Curveball

[ QUOTE ]
I think the damage must scale also if you want any PvP contest that include players of very different levels, one on one this might not be a problem, but team on team it will be, so scaling level to target would produce better results IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

regarding damage scaling... I agree, I think, sort of. I *don't* think that enhancements should scale, though, and that will still make a noticeable difference.

If a level 10 attacked a level 40 char and hit, that would be a level 40 attack... but modified by training enhancements. A 4-slotted +32% damage 40th level energy blast against the 40th-level blaster, and a 6-slotted +192% damage 10th level energy blast against the 10th-level baster. 40th still has the advantage there, I think.

And yes, it *would* be possible to one-shot a low level if the difference were big enough -- but it also gives the lower level characters teeth, especially if they banded together.

Back to the tanker example, I dimly recall jab doing something like 9 points of damage at level 1. So if a 50th level Regiment six-slotted jab with SO's he'd be doing 26, 27 points of damage to the 1st level tanker, before the tanker's resistances kicked in, so maybe 18 a hit if the tanker chose Temp Invulnerability. So haymaker would probably take a 1st level tanker out.

But you know, 50th level vs. 1st level should be sort of ridiculous. 20th vs. 35th level would be a lot closer -- the 35th level character would still have the advantage in slots and powers, but it wouldn't necessarily be a cakewalk.

An even-con system is sort of an interesting concept. It could work. Higher level characters would *still* have an advantage. Here's an example.

Low level tanker has

Resist Physical Damage, 2 white training enhancements (+10% res)
Temporary Invulnerability, 1 white training enhancement (+5% res)
Jab, 2 white training enhancements (+8% acc, +8% dmg)

High level tanker has:

Resist Physical Damage, 5 white SO enhancements (+100% res)
Temporary Invulnerability, 1 white SO end recucer (33% less end use per tick)
Unyielding Stance, 5 white SO enhancements (+100% res)

(lets just leave the defenses at that)

Jab (4 white SO enhancements, +33% acc, +99% dmg)
Punch (6 white SO enhancements, +33% acc, +165% dmg)
Haymaker (6 white SO enhancements, +198% dmg)

And a lot more hit points.

The high level tanker is going to win that fight. More hp, more damage because of the significant difference between slots and enhancements, and more defense -- in fact, well beyond the 90% resist cap, so the damage he takes is, basically, in the decimals.

The thing is, that low level tanker will not be useful taking on a high level tanker one on one -- but he *might* be useful in a group fight against a defender or an assault rifle blaster.

It certainly gives both characters more *options* when they fight. But it would also give the high-levels the upper hand, in a big way.

I don't have much experience with PVP, but I think this is a really interesting idea.

Oh, *man*... that *is* really cool.

I obviously have not been paying attention for quite some time.

(I was writing a book instead.)

So are you guys saying it's now possible to create a single bind that activates more than one power a time? I thought that was verboten. Couldn't you theoretically chain attacks with this? Or does it only work with toggle powers?

Er... you're right. I got it backwards.

actually +[command] will turn something on, -[command] will turn something off. For example, I have lbutton set to -mouse_look so that I can exit mouse look mode (which I have permanently turned on when my character is moving).

"++" turns something on only for as long as you're holding down the key, but it doesn't always behave consistently when you use it and another command together in the same bind.

Heh. Some of them are pretty lame, but it's nice to have that kind of variety.

I cheat. Regiment has 75 spoken taunts that he can cycle through with the "T" key, but I have another key for taunt that just fires it off. That way I can choose when I want Regiment to speak and when I want him to just do the taunt.

[ QUOTE ]
Damn you Curveball, giving us something for free!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a very bad man.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if anyone posted this, but this guide is a direct plagerism from the Prima guide to CoH.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting, since I've never read the Prima guide and the first version of this post existed in the beta forums before the guide was even published.

Only piece of advice I can give regards writing dialog and using the word "said."

A lot of people will say to avoid using "said" as little as possible -- I very strongly disagree with this.

The reasoning behind the people who say "don't use the word 'said' " is that it's repetitive, and yes, repetitiveness is bad. However, said is a nearly transparent word in the english language, and when you *consistenlty* avoid using "said" and replace it with other words you are drawing attention to the structure of the dialog, rather than the dialog itself.

It's more effective, in my opinion, to generally use "said" and replace it only when you want to place a certain kind of emphasis on what the person is doing.

An example of emphasis:

"I didn't do it," he said.

"I didn't do it," he insisted.

That's my advice. For the most part use "said", but vary it to add weight to a sentence.