Official Thread for Brutes: Electric Shields
By
13th_Stranger,
Posted on: 2006-05-01 24:02 in Developers' Corner
Now, to separate this bit out:
[ QUOTE ]
You are welcome but comparing other ATs(that happen to be ranged attackers) lack of knockback protection to brutes which are melee makes no sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
The hell I can't (also, I'm not just talking about 'attackers').
Ask me how much aggro I draw laying down mass debuffs, multi-immob, cone attacks, or AoE attacks. You wanna know the answer? ALL OF IT. I DRAW ALL OF IT.
Don't tell me KB doesn't do anything to be because I'm out of melee range. It's still that much time I'm on my keister not able to do anything, and if I'm back near the far end of my range -- which as a squishie, I often am -- I still have to get back into my range.
What's more, since in these circumstances I am a squishie, I don't have anything to mitigate personal damage, with the possible exception of a minor self-heal or an APP.
Maybe I am sick of being a damage-provider or a controller who has absolutely no defense at all. Maybe I'd like, for once, a blaster set that includes some self-protection that doesn't involve hovering out of potential melee range (thus, I note, making it impossible to use blaster's melee attacks). But I don't go around saying "I'm so sick of this weakness, so this set sucks". I either make a cogent suggestion, or I work around the weakness.
That is why this thread annoys me so much. Because the number of cogent suggestions is tiny, and they're mostly overlooked. Not because people are sick of lack of KB protection, not because people think the set has holes, but because they're so busy explaining why they're right that this is an issue or how horrible it is they have to work around it that they forget to address possible ways to fix this, which in a thread posted on the TEST server forums about a set where the devs are ACTIVELY SEEKING FEEDBACK is extra-super-duper sad.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, to separate this bit out:
[ QUOTE ]
You are welcome but comparing other ATs(that happen to be ranged attackers) lack of knockback protection to brutes which are melee makes no sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
The hell I can't (also, I'm not just talking about 'attackers').
Ask me how much aggro I draw laying down mass debuffs, multi-immob, cone attacks, or AoE attacks. You wanna know the answer? ALL OF IT. I DRAW ALL OF IT.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are playing a controller, defender, dominator, blaster or corrupter and have a problem attracting too much aggro then guess what? Change YOUR tactics. Using a group immob(which I don't bother taking on mine) on a group that no one else has the aggro of and taking full force of the group is your own fault. Blasting a group and starting a fight using fireball is your own fault. Laying down debuffs before a tank, brute or scrapper takes the aggro on larger teams is your own fault. Know your weaknesses and strengths of whatever AT you are playing. If you have no tank, brute or scrapper on a team and you use an AOE attack then you will get the full attention of the group.
Now back to my original statement. Brutes, tanks and scrappers are designed to be in the middle of the groups taking the aggro. It is the purpose of those ATs. The squishies are not supposed to be taking all the aggro so if you get it all then change your tactics.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing a controller, defender, dominator, blaster or corrupter and have a problem attracting too much aggro then guess what? Change YOUR tactics. Using a group immob(which I don't bother taking on mine) on a group that no one else has the aggro of and taking full force of the group is your own fault. Blasting a group and starting a fight using fireball is your own fault. Laying down debuffs before a tank, brute or scrapper takes the aggro on larger teams is your own fault.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, this all presupposes a number of things about my playstyle you don't know, and continues to miss the point, so I'm just going to stop here except to note that, among other things:
a) I accept the weaknesses of the ATs I play, which was more or less part of my point.
b) I nearly always play in a team of two. That means I'm used to having gaps to cover, and you know what? I still play a really wide variety of sets with the same exact problems as similar sets and have fun.
c) Yesterday, I laid down a patch of quicksand, drew all the aggro, and having a scrapper in melee range dealing out tons of damage didn't change that one iota, so it's not quite as straight-forward as you say
d) I disagree the purpose of a Brute or Scrapper is to draw aggro; rather, I think it's a side-effect of their actual purpose, which is to cause damage
When you're ready to address any part of my actual point, including the post before the one you bothered to reply to or the second half of the one you did reply to, you can let me know. Until then, I'm to the point where I not only don't care anymore whether or not a solution can be found that makes the set more attractive to people, I actually actively hope they nerf the other Brute defensive sets to give them more weaknesses, just so you people will all explode in a ball of fury.
This is how much people with selective reading comprehension piss me off.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
[ QUOTE ]
That is why this thread annoys me so much. Because the number of cogent suggestions is tiny, and they're mostly overlooked. Not because people are sick of lack of KB protection, not because people think the set has holes, but because they're so busy explaining why they're right that this is an issue or how horrible it is they have to work around it that they forget to address possible ways to fix this, which in a thread posted on the TEST server forums about a set where the devs are ACTIVELY SEEKING FEEDBACK is extra-super-duper sad.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to flame or anything, but this isn't the suggestions forum, this is the Test server. The only thing they want us to do here is Test the set and look for glaring bugs or problems.
The bugs with the set, so far as I can tell, or virtually non-existent... unless one of those "bugs" is faulty damage mitigation or incorrectly entered base resistance numbers.
We are doing what we're supposed to be doing.
We have to explain why we think the set lacks. Otherwise, what's the point? Should we limit our posts to how Lightning Field makes minions do the Siphon Life animation? That is a real, honest bug. If that's what you believe shoudl be done here, then this thread would be all of one page long.
Making suggestions on new powers to add to the set is not what this thread is for, but there's nothing to stop you from doing so.
With that said, the set doesn't have may bugs (so far), so I don't see any problems with debating the merits of the set itself.
Technically, this thing is in beta. If those of us that think it's sub-par can make any headway in proving this to the Devs, you know... by explaining why we're right, then maybe it can be improved before going Live... or at the very least, be considered for a future update.
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.
[ QUOTE ]
We are doing what we're supposed to be doing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that finding fault with ONE comparision a person makes, and then refusing to listen to ANYTHING else they say about ANYTHING while telling them, essentially, that they're playing every other character they have wrong in a tone that approaches belittling and arrogent, has ANYTHING to do with what we're "supposed" to be doing here.
[ QUOTE ]
We have to explain why we think the set lacks. Otherwise, what's the point? Should we limit our posts to how Lightning Field makes minions do the Siphon Life animation? That is a real, honest bug. If that's what you believe shoudl be done here, then this thread would be all of one page long.
Making suggestions on new powers to add to the set is not what this thread is for.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thread is for bugs AND feedback AND balance issues, if you go look at the top post by Cricket
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then deal. Doesn't matter much what we think.
[/ QUOTE ]
THEN WHY IS EVERYONE ATTACKING EVERYONE ABOUT EVERYTHING???
Yes, it's a sweeping generality, but it sure FEELS like that in here. Also, the top post says they want discussions, not isolated comments. Also, I doubt they mean flamewars when they say discussions.
"I think you're confused. This is /b, not /b/."
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that finding fault with ONE comparision a person makes, and then refusing to listen to ANYTHING else they say about ANYTHING while telling them, essentially, that they're playing every other character they have wrong in a tone that approaches belittling and arrogent, has ANYTHING to do with what we're "supposed" to be doing here.
[/ QUOTE ]
How in the world did you get that out of my post? That's not what I was trying to say at all.
[ QUOTE ]
THEN WHY IS EVERYONE ATTACKING EVERYONE ABOUT EVERYTHING???
Yes, it's a sweeping generality, but it sure FEELS like that in here. Also, the top post says they want discussions, not isolated comments. Also, I doubt they mean flamewars when they say discussions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, however there are some that post here that only want to flame others for not agreeing with them. It's unfortunate, but welcome to the Internet.
This thread has already been Mod-Chopped once because of exactly that kind of attitude. Thing is, there are only a small handful of posters bringing that attitude in here.
The tone of my response that you quoted was annoyed, I'll admit, but what can I say... He's complaining about those of us that continue to debate the merits of the set. You, yourself, just quoted Cricket's initial post which ask for us to do that very thing. His complaint isn't warranted in that sense.
He's also complaining about no one giving attention to his idea. It sucks that people glossed over his suggestion, but hey... nobody's made any comments about mine either and you don't see me complaining about it.
EDIT: I went back and read his suggestions.
The burn-esque idea is a neat one, but not very probable. Neither is any sort of healing. I've focused my suggestions on what I believe may be probable implementations based on what the set already provides.
Those, IMO, are the 'best' ways of getting anything done to the set. Asking for all new powers just isn't going to happen. I can't think of a single time this has ever occured. Sure, there's a first time for everything, but history speaks volumes.
Personally, they can keep the holes. I just like to see more justification for them by improving what the set already offers: i.e. better endurance management and better resistance.
I'd like to see higher non-S/L base resistance numbers. This way, it would still be inferior to Invul in terms of S/L damage, but offer more in other areas to compensate for no healing ability. I'd also like to see Conserve Power replaced by Quick Recovery - a passive Stamina, which will allow Elec Brutes ot reliably opt out of Fitness. I'd also like to see Repel added to Power Surge, which fits thematically with the set going "balls out" (as it already has Immob and KB for it's duration).
Adding Immob to Grounded seems a good idea, but it's a passive. Passive Immob protection in a set that doesn't have it at all? Not sure if they'd buy that, but I guess it's cool.
Those ideas, at least in my mind, would justify the lack of heal/imoob/KB. It offers a solution, IMO, that maintains the holes, but gives something equal in return.
They also stay within the parameters of what the set already offers.
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, this all presupposes a number of things about my playstyle you don't know, and continues to miss the point, so I'm just going to stop here except to note that, among other things:
a) I accept the weaknesses of the ATs I play, which was more or less part of my point.
b) I nearly always play in a team of two. That means I'm used to having gaps to cover, and you know what? I still play a really wide variety of sets with the same exact problems as similar sets and have fun.
c) Yesterday, I laid down a patch of quicksand, drew all the aggro, and having a scrapper in melee range dealing out tons of damage didn't change that one iota, so it's not quite as straight-forward as you say
d) I disagree the purpose of a Brute or Scrapper is to draw aggro; rather, I think it's a side-effect of their actual purpose, which is to cause damage
[/ QUOTE ]
a) You were complaining about squishes having no way to mitigate the damage. A devices blaster has caltrops which dropped in doorway in a corner mitigates the damage. Other sets get single target immob or knockback attack to get them away from you.
b) A team of 2 what other AT is usually in the combo?
c) Did the scrapper use a AOE attack before you dropped quicksand? If not then again I say change your tactics. If you wait til after the scrapper gets attacks on most of the group then they will still target him. However using quicksand which will cause them to run off of it, as soon as they are off of it then you WILL get the aggro. One way to change the tactics in this situation is to let scrapper draw the aggro, group immob and then lay quicksand down.
d) Scrappers get single target taunt and damage resistances or defense. Brutes all have a taunting aura and have the tank version of taunt available to them.
I played a blapper to 50 and I know what happens when you draw too much aggro. I played a ice/emp and initially had the group immob but I always ended up getting to much aggro so I dropped it completely.
Blasters deal out a lot more damage then other ATs. Their mitigation is taking out the enemy faster. Defenders have buffs, debuffs and heals. Controllers have the ability to lock down groups. Hold the one with biggest damage. You say I disregarded the part of your post where you mentioned you suggested a heal for the set. Many others have done the same. I did not reply because I agree this set needs something. Not because I disregarded it. I replied to the part I disagreed with.
As a programmer, 'feedback' to me says not "let's argue about whether or not this is a problem". It says to me "let's hear what you think is a problem and what might be done to correct it".
When people are basically to the point of saying the exact same things that everyone already knows -- namely, that some people think the lack of KB/self-heal is an issue and don't like having to work around it because they feel it's limiting, but other people disagree because it is work-aroundable -- it's exceedingly irritating to see that the few people (not just me) who actually suggest possible ways to change this are totally ignored, because people don't really want to actually give feedback to the devs; they want to argue.
[ QUOTE ]
We are doing what we're supposed to be doing.
We have to explain why we think the set lacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's been done. Over, and over, and, googleplex of over. That's not what's being done anymore. People are pretty much doing the "No it isn't", "Yes it is" dance.
[ QUOTE ]
Making suggestions on new powers to add to the set is not what this thread is for, but there's nothing to stop you from doing so.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see a substantive difference between "The set needs KB protection or a self-heal to make it work" and "suggesting a power", and that's not even the point. The point is... it's not terribly productive to simply repeat that over and over again and shout at people about why their point of view is wrong. What's productive in development is contributing possibilities.
The thread might as well be one page long if it's just going to be people saying the same things over and over again, though. How is telling someone their opinion is wrong actually contributing anything? You can state your opinion, and that's fine, that's actually helpful feedback, but telling someone that their dissenting opinion is wrong is not. Their dissenting opinion is also legitimate feedback.
And again, I really have to emphasize this: it's a lot more helpful to spend some time saying how to address a fault than to argue about whether or not it is a fault.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it does. Because the issue here is: some largish percentage of people playing the set feel certain lacks make the set sub-par in performance. Seeing a suggestion about how to improve performance does give the devs some feedback, but seeing how the players who specifically feel a lack in the set react to that suggestion is greatly more valuable in determining if it would actually address their concerns.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I went back and read his suggestions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Two things:
a) I appreciate someone did and has some feedback on them; it might make it possible for me to come up with other suggestions should I change my mind about not giving a crap about the set anymore.
b) See my name? That's my, y'know, name. Tina. It's a girl's name.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
Your argument isn't lost on me. I agree with just about every word.
I think what we have here is more a problem of "getting in the last word" and e-peening than it is playing the "Yes it is! No it isn't!" game.
I also read your suggestions and edited my earlier post to reflect that. However, I didn't focus too much on what you proposed, mostly because they're all new powers. We could all sit in this thread and brainstorm the most awesome new balanced powers for this set ever, but they'll probably fall on deaf ears. Call me a pessimist.
[ QUOTE ]
b) See my name? That's my, y'know, name. Tina. It's a girl's name.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oopsy, sorry about that 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that finding fault with [. . .] has ANYTHING to do with what we're "supposed" to be doing here.
[/ QUOTE ]
How in the world did you get that out of my post? That's not what I was trying to say at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Edit: Where'd that horizontal bar come from . . . oh, too many /quotes . . .)
I'll have to go "because that's what it came right after" . . . 
. Was a little bit mad (heck, I was listening to tool's Aenima, which I almost never do on purpose . . .) and probably a bit too ready to be short with someone. Sorry about that.
[ QUOTE ]
Adding Immob to Grounded seems a good idea, but it's a passive. Passive Immob protection in a set that doesn't have it at all? Not sure if they'd buy that, but I guess it's cool.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a different kind of immobilization resistance, sort of a partial resistance, since it's a passive: Immobilization dosn't STOP you, but it does SLOW you (seperate from the slow effect, therefore not compensated for by slow resistance or this would be trivial for this set). Maybe each magnitude point of immob slows you by 25-33% with no cap; therefore you you remain partly mobile until the same point where someone with regular resistance has their resistance overcome by magnitude.
"I think you're confused. This is /b, not /b/."
The only Immobs I know of that "slow" when not actually immobilizing are Crush and Crushing Field from Gravity and web grenades. Maybe the Ice immob does as well, but I can't recall.
In my experiences, unless it's a gravity-type Immob or a web'nade, you're either Immobed or you're not. No slowing involved.
Perhaps the resistance could be the type that shortens the duration of the Immob, kinda like the Sleep resistance in Health (from the Fitness Pool).
The vision I had was partial/passive immob resistacne letting you move at a reduced rate even though you are under the effect of an immobalize, without involving any slow effects. Probably too much effort and unique design for a change to one power in a (now) existing powerset though, but might be a neat way to offer a minor resistance to immob if they wanted to use it in a future set or add it to multiple sets / pools / a-pPPs.
Add: Also, if you wanted "partial" knockback protection, lowering the chance of a hit knocking you back based on the percentage of its damage you resisted would make sense. Or transforming the knockback to a fast repel, so you're still 20 feet away but are still standing. *shrug*. Will have to play more to see how "nessescary" any of it really could be.
(Now I want a negitive knockback resistance for soloing -- get hit by a knockback, and you're suddenly 200 feet away from the battle! 
)
"I think you're confused. This is /b, not /b/."
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a problem with that statement, and it's part of why so many good suggestions get completely lost on the devs.
Reading through 44 pages of bickering back and forth about ONE aspect of the set makes it really hard to pick out the -handful- of posts offering -suggestions- to fix the hole.
Hence, the bickering posts DO affect the devs' ability to read through this thread and find the suggestions and/or other issues that need to be addressed. Hell, if I were a dev, on about the 20th page of "ELA has no KB protection, this sucks!" I would probably have started skipping pages to skim to the end.
K. I. S. S. Keep It Simple, Stupid. The shorter and more concise a list of feedback and suggestions is, the more likely said feedback and suggestions are to be read, and actually given a fair chance.
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike ALL of the other sets it has -end resistance, thats its unique feature
[/ QUOTE ]
That is not unique. Second armor toggle in DA gets that.
The point is that -end resist isn't enough when that same power is availible in another set with better resists plus a massive PBAoE heal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the only ones you need to worry about reading your suggestions are the Devs, not us. If they saw your idea and think it's good, then great. If not, then bummer. Doesn't matter much what we think.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a problem with that statement, and it's part of why so many good suggestions get completely lost on the devs.
Reading through 44 pages of bickering back and forth about ONE aspect of the set makes it really hard to pick out the -handful- of posts offering -suggestions- to fix the hole.
Hence, the bickering posts DO affect the devs' ability to read through this thread and find the suggestions and/or other issues that need to be addressed. Hell, if I were a dev, on about the 20th page of "ELA has no KB protection, this sucks!" I would probably have started skipping pages to skim to the end.
K. I. S. S. Keep It Simple, Stupid. The shorter and more concise a list of feedback and suggestions is, the more likely said feedback and suggestions are to be read, and actually given a fair chance.
[/ QUOTE ]
In a perfect world, I would agree.
However, if there was no bickering about the lack of KB protection, then the severity of the argument might be lost on the Devs. It's a double edged sword.
Okay, well, my brain insists on coming up with ideas even when I'm trying to actively avoid thinking about this, so...
[ QUOTE ]
Asking for all new powers just isn't going to happen. I can't think of a single time this has ever occured.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was afraid that was going to be a problem.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to see Conserve Power replaced by Quick Recovery - a passive Stamina, which will allow Elec Brutes ot reliably opt out of Fitness.
[/ QUOTE ]
Part why I suggested switching Power Sink and Conserve Power, actually, was to help with this.
So, let's see what we can do with existing stuff here, with that in mind and with improving the set as is in mind:
Charged Armor: No change in scope and, give preliminary numbers seen elsewhere, I'm probably content with it as is in terms of protection.
Lightning Field: I've never been fond of this style of power in an armor set and I often skip them, but I know other people who love 'em, so... no change to the power.
Conductive Shield: I haven't seen any hard numbers on this, so I don't know if the effectiveness holds up to other sets, but one thing it does seem to be lacking is some sort of secondary protection (Dark Armor's equivalent has resist End drain, Energy Aura's has Range/AoE, according to hero builder -- I don't actually have an */Energy or */Dark, so if someone wants to confirm this, that'd be helpful.)
If that's not going to be the case here, the numbers maybe should be boosted. Otherwise, going with the feel of things, I might add Disorient to this shield, to go with my next suggestion.
Why Disorient? Well, because I associate Disorient with heavy kinetic energy, e.g., hard blows. Kinetic energy seems to make as much sense to conduct away as anything else.
Static Shield: The more I think about this, the more I think that anything that provides Hold and Sleep protection to a melee toon probably should provide Immob protection, since an Immob might as well be a hold if you don't have a ranged attack. So, add Immob after moving Disorient to Conductive Shield.
Grounded: Grounded might need some buff to its numbers, might not. If I were going to add something to it, it'd be either extra Psi or extra Fire, but since it's an auto power, those probably would unbalance it. So, tentatively no change.
Lightning Reflexes: Probably unchanged. The only thing I can think of that might be nice to beef up the set would be adding Slow resist, but the +Spd already helps with that.
Conserve Power: Toss it completely from the set.
Now we have a choice:
Move Power Sink into its place, since a) the offensive End drain/recovery is in line with the whole Elec/Elec combo as well as in line with a Brute outlook; b) Given the emphasis on Endurance-related foo in Electric sets, having a power where End recovery is available more often just fits the whole set; c) It makes leaving Fitness off more feasable and attractive, which helps address concerns of how to work around the sets protective lacks without losing a lot of power choice flexibility.
Alternately: Add Quick Recovery in its place, as suggested in ProcessedMeatMan's post. Combined with Power Sink, it definitely helps point c) above.
Either Power Sink at 28 and Quick Recovery at 35 or vice versa works for me. Obviously, Quick Recovery earlier, as a passive, works better overall in helping with Endurance management, though, so I'm leaning towards that, which would make Power Sink fall into the 'unchanged' category.
Power Surge I'm happy to leave this unchanged in terms of the protection it provides, and am not keen on adding Repel because I think that's counter-productive on a melee char, but in lieu of that, maybe the pre-crash phase could include Sleep.
I know Sleep is not generally terribly useful in single-target attacks for melee toons, but as a PBAoE it would be, getting things off your back for a while. Electric melee contains some Sleep-due-to-Overload component, so it fits with the theme of electric, and the theme of the super-Overload of the power.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
After seeing the numbers posted for a comparison of the electric shields to /dark and/fire shields I do think the set needs a few things added to it. I can live with the no immob, no kb and even no self heal.
I think that the S/L is ok, especially since you can combine tough with it for about 58%.
The fire could use a boost to 45%.
Energy is awesome. No problems there.
Negative could use a boost to 40%.
Psionic could use a boost to 50%.
And toxic could use a boost from zilch to 30%.
Also add in -resistance debuff resistance to the main status shield. Seems thematically correct with this set to me. Also would add -recovery to lightning field.
At that point the set would have these numbers compared to /dark and /fire:
DA ELA FA
S/L 35% 41%(58%+tough) 35%
C 35% 41% 11.8%
F 35% 45% 59%
E 23% 90% 35%
N 47% 40% 35%
P 59% 50% 0%
T 23.6% 30% 23.6%
Now those are some pretty damn good numbers and I think they are realistic considering the no friggin self heal which both the other sets get and good heals for that matter. Also dark doesn't get some of the cool stuff ELA gets, but it has far superior damage mitigation.
That's what I would like to see and considering stacking it up to the other sets I think the adjustements I suggest are not in anyway overpowering this set.
[ QUOTE ]
Also would add -recovery to lightning field.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ouch... that has the potential to be overly powerful in PvE and downright devastating PvP. However, that would justify it's ridiculous end cost 
[ QUOTE ]
Negative could use a boost to 40%.
Psionic could use a boost to 50%.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm in favor of these.
Energy protection being highly-boosted but Neg. Energy falling short is actually a major flaw for this set IMO.
And Psi protection is one of the bonuses for the set that help offset its lacks for me; with that in mind, I'd like to see it be superior protection.
[ QUOTE ]
And toxic could use a boost from zilch to 30%.
[/ QUOTE ]
This I don't care about either way, and I'd rather see no Toxic protection and boosted other protection than less boosts to other protection.
[ QUOTE ]
Also add in -resistance debuff resistance to the main status shield.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hrm. The only real problem I have with this is that there's no real precedent for it; Defense debuff resist doesn't exist in shielding sets which concentrate on Defense to the best of my knowledge.
On the other hand, it does help compensate for a lack of a heal.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.
OK, that's good point meatman, esepcially if Power Sink with the knew end drain rules drains a percentage of end and then anyone in your lightning range cannot recover endurance, but have to use endurance inspirations.
Infact, ratehr than upping the resistance numbers like I just proposed, we could take out Conserve Power and swap in Quick Recovery like Writer_Tina suggested. Call it Capacitor, change up the description and you're done.
Add the -recovery lightning field. Foes only affected while in the field. Seem's thematically correct considering /ELEC is so big on endurance management and -end drain and -recovery resistance imho. Bam, now the set has enough perks to overcome it's 3 GLARING holes/weaknesses. Nothing particularly hard to do I would think and you're not really even changing anything that much other than swapping CP with QR and adding -recovery to lightning field. How hard is that?
Is that overpowered? I don't think so. /DA for it's holes gets +perception, heavy psionic resistance, fear protection, a stealth power, a huge heal, a -acc debuffing and fear inducing cloak etc etc.
ELA now would look like this:
Same resistance numbers.
Current powers:
end drain resist
-recovery resist
-slow resist
psionic resist
highest energy resist
+recharge, +speed
+end power
end conserve power(swap with Quick REcovery)
Tp protection
lvl 38 godmode power
Lightning field(add -recovery)
Add toxic resist 25%
Whatdaya think?
[ QUOTE ]
Whatdaya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that as long as Fire armor stays as it is, Electric Armor will too.
Dawnslayer on Virtue.
[ QUOTE ]
Adding Immob to Grounded seems a good idea, but it's a passive. Passive Immob protection in a set that doesn't have it at all? Not sure if they'd buy that, but I guess it's cool.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Stalker Dark Armor set has a passive, "Shadow Dweller", which has Immobilize protection and +Perception, which is pretty cool for a passive, it might have more as well, but I can't recall (Maybe I'll double check, adn Edit later).
So, its not unprecedented, at least.
Thanks for eight fun years, Paragon.
[ QUOTE ]
(that happen to be ranged attackers) lack of knockback protection to brutes which are melee makes no sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, see this? This is what I mean.
The other half of my post, since apparently you can't scroll up and find it, specified this:
[ QUOTE ]
But the fact is, I spent quite a while thinking about the set, and I'm playing it, and I suggested something that included a self-heal, and not one of you chattering monkeys even noticed. Which tells me that you're so hung up on proving you're "right" (which, since we're all providing opinions here, you can't never do) that you don't want to actually listen to anyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I include it here separated from the talk about the Verboten Subject so perhaps you can read it this time instead of haring off on the Verboten Subject, which wasn't even my point, my point actually being that people are concentrating so hard on the Verboten Subject, they miss anything else people say, possibly because of some sort of strange alien mind control.
One drawback of the internet is how it has trained so many people to think that one day is a long time.