enough and tells them off they wine to there moderator/dev friend and the post is deleted, thread locked and you get this nice message in your mail box stating how you broke the rules. For when it happened to me my reply was. . . . Maybe you should read the thread instead of just responding to your toadie. I did however say it a little more politely than that. Waiting for it in this thread. Rather uncool and very unprofessional.

At this point of the game fresh ideas are slim and far between. Not because they are not out there but because this forum community will not tolerate them.

Many players avoid these forums completely. I have tried to relay their ideas (while giving credit where it is due) but it always gets drowned out by those wishing to keep the status quo.

The simple fact is that this game is getting to the point that it cannot move forward while it is listening to these forums. It needs to have something in game. Account based surveys or some such that is completely anonymus.

Many times have I seen a dev respond "I am done with this thread" or some similar phrase with the same intent. Then shortly after they say it you see a fresh new idea from someone. One that will never be seen because the dev got tired of reading through all the sniveling people were doing about their OP toons getting nerfed. While I cannot entirely blame them (after all that is pretty much what this post is about) I do fault them for not nipping it at the bud. Forum rules are too lax for some and strict for others. Allowing most threads to spin out of control.

In short it is rather sad how many good ideas get buried and never seen on these forums because 20 people feel it was more important to rant about someone the do not like because they are allowed to do it. When they could have done something productive by simply saying I do not agree with you JB but player X has a great idea.

Just imagine what the game could be like if you people allowed the devs to read the good ideas instead of the flame wars.

I am done with this thread with the exception of checking now and then to see if a moderator has deleted this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I am gonna guess that a stone/stone *tank* might well hold them all at once. There's still a fundamental anything-you-can-tank-I-can-tank-better truth to the Tanker archetype that Brutes nor Scrappers can touch.

Blueside, it'll be Brutes and Scrappers that are the interchangeable parts for most teams, not Brutes and Tanks, at least no more or less than they see Scrappers and Tanks and interchangeable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rofl

.

.

(give me a min still laughing)

.

.

There we go I can breath now. Do you really think that the slight differance in surviveability will allow you to hold them all.

Stone Armor tanks have running the hp accolades, Stone skin, rooted, granite, health and weave (tough is redundant) and all SO's have 39% Defense to all but psi. 90% resistance to smashing leathal and 78% resistance to all others but psi with hp at 2248 and hp per second at 35. If Earths Embrace is used your at 3212 hp and 50 hp per second.

Stone armor brutes running the same thing but adding tough are at 29% defense instead of 39%. Resistance for smashing leathal is at 87.5% (Id say thats close enough) while the rest of the resitances are at 58.5%. Hp is at 1798 with hp per second at 28. With earths embrace those jump to 2683 and 41.8.

So roughly 500 hp 10% defense and 8 hp more makes you think you can handle all of the freedom phalanx. *edit* forgot the 20% exotic damage resitance.

Oh one more thing. Brutes can choose Darkest Night from their epics. That adds a 16.6% to hit debuff and a damage debuff of 21% that not only helps you hold and survive agro it also helps your team survive any that might get away from you.

Now take into consideration Io's. Your Tank is allready near the caps so not much room for improvement. A brute however can push his surviveabilty levels VERY close to what yours are with a bit of investment while still having darkest night. Imo the brute is now just as surviable if not more so and puts out far more damage. Io's can never buff a tanks damage to a brutes level but a brute can buff its surviveability to tanker levels with Io's.

So no. I do not think your stone armor tank could hold the entire freedom phalanx.

I do however believe that my DM/Stone brute with darkest night once fully IO'd might stand a chance of at least doing it for a good period of time. The fact that I want to try that is the only reason I am still playing cox. Ill let you know how it works out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With side-switching actually on the way, how do you think this will impact tanks?

Personally, I think there are room for tanks and brutes in 1-50 content, but I'm not sure what the general public will think.

Somebody had to start this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


First off, I want to say to everyone "I told you so."

Every time I brought up blue side Brutes as a motivation to address Tanker issues, there was a wail of people saying it would never happen, we'll cross that bridge IF we come to it, blah blah.

Well surprise. Johnny was right. Again. Cross the damn bridge.

Second:
We don't know if there's going to be cross faction ATs all the way from levels 1-50.
If Brutes still start in the Isles, and Tankers in Paragon, or both in Praetoria, and they dont cross over until the mid levels or something, that changes things a little. Not a lot though.

Considering Tankers are barely Tankers in the early levels. They're mostly low damage Scrappers with a little more HP. They don't have the tools to tank. Period. Brutes on the other hand, kick a lot of butt right out of the gate.

So in a situation with a common starting zone(s), I can see Brutes easily pulling ahead.

Third, the general public has already spoken. Whenever there's Scrapper vs Brute vs Tanker threads outside of this forum, Tankers are not viewed as favourably as they are here. Some of the people here need to take their blinders off to see that, but regardless.

Tankers are a niche AT. Brutes are far more wll rounded. Joe Blow will likely gravitate towards the Brute. Especially considering for the most part, blue side enemies are more forgiving. With four possible buffing ATs behind them, Brutes will do well enough at tanking for most people's needs.

Lastly, I view this as just the latest in the devs' abuse of Tankers. This is NOT a good thing to happen to Tankers. I've seen what's around the corner, I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you, you fools won't have nothing to celebrate. And no, I won't get there with you. I'm going to Champions.



.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I also am seriously looking at Champions.

I will however try Going Rogue. However If I like it enough over Champions that i would continue playing CoX my tanker will be getting deleted and rerolled as a brute.

Unless something is done to tankers to make them unique and give more to a team and to solo play Going Rogue will be the death of tankers imo.

On the upside a year after going rogue the devs might look at the fact that almost no one but the die hards are still playing tanks and finally get around to doing something about it. However for most of us that will be too late. We ll have had enough time to look at other options.

[ QUOTE ]
I threw out an idea similar to this in another thread awhile a go. I didn't call it "fury-lite" but "single target fury (STF)".

The idea would be that the longer you fight against a single target that you're "fury" would build until that target was defeated. That way you would slowly unleash the full might of your "tankdom" against only the biggest foes. You're first foe would become a pseudo anchor for your STF. If you switched to another target you wouldn't get the fury on the new one until the "anchor" was defeated. That way you wouldn't penalize you for punchvoking or taunting the surrounding targets to hold aggro. It would force you to make sure you attacked the biggest and baddest foe right off the bat so that you're STF would be on them, but it certainly would be a pain if that target ran, just like it does with other anchors.

I'm certainly not thinking it would be brute fury level of damage bonus, but a little probably wouldn't hurt. Once you're original target/foe was done, the STF would drop waiting for the next big target to build it up. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Mind you, that idea had about as much of a positive response as asking all your friends to help you move.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually really like this idea. The idea of taunt giving a damage buff isnt bad either but this could be a more interesting idea.

So if I am understanding your suggstion you are suggesting an inherrent power button like dominators get. But this one would act as a single target anchor. That would essentially be a debuff to the targets resistance but only toward you and not the whole team. This would help solo play, increase the effectiveness in a team while IMO not overpowering the set. You would not be suddenly doing gads of aoe damage for farming nor would it adversely affect pvp. It would give a counter to the brutes fury in pvp though since damage has been normalized Brutes have the same base damage as tanks in pvp. Admitedly its hard to get fury in pvp but when you do you hit very hard as a brute. This would add something to tanks.

Another idea that I have seen in many mmo's are abilites or taunts that effectively debuff the damage output of a target if it attacks anything but you. Ie. you taunt Lord Recluse. For a certain duration he would hit you for full damage but if the blaster pulls agro he would only hit the blaster for maybe 60% of his normal damage.

However that would still do nothing for the solo tank. It would make them more popular in teams though and since the devs seem VERY resistant to doing anything that will up tanker damage.

In short though the second option that I gave would satisfy me by giving tanks something unique. I would MUCH prefer your idea. It is also unique and would help out solo and low level tanks a ton.

Oh and about the MM thing Alabaster12. Sure you can solo AV's. Lots of brutes can do that too.

However Ill belive you are a "tank" when you tank the RSF.

Ive soloed avs with my MM as well. (thugs poison) I have also played on RSF teams with him and keeping your pets up is a chore and I do not believe there is any way in hell I could tank the RSF with an MM.

Im not the worlds greatest player though. I wouldnt be surprised if there are people who can do it. However for a class to be considered a tank then it has to be possible for the majority of the players not just the elite.

I can tank alot of things with my D3 defender. That does not make defenders tanks though. I can tank regular mobs and solo AV's. Mutliple AV's chew me up and spit me out where my brute's or tank's keep on chugging.

[ 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 ]

You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.

MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.

Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.

The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.

While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.

If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.

Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.

Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.

IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.

Man i need to stop ranting lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've been playing a different game because not once playing red side through several 50's did anyone take the "tank" role in a mission, SF, or anything and all those AV's I soloed and had attacking me in groups on my MM must've been an illusion.

I would MUCH rather have my tank playing the role of "tank" than my brute or my MM for that matter. It's not even a question to me so I'm not even remotely sure where you get that brutes are tanks done right. Brutes are melee damage dealers with nice survivability on a side of the game that has no defined roles like "Tank", "Support", and "Control".

[/ QUOTE ]

I really do not run TFs with pugs very often. If I do the lead brute is never someone I do not know. That way you do have someone who is playing the role of "tank". If I am not playing my brute I am playing my kin. I do bust out my Tank on the odd itf because he was my first 50 and is my favorite. However if the team is a little low on damage I get one of my brutes. Accomplish the same role and do 2 and a half times more damage.

You get what you pay for as they say. If you run with a pug you will get hit and miss teams. If your brutes are not "tanking" then you are obviously missing.

I play tanks and brutes. I can tank nearly as well with a brute as I can with a tank. I will admit that a tank is slightly better and I have to work a bit at agro management with a brute but I can easily hold agro on 60% of the mob or an AV with my brute. Thats all that is nessesary if the other 7 people cannot handle 40% of the agro they need to learn how to play their toons. I belive the extra damage the brute supplies is well worth my having to work a bit to manage agro. Its also far more fun (for me). I get to hit really hard and I have a challenge in managing agro.

[ 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 ]

You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.

MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.

Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.

The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.

While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.

If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.

Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.

Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.

IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.

Man i need to stop ranting lol.

Tankers should have significantly more aoes than other melee types to make up for their craptastic damage. However they have many times stated that the will not completely replace powers. They will adjust them thats it. So that leaves us with the current mechanic doing nothing for tanks and any and all ideas have been rejected not only by the devs but alot of the playerbase.

A damage buff would generisize them to other melee types and possibly overpower them.

Reducing the end cost of toggles and attacks would overpower them (I disagree)

Tankomination as JB had suggested would have upped the ability that tanks are told time and time again that is their job. . . . holding agro. Again it was rejected ( I think it might have been a good idea with a few tweaks)

Giving debuffs to tanks would overpower them. (I disagree if they were done in moderation. I mean Sonic Blast hasnt over powered blasters so why not give something similar to tanks.) Again rejected.

Something needs to be done for them. Most people agree that something is needed to set them apart. However many good ideas get ripped apart by the regulars on the forums and I fear thats what has caused the devs to turn a deaf ear to our pleas.

Many of these ideas might encourage people to want them on a team then. As is a tank is a nice perk but easily replaced. When side switching hits anyone who plays a tank over a brute is nuts. Most good teams are only threatened by the actual AV in a mission. A brute can easily hold the agro on 60% of a mob and holding agro on a av or two is even easier. Why have a tank for that job when you can have someone that puts out almost 3 times the damage.

Oh and to the comment about brutes not holding agro well. Its all in how you play it. If you know how to hold agro you can do it with almost any toon. Not all toons can survive it though. Brutes can, tanks can. Well built scrappers also can.

My Iod Tanker has hit romy for about 900 on an itf.
My generic SO brute skd to 49 hit him for over 2k. I think it was 2056.

Both were running super strength and both teams had comparble debuffs. I will say that I do not tank anything with that particular brute. Its and SR and sucks for taking agro but I have other brutes who tank the itf just as well as my Inuvln SS. None of them are tricked out either and he is.

Longish rant I guess. Ah well when side switching hits I can delete my tank and reroll him as a brute to be useful.

I also use earth on my tanking build for my invuln ss.

I use salt crystals, stalagmites and quicksand. I tossed in the sleep proc that gives you a chance to heal in salt crystals for the heck of it.

All in all its nice for agro management, bunching groups and the def debuff im told is noticable. Not so much for me because im running rage all the time but others especially side kicks like it.

To those not wanting SB. Most people do not mind skipping you in the buff cycle.

However it is habit to sb EVERYONE so when they start getting uppity about me SBing them by accident now and then thats when I pull out Power Boost and make a point of using it before I SB them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if it's a symptom of MA but lately all the MA teams I have made have have lazy kins (kins that never SB anyone). Why play a kin if you don't wanna SB people?

I have now started kicking lazy kins!

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this for an idea. If you dont like the "kins" you have been getting go roll your own.

I play all archtypes and powersets including kinetics characters. I never complain when someone says "sb please, can I get an sb please" however it is rare they have to ask.

However when they say "SB me" or ask for an SB when they are 300 yards away I typically ignore them.

So in return I ask you this. What is with all the lazy players that can not play their characters without SB.

I admit they look good though I was hoping for actual robes. Something like the cot's wear.

Overall great work however not enough for me to spend 10 bucks on.

Now if they were to actually add some content to the game (especially villain side) I would be happy to pay 10 to 30 for that depending on what was added.

[ QUOTE ]
I have issue with the fact that the defender LS is not affected on test currently, possibly an oversight.

I also have a question regarding the purple pet set (soulbound allegiance) which was designed specifically to increase the pet's rate of fire. Now that it no longer does this, will we see a reworking of said said at a minimum... one that makes it worthy of being a purple set?

I take issue in the fact that it was LS, VS, GT that were the targets and MM's are going to pay heavily for such a broad and sweeping change. Could you not put this issue off until you have time to re-think it some? You have in the past thought up ways around issues when given time which you currently didn't think were possible (the new changes to Phase come to mind).

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh this change has actually improved my masterminds, so im looking forward to it. No more micromanaging my bruiser. Reports from a friend with ninjas and another with a necro claim that both of their toons are performing better with what you call a nerf.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Unsure the tier 1 pets would be, maybe some kind of beast, a flyer perhaps...

[/ QUOTE ]

All about the Harpies right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah excellent, that would fit.

I still think that female pets will never be simply because the lack of maturity of the average gamer.

Ive always wanted a female based set based on sonic powers. Unsure the tier 1 pets would be, maybe some kind of beast, a flyer perhaps but the tier 2 could be a pair of Sirens, mostly control effects. Tier 3 would have to be a banshee, essentially a sonic blaster.

Sonics would also have to be ported over as a secondary.

Ive wanted this since MM's have come out but as I said I just dont see it happening because of all the lovely names and character concepts it would spawn.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus far I have bought eight random rolls, only one has not been vendor fodder.

I echo the concerns that we can't see what we're gambling on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt that the point of gambling though. You never know what you will get.

However I really think they should put out some official lists of what recipe's are in what random roll selections. I still would rather save my merits and use them for the insanely expensive recipe's and use my money to buy the bulk of the affordable ones. So far it seems to be working out for me doing it that way.

[ QUOTE ]
<QR>

I got my Broadsword/Shield Scrapper to level 27. Running my story arcs, no task forces yet. Less than 50 merits. Can't afford anything except a couple of level 20 SOs and some random Inspirations. Yeah. Ok. Maybe when I get to 40 I'll have enough merits to actually get something with.

What's worse is that I don't even know what my goal is. I can't look at meritnpc's list and find a number to shoot for because he won't show me anything that I can't already afford.

*Merits Awarded* "Cool! Let's go talk to meritdude and see what I can get for my merits!" *sigh* "Still nothing."

It's disheartening, and it's not fun.

As a way for level 50s to solo farm flashback storyarcs for merits maybe it's a good deal. I don't know because I don't farm. But for someone who started a brand new character and runs only story arcs in an unsuccessful attempt to get enough merits to do anything with, the system appears like it was build specifically by and for the farmers.

[/ QUOTE ]

My Crab spider that I am working on right now has almost 100 merits at level 29. Mostly from doing task forces as that is how I like to level. The nice thing about it for me is because of merits its easier to get a TF going. However a good deal are from story arcs. I do not farm. Which is why i like the system. I can play through content and still be rewarded without killing hordes of minions over and over in the same mission. I tend to use Ouro at 50 to go back and do the story arcs I havent. I do not do that to farm them.

Also completing missions still gives you a random chance to aquire a recipe just like before. So for your playstyle nothing really has changed except you also get merits now instead at the end of a Story Arc. It may be a small cookie but its still a cookie.

Also next time you go to the merit vendor check your filters. I think you might have the do not show recipe's missing ingrediants fliter on. You can look at the merit cost of any recipe your level and below. The merit cost has no bearing on the level of the recipe. A recipe is worth the same for a level 10 version as it is for a level 30 version of the same recipe. Honestly makes no sense to me but thats the way it is.

On example of a really good recipe that is cheap are the steadfast protection knockback resistance. If I remember correctly they are either 75 or 125. Either way that isnt too bad really considering that in all the time since they were put in with the amount of TF's I run I never had one drop. Now I have 3 on each veat that I am playing up.

Sorry for being unclear there.

Yep it is 3 sets of pacts what i was saying is it would be nice if we could have all been pacted together instead of three sets of two.

Still its a really nice system. Ya the delayed xp is a bit of a drag but if thats the price i have to pay to have the feature i will happily accept it.

Myself I am very happy with merits though it needs some tweaks.

My main complaint is there is no incentive to actually play through all of the content. I have suggested before in various posts that some kind of counter in each mission of a TF/SF giving you greater merit rewards for clearing maps would be nice.

A friend of mine recently suggested that while in a TF if you kill x amount of minions you get a merit. X amount of LT's you get a merit and so on and so forth. Same for bosses and AVs. Please reward those of us who do not skip through your content. Yes I can speed run. With the current system i do do alot of that when im on a full team that is exemplared down to the TF or is all 50s. However if anyone on the team is getting xp we clear just about everything for them. Often times we run with entire teams getting xp. Stop punishing us for using the content as it was intended.

Also Purple recipes. Currently (unless i missed it i suck at searching for stuff) there is no merit option for these. So the only way to keep getting these is through random drops. Which means it still benefeits the farmers. This needs to be changed either by giving a merit cost (based on current recipes im thinking around the 350 to 400 mark) or a TF/SF that grants you a random drop like the STF/RSF do for a hami.

For those of you complaining that you no longer get your random recipe after a TF you do. You just have to go to the merit vendor and use 20 merits to get that. I agree that all TFs should give a minimum 20 so they still give that random roll but think of the fact that you gain merits in so many other areas like the Ouro TFs, story arcs, and giant monsters.

If you wish to gamble you can still gain recipes at the same rate as you could pre issue 13. For myself I choose not to gamble and will enjoy all the steadfast protections, luck of the gamblers and celerity stealths on my toons that I never had before because I simply could not afford them because I despise farming.

If you choose to continue farming and buy your recipes great more power to you. Once I get all my luck of the gambler 7.5s (which I almost have allready) Ill happily earn merits for you and let you purchase them for 80 million.

Right now we have a group of 6 that have all made toons ( a few of them veats) and have all pacted together. We have been leveling through strike forces and its been a blast.

However there have been a few times when people have had to play catch up. It would be nice to see this feature expanded to more members of a pact. Providing people are not abusing it.

I also would like the ability to pact characters that have progressed past level 5. A limitation of the pacted toons having to be within 5 levels of each other would be reasonable.

So far my taste of the new changes has left me with satisfaction.

Battles truly feel like a battle. No more two shots and its over. Holds are no longer crippling and above all I have been able to get more of the VG interested in pvping.

I also have not been droned once since tp foe got nerfed. Ya that hurt my mastermind a tad but it still makes me happy.

I have respeced my tank in anticipation of utilizing the changes to taunt. Im really looking forward to that since no one seems to want an invuln on a high end pve team anymore. Figure at least this way i might be able to actually play him.

Awesome man.

Why is everyone so worried about trading merits?

Use your merit toon to collect and craft the reward. Then have a trustworthy friend transfer the crafted enhancements to the toon you want them on.

Problem solved. Boy that was tough.