Cyber_naut

Legend
  • Posts

    1027
  • Joined

  1. How about some more info about the actual expansion, lol. We should only be a month or 2 away from release... right?...
  2. Cyber_naut

    Incarnates

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hydrofoil_Zero View Post
    (Whistles shrilly.) Quit arguing. (Like that will ever happen. :P )
    What makes you think that the incarnate system has anything to do with making your toons stronger.
    I don't remember where I heard or read it but it was mentioned that the incarnate feature would do good things for your toons and alts. So there's no telling what it might be. It could unlock new power, power pools, travel powers, costumes, ATs, and Bob knows what else. We realy don't have enough information to even begin to attempt to speculate as to what the incarnate system is.
    I could even bee all the things above and more. Incarnate lvl 1 get this thing incarnate lvl 2-x gets other things.


    As for the coming storm since everything related to it has to do with Oroborus it probaly has to do with time travle. Probaly where we get the space staion we were once promised.

    Maybe even (pure speculation) a Japanese and western castles.

    Did you read page one in this thread?... lol.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by StratoNexus View Post
    That is actually pretty easy to answer. Shield Charge is a power in a set designed to mitigate damage. The large AoE KD radius does that well. Add some modest damage (1 scale or less) to the people getting knocked down for flavor. Give it around a 40 second recharge.

    If you wanted, you could give it a longer recharge and make it do more damage to the main target, which is the route Castle went with.

    It is pretty easy to see that a set that grants respectable mitigation as well as aggro utility and some additional +damage, like Shield, was not intended to and should not have a non-crashing, near nuke every 45 seconds. It was meant as a mitigation KD with some minor damage for flavor.
    And when people complained the power was weak in beta, they changed it...
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Schismatrix View Post
    So you're saying you disagree, and then stating your position to be nearly the same as Arcanaville's. Obviously you read the post if you're quoting and saying you disagree, but the position you state after saying you disagree seems to be effectively the same as the post you disagreed with. Or are you saying math should be ignored until, somehow, it is determined (apparently without using math) that things are unbalanced, and then you might use a little math? Or is it that you feel math should be a minor consideration in the design process and should be considered inferior to hunches and guesses?

    It seems to me that Arcana's position is that consistent math and processes should be used for initial balancing and design, but that adjustments should be made for how things work in actual play. Maybe i was misinterpreting, because that seems far more sensible to me than pulling numbers out of the air based on hunches and guesswork and then making sweeping changes when it fails to automagically balance everything. (Although i do seem to recall seeing the latter somewhere before...)
    The argument goes back before the post I quoted, and I her argument seem to be that trial and error is unnecessary and can be avoided. I disagree. Even in a game this far along, there will still be trial and error going forward in terms of development.

    Now taking your argument in the 2nd paragraph in your post, what math and process was used to create shield charge? What equation/process could be used in creating a unique power in a defensive secondary?
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Silas View Post
    Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
    Dude, this thread is filled with them, lol.
  6. Go with the brute if you want superior overall performance. Brutes are not ridiculously better, but they do have more advantages. And don't let the 'fury mechanic' scare you off. Completely ignore it if you want, and you'll still be at 50%-75% fury most of the time, which means you'll be doing similar damage to scrappers while having superior health and mitigation caps. Once you become a non-stop killing machine, you'll be doing more damage most of the time as well.

    In regards to rttc and the fact it detoggles, all because of the miniscule to hit debuff it applies, is a terrible design decision.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    They play a really big part: they set it back several years.

    PS: the last major numerical change to FA was a buff: a significant increase to Healing Flames.
    So how do you 'balance' a power like shield charge? It's a very unique situation. No other secondary has a power like it. What do you balance it against? Realize that any answer you give will be your opinion, including any mathematic equation you might devise to deal with the question.

    Some people might hold the opinion that a power like SC shouldn't even be available in scrapper secondaries. And they'd be neither right nor wrong, because that would be their opinion. Others feel it's overpowered because it's like a blaster nuke, so it needs to be nerfed down. Again, niether right nor wrong, it's their opinion.

    In terms of what sc is doing now compared to its original design, I believe many of the changes were made intentionally because I recall many sd testers complaining about how weak sc was using the original design.

    Ultimately, whatever the devs decide to do, will be their opinion on what is best for the game. This is not a 2 + 2 = 4 question.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    I disagree with that strongly. Take the melee secondaries, especially the scrapper ones (including both versions of Invuln). They fiddled with them in basically every issue from release to Issue 5 by trial and error just to slowly converge on their Issue 5 values, and *then* they continued to fiddle with defense until I7.

    However, knowing *only* what the numbers and mechanics were, the circa I7 performance of those sets could have been targeted computationally and generated that way right at launch. And in fact so much of what was done by trial and error in the past is now at least guided by computation, if not outright set by computation.

    I personally cannot think of very many things that, were they to have been numerically analyzed for balance at the beginning of time with no prior experience in gameplay, the correct quantitative analysis wouldn't have generated far better results than the trial and error process did, and would have done it faster.

    We'll just have to disagree then. Math is a wonderful tool, but it doesn't provide design infallibility. Just about any human endeavor involves trial and error to some degree.



    Quote:
    There seems to be a persistent, impossible to quash rumor that Castle employed some new balancing formula on EM. In fact, while I'm sure Castle had to consent to the changes, most of the EM changes were at least partially driven by BaB, because they were animation changes. In fact, the change to ET caused everyone to forget that literally days earlier we were discussing the change to Energy Punch that came about as a side effect of changing the punch animation itself, which many powers share (including the original target of the change: Dark Melee).

    One of the things they were trying to do was eliminate the 0.67 cast time powers, because it was difficult to fit a variety of nice looking animations in such a short cast time. And energy punch's cast time increase had a similar impact on EM as the ET change did across a large range of recharge.

    There is no formula that factors in cast time that affects EM. Only Claws and Widows have a formula that incorporates cast time, and its a very rough one that I wouldn't personally say incorporates the perfect set of balance requirements for such a formula.


    In any case, to say that EM was "asymmetrically balanced" just because it did more single target damage and less AoE is missing the "balance" part of "asymmetrically balanced." That's just asymmetrical. The balance part would have ensured that its strength sufficiently counterbalanced its weakness relative to peer sets for the net overall value of the set to be the same to within the margin of error of the balancing system. There was (and is) no system that currently can make that statement about either version of EM.

    Which is the problem in a nutshell.

    I'm not claiming that EM was balanced before the nerf, I'm saying it was less imbalanced vs competiting sets, because at least back then, it was on top alone in terms of single target damage and had one glorious, set defining power, which at least partially made up for the sets pitiful aoe abilities. And since aoe ability is so valuable in this game, even pre nerf em was underpowered and therefore imbalanced vs other competing sets that blew away it's aoe performance. Now, after the nerf, you have a set with a bunch of slow, mediocre powers, doing very good single target damage, but damage that is on par with competitors, while still being a bottom feeder in terms of aoe ability.

    I don't know exactly what they are doing to achieve balance, but whatever they are doing isn't very effective when you have sets like EM, or even FA for example, sets that clearly underperform vs most of their competitors. Regardless, whatever method they used to 'balance' EM clearly failed, and I'd hate to see the same thing happend to SD.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
    That quote isn't intended to imply that art and craft are two separate things you should have some of, its intended to imply that art and craft are two ways of describing the same thing.

    In other words, all of the art in this game is crafted, and it can be judged on the basis of its craftsmanship. All of the craft in this game is directed towards its artistic expression, and all craftsmanship in this game can be judged on its ability to deliver its intended artistic expression. There is no art in the game devoid of craftsmanship, and nothing is crafted that isn't a part of the art of the game.

    You can't add more craftsmanship to this game, You can only *improve* the craftsmanship that already exists in it. And that is *always* a good thing. Similarly you can't take away the artistry of the game, you can only improve it or degrade it. But this MMO has exactly the same mix of artistry and craftsmanship as all other games: 100% of both.

    I was speaking to the level of artistry and craftsmanship, but of course different people will have different opinions on that as well. Two different people could look at the same painting, and one could consider it beautiful and well crafted while the other considered it complete garbage, while a third might hold an opinion somewhere inbetween.

    And I don't agree that this game has the same level of artistry and craftsmanship as other games, I think it's superior in that regard, which is why I play it so much.

    And finally, in terms of 'improvements', again, that is a matter of personal opinion. Even in terms of craftmanship, different builders have different opinons on what is the best crafting method, and the more complex the final product, the more variance in opinions you are likely to find.
  10. Grats, and you don't look a day over 2!
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kioshi View Post
    Because of the new difficulty settings, couldn't the OP also just get a newspaper mission with a desired group at +1/x8 or something?

    And I'm sure Claws can farm. My Claws/SR scrapper is not high (30) but she made 60 million in 2 hours by salvage+recipe drops in Dark Astoria. Not as fast killer as my FM/SD, but really she did well, spin is really good and recharges fast even with SOs. And much less insp usage than my FM/SD since she has 33% def and some DDR already (after all I'll get Evasion only at 35 as a scrapper), meaning 1 small purp and I'm softcapped.

    Plus SR Brutes have a taunt aura which should make it easier to group mobs for spin.

    Checked, Spin recharges in 9.2 seconds for Scrappers and 14 secs for Brutes.

    But just compare the base damage numbers on similar Brute PbAoEs:

    Spin 78.8 (rech 14s)
    Typhoon's Edge 47.5 (rech 12s)
    Whirling Hands lol 41.7 (rech 14s)
    FSC 78 (rech 20s)
    Tremor = WH but 15 radius
    W. Mace 46.7, W. Axe 41.7 (rech 14 s)

    Only FS wins - 106.6 (with Rage), 15 radius, 20s rech.

    But you'll also have Shockwave: HUGE cone, 47.1, rech 14 s
    What does spin do with follow up, 102.2 and it recharges 6 seconds faster than FS? And its got shockwave, and you'll have far less end issues, and it does FAR better single target damage. Claws is an incredible brute set.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba View Post
    I accept that you have an opinion. I don't accept that your opinion has any validity or worth.
    Right back at ya. The only difference is I don't demand other people to adopt my opinion or imply that they should just shut up, as many posters in here seem to be in the habit of doing.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    The facts. You aren't even trying to have a discussion you are just being belligerent, ignorant and purposefully obtuse.

    We get that you think Castle overnerfs, I'd probably agree in many cases. That doesn't change the fact that SC is NOT working as intended. It is NOT working as he designed it to work and it is grossly outperforming everything like it.

    If you want to be productive in the least you'll stop frothing at the mouth and start using your brain to come up with intelligent and meaningful arguments based on logical understandings of the game to persuade Castle to introduce your fix to the issue. It sounds like he is still in the deciding stage of exactly what to do to the power, so here's your chance to actually contribute something. But just so we are clear, when he does look into the power it is going to go down in damage.

    I'd be doing just that right now, but imo the numbers he listed for SC as it is supposed to be are still extremely impressive to me, so I don't feel it is necessary.

    Anyway, I think I'm probably done talking at you for now. I'm not talking with you because you either aren't comprehending what I'm saying or simply choosing to be stubborn which is leading to a level of obnoxiousness that is grating. Quite frankly I have better things to spend my time on.

    Apparently I'm only talking AT you as well, since I've made it pretty clear I understand castle is going to gut SC's damage. You seem to agree, which makes your claim that castle is still in the 'deciding' state a bit odd.

    And it's a shame you're done talking at me, I'd love to hear you elaborate more on how SC looks too good and how you'd solve that 'problem', lol.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim View Post
    Thank goodness it isn't JUST a matter of opinion. Castle and co. do have balancing points: it comes out in the game and in their posts. Sure, there are higher performers, but most of the ATs and powersets work quite well with each other. If you're honestly thinking it's just a matter of opinion, that speaks largely to many of the problems you are having.

    Fiery Aura had a lot of issues from the start, and has been adjusted positively a lot over the years. It no longer has to get its mez protection from Burn (other than Immobilize, but Combat Jumping makes a lot more sense here), Healing Flames has been buffed, and Temperature Protection is actually choosable now. I would agree that the overpowered quality of Burn made many people forget the other issues in the set, though, and that Burn was overly nerfed.

    However, I think Shields as a set works quite well and has none of the issues that Fiery Aura did or currently has. When arguing for improvements to Fiery Aura (Consume's recharge, Fiery Embrace, the state of Burn, KB and immobilize protection), it's quite fair to point out that the newer sets like Willpower and Shields have none of those issues and discrepancies. Seriously, Fiery Aura still shows that it's an opening powerset in the game and that it had an overpowered attack that was nerfed.

    The changes to Invuln a few issues back pretty much rounded out its issues (though I do wonder if it could use a little Regen somewhere), but Fiery Aura still needs it. It is not in the same boat as Shields, however.
    If there is some magical balance equation in play, how did FA get nerfed into the state it is in now, where nobody seems to think it's 'balanced' with it's competitors? Same thing with EM. The answer is that there is no perfect balance equation, and that guesswork, feel and opinion play a big part in the attempt to create some semblance of balance, hence the constant adjustments to powers and sets.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    My hopes is that many (and I mean there are a ton) of underperforming, or just underwhelming, powers get attention.
    This we can definitely agree on. Look what the buffs to DM did for that set.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba View Post
    Grossly overpowered abilities are always fun in a game like this.



    You didn't read this thread, did you?

    The power wasn't grossly broken until they decided to go in and "fix" it so that it would do appropriate damage for the archetypes using it. They "fixed" it incorrectly. Eventually the incorrect alteration will be corrected.

    No, this game doesn't need more broken powers. I will agree that the devs need to be more careful when implementing changes for no other reason but to avoid threads like this.

    However, if you absolutely must have SC left as is, I'm sure Castle will be happy to nerf everything else about Shields in order to keep the set balanced with the other mitigation sets. (Actually, I know he wouldn't do this, so accept the nerf to SC now.)
    What you, or even castle, considers 'overpowered' is a matter of opinion. People were of the opinion that FA was overpowered, and the devs came in with their magical balancing bat and now FA is.. underpowered. And they did the same thing to EM. Hence my lack of confidence in their balancing abilities. I agree this game could use less broken powers, and power sets even, but from what I've seen the broken powers and sets are more often the result of excessive nerfs.

    Whatever the devs decide to do, I'll roll with, but I'm not going to stop giving my opinion, so accept my opinion now, lol.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    I've already said this at least five or six times and it seems to be to the agreement of most poster that FA is due for some buffs and SC is due for a reduction. Strapping a nuke onto the back of FA to bring it up to the level Shield is operating at just creates two sets that are strongly overperforming.

    I've even listed my suggestions for fixing FA in this very thread as have many others. I'm not sure if you are deliberately ignoring things already discussed for the purpose of building a baseless argument, or if you have genuinely forgotten what has already transpired.
    LOL, what am I ignoring exactly? You're responding to me saying that there seems to be unanimous support for FA buffs. I'm fully aware that you support buffing FA, which is why I mentioned it...

    My point was perhaps buffing FA would cure your feelings of inadequacy next to SD toons, without crippling and perhaps ruining a set that many players enjoy.

    Secondly, you clearly feel SD is 'strongly overperforming', while I clearly do not, perhaps you've forgotten that. I'm sure there were many frosticus's stating without a doubt that FA was 'strongly overperforming' that helped get FA nerfed into the underperforming state it is in today. I hope the devs don't make the same mistake with SD, but after reading castles posts, I'm not very optimistic. My guess is, in another year or so, there will be outcry from a lot of forum goers to nerf the next popular defensive set, followed by cries to buff an underplayed and underperforming SD - especially if they keep making defense-busting enemy groups, which I have a feeling GR will be loaded with.

    Quote:
    Actually no. I've never seen anything short of a crash based blaster tier 9 wipe spawns as quickly as a single scrapper SC does. Fire/kins, spines/da, mm's they are all very high damage, but it is always high dot, not instantaneously rendered damage. Big difference.

    SC has a very rapid cast time and applies the damage instantaneously. None of the combos you just cited as supporting evidence can do anything like that.
    Not a 'big difference' when it comes to kill times. There are several combos that are as good or better than sd builds at farming, ie killing a bunch of bad guys. Using your logic, broadsword is overpowered and fire melee is a joke.

    Quote:
    I'm sure this would have relevance if it was being discussed.
    We're not discussing aoe ability? I could have sworn that SC was an aoe attack...


    Quote:
    Honestly if you haven't learned in life that perception is the only thing that matters then the lesson is overdue. What I'm saying is that SC is almost as visually pronounced as nova. It is impossible to miss and the whole team knows that you just rocked the entire game in one shot. Everything bounces up in the air and then falls down. Most of them never get up. SC is so visual it makes it "the scrapper show". The show headline just happens to be "Don't worry guys I got this and it will only take 1.716 seconds too!".
    First of all, if perception is the only thing that matters, then castle could nerf SC's animation and leave the damage and you'd be fine with it, right, lol?

    Secondly, so... you're arguing the animation is overpowered too? Really?

    Quote:
    Rain of Arrows is not a headline stealer and it actually takes well over 4 seconds to cast with damage execution closer to 6 seconds.It is also subject to issues such as mobs running out of the aoe before the damage is applied and drawing agro while locked in to a very long animation. While the damage from SC is hitting the spawn at about 2.5 seconds. That is a big difference. The difference means that everyone can get a few attacks off before RoA hits. The result may be massive overkill, but everyone has a chance to participate and contribute. At the end of the day everyone is paying to play the game, not watch, but actually participate.

    SC on the other hand is one of the faster cast times in the game attached to an AT that fears very little so doesn't need to hesitate to pull the trigger. It is resolved so fast that the spawn can actually be dead before the fireball that a ranged toon cast reaches them. Again big difference.

    *What's really sad is that the best analog to SC, a power found in a defensive set, is a blaster tier 9. If that isn't a clear and decisive indication that something is amiss then I'm afraid nothing will.
    First of all, again, there are many builds that can make teamates feel like they're not participating, and again, it comes from aoe heavy builds vs single target build disparities. This existed before SC and it will exist after castle guts SC.

    Secondly, god forbid we have sets that are unique and/or have unique abilities. What's really sad is that any power that stands out, and lets scrappers compete with other at's, draws the nerfbat. For some reason, it's perfectly fine for other at's to kill enemies at the same or better pace that SD toons do now with a mix of powers, but it's not ok for SD's to do it with 2-3 powers.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven View Post
    Firstly, if SC ISN'T vastly overpowered (and it is) then find me another power in a Defensive set that does as much damage in the same amount of time.
    So any set that has a top performing power is 'vastly overpowered' and due for a nerf? So what's next after SC?

    And I've certainly never claimed it's not the best attack power of the defensive sets, it definitely is, and it's the main reason the set is so fun and popular. IMO, this game could use more SC-like powers, not less.

    Quote:
    Secondly, the Devs have stated on numerous occassions (and it only makes sense if you think about it) that they do not have the time to look at EVERY single power every time the game is updated. SC fell through the cracks, it seems. And, it seems to me, that Castle trusted someone else to do something to the power that ended up not being what he expected that person to do. All in all, it looks to be a case of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" combined with a "while the cat's away the mice will play" sorta scenario here. AKA, SC didn't squeak and the cat wasn't looking when the mouse made his changes. Afterall, who would squeek about a power that is that awesome? (Aside from Arcanaville and others who actually look for that type of thing.)
    This doesn't apply to this situation. They should have taken the time to look at the damage it was doing when they ran it through beta, if indeed they had the wrong numbers set for the power. And even if they missed it there, they sure as hell should have caught it after they buffed the power later on. As far as 'squeeking', people have been squeeking about this power from day one. Not really sure where you're going with all the cats and mice, but I'd say the guy in charge of power numbers has a responsibility to check them and make sure they're what they are supposed to be. Finally, if this power is as 'vastly overpowered' as you claim, then this is an enormous blunder on the devs for not catching it for over a year, plain and simple.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    I'll take a stab at this one and why SC bothers me even though I have two Shield toons (dm/shield brute, and bs/shield scrap).

    I support the nerf to SC for several reasons.
    1. It was never implemented as it was designed by Castle. No idea why that happened, or why it went live like that, but it did. As a result it is considerably better than L-rod in every way which is a no-no because it is a secondary power and L-rod is a primary power.

    2. By comparison it makes my Fire armor toons feel inadequate. Yes they are jealous of Shield users, my own included. Teams throw around a lot of defense buffs, which benefit my mildly build shielder more than my FA and because Shield's offense scales better to team buffs (particularly recharge) than fire's offensive powers the disparity becomes larger and larger.

    3. My blasters feel invalidated by Shield Charge. The current values of scrapper SC blow every blaster nuke out of the water with the exception of Rain of Arrows. I don't have a single blaster (other than arch) that wouldn't happily trade its t9 for SC. In fact the first time I used SC I said to myself "this is a blaster power" because of the huge radius, higher than any other scrapper power target cap and spammability of the power.

    4. I think they are trivializing team content too much. It is sort of "oh watch the shielder decimate entire spawns while we follow and pocket buff him". It detracts from the "fun" and contribution that other toons are there to make. An arch blaster can do similar but at least they usually need heavy support, a shielder with even a little bit of buffing gains "enough" survivability to basically become a tankmage. Additionally, while an arch blaster can wipe entire spawns it is much more subtle, SC is front and center and kabooms the entire screen. Like many things in this game the tangibility of the power plays are large part in how it is perceived.

    5. My position on the timing of this nerf and the progression of mistakes that have put us in this situation have been documented in previous posts. Suffice to say, it isn't positive. In fact, I think it should be hotfixed down to the original 133 damage value immediately. At which point if Castle frees up some spare time many months down the road like he said he can rework the power to how it is "intended" to be. That way the reworking won't be nearly as harsh and the current issue of it being ridiculously OP'd is placated.

    You said:

    "By comparison it makes my Fire armor toons feel inadequate. Yes they are jealous of Shield users, my own included."

    We've all agreed that FA is underperforming and needs a buff after being over-nerfed way back when. Buffing FA is better solution to your problem than busting down SD users.

    And what you're experiencing is the vastly imbalanced single target ability vs aoe ability in this game. You can ERASE SD and those imbalances will still be here. I'm sure you've teamed with fire/kins and mm's before. I remember feeling the way you do back when a buddy of mine put together a spine/da and wiped out entire spawns while I struggled to get a kill or two on my scrapper that was mostly single target.

    If you're mostly single target, you're just not as valuable on a team as and aoe centric toon. The solution is very simple - build an aoe centric toon, and you have a LOT of choices in at's and combos outside of SD.

    "Additionally, while an arch blaster can wipe entire spawns it is much more subtle, SC is front and center and kabooms the entire screen. Like many things in this game the tangibility of the power plays are large part in how it is perceived."

    Did you just call for a nerf to how it looks too, lol?
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrueMetal View Post
    Noone is concerned over the performance of a 'minor subculture' least of all me. That's not even remotely the problem. SC is vastly overpower for everyone.
    Saying that SC is 'vastly overpowered' is your opinion, and lucky for you, castle seems to agree with you. However, if it is agreed that SC is 'vastly overpowered' (I don't agree), then that simply adds weight to the complaints that a 'vastly overpowered' power somehow escaped detection by the devs for over a year and a half.

    Quote:
    Underplayed powersets because of nerfs? The only one I can think of that even remotly fits that description is Energy Melee, and the problem there is that they changed the feel of the powerset, instead of just the numbers. New players don't notice anything wrong with EM.
    First of all, yes EM is underpowered, and it's underpowered because they nerfed the numbers, and when you do that, it affects the 'feel' of the powerset. You don't think shield charging into a spawn with SC doing half damage isn't going to feel different? I can guarantee you it will, lol.

    And another set was pointed out numerous times in this thread - fire armor. A good chunk of this thread is made up of posters who want the old burn back (or other various buffs), and seem to have castles ear, despite the fact when FA was nerfed way back when, I'm sure we heard the same arguments about FA being 'vastly overpowered'. If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it, I guess.

    Quote:
    Overpowered sets that draw all the players towards them(like EM did, and SC does now to a lesser degree)because they clearly perform better than others, are far more detrimental to the game.
    I'd agree if people were only playing SD, but that is DEFINITELY not the case, not even close. You see a deceiving shift to SD use in these threads because most of the posters are powergamers going for extreme performance, something that SD is best suited for. Leveling up on SO's, SD is mediocre at best.

    It's very similar to how the devs reacted to posts that laughed at players who chose powersets other than EM, while ignoring the fact 99% of those posts were NOT in regard to pve and 90 some percent of the game, but were in regard to pvp, where EM was really the only viable melee set in the old version of pvp.


    Quote:
    Yes, it shouldn't have happened. But it did, and leaving it as is, is NOT the solution.
    Can you explain WHY leaving shield charge alone is not the solution? How exactly does it damage the game for you? Specific examples would be great.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by bAss_ackwards View Post
    I don't think it would be such a big deal. Obviously if the numbers get changed it's still going to do more than the Tanker version. It has to. That's just what our primary role is, Melee Damage. Some people talk about it like it would have to be reduced into the ground. Makes no sense to me. Another thing I don't see is them making Super Strength stronger than the Tanker version, but less competitive than our other sets because... well, it already is less competitive than other Melee damage sets except in AoE when the player finally gets Foot Stomp.
    Oh, I agree that SS doesn't need to be toned down based on the fact it's already, as you say, 'less competitive than other melee sets' (in terms of single target dmg) which is balanced with it's aoe ability, yet you still see posts like the one grey made where he thinks rage needs to be 'toned down'.
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hejtmane View Post
    I do not like the way brutes play period I have tried I hate furry

    I'll never understand the difficulty some claim with being attacked and attacking, something you do regardless, especially if you are playing a scrapper or brute. But to each their own I guess.
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gobbledygook View Post
    I agree that they are persuaded by forum posts, that's part of the reason why I started this little discussion.
    Not always though, or scrappers would have SS already...
  24. Dude, next time PM me, I'll sell you one for 750 mil...
  25. Quote:
    Originally Posted by TrueMetal View Post
    I'm sorry to break it to you, but this sort of thing really only matters to a small percentage if the player base. Most people don't bother with 'putting serious effort into making something superior'. Top level powergamers who only want to best performance out of their toons are a minor subculture in any game.
    So why be so concerned about the performance of a 'minor subculture'?

    Quote:
    So, 'detrimental to the health of the game' is a bit overstating, especially since the general trend over the past few years has been to buff sets and AT's as opossed to the 'nerfing' you guys are perceiving. It is, look at it with an unbiased mind.
    And the buffs worked wonders for underplayed powersets, while the nerfs in recent years have led to underplayed powersets. We're all talking about FA needing a buff after getting blugeoned by the nerf bat. So nerfs do seem to be detrimental to the health of any powerset that is hit by them, at least recently. If you start affecting the health of too many powersets, sooner or later that will affect the health of the game overall.

    Quote:
    Also bringing a power down from a level of performance it was never intended to have is more of a bug fix than a 'nerf' though that'll probably be pure semantics to most of you.
    I'd agree if it were caught in beta, or within a few months after release. But after a year and a half, and after being improved between then and now, I think it's pretty fair for players to expect the powers setting to be correct, not a bug. But yeah, whatever you call it is semantics, the bottom line is, the most popular power in the set could end up getting cut in half. That is a significant downgrade from what players have become accustomed to in the past 1.5 years.