Seems pretty weak.
Issue 16 made me feel like this.
Warning: This poster likes to play Devil's Advocate.
What would the values for the melee or cold/fire defense values be? (The built in pairs for AoE & S/L) for the number you chose, I'm assuming the .94 for each. If the devs add more defense bonuses, I think your layout actually seems probable. (As it's a common enough value.)
*shrugs* offhand, seems workable. The -res might be replace with something else...I like the -res, but they may find its effect on other damage capabilities problematic, so I might see another effect, like -speed. (Less valuable, but the defense bonuses would make it still worthwhile.)
Weak enough to be a waste of time, IMO. While the TAoE sets are also pretty full-of-fail, I'd look at more like how Obliteration helped the full-of-fail PBAoE sets as a model. I don't so much care what the exact set bonus values are so much as would like to see a reasonable amount of recharge included. Otherwise set bonuses may as well not exist because all I'll do is frankenslot for recharge anyway.
Quote:
Yes, it would probably be .94 for Melee and Fire/Cold. |
Originally Posted by Seldom
What would the values for the melee or cold/fire defense values be? (The built in pairs for AoE & S/L) for the number you chose, I'm assuming the .94 for each. If the devs add more defense bonuses, I think your layout actually seems probable. (As it's a common enough value.)
|
I chose the lower defense numbers because I'm fairly sure we aren't going to be seeing any more 3.75% or 3.13% defense bonuses in any new IO sets, as per the devs remarks that they feel adding so many defense bonuses in the existing sets was a mistake. The lower values would be a more realistic expectation.
I suppose we could do away with the proc altogether and replace it with an Acc/End/Rech 3 piece. But, recharge isn't everything. With available set bonuses to recharge, and Incarnate slotting, it is easy to get good recharge out of any slotting combination. I was trying to shoot for a well balanced layout of enhancement, rather than loading it up one attribute in exchange for almost nothing in another. (Obliteration's 18% end reduction for all that recharge comes to mind)
I deliberately chose set bonuses that aren't available in any other Targeted AoE set, and in a combination that would be useful to many people. I also deliberately didn't make the set overpowered so the devs might actually consider it, or use it as a jumping off point for their own idea.
The only thing I'm dead set on is the name of the set. We already have Obliteration, Eradication, Devastation, and Decimation, so it seemed to me that Annihilation was a natural fit for that theme.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Understandable, and the values on the defense sets were what I assumed considering devs' stance on softcaps.
I thought the suggestion was a good one- it's a 'good' set, not a MUST HAVE! set. (Which I think the game needs to have, particularly for the limited ranged AoE set choices.) Swapping the dam/range for dam/rech and putting a range in the quad instead might please some more, but that's a small tweak, and perhaps an unnecessary one. I'd keep a proc in it, I personally find the 'flavor' procs bring to sets to be a good thing. That said, an extra triple might work for frankenslotting as there are fewer recourses in ranged AoE sets.
Just to note, however: it's rare to have endurance paired with recharge, this is usually reserved for rare and effect sets.
I'd support it just to get such a set with multiple recharge IOs, regardless of bonuses.
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
I don't like it. The only attraction is the -res proc, and it would make my rad blasters feel less special so i would have to give it a no 
Mains (Freedom) @Auroxis
Auroxis - Emp/Rad/Power Defender Pylon Video Soloing an AV
Pelvic Thunder - SS/Elec/Mu Brute
Sorajin - Elec/Nin Stalker
Neuropain - Sonic/Mental/Elec Blaster
Quote:
The IOs themselves don't seem to bad, and the -resist proc wouldn't be all that in a Targeted AOE set imo.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Annihilation
Acc/Dam Dam/End Dam/Range Acc/Dam/Rech Acc/Dam/End/Rech Chance for -Res (identical in function to the Achilles' Heel and Gladiator's Fury procs) 2 slots: 12% regen 3 slots: 1.8% Max end 4 slots: 3% damage 5 slots: 1.88% AoE defense 6 slots: 1.88% Smashing/Lethal defense. What do you think? The set bonuses shouldn't be too powerful, and I see it as a 30-50 Rare set, possibly with the Acc/Dam being Uncommon. |
The bonuses I'd likely do dfferently. Yes, I'd like to see 1 Targetted AOE set that has a Defense bonus to it, but something more useful than those
That aside, something different may be to have the 6 bonus be a good +Resist bonus that's worthwhile going after.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
I'd be in favor of scrapping the -res for Dam/Rech (or maybe a chance for knockdown), but overall I don't think that it would be a bad set. The fact that it's not mind-numbingly overpowered would help keep it affordable and not have it be the #1 go-to set, but the amount of recharge makes it completely viable to slot the set for both it's set bonuses and enhancement values. The lack of a global recharge bonus is nice too, so it's not always clear-cut whether or not to take this set or Positron's Blast.
Of all the TAoE sets I've seen suggested I support this one the most. Well thought out, Claws.
I'd like to swap the 1.88% aoe for a 3.12% aoe and the smashing and lethal for 1.88 melee personally. I think we already have too many smashing/lethal bonuses in assault powers and not really any aoe defense.
Friends don't let friends buy an ncsoft controlled project.
Quote:
Now that is a good proposal.
|
Originally Posted by Quinch
Eh, just merge the TAoE and ranged categories and problem solved.
|
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
Quote:
I deliberately made the defense bonuses small. The devs mentioned that they feel adding so many defense bonuses to IO sets was a mistake, so I highly doubt we will see any 3%+ bonuses in any new sets that are made. |
Originally Posted by Noyjitat
I'd like to swap the 1.88% aoe for a 3.12% aoe and the smashing and lethal for 1.88 melee personally. I think we already have too many smashing/lethal bonuses in assault powers and not really any aoe defense.
|
The idea was to give people chasing defense bonuses an option in a TAoE set to help them out, without making the set so good that it was clearly the best option for everyone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
The idea is splendid indeed, but may need to have the values increased some.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Annihilation
Acc/Dam Dam/End Dam/Range Acc/Dam/Rech Acc/Dam/End/Rech Chance for -Res (identical in function to the Achilles' Heel and Gladiator's Fury procs) 2 slots: 12% regen 3 slots: 1.8% Max end 4 slots: 3% damage 5 slots: 1.88% AoE defense 6 slots: 1.88% Smashing/Lethal defense. What do you think? The set bonuses shouldn't be too powerful, and I see it as a 30-50 Rare set, possibly with the Acc/Dam being Uncommon. |
2 slots: 10% Regen (Scirocco)
3 slots: 2.25% Max End (Cloud Senses)
4 slots: 2.5% Damage (Malaise Illusion)
5 slots: 3.13 AOE DEF + 1.565 Fire Cold Defense (Scirocco) or 3.75 AOE DEF
6 slots: 3.13 Smash/Lethal DEF + 1.565 Melee (Perfect Zinger) or 3.75 Smash/Lethal DEF
I tried to use values from the various sets placed in parenthesis of the same rarity so the values would be consistent woth other IO sets.
Claws, I think you hit an area that is not too well covered by IO sets, that is there are not many set that focus on lethal/smash first, often we see Melee with half on lethal/smash. There should be a choice for focused Smash/lethal defense for ranged attacks, so Blappers could enjoy it :<)
Hugs
Stormy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stormfront_NA
The idea is splendid indeed, but may need to have the values increased some.
2 slots: 10% Regen (Scirocco) 3 slots: 2.25% Max End (Cloud Senses) 4 slots: |
All the values I listed already exist in other sets:
12% Regen (Numina's Convalescence, Devastation)
1.8% max End (Eradication, a couple others)
3% damage (Mako's Bite, Devastation, Obliteration)
1.88% AoE defense (Multistrike)
1.88% S/L defense (Rectified Reticle)
The idea was to give it useful bonuses without making it overpowered. Maybe the max end and AoE defense could be increased, but I wouldn't expect the AoE defense to go higher than 2.5%.
Also, in using pre-existing set bonus numbers, it will fit into the scheme of the way set bonuses work nicely. All of those bonuses already have names, so they wouldn't need to create a new category for them.
We are very unlikely to be getting any more defense bonuses in a new set that are above 3%. I tried setting it up with that in mind. The devs seem to feel they goofed in giving so many sets defense bonuses (but they also don't seem too inclined to take any away except for extreme edge cases like BotZ)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
I like it all. Resonable enough that it could be made into the current game. Good thinking Claws. I like the name too, but maybe that should be for a new Purple TAoE set 
Perhaps Exterminate...then we could have Extermination, Annihilation and Destruction...XD
"Character is what you are in the dark"-John Warfin
Well, if it's implemented, the devs will have the final say on what the set bonuses will be, and what amounts they will be. They could very well decide that they like the idea, but replace the set bonuses I laid out here with their own.
The specific set bonuses are debatable, as are the exact enhancements (I'm not really expecting it to actually get a -Res proc), the main thing I want is the name 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
That was castle's philosophy on how he didn't like how some of us build and play our characters. Hopefully we can move beyond that now that hes gone.
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
I deliberately made the defense bonuses small. The devs mentioned that they feel adding so many defense bonuses to IO sets was a mistake, so I highly doubt we will see any 3%+ bonuses in any new sets that are made.
The idea was to give people chasing defense bonuses an option in a TAoE set to help them out, without making the set so good that it was clearly the best option for everyone. |
Friends don't let friends buy an ncsoft controlled project.
Quote:
The attitude Castle had towards how some of us played, may still exist with the current developer staff and is a very dangerous thing for a game if it gets out of control.|
Originally Posted by Noyjitat
That was castle's philosophy on how he didn't like how some of us build and play our characters. Hopefully we can move beyond that now that hes gone.
|
I don't know how many of you had ever played the original roleplaying games such as D&D and company...
But in the real world, giggles, when these are played by rolling dice and keeping up with stuff with paper and pencil... The Game Master had to define a world, and what not for a campaign to be based on.
Now the next challenge for that GM is to find players who would play his game. Usually this first part is not so tough, unless the GM has a poor reputation. Now once we start playing the game, if we find the GM forcing us to play in certain manner, and approach challenges in a specific manner, and find ourselves punished by not doing the "GMs" way, guess what happens next week end? Thats right, nobody shows up for the game.
CoH was well noted for its extraordinary versatility in how the game can be played, and I mean extaordinary. Slowly the game has been loosing some of this versatility and becoming increasingly more "stream lined" in how challenges are addressed, in short do it as the dev wants you to do it, or they will nurf the offending power used, arbitrarely make the mob immune, etc. What we gonna get from that? Well if they keep it up, the game will in time loose it flavor and folks will not return to play.
Case in hand look what is happening to "trapdoor" scenario, if you don't do it the devs way, you are accused of exploiting... So sad.
The reason I post so much, often to all of your dismay, is to prevent the game from going into a rut and eventually die out. I am not sure the adding of more content can keep a game alive if the developers forces game play to a specific style.
Stormy
To those asking for higher values on the defense: if you're hoping for another set that will really help you softcap, that's exactly why you probably won't get it. From the way devs have started upping foe tohit in newer content, the idea that you can have characters with only a 5% chance to be hit is something devs are almost certainly not comfortable with. Still, a small bonus with rare recipes would be most likely to get anything of the sort.
Also, claws' set here has a very powerful beginning bonuses, so the helpful but still not 'drop 150 mill inf good' bonuses work out. The only thing I might say to counter balance would be to make a good number of the recipes be pool A drops.
So you're saying that, as time goes on, the devs become more and more like B.A. Felton, and the players become more and more like Bob Herzog and Brian VanHoose.
If your proposal went live today, I would buy it and slot it right now.
Quote:
There is a HUGE difference between a tabletop RPG and a video game. |
Originally Posted by Stormfront_NA
The attitude Castle had towards how some of us played, may still exist with the current developer staff and is a very dangerous thing for a game if it gets out of control.
I don't know how many of you had ever played the original roleplaying games such as D&D and company... But in the real world, giggles, when these are played by rolling dice and keeping up with stuff with paper and pencil... The Game Master had to define a world, and what not for a campaign to be based on. Now the next challenge for that GM is to find players who would play his game. Usually this first part is not so tough, unless the GM has a poor reputation. Now once we start playing the game, if we find the GM forcing us to play in certain manner, and approach challenges in a specific manner, and find ourselves punished by not doing the "GMs" way, guess what happens next week end? Thats right, nobody shows up for the game. CoH was well noted for its extraordinary versatility in how the game can be played, and I mean extaordinary. Slowly the game has been loosing some of this versatility and becoming increasingly more "stream lined" in how challenges are addressed, in short do it as the dev wants you to do it, or they will nurf the offending power used, arbitrarely make the mob immune, etc. What we gonna get from that? Well if they keep it up, the game will in time loose it flavor and folks will not return to play. Case in hand look what is happening to "trapdoor" scenario, if you don't do it the devs way, you are accused of exploiting... So sad. The reason I post so much, often to all of your dismay, is to prevent the game from going into a rut and eventually die out. I am not sure the adding of more content can keep a game alive if the developers forces game play to a specific style. Stormy |
In a tabletop RPG the GM can bend the rules to fit certain situations, because he is the one balancing the game in real time. A good GM will bend the rules to work both for and against the players.
In a video game, there is no one sitting there making decisions about how this rule is going to work in this encounter. They have to balance the whole thing so everyone is playing by the same rules.
In a single player console game, you are frequently forced to play the game the way the developers wanted you to, because that is the ONLY way to play it at all.
At least here we get to suggest things that we would like to see done. Sure, not everything actually IS done, but it's more say than we get in something like God of War.
They can't make up rules on the fly like a live GM, and they haven't kept everything completely static from day 1, so they do the best they can in regards to making a video game meant for many people to play at once.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
There is a HUGE difference between a tabletop RPG and a video game.
In a tabletop RPG the GM can bend the rules to fit certain situations, because he is the one balancing the game in real time. A good GM will bend the rules to work both for and against the players. In a video game, there is no one sitting there making decisions about how this rule is going to work in this encounter. They have to balance the whole thing so everyone is playing by the same rules. In a single player console game, you are frequently forced to play the game the way the developers wanted you to, because that is the ONLY way to play it at all. At least here we get to suggest things that we would like to see done. Sure, not everything actually IS done, but it's more say than we get in something like God of War. They can't make up rules on the fly like a live GM, and they haven't kept everything completely static from day 1, so they do the best they can in regards to making a video game meant for many people to play at once. |
While physically there is a difference, the basic premises of level handedness, equity of treatment, and courtesy stands ein either venue.
I can agree with you that a GM in real life can adapt to the players, while in an electronic game they can't do it real-time. But because they can't do it in real time, it does not translate they can behave child-like or not even try to be even handed either.
While in general the CoX staff does try to keep a "balance" in the game, and at times I question such a balance, there has a been a trend to dummy down the versatility of the game and make it a more physically restricted in its approach.
I remember when support ATs could use Phase Shift as a means of suvival and getting around, getting to glowies safely, etc. To a developer who is brain-locked that the only way to do that was by beating every mob in between, was obviously an exploit! So the power was essentially nurfed to uselessness.
When I read about trapdoor, and how he could be coerced to leave his area of power, and thus reasonably defeated by those without uncondtional defenses, well that was viewed as an exploit, and had to be remedied, right? After all, a player did the mortal sin of using their head instead of their muscles.
I think its less than optimal developing practices when it is forced upon support ATs to not have unconditional protections, and then turn around and exploit the heck out of it by spamming mez (in incresingly more frequent situations where their conditional protections can not be used) in liew of real challenge. Where is the versatility of that?
It is these forms of nurfing the game's versatility and developer attitudes that I stand against. It will kill this awesome game in time, which is something I don't want to see occur.
Stormy
Annihilation
Acc/Dam
Dam/End
Dam/Range
Acc/Dam/Rech
Acc/Dam/End/Rech
Chance for -Res (identical in function to the Achilles' Heel and Gladiator's Fury procs)
2 slots: 12% regen
3 slots: 1.8% Max end
4 slots: 3% damage
5 slots: 1.88% AoE defense
6 slots: 1.88% Smashing/Lethal defense.
What do you think?
The set bonuses shouldn't be too powerful, and I see it as a 30-50 Rare set, possibly with the Acc/Dam being Uncommon.
See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.