The game is tedious

That's one explanation. Another is that the impending ability to play two different ATs, one of which extremely similar but a better damage dealer might have had something to do with it. It's notable that Defender base damage, +30% damage buff + 95% damage slotting puts a Defender at the same damage as a Corruptor with 95% damage slotting to 3 decimal places, not counting Scourge. Of course, it's only that strong when solo.

It's not impossible that you've ever identified real issues, but what's a "real issue" gets pretty fluid when viewed over six years of shifting player focus and new features. If you have a favorite gripe long enough, and the devs of a game are making changes, odds are good they'll eventually at least touch on your complaint. They don't always have to improve it, though.

It's also important to note that a 30% dmg buff is not the same as just modifying their base damage. Namely:

*) Any source of +dmg amplifies higher base damage, but is additive with the Vigilance +30% buff. (ie: Aim, PBU, AM, Fulcrum Shift, etc)

*) It counts against the damage cap. If you're a Kin and ride the damage cap already, the new Vigilance does nothing. If it was a straight damage scale increase, it would've still been a boost.

While everything you said is true, was there a reason for bringing it up in this context?

We know that there's mathematically no way for the devs to make such a boost actually give the two ATs equal damage under all circumstances without actually giving the same AT damage mods, damage buff mods, etc. I still think it's significant that they chose a buff level for the new inherent that, all other buffs but enhancements aside, set their damage equal.

Funny you should bring that up.
I remember a time before Going Rogue was announced, before the RWZ made co-op a reality. Within my first 10 posts or so, even. I posted that one day there would be side swapping and we'd have Tankers alongside Brutes. I said it was a prime reason why Tankers needed to be reevaluated. I was flamed hard, by many of the people still flaming Ultimo_ and myself, and told that side swapping would "never happen" because it would devastate balance.

I remember a slightly more recent time when the infamous survey came out and I pointed to that as evidence that side swapping was coming, because I still maintained the position that side swapping was going to be a reality. I was flamed and told that it "prooved nothing" and "even if that ever happens, way in the future, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it." A couple months later, Going Rogue was formally announced. Oh hey, look at that, here comes that bridge now. Mind the sides.



.

Counter-Burn for the WIN !

My own personal favorite is a counter+burn+drake+shivan that I played for months.
You know your deck is good when people moan every time you bust it out.

Oh NOES! Not that one !

Mkay. I think those people were dumb.

The devs added "switched side" versions for the names of badges that only one side could get years ago.

The reason I brought it up was to make sure it was clear that the damage buff (even if mathematically equivalent to Corruptor damage with just SOs) still isn't the same. When I wrote it, it was mostly for things like Aim.

Of course, I completely forgot the fact Corruptor's damage buff mod was even lower than Defenders. So despite having the base damage advantage, they have a lower buff, which blunts the majority of my point. :P

Also, people over the years have suggested raising their damage mod, which would have had boosted performance universally, instead of in a narrow window like current Vigilance.


But yeah, I agree, they chose an interesting stopping point for Defenders.

Dumb or not, I was the one getting flamed and trolled, and they continue the hostility to myself and others. And when time marches on and they're wrong, they pull a 180 and claim they never took the opposing stance.

I got flamed for proposing buffs to Invulnerability. I wasn't the only one suggesting it had problems but I was downright vilified at the time for pushing the issue. Those people may deny it now, but I'm sure Ultimo_ and others remember. And Invulnerability buffs happend, and I even called what they would be the day before the patch notes dropped. When you're repeatedly called names and accused of wanting to destroy the game for suggesting things the devs eventually do and have since proven to improve the game by most people's opinion, you lose all respect for the handful of trolls who have been slinging the muck since day 1.

Some of them are in this very thread, and IMO the only reason they're still around is because of the mods generous nature in dealing with people who post things much worse than my zealous suggestions.


.

This all sounds very terrible for you, my condolences. I hope you feel better soon.

For me, endurance has always been kind of annoying, but it's not that bad anymore. IOs and smart building help plenty. I actually thought this thread was going to be about the game being boring, which is the issue for me :[ can't wait for GR

The guy who says 'Power customization should be implemented right now and it isn't complicated or hard to do' is not vindicated when power customization arrives. Your revisionistic, smug and supercilious attitude is what earns you resentment, and so far no amount of time marching onwards has changed that.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Odd. Here I was thinking it was because you repeatedly insisted the developers hated tankers, tankers were damage-less punching bags and agro monkeys, rage sucked, invulnerability couldn't tank for teams without the assistance of buffs, invulnerability was weaker to cimerorans than willpower despite being "the" S/L set, and a few other remarks more extreme than the kind that suggested passive resists getting bumped from 7.5% to 10% resistance.

The way you say it, it almost sounds like you suggested the changes that happened.

I maintained that power customization was not the impossible task the devs were letting on at the time and that some players were regurgitating as proof that "it would never happen in this game".

Oh look, it was quite possible.

You of all people have NO business lecturing anyone on smugness, revisionist history and attitude.


.

If it quacks like a duck. Tankers are still waiting for love and they're last in line.

Guess that's wrong because everyone knows a Tanker is a "devastating hand to hand combatant, and ranks second only to the Scrapper in sheer melee power" Don't tell Brutes, Stalkers, Blasters and Dominators though.

It very much was until it had Defense debuff resistance added to the set.

Lots of people, including myself, had at various time suggested that utility be added to Invul's passives to make them more desirable. I suggested some Fear and/or Confusion resistance put into Tough Hide way back. When Cimerora arrived, I was pushing heavily for Defense Debuff resistance because of the Cimeroran Traitors' defense cascade failures that were thrashing Invuls without capped S/L res.

I was very skeptical and vocal at the time that Castle would never look at the set and happily he proved me wrong about that not long after. I've complimented and thanked him numerous times for the buff in PMs.


.

Except the devs didn't say 'impossible.' They said it was a ton of work. Which it was. Which is why it took a long time.

You paint every person against you as uniform and ignorant; and you yourself are the reasonable one. Hence...



Smugness, sure, but that's just because I'm a lot smarter than the people I tend to argue with. Revisionist history, on the other hand? Fancy explaining to me what you're basing that claim on?

And hey, I have a plenty fine attitude. I just don't like you.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Nope. I have a fair measure of respect for many of the people who disagree with some of the things I say.

You're not one of them, however.



.

I know. I guess if they flip flop and revise history to deny they were ever against a change that went through that everyone loves, they can always be right. I wonder if they also shoot on their own goal and then switch team uniforms?


.

I know you say you're looking forward to GR, but what are you thinking about that would make the game less boring?

More people online? New content? New power sets?



.

Interestingly enough, most of the changes to Invuln were suggested LONG before JB was ever registered to these boards. His proposed change to tanks being "an offensive stance that lets them do the same damage as brutes with 50% fury with 10% more mitigation" never happened. Calling Invuln a neglected and ignored set because it wasn't Castle's "pet" (WP) that was inferior in every way didn't bring the buffs about. Just by saying "it sucks, fix it" doesn't mean he was the reason behind the fix. Likewise, your proposition for a raised Defender damage mod wasn't the catalyst behind the defender buffs.

Before GR was announced, JB would constantly say that switching sides would trivialize tanks since brutes could do more damage and had the same mitigation caps. The wide majority of posts to the contrary said they wouldn't because Brutes, for as neat as they are, still can't tank like tanks can. One person may have said that side switching would never happen, but that person was ignored and rightfully so. Most definitely not the multitudes he claims in his post. It was the work that people like Sarrate, Acemace, Starsman, Tundara, and such that showed where the holes in a lot of those sets were and with the numbers to back them up. Insulting anyone who liked tanks as they were with the phrase "aggro-monkey" didn't help.

He daren't say, considering how suggestions and observations are received around here.

I'm also looking forward to GR, though I'm not sure what it will fix, even if it added ALL of those things. As I said at the beginning, endurance issues make the game a tedious grind of waiting for the endurnce to come back enough to fight, but it's far from the only issue.

We'll see what GR brings to the table.

I won't presume to speak for JB, but I wouldn't think of suggesting my threads were the motivating factor behind the changes made.

My threads on Defenders were designed to identify what I saw as a failing in the class, that they had weak offense and weak defense, and needed a boost in one area or the other. I was informed I was wrong, and didn't know what I was talking about, and not politely. Seems I did know what I was talking about, since the Devs decided to give the class more offense.

I'd never suggest MY comments motivated the change. I'm just saying that if I was as off-base as some are making out, the changes they DID make wouldn't have happened.

If you're referring to me:
What do suggestions for a power set than spans multiple ATs have to do with suggestions specific for one AT?

You're confusing two different subjects, both of which I've made many suggestions for.

I called Invul neglected because at the time in had been a long time since any changes had been made to it. WP was rappidly becoming the defensive powerset of choice and because of it being newer, enjoyed advantages and improvments to its design the older sets didn't share. There were several player made surveys at the time of people rating the sets by sturdiness and by how "good" they were and WP was at the top and Invul was consistantly at the bottom. I called WP Castle's pet because it clearly was. The first new power set in a long time and it was untouchable for a time.

I never made that claim. I said I was very vocal about it the set getting a buff, was flamed for it hard, the set eventually got a buff and now the people who flamed me don't seem to see a problem that it got buffed.

And yet Castle has stated similar reasons being the motivation behind recent buffs to Defenders and Dominators. He's even admitted at the 6th anniversary event that he is concerned about Brutes v. Tankers in GR.

Concerned enough to do something about it? And to which AT? He didn't say further. I'm interested to see what happens, however.

Actually, I used the expression for Tankers themselves, not the people who play them. I think it's a fitting description because they lack the offensive capabilities of their comic counterparts and are relegated to a role of being decoys by running around, grunting with the Taunt power and grabbing aggro. Very much like a rodeo clown instead of a super hero.


.

Well, in a way, you were. When suggesting a change for defenders, one has to look at defenders as a whole. In the majority of in-game situations, defenders are one of the most powerful AT's around due to their force multiplying capabilities in teams. Even from a solo standpoint, they're still capable of things other AT's couldn't dream of. It's only in a small number of cases that they struggle, and that's where the problem lay. How do you make defenders better without changing their overpowering nature on teams? A number of people would like to see them solo better/faster (myself included), but I never would have given them more damage. The fix the devs made was brilliant in its simplicity, and one I don't recall ever seeing posted.

Why people react to you the way they do? Well, you've posted anecdotal evidence with VERY questionable numbers and results that no one else can come close to replicating. You're either lying, crazy, dumb, or have the only bugged game client out of a hundred other people. When it happens several times over different issues, people tend to remember. (as we've seen.)