So all these ugly numbers beg the question.
Just what is the role of the ice tanker? Are they really just here to make the other tankers look good by comparison? Because they sure as hell aren't going to be tanking ANYTHING.
States: Constructive criticism time.
This is the second or third time since I've joined the CoH community that I have seen that the information you get from your testing environment in the Dev Fortress is flawed when compared to what actually goes on out on the Live servers and with the community.
Yes, I do know that you go out and and play on Live with a personal, anonymous account.
First time your information didn't jibe at all with what was going on that I can recall is the */Regen scrapper demo you posted off your internal test server. Second time is this whole Ice Tank business.
You're human. That's cool. Humans make mistakes. Humans also fix them, too.
What do I think you should do about this? A few things.
1.) Get out more. That is to say, get off your internal test servers when you're testing changes to the game that involve heavy rebalancing, like I5. Yeah, I know you have to have those servers just to get things going so you can have a publicly accessible Test server. So use your internal servers to do that, then get yourself and the rest of your testers out to the Training Room to team with real live people on a consistent basis. Particularly, I think it would be quite valuable for you/your fellow Devs/QA to invest in testing time where you do not have the ability to chat with the other players in your team via some form of voice chat, be it the phone or yelling from desk to desk.
2.) To facilitate #1, offer some incentives for using the Training Room. Schedule some events, like 'TF Day', or 'All new powerset X ATs get a level bump' day, or even schedule a day or two where your QA players are specifically out in force on Training Room, even if anonymously. I'd go test on that last day for certain, just to up the chances I was teamed with a QA guy who might be able to see how regular players and teams work, and how they feel about changes.
3.) When you, Jack, are making big conceptual changes to Powerset X, do not always use the best-case scenario as it appears you have done in the past. On a public server, one can't always have the luxury of having a specific AT to help with a team, or buff a character up. When you said you were testing Grav controllers in a team setting, for instance, I was pretty shocked that you were using Grav/Storm, as Storm covers up much of the control deficiencies in Gravity. I would have been more heartened to see something like Grav/Emp or Grav/Kin, where the control abilities of the Primary are not hugely buttressed by the secondary.
----
Constructive Criticism over.
Arc ID#1160 : "In the Shadow of Statesman" -Finished
Part Two--Under Construction
math sux
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've deleted my level 35 Ice tank, so I probably don't have any right to post here. But looking at the numbers...whether it's 0.5% or 1.3%, either way it means that Ice tanks are going to be a complete joke. 
<snip>
The new I5 numbers, though...it's a joke. I'm going to start referring to Ice tanks as 'Glass' tanks from now on.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite there, but unless something changes, I'm dropping my Ice Tank too.
Hey devs, here's a hint: When die-hard Ice Tankers start deleting their Ice Tanks, you *might* take that as a clue that you're doing something wrong.
When ornery S.O.B.s like me - who made and played an Ice tank through almost 40 levels, through non-stacking armors, EA nerfs, and AV one-shots, who played it as a matter of pride - decide to just give up and play another character type, you *should* take that as a clue that you're doing something wrong.
When you get a thread like these Dev Response threads - filled with clear, consise explanations *why* you're wrong - you.... oh, you get the idea. I hope.
Feedback:
The lowering of defense and increase in total amount Energy Abosrbtion can draw from is killing the power. I REALLY enjoyed the I4 Energy absorbtion. High defense but maxes out easily.
I understand the need for lowering it's defense because in I4, I can cap defense with only one foe in melee range. But increasing it to 14 is too high for more than one reason.
One - It makes Ice tankers too weak against small mobs, bosses, AVs, etc. I'm very happy to hear that you're looking at AV damage in reguards to the changes in tanker sets, but I do agree with someone earlier who stated that not all AVs need to be lowered. They each need to be looked at in turn. The hardest hitting AVs at the moment I believe are Infernal, Marauder, and Shadowhunter.
Two - As someone mentioned in the tanker forum, with 14 guys around you to use EA to its maximum effectiveness, you're likely already getting hit pretty hard unless you're dropping in on a large mob and popping it right to start with.
Personally, I can deal with the changes. I'm confident I can alter my play habits to make up for the changes. But any casual player who decides to try a tanker is going to get a huge surprise. Debt cap.
[ QUOTE ]
First - I didn't mean it to sound that the Accuracy reductions were the ONLY change forthcoming. It's just that these changes, while global, benefits the Defense builds more than others....
[/ QUOTE ]
Please let us know what other changes you are considering, so that we can destroy them before they hit QA 
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, I apologize if anyone thought my reference to "crying" meant "whining." What I meant by "crying" was something like "demanding" or "shouting for." That's what I get for starting threads like that without having an editor!
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is not to say whining did not occur, but I digress...joking! Joking! Ow, stop hitting me with snowballs!
[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, several of you have noted that I didn't address some major concerns of Ice Tankers. Here, I think, are the big ones....
Yes, Wet Ice and Energy Absorption provide relatively small DEF buffs. This is not a bug and by design. Wet Ice provides a base defense of +.5%; Energy Absorption provides the same buff for every foe within melee range (up to a maximum of 14 targets).
[/ QUOTE ]
I can see the math on Energy Absorption, and it makes sense. But why make the Defense in Wet Ice so low, then leave it slottable?
[ QUOTE ]
One shotting by AV's. In a word, you are ALL correct. It's not a good thing for an Ice Tanker to be leveled by a single blow. So we're going back and changing the damage done by AV's so that it's no longer possible for a Tanker to be one shotted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yay! Of course, this is good news for all Tankers.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I hear the complaints about Permafrost. And I'm...thinking. I've read many suggestions - and gotten more than a few PM's about it. There's a lot of good ideas there. So I'm going to do some pondering there.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what people like to hear, that you are reading and considering our ideas, and think some of them are good. More of that, please.
I'd like to see a blurb from you on the role of Ice Tanks relative to other Tanks, as well.
Should they be able to floor even level Bosses' accuracy without Pool Powers and Defenders?
Should the number of swings from an AV or Boss to put one down as opposed to say a Stone Tanker be equal, or do you see them as balanced in some other way?
Why are some powersets seemingly 'one trick ponies', but seem to underperform compared to less specialized powersets?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
First - I didn't mean it to sound that the Accuracy reductions were the ONLY change forthcoming. It's just that these changes, while global, benefits the Defense builds more than others....
Secondly, I apologize if anyone thought my reference to "crying" meant "whining." What I meant by "crying" was something like "demanding" or "shouting for." That's what I get for starting threads like that without having an editor!
Thirdly, several of you have noted that I didn't address some major concerns of Ice Tankers. Here, I think, are the big ones....
Yes, Wet Ice and Energy Absorption provide relatively small DEF buffs. This is not a bug and by design. Wet Ice provides a base defense of +.5%; Energy Absorption provides the same buff for every foe within melee range (up to a maximum of 14 targets).
One shotting by AV's. In a word, you are ALL correct. It's not a good thing for an Ice Tanker to be leveled by a single blow. So we're going back and changing the damage done by AV's so that it's no longer possible for a Tanker to be one shotted.
Yes, I hear the complaints about Permafrost. And I'm...thinking. I've read many suggestions - and gotten more than a few PM's about it. There's a lot of good ideas there. So I'm going to do some pondering there.
[/ QUOTE ]
So...wait. Let me get this straight. You come in here, and reply to us...telling us that the gang banging we're getting is part of your design?
You give us some more "changes" that are global?! And then, when you make changes to Ice Tanks themselves, you tell us how bad our defense is now (since when?) decreasing our ability to survive once again?!
What the hell man!? Honestly? How is that supposed to be good news?
As pointed out earlier...Inv Tanks and Scrappers now have more def than THE DEFENCE Tank.
States...honestly, what on earth is going through your mind as you post this stuff. You tell us you're looking at and considering our concerns, but then you tell us that all the crap we're going through is by design! How can you expect us to take that lightly?? "Oh, we've realized that some of your concerns are valid..and to make up for it, we're killing your set even more! Take that for making us look stupid!!"
And, Ironically... Fire has more Resistance than Invuln, formerly known as the 'Resistance' Tank.
I dont know an Invuln who doesnt want to give Ice our Defense, if we can have our Resistance back, please?
Side note... VERY good point on 'one trick pony' sets. It seems that sets that get a 'moderate' amount of something (Invuln with +DEF, Fire with +RES) get actually rather ALOT, in terms of power and slot investment.
Sets that FOCUS on a survival power (Invuln +RES, SR +DEF) get VERY LITTLE for each slot or power selection, and frequently end up taking near their entire primary to 'get there'
Consider Invulns:
Temp Invuln
RPD
REle
RNrgy
UY
Versus 3 (and if you dont care about Cold, 2) sheilds out of Fire?
Or Invincibility (we will ignore tough hide) as compared to.. 3 passives and 3 toggles out of Super Reflexes?
It seems that they need to reconsider what they want each AT to focus on. If you give us 2 decent powers that 'dont go to the heart of the set', but work pretty well, and a half-dozen REALLY POOR powers that do 'what the set is supposed to do'...
we will likely save ourselves around 4 powers and 20 slots, do the thing the set 'isnt supposed to do well' moderately well for 2-3 powers and 10-15 slots, and take the rest of our slots and go home.
Thus the Invuln Tank that spends 2 powers and 10 slots for more +DEF than Ice can ever get, or the Fire tank that at the OUTSIDE spends 4 powers and 20 slots to far, far more RES than an Invuln with 5 powers and 25 slots (and who can cut his slotting and powers by ALOT, and simply end up the resists the Invulns wish they could still get... 66% to all.)
Sorry, I let this be too much about Invuln. But I'm with you on specialist sets getting hosed, and paying a higher price for the privelidge.
Okay Statesman, I've reworked some of the Ice Armor Comparison spreadsheets I worked on with Havok, and I've put them online. The results are pretty grim when you look at them, and I think you have some real explaining to do. Here are the spreadsheets:
IceArmorvsInvulnTanker.xls
IceArmorvsInvulnScrapper.xls
Some caveats (some of which are listed on the spreadsheets):
1) Ice Armor is using 6 powers and 29 slots, and I have both Invuln Scrappers and Tankers using 7 powers and 33 slots. The primary difference between the Invuln Scrapper and Tanker is that for the Scrapper Tough Hide was given 2 slots and RPD 1, for the Invuln Tanker its 1 slot for Tough Hide, and 2 slots for RPD.
2) The calculations assume all mobs are in range for Chilling Embrace to take effect on them, and that all are affected (tough to judge how to do the 10 mob cap really).
3) Toxic can't be judged properly because its hard to judge the source of DEF vs a Toxic attack, since Toxic is only a damage type and not an attack type.
4) Psionics is not really correct, because based on (2) above the attackers would have to be in melee range and affected by Chilling Embrace, but Psionic attacks are all ranged attacks. Really the only true bonus for Psionics would go to Ice for not having the Unyielding penalty. So more realisitic numbers for Psi would be much lower.
5) Assumed the level scaling for Accuracy for mobs was the same in I5 as for I4.
Considering all that... looking at just even con mobs...
Ice Armor vs Invuln Tanker (even level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 910.50% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 178.67% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 618.89% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 91.01% damage of an Invuln
Ice Armor vs Invuln Scrapper (even level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 320.60% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 160.02% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 554.28% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 81.51% damage of an Invuln
And in both cases the margin only widens as the mob level goes up. For example lets jump to +1 level foes...
Ice Armor vs Invuln Tanker (+1 level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 1327.11% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 260.42% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 723.12% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 106.34% damage of an Invuln
Ice Armor vs Invuln Scrapper (+1 level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 467.29% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 233.24% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 647.63% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 95.24% damage of an Invuln
Showing that realistically, Ice is in fact not the tank who is strongest against Cold damage, Invuln, in both cases easily overtakes even Ice's best protection.
So overall, you've simply not done a good job towards balancing Ice Armor. If Invuln is still the baseline you've effectively failed.
Please tell you me you sent this to him and Positron in a PM.
He is checking his PMs so I don't know if he will read it here first or if he will read it in a PM first. Regardless, they should know what we are seeing. Maybe they see something different but they should at least know what we are seeing.
not ice tanker specific, but the latest posts here from states just highlight things even more.
These so called 'balance' changes are nothing of the sort, they in fact make things even more unbalanced.
All these chanegs do is break the balance more, reduce the feeling of superheroness (by reducing the numbers we can fight) and breaking the concept builds by reducing power so the max build is at a challenge in heroic misions.
in short bad thinking to start with and totally incompetent implementation. Not a good move to do this just before CoV, wrecking your playerbases confidence in your design team, who will quit and spread bad press about coh.
Its sad because it was (is) a great game, the biggest flaw in coh is in fact the devs (
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell you me you sent this to him and Positron in a PM.
He is checking his PMs so I don't know if he will read it here first or if he will read it in a PM first. Regardless, they should know what we are seeing. Maybe they see something different but they should at least know what we are seeing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now I have. PM'd it to both of them (with return receipts).
The worse thing about those numbers, is that the margin in both comparisons is now much wider than it was for I4.
[ QUOTE ]
...
Its sad because it was (is) a great game, the biggest falw in coh is in fact the devs (
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm..... that statement is contradictory. It "was (is)" a great game because of the devs. If it wasn't for the devs, there'd be no game. 
Arc ID#30821, A Clean Break
The only problem with defeating the Tsoo is that an hour later, you want to defeat them again!
"Life is just better boosted!" -- LadyMage
"I'm a big believer in Personal Force Field on a blaster. ... It's your happy place." -- Fulmens
[ QUOTE ]
The worse thing about those numbers, is that the margin in both comparisons is now much wider than it was for I4.
[/ QUOTE ]
The crazy part is that they are supposedly working toward balancing defense and resistance. 
The Dark Blade
"I've felt your mouse on me before, you perv...." - Troy Hickman
Paragon Wiki
[ QUOTE ]
First - I didn't mean it to sound that the Accuracy reductions were the ONLY change forthcoming. It's just that these changes, while global, benefits the Defense builds more than others....
[/ QUOTE ]
But you understand how because it affects everyone this doesn't feel like a boost to Ice, right? Because now it's easier for everyone, oh and us too.
[ QUOTE ]
One shotting by AV's. In a word, you are ALL correct. It's not a good thing for an Ice Tanker to be leveled by a single blow. So we're going back and changing the damage done by AV's so that it's no longer possible for a Tanker to be one shotted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, so now it's easier for ALL tankers. Rather than fixing what's wrong with ice, you're changing the gameplay for EVERYONE. We didn't ask for AVs to be easier. I don't want AVs to be trivial. I want Ice to be able to stand up to them. That's a different request, and decidedly not the approach you're taking. You keep lowering the bar so that Ice can pass muster. That's not the way I think you should be going. You should be raising our abilities, not making the game easier so we don't seem quite as useless.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I hear the complaints about Permafrost. And I'm...thinking. I've read many suggestions - and gotten more than a few PM's about it. There's a lot of good ideas there. So I'm going to do some pondering there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good. Sadly, not good enough though. Allow me a reenactment:
Ice Tanks: States, we need help!
Statesman: Well, we've dropped the accuracy of all foes so everyone gets hit less.
Ice Tanks: That's great, but WE need help.
Statesman: We've made two of your powers 90% less effective!
Ice Tanks: No, you misunderstand. We asked for HELP. Previously, we were subpar, inferior, low-grade, poor, second-rate, and substandard. How, exactly, does your "help" address that?
Circeus has said all that really needs to be said. You need a new drawing board. Your original ice tank concept was a failure. It wasn't much of a failure since some people play them, but overall, inferior. And now you're making it worse. So start over. If you don't like ice tanks, fine. Replace it with something else. Reconsider how it is that a thick sheet of ice on someone makes them DODGE better. Just start the whole damn thing over because you're clearly not interested in fixing what you've got.
[ QUOTE ]
Okay Statesman, I've reworked some of the Ice Armor Comparison spreadsheets I worked on with Havok, and I've put them online. The results are pretty grim when you look at them, and I think you have some real explaining to do. Here are the spreadsheets:
IceArmorvsInvulnTanker.xls
IceArmorvsInvulnScrapper.xls
Some caveats (some of which are listed on the spreadsheets):
1) Ice Armor is using 6 powers and 29 slots, and I have both Invuln Scrappers and Tankers using 7 powers and 33 slots. The primary difference between the Invuln Scrapper and Tanker is that for the Scrapper Tough Hide was given 2 slots and RPD 1, for the Invuln Tanker its 1 slot for Tough Hide, and 2 slots for RPD.
2) The calculations assume all mobs are in range for Chilling Embrace to take effect on them, and that all are affected (tough to judge how to do the 10 mob cap really).
3) Toxic can't be judged properly because its hard to judge the source of DEF vs a Toxic attack, since Toxic is only a damage type and not an attack type.
4) Psionics is not really correct, because based on (2) above the attackers would have to be in melee range and affected by Chilling Embrace, but Psionic attacks are all ranged attacks. Really the only true bonus for Psionics would go to Ice for not having the Unyielding penalty. So more realisitic numbers for Psi would be much lower.
5) Assumed the level scaling for Accuracy for mobs was the same in I5 as for I4.
Considering all that... looking at just even con mobs...
Ice Armor vs Invuln Tanker (even level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 910.50% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 178.67% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 618.89% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 91.01% damage of an Invuln
Ice Armor vs Invuln Scrapper (even level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 320.60% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 160.02% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 554.28% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 81.51% damage of an Invuln
And in both cases the margin only widens as the mob level goes up. For example lets jump to +1 level foes...
Ice Armor vs Invuln Tanker (+1 level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 1327.11% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 260.42% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 723.12% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 106.34% damage of an Invuln
Ice Armor vs Invuln Scrapper (+1 level foes):
Smash/Lethal: Ice takes 467.29% damage of an Invuln
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 233.24% damage of an Invuln
Fire: Ice takes 647.63% damage of an Invuln
Cold: Ice takes 95.24% damage of an Invuln
Showing that realistically, Ice is in fact not the tank who is strongest against Cold damage, Invuln, in both cases easily overtakes even Ice's best protection.
So overall, you've simply not done a good job towards balancing Ice Armor. If Invuln is still the baseline you've effectively failed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice well thought out post. I have been trying to explain this since Issue 2. People always told me better to slot resistance over defense. I am an Ice Tank! How am I supposed to do that?
very nice comparison. on this one point....
[ QUOTE ]
1) Ice Armor is using 6 powers and 29 slots, and I have both Invuln Scrappers and Tankers using 7 powers and 33 slots. ...
[/ QUOTE ]
How about spending that last power and 5 slots on Combat Jumping. (is that the best defensive pool power?)
Then you can say you committed the same number of powers+slots to each build and compare totals. Ice will still be on the short end of the stick.
[ QUOTE ]
How about spending that last power and 5 slots on Combat Jumping. (is that the best defensive pool power?)
Then you can say you committed the same number of powers+slots to each build and compare totals. Ice will still be on the short end of the stick.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well technically the spreadsheet figures in Chilling Embrace as the 7th power for Ice Armor already. Its really only a 4 slot difference by then. There's just nowhere else to put slots.
I also forgot to mention that EA has only 5 DEF slots, because 1 slot must be used for recharge to get coverage 100% of the time.
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen more than a few people crying for Ice Tankers to have their own place to give feedback. And since we've already planned to change Unyielding some, a few think we're ignoring Ice in favor of Invulnerabilty. So I wanted to start this thread.
Here's a couple of changes coming that I think will help:
Reduced Accuracy of Minion level Turrets from 75% to 58%.
Reduced Accuracy of Lieutenant level Turrets from 94% to 65%.
Reduced Accuracy of Boss level Turrets from 113% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Snipers from 75% to 65%.
Reduced Accuracy of Archvillains from 90% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Giant Monsters from 90% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Monument Minions from 75% to 58%.
Reduced Accuracy of Rularuu Bosses from 90% to 75%.
BIG thanks to Circeus, for his tireless devotion to all that is Ice Tankerish. Hip hip hooray!
PLEASE keep the discussion limited to Ice Tankers. Anything else will be removed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not a tanker nor do I have any intention to tank. However, these changes make absolutely no sense to me.
1. Aren't people already complaining that the mob AI is not smart enough? Isn't this change making an easy game even easier?
2. This is kind of an insult to the ice tanker community. This is not addressing any of their concerns as these changes affect everyone globally.
Don't make the mobs dumber (or less powerful). Make the ice tanker better (more balanced).
[ QUOTE ]
First - I didn't mean it to sound that the Accuracy reductions were the ONLY change forthcoming. It's just that these changes, while global, benefits the Defense builds more than others....
Secondly, I apologize if anyone thought my reference to "crying" meant "whining." What I meant by "crying" was something like "demanding" or "shouting for." That's what I get for starting threads like that without having an editor!
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks States, the clarification is appreciated.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Wet Ice and Energy Absorption provide relatively small DEF buffs. This is not a bug and by design. Wet Ice provides a base defense of +.5%; Energy Absorption provides the same buff for every foe within melee range (up to a maximum of 14 targets).
[/ QUOTE ]
Wet Ice: One of two things should happen here, give it a fixed, unenhancable defensive buff of 10%, or give it no buff at all. .5% causes more problems than it helps as others have entailed previously.
EA - If you plan on keeping the defensive values where they are, the recharge needs to be lowered, or the duration needs to be increased so both values are equal, at a minimum. I also feel the defense % needs to either be increased to 1%, AND the base % of FA and GA are increased to 20% respectively.
[ QUOTE ]
One shotting by AV's. In a word, you are ALL correct. It's not a good thing for an Ice Tanker to be leveled by a single blow. So we're going back and changing the damage done by AV's so that it's no longer possible for a Tanker to be one shotted.
[/ QUOTE ]
This problem is specific to Ice tankers only. There is no need to lower AV damage, although we'll take what we can get. This problem should be addressed by providing a solution to the Ice Tanker in their primary power set. Possibly find a solution in Permafrost for this since you are currently looking at it.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I hear the complaints about Permafrost. And I'm...thinking. I've read many suggestions - and gotten more than a few PM's about it. There's a lot of good ideas there. So I'm going to do some pondering there.
[/ QUOTE ]
( See above )
The numbers provided by Circeus speak for themselves, jaw dropping to say the least. Please look them over and consider the people playing Ice Tankers; this is what we are looking at when I5 goes live.
Again, thank you for hearing our concerns, and doing what you can to bring Ice Tanks back in line with the other Tanker primaries...
[ QUOTE ]
One shotting by AV's. In a word, you are ALL correct. It's not a good thing for an Ice Tanker to be leveled by a single blow. So we're going back and changing the damage done by AV's so that it's no longer possible for a Tanker to be one shotted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most of the time I post I defend you guys but when I heard you were doing this I find myself asking the same question about what you guys inhale in your breakroom.
Why do you seem to be obsessed with whacking the entire game across the board when one set is out of line?
If Ice tankers are inferior to others in AV fights, changing AVs will help the Ice tanker but it also boosts everyone else. Aren't you trying to reset the balance in the game with I5 across the board? So why did you just make life easier for every other set in the game? You just ruined any balance you established
I'm sorry for the rant but it really seems like:
a) You are knee jerking with some fixes.
b) You have some hidden agenda when it comes to boosting a set like Ice.
Want to know something sad? I don't even play an Ice tanker. But I see all the numbers and I just can't help but wonder what the heck you guys have against the set. There isn't a logical explaination anymore so I have to resort to illogical ones.
Just like most of the issues that I5 is supposed to fix you are again whacking away with a Buggs Bunny sized sledgehammer on the entire game (pets, def reduction, AE reduction) instead of adjusting the overpowered sets and/or boosting the difficulty of the mission sliders. What possible business reason can you have for making game wide changes when other possibilities exist?
[ QUOTE ]
JESUS!!!!
.5 % defense?? I thought it was a bug.. dear god... why do they bother to say that power offers defense?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually if the power can be slotted up to a total of +3% defense then it would be probably be better to either remove the ability to slot the power for +def and set it at 3% or just remove the +def component completely.
3% +def is virtually nothing, you need to take like what 20 attacks for that to make even a little difference. Players who DO NOT read the forums will end up wasting slots in that power thinking they will see some meaningful return on their investment. Which will not be the case.
Thats is definatly not cool as it punishes players who do not come to the forums or number crunch the game.
Throw the Ice Tanks a pickle and let us become Incarnates already...
Not a bad way to get to an epic AT there. If you can survive getting to level 30 or 40 as an Ice tank, you deserve to open your own epic AT.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
I'll update Havok's spreadsheets later on today