City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Failure of the Developers to Implement Changes.

Aett_Thorn

By Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2010-06-04 20:02 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
It does not matter. Claiming Domination the greatest inherent will just simply strengthen my case that Tankers need a better one.
No it doesn't. What school of debate do you come from? Let me guess, the school of talking out your ***?

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake_Summers View Post
You can't give tankers any kind of bonus to resistance/defense without making them unkillable. As it is, a tanker player right is already almost nigh unkillable. Any bonus to their inherent would have to be to improve soloing damage and the AT would play just fine.

You are frankly just wrong about Dominators. Now you may not like Dominators, that is a valid opinion. But that doesn't mean they are a weak AT under any circumstances. I don't like playing Controllers, but I admit they are a vey good AT. Remember, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that something is bad.

I still think Fire Aura is a good set, when you take Shield Defense out of the picture and even then the two almost stack up, atleast on paper. Against All Odds gives a comparable +dam bonus to Fiery Embrace (One is always on, costs end to maintain and isn't as good against fewer enemies, while the other has a short recharge time, lasts 30 seconds and gives the same bonus in all situations). Burn is both decent damage AND damage mitigation. Y'know those guys running from the burn patch, they ain't attacking you or your teammates at this time. And keep in mind Shield Charge has a miscalculated damage modifier. It'll get it's nerf soon enough. (Their performance on IO's is a completely different matter, though I stand by my awesome Fire/Fire brute)

Can't comment on Energy Melee or Energy Aura. Never played either. But honestly, the "Waah do this immediately or I'll quit" attitude doesn't help. Or the "I don't play because of these issues" attitude...hey if you don't play anymore why do you care?
You are wrong about Fire Aura. Without an Immobile or team mate, it is impossible for Burn to do decent damage. Your claim Burn is good for mitigation is also silly and seemingly and attempt to take something good from a piece of crap.

I think I speak what people are reluctant to say.. The devs response time is too long and evidence they are severely undermanned. It is simply bad business to let sets like EA, EM and especially FA to remain in inferiority as long as they have while they continue to introduce new power sets.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
No it doesn't. What school of debate do you come from? Let me guess, the school of talking out your ***?

Is it hard for you to grasp that the more Archtypes that have an inherent that increases personal effectiveness would only help my case, however small. ? Wise up.

 

Posted

His point that they're taking too long to do, well, anything, has merit. Can we expect GR by Christmas at this point, lol? I think the recent authority shuffle over at paragon was due to missing deadline after deadline.

The EM nerf was a joke. If they wanted to nerf ET, they should have reworked the whole set first, because now you have a set that does similar single target dmg as other top sets (and delivers it in a manner where even there it underperforms vs many competing sets due to ridiculously slow animations), while being absolutely destroyed in the more valuable aoe department. Instead, they overnerfed it and left us with a busted powerset that many players used to enjoy, despite it's limitations, thanks to it's one, glorious power, that is now a shadow of it's old self.

I can't speak to energy aura too much because I've never used the set. Of course I've never used the set because it doesn't look very good, even after the miniscule buff it received, lol.

I also agree tankers could use a bit of a buff, especially with GR on the horizon where brutes and mm's will compete for a similar role on teams. I don't think they need improved survivability so much, but maybe something to make them the unquestioned aggro management at. Maybe something as simple as upping their aggro cap. I don't agree with the OP's feelings on domination, or with his claim that scrappers are as durable as similarly built tanks, because that simply is untrue.

I'd love to see fiery aura get some buffs, but I don't think the set is as broken as some claim. I'd lower the recharge on consume, and turn burn into some sort of aoe blast with dot, or make the patch much larger, which might necessitate lowering the damage a bit.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
Sure I do. I played one back in 2006-07 to 41 but gave up on it. Despite the damage increase I believe occured in my absense I doubt nothing has changed and I rather an AT that does not rely on its inherent so much the player wants to devote time and energy to reach the great perma inherent. With Hero ATs their inherent is always on from the start so I will stick with them.

By the way , can a player reach Perma Dom without IOs? I am not interested in building a house on Corrupt foundations. The genetics of the archetype has always been and will always be ...defective. And lets not forget the Purple triangles. Do they still exist ? Lol probably. If so how do you do with them on your target ? Does that new damage help you any ? I doubt it cause the AT is so fragile and helpless without controls.
It's at this point it's safe to say everything you post can be ignored from here on out.

The damage buff from domination was removed. To balance this, the base damage a dominator puts out was increased considerably. The Jekyll and Hyde feel of the set is GONE. That fact that you're attempting to use it as a case for a "lack of developer attention" without having even played with the change proves that you're more interested in ******** and moaning rather than seeking any kind of necessary alteration to the game. I use domination more for the endurance return than the double mag/duration.

Your followup paragraph does nothing but put emphasis on your erroneous beliefs. The extra base damage helps Every encounter.

Give up now. There are already a multitude of threads regaring EM, FA and tanks. Join one of them. You don't have the necessary knowledge to spearhead change in this game.

Be well, people of CoH.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba View Post
It's at this point it's safe to say everything you post can be ignored from here on out.

The damage buff from domination was removed. To balance this, the base damage a dominator puts out was increased considerably. The Jekyll and Hyde feel of the set is GONE. That fact that you're attempting to use it as a case for a "lack of developer attention" without having even played with the change proves that you're more interested in ******** and moaning rather than seeking any kind of necessary alteration to the game. I use domination more for the endurance return than the double mag/duration.

Your followup paragraph does nothing but put emphasis on your erroneous beliefs. The extra base damage helps Every encounter.

Give up now. There are already a multitude of threads regaring EM, FA and tanks. Join one of them. You don't have the necessary knowledge to spearhead change in this game.
This is not about my dislike of Dominators and my refusal to play them. It is about the low quality of 3 sets and an ATs inherent and the devs slow response time to fix these sets.

What you think of me is irrelevant. I can know almost nothing about the game outside the power sets I listed and still it would not change the fact what EM , FA and EA are all underperforming. I have stated the general ideas of why they suck, especially EM and FA. I have not explained the general problem with EA's mitigation in this thread but I have before and others have done before me. Now if you expect me to do extensive research as I have seen you do then you will be disappointed.

You lost sight of what is important. And from what I have seen , you arent to fond of playing Tankers so I find it likely you would agree that Tankers should have a better inherent or something at least.

PS: No crap higher base damage helps every encounter. Purple Triangles always appear on the more difficult targets and unless this damage buff is so high a Dominator would be easy pickings because of their frailty during the duration of the Triangles.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
I sure won't be posting an analysis. It makes the one I did for Shield vs Fire look an ant hill next to Everest the differences are so large.

The issue with kinetics is that it is more or less fine. It provides a lot of benefit, but provides very low protection (relative to the other sets and given it requires near constant melee range to perform well). It ends up being a solid, but not overshadowing set for defs and corrs.

However, imo the problem it presents for controllers isn't necessarily their damage output as that is more a function of them having vastly superior epic sets (even my ill/cold/stone kills things at an alarming rate, so it isn't just x/kin/x's). It is a problem because x/kin controllers can still maximize their controls and do high damage. Other controllers wanting to maximize damage have to make the choice to focus on that at the cost of control (go the way of a fortunata if you will, damage with good control), but kin controllers don't they have high control and high damage.

That is significant. You could say that corr/defs can skimp on damage enhancing too, but they gain almost no benefit from it like controllers do. Case in point, my plant/kin/stone is fully slotted for control in every power and yet is at damage cap most of the time. By allowing me to slot for control I make it even easier on myself to use kinetics powers.

I certainly don't have an easy solution for kin trollers because there is not really anything wrong with kinetics on any of the AT's, or anything wrong with control sets. It is just a synergy between high mitigation eliminating the risks that kinetics is supposed to be exposed to.

I'm kind of derailing the thread (not that that's a bad thing in this case), but I disagree that Kinetics is ok. The problem with Controllers is highlighted mainly because they are able to do it by themselves. But put any Kinetics character on a reasonable team (that's the "defense" part) and you've got eight people firing the equivalent of a nuke (or a Shield Charge :P) every spawn. Fulcrum Shift is, frankly, ridiculous. I get that Kinetics doesn't have a lot else, but that's the same song Psychic Assault was singing all the way up to Issue 16.

On Controllers as a whole though, though I love the AT more than any other, I think putting containment in Immob, Stun, and Sleep was a huge mistake. We should get containment from Holds only. As painful as that is, the amount of damage Controllers do once they get their epics compared to ATs that get blasts in a "legit" way is rather unfair. It kind of sucks for Defenders to get stuck with a "blast" powerset that actually does less damage than a "control" set with vastly superior survival capabilities.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
This is not about my dislike of Dominators and my refusal to play them. It is about the low quality of 3 sets and an ATs inherent and the devs slow response time to fix these sets.

What you think of me is irrelevant. I can know almost nothing about the game outside the power sets I listed and still it would not change the fact what EM , FA and EA are all underperforming. I have stated the general ideas of why they suck, especially EM and FA. I have not explained the general problem with EA's mitigation in this thread but I have before and others have done before me. Now if you expect me to do extensive research as I have seen you do then you will be disappointed.

You lost sight of what is important. And from what I have seen , you arent to fond of playing Tankers so I find it likely you would agree that Tankers should have a better inherent or something at least.

PS: No crap high base damage helps every encounter.
Okay...I want you to look at the list of powers out there.

Look at them.

Out of that WHOLE LIST OF POWER SETS, you think theres only a problem with THREE OF THEM. And out of 14 ATs, only one needs to have it's Inherent looked at.

And you say the devs are slow to fix these things, when they also have other content they're working on? o.O

BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex View Post
On Controllers as a whole though, though I love the AT more than any other, I think putting containment in Immob, Stun, and Sleep was a huge mistake. We should get containment from Holds only. As painful as that is, the amount of damage Controllers do once they get their epics compared to ATs that get blasts in a "legit" way is rather unfair. It kind of sucks for Defenders to get stuck with a "blast" powerset that actually does less damage than a "control" set with vastly superior survival capabilities.
I think Immobilize is the main offender in this recipe. I'd definitely not take containment away from Sleeps. Even with the speed that Mass Hypnosis charges on it's difficult to set up containment every time you use an AoE. Stuns are a less offender because of their recharge as well. Really, the speed and duration of Immobilizes are the problem, and given that their value as damage mitigation is low people are willing to sacrifice control in those powers for more damage as well.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
This is not about my dislike of Dominators and my refusal to play them.
<snip>
Purple Triangles always appear on the more difficult targets and unless this damage buff is so high a Dominator would be easy pickings because of their frailty during the duration of the Triangles.
Ok, firstly if this thread isn't about Dominators (and their... ahem... "laughable" inherent) then why did you bring them up in the first place? You directly attacked their inherent, and used it as the starting point for one of your arguments. You were WRONG about Dominator's inherent, and about the Archetype in general. You seem to have the misguided thought that they can't hold through PToD (which is wrong by the way) and you think that they are a "vulnerable" class to play without their holds.

I argue that a Controller is vulnerable without her holds, a tanker vulnerable without his shields and a Mastermind is vulnerable without his pets. Sure, we're both technically "right" about that... take away the MAIN reason any class has any form of survivability and they'll become vulnerable; simple logic. However if you think that most Doms wander around not using their primary power set then I think we've seen your true "understanding" of the Archtype, as you so quaintly put it.

There is an expression; "Digging Yourself into a Hole", which I believe fits here. If you post something which backfires (like trying to make a point that includes saying that Doms, and Domination is "laughable") then take it back and move on without mentioning it again. If you continue to maintain your original assertion about Domination (which is wrong) you are digging yourself into a hole and making the rest of your assertions lack a certain credibility.

Play a Dominator, see the change and then come back. Until then please stop slandering the Doms inherent unless you have some further reason you don't like it after seeing the changes that apparently "aren't" happening.

my 2 inf

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex View Post
On Controllers as a whole though, though I love the AT more than any other, I think putting containment in Immob, Stun, and Sleep was a huge mistake. We should get containment from Holds only. As painful as that is, the amount of damage Controllers do once they get their epics compared to ATs that get blasts in a "legit" way is rather unfair. It kind of sucks for Defenders to get stuck with a "blast" powerset that actually does less damage than a "control" set with vastly superior survival capabilities.
So, because one single secondary results in too much AE damage you want to remove the ability of ALL controllers to do decent AE damage.

Thats basically what you are saying, even if you don't realize it. Without the ability to get AE containment controllers are going to suck at doing AE damage - something they are not very good at even WITH containment in thier AE immobilizes prior to 41+ when they get ancilliary pools and decent AE attacks. Even with good AE damage in the ancilliary pools most controllers still only do OK AE damage - they will certainly never match the ability of a blaster with multiple AE attacks, aim, build up and a higher damage mod.

The exception to this is kin controllers and I think removing almost all AE containment just because one secondary is somewhat overpowered is serious overkill.

Globals: @Midnight Mystique/@Magik13

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricHough View Post
So, because one single secondary results in too much AE damage you want to remove the ability of ALL controllers to do decent AE damage.

Thats basically what you are saying, even if you don't realize it. Without the ability to get AE containment controllers are going to suck at doing AE damage - something they are not very good at even WITH containment in thier AE immobilizes prior to 41+ when they get ancilliary pools and decent AE attacks. Even with good AE damage in the ancilliary pools most controllers still only do OK AE damage - they will certainly never match the ability of a blaster with multiple AE attacks, aim, build up and a higher damage mod.

The exception to this is kin controllers and I think removing almost all AE containment just because one secondary is somewhat overpowered is serious overkill.
IMO the best way to "fix" controllers would be to have their epic attacks effected by containment. Make only their Primary attacks deal extra damage when mezzed, and have their Epic Attacks do "normal" damage. They can still be effected by buffs, AoE Immobolize + AoE blast is rather devastating.

Active 50s:
Zero Defex: DP/MM//Mace Blaster
Mutant X-7: Fire/MM//Mace Blaster
Running my Kin/EA gloriously
Come on I21!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Sure, the devs are supposed to listen to their customers, mister business 101 out there. And if I decide to start suggesting that the devs change the game from being about superheroes and supervillains to being about clowns that is my right as well, and technically Paragon Studios is supposed to pay attention to me. But I hope strongly that they assume a meth-head somehow managed to hack into my forum account and make paper airplanes out of my posts, because I hope they recognize stupid when they see it. I assume they will recognize futile just as accurately.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake_Summers View Post
You can't give tankers any kind of bonus to resistance/defense without making them unkillable.
You could give them a defensive inherent similar to criticals which gave them a small chance to be UNAFFECTED by any given attack.

Goodbye may seem forever
Farewell is like the end
But in my heart's the memory
And there you'll always be
-- The Fox and the Hound

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenzhi View Post
You could give them a defensive inherent similar to criticals which gave them a small chance to be UNAFFECTED by any given attack.
Very Interesting thought ! I like it

Tankers may not have a very spectacular Inherent, but I have yet to play an AT that can survive as much on SOs that any Tanker can. They live up to their name and about the only thing they could use is a little something that works for them solo. They deserve the same treatment that Defenders got; which is some kind of effect that functions while solo.

BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricHough View Post
So, because one single secondary results in too much AE damage you want to remove the ability of ALL controllers to do decent AE damage.

Thats basically what you are saying, even if you don't realize it. Without the ability to get AE containment controllers are going to suck at doing AE damage - something they are not very good at even WITH containment in thier AE immobilizes prior to 41+ when they get ancilliary pools and decent AE attacks. Even with good AE damage in the ancilliary pools most controllers still only do OK AE damage - they will certainly never match the ability of a blaster with multiple AE attacks, aim, build up and a higher damage mod.

The exception to this is kin controllers and I think removing almost all AE containment just because one secondary is somewhat overpowered is serious overkill.

No. Don't feel like having an argument about what "I am basically saying." Controller epics with Containment do outstanding damage.

 

Posted

There is some I agree with here.

EM they really need to give TF the thunderstrike treatment Full damage to target and aoe spash damage. EM is not that bad of a set, it is just hurt by too many slow single target attacks.

EA was underbuffed. To me they should of given EA energize, like they did ELA. They should of combined the passives and add end drain resists to it. Then add an aoe knock up power like ice patch, called energy field where any targets that walk on it get knocked up, or it could be some sort of taunt aura, as long as the set's taunt is not connected to it's heal. Just as long as the sets only taunt is not in it's heal, after all if you need a heal, why do you want to make everything around attack you.

Fire I am not to familiar with, but it's immob protection should be moved to another power. A tank shopuld not have to scatter everything just for a minor protection. As far as knockback, it is annoying, but it is a common hole that is easily filled.

I am not sure adding more protection is what a tanker needs on their inherent. Overall, they are the sturdiest AT, and their biggest weakness is soloing speed. Maybe something that increases damage while solo, and when teamed it gives either a damage buff, or damage debuff to attacks depending on team make up. So the more portecting allies you have (defenders, controller, and tankers) they do more damage, and a damage debuff for offensive teammates.

I am going have to jump on the band wagon on Domination. It is a great inherent, and much better after the devs changed it then before. As far as doms relying on it, that is normal for villains. They were designed around their inherents, while heroes were just added on later. Stalkers center around on theirs, brutes are bigger on theirs even more then any other AT. MM's inherent adds to their survivability more then anyother AT. About the only one with a weak inherent are corruptors, and that is because it is really effective on EBs and higher.

Dirges

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirges View Post
I am not sure adding more protection is what a tanker needs on their inherent. Overall, they are the sturdiest AT, and their biggest weakness is soloing speed. Maybe something that increases damage while solo, and when teamed it gives either a damage buff, or damage debuff to attacks depending on team make up. So the more portecting allies you have (defenders, controller, and tankers) they do more damage, and a damage debuff for offensive teammates.
Two things that I would add.

Solo speed on Tankers seems just fine to me. Having recently taken a WP/Fire to 50,
It was safe, smooth and relatively easy. Took less than 2 months completely solo as well.
Tankers sacrifice damage for their incredible hitpoints and better defenses than ANY other AT. More damage doesnt seem likely, since they would then be the best melee AT at that point (Already are the best in my mind, but thats just IMHO).

Tenzhi's idea creates an unique solution for the inherent which not only helps solo (which is something that Gauntlet probably needs) AND shores up their defense in the low levels a little, which is also something they could use. How many Tankers can do their jobs well at lower levels ? With a good team around you its ok, but pre-SO Tanks are quite squishy.
Having a 5% chance to avoid a minion, 10% versus Lts and higher would be pretty solid.
It would help out the weaker defensive sets like Fire, Dark, and Electric, while not overpowering top-end sets. It would even ease the pain of lower level defense sets.

Edit: Upon reviewing these numbers 10% may be a little too high, but 5% would not be outrageous.

BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
For me it isnt hard to just remember my time as a Dominator and in that memory just picture myself doing more damage. That is the underlying change that has occured as you have stated correct? Just more damage outside of domination. The archetype still is too fragile and genetically inferior in my opinion.
In theory, Theory and Reality are the same.
In reality, Theory and Reality are very different.

In the abstract, yes, the only change was that the damage buff was moved out of Domination and directly into the Dominators' attack. However, that small change makes a world of difference when playing the characters. Everyone benefited hugely from the change, except those people who were stacking Domination (which would give them stacked damage buff).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenzhi View Post
If they went with some sort of defensive bonus, I think they should have an aggro bar, and per each enemy aggro'd (up to 10, 12, or the 17 cap) they should get a minor Resistance and Defense bonus, perhaps capping out at somewhere around 15/7 or 20/10. This would make them most stalwart for alpha strikes, which is more suited to tankers, I'd say, than building up to a defensive furor.
That's pretty creative. I like it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
It does not matter. Claiming Domination the greatest inherent will just simply strengthen my case that Tankers need a better one.
I don't know if I'd call it the greatest, but then I'm a Mastermind fanboy. However, you'd be hard pressed to find many players who think Gauntlet is absolutely fine. Whether it strengthens your case or not is irrelevant.

http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirges View Post
There is some I agree with here.

EM they really need to give TF the thunderstrike treatment Full damage to target and aoe spash damage. EM is not that bad of a set, it is just hurt by too many slow single target attacks.

EA was underbuffed. To me they should of given EA energize, like they did ELA. They should of combined the passives and add end drain resists to it. Then add an aoe knock up power like ice patch, called energy field where any targets that walk on it get knocked up, or it could be some sort of taunt aura, as long as the set's taunt is not connected to it's heal. Just as long as the sets only taunt is not in it's heal, after all if you need a heal, why do you want to make everything around attack you.
Energy Melee...

From doing Crimson Revenant's (believe that's his name) arc, BAB's Total Focus is a PbAoE, can't remembe if his ET is though...but I can see a change where ET is sorta like Chain Induction, but it's more of a straight forward jump and not bounce around.

Energy Aura...

Energy Drain - I would like this power to be a combination of Dark Regeneration and Energy Absorption, though would probably see a recharge increase since it would offer +heal, +end and +def.
Dampening Field and Energy Protection - I agree with combining these but also make them defense based (somewhere between 5-8%) but with keeping the Neg/Energy Resistance

Much like Ice Armor's capped resistance to Ice, I think all of EA's toggles should incorporate resistance to Neg/Energy, it doesn't have to be capped resistance like Elec/Fire/Ice Armor, but decently high, maybe in the 60-70% range

So...32% (this includes slotting Energy Cloak) Def to S/L/N/E, 23% Def to F/C and 60-70 Res to Energy/Neg

With there being a open power slot after combining two of the passives, I think a new power could also be an attack, since EA is all about manipulating energy...why not a repel type move that functions as a click attack, a mini Nova is you will. Concept is taking the enemies energy and turning it back on them, so it would debuff their damage and drain their end, but to make it more effective, the damage it deals won't be based off x-number of targets.

Quote:
Fire I am not to familiar with, but it's immob protection should be moved to another power. A tank shopuld not have to scatter everything just for a minor protection. As far as knockback, it is annoying, but it is a common hole that is easily filled.
Always been indifferent towards the Immob protection since I pretty much always take CJ...though I wouldn't complain if it was moved to Plasma Shield.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenzhi View Post
You could give them a defensive inherent similar to criticals which gave them a small chance to be UNAFFECTED by any given attack.
This is interesting, but with the survivability that tankers already have it may be stacking more on the wrong pile.

What if tankers had say three auras with different radii, say one 15' one 45' one 80'. Each gives a tiny recovery buff or endurance discount for each enemy in its radius.

It would allow tankers to use the their less efficient DPE attacks more often, allowing them attack more in the longer fights that await them. While also being able to use attacks more often in team situations thus keeping aggro better.

GL all and have fun

Murphys Military Law

#23. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

#46. If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed towards you.

#54. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.

 

Posted

Quote:
From doing Crimson Revenant's (believe that's his name) arc, BAB's Total Focus is a PbAoE, can't remembe if his ET is though...but I can see a change where ET is sorta like Chain Induction, but it's more of a straight forward jump and not bounce around.
Instead of chain induction, they could do it like peircing rounds from DP. It is a narrow cone, and would make ET more like a hadouken. Which to me would be better then trying to have the game AI work with restraints.

Dirges

 

Posted

that works too

 

Posted

Quote:
ENERGY MELEE
I'd love to see Energy Melee restored to it's former glory. Unlike others, I don't want EM to have great AoE or control or need a smoother transition in power. What it did well was ST damage and it excelled there. I didn't think it was overpowered because it wasn't something that demolished entired spawns instantly or solo farmed. There are far better sets for just those purposes and EM had it's own niche. It's not so much it's nerfing but the fact things are starting to become all the same in this game apart from the colors of the powers. I'd rather see powersets balanced based on thier specialties.

Quote:
ENERGY AURA
EA doesn't need a Reconstruction clone. It doesn't need those exotic resists moved to a core power. It's flaw is as simple as being a poorly thrown together powerset, after Ice Armor fell through, taken from an AT with completely different needs and given several band-aids since. The Power Drain heal and toxic res weren't the first buffs to the set. I recall it getting a bit more Res and Def shortly after CoV launched. It's not a terrible set, it has it's own niche but could certainly get some help. A peev I've always had with element theme based sets is the fact they do not all of them cap the defenses on which they are based.

Quote:
NO REAL TANKER INHERENT
Hero AT's do not need or have they ever relied on Inherent powers to perform well(Scrappers have always had Criticals). When CoV released and those AT's that were built around Inherents were released they were added to Heros just to shut people up.

Quote:
FIRE AURA
Dead horse here. We know Fire needs some love. With the introduction of Shields, some even say it is the set that Fire should have been(I disagree). We can only hope that Castle keeps his word and can do a little more magic on the set without just making it like every other set. I wouldn't expect KB protection to be added any time soon(IO's, Acrobatics) but would rather see it become the offensive set that makes the defensive sacrifice worth it.

Ultimately, you should do with your playtime as you wish. If you beleive a power set to be so broken and that the devs will not fix it proper, don't play it. When the EM changes went live, I deleted those characters and have no regrets to it. My Tankers don't need an inherent to do thier jobs and my Fiery Brute gets by one way or another. YMMV.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by New_Dark_Age View Post
You are wrong about Fire Aura. Without an Immobile or team mate, it is impossible for Burn to do decent damage. Your claim Burn is good for mitigation is also silly and seemingly and attempt to take something good from a piece of crap.
I do use the Burn/Immob trick once I get into the epic levels (at that point burn does AMAZING damage rather than just decent)

Now admittedly, it's reasonable that you've had a different experience with Burn than I have. That's okay, diversity is the spice of life. But to say my experience with the power is impossible or silly? That isn't very good debate. But despite this, I'll take a moment to explain exactly how I find Burn useful.

1. Mitigation - This is admittedly what I use Burn the least for, but I find it extremely useful to plop down when I need to squeak out five more seconds until my heal recharges. Enemy takes damage, enemy runs away for about 4 seconds, enemy runs back. If you can't understand the use of an enemy spending 4 seconds not attacking you, not causing damage to you, not debuffing you AND suffering damage, I suppose I'll never be able to convince you of anything. And now take note that this happens to every enemy surrounding you.

2. Damage. I'm at work atm, so I unfortunately can't quote any numbers to you, which means I can't truly prove anything. And I suppose it depends on what you consider decent but I'll give it a try. When facing a crowd on my brute, I unlease my PBoE attacks upon them, and then if anything if left alive, I give them a good shot of burn to keep them distracted while I wait for those to recharge. Enemies run out of the fire, then RUN BACK IN. So anyone who wants to attack me in Melee has to be taking the burn damage. Further more, Burn has an insanely high accuracy. It's practically autohit and the only thing I find it misses on is an AV in MoG mode. So you have Nemesis with Vengeance double stacked, the answer is Burn. Got two Tsoo Sorcerrors beside you with Hurricane and Darkest Night debuffing your ACC. Burn will either kill them or make them run away, letting you get back to hitting Yellow Ink Men in the face.

Now I was never there before the Burn nerf, but I appreciate the power for what it does now, with minimum slot investment. You don't like the power? That's okay, I won't touch Tough and Weave with a 10 foot pole, we all have our quirks.

"I accidently killed Synapse, do we need to restart the mission?" - The Oldest One on Lord Recluses Strike Force

 

Posted

Fire has been a sore spot since the nerf came down on it. It was kinda nuts, but they i don't remember if they had collision detection then.....so spawns could be packed like you wouldn't imagine. Burn was the item to do power leveling with. At one point, i went 7 or 10 levels in 2 hours BACK BEFORE ALL THE XP SMOOTHING...(that is about the equivalent of TWO fire/psi doms on the same map, BEFORE the dom correction/nerf). It was pretty obscene what you could do.

I totally agree, it is time that fire gets addressed. Lots has changed since then.

EA does need work, or like Fire, ludicrously expensive build to fix.


As having both fire/fire tanks and a brute.....small adjustments to fire might just fix it.

Yes, consume needs love. No questions asked. The recharge on it is that bad. Now i will say this, with full fury, it will occasionally kill a minion or something. But that is so few and far between, it is hardly justifies its recharge. Leave the accuracy check.

Temperature Protection....add End drain resistance or GIVE us an IO that grants a 20% end drain resistance....just like the Winter Slow Resistance IO. That one IO really is noticable when you get some semblance of slow resistance from TP and the IO. If we had an IO 20% resist end drain, then consume recharge could be dropped somewhat....and it still not be perfect, but tolerable.

KB protection...fine, leave it out. i can live with it.

Burn, up the damage/up end cost, so what little they stay in it, does more damage. Consider adding a slow, or increase the time for the fear to start (ie they stay in the patch longer takes longer to run from it, but not by that much...) Leave the scatter and the fear, yes that can be used for damage mitigation. The power doesn't change much which the devs might do, but helps atleast get like tier 1 aoe blaster damage out of it.

With adjustments/fixes (and not major ones at that) and IOs, an immob (like my brute)....or a tank on team with an immob, would be a truely damaging toon. An aoe immob for burn, like my brute, survives better sometimes, because Burn is cheap damage endurance wise, and Consume is so bad on recharge, cheap damage really helps fire. GR and switching sides is coming. And an Immob might be avail to the tankers. But Burn needs a bit more tweaking than just an access to an immob patron power, to put fire back on the top of damage. With an extremely expensive (ludicrously expensive build) my fire tanker and brutes are ok, not on par with the others, but really ok. You should IO to improve, not become par with the other sets....that is whats wrong.


Maybe with GR and changings sides, some of the underperforming power sets will get a slight once over and if improved, data mined, and improved again.