[ QUOTE ]
WillyW. I will reply to you once, and once only.
You assume to know what Statesman meant. However, he ASKED for additional opinions and input, something YOU are trying to discourage.
Your arguments are predicated on one assumption, that you know EXACTLY what the devs are intending. Since your name is not red, you obviously do not know what the devs' intent is.
That is why you are misinformed and are clueless. You are not a dev. Therefore, you have no idea what they actually intend for the game.
We, on the other hand, are providing actual test results and constructive opinions and possible options. You are just stating one argument, which is flawed because, again YOU ARE NOT A DEV!
Please take your trolling elsewhere and allow us who actually care about the game and wish to strike a balance on the future development of it post our thoughts without having to listen to you ramble on your "understanding" of the devs' intent.
Also, honestly, I don't like the tone of any of your posts. I have yet to see a single one that was not condesending and none of them have been constructive. Please get off the high horse. The lack of oxygen up there is apparently causing some problems.
Remember, Stateman himself asked for our opinions and observations on the change. That from a post you claim to have read.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good, then I will never have to endure replying to you again.
I don't assume to know what Statesman said, I KNOW what he said. It was clear and concise. There was no vagueness, no doubt. And I don't have to assume to know what the devs' intents are CAUSE THEY TOLD US. And yes, Statesman asked for our opinions. But I somehow get the feeling (and it's only a feeling mind you -- I would never want to give anyone the assumption I might actually know or understand something that was not spelled out to them in nursery school blocks) they expect you to have a basic understanding of the changes taking place and why. But you apparently don't. And even when I tried to explain it to you, you call me names and tell me I'm misinformed. Ok fine. Whatever.
The problem is if you don't understand the nature of the changes you can't possibly be in a position to give useful criticism or suggestions. Hence why I have been desperately trying to get people to understand what's going on. But all they want to do is whine and make useless suggestions that make no sense and do not advance your cause at all.
This is why all the suggestions are "how bout a -10% hit" or "how bout a -50% hit", which, in understanding the nature of the changes, I know is a rather useless uninformed suggestion as it will not in any way do what the devs have told us and shown us they want to have done.
Why you think I keep pulling these things out of thin air I don't know. You have access to the same forums and posts as I do. Why you can't interpret them in the same manner as I, I don't know. Their intent is very clear and is spelled out in plain simple english.
And I'm not trying to discourage input. I'm trying to help you understand so that you can contribute USEFUL input. But you don't want to understand. You are convinced you are right and I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. And that's fine. I'm not the one having problems with the changes in Rage. No problems at all. Won't affect me one bit.
And frankly I'm not to hot on your tone either. I never called you names, I never harassed you, but apparently when you do it to me, it's ok, but if my "tone" comes across the least bit condescending, then I'm way up on a high horse. Again, whatever. Do want you want to do. Jump to any conclusion you want. I really don't care anymore.
Over the past few days I was pondering the Rage change, and while I understand the in game rationale for it (After being enraged for so long, your end drops to reflect the sudden loss of adrenaline and fatigue that comes with that.) I think its far too harsh to an already weak powerset (SS).
If the devs don't want to roll back Rage, then make the power worth the end drop. Here's two ideas how:
1. Add mez and/or hold defense while its runnning, especially against psionic. It follows the same lines of thinking: You are so enraged that mez powers can't get a grip on your mind, and you're far to pumped up to be held.
I do realize that Rage is an offensive power, but this would be a novel approach to the problem and achieve several things:
It would give SS something to make it more attractive and unique than it is now. It would also make Rage itself more palatable and desirable as THE power to choose at 28 for psi defense against things like Carnies, CoT, Rikti and many otehr high end mobs with psionic attacks that can punch through and easily kill a tanker.
2. No end loss while Rage is running. For those magic minutes while you are enraged, powers cost no end at all, or maybe they only cost a fraction of their usual cost (10% perhaps). You're running on pure anger and adrenaline.
This would better give a justification for 100% end drain when the power drops AND adds an interesting element of "Can I drop all these badguys fast enough before rage ends." which will become the tactic of choice if this idea were used IMO.
Just the thoughts of a novice tanker.
Some people have said that Rage does less DPS than Hasten does and that Hasten also Boosts all other non-attack Recharging as well. Though Hasten grants no Endurance-Free Damage, this can be balanced with Endurance Reduction of a few Powers.
If Rage's use penalty becomes extremely dangerous, I think most players will just drop Rage and add Hasten. Rage does too little anyway and when you play a Tanker time is definately on your side or you are dead.
Quixotik
"I did not say this. I am not here." -Guild Navigator
I would prefer it left alone.. I believe the risk is worth the current reward. I am very worried what balance Rage will half to suffer in exchange for no stun. Personally my inv/ss tank has stomached enough changes already. I sense another play style change coming & I am worried...
This is strictly an idea for the purposes of brainstorming possible solutions (so feel free to poke holes in the idea or add suggested improvements/modifications to the idea).
What if you took Rage and made it a toggle with a high endurance cost. So a player could choose to toggle it on and off during moments when they felt they needed that little bit of an extra "kick". Instead of giving it a set damage multiplier like build up, allow the power to be slotted with damage, endurance reduction, or recharge enhancements - thus forcing players to choose what balance between the factors they want to use. In essence it could act in a manner similar to the focused accuracy power - only geared more towards damage rather than accuracy. Players who wanted to be able to run rage continuously could do so - but they'd have to sacrifice recharge time (in the event that the power dropped) or damage accordingly. Whereas a player who chooses to only run the power in emergencies, could slot it to multiply his damage by a great degree - but only for very short times due to endurance restraints.
[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer it left alone.. I believe the risk is worth the current reward. I am very worried what balance Rage will half to suffer in exchange for no stun. Personally my inv/ss tank has stomached enough changes already. I sense another play style change coming & I am worried...
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, and if Rage was to be changed, I'm afraid I would have to ask the devs for another free respec. 
First I get my Invulnerbility changed now my Super Strength Rage.
First and foremost I don't like a 100% endurance drop. Whoever asks for that is stupid. All other +damage buffs don't do that why should a tanker have this penality. We have enough endurance problems with the many toggles we run as it is. Please don't do this.
Suggestion: Make Rage's inital endurance cost be 25%. that should be sufficient enough. And take away the disorient effect. Leave it at that. If that doesn't make some people happy let it drain 25% after it wears off, like hasten. I hope you consider this STatesman
Full endurance drop is the second most devastating effect you can inflict on a player (the first being full hp drop). It's the worst possible penalty because it essentially shuts off most of your Hero ability: with no powers at all you are now just a pedestrian with more hit points.
Those builds that have access to conserve power will feel this less because on a lucky tick while conserve is up you can still keep going after a full drop. Everyone *else* is hosed.
As others have mentioned waiting for the end drop / rebuild does slow the game down a lot, which seems counter to the usual "fast and fun" concept that has guided so many other decisions.
From what i can tell this power does not merit the "death penalty." Statesman, can you explain the rationale behind this change? I understand that before it was a power with no drawbacks for a lot of builds, but I don't understand why it was felt that the penalty should be maxed out.
Lastly, to those who are wondering why there are so many invuln/ss tankers out there, I would like to point out that most comic book tank types ARE invuln/ss ... of course people would gravitate to that concept when creating one. It's probably not a conspiracy of overpowered-exploits, it would be a popular combo anyway.
I am sorry I do not agree that the Current Rage is ever worth the risk of being stunned. Is it an exploite running Unyielding with Rage? Is an 80% to damage (it sounds high but its not) and 25% accuracy worth 15 seconds of Stun when you can only use it again Mobs that do not have Stunning capability? Who even uses the power without Unyielding/Mez Protection Toggle on? NOONE! Rage is nothing more then Three Enrages and an Insight with a heavy penalty.
You could buy three enrages and one insight and you have a better risk free power then the Situational use power of Rage. Rage's benifits is outwieghed by its cost and if the End Crash becomes the prefered power it will literally become the most useless power for SS tanks. Rage needs a better penalty then Stun or an Endurance crash as its is nowhere near that destructive.
Currently, Rage limits the tank more then i helps it. I see where statesman was going as currently Rage is "worthwhile" if you have an Armor/Toggle that has Mez protection. Without say Unyielding Rage goes from 15% usefulness to complete and total uselessness as it is gaurenteed Toggle Drop. A good question is does Rage need a penalty that can cause Toggle Drop? Invul tanks use Uy to escape the immediate affect of the Rage crash while suffering a 15second period of complete and total vulnerability to Status affects which for some of us is still too much for the bonus. Without a Toggle on with Mez Protection Rage is just like an Endurance crash except far worse as a stunned Tank cannot runaway. This is in truth a catch twenty two as Mez Protection Toggle+Rage=No immediate penalty. Noone is going to use Rage with Temp Invul for example and thats the problem as it promotes the need to be Exclusively used with a Toggle Mez.
The point is Rage is going to be changed whether we like it or not and now we have the chance to try and bring it out of the ashes. I would rather have an Immediate penelty (though not that End Crasher) then its current form provides. Rage quite frankly sucks and one can do better without it and thats the Problem. With Rage on you might kill a little faster then me but I will not suffer anyset backs and I will not have to fear anything. Kinda Sucks when a rage tank can be looked at as more of a liabilty then a welcomed opportunity of damage production.
You Sir are missing the big point.
Rage is our build up power.
As it is currently on live, when it drops it takes all our end and shields with it, and as you pointed out this cannot be mitigated by running unyielding. This loss of power will in turn drop all aggro being forced onto the tank since we will not be able to attack, taunt or anything. I for one will just run away, if I can before I die. So now that the SS tank has fled for his own protection the team is now in greater danger. Fantastic. So to avoid this outcome we will not run Rage, and so we will not have a Buildup Power like the other tank secondaries do. On top of that our Super Strength attack damage is piddly compared to theirs.
As it is on live, you are still penalized for running Rage even with Unyielding up, one more mag stun will drop you. This is fair and makes running Rage a risky endeavour. The new penaly on live has no risk factor it is guaranteed to hit you. So now you will really have to think about running it at all, and I myself see no point to as it stands now on test.
If this goes live as is, I WANT the DEV's to make ALL Buildup powers drop to 0 end when they wear off. That should balance everything out and everyone can share in this fantastic game balance decision. IJ
Having said my piece in an earlier post, I am apologetically dropping back in to note a development in this discussion that troubles me a little.
Rage, as far as I can tell, was not a major concern on the boards before the recent changes*. Now that Rage has been altered so drasticly, I see many folks posting on this thread who, in what I would imagine to be an attempt to be fair and reasonable, are saying that, perhaps, Rage WAS overpowered, and are suggesting as a compromise that less drastic changes be made to the power. (Please forgive me if I am misreading the intentions of those folks).
To me, this sets a dangerous precedent. If the devs wish to make an unpopular adjustment to a power, they can try out a more drastic version of the change on the Test server, and
soon folks will be willing to accept the lesser change as a "compromise", when in fact, no change is necessarily warranted.
Now, again, I may well be misunderstanding folks' intent. If, however, I did read things right, then I have to be concerned that the natural instinct to bargain and negotiate when faced with the possibility of a change might undercut necessary opposition to those changes.
Then again, maybe I just worry too much.
The Bouncing Beatnik,
who probably really should have spent this morning playing CoH instead of making yet another post.
*I did a quick bit of research, searching the boards for posts with the words "rage" and "overpowered" in combination. I found 108 posts in the time period from 1 year ago until 1 week ago (I cut the search off just before the changes, so that my sample would be uninfluenced by the proposed alterations to the power.)
I read each of the posts found, with the following results:
100 posts could be classified as "neutral"- either Rage was only present as a quotation from an earlier message, or was present as part of another word ("encourage"," outrage"), or the writer had no issues with the status quo of the power.
5 posts mentioned wanting improvements to Rage, removing or lessening the penalty, etc.
3 posts felt Rage was overpowered, although two of the three were from a poster who subsequently changed his mind and posted in the "prefers status quo" group.
To me, this does not look like Rage as an overpowered ability was very much of a concern at all on these boards.
Ok, let us look at some of the supposed problems with Rage a little. IMO it's fine now, if the penalty was too soft you would not have such division among us as to it's utility. The fact that many SS users do not even use it, or use it so rarely speaks volumes in and of itself. If Rage was an "exploit" (it isn't, Statesman never mentioned that, he mentioned that casual players were not geting protection while "hardcore" players were, although this in itself is somewhat odd considering that Uy is a cornerstone Invuln power) then you would not have so many heated debates as we have seen in the Tanker forum.
The fact that Uy's (unsure of other Tanker primaries here) stun protection exactly matched Rage's stun cannot be a coincidence or an oversight. Prior to this test change, all the devs would had to have done is increase Rage's stun by 1 magnitude and Uy could not have held it. Quite simply you have to pause or be prepared for it as it is now. Back when my build was a joke, I could definately have been considered a "casual" gamer but I found out about UyS myself. "Wow! When I am in stance, I can Rage and not be stunned!" Of course UyS used to be immobile so people TPed or they waited the crash out.
People in many games have long used tactics and combinations to make penalties work. Anyone ever play Magic(TM)? I used to love cards like Lord of the Pit and Demonic Hordes, if you played them well, the problems they caused could be planned for, and could even become strengths.
Now let us say that Statesman no longer wants us to use the tools provided to use Rage often. But instead wants an unavoidable penalty. -100% end is utterly useless and Rage will be dropped by almost all SS Tankers. Why? It turns the power to less then situational. 2 minutes of +80% damage and then total loss of end is fine for street sweeping and solo missions....i.e. when you do not need it! This power is only really needed against big game like: AVs/Monsters/Bosses. You cannot predict how long these fights will last, but my own shortest ever AV battle was 4 minutes. Starting combat and then fighting for awhile and then turning Rage on is not a viable option, since you quite simply cannot predict if the fight will end before the crash and thus cannot reliably use this thing. And for those that think a -100% end is "required" seem to think that a lesser but unavoidable end penalty would not be enough of a penalty? Well now, let us see. I used Rage, so I must be fighting (gasp!) so I am probably running combat toggles and maybe even (horrors!) attacking things! Maybe a -20 end penalty would still be a penalty, since you will have to pay close attention to your end bar? Nah! We always turn Rage on and then stand there till it runs out! But what about teammates buffing you with RA, or AB or whatever? Well that is kind of the point of teaming, teammates cover each other's weaknesses, and losing end is a big one.
In a nutshell: You canot tank if you lose toggles in a fight. Again 2 minutes in some pulls, not pull after pull without breaks, is not long enough. Madame of Mystery AV was well over 15 minutes to go down. Being stunned and losing toggles would be worse then just toggle crash. But toggle crash will be at least 5 seconds before you can get Uy back up, so in the 40+ game this can equate to the same thing anyway, Since so many of our enemies have status effects, the difference is more semantics then actual. SOP is to get the status mobs first but some factions have so many stun mobs that this still could fail miserably. For example:Malta all 3 minions (Sapper, Tac Ops, Op Engs) have at least 1 status effect attack, and although I am sure most of us hit the Sappers first, the other 2 have stun grenades and tasers as well.
Although many of us have come up with alternatives to this thing we have on test, I will re-iterate some of them here:
<ul type="square"> [*]Leave Rage as-is: This is prefered anyway. So many people did not use it at times or even at all anyway that this in itself proves the penalty was not too "soft".[*]Less then complete end-loss: A lesser but significant end penalty would still require you to have end buffs in team or use CP (41+ only though) or lose toggles anyway, since you would be fighting and losing end via attacks and toggle maintenence.[*]Tweak SS and give us Build-Up: Every single other Tanker melee set has Build-Up anyway, simply adjust the set and give us Build-Up. Having only 1 of 7 sets different never seemed right anyway. [*]Other Penalties: Freezing attacks for a short interval, A Post-Rage accuracy and/or damage penalty period, A larger defense loss, and other viable options exist.[/list]
If you want an unavoidable penalty Statesman, it has to be viable for tanking or no one will use Rage for when it is needed and it will become a toy for overkilling mobs we do not need it on. It will not be possible to predict when we can use it to help take out the big foes like AVs/monsters/bosses, so it will be unusable as such.
Well argued Iron Vixen.
Statesman,
The original penalty on Rage made it situational at best. This complete Endurance drain penalty makes it worthless. I don't use it now because of the penalty and I definitely won't use it with its current change.
What would be the problem with giving us Build Up as well? There comes a point where game consistancy and fun has to be applied above concept. The Build Up tweak would solve all of our issues, even as our damage stands right now, IMO. 
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
Iron Vixen,
No fair! You wrote my entire post before I could, and wrote it better than I would have.
Bouncing B,
Nice work on the look up.
Regs,
muffinlad
[ QUOTE ]
This is strictly an idea for the purposes of brainstorming possible solutions (so feel free to poke holes in the idea or add suggested improvements/modifications to the idea).
What if you took Rage and made it a toggle with a high endurance cost. So a player could choose to toggle it on and off during moments when they felt they needed that little bit of an extra "kick". Instead of giving it a set damage multiplier like build up, allow the power to be slotted with damage, endurance reduction, or recharge enhancements - thus forcing players to choose what balance between the factors they want to use. In essence it could act in a manner similar to the focused accuracy power - only geared more towards damage rather than accuracy. Players who wanted to be able to run rage continuously could do so - but they'd have to sacrifice recharge time (in the event that the power dropped) or damage accordingly. Whereas a player who chooses to only run the power in emergencies, could slot it to multiply his damage by a great degree - but only for very short times due to endurance restraints.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... not a bad idea at all. First thing I've heard that could be be a decent alternative to what's on test now. Excellent!
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Willy's posts read better this way.
My memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
"The tip of a shoelace is called an aglet, its true purpose is sinister." The Question
[ QUOTE ]
Well there is one thing I can say...
If something is broken, too weak or too strong, they will fix it.
The record of the game and the changes show it... They always get it right. It may take some weeks of evaluating and testing, but they WILL get it right. And this from the mouth of an invul tank that doesnt think invul needs anything beside ranged def in invinc.
Have faith... They know what they do. if its bad, they will revert it. They always do.
In States we trust!
[/ QUOTE ]
So question.. you find unstoppable useful? Do you even have it? You know a lot of tankers who use the new unstoppable? I agree that it was broken before, and overall i agree with the changes to invuln, but I am not sure I agree with your statments above. Since we are on the subject, are you pleased with ancillary powers for tankers? Do you feel they address "gaps" in tanker abilities? I respect your opinion, but not sure I agree with it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well there is one thing I can say...
If something is broken, too weak or too strong, they will fix it.
The record of the game and the changes show it... They always get it right. It may take some weeks of evaluating and testing, but they WILL get it right. And this from the mouth of an invul tank that doesnt think invul needs anything beside ranged def in invinc.
Have faith... They know what they do. if its bad, they will revert it. They always do.
In States we trust!
[/ QUOTE ]
So question.. you find unstoppable useful? Do you even have it? You know a lot of tankers who use the new unstoppable? I agree that it was broken before, and overall i agree with the changes to invuln, but I am not sure I agree with your statments above. Since we are on the subject, are you pleased with ancillary powers for tankers? Do you feel they address "gaps" in tanker abilities? I respect your opinion, but not sure I agree with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or even better, how about that new Tornado? Haha, and Geko said they'd improve it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well there is one thing I can say...
If something is broken, too weak or too strong, they will fix it.
The record of the game and the changes show it... They always get it right. It may take some weeks of evaluating and testing, but they WILL get it right. And this from the mouth of an invul tank that doesnt think invul needs anything beside ranged def in invinc.
Have faith... They know what they do. if its bad, they will revert it. They always do.
In States we trust!
[/ QUOTE ]
So question.. you find unstoppable useful? Do you even have it? You know a lot of tankers who use the new unstoppable? I agree that it was broken before, and overall i agree with the changes to invuln, but I am not sure I agree with your statments above. Since we are on the subject, are you pleased with ancillary powers for tankers? Do you feel they address "gaps" in tanker abilities? I respect your opinion, but not sure I agree with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or even better, how about that new Tornado? Haha, and Geko said they'd improve it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Geko said he would fix it, not improve it, unless i am mistaken. The power now functions exactly as describbed. I am not sure that I would want it, but it appears to be right on target for how its described.
[ QUOTE ]
Although many of us have come up with alternatives to this thing we have on test, I will re-iterate some of them here:
<ul type="square"> [*]Leave Rage as-is: This is prefered anyway. So many people did not use it at times or even at all anyway that this in itself proves the penalty was not too "soft".[*]Less then complete end-loss: A lesser but significant end penalty would still require you to have end buffs in team or use CP (41+ only though) or lose toggles anyway, since you would be fighting and losing end via attacks and toggle maintenence.[*]Tweak SS and give us Build-Up: Every single other Tanker melee set has Build-Up anyway, simply adjust the set and give us Build-Up. Having only 1 of 7 sets different never seemed right anyway.[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
I would have been happier with the new Rage if the endurance drain was not 100%, but rather something close to a half endurance drain or something. Minus 100% of your endurance is too severe, as it will deactivate your toggles anyway.
Iron Vixen's analysis and suggestions are spot on, and for the most part, I agree and would fully support either of the first three points Iron Vixen has put forward.
[ QUOTE ]
[*]Other Penalties: Freezing attacks for a short interval, A Post-Rage accuracy and/or damage penalty period, A larger defense loss, and other viable options exist.[/LIST]
[/ QUOTE ]
This gets my vote.
I think as tanks we need a temporary damage boost everyonce an while that does not end in our immediate destruction. Its counter productive to begin with and its an unneccesary risk while teaming. SS is already the lack luster power to begin with. I will say I do not want build up. Many of the other powers have more attacks then SS does or just does more damage. Hurl is worthless, HandClap is useful in teams,rarely stuns and is truely useful to save a teammate or get a boss away from ya, Punch....., Jab is worthless, Haymaker is nice, KO is nice, and Foot Stomp is an AOE so we all like that, but Rage is a Divided issue.
Either it stays the same with a small minority using it or its an Ignored power that is totally thrown away.
I really prefer to see Rage actaully be a power that is recommendable. It has the potential to be a great Roleplaying tool while at the same time being a great Metagame component. I would gladly pay the price of Doing really good Damage for 2 minutes followed by wimpy man slaps for 15 to twenty seconds. Also make Rage have a longer recharge time so a player can not perma-rage. Rage should be the Ace up the sleaves and my point is if its going to be an offensive power then it should affect our offense in both a positive and negative way.
I would be more inclined to have Rage give a -DEF as a tradeoff boosting damage significantly. Going "beserk" without caring if you are hit or not.
Saying that, I would say that the -DEF for Unyielding be removed.
Mjolnyr
I think this thread really shows me that I'm just not right for this kind of game. I don't care for all the constant changing of the rules (as I consider the constant tweaking of powers to be changing the rules under which I play).
Rather than throwing better challenges at the player, the Devs want to make the game more challenging by looking at the most successful methods of play and weakening them to where they're suddenly a challenge. I just don't care for it. People tell me that's the way these games are.
Okay. This is the first I've ever played, so I take people's word for that. But it will also be the last one I play. To put hundreds of hours into playing and crafting a toon and really becoming a hero, only to be told "you're exploiting" or "you're doing it wrong" or "it's not fair that you play this well," is just too frustrating to put up with.
WillyW. I will reply to you once, and once only.
You assume to know what Statesman meant. However, he ASKED for additional opinions and input, something YOU are trying to discourage.
Your arguments are predicated on one assumption, that you know EXACTLY what the devs are intending. Since your name is not red, you obviously do not know what the devs' intent is.
That is why you are misinformed and are clueless. You are not a dev. Therefore, you have no idea what they actually intend for the game.
We, on the other hand, are providing actual test results and constructive opinions and possible options. You are just stating one argument, which is flawed because, again YOU ARE NOT A DEV!
Please take your trolling elsewhere and allow us who actually care about the game and wish to strike a balance on the future development of it post our thoughts without having to listen to you ramble on your "understanding" of the devs' intent.
Also, honestly, I don't like the tone of any of your posts. I have yet to see a single one that was not condesending and none of them have been constructive. Please get off the high horse. The lack of oxygen up there is apparently causing some problems.
Remember, Stateman himself asked for our opinions and observations on the change. That from a post you claim to have read.