Cyber_naut

Why not? That creates diversity and flavor. And that's how this game operates on many levels. Strong aoe builds usually are balanced by having poor single target abilities and visa versa. Strong team at's are usually balanced by being weak solo, and visa versa. Some powersets start off weak but reward you at the end with above average power. Trying to make everything 'balanced' by making them the same or on par in every circumstance and at every point in the game, would ruin this game, imo. This game is built around variability and difference.



Is this sarcasm? If not it doesn't seem to mesh with what you said earlier. I, for one, am willing to (and enjoy) going down the hard road for the bigger reward at the end, and like the fact I have that option in this game. And if it's harder to level a set, shouldn't you get bigger rewards at the end? I would argue, absolutely.

The alternative is to have all the sets level the same, do basically the same stuff so they can be on par with eachother in all or most situations, with all the same levels of payoff at the end. Sounds boring to me.

You said in one paragraph from the post I quoted, nerfing SD doesn't make sense, then later said you could still see it happening, and in this post, you say you see logic behind the argument for a nerf. Dude, that's a contradiction.



So you're just saying 'anything can happen'? OK...



Just pointing out that trying to balance everything in every situation is futile and foolish, because there are too many situations and variables, and it's ok for some sets to be better than others in certain situations. And that most of the scrapper secondaries are balanced out overall. SD is the best top end build, but it pays for that by being an underperformer for most of it's lifespan, especially leveling up.

The devs made the same mistake with energy melee. Yes, energy melee dominated single target damage, but it paid for that with pitiful aoe dmg. But the devs listened to the cries of people who only saw where it overperformed (ironically, mostly from pvp experiences), and brought it's single target dmg down to par with several other sets that at the same time ate em's lunch in terms of aoe dmg.



I wasn't implying that is what happens. But if the devs were to consistently follow the logic that all sets must be on par in all situations, they'd be really busy with nerfs and buffs for the remainder of this games lifespan, because this game is all about diversity, and some sets are much better than others in certain situations.



Hey here's the contradiciton again, in your opinion, it doesn't make sense to you to lower SD's top end performance, but at the same time you can see the logic behind the argument that it should be lowered. Either the argument to lower SD's top end performance is logically sound or it 'doesn't make sense', it can't be both.



My point was, if you can't find a challenge in this game with the new difficulty slider and ae, then yes, you're doing it wrong. Of course your friends pimped out build can handle a 'large %' of the challenges this game can throw at him. But again, by not saying 'all' of the challenges, even you admit there is a percentage of challenges in this game that can challenge him, and with the diff slider and ae, it's very easy to serve them up at any time so your buddy can be challenged, even on his super duper elec/sd.



Aw, no need to get upset, lol.

(But again, either there is logic behind the change, or it doesn't make sense, pick one or you're contradicting yourself.)

My hope is that after preordering it, the devs would at least start releasing more details at this point.

LOL, I'm not 'useing' backwards reasoning. I was simply talking about scientific explanations for what we perceive as 'magic', nothing more.

And excalibur is a myth, unless you've got access to some evidence I've never seen to prove it existed. But say it was an actual sword that some chick in a lake handed off to some medieval dude, and it could 'magically' be thrust into solid stone. That's not a regular sword, it's either magical, or maybe it was just perceived as magical by the medieval dipshits who thought you could cure cancer by bleeding people, when in fact it was simply advanced technology passed on by an alien lake chick for reasons unknown. Obviously, in reality, it's just a damn story, but if you were writing about it as if it were reality, an author would consider those two explanations as potentially viable.

I didn't claim it was new, I even mentioned that the idea was used in stargate...

I wasn't arguing that you can't have magic in a fantasy world...

Since regen requires lots of clicking and timing, it definitely takes reflexes and more skill than a set that you just turn toggles on for. But a big part of your comparison problem is spines, which generates lots of aggro and has really long animations.

A nerf is a nerf by any other name, even if you call it 'balancing', lol.

And you seem to contradict yourself. In the first paragraph you plainly state that you 'assuredly don't want to see a nerf' and that it 'wouldn't make sense'. Then in the next paragraph you wouldn't be suprised to see the set 'balanced', then even suggest how it should be done. I guess you could argue that the balancing is part nerf, part buff, but the overall effect would clearly nerf top end performance.

Good luck 'balancing' all of the sets for every single situation. If you want to 'balance' sd for top end performance, then every other set will need to be 'balanced' for every other situation. See the problem? Again, it's ok for SD to be the best top end performer, because it is clearly outperformed in many other instances. As I explained earlier, SD is already balanced in that it underperforms for most of its lifespan until it hits top end performance late game and with hefty IO investment.

My suggestion for the devs would be to leave sets your customers clearly enjoy alone, and buff the sets nobody likes or plays. The result will be more happy customers, more money for the game, and a better, more robust game. Look at what the buff to dark melee did for that set. Also, perhaps they could start coming out with more IO's to benefit non-defensive builds more, or improve the ones already out there.

Furthermore, there's no reason to nerf for lack of difficulty now with the new difficulty rules. If you can't challenge yourself with the new difficulty slider and/or AE, you're doing it wrong.

Why do people who like competing sets feel compelled to call for nerfs to sets that challenge the set they like, lol? (based on "I can't help but think SD is due for some bat smacking")

Looking at 3 bil tricked out SD builds and calling for nerfs is insane, imo. It's true that at the top end, SD is the best secondary because you can fill it's defensive gaps with IO bonuses and it comes with the glorious offensive treat that is shield charge. But that is balanced by the fact that leveling up and with less than billionaire funds, SD underperforms defensively to competing sets (as it should, which is why it gets the offensive boost, shield charge, which still doesnt come until the end of the set), even you point that out in your last paragraph.

You're paying for end game power (at further considerable cost via IO investment) with leveling up comparative weakness. Then consider the fact most of the game is spent leveling up characters, and relatively few players engage in the 'power gamer' contests we see in this forum. For the average player, I wouldn't even suggest SD as one of the top secondaries to use, assuming average gameplay, because it doesn't get very good without expensive IO investment and doesn't come into it's own until late game.

This. I prefer fire overall because dm's damage output is very reliant on soul drain, and fire puts out better aoe dmg with FSC. But in terms of av soloing, dm is definitely superior to fire thanks to siphon life. That self heal is a huge survivability bonus. But fm/sd and dm/sd are top notch combos either way.

Listen to the wern.


Take kick and put a chance for recharge proc in it for when somebody floors your recharge.

Tough will add some nice resists vs the most common dmg type in the game. If you don't already have the 3% def unique, get one and slap it in here or your other resist toggle.

Weave adds to the defense already in wp.


Focused accuracy is garbage now. You get added perception for free in wp, and like werner said, you can get a similar to hit bonus from a single io, rather than using a power pick on a power that eats WAY more end than it's worth.

Missing the point doesn't mean a point wasn't being made. You claimed that a poster who stated his opinion that brutes are superior to tanks, feels that way because he's 'just not that into tanks'. Maybe he just thinks tanks are inferior? You can be 'really into' a sports team that is inferior to other teams, and still state that the team you like is inferior. I'm really into at's, builds and powersets that are inferior to other at's, builds, and powersets, and if I state that said at, build or powerset is inferior to another, it does not negate the fact I"m 'really into' said at, build or powerset. I'm not trying to create 'clever backchat', I'm simply pointing out your faulty logic.

I think the most constructive way to argue would be to state your opinion and support it with examples and/or observations. It's my observation that as each at matures, a brute and tank have closer parity in regards to survivability and aggro management than the gap that exists in offensive abilities. That is why I would like to see tanks get a bit of a buff to give them a more definitive advantage in their defined role as aggro magnet. The fact is, many top end brutes will make a top end tank completely irrelevant on a team, nearly matching them in aggro management abilities while blowing them away in the damage department.

If you disagree, that's cool, lol. I'd love to hear your take on it, but if you're just going to claim I'm not that into tanks, don't bother.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they're 'not really all that into tanks'.

I agree with everything you've said here. I've been playing a dp corruptor the last few days and the poor damage is very noticeable. The reason everyone loves it is the flashy (great) animations and the fact it's been asked for for so long. It's flash over substance, without a doubt.

And the excuse for the set badly lagging behind other once you factor in IO's with 'the devs don't balance for IO's' is just an excuse for lazy game design. IO's are part of the game and should be considered when designing a powerset. A set that starts off subpar then gets worse with investment is a poorly designed set, power strength-wise.

I think an easy fix would be to improve the different ammo types and actually make them be noticeable improvements over the standard ammo rather than just being different. Using the fire rounds, for example, should boost your damage more than 5 dps, since it's purely a damage based bonus, and should at least move the set into mediocre territory damagewise.

Sunspot - scrapper. Definitely not a tank, definitely not a brute, definitely has super strength.

NAILED IT.

It simply would not be overpowered for scrappers. I remember hearing the same people crying doom when they removed the animation gaps from katana, claiming it would break the game, lol. It didn't and neither will giving scrappers SS.

And SS is definitely not overpowered for brutes or tanks. It's got mediocre single target damage, and one great aoe attack, coupled with a very annoying crash every couple of minutes. Tanks and brutes have ss yet the other sets manage to still get played. If you want single target dps, you definitely don't want ss, and there are other sets with better aoe. So again, 'overpowered' not found.

Everyone complains about footstomp being great, but is should be great. It's literally the only aoe the set has and you get it dead last in the set. Sure rage is nice for the to hit boost, but you need to spend a power to get it, slot it up, and then you're just doing damage on par with competing sets, so again, the only actual bonus to the power is the to hit bonus, which is overkill 90+% of the time in the pve game, and even that bonus is countered with a very annoying crash every couple of minutes where you do no damage, take an end hit and a def loss.

In regard to those saying it doesn't fit thematically with scrappers, thats just nonsense. Super strength is the iconic melee super power. To claim the melee specialist at should not have access to it seems pretty illogical to me. Scrappers, tanks and brutes are all pretty similar thematically, which is why they share many of the same sets, as they should. But if you're going to argue that being super strong doesnt fit with scrappers because they are inherently finesse while tankers and brutes are inherently more brutal, then good luck explaining dual blades being available on tanks. But beyond that, if there is one super power that should be available to all melee at's, it's the iconic SS.

I agree something is 'horribly broken'.

I would submit these reasons why this 'horribly broken' situation exists. One, the pvp revamp was TERRIBLE, thereby reducing player interest, and the drop rate is RIDICULOUSLY low, thereby destroying most interest that dynamic might have created for pvp.

The idea being expressed is that something we see as technology, a more primitive species would see as 'magic', simply because the technology is beyond their understanding, and when that happens, it gets put in the magic category. Most cavemen probably saw the the first guy who started using fire as some sort of crazy wizard. And when they saw lightining bolts, it was the gods getting pissed off because mookie was being mean to thog. We have used magic to accept things we don't understand throughout our history.

This topic always made me think of an interesting explanation for the gods, maybe for a sci-fi movie... lol. Maybe the legendary 'gods', zeus and whoever, were actually alien beings who were just hanging out on earth and playing with us monkeys. And all their god-like powers were just the result of their advanced technology and ancient man's inability to understand them. Maybe these alien 'gods' actually did create us, but not by using magic, by using science and advanced technology. The stargate movie kind of touched on this idea with the egyptian side of things.

I understand your marketing department doesn't have 'tv money' and I'm not expecting to see CoH mentioned during the superbowl, but I feel like your marketing department does a very poor job marketing this game. There are countless ways to create buzz that are absolutely FREE. I very rarely see any mention of this game anywhere. Even on your own site, the info is rare and far between, though very recently it seems moves were made to correct this. Your marketing team is far too secretive for it's own good. They should be leaking whatever they can about GR in bits and pieces to keep people interested, instead there has been a virtual lock down of info over the last few months.

And I'd disagree with your professor's statement (even though I'm thinking he made the statement in jest) - a GOOD marketing firm puts the product first, because if the product fails, there are no purse strings to keep a hold on. Obviously a marketing firm has to market itself to get jobs, but once it gets a job, it damn well better focus on product. The excuses offered 'its an old game' and 'the product evolves as we go' are poor excuses. The last thing marketing should want to do is give the idea that this game is old, they should be pointing out updates that make the game fresh and new (even if its BS...), and to answer the constant evolution problem, be vague if necessary, but keep the info flowing to your customers, and make them believe great new stuff is coming (again, even if its BS...). Hiding the game behind a wall of secrecy is simply bad marketing. People stop caring about the game and you start to bleed customers. And once you lose a customer, it's harder to get them back.

On the plus side, the recent moves to improve activity on this website are good ideas, as are the contests that have been implemented. But more info on GR, perhaps on a weekly basis, would create more buzz for GR and maintain interest among your current customers.