Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/17/19 in all areas

  1. 16 points
    I have not had a chance to go through this entire thread but I saw the subject and wanted to drop a quick comment: The AT will go through what may be considered a drastic revamp, I do have my hands full right now so it wont happen soon. Things I can say at this time: the entire inherent will be scrapped. The original goal was the sentinel would do lower than scrapper damage half the time, and half the time inside offensive opportunity they would do DPS much higher than scrapper, averaging to 50/50 bit below scrapper damage. Once the inherent is scrapped, the AT damage scale will go up to be comparable (not equal) to scrappers. The AT will get a new inherent that wont be as required to sustain dps, if at all. My current goal is for the AT to do a bit of honor to it's name and become a bit of a spotter/lookout, via inherent mechanics. Things that wont happen (again sorry if I misread) are target cap increases or any addition of taunting capabilities. The goal of the AT is to be akin to a ranged scrapper, not an armored blaster, much less an off-tank.
  2. 15 points
    You go to yourself... "Surely I've arrested enough Skuls by now" And it turns out you were supposed to be hunting The Lost...
  3. 14 points
    No. The ease of leveling up new characters is the single biggest factor in me sticking around, I have zero desire to grind out character after character for 100s of hours.. If you don't like it, don't do it. Stop trying to ruin other people's fun.
  4. 11 points
    Trolling is defined by intent, not effect. Dismissing an idea as an attempt to troll is a fallacy whether you're correct or not. Whether you're correct or not is often impossible to actually prove. Best to stick to arguing the merits of the idea than the intentions of the person. As for the topic at hand, and let me be very clear here: I speak for myself, not the team at large. I agree that topics that cover reducing the effectiveness of anything are going to be more divisive than those that talk about boosting the effectiveness. That's just the nature of our society. I agree that topics that are blatant calls to nerf something without providing any objective and verifiable reasons for doing so should be frowned upon, and if such reason refused to be provided, moderated if they persist. It is the burden of the person trying to enact change to prove that change is warranted, and if they aren't willing to put in the time and effort to gather enough data for at least a strong starting point it's going to be difficult to make any progress. I disagree that we should issue a blanket ban on discussing whether something is overperforming. This is an important part of game design, especially when there's a PvP aspect to consider. We should expect a high bar for the basis of these discussions. Those bringing the topic up should realize the burden of proof is on them and that that proof must be fairly exhaustively provided and in a manner that can be verified and that both applies to the game in a general sense, and that takes into consideration all levels of play not just a single facet. Solutions should be refrained from being posted before a problem is actually proven. This high expectation goes both ways and if those with the burden of proof are working on gathering information it should be expected that any dissent will be done with the same level of attention to details. By all means, call out what is missing from the data, what considerations haven't been taken. But don't use those gaps as 'proof' that there isn't an issue if you aren't willing to provide the same level of data, especially when what is being provided at least suggests there may be reason for further research. There has been some discussion around 'balancing points' or where the game should be balanced. This has merit in many places, where what to balance around is definitely something that should be established first and foremost. But where there is a balancing point is powerset performance within an AT, attack sets in particular. It isn't a perfect system, but the relative performance within that metric should be considered. There is a median, and there will be those that are above and below that median. It's not difficult to imagineer an acceptable range for that median, and those that fall above or below that should be looked at. That data has to be gathered first, though. A far better solution, although one that is above and beyond far more difficult, is educating the community as to what makes for a good discussion, and what does not. You certainly don't need to get offended at someone's idea to nerf something. You absolutely don't need to attack someone for bringing up an idea that you disagree with. Fallacies should be avoided. Respect should be a given. Seek clarification rather than making assumptions. Avoid hyperbole and exaggeration when trying to make a point. Et cetera. Even divisive topics can be discussed with civility, if people allow for it. It's a choice to react with hostility.
  5. 11 points
    Where did all the vampires go And where are all the goths? Where's the hot nosferatu Wrapped in his tattered cloths? Isn't there a ventrue Who wants to drink my blood? Or perhaps a cute fishmalk Or an emo brujah stud....
  6. 10 points
    This thread has descended into the absurd, and so I have decided to nerf close it. Please remember to assume good faith of everyone going forward.
  7. 9 points
    .... Ah, yes. This is what I remember the most about the old CoH Forums. The inane squabbling.
  8. 9 points
    Here's the problem as I see it: at the high end, a "tanker that can do it all" is just called a brute. It's possible for a brute to get up to tanker levels of resistance, defense and aggro generation with a proper set of enhancements, but a tanker doesn't have a path to get to brute levels of damage. Tanker has a strong "class fantasy" focused on a single domain, but it's mechanically getting edged out by an archetype that's been allowed to straddle multiple domains.
  9. 8 points
  10. 7 points
    When CoH launched back in 2004 people were literally in awe whenever they saw a 2 ton chunk of sidewalk teleporting or walking around to save the day. They could sit in the thick of it and go cook dinner, while other tanks had to be more active. Granite was essentially god mode back in the day, bar few enemy types, a Granite tanker was not dying. That was balanced out by being nigh unmoveable. It couldn't run, jump, or fly. Its powers suffered a huge debuff to recharge speed and damage output, so it wasn't killing anything either. But it excelled at holding agro, and taking the hits the rest of the team or raid couldn't. *ED came by and nerfed everything across the board, this (rightfully) took away a Stone Armor tanker's immortality with Granite Armor, but the massive debuffs persisted as it could still out tank everything else. *IO's came by, and made it so other tankers or brutes since they had been introduced when CoV launched could build themselves to be nigh unkillable gods, Stone Armor over the years saw a massive reduction in the number of people playing the powerset as overcoming those limitations the set had since launch became a waste of time when someone could turn an Invuln tank or the recently added Willpower tanks into gods. *Incarnate content came by, and all the powersets further benefited, leaving Stone tanks to collect further dust. As just about anyone is aware the standard rule of thumb, is that people almost will not play a Stone Armor character without a Pocket Kin. Given all that, what I would suggest, which in order of priority.... 1. Let Stone Armor Tankers in Rooted or Granite jump or fly. The limitation to do so is kind of silly considering we are all superheroes, what's to say a Rock Golem can't fly? Maybe a magic spell was placed on them that let's them , or they have some really advanced rocket boots? With the new addition of Force of Will, I think Mighty Leap would be a great fit for a chink of sidewalk landing on a mob of 5th Collumn flattening Nazi's left and right. 2. Let's ease up the -damage (which is -30%, I mean why would getting punched by something weighing 2 tons cause less damage? The weight alone should crush its puny target). 3. Let's ease up the -recharge (which is -65%, hasten is a +70%, so you get slightly better than baseline recharge with hasten running, perma hasten is pretty much impossible in Granite as well). Perhaps we have a -50% speed debuff on Granite/Rooted (perhaps 25% per power) paired with a -30% recharge reduction, which is still a significant overall debuff to a player, albeit less severe than the current debuffs. Like I suggest, the first proposed change would basically be for thematic purposes and doesn't really effect combat, just gives players more choices on how they get around. The other 2 would have an impact on combat, but I think in the age of IO sets and incarnate content, these would make people enjoy playing the powerset more, but not completely break the set outside of a reasonable balance. Any thoughts?
  11. 7 points
    Remove brawl? Pet immobilization aura? Give them an instant-recharge ranged attack? Make Stay and GoTo override their urge to attack a target? Literally anything. I do not care. My patience for their unfathomable imbecility has reached its absolute limit. The cries of my team mates, as robots sprint and jump and push them around, desperately trying to get that one single slap in... rings in my ears. The sparks of defeated robots who ran up to an Arch Villain for 0.1 seconds... burned into my eyes. The massive hordes of pissed off Freakshow Stunners, aggroed by a robot who disengaged from Group Fly and spazzed off into the horizon... immobilizing me for 3 minutes straight. god im so done
  12. 7 points
    To me, Apex is the most fun piece of content this game has. You can perform just fine as a melee character - a TW/bio scrapper currently holds the speed record for soloing it, in about 18 minutes. Personally, I've never had problem holding aggro either. You have a big warning flashing for seconds before the blue flames actually happen, giving you ample room to position yourself / pull mobs out of range. It's actually one of the few tasks ingame where Taunt is an objective plus, as the -range is useful to get Battle Maiden to step out of a blue patch. It does require one to move much more, which is a departure from the rest of the game, so I understand where the naysaying comes from (and could even see it as justified).
  13. 7 points
    Out of curiosity... Is there such a thing as a well programmed MMO? 😛
  14. 7 points
    So this whole debate on whether or not one can choose to be offended is great and all, but can we stick to the topic, and also remember that care should be taken when discussing sensitive topics?
  15. 7 points
    Another 7 accounts have been permanently banned.. Wonder how many times it'll take for them to give up? 😛
  16. 6 points
    I'm not sure where the mythical brute that somehow is built to run perma double rage(or equivilent), but can't keep 50% fury lives.
  17. 6 points
    To be clear, unless you are repeatedly, vexatiously forcing us to deal with violations of this new policy, the most that'll happen to your character is that we'll ask you what you want the new name to be, or tell you to make some costume changes to make your character more visually distinct from the source material and get back to us once you've done so. You won't lose the character or any progress you've made. You won't have any specific changes forced upon you unless you refuse to cooperate with us or ignore us.
  18. 6 points
    1 & 2 aren't covered by this rule as anything in the public domain, by nature, is not infringing copyright. For example: The name Thor is not covered by this rule, but any variant of his name or title combined with a costume that looks like Marvel's Thor? That is covered, and therefore not allowed. 3 & 4 are entirely too subjective to give a solid answer on. As with the live version of the game we will be handling them on a case-by-case basis.
  19. 6 points
    Zodai covered things pretty well! I'll add two to this. A common thing I see, and this isn't limited to new roleplayers by any means, is players blurring the lines between IC and OOC. This can manifest in a lot of different ways, but probably one of the most common is the assumption that because a character acts a specific way towards your character that the player of that character feels that way towards you personally. Or where a player is actually doing that: (not) liking a particular player so their character behaves differently than they probably would have otherwise. Obviously it's impossible for most people to keep them completely separated, but where most of the problems come from is assuming that a character's actions reflect the player's thoughts. They might, but it's much better to assume they don't than assume they do and just react as your character would in that situation and try to not take anything personally. The second one is using unspecific identifiers like 'you' in emotes. When the scene involves literally two people, this is less of a problem but is still a bad habit to get into. If you're in a group of people, it can get confusing. It's best to be specific when taking actions, especially when there's more than just two people around. IE: Jane Doe shakes your hand. vs Jane Doe shakes Johnny's hand. or Jane Doe shakes the offered hand. The first will read to everyone in range as though Jane's shaking their hand. The second is extremely specific, assuming there's only one Johnny around. The third is more vague, but unless multiple people are offering a hand to shake, it's still pretty obvious who the emote is aimed at, or at least who it isn't aimed at. In many situations people will be able to determine who 'you' is supposed to be aimed at, but not all. Best to just avoid it.
  20. 6 points
    Why would you do that? I think it's refreshing that a MMOG gives the player time to get up, take a break, make hot chocolate, sit down, read War & Peace, and then come back to gaming. /s
  21. 6 points
    Really? With ALL the P2W stuff, DFB, DIB, and AE farming, people are still to freakin' lazy to level a toon? Thank you for getting rid of these people.
  22. 6 points
    Increase the range of their brawl attack to 80' range?
  23. 5 points
    My advice is seek help outside the game on acquiring greater self discipline. That's the best I have to give.
  24. 5 points
  25. 5 points
    You try to slot Tanker ATOs and realize that they are Brute ATOs...
  26. 5 points
    Y'all are really so sweet! Thank you so much. It took me a bit of time and some experimenting but I finally got the picture of Ultra Violet (played by @Livia ) all done. JUST int time for October too! I had a lot of fun.
  27. 5 points
    If you don't like a suggestion, ignore it and move on. There's no reason to insinuate that someone is being insincere or trying to force you to do something.
  28. 5 points
    This suggestion does not deserve this many pages of discussion. Hard /jranger.
  29. 5 points
    Only im not making suggestions, im enjoying the game. You are providing solutions to a problem that you cant prove exists.
  30. 5 points
    Well, if all you care about is maxing out your levels as efficiently as possible, sure, go farm in AE. But you won't be earning any badges, or merits, or getting experience with how your character performs in disparate situations and against various enemy groups, etc. Personally, I can't enjoy a character that has been power-levelled or farmed up to max. I enjoy feeling how the performance of my character evolves and changes as I gradually add more powers, new sets, and try tougher content. I want to be challenged. I often design characters with intentional disadvantages or flaws just because I want to see how I can play around them and still succeed. I enjoy novel experiences, which is why I enjoy the huge variety of builds possible in CoX. If I gain like 30 levels in one sitting, I tend to lose my feeling of connection or investment with that character, and usually end up dropping it. Bottom line, no, all content other than AE farming doesn't "suck". The goal of playing CoX isn't necessarily to get a character maxed-out as quickly and efficiently as possible. Some builds will be most fun in certain level ranges, but not particularly remarkable at 50. You don't need to be 50 to do fun, challenging content or reap valuable rewards. There really isn't much vertical progression in the game, so it's kinda pointless rushing to max, when there's really nothing left to do at that point than go back and experience all the content you skipped by AE farming in the first place. *EDIT* That being said, I have no problem with people who want to farm AE to advance their characters faster. I worry that such a mindset will hinder their overall enjoyment of the game, but we're all adults here and can make our own decisions about how to spend our free time. I have had no issues leveling and IOing my characters having never set foot inside AE, so it's no concern of mine how they choose to progress. This isn't a competitive game, and there will always be some form of first order optimal strategy for efficient progression, so nerfing AE is pointless. Fire farmers aren't bothering anybody, so let them do what they want.
  31. 5 points
    Wait, you think forum rep means something?
  32. 5 points
    This feels like it punishes players for going for Recharge, or for not paying maximum attention to your status indicators during a fight. You get punished for using Rage too soon. Why not just have Rage not stack and just have additional uses refresh it, ala hasten?
  33. 4 points
    This all day long. I'd much rather devs spend time fixing actual bugs than trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist. There are going to be bad players with or without AE. There are going to be players that, "don't know how to play their toons" with or without AE. All of that existed prior to AE. It exists in every game. Why waste the manpower on changing anything because that's all it will be? A change and not a "fix."
  34. 4 points
    So if I'm reading this right, lets take an already unbalanced game and make it even more unbalanced. Nice
  35. 4 points
    Brutes have 90% the survival of Tankers. Tanker HP cap is 3534. Brute HP cap is 3212.7. 3212.7 / 3534 = 90.908% Sorry. 91% the survival of Tankers. Citation
  36. 4 points
    Also if you don't know and have fly power you can get into the AE building thru the top floor and bypass the lobby.
  37. 4 points
    I suppose if I had been thinking of "husk" in CoH terms I would've drawn one of the Banished Pantheon minions, there is a sub category called husks as well. Feel free to steal that idea anyone that still wants in on Inktober but doesn't have anything in mind for that day. Dang that's technically a twofer as it works for Mindless too! lol
  38. 4 points
    Can someone please explain why we don't make it a toggle and call it a day?
  39. 4 points
    Have to give credit to Captain Powerhouse for a fair explanation about the brute damage cap.
  40. 4 points
    I don't see the value in going to 50+5's over attuned. The benefit is marginal and level 50 play is a cake walk for most builds and teams. However, if you ever want to exemplar, attuned builds are great. Just ran through Yin, Manticore and Citadel last week and having all (or most) of my set bonuses for those makes everything a lot easier.
  41. 4 points
    If I had to guess, that magic 90% again. .75 * 7 = 5.25 .95 * 5 = 4.75 4.75 / 5.25 = .905 Basically, "if Tankers aren't getting 550%, then Brutes aren't keeping 775%"; it also strictly puts Scrappers in the lead for base damage at the cap (5.625 without criticals). That said, it probably should have been done when Fury was changed years ago (see my earlier feedback).
  42. 4 points
    This is wrong on so very, very many levels. Wrong, and deplorable.
  43. 4 points
    Personally, I think that's exactly what they were supposed to do - bypass ED. ED was not a popular change and drove away a lot of players. A LOT.
  44. 4 points
    Its change for changes sake. As mentioned if this is REALLY a bug bear for you...make it inherent...there...I'm not seeing the 'nerf hasten' side talking about this in the slightest. Now everyone has it you can do whatever the hell you like with it, you can ignore it, you can do everything we can do now or your character gets a 'must-have' power for free. Nothing for those of us that like hasten as it is now lose nothing everybody else gains something. So yeah...and the problem with this is nerf hasten side...like I'm not seeing a downside here...Hell I'm also seeing an upside in that if it is inherent it makes the notorious slow and sluggish early part of the game where you need attack powers and secondary powers more than recharge actually a touch more fun since you're not stuck staring at watching 3 powers recharge constantly. Also remember guys that if you do nerf hasten, it's not going to be popular...and it's not like Homecoming is the only server like it was back in the live days...people can and will bugger off to COXg or Rebirth.
  45. 4 points
    Yes. Late stage MMOs like CoH face a difficult issue in that they need to court multiple player types at the same time. For vets who want to play with builds, tons of money earned quick is great, it lets them do partake in the main reason they're still playing a 15 year old game. There are also newer players (or returning players trying to relive their old experiences) who prefer the normal pacing of the economy. Getting money to equip sets is another progression system just like xp. Managing it and getting enough to buy the next set of item is fun for a lot of people. There's a reason almost every rpg has some sort of economic system and almost none of them just give you infinite money right off the bat. Optional farming lets both groups be happy.
  46. 4 points
    News flash, all MMO auctions houses are based around farmers, farmers provide the items, marketeers sell them, people buy them. If there were no farmers, marketeers would have nothing to sell and what little there was that got onto the market would have its prices skyrocket. It just so happens that in this game farmers and marketeers are one and the same since there's a guide on how to make money right on this very forums.
  47. 4 points
  48. 4 points
    There absolutely is. Everyone on the Homecoming Team is a player themselves, too, and we understand how players play the game. Giving gifts to other players is perfectly normal, and definitely not the behavior that we're scrutinizing.
  49. 4 points
    And I don't disagree with that, I just didn't think it needed repeating because I just literally wrote that in the post preceding the bumper sticker: What we currently have is some evidence that TW appears to be overperforming which indicates that it maybe should be toned down. We are gathering further evidence to determine whether this is also the case outside of some very clinical settings. If the new tests produce results that say TW is within a reasonable range of other sets, then that would be evidence that toning it down would probably be a bad idea, because tests in an environment that better represent the average game should have more weight than tests such as pylon times. If there's some other evidence, I'd definitely want to see that. However, stating that toning TW down is killing the game or sinking the ship without any evidence just skips a whole bunch of steps that should be taken to arrive to that conclusion. Not to mention that speculating about motives of the arguer rather than discussing the actual arguments is just poor form on its own. It's also extremely unconstructive to categorically shoot down any test settings because they aren't perfect rather than contribute to designing a test that is satisfactory. I don't take issue with either outcome if it is reached by sound arguments because I like TW in its current form, but because game balance is an important factor to me I'd be demonstrating cognitive dissonance to allow TW to continue existing like it is if it can be shown that it is overperforming. "It's ok that set X is an outlier" is mutually exclusive with "balance is important", after all. What I do take issue with is an argumentative style that is built on ad hominems, strawmen, red herrings, hyperbole and other rhetoric devices used to avoid directly addressing any points that are opposite to the arguer's stance.
  50. 4 points
    Okay ... throwing away the box for thinking here ... YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Basically we're trying to cram too many "functions" into too few power slots. We want to have: Single Target Only Multi-Target Self Only Teammate Only Foe Only And we want to be able to mix and match these functions more fluidly than the arrangement of powers allows us using legacy design parameters. No no ... not improves ... CONVERTS. Swaps. Consider this hypothetical formulation. The T1 power brings Teammate(s) nearby to the Caster ... single or multiple. The T2 power brings Foe(s) nearby to the Caster ... single or multiple. The T3 power "travels" the Caster ... locally or to other zones. So what do you need to flip between these alternatives "on demand" for when the situation needs it? Simple ... you add a modifier power as the T4 ... just like the Field Medic power in Medicine! T1 alone recalls Teammate (single) near to the Caster. T1+T4 recalls all Teammates (plural) in the zone near to the Caster. T2 alone brings a Foe (singular) near to the Caster. T2+T4 brings a Target AoE of Foes (plural) near to the Caster. T3 alone Teleports the Caster up to (unenhanced) 100 yards away. T3+T4 brings Long Range Teleports the Caster to other zones. You can set up the T4 as a click power with a 10 second duration and a 60 second recharge. The idea being that you'd only want to use the T4 modified versions of the T1-T3 powers once or twice (or even three times with the T2+T4) before you seriously start doing other stuff for a while. And best of all, you'd still have the T5 slot available for doing ... SOMETHING ELSE ... The most hilarious thing that I can think of, which almost certainly couldn't be supported, would be to make the T5 into a Teleport Foe AWAY from the Caster rather than towards. It would basically function as a sort of "keep away" power rather than as a "get over here!" type power. Basic idea is that the T5 would have a VARIABLE range parameter (which I don't think can be done!) which would import the range parameter of the attack power used AFTER the T5 is cast. If the attack power used after the T5 is cast has an 80ft range, then use of that attack power would Teleport the Foe 80ft away from the Caster in a straight line away from the caster (and obstacles would shorten this range just like with any standard teleport, so you can't push stuff past geometry/walls/etc.). Basically, whatever the range of an attack power is, the T5 relocates all $Targets hit by that power to the range of that attack power upon hitting them (although obstacles to the teleport will shorten that range). T5 alone would Teleport Foe (singular) out to the range of the next single target Ranged attack. T5+T4 would Teleport Foes (plural) out to the range of the next Cone or Target AoE attack. Total pie in the sky wishful thinking that ... but sometimes it's fun to dream.
  • Create New...