[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I stand by the reasoning being primarily that if 1 person can provide 100% of the team role of their archetype for a large team then the second member of that archetype that arrives is at best "emergency backup". If one tanker can handle the tanking of an 8-person team (primarily this is in terms of aggro-redirection) then a second tanker is basically redundant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Katahn, you're missing the fact that this is a good thing.
I feel bad that some players will be underused some times in some situations. That's actually a real problem.
On the other (more important) Hand, Making a Tank Not Redundant Is Functionally Identical To Needing More Than One.
If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.
In Issue 5, it's great that Heroes are no longer redundant. I like that, everyone gets to feel Heroic.
Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.
I don't see how exchaging one problem for a slighty worse one is good, although I'm sure someone will tell me how I'm wrong. 
[/ QUOTE ]
See, GS, I believe you've got it wrong.
Under I5, it's not that Tankers are redundant. What it means is that you, as team leader, can now make a team up of any or all ATs and be able to do missions up to the AV level on Heroic. Period. NO AT IS NOW NECESSARY TO DO YOUR MISSION WITH ADEQUATELY SKILLED PLAYERS.
If you're good enough, you can do it on a higher difficulty setting. This is the first time in the history of CoH in which this has been true.
This starts to break down in the low 40s, where some of the enemies encountered need special combos *Infernal cough*, *Rularuu cough*.
I5 is probably the most team-friendly build we've ever had on the servers since before the Purple Patch.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
[ QUOTE ]
I5 is probably the most team-friendly build we've ever had on the servers since before the Purple Patch.
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize I'm a few weeks late in this thread, but I'd just like to say that I completely agree with TomTrumpinski's summation above.
I detested teaming with tankers because they obviously didn't need me there, and as a controller all I could really do was get in their way. Burn tankers were especially guilty of this, as well as invulns.
I didn't like teaming with other controllers because either one of us could easily handle the entire mission on our own.
Now I find that every new member of a team is welcome, regardless of their AT, as long as they play smart. Issue 5 actually renewed my waning interest in the game. It's challenging again. Thank you!
[ QUOTE ]
On the other (more important) Hand, Making a Tank Not Redundant Is Functionally Identical To Needing More Than One.
If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would it be reasonable to say there is a differance between "another person functioning in a role helps" and "another person functioning in a role is necessary" or "another person functioning in a role is redundant"?
There is a world of differance in my mind between saying "we must have two tankers" and "adding another tanker or (another) controller on our 6+ man team would be helpful"
[ QUOTE ]
Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or... 1 tanker and 1 controller
Or... 2 controllers
Or... 2 control-strong defenders
Or... 2 defenders who can debuff enemies to give everyone virtually tank-like defense.
Or... 2 defenders who can buff the team to decimate enemies in 1/2 to 1/3 the time and give them i4 scrapper-level defenses.
Or... A couple dwarf-form kheldians.
Or...
To be honest there isn't really a need to completely control a spawn patch in an 8-person team. Just control it (via taunt or controller powers) enough so the team can manage to beat it. Its actually preferable to me as a player to see a situation where my contribution in any capacity matters. Where my teammates' contributions don't make mine effectively meaningless and where together we triumph.
I much prefer that over feeling like I could /afk and /em boombox at the mission door.
or a team full of blasters with a few /DEV or /Ice.....
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, you don't need exactly 2 or more tanks to have a viable team. What you need is 2, 3, or 4 tankers, controllers, or defenders, in any combination. Out of 8 possible slots, I don't see that as all that burdensome or unreasonable.
[/ QUOTE ]
All True. This doesn't change that fact that Pickup Teams that are Scrapper or Blaster-heavy need to wait longer to get much done.
[ QUOTE ]
Each additional player added to the team contributes more to the team now than in I4, where all you may have needed for success on an 8 man invincible team was a single tank or a single controller, and everyone else was just there to help move things along more quickly.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely false.
Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)
The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.
However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.
So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.
I don't see this point of yours, in fact, it seems (unless I'm interpreting you wrong) that you're factually incorrect.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
Now I find that every new member of a team is welcome, regardless of their AT, as long as they play smart. Issue 5 actually renewed my waning interest in the game. It's challenging again. Thank you!
[/ QUOTE ]
This "extra challenge" that you like so much is killing two of my SGs.
Just an equal and opposite opinion, not calling you out. 
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
I much prefer that over feeling like I could /afk and /em boombox at the mission door. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />
[/ QUOTE ]
Except this was only a "preception", even in Issue 3.
I once held this point of view, until I tested.
I invited two "Burn" Tanks, set them loose, and recorded how long the mission took while a Defender (me), 2 Blasters, and a Scrapper emoted.
I then reset the mission, and had the Tanks run in one direction and the rest of the team went in the other.
It wasn't even close. Splitting up the team finished the mission in 1/3 the time.
All toons always help the team. It just isn't always enough to help in some situations, or noticable in others.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
I'm not saying that I5 tankers are more powerful. You're misunderstanding what I mean by "contribute," or I'm not making it clear enough.
I4: you have one tank, or one controller on your team. That one character provides close to 100% safety for the team. Nobody else's powers are needed except to kill off mobs that represent almost no threat. Any of the other 7 players could do nothing at all, and the team still wouldn't fail, it just wouldn't progress as quickly. In I4, the first tank or first controller "contributes" enormously to the team. Everyone else contributes very little.
I5: Each player added to the team "contributes" in the sense that the team is better off when he performs his role. A second tank actually could be useful. A second controller could be useful. Everyone is still useful and needed even with one tank or controller already on the team. Everyone contributes.
Yes, an I5 tank is not as powerful as an I4 tank, but that's not what I mean by contributes. I'm talking about the marginal utility provided to the team by each player added. In I5 that marginal utility is a lot smoother from 1 up to 8 heroes, across all ATs. In I4 that marginal utility may have spiked with the first tanker or controller, and then been much lower for everyone else.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I find that every new member of a team is welcome, regardless of their AT, as long as they play smart. Issue 5 actually renewed my waning interest in the game. It's challenging again. Thank you!
[/ QUOTE ]
This "extra challenge" that you like so much is killing two of my SGs.
Just an equal and opposite opinion, not calling you out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Understood. Ultimately, I only truly know how the game affects me and my friends. I've had a few friends who have left since Issue 5, although nobody directly cited I5 as the reason. Burnout seems more common with my friends. But I run with an admittedly small crowd.
Anyways, since you're on Protector as well, maybe we can team up sometime and debate the merits/flaws of the new system there? My seven man SG has thinned over the last three months down to about 4, and I'm having to rely on pickup groups for fun now. And we all know how hit or miss those can be.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each additional player added to the team contributes more to the team now than in I4, where all you may have needed for success on an 8 man invincible team was a single tank or a single controller, and everyone else was just there to help move things along more quickly.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely false.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh really?
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning a tanker now actually requires the support of their team to handle team level content. Meaning adding a tanker to any group will now be beneficial to the group.
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning they cannot single handedly manage the control needs of an 8-man team without breaking a sweat. Meaning you are ignoring critical holds and containment. Meaning you are ignoring perma-pets. Meaning adding a controller to any group will now be beneficial to the group.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning you're ignoring their raised damage caps. Meaning you're ignoring that minions aren't a threat to blasters and haven't been and that lieutenant and higher mob accuracies are reduced. Meaning you're ignoring that the "invincible" standard of acceptable on missions worked against a blaster's accuracy and damage dealing due to the rapidly diminishing returns that come from going after things higher than your level. Meaning you are glossing over blasters derived very little benefit from pool defenses compared to just popping a luck once in a while.
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning they aren't capable of being substitute tankers and simultaneously being effective melee range damage dealers. Meaning you're ignoring that i5 boosted their base damage. Meaning that a scrapper can and does contribute effective damage on teams. Meaning that a scrapper can still handle sustained aggro from a small group of enemies.
[ QUOTE ]
The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning vigilance is being ignored or not being taken into account in a slotting strategy. Meaning defender contributions on a team now actually matter instead of being "nice".
[ QUOTE ]
However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning invincible is now a challenge. Its the hardest setting in the game. This somehow surprises you or strikes you as unreasonable that the hardest setting is actually, well, hard?
8-man on heroic now with good tactics is still easier than invincible was for an 8-man team back in i4. Defeats in an instanced mission map are half debt. Experience rewards are up in or out of a mission.
[ QUOTE ]
So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.
[/ QUOTE ]
It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this point of yours, in fact, it seems (unless I'm interpreting you wrong) that you're factually incorrect.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the problem is perceptual. You seem to be wanting to build teams in i5 along i4 conventions. You are viewing an i5 tanker as being weaker than an i4 tanker and ignoring that an i4 tanker could eliminate the need for a controller on any sized team and didn't derive much benefit from a defender (inspiration drops could cover them, re: herding/farming by invuln and fire tankers with very little risk).
You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.
I5 has corrected a lot of "man that's just plain broken" that existed in CoH. While I disagree with the method of the corrections in some cases I cannot argue with the result.
I am to the point I rather not have a tanker in my group they slow me down and get in the way. The mass herding of days past are gone and tankers just get in the way. Even on AV missions the tanker was just in the way; I prefer controller pets they do a better job as AV tank until you lock them down then you turn lose your Scrappers and Blasters.
Since I5 the groups that cleaned house the fastest and racked up xp like no tomorrow have been the groups with no tankers.
That is what I have seen the tanks do to little damage in this new era super damage groups defenders are welcomed because they heal and give you bubbles etc to make the job easier. So groups heavy on scrappers and blasters with a defender and a controller mixed in are way better and I would prefer to run with those groups.
Sorry Tankers in the new kill 1st or be killed era of COH you do not measure up. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting (poor poor tankers)
Pinnacle
Langar Thurs-Katana/SR 50; Hejtmane-DM/DA 50
Rogue Spear-Spines/DA 50; Hypnosis-Ill/Rad 50
Sir Thomas Theroux-DM/SR 50; Melted Copper-Fire/Shield 50
Byzantine Warrior-DB/ELA 50;Blade Tempo-50 DB/EA
[ QUOTE ]
I am to the point I rather not have a tanker in my group they slow me down and get in the way. The mass herding of days past are gone and tankers just get in the way. Even on AV missions the tanker was just in the way; I prefer controller pets they do a better job as AV tank untill you lock them down then you turn losse your Scrappers and Blasters.
Since I5 the groups that cleaned house the fastests and racked up xp like no tommorrow have been the groups with no tankers.
That is what I have seen the tanks do to little damage in this new era super damage groups defenders are welcomed because they heal and give you bubbles etc to make the job eaiser. So groups heavy on scappers and blasters with a defender and a controller mixed in are way better and I would preer to run with those groups.
Sorry Tankers in the new kill 1st or be killed era of COH you do not measure up. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting (poor poor tankers)
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally!!!! someone gets it...great post because it is true.
Mog
[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, since you're on Protector as well, maybe we can team up sometime and debate the merits/flaws of the new system there? My seven man SG has thinned over the last three months down to about 4, and I'm having to rely on pickup groups for fun now. And we all know how hit or miss those can be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure thing, Fist! I'm always interested in teaming with more, and new, people.
Another one of my SGs left today, after being together since 12/04, since some n00b reported one of our toons to a GM.
It kinda killed that whole SG, I'm 0 for 3 now.
If anyone still has enough morale left to keep playing, I'll herd them into another, new SG, and we can carry on from there...
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
My condolences on your SG sufferings because of the reporting. What level was the character? My friend and weekly teammate the Blue Bas'tard was finally reported and Generic'd at level 23 recently (I think I warned him at creation it would happen eventually). Bad but not terrible. He got a new character back up to our team level within two weeks.
Thanks, Katahn, this is a gold mine! Awesome reply!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning a tanker now actually requires the support of their team to handle team level content. Meaning adding a tanker to any group will now be beneficial to the group.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite correct. A Tank now requires support.
You just downed every Tank+Blaster duo as "needing additional support". This concerns me, even though I don't play that combination.
Making Toons need additional support complicates play for everyone.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning they cannot single handedly manage the control needs of an 8-man team without breaking a sweat. Meaning you are ignoring critical holds and containment. Meaning you are ignoring perma-pets. Meaning adding a controller to any group will now be beneficial to the group.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also true. I'm sure every group with just one Controller is crying...and not for joy. Do you even play in pickup teams?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning you're ignoring their raised damage caps. Meaning you're ignoring that minions aren't a threat to blasters and haven't been and that lieutenant and higher mob accuracies are reduced. Meaning you're ignoring that the "invincible" standard of acceptable on missions worked against a blaster's accuracy and damage dealing due to the rapidly diminishing returns that come from going after things higher than your level. Meaning you are glossing over blasters derived very little benefit from pool defenses compared to just popping a luck once in a while.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here you aren't just opinonated, but actually wrong. Power pool defenses were nerfed more than LT/Boss accuracy was reduced. Overall, by a factor of two. That argument has little weight. 66%-8%=57%, 60%-3%=57%
Everyone does less damage fighting +level cons. The higher level you fight, the more important Blasters become. Directly opposite of what you're trying to say.
Lucks were too good, now they are shockingly effective. This really doesn't have much to do with Blaster in particular.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning they aren't capable of being substitute tankers and simultaneously being effective melee range damage dealers. Meaning you're ignoring that i5 boosted their base damage. Meaning that a scrapper can and does contribute effective damage on teams. Meaning that a scrapper can still handle sustained aggro from a small group of enemies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Next time I can't recruit a Tank, I'll tell my team "That's ok, guys, we'll just wait until one shows up, since the Scrappers here can't tank a little any more". That will comfort them, I'm sure.
I fail to see how boosting Scrapper damage makes Blasters more needed on a Team. Just the opposite. You're allowed to support my arguments, but it feels weird.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning vigilance is being ignored or not being taken into account in a slotting strategy. Meaning defender contributions on a team now actually matter instead of being "nice".
[/ QUOTE ]
Empaths, perhaps. I'm not burning a respec on mine in order to take advantage of an Inherent power. Issue 6 is coming soon, you know.
You are also failing to understand that Vigilace does absolutly nothing for FF and Sonic. It isn't helping Kinetics, Dark, Rad or Storm that much, either.
Reactive powers are the province of Empathy, and to a lesser extent, Kinetics. I don't see that you understand the Defender AT very well.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.
[/ QUOTE ] Meaning invincible is now a challenge. Its the hardest setting in the game. This somehow surprises you or strikes you as unreasonable that the hardest setting is actually, well, hard?
8-man on heroic now with good tactics is still easier than invincible was for an 8-man team back in i4. Defeats in an instanced mission map are half debt. Experience rewards are up in or out of a mission
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we're done with the potatoes, here is the meat. Wow, you've got a lot of nasty assumptions in there. Let's see if we can pull them all out...
Invincible was a challenge in Issue 4. Sometimes I was playing experimental "weak" toons. Sometimes I was playing with inexperienced players. Sometimes I was fighting Carnies. Sometimes I was fighting Tsoo. On other occasions I was fighting in large teams.
In every case, in every occasion, Invincible was brutally difficult.
I guess if you're playing powerful power sets with close friends at high levels against weak villain groups, then Issue 4 Invincible was easy.
Props to you. I fail to see how this helps me or any of the PUGs I join.
You're assuming good tactics and/or powerful toons and/or good players. I can't, and don't.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.
[/ QUOTE ] It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an unhelpful attitude for every n00b, every lazy player, and everyone with an experimental toon. Bad Tactics happens. Sloppy play can be fun.
I'm not here for "challenge".
I used to be able to set my own level of challenge, in fact. Now, I can't.
I HAD a Invuln Tank without Invincibility, because he was fun to play with only +Resists.
I HAD a Force Field Defender with Provoke and PFF that worked like a Tank.
I HAD a AoE-centric, no-pet, no-damage Fire Controller.
I HAD a Empath with no Blasts except the Level 1 power.
I'm (usually) here to blow off steam playing a Super Hero, and Issue 5 is specifically making the random-team, random-mission "ah, whatever" style of play obsolete, and for no good reason.
[ QUOTE ]
You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do. On a pickup team, there may only be one Tank, or one Controller, or one Defender, or one Blaster. There may not be another available. There might only be a certain AT available...of a bad power set.
I see that Issue 5 has ganked teaming so that everyone can feel needed, and that's a bad thing, overall.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
The Ganker reported each and every member of "Sailor Princesses of the Silver Millenium" SG.
Yes, that also means our SG name was hosed, too...along with some of our toon names.
Toasted, for one of our toons costumes appearing too much like Sailor Mars after refusing a certain someone an "kiss" emote.
Amazing, eh?
Also pretty cool since many of these people only keep thier accounts for this SG. Nice.
I've since talked to everyone, and I guesstimate only 6-7 cancellations. On the bright side, this means I'll have some space opening up in my Global list. 
EDIT: Sorry, the level of everyone was the 35-40 range.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
Quite correct. A Tank now requires support.
You just downed every Tank+Blaster duo as "needing additional support". This concerns me, even though I don't play that combination.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strangely, I don't have issues running missions on heroic with any duo, let alone tanker/blaster or tanker/nova kheld.
[ QUOTE ]
Making Toons need additional support complicates play for everyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't noticed characters requiring a level of support from their teammates of any archetype that those archetypes couldn't fulfill by adapting tactics or trying differant approaches.
[ QUOTE ]
Also true. I'm sure every group with just one Controller is crying...and not for joy. Do you even play in pickup teams?
[/ QUOTE ]
A team of four people that consists of 3 blasters and 1 controller would be crying?
Maybe for joy....
And oh yes, I play on pickup teams quite regularly. I see all sorts of 8-ball team configurations work well and all sorts that don't. The only common denominator I can pick out is the teams that make no effort to coordinate and work together are debt waiting to happen and far moreso than in i4.
[ QUOTE ]
Here you aren't just opinonated, but actually wrong. Power pool defenses were nerfed more than LT/Boss accuracy was reduced. Overall, by a factor of two. That argument has little weight. 66%-8%=57%, 60%-3%=57%
[/ QUOTE ]
-looks at signature-
Yep, I am wrong about blasters and the real benefit of pool power defenses.
When I stopped, in i4, trying to boost my +defense from power pools and substituted the medicine pool and aid self, my survivability went up, not down. In i5, I don't have and I don't miss the medicine pool and I didn't pick up pool defenses.
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone does less damage fighting +level cons. The higher level you fight, the more important Blasters become. Directly opposite of what you're trying to say.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I was getting at. Fighting +level cons means enemies inherently hit more often and hit harder, and one's own defenses and powers and accuracy are lowered versus them. Taking return fire from +0 to +2 level minions is a lot differant than taking return fire from +3 to +5 or higher level minions. My blaster can two-shot a +1 minion without much stress and in 3-4 shots knock out a comparable Lt.
Taking aggro from a +0 to +1 minion/lt means I'll take a couple lumps but I can put it down fast. Taking aggro from something +3 to +5 or more means it will take more hits since higher level means more hit points, which will have a lower accuracy, and the actual damage I do will be lessened and the mobs chance of resisting useful secondary effects like knockback that buy me more time to deal with it before it faceplants me means I'm more likely to be faceplanted.
Groups going after content that is closer to everyone's level plays directly into making me more survivable, and that plays directly into me providing a better benefit to my team.
After all, a defeated blaster deals no damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Lucks were too good, now they are shockingly effective. This really doesn't have much to do with Blaster in particular.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except inspirations drop like candy and it isn't entirely out of the question to hit a handy nearby contact between missions to stock up on the ones you need the most. My blaster used to stock up on break frees (2 rows), lucks (2 rows) and respites (1 row) for missions. They kept me alive and when I got new inspirations during a mission that I didn't need I deleted them or burned them immediately.
[ QUOTE ]
Next time I can't recruit a Tank, I'll tell my team "That's ok, guys, we'll just wait until one shows up, since the Scrappers here can't tank a little any more". That will comfort them, I'm sure.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only content I would really want a tank for would be fighting an arch-villain, and even then a couple controllers work wonders, or a defender-buffed scrapper, or even a dwarf-form kheldian.
Heck, on the training room myself on my blaster and a level 50 empathy defender played by a friend were nearly capable of handling Maurader and I've hardly got an uber/optimal build!
[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how boosting Scrapper damage makes Blasters more needed on a Team. Just the opposite. You're allowed to support my arguments, but it feels weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it did, but the "no you can't be a tank and really good damage" levels the playing field between scrappers and blasters considerably. It used to be "why get a blaster when you can get a scrapper who can do almost as much damage and require almost no looking after?" Now its "we need damage, any blasters or scrappers LFT?" Seems good to me.
Maybe I'm just dumb though.
[ QUOTE ]
Empaths, perhaps. I'm not burning a respec on mine in order to take advantage of an Inherent power. Issue 6 is coming soon, you know.
You are also failing to understand that Vigilace does absolutly nothing for FF and Sonic. It isn't helping Kinetics, Dark, Rad or Storm that much, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Err... really? Hmmm.... Well lets see, my sonic defender seems to enjoy the benefits of Vigilance. It gives me a lot more latitude to contribute damage to help defeat the bad guys, while sustaining disruption field, and using sonic siphon on tougher mobs, without worrying about having enough end for the next round of sonic bubbles....
[ QUOTE ]
Reactive powers are the province of Empathy, and to a lesser extent, Kinetics. I don't see that you understand the Defender AT very well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see you aren't good at thinking outside the box either. You are aware that you don't need a respec to buy new enhancements and change how the power is slotted rather than the number of slots it has right? I mean instead of slotting a really nice attack that includes endurance reduction and now substitute those for damage. Defender damage may not be much, but in a bad situation every little bit helps.
[ QUOTE ]
Invincible was a challenge in Issue 4. Sometimes I was playing experimental "weak" toons. Sometimes I was playing with inexperienced players. Sometimes I was fighting Carnies. Sometimes I was fighting Tsoo. On other occasions I was fighting in large teams.
In every case, in every occasion, Invincible was brutally difficult.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, play on heroic where things are your level (boosts your real accuracy, real damage, and real survivability in comparison), complete missions faster for the mission xp bonus, enjoy the increased experience overall, and stop thinking that invincible is a standard for anyone.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you're playing powerful power sets with close friends at high levels against weak villain groups, then Issue 4 Invincible was easy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets see....
Invincible vs. Malta...check.
Invincible vs. Carnies...check.
Invincible vs. Rikti...check.
Invincible vs. Nemesis...check.
Invincible vs. Knives of Artemis...check.
Invincible vs. Freakshow (Dreck)...check (gogo farming).
Invincible vs. Warwolves....check (gogo nerfed farming).
Invincible vs. Circle of Thorns...check.
Guess you sure showed me.
[ QUOTE ]
Props to you. I fail to see ho this helps me or any of the PUGs I join.
[/ QUOTE ]
If a PUG is doing fine, I roll with it. If its not I start making suggestions about how we might change tactics. If I find a team where people aren't willing to stop and figure out a new approach where the current one isn't working then I thank them for the team and bow out. Honestly though, in everything from the Hollows to Peregrine Island I haven't seen many i5 PUGs where that was even remotely an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
You're assuming good tactics and/or powerful toons and/or good players. I can't, and don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
The friends I tend to hang out with can only be counted on to work together and use teamwork. FOTM builds aren't real common among role-players and in PUGs I'm dealing with the same wide range of playstyles and skill levels you are. I make no such assumptions or requirements of uberosity in my teammates as your reply would seem to indicate.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an unhelpful attitude for every n00b, every lazy player, and everyone with an experimental toon. Bad Tactics happens. Sloppy play can be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the do and yes they can. Unlike you though I have not seen such widespread problems among PUGs at any level of the game.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here for "challenge".
[/ QUOTE ]
So you want every victory to be easy, a guaranteed win? Are you hear for level 50 or the journey thereto?
[ QUOTE ]
I used to be able to set my own level of challenge, in fact. Now, I can't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strange, I can. Are the Herocorps Field Analysts broken for you or on your server? When I find missions ar too easy I can ratchet up my difficulty. When I find they are too hard I can ratchet it down.
Yes I realize my answer is deeply sarcastic, but I find your assertion that you are constantly in over your head to be disengenuous at worst and indicative of a stubborn refusal to learn new tactics that aren't dependant on abilities that make fights trivially simple and reduce the "risk" in the risk vs. reward equation to near-zero consistently.
[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a Invuln Tank without Invincibility, because he was fun to play with only +Resists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Take that rant elsewhere. I'm already on record as saying I disagree with Invulnerability not being a +res defined set in i5.
[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a AoE-centric, no-pet, no-damage Fire Controller.
[/ QUOTE ]
Controllers can now do damage and AoE holds as they were implemented trivialized fights far too fast and pretty much made controllers a "get one and you're set" archetype for teams.
[ QUOTE ]
I HAD a Empath with no Blasts except the Level 1 power.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you ignore your entire secondary and wonder why you aren't as effective? /boggle.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm (usually) here to blow off steam playing a Super Hero, and Issue 5 is specifically making the random-team, random-mission "ah, whatever" style of play obsolete, and for no good reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
For you maybe. Hasn't really done that for me.
[ QUOTE ]
You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do. On a pickup team, there may only be one Tank, or one Controller, or one Defender, or one Blaster. There may not be another available. There might only be a certain AT available...of a bad power set.
I see that Issue 5 has ganked teaming so that everyone can feel needed, and that's a bad thing, overall.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've noticed an increase in teaming and teaming being more fun and this is in PUGs and among friends.
If I can't find a tanker or some other "we need" archetype, we make do with what we have and expect things to be more challenging as a result.
The entire argument that "I play to be a superhero" tends to be based on the unspoken last-half of that sentence "...compared to the others on my team." Now that everyone on a team has to actually play their charcters to make more than a "how fast do we win" differance, those that used to win or lose team-level content without needing a team to win or lose are suddenly "not super" and feel "the game sucks".
-shrugs-
Nothing can change that opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
You are viewing an i5 tanker as being weaker than an i4 tanker
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what he's saying AND he's right: they are. Reduced miserably, I might add.
I noticed that you have a level 50 blaster listed. Do you even know anything about tankers/tanking? I'm betting on "no" based purely on what you've written.
- Captain Amazing
50 Invuln/Superstrength
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed that you have a level 50 blaster listed. Do you even know anything about tankers/tanking? I'm betting on "no" based purely on what you've written.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you hate it when these idiots without a level 50 tanker in their sig try to talk about something they obviously know nothing about? 
This beer's for you, Captain Amazing.
...
I'm glad to see good points made here, and at least some level of understanding, if not agreement, reached between those of opposite views of I5. Thanks Katahn, Great Scott, Mogster, and others.
Great Scott: my experience forming, finding, and running with pick-up groups in I5 has been nothing like your own. I've played PUGs at a variety of levels and at a variety of difficulty settings, and in general PUGs are not any harder to form or run for me in I5 than they were before. Nor has anyone I've played with, either close friends or random people in PUGs, complained about PUGs being more difficult to create post I5.
In fact, in recent memory I have *never* been in a PUG where the group has been at a standstill because they "needed" archetype X. I've been in groups where people have said "we could really use a tanker" or "we need a healer," but I've never been in a group that was completely unable or unwilling to function because it lacked a particular AT.
Why our experiences are so radically different I'm not sure.
[ QUOTE ]
First, a big thank you to everyone who played on the Training Room server and helped I5 to be one of our best launches ever! Were extremely happy about how I5 went live.
Second, were still scouring the boards for bugs and other issues, but weve finished making large changes to the power sets. Well still be looking at issues as the arise. For instance, there are issues with Defense builds; were going to look at that problem more carefully (the Damage Resistance Inspirations are a step, but there's a little more to come).
Thanks for all your great feedback!
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said in the PM's we exchanged, States, everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) I know in real life that played this game quit when I5 went live. I don't even know why I still have my account. Global defense nerfs, arbitrary AoE limits, nonsensical pool power nerfs, and lackluster new content are just some of the things responsible for my attitude. On the bright side, this frees me up to try games that are still fun. Thanks for ruining the first MMORPG I was able to get my gf to play and like, by the way. She's quitting since her favorite tank is no longer fun for her to play. The only reason I hung around this long was to see if anything got rolled back. It is, however, becoming evident that this isn't going to happen. In other words, thanks for the extra 15 bucks a month.
First off, they didn't debug I5 nearly well enough. Sadly, companies such as Cryptic have deadlines (laid out by CEO's that have no clue how long it can take to properly debug a game) that do not fit in designing and perfecting a game before it's released and same goes with the patches. Of course there is never a bug free game with all the different hardware configuarations out there. But, this has got to stop sometime with these updates making things worse every issue.
Can anyone say memory leak again? 750MB RAM usuage out of 1Gig and 1.1 Gig of pagefile to run this RAM hog we call CoH. (Info obtained by using windows task manager in winxp pro)
I've never seen the game at a state where it has been so buggy with very extended load times into zones or missions. AND what's really sad is I'm better off than alot of other people. I have enough resources to keep CoH from crashing me out unless I play for a really long time. My major issue is lag and rubberbanding and not being able to click on my powers for a few seconds, then they will activate. In some cases this can mean my victory or my toons defeat if things are really heated.
On to other things: Things listed by Statesman in his address were quite meaningless when it comes to roles of ATs, powersets and their tweaking.
Tanks = meat shield. I5 Tank = role reduced. With some powersets nerfed more than others and an overall nerf done to taunt, Tanks are no longer as an effective meat shield allowing more mobs to attack their squishie counterparts and they themselves are in need of more assistance in some cases from decreases damage resistance and defenses.
Scrapper = melee support. I5 = role reduced. And anyone using regen as their scrapper defense got the worst nerf with IH becoming a click. Although seeing a 12.5% or so increase in offense, I don't see why some people would want to play a more squishie melee role. Might as well be a blaster and do more damage at range.
Controller = support/debuff/buff. I5 = role reduced slightly due to changes in AoE holds, but increase in damage while mobs are held or immobilized.
Blaster = ranged offensive support. I5 = role increased. There is some good changes with the bump in damage cap and extra health, but Defiance is a waste when you have to be with-in one shot of death to see any marked improvement in damage.
Defender = support/debuff/buff. I5 = role pretty much the same as I4. not much is changed with the exception of any defense buffs, that were a general nerf in I5 to begin with. FF defenders are pretty much a dead bread now as sonic is the superior defensive buff, which is what I thought I5 was suppose to avoid... everyone is suppose to have a role and Statesman has said they should have an equal one.
In conclusion of roles, ever AT had/has a role in a team, you've just made some of them more useful and some less than others with your I5 changes, nothing more. You didn't balance the game out any better than it was in I4.
Pool power defensive sets: nerfs to these sets has made them worthless compared to end cost. What happened to decreasing end as the performance lessons? You increased cost of end while decreasing protection that's just not right. Alot of people spec defensive power pools out as they need more endurance for added offensive powers to make things die faster.
AoE nerf: What can I say about this other than, how can you really justify that? How can I do an attack such as fire sword circle and miss everyone inside it's range that's over the cap?
How can you lay a burn patch down and not effect all mobs inside it's flames? Burn was nerfed in four ways, do you realize that? Four! First the AoE nerf. Then lengthened recharge, less damage and increased fear effect! Thats alot of nerfing to do on one power. Overboard, I say. (And why only that one fire power having fear effect in the first place is beyond me).
Then you have your nova (including all blaster's nukes) from blasters. That's their ultimate power and uses all end, now it only hits a select few. Man I wish nuclear bombs worked the same way so they only hit 16 targets.
If you don't want mobs being herded up for a mass kill try changing the AI of them instead of nerfing powersets. And so what if people like to herd up mobs and mass kill? They pay to play just the same as I do. I'm sorry but it just seems that you guys took the easy way out by changing numbers instead of trying to mess with the AI algorythms to make them smarter.
I5 was for the most part a terrible update. The game is buggier than ever. Radical changes to the powersets aren't the answer to fixing the game. The game wasn't broken. The game is meant to be fun. The game is less fun for me now.
Croatoa has some nice new mobs in it, but the TF is very short and killing the AV 10 times just gets boring after about the 3rd time. Not a whole lot of thought went into that TF and that's very disappointing when this game is in sore need of some solid content.
As to making the game more challenging: If I wanted to have a seriously challenging game I'd have looked elsewhere. Not that I mind a challenge in the game, but I like the game for it's ridiculous aspect. It IS a super hero game after all. And super heroes aren't super if they aren't doing some ridiculous stuff. Now you try to make sense out of things and make it more 'realistic' when the game is completely 'non-realistic'.
That's my two cents about I5 in a nutshell
I have been playing CoH for about 7 months now. I have a lvl 33 Energy Blaster, and im gunna agree with Acid on his statements about the blaster AT.
In I4, I used to be able to take out a mob of 10 +1, sometimes +2's with nova. Now, even when I pop 2 yellows, 2 reds; activate aim, build up and concentrate in the middle of the same type of mobs, I kill maybe 3, and damage 2 more 25%. I miss the rest. How is this possible? Im stunned! I understand that some of these things activated do not stack, but still an extreme damage power than leaves you without endurance for 1 minute, should kill those mobs. Adding Aim and Build Up atleast, should be adding insult to injury. Point being, there shouldn't be anyone alive after Nova.
I like CoH still, it's tollerable. The only thing now is everyone I used to team and enjoy playing this game with, seem to be no more. I log on, and I never hear from them anymore. I assume they quit playing CoH. Or they went to play CoV beta. Either way Paragon City is close to darn near empty on the virtue server. Atlas park was filled like crazy before I5. Now it's virtually empty with an exception of 5 or 6 toons standing around looking at each other, including me.
I don't know what you can attribute that to, but im sure you can get an idea of what caused it if you put two and two together. They have to make CoH appealing again, or why would they have CoH and CoV benefiting each other? Especially when they know 95% of users will go to CoV just for new content and non-nerfed abilities.
[ QUOTE ]
I5 has corrected a lot of "man that's just plain broken" that existed in CoH. While I disagree with the method of the corrections in some cases I cannot argue with the result.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you can call replacing old imbalances with new ones corrections, then sure, I agree with you. Unfortunately the new problems are just as bad as the old ones. Tanks are now superfluous, for example. Suppression makes travel powers just as imbalanced as they were before, just in different ways, and without fixing the alleged problems it was supposed to fix.
I'd rather have the old imbalances. At least you could feel like a superhero with them.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks are now superfluous, for example.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh noes, that's horrible!!
Oh wait, all ATs are superfluous. Pick an AT and scenario (outside of Hamidon) and 10 people here can name a team that can succeed without that AT.
[ QUOTE ]
If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.
In Issue 5, it's great that Heroes are no longer redundant. I like that, everyone gets to feel Heroic.
Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.
[/ QUOTE ]
"2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks"--so you're saying that filling 2 out of the 8 slots on an 8 man invincible team with support-ish classes (tank/controller/defender) is team building hell, or someone telling you how to build your team? I don't think I've ever been on an 8 man pickup team that didn't have at least two slots filled by tank/controller/defender by default, without even making some special effort to get them.
The point is, you don't need exactly 2 or more tanks to have a viable team. What you need is 2, 3, or 4 tankers, controllers, or defenders, in any combination. Out of 8 possible slots, I don't see that as all that burdensome or unreasonable.
Each additional player added to the team contributes more to the team now than in I4, where all you may have needed for success on an 8 man invincible team was a single tank or a single controller, and everyone else was just there to help move things along more quickly.
I just don't see how the I5 changes to tankers and controllers make team formation that restrictive or difficult. Again, if you're having problems on invincible... it's the hardest difficulty setting. I don't understand the people that have this sense that any team, with any combination of ATs, experienced or not, should be able to do missions at the hardest difficulty setting.