[ QUOTE ]
<sigh> Look. Ice Armour is not terribly viable when put side to side with the other Tanker sets. Yes that is part opinion and part personal experience. It just doesn't have the resources necessary to make it a reliable tanker. Tweaking defense numbers just doesn't seem to really make any of the problems go away. Perhaps the damage debuff in CE will make a difference, I personally don't know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ice armor is viable in most circumstances in issue 4. It clearly performs worse than other tanker sets - no argument - but it's not gimped or useless. Its real weakness is facing high-damage high-accuracy enemies (monsters, AVs), or getting a streak of hits before EA takes effect. That's my experience.
In issue 5, both my scrappers can outtank my ice tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
I also never "kept on talking like Ice Patch was attached to the hip with Ice Armour".
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I wasn't necessarily talking about you, was I? It seems like every single discussion I've ever been in about Ice Armor has prompted someone to go on about Ice Armor as if Ice Melee is a required choice.
[ QUOTE ]
I merely stated my opinion that I believe Ice Patch would increase an Ice Armour tanker survivability (moreso than other tankers in similar situations) and still remain consistent with the rest of the set and provide a patch for some of the gaps that a defense oriented set tends to leave wide open.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it cuts down incoming damage. That's nice, but shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't be a factor in how Ice Armor works, because any tanker, Ice or no, can take Ice Melee.
[ QUOTE ]
I am also speaking from my own personal experiences, which is as a, as you put it, "kneecapped" Ice/Ice Tanker. I can't dish out damage as well as Stone, or Axe, or EM,
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, except for that part where you're not dishing out that as much damage as Stone or EM. I'm not sure about Axe.
[ QUOTE ]
but the addition of Ice Patch sure does make a helluva difference in my teams survivability. Sure, my xp/hour sucks, but hey, that's not how I rate the effectiveness of a power.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point on the XP/hour was that Fire can not only use ice patch to cut down incoming attacks (which is an issue, with their lack of +Def) and keep villains inside their burn patch for the full duration. Fire increases survivability and kill rate.
When considering what I consider important for characters, I should note that I do not have any Fire/ tankers, and my highest-level tanker is ice... XP/hour isn't my primary interest.
Anyway, I'm not trying to attack you. I am frustrated about Ice.
[ QUOTE ]
If I had my way, Ice Armour would be a completely different frozen novelty. I seriously don't even know what I can say to the Devs that Circeus and others haven't already said. The Devs seem oblivious and it's terribly disheartening. So many good ideas presented, and so many bad ideas implemented. In any case, I shall trudge forward with both my low xp/hour Ice/Ice and because misery loves company, an Ice/Mace tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why the devs seem dead set on keeping ice as weak as possible. What do they see in the set that makes up for such gimping?
[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else, at least I'll leave enough shaved ice in my wake to put all of Paragon City's ice cream trucks out of business. Anyone else like blue raspberry syrup on their slushies?
[/ QUOTE ]
So the I5 role for Ice tankers is to sell frozen desserts? I can see that. 
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Hey RL, great post! I only disagree on one point...
[ QUOTE ]
the only thing that Ice has a total advantage over other tanks is in cold resistence and its secondary effect slow resistence (although a stone tank with granite is a defacto equal to ice in cold resistence with Granite)...so really the only thing that ice is superior in is resistence to slow.... We don't even own cold damage resistence.
[/ QUOTE ]
A Stone Tanker running Granite Armor actually out-performs us by 3% vs Cold. Why? Because they also get significantly more DEF vs Cold on top of their capped RES vs Cold than Ice does.
[ QUOTE ]
Every powerset has something that they can have as their claim-to-fame. In used to be that Ice was the defense set.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also we lost our status as being the Anti-Sapper tanker. A sorely missed attribute
[ QUOTE ]
Also we lost our status as being the Anti-Sapper tanker. A sorely missed attribute
[/ QUOTE ]
I miss it.
Maidenfrost was sidekicked into several Malta missions when I last played her, and she wasn't sapped once.
Now...feh.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Ice has always been an 'underperformer' as far as Tanker primaries go. It can work, even my 13 Ice/Ice can tank, just not as well as my other Tankers.
Due to the complications of balancing primaries as close as possible, but without making them carbon copies, I understand it's difficult if not impossible to acheive perfect balance. But getting the sets as close as possible should be a serious and sought-after goal.
Tanker damage mitigation should be the best, it's our primary afterall. Poor Ice has always seemed to be 'the 'poor relation' of Tanker primaries. A lot of people say it's gimped, and then others listen to that, and it snowballs into the perception that Ice is even worse than it actually is! Something must be done to help Ice Tankers out though, they are definately the poorest set overall of the 4 primaries. This is espeically true of massive, high-accuracy AV attacks. Hopefully the AV damage reduction is already done for I5 or is coming soon. But that is not a complete solution, just a start.
Ice isn't gimped live, but it's not quite as good as scrapper defenses (my DA has better odds against some AVs, and of course Invuln always does better). Ice is gimped on test.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[
I don't know why the devs seem dead set on keeping ice as weak as possible. What do they see in the set that makes up for such gimping?
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember when Issue 4 came out and Geko made a comment about being almost done with Issue 5? Obviously, the Dev's, in their thinking and balancing are, months ahead of us, the player base. I would wonder if perhaps there is going to be some massive influx of cold damage or attacks with a secondary affect that slows players.
If I am correct in my previous post (the only thing Ice Tanks have over other tanks is resistence to slowing effects) then perhaps this addition of slow resistence in Permafrost (which seems completely silly at this point) will be made viable and perhaps even *holds breath*...powerful.
Of course... I am kinda an opptomistic idiot at times--but if anyone else calls me that I'm totally gonna sue you.
[ QUOTE ]
Ice isn't gimped live, but it's not quite as good as scrapper defenses (my DA has better odds against some AVs, and of course Invuln always does better). Ice is gimped on test.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Ice isn't gimped live... but it is unbalanced.
On live, I have faced Infernal so many times I can't keep count--I enjoy that mission. And I always outlast any other tank in the mission with me. I've even gone into the mission with a fire tank before and had a little chuckle as he died twice around the portal while I lived (a good example of how important defense is when facing large numbers of baddies).
And yet, you turn around and face DE or Rularuu and BAM!, it's amazing how fast you can go down.
I don't think the issue is that Ice is gimp. I think the issue is the way acc/to-hit buffs/debuffs is an all-or-nothing game. You either look really good (and are too powerful, imo) or you're dead (and are too weak/not enough defense). There just isn't any middle ground for ice.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every powerset has something that they can have as their claim-to-fame. In used to be that Ice was the defense set.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also we lost our status as being the Anti-Sapper tanker. A sorely missed attribute
[/ QUOTE ]
This really is the root of the question, isn't it? I've asked Statesman this question before, probably more than once, but he never bothered to answer - and I'm starting to really think that's because he CAN'T.
When I decided to make an ice tank, it was because I went into it knowing that yes, high defense is good but the odds WILL catch up to you now and then. Sure they had almost no resists, but that was the game. The 'high defense' tanker.
But now, with ice tankers being unable to even drop a same-level minion's defense to the minimum without a) herding, and b) adding hasten to their build so they can put six defense SOs in energy absorption, what's the point?
Answer this question. What the heck does an ice tanker bring to the table? What is the point of playing an ice tanker? What do they have that ANY OTHER TANKER can't do better? What is their niche? It's not resistance, and it's not defense.
Slow resistance? Try tanking on a knives of artemis job. I really don't think adding slow resist is going to help (especially if there is no -recharge resistance, which I asked for a clarification on - but it is the weekend and all).
Fire tankers have damage to make up for their 'lessened' survivability. They have NO +def, but they have the highest damage in their primary and respectable resistances to everything save toxic attack, psi attack, and the three guys that use cold attacks.
Stone tankers can either play with capped resists and nice overall defense and healing OR medium defense to everything safe for fire and ice, which they can get a resist to, and nice healing. They specialize in tanking for psionic bad guys.
When teams are fighting malaise or mother mayhem, they're the go-to guys.
Invulnerable tankers? Well, they're not the rocks they used to be, that's for sure. They can get amazingly high defense if they engage in the behavior we're not supposed to any more, and they can cap their resistance to smash/lethal, the most common damage in the game.
They seem to be the 'middle ground' to me now. The dependable guy who can take a beating and yet not be stuck with the theme to 'chariots of fire' in their head.
So ice tankers. What do they have?
Mediocre defense to only FOUR damage types, some resistance to fire and a lot of resistance to the three guys that use cold attacks, and soon to be a very very very small damage debuff aura (unenhanceable). Other than helping the other melee types suck up damage, what do they bring?
What can an ice tanker do that makes a team say, 'let's grab an ice tanker', they'd be better for this fight?
It used to be malta missions with me - they were the jobs I never feared to tread in with my ice tanker. Sappers got a random lucky hit now and then, but who didn't? As long as I wasn't tanking purples, I was truly able to TANK in these.
And even sometimes when they were.
But with issue 5, even that role is taken away, given to stone tanks exclusively (with their endurance drain resist, they're the best at sappers now, too).
So again, what's the point? What IS the role of an ice tanker on a team? What can we do that nobody else can do better? All game mechanics and blah blah aside, this is what I need to know. What is your vision for ice tankers in this game?
I'm just not seeing it.
[ QUOTE ]
No, Ice isn't gimped live... but it is unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Ice is not gimped on live, but many people's perceptions color it so. And that sullies it's actual ability, even if it is weaker overall than the other 3 primaries.
If the test version is even worse, this needs to be rectified!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ice isn't gimped live, but it's not quite as good as scrapper defenses (my DA has better odds against some AVs, and of course Invuln always does better). Ice is gimped on test.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Ice isn't gimped live... but it is unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think "not as good as scrapper defenses" qualifies as "unbalanced."
[ QUOTE ]
On live, I have faced Infernal so many times I can't keep count--I enjoy that mission. And I always outlast any other tank in the mission with me. I've even gone into the mission with a fire tank before and had a little chuckle as he died twice around the portal while I lived (a good example of how important defense is when facing large numbers of baddies).
And yet, you turn around and face DE or Rularuu and BAM!, it's amazing how fast you can go down.
I don't think the issue is that Ice is gimp. I think the issue is the way acc/to-hit buffs/debuffs is an all-or-nothing game. You either look really good (and are too powerful, imo) or you're dead (and are too weak/not enough defense). There just isn't any middle ground for ice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely agree.
It's just that in I5, there's no margin when you're not facing tohit buffs or defense debuffs. If you want to have defenses to tank, you need a bubbler or two (sonic and/or FF). You don't even need to run any shields.
This is the thing I hate most about I5 - that the devs seem to want tanker defenses to not matter.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
seems like they want to move towards the eq model of meat-healer-dmg.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, Ice isn't gimped live... but it is unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Ice is not gimped on live, but many people's perceptions color it so. And that sullies it's actual ability, even if it is weaker overall than the other 3 primaries.
If the test version is even worse, this needs to be rectified!
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you're seeing the point of my last several posts though. I don't think the best thing to do is balance ice to the other sets. I think the best thing for ice is to balance the villians.
And the few things I've been pulling for are:
--Massive increase in the number of cold attacks from villians.
--Decrease in the acc buff of DE quartz eminators and an elimination of the defacto auto-hit from their Swarms. It's completely silly that underlings can spank a tank that fast.
--Decrease the amount that Rularuu can debuff defense. Or in I5's case, perhaps eliminate the debuff completely.
I do however think that the only way Ice will ever be of any use in PvP is to change powers. The set needs to be moved toward, not away from, being effective against a single target. As issue 5 stands, I can think of no weaker PvP build than an Ice/Ice tank. Low defense, low resistence, low damage--and a lot of it DoT.
[ QUOTE ]
seems like they want to move towards the eq model of meat-healer-dmg.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the rendering of tanker defenses as irrelevant in teams is not evenly applied. Stone tanker defenses are completely relevant - they won't need defender support to tank. Fire could use FF or Fortitude to back up its good resists. Invuln could use sonic to bolster its resists. Ice doesn't have enough defense to be decisive, to really count on its own.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
The problem is that so many things DO debuff defense, and that is what kills ice armor. My ice tank is currently 27 and I'm loving EA. One day I was sk'd up to mid 30s on a friend's team fighting DE, had the mob and used EA, a quartz is dropped...poor ice tank dies faster then a hellion getting hit by total focus.
Ice needs resistance of some sort so that they can be relied on to stay alive against that kind of stuff.
[ QUOTE ]
But now, with ice tankers being unable to even drop a same-level minion's defense to the minimum without a) herding, and b) adding hasten to their build so they can put six defense SOs in energy absorption, what's the point?
[/ QUOTE ]
As Statesman can attest to from our PM/email exchanges, this is an extremely sore point for me, and one he and I clearly don't see eye to eye on.
He really didn't like that I had my spreadsheet set to 3 spawns (actually I had meant to set it to two and released it as 3 by mistake - doesn't matter for the story though). However, he didn't follow why, in the spreadsheet, I was having Chilling Embrace affect only 10 mobs, and not 10 mobs per spawn.
And I pointed out to him that it was because people will be herding 2 spawns or more together to achieve maximum defensive ability.
He responded (I don't want to put exact quotes) that this the design intent was to have one spawn fought at a time.
I then, nicely (I swear!), reamed him on that point. I made it quite clear that his "intent" and "desire" may be for us to be fighting only one spawn at a time, but the "design" and "implementation" clearly flew in the face of that. Why? Because if you set things to 14 mobs for maximum effienceny, and than balance against that maximum than that's where people will play. I specifically told him that while he's calling "as designed" (even though its "as intended") I'm calling "as played", and that its "as played" that in the end is far more important.
His response was basically "fair enough". Doesn't mean he will change anything, but it did set the tone for a lot of what we discussed.
And I was very clear that in setting the # of mobs required to something beyond 1 spawn almost certainly guaranteed that people will not stick to only 1 spawn. And that if he set the # of mobs from 7 to 10, he'd have a much better chance of seeing his "intent" a reality.
I'm fairly certain he did not at all get my resoning about the complete need for sustained DEF on a DEF based melee character.
And like I said, he basically told me they design around combats lasting 45s, but I think they're really measuring the time it takes to drop a spawn. Specifically he told me this is why EA lasts 45s. And I suspect that's why the new Instant Healing lasts 60s.
However, again implementation gets in the way of that. Because Defender and Controller buffs all last in the area of 2 to 4 minutes. This of course means that battles last as long as buff cycles, as they do in any MMO. Which means times like 45s and 60s are far too short. Again "intent" not agreeing with "design".
Ah well...
... Well then, Circeus, all they have to do is drop Instant Healing to a 45s timer and they'll be all set according to Statesman, right? 
Okay, seriously, from what I can tell, the big issue here is consistency -- people want Ice to go into battles with a consistent amount of armor. This is because the Tank is expected to absorb the alpha strike, which is entirely reasonable on a team. Thing is, the Devs want to introduce risk into playing a Tank, which is a factor you've gotta consider: even if twice the amount of enemies hit that should miss, on Live, you're still looking at like 3 guys hitting on a single spawn, which is of course what we're supposed to fight. So that's clearly a bit much. But, on the other hand, if you can just suck up the Alpha, then the whole rest of the spawn poses no risk to you -- since you can handle their max DPS, you can easily handle their reduced and confused DPS. So that brings us to where we are now.
So: Any clue how y'all can set it up so that you can absorb Alphas and still be at risk from the rest of the spawn?
At this point its not so much as being able to absorb alphas, its about being at a point where Ice Tankers are taking much more damage over time than other either Invuln or Stone Tankers.
Compared to Invuln:
Smash/Lethal: Invuln is taking 18% of Ice's damage (not balanced)
Energy/Negative: Ice is taking 90% of the damage of Invuln (fairly balanced)
Fire: Invuln is taking 41% of Ice's damage (potentially balanced since this is a weakness, but considering the commonality of Fire attacks, its too much of a weakness comparitively)
Cold: Ice is taking 44% of Invuln's damage (Ice is supposed to be the best vs Cold)
Toxic: looks even if Chilling Embrace is in effect, but since Toxic atttacks are mostly ranged, and CE doesn't work at range its more like Invuln is taking 75% of Ice's damage and is therefore not quite balanced either
Psionic: appears that Ice is taking 70% of Invuln's damage, but again, like Toxic, most Psi attacks are ranged, and CE therefore would not come into play, thus meaning that Ice is really only taking about 93% of Invuln's damage. (potentially balanced?)
Compared to Stone using Granite Armor:
Smash/Lethal/Energy/Negative: Stone is taking 48% of Ice's damage (not balanced)
Fire: Stone is taking 17% of Ice's damage (way to underpowered comparitively even if it is a weakness)
Cold: Stone is taking 97% of Ice's damage (Ice is not even the Cold King)
Toxic: Even with Chilling Embrace running Stone is taking 17% of Ice's damage, but again Toxic mostly comes in to play at range, remove CE and it becomes that Stone is taking only 12.5% if Ice's damage vs Toxic
Psionic: Appears that Ice is taking 75% of Stone's damage, but again Psi is mostly ranged, remove CE and they are in fact, dead even
And to boot those numbers assume Ice has managed to amass a full buff via EA from 14 mobs and EA is slotted for 5 DEF. Even slotting EA for 6 DEF (who without Hasten would do that?), the picture really doesn't get any prettier.
So Ice completely lacks a specialty or dominance vs any damage type - Stone is better all around with Granite Armor running, and Invuln is even better than that vs Smash/Lethal. So I just don't see where Ice fits into the picture, but it appears that the picture in I5 won't really include Tanking.
I'm not an Ice Tanker, but I'm following this because I'd like to see all the sets be equally viable. I feel the need to post, however, after seeing this:
[ QUOTE ]
So: Any clue how y'all can set it up so that you can absorb Alphas and still be at risk from the rest of the spawn?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to say that I am disappointed at the goal of being at risk every single spawn. I really like variety of difficulty in games, and I'd rather not be challenged 100% of the time. I would, however, like to be challenged every session, at varying levels, as well as having some reinforcement that I am a superhero on the level of Nightcrawler, Cyclops, Storm, Jean Grey, or Colossus, every session.
I think it is reasonable to assume that a single mission might be the reasonable minimum for a single play session-- the kind of thing that a working parent might have time for once a night. So, I'd rather they focused on trying to make 1-2 encounters a mission put you at serious risk, and 2-4 encounters putting you at moderate risk, with the rest putting you at minor to no risk.
Serious risk might feel like the live equivalent of a level 10 Regen Scrapper fighting a Lost Aberrant Boss and a minion, or a full 40+ team facing a room with 2 groups of +3 Carnies that include 2 Dark Ring Mistresses and 2 Master Illusionists. I'm not saying this is what they should provide, but the feel should be that way-- serious risk means there very well could be a team wipe if everyone isn't really on the ball.
Moderate might be that same level 10 Scrapper facing a Tesla Knight and two sprockets, or a full team facing one of those (+2 or +3) 5-LT Nemesis spawns within eyeshot of a couple Snipers with more LTs in their group, and with a Fire Tanker without Tough as the tank. I've been in the latter situation, and while I hate the crazy stacking Venegance that cuts through +Def like mad, and causes tons of accuracy issues, the situation could definately be described as a moderate challenge. I've had team wipes from it, but they could have been avoided if people were careful about when and how they killed the LTs.
Minor-no risk would be a live group facing the average +2 Malta Spawn with a Sapper in it, or the level 10 Scrapper facing the typical 3-minion Clockwork spawn.
Anyway, I PMed Statesman twice about variety in difficulty within a single mission, and both times he misunderstood me. First he seems to have thought I meant variety in aesthetics, citing new group types being added in I5. Then he thought I meant variety in difficulty among groups (like, Vahzilok being harder than Skulls), citing Sappers being added in Issue 1. I tried to clarify in a third PM, but he didn't write back, meaning he either was too busy to respond to me a third time (understandable), or he just thought I wasn't listening to him. Maybe he will read this thread, and maybe this post might make more sense than the PMs I sent him.
Regardless, I suppose I should give up on that, as I think he disagrees, and thinks every single spawn should give a feeling of overcoming a difficult task.
As a side note, I'd like to say that Circeus is exactly the sort of poster I wish I was, but unfortunately I find my motivation just won't hold up long enough to do the kinds of things he has, as it seems fairly random as to whether the developers will come to the same conclusions or not. Good job, Circeus.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
[ QUOTE ]
So: Any clue how y'all can set it up so that you can absorb Alphas and still be at risk from the rest of the spawn?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is how it is on live right now. Ice is at risk from the alpha and the rest of the spawn. Definitely more risk than invuln, stone, or fire.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
To Statesman or the Devs, while other tanker defense sets combine resistance and defense at the same time - at least in some areas, whereas Ice seems limited to resistance or defense but never both in any situation. Exception being Fiery Aura but the damage it does is impressive and it still can reach capped resistance levels to 3 damage types.
1) Ice gets great rare cold resistance, and weak fire resistance, but no defense to supplement that.
2) Ice gets decent defense to lethal/smashing/energy/negative attacks in two armors, but no resistance to those damage types to compliment each other.
3) Other defense sets can actually exceed defense levels available to Ice with powers like Invincibility and Rock and Crystal Armor.
4) Lastly, the added defense from EA is minimal and doesn't offer a dramatic increase in protection in the way that Invincibility does. I just have a hard time understanding why a defense-heavy set like Ice can be outdone by one INV power, and has nowhere the amount of resists to the most common damage types in the game, lethal and smashing. Ice is actually the worst defense set BY FAR in mitigating physical damage.
I am not knocking the defense debuff in Chilling Embrace, but I just don't quite see it as enough. Are the recharge and speed reductions from Chilling Embrace (and now damage debuff), as well as the added HP from Hoarfrost supposed to be in lieu of resistance?
Is the design goal of defense sets supposed to be a balance of several factors like:
1) Resistance (Temp Invuln, Stone Skin)
2) Defense (Invincibility, Rock Armor)
3) Damage (Icicles, Burn)
4) Control (Chilling Embrace, Mudpots)
It seems to me the most effective types of damage mitigation are in that order, and you have sets like Invulnerability being the best at defense because it uses the two most effective types of protection, while sets like Ice are at the bottom because it has meager amounts of the worst combination. I also don't think the damage done by Icicles makes up enough for that.
Is Ice supposed to be less effective than everything else? How does that remotely become equivalent to a set like Invulnerability, overall?
Lastly, I am requesting that, in the very least, Permafrost be _looked at_ for adding lethal/smashing resistance, to a) give more value to that power and b) take the edge off of physical attacks at least. I realize INV is the king of physical protection but Ice is the jester, and he's not terribly funny.
Just wondering Circeus if you could come up with some combination of base def's that would put Icee's on par with the other tankers.
Who knows maybe they'd try those numbers in a test...I can hope
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman,
First off, some unpleasantries; Paying subscribers requesting acknowledgment of issues and soliciting feedback is no where in the same vicinity as crying. That was either a very unfortunate choice of words, or people who give you $180/year are being overtly insulted. Do us a favor and make your meaning clear so we can make informed decisions as to where we go from here with our gaming dollar. With that out of the way
The accuracy decreases, while globally beneficial for many ATs does little to nothing for resolving some long standing Ice Tanker issues (i.e. 14+ months).
One Shot Kills from damage scaled to harm better performing tanker primaries
Higher endurance cost from Primary line than better performing tanker lines (partially addressed by I-5 EA)
Only Tankers who have to contend with the Random Number Generator as their number one threat above and beyond the enemy who needs arresting.
The following is a copy and paste from an earlier thread discussing tanker fixers in general and includes some Ice Tank feedback from subscribers. This thread is located in the Tanker forum: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...o=&fpart=1
Toshis Ice Tank Suggestions:
What do I want? More than 30% defense vs. all but fire and psi. I want my primary to count for more than a luck and discipline inspiration cocktail. I would like to not get 1 or 2 shot by the AVs and Monsters that Tankers are supposed to tank. I want to pay for and enjoy the same content as other tankers.
Disclaimer: These are ideas that I have been kicking around for some time now, most of which are a direct result of our Ice Tank communitys excellent feedback and input. These are in extreme draft form and only ideas that would require testing and your excellent, constructive feedback.
Some basics:
Permafrost is a prime candidate for retooling and/or replacement. Consider it a placeholder for any of these powers.
Messing with CE is a bad idea IMO. It is currently a very beneficial power. Replacing the slow with another effect takes away from the Ice Tank flavor. Adding another effect to CE would be an invitation for yet another Ice tank nerf.
I am personally shooting for any ONE of the following (not all).
Power Name: Arctic Field
Description: AE damage debuff centered on the Ice Tank, reducing damage taken by the ice tank, and possibly some team members. This helps to address damage taken by +Accuracy, Monsters, AVs. One shot kills might possibly be addressed, depending on debuff value.
Animation: Dependant on AE size. If a large size is deemed balanced we could re-color Enervating Field or Choking cloud with blue and white tones. If a small field size is selected, a re-coloring of CE to different shades of blue, white, or maybe even red could be used for the effect. A tame animation, such as Invincibility re-colored to Ices palette would also be suitable.
Specifications: Power would operate in a manner similar to Enervating Field without the resistance debuff (i.e. mobs do not take more damage). Net result would be a 20-30% off the top reduction of all non-psi damage. Endurance cost values of .5 1.0 EPS. Radius, Debuff Value, and EPS should all be tweaked and tested by the Ice Tank community.
Since Damage debuff is not eligible for enhancement, the debuff metric could not be changed by the player. Future adjustments to the power due to heavy slotting would not be a concern.
This power could easily replace Permafrost. Almost all of the code needed for the power could be recycled from other powers (EF, CE). Animation recycling and re-coloring is a path of least resistance and would reduce the time to implement such a solution.
Power Name: Snow Sheath
Description: Ablative Armor. Ice Tank gets x# of temporary hit points. Damage taken after defense calculations are taken from this pool of hit points. Design goal is to prevent one shot kills and improve the Ice tanks survivability vs. +Acc, Monsters, AVs and the natural 20 dice roll.
Animation: Recommend no animation due to Ice tank cluttering. If an animation is desired, a re-coloring of rooted from the Stone primary would be quick to implement.
Specifications: Power would be a click buff on a reasonable timer. When activated the Ice Tank would have an HP buffer of around 30% Base HP. Any non-psi damage taken would come from this pool first.
Values of 20/30/40% of base HP should be tested. Recharge is recommended to be permeable with Hasten and/or multiple recharge SOs, due to the length of most Monster or AV fights.
Power Name: Arctic Core
Description: Damage Coefficient. The Ice Tank would have a damage coefficient that prevents any single hit from doing more than a fixed percentage of the Ice Tankers Base HP. The goal is enhanced survivability vs. AVs, Monsters, +Accuracy mobs and to prevent one shot kills. This power would not be readily exploitable in a herding capacity as very few, if any, minions are able to generate the damage numbers required to take a large percentage of a tankers HP in one shot.
Animation: None Required, passive power.
Specifications: Passive power, replacing Permafrost. Power states that no single hit can do more than x% of an Ice Tanks base HP. Recommended value is 33%, but values anywhere between 20% - 60% of base HP should all be tested. Note Psi damage is not applicable in this design draft as it is an Achilles Heal that almost all tankers contend with. Topic of psi is open to debate.
For example an Ice Tank has 2000hp at his current security level. The tank is struck by a S/L/En/Ne/F damage attack that would normally kill the tanker outright or reduce his HP total to a level where the next hit by just about anything kills the tank. With a Damage Coefficient in place, that hit can do no more than 33% of the Tank's 2000hp and is reduced down to 660 points of damage. A very stout hit, but not a one shot kill.
Values would need to be tested, especially with Perma-Hoarfrost. Aside from the obvious benefit of damage mitigation and removal of the One Shot Ice Tank kill, Artic Core has a dev-friendly side effect.
AC does not promote herding as most minions/LTs/Bosses are incapable of generating the type of damage that would be required to exceed the coefficient in a single hit. Groups of +1/2/3/4 mobs would still hit for their normal damage, thus mass numbers of mobs still pose a grave threat to the Ice Tanker through the 5% auto-hit or the Random Number Generator. Promoting herding is a bad idea and this power steers clear of such promotion entirely.
Bottom Line, my negative feelings expressed in the preamble not withstanding; Ice Tankers pay for and do in fact deserve to enjoy the same content as better performing or favored Tank Primaries.
In the short term: Please provide feedback regarding the current zero-defense state of Wet Ice and Energy Absorption on Test.
In the other short, i.e. not long term: Make Ice Tank repairs an action item. Dont just pay it lip service; let your actions speak for you (unless the 33% defense has already.) The numbers are there. The feedback has been here for multiple months, now going on multiple quarters. Your subscribers pay for and do in fact deserve to enjoy equal content. That is not happening now with Ice Primary.
No tears were shed or any other activity resembling crying observed during this post.
TTR
[/ QUOTE ]
I felt I should bring this post back into the limelight before it gets buried by far too much drivel. I think these three ideas are all very good and should be considered by the developers. The two not selected could even somehow be rolled into a new tanker primary, I'd wager.
Debt is temporary, prestige is forever
My Screenies and Videos :: My Toon List
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Jack, but that is not correct...at least not in the game on live and test.
You are saying it is (Base * (100% + (6 * 20%))) * 115% bonus for +3 level enhancements
Live/Test shows it is (Base * (100% + (6 * (20% * 115% bonus for +3 level enhancements))))
If I remember correctly it was Geko that stated each enhancement gives 5% bonus on that enhancements level..not on the overall buff. Thus 100% + (20% * 1.15) = 123%...not 120% * 1.15 (which is what you are saying is happening).
[/ QUOTE ]
Geko explanation is the one that makes sense. Each enhancement level has an effect separately on the bonus (TO/DO/SO) it provides, not on the overall bonus.
[/ QUOTE ]
As someone that's done game design as a hobby... don't expect a "Lead Designer" to have clue one about the details and specifics of how the game works. He won't. Geko would, he plays with the game's guts all day long.
I pretty much disregard everything Statesman ever says. He long ago established himself as someone with no idea what he's talking about. He's a politician, not a programmer. All praise Geko. 
Debt is temporary, prestige is forever
My Screenies and Videos :: My Toon List
[ QUOTE ]
Just wondering Circeus if you could come up with some combination of base def's that would put Icee's on par with the other tankers.
Who knows maybe they'd try those numbers in a test...I can hope
[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming Energy Absorption is now just a minor DEF booster that happens to be a decent way to recover Endurance, and figuring that we won't get more DEF from it, the best possible and simplist change would be as follows (something I already suggested to Statesman):
7.5% base DEF on Wet Ice vs S/L/E/N/F/C, leave it enhanceable for DEF.
It puts us into a much better place defensively, but doesn't make us as strong a generalist as Stone is or as strong vs S/L as Invuln is. Here's how it would look with just that change (this change would not affect Toxic or Psi so they are not listed):
vs Invuln:
Smash/Lethal: Invuln takes 34% of Ice's damage (not great but read on first)
Energy/Negative: Ice takes 51% of Invuln's damage (we are Energy manipulators now thanks to EA, so this to me makes sense)
Fire: Invuln takes 62% of Ice's damage (still a weakness, and more where a weakness to a damage type with the commonality of Fire should be)
Cold: Ice takes 29% of Invuln's damage (Ice is the clear leader vs Cold)
vs Stone:
Smash/Lethal/Energy/Negative: Stone takes 86% of Ice's damage
Fire: Stone takes 26% of Ice's damage
Cold: Ice takes 68% of Stone's damage
Keep in mind that this would still require 14 mobs to manage, still require Permafrost to be 6 slotted as well.
We still won't be as great Tankers as a Granite Tanker, but considering that they eat a 66% slow (loosing 40% of their attacks, plus movement speed) and 25% damage it balances out some. It also comes very close to making up the difference that Tough does for us here, meaning some might go back to feeling they don't need Tough (not sure myself - I'd have to test it).
We will excels vs Energy/Negative actually beating out Invul, but its a tradeoff because Invuln beats us vs Smash/Lethal, and by a wider margin, and S/L are the most common attacks in game. Gives us that specialty we're missing. And it makes sense - Energy Absorption now defines us as energy manipulators, so should we be better vs Energy?
We get better defense vs Fire, but its still a clear weakness by comparison, we simply will be taking more damage from it than either Stone or Invuln take.
And vs Cold we become the clear, strong, leader, no one else compares. Period.
It would keep us more survivable at lower levels so people might actually consider playing Ice Tankers past level 20, which is a serious issue right now on test, as they come quite unmanageable (though liveable) right around level 10.
It also sets us as clearly stronger defensively than an Invuln Scrapper which is something we've never been before, not in I4, and not in I5 as it stands today.
Would it be enough? Dunno, but the numbers look much better, and more importantly they feel much better. It won't solve other issues we have, but other steps are being taken for those (like AV damage is being worked on). We will still have to contend with all the DEF debuffs and Acc buffs that mobs get. And people will still be able to get our DEF via luck, but at least they'll need more of them.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people who play Ice/ or /Ice tankers seem to reroll them after they get the idea that the primary or secondary is subpar. Taking both is like kneecapping yourself.
[/ QUOTE ]
(looks down at knees)
[/ QUOTE ]
I have one. I like the concept and the look, but she has problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like ice patch, mind you. I just think that if you're going to go for a powerset, it's good to have other powers that are worthwhile too. Ice damage is very low, and the other control is practically useless (sleep).
At least my Ice/Stone can contribute noticeably to damage against hard targets (bosses and such) and use tremor + fault to keep stuff knocked down and stunned.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)