[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
you mean just like Seismic Smash can now?
My Seismic Smash has a 6.21 recharge and an 18.21 duration... sounds like 3 Bosses to me...
my FT is 8.73 with a hold of 23.2. Longer Duration, but slower recharge, and you have to hit that second time to get a boss.
[/ QUOTE ]
both powers are slotted the same btw:
1 acc/mez
1 acc/dam
2 dam/mezz
2 50 IO rech
though the ice/stone has some stupidily high recharge bonuses that remove an addition 3 seconds or so from Seismics recharge time
YMMV---IMO
Ice Ember
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
you mean just like Seismic Smash can now?
My Seismic Smash has a 6.21 recharge and an 18.21 duration... sounds like 3 Bosses to me...
my FT is 8.73 with a hold of 23.2. Longer Duration, but slower recharge, and you have to hit that second time to get a boss.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.
Also, you're not factoring in animation times to your "mez three bosses". That 1.5 second animation to Seismic Smash would eliminate that hope.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I shall, again, state that Ice Patch is skewing their analysis of the matter, as it is a permanent control as opposed to the four second knockdown that Fault provides.
[/ QUOTE ]
The "control" from Ice melee comes fro Frozen Aura. Ice Patch is a nice bonus power that "may" remove 5 enemies from a fight temporarily. Just because it has 5 enemies on it does not mean that they will stay or that they cannot attack. Enemies do stand up and fire an attack and enemies do run off of the ice patch.
Tremor does knock down ten enemies and Fault does knock down ten enemies. Fault may stun then as well, and with slotting and recharge bonuses, it may stack.
What I would like for the set is more damage, because GIS does not compare, not even remotely close, to other tanker sets high damage attack. Frozen Touch I wish was burst damage. I wish it was a mag 4 like other sets get as well, or at least a percent to become a mag 4, similar to Total Focus. (not the damage, just the %for mag 4)
And Frozen Aura should be made some sort of AoE damage power. I would be happy with making it like Combustion. Or a Cold damage toggle. (Blazing Aura anyone?)
Adjust GIS and(/or) FT. Add AoE damage to FA.
Pyre mastery does more damage than Ice Melee.
I would like to not rely on Ice Patch/Burn for my damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
But to do this, you'd be giving up slotting one of your most damaging attacks. If you're going to say that slotting SS for control is a waste because it lowers your damage to do so, you have to do the same for FT. The control is a secondary aspect of the power, especially for Ice Melee, since it needs all the damage it can get.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is it worth it to slot the damage, or do you believe it'd be easier to focus on control?
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[ QUOTE ]
Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.
[/ QUOTE ]
try again. I know, I added the slotting after you replied.
FT has a 1 sec cast, Seismic has a 1.5 sec... not a big difference, especially when you look at how much damage the two do.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a concern that has been brought up about the way you guys use datamining to determine if things are "okay".
If Ice Melee underperforms as a whole, and the majority of Ice Melee players know this and deal with it by dropping/not slotting some of the worst attacks and substituting with Pool attacks, Burn combined with Ice Patch, and/or Epic Pool powers in their attack chain to a greater extent than those using other sets do, is this noticed by your datamining? Or are you just pulling reports on all Ice Melee tankers and getting stats like xp per hour and such?
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 ]
Is it worth it to slot the damage, or do you believe it'd be easier to focus on control?
[/ QUOTE ]
slot for damage until 47, then add in HO's, as per my slotting. That was the best solution that I have found for both powers. The endurance cost of Seismic hurts, but the damage and recharge is worth that.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.
[/ QUOTE ]
try again. I know, I added the slotting after you replied.
FT has a 1 sec cast, Seismic has a 1.5 sec... not a big difference, especially when you look at how much damage the two do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, I'm not comparing the two themselves, I'm simply saying: add that 1.5 seconds (*3 since it's three uses) to the recharge, and you suddenly aren't able to perma-hold three bosses.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a concern that has been brought up about the way you guys use datamining to determine if things are "okay".
If Ice Melee underperforms as a whole, and the majority of Ice Melee players know this and deal with it by dropping/not slotting some of the worst attacks and substituting with Pool attacks, Burn combined with Ice Patch, and/or Epic Pool powers in their attack chain to a greater extent than those using other sets do, is this noticed by your datamining? Or are you just pulling reports on all Ice Melee tankers and getting stats like xp per hour and such?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the herostats tanker vrs scrapper damage I did two runs with my fire/ice tank. The Patch/Burn combo was twice as fast as not using it. Blazing Aura was almost half of my damage that was reported because Burn's damage is not listed.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's precisely the point. If Stone must, why can't Ice Melee?
[/ QUOTE ]
That presupposes that stone must. How many people actually slot Seismic for hold at all, barring HOs? Permahold SS is a neat party trick, but so what? Stone can kill or maim a boss in the default hold duration, plus follow up with Fault or Tremor or Stone Mallet or Heavy Mallet for KD if additional control is needed.
[ QUOTE ]
As for Fault, I'd really like to know exactly how much of a threat a [EDIT]group of[/edit] minion[edit]s[/edit] is to a Tank. If it's "not that much", then that's undoubtedly factored into the Developer mindset.
[/ QUOTE ]
In a sufficiently large spawn, minions can account for a very large portion of the incoming damage. And if we're not talking large spawns: who cares? When has a small number of minions ever been a threat to a tank, unless it's Vanguard or something with substantial end drain?
The question is how much relative value do those powers bring in a team environment? Which one stops more AoE? Which one is better at keeping those 45-second stun grenades off the blasters? Do you know how much knockdown Fault provides? Tremor? The ST attacks? Stone is not hurting for KD, either. And do you know what happens to Ice Patch if you're teamed with so much as one person who gets giddy over knockback powers?
Interesting point: the larger the spawn gets, the more powerful /stone's control gets relative to /ice. If you really want the details, I again refer you to earlier threads as we've been over it multiple times in great detail.
Anyway, that's all I have to say. I have nothing new to add, and I, and others, have answered the exact same objections, multiple times, in prior threads, and I no longer care about trying to convince other players. At this point people are convinced or they aren't, and frankly Castle's the only one that really matters.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if we're talking about, say, three bosses? Would they be more dangerous than ten minions? I'd think so. And Ice Patch would easily deal with those bosses, whereas Fault would merely offer a temporary respite from conflict.
As for Stone, yes, they have a plethora of KD/KB powers, but none that offer a repetitive KD/KB like Ice Patch. It's one use, then the enemy gets back up.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.
[/ QUOTE ]
try again. I know, I added the slotting after you replied.
FT has a 1 sec cast, Seismic has a 1.5 sec... not a big difference, especially when you look at how much damage the two do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, I'm not comparing the two themselves, I'm simply saying: add that 1.5 seconds (*3 since it's three uses) to the recharge, and you suddenly aren't able to perma-hold three bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
So I can perma hold two with Seismic instead of just one with Frozen Touch...
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
What if we're talking about, say, three bosses? Would they be more dangerous than ten minions? I'd think so. And Ice Patch would easily deal with those bosses, whereas Fault would merely offer a temporary respite from conflict.
As for Stone, yes, they have a plethora of KD/KB powers, but none that offer a repetitive KD/KB like Ice Patch. It's one use, then the enemy gets back up.
[/ QUOTE ]
you can use Fault and Tremor to keep the spawn flopping. Ice patch hits five, and not always the five that you want.
With full slotting on both powers, you can use them back to back. With IO bonuses, you can use them without pause.
Ice Patch, still only affects the 5 that dont run off of it.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a concern that has been brought up about the way you guys use datamining to determine if things are "okay".
If Ice Melee underperforms as a whole, and the majority of Ice Melee players know this and deal with it by dropping/not slotting some of the worst attacks and substituting with Pool attacks, Burn combined with Ice Patch, and/or Epic Pool powers in their attack chain to a greater extent than those using other sets do, is this noticed by your datamining? Or are you just pulling reports on all Ice Melee tankers and getting stats like xp per hour and such?
[/ QUOTE ]
Very good points.
[color=gold][b][size=5]♪ Sometimes you feel like a Tank, Sometimes you don't! ♪[/size][/color][/b]
[url=http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=114726][color=black][b][size=5]Moon [color=red]Hazard [color=black]Zone![/size][/color][/color][/color][/b][/url]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goes against everything I've seen in the game. I've seen /Stone tankers out control me, and most every other tanker secondary can out-damage me. Based on my experiences in the game, I don't get how the above is true at all. The mathematical experiments we've run in versions of Tundara's thread don't back it up either.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with most mathematical experiments I see here in the forums is that they are measuring the extremities of performance. The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game. The two are related, but there is often a vast gulf between what a set is capable of and what it is typically asked to do in gameplay.
Edit: Also, the quote you referred to is across all AT/Powerset combinations. */Ice outperforms many other AT/Powerset combinations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that a /ice tank performs better than a mind/emp controller :P
how well does the /ice tank perform to other tankers?
that is the question.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goes against everything I've seen in the game. I've seen /Stone tankers out control me, and most every other tanker secondary can out-damage me. Based on my experiences in the game, I don't get how the above is true at all. The mathematical experiments we've run in versions of Tundara's thread don't back it up either.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with most mathematical experiments I see here in the forums is that they are measuring the extremities of performance. The datamining I do shows how players are actually performing in the "reality" of the game. The two are related, but there is often a vast gulf between what a set is capable of and what it is typically asked to do in gameplay.
Edit: Also, the quote you referred to is across all AT/Powerset combinations. */Ice outperforms many other AT/Powerset combinations.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that a /ice tank performs better than a mind/emp controller :P
how well does the /ice tank perform to other tankers?
that is the question.
[/ QUOTE ]
apparently we're never at the top, and never at the bottom. However, I'd have to say that we're probably towards the bottom for most of our careers.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[ QUOTE ]
hah
Believe me, I know how ya feel 
Being told I'm "generally" fine when I know I'm not (and can prove it) is actually quite annoying.
That being said, I think you raise interesting points. I don't think Stone should out-burst-mez any Ice Melee tank. It's simply not right for Ice Melee to sacrifice a tremendous percentage of their DPS and burst damage in order to achieve a mitigation potential that is actually not much higher than Stone's, if indeed it's higher at all. It's quite similar to my Stalker issues; we're suffering DPS for a level of burst damage that is simply not capable of offsetting our weaknesses.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the most concise post relating to the issues of Damage versus control i've seen in a while.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has a strong slow that will keep the enemy in the patch, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I know I wouldn't consider a 0.45 second slow effect to be 'strong.' In fact, I didn't even know it existed until you mentioned it and I went to check.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strenght and duration are independent. Besides, it lasts .45 seconds, but it refreshes (and auto hits) every .2 seconds. It is -90% run speed.
Again, though, that is irrelevant unless you have a power like burn to actually make the enemy attempt to move around in futility.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*
[/ QUOTE ]
The odd part is, if you believe the defiance changes that he's working on, Blasters underperform tankers.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he once made a post specifically stating that Tankers were in line after Blasters, Stalkers, and Dominators.
By the way, I think his definition of "performance" involves xp vs debt ratios, so yes, it should be expected that Blasters are not performing as well as Tankers on the whole.
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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*
[/ QUOTE ]
The odd part is, if you believe the defiance changes that he's working on, Blasters underperform tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people would agree that Blasters are underperforming compared to Tanks. Tanks' problem is the fact that, though they perform their role very capably, it's simply not always a useful role. Buffs and debuffs (and controls, for that matter) can replace the need for Tanks far too easily. The fix to this is very complex and beyond my capabilities to analyze or even to suggest. I would put forth the opinion that, in order of attention, they should go Blasters --> Stalkers --> Tanks --> Dominators. I'd put Stalkers ahead of Blasters barely, but since they actually are fixing Blasters as we speak, it's rather pointless to even suggest to them that they should fix Stalkers, or Tanks, or Dominators before Blasters.
Since Tanks as a whole could use a boost in a non-statistical fashion, trying to ascertain the proper method of boosting them is rather complex and will need a lot of thought. As a result, it will be pushed to the backburner.
Remember, this is our Devs we're talking about. They have limited resources, and they can't always fix multiple problems simultaneously. As a result, they prefer quick fixes to long-term, difficult-to-analyze fixes.
This "too-long; didn't read" post can be summed up with: Tanks need a buff, not just Ice Melee; but unfortunately, it's a long way off, given its complexity.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a complaint about my Fire/Ice Tank atm - he's lvl 25 now.
On the other hand, I've got Frozen Fists and Ice Patch from /Ice and have no great need for any more, which is obviously a problem. I should want much more of a secondary power set.
I'll probably get the hold to be able to stack with an Epic Hold, but that's it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have the complete required powers from the secondary for maximum effectiveness. Adding in Frozen Touch is nice, but not necessary. You'll get more use from Air Superiority than anything else in your secondary at this point. I do love my fire/ice, but man is it a one-trick pony.
That's why requests for a fire/ice tank guide always get the same answer (barely paraphrased here):
Find a way to level 20. Get Burn at 18 and Ice patch at 20. Slot 3 rchg/3dmg in burn and 1-3 rchg in ice patch.
That's the set. Learn that and you've mastered fire/ice.
RagManX
"if the market were religion Fulmens would be Moses and you'd be L. Ron Hubbard. " --Nethergoat to eryq2
The economy is not broken. The players are
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***
Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.
*** snip ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*
[/ QUOTE ]
The odd part is, if you believe the defiance changes that he's working on, Blasters underperform tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That I believe. Having no mezz prot and most players in general playing a blasters like daredevils on crack, I can see it.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[Veruca Salt]
But I want it NOW!!!
[/Veruca Salt]
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
hah
Believe me, I know how ya feel
Being told I'm "generally" fine when I know I'm not (and can prove it) is actually quite annoying.
That being said, I think you raise interesting points. I don't think Stone should out-burst-mez any Ice Melee tank. It's simply not right for Ice Melee to sacrifice a tremendous percentage of their DPS and burst damage in order to achieve a mitigation potential that is actually not much higher than Stone's, if indeed it's higher at all. It's quite similar to my Stalker issues; we're suffering DPS for a level of burst damage that is simply not capable of offsetting our weaknesses.
Doom.
Yep.
This is really doom.