Grey Pilgrim

You really shouldn't need Strength of Will or Resurgence if you're grabbing Tough and Weave, so you can leave those out easily enough. I'm debating what to take on my last power for my WP/DB Tanker, as he hit 49 the other day. I might pick Resurgence or Strength of Will, just for those "oh, nuts" situations that you run into occasionally. I don't have too many of those, though, and WP with Tough and Weave is really easy mode for tanking.

I only have Quick Recovery on my WP/DB Tanker, and do just fine. I DO have IO sets for +recovery, though. All of 7.5%, but worth noting... I think any accolades you can get for +endurance will make a bigger difference. I have 113.6 Endurance total on mine (I have a couple set bonuses, but the 10 of those points come from the Atlas Medallion, which isn't hard to get, and Portal Jockey, which is admittedly harder to get) as well.

Even before getting the Accolades, though, I was okay with the Primary toggles running and just Tough. I really only noticed my blue bar going down when I was fighting for a long time stretch while solo (trying to clear War Wolf spawns in Striga in the 20s for those missions... ugh). I also tend to keep Sprint running, as I don't have the Fitness pool and this guy runs too slow without Sprint on. I try to remember to turn it off for longer fights, but even when I don't, my blue bar is just fine: which is saying something.

Stamina + Quick Recovery can make it so you never have to worry about your blue bar again. I prefer not having to take Stamina, though, as it frees up a power choice, and you can do fine without it by slotting your attacks and toggles well (don't forget end reducs in your attacks!). I may try revamping the build a bit so I can fit in Health and get even more Regen, but I really don't want to have to cram in Stamina, too.

Why will this kill lower level TFs? You may be able to SK up easier now, but most TFs still have level requirements, and there are other reasons for running lower level TFs (like merits, change of pace, etc.).

I could maybe understand the idea of debuffing a single target, but making Taunt ST to do it really doesn't make sense. Taunt was made an AOE because Tankers were grabbing Provoke instead to do their jobs as tanks. Making it into an ST tank would roll that back and make Tanks have a harder job controlling aggro, which is a BAD idea.

Really, if any kind of debuff was implemented, you'd want to make it an AOE of some sort... you could still use it against ST.

Ha, that first one is hilarious... snuck in there quite well at the end.

Ah, found the editing stuff. I can always remember the tags for bolding and such, but the link one never wants to stick in my head.

I hadn't heard about the quest/mission stuff for CO. I've really only seen videos of it at work in character creation and some in game action. What I saw looked pretty similar in setup, just with a different look. I suppose non-instanced missions can be nice for seeing people around more, but I rather like the instanced missions more. Feels a bit more immersive and fun than having to camp out to kill things.

Ouch.

I was reading the newest article from Castle on Powerset Proliferation, and I looked at the links to the right of the article out of curiousity. One in particular stood out, "The Top Ten Games of 2012." After reading through a bit, I realized I should have known it would be one of those silly articles that tries to predict things (made even more silly by selecting MMOs that were still in production and not even released yet). Linky for your perusal. http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cf...s-of-2012.html (ugh, and let me know how to get links to embed with text... not sure how it goes with the new forums)

Anyway, #9 stood out to me. "#9: A Superhero Based Game (DC, Marvel, or Champions)" Ouch, not even a mention of City of Heroes? Is the game that "doomed" to a game journalist's eyes? I know 2012 is a ways off, but considering the longevity of CoX, it seems a tad harsh. A Marvel MMO seems very iffy to me, considering the problems they've had before and how it would come in after DCU (just another comic IP... seems rather limited to me). Champions and its devs have consistently tried to sell itself as "look what we can do better than CoX," but then the dev team here have consistently showed over the past year (well, and more) that they're willing to add new and big things to the game, and steal the thunder from Champions (I love I16 coming out right when Champions does). I don't know much about DCU, though the videos I've seen look a lot like Champions, just with DC characters.

Anyway, how do things stack up from what you all have seen? I'll admit that CoX does have older content, and that the devs here have to really get going on that (and map types) to give CoX wings to the future, but it seems like it should have a lot more going for it than this article gives credit to (almost seems a slap in the face, after all the articles the devs put on the site). I may give Champions a trial just to see what it's like (if they have trials), but it really looks a lot like Cryptic trying to make a CoX 2 from the videos I've seen. So really, just the same thing, but with different graphics and missions. I know the setup is a little different, but looking at power lists and even the character selection/creation screen bugs me, as it is SO like CoX.

I honestly have no interest in DCU. I don't really want to play hero in a world with Superman, etc. It's far too established and doesn't feel like I can "make my own mark" (as silly as that sounds for an MMO). What I like about CoX is how it is more open for us, and for the developers to make their own stories, etc.

Meh, it's late and I'm rambling. But what do you all think?

Probably the biggest problem for Invuln is "health drain," from small amounts of damage slowly adding up. As it is, it has a good combination of defense, resists, and Dull Pain. I don't think it needs much, other than perhaps a small amount of regen. Oh, and the name change to Temp. Invulnerability is definitely a good idea as well.

Is that concur or conquer?

This should be pretty nice. Having just gone through the woes of finding enough 40s or high 30s people to play on my Tina Macintyre and Maria Jenkins teams in the mid-40s, this will make things a lot nicer. I won't have to worry about inviting a 50 as I have no one to exemp them with, or wonder what level the person is at that is wanting in on my team, etc.

The e-mail feature will be nice as well.

I wasn't very keen on the "more xp for the first 20 levels" feature. Those already race by fast enough... it seems like a cop out for them providing a more meaty/good response. Rather than adding a feature for endurance that's similar to the accuracy buff for the first 20 levels, improving the content there, or adjusting the absolute need for Stamina on most build, etc., they've just chosen to do the easy thing. It's something of a backfire how easy XP can be in this game... 50s are starting to get meaningless, as well as 2xp weekends. Perhaps that will change with their ideas for more content at level 50, but I always liked how CoX was about the entire journey, not just the end game.

Well, the game is supposedly balance around using only SOs, but the devs (Castle or BAB in particular, if I'm not mistaken) said that they'd be foolish not to take them into account when creating content. So you can factor them into the equation. Scrappers being able to soft-cap and get a good amount of mitigation from IOs is something we can take into account. How common and unexpensive such builds are might be more open to debate, but it is something you have to think about with game balance. At least to some extent.

Speaking of Blasters, I seriously have to wonder what tougher content will bring for them. The game is probably just about right in terms of difficulty for squishier ATs. You can get in over your head as a Blaster, but with the new Defiance, you can solo constantly from 1-50 if you're smart about it (especially if you have ways to mitigate bosses reliably: be it KB, or stacked disorient or holds). There are some minor tweaks that some of the sets could use, but I think Blasters are in a solid position, even after GR.

I used to feel Tanks were in the same spot, but they could use a little something to make them have a more solid role/ability/niche (not much, but enough so this whole "Scrappers and Brutes are better!" feeling can die down). Yes, I know they have a role, but they could stand out a bit more.

Sorciere, you're disagreeing with them, which means you want to only fight 1-2 mobs. Somehow my discussing the aggro cap as being okay where it is meant I wanted to fight only 7 mobs at once, a few pages back. If you're against raising the aggro cap, you're against having fun in the game and being heroic, that's clear.

It has nothing to do with the fact that some are arguing this idea won't really help things out for the game or tanks. Nope, anyone against it is just plain not fun. Nasty, not fun people, get out of this thread!

I should be there. And hey, new smilies! If only they had a listing of all the ones you could use while posting!

If it helps, I noticed what you did.

Even if Incarnates are added to the game, they're not going to be l33t tank mages, bulldozing through everything in their path. They will have to be balanced with the game's content, just like every other AT. That was the silly thing about calling Kheldians and "epic" archetype. The devs meant "story-centered," but to players, epic meant "l33t tank mage," so they had bad expectations.

It's a game, requiring balance to make it work. Comics and books require other types of "balancing" to make them work.

If I recall correctly, Posi went on record way back when, saying that we were lucky we got to save any enhancements at all. Given that, I highly doubt we're going to get more. I can see other features coming before that.

Yeah, I can usually get behind ideas for some buffs to tanks, as long as they're not advocated along with some tinfoil hat logic, or outright angst, antagonism, and a need to rip into anyone that doesn't agree with the advocator's opinion. And this applies to anyone, not just one poster or two.

Which is why Fiery Aura needs a variety of little tweaks. Fiery Embrace doesn't make sense only buffing Fire damage for the 20 seconds. It doesn't make sense for Consume to have the long recharge it does, either (it should be at least cut to 90 seconds, if not the 60 seconds that Energy Absorption from Ice Armor gets). Burn needs to reliably DO damage. Put it on a long recharge but with no fear effect, or make it another PBAOE with good damage that will hit the mobs.

No one power in Fiery Aura needs to be equivalent to Shield Charge or AAO. Saying Fiery Embrace isn't as good as AAO doesn't really matter. It's how the two sets stack up. I would agree that Shields is a better and more effective all around set. You can quibble about how much you like Shield Cover, but the whole Shields set is conceived and executed much better than Fiery Aura, as things stand now. Fiery Embrace is okay, but it's got a lot of wonkiness from the years of nerfs, etc.

If the above changes were made, the two sets would be okay and balanced, I would say (though it's hard to say without playing it and seeing how they were changed). Burn would actually add to your offense reliably (reliably is the key word: you don't need a hold or immobilize to make Shield Charge work reliably), Fiery Embrace would help every secondary, and Consume would be a bonus that Shields does not have, so AAO being a more consistent source of damage would not matter (though it doesn't do damage itself like Blazing Aura does, which IS a bonus). Different bonuses that would be fun to have.

Burn needs help. Consume needs help. Already said that Fiery Aura needs help... said it LOTS of times in many posts, starting well before Shields came out. However, people do tend to sell it short. Shield Charge is great and all, but it's not the be-all, end-all: your primary has a lot more effect on your AOE capability. Hence people liking the idea of Shield/SS or Shield/Elec, etc. That was my point, which people kind of looked over and instead pointed at me talking about one combination of powersets (which I admitted as well).

Fiery Embrace really should affect all damage types for the 20 seconds, and then it would probably be okay. I think people need to look at it more as an addition to Build-Up, rather than to be used on its own. You can double up both powers, or use them separately for a longer time with +damage.

Also, I really wouldn't want to take Shields with just SOs, either. Mine is great at the def cap, but it can still get squishy fighting lots of DE or Veng-stacked Nemesis, which I've done a lot with him: if he wasn't at the def cap, I'd notice his issues a lot more. You can pick up a lot of power pools to to get close to it if you're just using SOs, of course, but that does limit your build a fair amount, too.

So yeah, Fiery Aura could use some help, but it's not like some have painted it on the forums.

Your call, but I wouldn't drop Incinerate and Greater Fire Sword. Those are your big ST damage powers, and I know I always feel their lack when I exemp below 35. And I wouldn't worry about getting burn, unless you have a good, consistent plan for keeping enemies in the patch.

Yeah, the liking of a game is pretty much moot. If you're playing it a lot, you probably like it. Heh. I just still find WoW's overwhelming popularity to be a little confusing. It was fun, but it wasn't THAT great. But of course, I still can't figure out why some people think Final Fantasy VII was the best Final Fantasy ever, when FFVI and IV blow it out of the water (even if their graphics aren't good, nor are FF VII's anymore).