Quickshadow

[ QUOTE ]
I think Quickness is actually better...it's also got anti-slow...so it it's like bullet time against teammates as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except it's not bullet time, it's softball time. A +20% to recharge without end cost and without activation is, certainly, a benefit. It is not a benefit that significantly increases our ability to withstand incoming attacks. At all. Now I know as scrappers we're supposed to be more concerned with offense, and that's fine. But we have a secondary for a reason. And after I-5, and after ED, our secondary serves very little purpose. As has been said, the fact that the combination of 6 of the nine powers can be replicated with a single inspiration is just silly.

I do just fine in I-5. I do just fine because of my primary, which gives me survivability as well as doing a decent amount of damage. Between TOF, my darkness master epic pool, and Siphon Life, I can use 'offensive' powers to survive quite effectively. That's nice. But I'd like to think that my secondary serves a purpose.

I think on test I'll run without toggles for awhile, and see if things seem significantly harder. I don't think they will. Well, I might. Don't know how much playtime I'll get in before it goes live.

[ QUOTE ]
With Enhancement Diversification comes a benefit for ALL City of Heroes powers.

Every power, across the board, is getting a 13.33% reduction in its Endurance cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I'd greet this with a "wahoo!" or some such. Oh, and before reading further... warning... cynicism ensues.

The problem with this bonus is that it has no logical relation to the ED issue itself, it looks like a little bribe to get us to stop spamming the boards with complaints about ED. Well, that's nice, but it doesn't change the problem of ED. This sort of distraction is now coming off to me as a bit insulting, designed to deflect attention from the Statesman's claims that he was done making major changes to powersets. While the literal minded among us will note that this isn't a change to powersets, just their enhancibility, I say 'Fie!'. We are not in a legal arena here. I am not interested in the letter of the statement, I am interested in its intent. And given the context of Statesman's statement, the intent certainly seemed to be to convey the idea that they were done focusing on changing how powers work. This change drastically affects how the vast majority of powers work. I am rather unhappy that this is the reward I get for being a happy camper and adjusting to the changes, and respec'ing, and trying to look reasonably at the overall balance.

Some good arguments can be made for the idea of encouraging diversification in slotting. The execution thrust upon us, and tested without our input for months, is simply horrible. It does not take into effect that many powers already provide less advantage from full slotting than others. Some powers had built in slotting weakness (Please, someone explain to me why DEF and DR enhancements are Class "B"?!), and that other powers can't be usefully slotted with multiple enhancments.

I'll hapilly toss you back your bone of across the board endo reduction, Posi, if you and the Dev team instead give us a list of how each power is expected to benefit from this change, or list useful slotting variations for each power given how the game is designed. And until you let characters outrange their enemies at mid-high levels by using a couple or three range enhancers, don't talk to me about range. Or recharge. Many of us have gotten along just fine without perma-hasten, and would continue to do so without this change.

I will give credit that with this change, ED might reasonably resulted in fewer builds with Stamina, without an (independent) nerf to stamina. That's about the best I see coming out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
My fellow Heroes, I am here to bid you all a fond farewell.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Say it ain't it so Gil!!

Oh... and....

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Well, good luck on your new path... ya bastich!

And can I have your name?! and your stuff?!

[ QUOTE ]
What is the base % of a player to hit you for pvp?

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently 75.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever seen R.O.D.? If not, think about using electricty to attract the bullets with out them hitting you. So it'd be like defense, with energy resistance and possible negitive energy and fire resistance.

But if you haven't seen R.O.D. go see it now!

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll bite. What the heck is R.O.D.? Besides a potentially pornographic spy organization?

removed

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. Well, someone (I've forgotten who) suggested adding a Damage Debuff to one of the powers - and we did! Chilling Embrace gains the ability to debuff mob damage (though it's Recharge debuff is slightly slower now).

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, that'd be nice for SR, too. Put it in Practiced Brawler. (Or a minor heal.) Might solve some of the problems quite nicely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mentioning this over to the Scrapper forum.. hope ya don't mind.

[ QUOTE ]
I still contend that a defense bonus that only applies outside of combat is of no practical value.

I think a much simpler and more straightforward solution is to put the defense bonus at it's "suppressed" value, and leave it there. Much easier for everyone involved, and much less confusing to explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Although testing in the scrapper forum puts the UNSUPPRESSED defense bonus of stealth (COD was tested which does not lose def when seen) at 2.5%. That means "non-primary" stealth powers have an effective def of 1.25% in combat. Essentially pointless, whether your using a def set or not. So making two different def bonuses for the primary and non-primary powers and removing suppression alleviates some confusion, but does not alleviate the uselessness of the defense buff, particularly when combined with stealth suppression.

Statesman, I think the dev team may be getting a little too caught up in numbers, which is something the playerbase has been for awhile. But your leaving any sort of theme or concept in the dust. Really, what is the point of cloaking device. To allow a blaster to get off a shot without being seen? The blaster can already do this, because of range. What is the point of superior invisibility if it reduces the chance of the controller to be hit by 1 in 40. 1 in 20 if fully slotted. This is pointless. You've removed the def buff of hasten (a good call on a still extremely potent level 6 power), that cut the defenses of most power gamers by 5% right there. You dropped the defense of combat jumping and hover by half, removing another 2.5% from most builds. You crushed the power of defense sets, who now can't even rely on a single minion missing. Controllers, blasters and defenders are not going to be rendered unhittable by stealth powers in their current form if the stealth suppresses (which it should, thematically). In the case of many, the stealth powers inherint in their sets are the sole means of defense, and even with a reduction of stealth powers to an actual number, say 5%, defense suppression isn't necessary. You're talking about a squishie having to expend quite a few slots for a defense of 10-15% under the current system. This cannot possibly be considered an overpowering level of defense. Worried about stealth and cloaking device stacking? Make sure they don't. Make sure stealth defense bonuses and effects don't stack.

The reason I'm arguing so fervently for the bonus to be restored is that it's among the more conceptual powers in the game. Invisible controllers, shadowy scrappers, chameleon suited blasters, cloud covered defenders, are all pretty neat things. And should gain a benefit. I know that you're worried about the effects of combined def and resistance, but given the changes to primary powers which provide this, I don't think giving stealth a reasonable defense bonus is going to break anything at this point.

From a practical matter, the def changes don't make sense. I can actually see your point for the power 'stealth', which implies simply a shadow blending ability (even thought it's the one I bloody use) and assumes you must emerge from the shadows to fight. But most other stealth powers do not imply you become more visible when you fight. Cloaking device imparts either invisibility or a chameleon like power: Both of which still make you damn hard to hit in combat. Superior Invisibility... well duh. If you never become visible... WOW should you be hard to hit. Steamy mist still obscures your form even in combat. Cloak of darkness still surrounds you in inky blackness making your body actually impossible to see.

A lot of players decry 'cookie cutter builds'. I'm starting to see evidence of 'cookie cutter powers'. Instead of having different rules for each stealth effect based on how it works, you attempt to apply a consistent set of numbers and rules. This is not the way to go if you want to encourage variety and stratgic play. Superior invisibility should probably be the hardest to hit, cloak of darkness, steamy mist, cloaking device, etc. should impart a noticeable (5%+) defense buff which is NOT suppressed. Stealth, okay, fine reduce the defense bonus in combat, but make the defense bonus suppressed at least around the same as the other pool powers which impart combat defense.

I know I'm ranting a bit, but I'm really dissapointed in how identical changes are made to powers which should not be treated identically.

I don't mind the overall 'nerfing' so much, but I think it was not done with enough attention to character concept and theme. Please take a look at this stuff. It may be too late for I-5, but maybe I-6 will give you a chance.

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't possibly agree more. Honesty is one thing, but being proffesional when speaking to customers is another. It's almost as though he's saying that we're a lower class of people so it's ok to be a jerk.

I am honest every day at my job, when someone is wrong or has misunderstood something, I have to tell them. But I do it nicely. What's wrong with that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing's wrong with that. But we're not co-workers. And there is a significant minority of posters who don't feel the need to say things politely or courteously. In fact, the amount of personal mud that has been slung at the developers in general and Statesman in particular is simply embarrassing. Moreover, when have to explain something to a client more than once, much less over and over, I tend to get testy too. The clients don't leave, they start listening because I am providing a service that it's difficult for them to get elsewhere, as is Jack. Clearly, the game is meant to be played differently in I-5. While it's obviously not, as some folks have claimed, 1 hero=3 minions, clearly the spawn described in the post that's got everyone's attention was not meant to be soloed. And Jack's response was, as most are, taken out of context. He said the ZONE was meant for groups of 5+ players, not that particular spawn. He was driving home the point that the hazard zones are no longer a place for solo farming.

Whether or not you (and for this and the rest of this post I don't mean you, TheMiddleman, it's just a general rant)
agree with this vision is one thing, but the vision has been laid out. We can try convince the devs to change it or we can try to adapt to it. Either tact is justifiable, and a matter of preference. But ignoring it, as many posters are doing (And I still see quite a few posts complaining how difficult it is to HERD in I-5) is going to get you snarked at.

However, I don't recall Statesman ever calling a poster or the player community a *censored*, *censored*, or even a *censored*; things Jack gets called all the time on these forums. People feel free to call him things that if said to a number of people (including me) in RL would lead to a fistfight.

If the player community wants courtesy, then it needs to start by giving some. If it wants answers, then let Statesman give them without worrying about whether it might hurt someone's feelings. Geezus, these are the forums. If folks are going to be insulted or upset by sarcasm, then maybe the forums aren't for you. Heck, the game very well might not be for you. I've noticed far more sarcasm than RPing in the game.

Anyway, thanks for the vent. And to Statesman, as I said above, I hope your brother's tour in Iraq is boring and uneventful and that he returns home ASAP.

EDITED for typos. Too damn early for this.

Glad you popped in to let us know and I hope your brother finds his tour as uneventful as possible. I wouldn't worry about how 'snarky' your responses sound. Those who want to will tear apart anything you say, polished or not, so don't bother polishing. On the other hand, you better keep Posi busy on some of these questions, because there's either a lot of bugs or a lot of stuff that missed the patch notes. If you think you miss CuppaJo NOW... just wait.

And welcome back.

Here's an idea from a non-fire tanker, but one who has teamed with many from low levels through 50 (via SK). Burn was overpowered at it's height. A tanker needed no attack powers to defeat mobs. Whether quickly or slowly, the fire tanker could rely entirely on his primary to defeat enemies. This was a problem since that same set ALSO provided substanital defense (though certainly less than fire and stone). This was a good trade off. Between blazing aura and burn, the fire tank could cause continuing damage to his foes, at the cost of less defense than other tanks (leaving ice out because I'm completely ignorant of that set).

The AI burn changes were painful, but were consistent with similar types of powers, such as rain. They were, however, inconsistent with aura powers.

Perhaps the best solution is to change burn from a 'patch' power, to another aura. It would be a click aura, with a recharge similar to the new version, requiring a trade off of damage for availibility. It would do some respectable amount of damage, specifics of which I'd leave to more experienced fire tankers, as a continuing PBAOE (until the duration ended of course). However, as a trade off consistent with the set, when active, it would reduce the power of any fire shields running (fire and plasma shield) by a noticeable percentage (10-20). This of course would be 10-20% of the value of the field, not a base 10-20% reduction in resistance.

As an example, Burning Bevil is running fire and plasma shield. He has fire shield slotted to provide 50% S/L resistance, and Plasma Shield slotted to provide 50% F/C/E/N resistance (yes, I know it provides different resistances to fire, cold and energy, but this is an example). He steps into a group of 4 minions and 2 LTs and activates his Burn Aura. He begins inflicting substantial damage on those in melee range. However, his shield effectiveness is reduced by 20% (arbitrary number) and he now only has 40% damage resistance to S/L from his fire shield, and 40% to other damage types from Plasma shield. He is now doing what we expect a fire tank to do.. sacrificing defense for offense.

The in game explanation is simple. To emenate fires hot enough to so greatly damage his foes, the fire tank transfers some of his energy resources from defense.

Because it is an aura power, mobs seek to defeat the tank to prevent being damaged rather than running. It does not cause fear. However, this is even more reasonable because the tank just got easier to hit. Burn remains a singular offensive power, but no requires tactics to hit, especially considering the tank's defense is reduced for the duration of the power. Due to the resistance reduction, this change would also help in deterring herding, if that's part of the intent of the changes.

I picked 20% in the above example because I believe that's the maximum sensible resistance reduction. 10-15% might be more reasonable.

I'm not suggesting this as a way to weaken fire tankers, but to enable them to retain the feeling of being FIRE tanks without keeping burn as overpowered as it was at it's height.

The best suggestion I saw in here that I like almost as much was Plasma's idea to treat burn as an accelerant, making those in the AOE when it goes off unable to escape the damage. Others might wander in, take a bit and run away in fear. It greatly decreases the uberness of the power without making it worth less than the slots required to take and use it.

[ QUOTE ]
Winter is Coming (cookie for naming the reference): Click power, long recharge, Ranged AoE with a small radius. The Ice tank channels air/snow/ice directly from the north pole to a spot chosen by the Ice tank. Affected enemies (roll to hit) have all they're damage changed to DoT for 20-30 seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going for my cookie now. Reference is to the Mantra of the Starks of Winterfell in the Song of Ice and Fire Series by George R.R. Martin. Chocolote chip is fine, but chocolate chunk would be better.

Oh, and to all those upset about the usage of 'crying'? As stated above: Context. Crying in this context generally lends to plead or to declaim strongly, as in "he was crying for help" or " 'To Arms!' He cried". Notice that when you hit the F-10 key you shout your Battle CRY!? The oversensitivity is not helping. Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
If not that, will they get crazy elemental kung fu?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Kali, I read a post from a guy who talked to another guy who heard his friend talk about an article that referenced an interview that Statesman gave. The upshot:

Elemental Kung-Fu is a scrapper primary in I-6! Whoot! Maybe they'll test it out with the Thorn Casters?!




And for the extremely reactionary among you... I kid, I kid.

[ QUOTE ]
The changes didn't bother me that much, but this does beg the question: Why not just balance the endgame content without considering HOs and let HOs be a plus? If someone isn't having "fun" being so powerful, then they had the easy option of erasing those HOs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to guess (and well, I do actually), I think the easy answer to your question is that in balancing the endgame content, the Dev team determined that HOs as they were previously blew the reward out of proportion to the risk. In one of the deleted Statesman posts summed up by Cuppa in the official thread, Statesman indicated that the endgame content will have some risk, even for 50s. If an HO'd character has significantly reduced risk compared to a non-HO'd character, than the equation for the content is blown.

By extending your reasoning, I could ask: "Why aren't all missions set to a level challenging to a solo emp/psy defender, and if you're a different AT it's a bonus". Statesman clearly doesn't want Loot to overly skew the risk v. reward equation.

I'm sure I'll be labelled a nerfherder, a dev apologist and all sorts of things,(Hopefully not by you EG) but viewed this way the change makes sense to me. I suspect this will not be the only change we see as a result of high end content. There has to be some kind of change to introduce risk. The high end content that all level 50s want will come with a price. It has to. Moreover, I think Statesman will want characters to be able to jump into the endgame content. If New50's much older buddy, who had nothing to do with his L50 but Hammi raids for 5 months is breezing through content that's killilng him, New50 is going to decide the only way to do the content is to first farm Hammi for awhile. I don't think this is what States or the devs want.

Of course, I may be talking out my [self-censored], but that's they way I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of Hephaestus not being Hera's son, however. That's very odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is odd, because I posted badly. I meant I'd never heard of Heph not being Zeus' son. I believe he was the son of Zeus and Hera. I've never heard of him being Hera's son but no Zeus' is what I meant to say. Sorry for that confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Just a name. No info whatesover. It does sound magical or mystical, but all we know is that it's an epic AT. (That means it's not a powerset). That's all... we don't even know that it's only for villains... (wait, do we?).

[/ QUOTE ]

It seem unlikely that this would be a villainous AT as it was listed some time ago as one of the epic ATs for City of Heroes, not City of Villains.

[ QUOTE ]
Hepheastus wasn't Zeus Son. Hera bore him without help from Zeus in revenge for Zeus bearing Athena without Hera's help. Sometimes this is said to be why Hepheastus was born Lame. In some stories it is Hera who tosses him off of Olympus because of his Handicap. Other stories Zeus tossed him off because he intervenes in a fight between Zeus and Hera.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be really interested in a cite for this one, because I've never heard of Heph being Hera's offspring. The intervention in the fight between Hera and Zeus as the reason for his tossing is familiar though.

Apparently there are at least 3 different versions of the story floating around just on this thread. I wonder how many have actually been published?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heck, he literally threw his son Hephasteus [sic] off of Olympus for some minor transgression, resulting in the god of the forge being maimed for life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, Hera was the one who threw him off Olympus. Hera was obsessed with trying to have an absolutely beautiful child to impress Zeus so he'd stop screwing around with mortals. When she had the less than comely Hephaestus, she was so disgusted with him that she threw him off of Olympus. He didn't die from the fall, of course, being a god, but he was eternally crippled due to his legs being broken.

So recap: Zeus=Pretty good guy besides the adultery, and not to mention a pretty good father (Helped Heracles out even while Hera WAS FREAKING TRYING TO KILL HIM, kept the still fetal Dionysus in his leg, making him be born a god, etc. etc.)

Hera=Manipulative, jealous, and THROWER OF BABIES OFF OF MOUNTAINS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, apparently it depends on which author you've read. I encountered the version I cited in several texts in my Grandfather's library when I was young.

[ QUOTE ]
Ehhhh, I think you've read too many silly stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, most of the silly stories portray vikings as a warrior race. You are correct that they were mostly traders and such, few civilizations after Sparta and Persia subsisted primarily on warfare. However, there were Viking raiders, and they were merciless and tended to pick the easiest targets. This did not distinguish them from other Sea or Land raiders of the day, but it did distinguish them from the description given of them in the quote I was responding to. I was not giving an analysis of Norse culture, rather responding to a particular description of their warriors. I don't want to get involved an a history war here, just clarifying the context of my comment.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, Incarnate refers to a deity. Statesman is "Zeus Incarnate" Zeus in the Flesh. Zeus inhabits the body of Statesman.

Likely hades inhabits the body of Lord Recluse

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of problems with this theory. First, Zeus was really no less evil than Hades. He was lecherous, vengeful, petty, selfish and had very little self-control. Heck, he literally threw his son Hephasteus [sic] off of Olympus for some minor transgression, resulting in the god of the forge being maimed for life.

Likewise, Hades wasn't really evil. He would occasionally allow souls to be released from his realm, or at least give them the chance. Moreover, he not only rules over Tartarus (the greek version of hell) but also the Elysian Fields (the paradise of the afterlife). He and Zues were brothers who each had a dominion over a third of the realms under their control: Zues - The Sky, Posieden: The Oceans, and Hades: The Underworld.

I, of course, haven't received the second issue yet. So if Statesman is connected with Zues, it's likely only that he received his power, not that he is an 'incarnation'. I don't recall any connection between Hades and Spiders, and he seems to have only one obvious follower with 'Death' like powers (Ghost Widow), so I'm not at all convinced Lord Recluse is connected with Hades. Time will tell though. Should be an interesting ride.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Viking mythology certainly glorified battle, but their actions simply glorified the acquisition of wealth. (Hmm.. sounds kind of familiar actually. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Like "heroes" who powerlevel and/or whine for influence handouts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not what I had in mind, but I won't argue with it.

I should also note that the vikings were fierce warriors when challenged, but their history indicates they picked targets to avoid challenge when they could.

[ QUOTE ]
The vikings werent evil but carried similar beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, more nitpickiness, but the Vikings were pretty darn nasty. They didn't relish battle, they relished loot. That's why many of their attacks were directed against essentially undefended targets: Coastal Villages, Monastaries and churches, etc. And they seemed to get a big kick out of slaughtering everyone wherever they landed, whether offering opposition or not. Viking mythology certainly glorified battle, but their actions simply glorified the acquisition of wealth. (Hmm.. sounds kind of familiar actually. )

BAH! Now they're nerfing devs? That's it, I quit!

Seriously, thanks for helping keep the game running smooth and good luck in your next assignment. Pay us a stealth visit once in awhile.

21/21 - Not surprising since there's a stash of comics on the shelf behind me. Geekdom is Forever! And despite that I still have no idea who Captain Courage is!

Seems to me I've also read a bit about villain range scales with level, and blaster range doesn't, thus removing one of the few defensive advantages available to the AT. Should a minion really be able to return fire at a sniping blaster without closing in a bit?

Don't play my blaster much, so I'm going off of board commentary, but late game range seems to be mentioned pretty consistently.

Plus.. I want to see blasters get some love.