Rudra

If all you care about in the game is raw damage, then a rather significant number of sets are "flawed". Darkness Manipulation offers the player a rather wide assortment of options for dealing with foes. And if you want to compare Build up to Soul Drain? Build Up: 5.2 END cost +20% ToHit +100% damage 1.17s cast time 90s recharge 10s duration Soul Drain: 15.6 END cost 90% accuracy (according to Mids)/1.2 accuracy (according to CoD) 55.6102 damage to foes (at level 50) +10% ToHit +2% ToHit (per target?) +50% damage +10% damage (per target?) 2.37s cast time 120s recharge 30s duration 10 feet radius 10 target cap I don't see what the problem is with having Soul Drain as opposed to Build Up. So if I'm reading it right, and that is a big if, then Soul Drain caps at +150% damage buff for 30 seconds. To Build Up's +100% damage buff for 10 seconds. And Soul Drain does good damage to all targets in its radius. I'm surprised you aren't a fan of it.

Theme. Variety. ToHit Debuffs. Fear effect. END recovery from foes. DoT aura. TAoE disorient attack. How many reasons do you want?

The OP is asking for Veteran Levels to be displayed, not the incarnate level shifts. Those never go to 0 after gaining them. They just don't normally get displayed.

Thanks for the link. So there is no difference between them? There is just three different ways to craft the same thing? That's weird. Okay then. Then there is no need for my suggestion then. Disregard.

I went to craft some empowerments today at my SG base empowerment station, and apparently there are three different versions of each empowerment. The only difference I could see were the salvage required for crafting. Would it be possible to add some designations to the empowerments in the stations so we can identify what each different empowerment is? Like I could craft 3 different Cold Resist empowerments, each one has different salvage requirements that don't overlap, and I can only craft one of them. I don't understand what the difference is between them.

Works for me. You can consider me a yes vote.

That's fine, too - but I am giving a suggestion on how to go about buffing brutes in the event that a tanker nerf is not on the cards, which is in line with the OP. I have no objection to tanker nerfs, but it is hard to say whether that will be the avenue chosen by the devs, especially since the main tanker buffs have been allowed to continue for three and a half years now. My point is that doing the buff/nerf treadmill on pure damage is not the way to go for balancing brutes. If brutes must be buffed, we should look towards AOE or mitigation as possible other avenues for balance, because raw melee damage is the schtick of stalkers and scrappers. The issue is that, since Brutes and Scrappers and Stalkers all use the same mitigation scale, the main way they are currently differentiated is through their damage output and HP. Brutes need some buffing in the direction of the tank role to better differentiate them from the others and HP alone is honestly not enough. Even if tankers are nerfed, consideration should be given towards increasing brute mitigation at least marginally or giving them a mild buff to AOE radii/target caps. I actually agree with this part. Whereas I very much disagree with this part. Pointing out that power creep is a thing and is being proposed, or that it will occur if specific events are put in motion, is not a knee jerk reaction. It is pointing out something that some players do not seem to see or seem unwilling to see. The base game is not and has not and looks like will not be any more difficult than it was back on Live. Yes, we have Hard Mode content now, but that is not the base game, it is a high difficulty option for some TFs/SFs that looks to eventually be proliferated to other TFs/SFs. It does not affect the base game. Further, I have absolutely no control over any of the devs, so my only option for pointing out that a proposal would make the base game even easier than it is now is to point it out in the thread being discussed. I have no means of holding a round table discussion with the devs about their design philosophy. I have no means of altering what they are working on or will be working on. All I can do is flag something that is a concern to me and hope the devs read it and agree. Neither did my comment shut down discussion as evidenced by the first half of your post in response to me. A productive discussion can be had, even between someone like me advocating for a minor (unstated type) nerf and anyone advocating for a buff. As I said at the start of this thread, I was and am fine with the OP, because it is a sidegrade rather than a buff. I also resent the fact you are implying that I am not working with reality of the game as is, as I am very much trying to keep the current state of the game in mind when I make my posts. Also, the constant stream of buffs originated back on Live where the Live devs seemed to vastly prefer buffing ATs to find parity than to nerf them. Particularly as the game got older. Most likely because the player base tends to get upset when faced with nerfs. So what HC is doing isn't new either.

I have to disagree. Constant buffing to find parity just means the ATs keep getting stronger and stronger. Finding AT parity can and should include nerfs as well. After all, Brutes saw nothing but nerfs to bring them in line with the blue side ATs after proliferation. A small scale nerf to Tankers to also bring them in line with the other ATs is not a bad thing. If the only response to balance is yet more buffing, then we have constant power creep in the name of balance. And making Brutes match Tankers in some of the areas you have listed would have Tanker players screaming for Tankers to get buffed again to differentiate them from Brutes. Instead of more power creep, a small nerf to Tankers feels like the correct response to me.

WoW did (does?) that. You would attack a spawn, one of the enemies dropped, and the others would then run off to the other spawns in the area and have everyone converge on you. Made solo play in some areas extremely lethal. As in not doable solo. Now on the one hand, it does make sense and I often wonder how mobs can watch their allies run by them on fire, bleeding profusely, with myriad arrows sticking out of them and just say "There goes Bob". (When mobs in the same spawn don't react to their ally getting trounced? I just figure the other mobs really don't like that guy.) And seeing mobs more proactively responding to things would be more interesting and challenging. On the other hand, I remember several times in WoW when an easy fight became an impossible fight because mobs would run off and grab other spawns, which sometimes would then run off and grab other spawns if they also took damage, and the whole thing would just cascade into certain death for the player. And it often never took much more than a single attack at any mob in a spawn before everything in render distance is now running at you. Add to that how that would simplify the ability to herd mobs for teams when they self-trigger into attacking, and the current meta goes from being preferred by most of the community to being enforced by game AI.

No thanks. I currently enjoy having Soul Drain as a PBAoE.

I understand your position, but try looking at it from the devs point of view as well. To paraphrase what one of the devs said in a thread where long skirts were requested, while there are players that are fine with any amount of clipping, there are players that are not. And it is the dev who will be associated with the released costume pieces/options, not the players. And from what I have seen, there is a definite stigma applied to devs that give players something that the community views as rushed, incomplete, or otherwise unacceptable to them. As for not getting close to the look you are going for? I understand that as well. In fact, that was part of my comment you quoted. Existing costume options will not make that character design. Get close, yes, but not make that design. However, that is what the Suggestions and Feedback forum is about. If we look at what the devs are willing to give and are not willing to give, we can tackle what you want from a different angle. Option 1: A new alternate bolero that includes the High Collar's mantle and collar. This would give you the ability to make the example character as is without the clipping, which depending on the difficulty of making the new bolero, may be fine with the devs. Option 2: Since the High Collar back piece and the Magic Robe shoulder piece can already be used together to make the bolero-cape itself, the sleeves and gloves is the missing part. So a new sleeves option based on the Magic Bolero would provide that missing element. To maintain the Witch Wing gloves clipping through the sleeves to make witch wing sleeves, we can ask the devs to make Bolero Witch sleeves in the gloves part of the costume creator to preserve that part of the example pic. Option 3: Stick with the OP and ask the devs to allow the bolero and cape to be used together again. However, given the severity of the clipping of those two costume pieces, this option is not likely to ever be implemented as requested. If anyone else has other options, I'm all ears. However, while it will take time and effort by the devs, options 1 and 2 from this list would give you the ability to make that costume in a manner that should not cause any backlash to the devs.

I was worried that may be the case. However, at least for female characters, the Magic Robe shoulder piece can also be used with the High Collar back detail, which combined with the Sleeves gloves option, almost achieves the look the OP is after. The sleeves aren't as fancy and are much narrower though. (I just checked.) So a new sleeves option in gloves that replicated the bolero's sleeves would be a new costume option that may not be too difficult to add that would give the author the look (s)he is trying for. Edit: Though it would not be able to be used with the Witch Wing(?) gloves used in the example pic.... That would pose an added problem. Unless winged sleeves were also added? Edit again: I am trying to find options that the devs may find acceptable. Given that they have already stated a lack of willingness to push out costume pieces with such excessive clipping, alternate options that may not be too time and resource intensive to make the author's desire possible seems to be a better option to pursue.

We already do. At least for female characters. I can't remember what the restrictions are for it to show up in the costume creator, but the bolero's fur wrap is available as a separate piece.

Power creep is an addition or change to the game that makes player characters more powerful, more efficient, or more optimized without a matching increase in game difficulty. The OP is requesting a new game difficulty. That's not power creep.

From the severity of the clipping I see in the example pic? I'm guessing it was disabled because of the clipping, rather than because of any server issues. That is just my guess, not known fact, but I'm fairly willing to bet on it. Edit: Something that may work better for you as a suggestion? May be to ask for a new back option that combined elements of the High Cape (?) and Magic Bolero into a cohesive piece rather than trying to layer them and deal with all the clipping. Like maybe the devs can take the bolero and have an extra version that also included a high collar like that. Edit again: Or maybe something like that high collar could be made as a Shoulder option in the costume creator so it could be applied to more costumes than just that cape and the possible new bolero.

I don't think this will work. I'm not certain, but I am pretty sure that any changes made are at the expense of previous versions. I don't think the previous versions are retained after they are buffed, nerfed, or sidegraded. Meaning the devs would have to go back and recreate previous versions, then flag them as the same group when we see their names and affiliation, but still have them flagged as a completely separate and distinct group to avoid having members of either version spawn in groups they aren't meant to be in. Edit: Currently, at least for the most part, units with the same name but different capability are differentiated by level. The exception being mobs like Paragon Protectors that I assume have a powers based flag to identify them despite having a shared display name. Other mobs in factions that would be a concern for just showing up in basic content are limited to the specific content they were made for, and in the case of the Goldbrickers, also have a different level. Otherwise you run into the bug I routinely see with Crey, where you're running a level 30+ mission and level 20 Crey mobs spawn because they are not differentiated from the other Crey mobs. Now apply the Crey low-level spawn situation to say whether or not you get weaker or stronger versions of Malta or Crey mobs.

Okay, the author is clearly just trolling the forums. Can we get this thread locked please?

Not recently. Would you like to borrow my cudgel? 😜

Says someone that has chosen to repeatedly insult everyone that disagrees rather than provide reasons for the OP or suggest any means for controlling the toxic behavior the OP has brought out in every other game with such a scoreboard added. I had been willing to entertain the player viewable only option, but not the automatic stat window of the OP, but that was until it was pointed out in this thread that even personally viewable only stat windows still get used to toxic effect in other games. I'm at a loss here. Why is your fun so important but not anyone else's? Why can't you even make an attempt to work with others to at least try to find a way to prevent the behaviors that have been pointed out instead of insisting that your fellow players are toxic for not agreeing, are not sensible for not agreeing, and are dinosaurs for not agreeing? (I'm citing your first response on the 1st page of this thread for the toxic comment if you are wondering where that part came from.) One player's fun cannot come at the expense of other players. One person's ego stroking too often proves a detriment to other players. Do you have a suggestion for how to keep that in check? Do you have a suggestion for how to keep after TF stats from being used against other players or ATs? Because I sure don't. Nothing I have seen or that I can think of addresses those problems. Problems that already exist if players like you think that there are useless ATs like you mentioned in your 1st 4-star ITF comment. City of Heroes/Villains is meant to be an open and welcoming game/environment for all players. At least that is my take on it. And the use of stat boards/windows, especially when so myopically focused on damage and heals, has caused open and welcoming game environments to become less so, mostly to very toxic effect. Every time. Which discourages and chases off players for the sake of elitist ego-preening. If the damage and heals stat window is so important to you, how should that be addressed? How do you keep the game open and welcoming for all players despite having an actual scoreboard to track how much damage or healing took place, with no consideration for anything else? And 'people just know the support is needed' is not a useful response, because from personal experience, it isn't true.

Or maybe the Tanker buffs could be scaled back a little since they definitely seem over-buffed? (At least to me.)

To the best of my knowledge, they don't stack like that. Resistance and Protection I believe get checked separately, one to see if it happens at all (protection) and the other to see how much (resistance.) Edit: So to use your example, the fire caged enemy is hit with a Mag 50 KB but has 100 KB protection and 10,000% KB resist. The Mag 50 KB is less than the 100 KB protection, so no KB occurs at all. The target stays put. Resistance doesn't even get applied (for all intents and purposes). Now if the KB had been Mag 101, it would have exceeded the KB protection, and the full Mag 101 KB would then be subjected to the 10,000% KB resistance. With the Controller however, with no KB protection, the full Mag 50 KB is reduced by the 10,000% KB resistance, resulting in a KD.

I like where you two are going with this. So something random to add to the discourse: What if the Red Cap MM was a melee MM instead of a ranged one and used a Scythe for the first 2 attacks, chucked the bomb-wearing goblin for the 3rd attack, and the 4th not-pet power could be a targeted AoE that used Red Caps (or something else) that popped out of the ground at the target location briefly, went nuts trying to kill everything, and then died/went away? Sort of like Gang War, except that it is a TAoE attack instead of a group of weaker pets that can move around and fight? (So whatever popped out of the ground would only be for animation, no actual Red Caps or whatever.) Edit: As for the Winter Horde, they could be renamed as pets, the MM given Ice Blast attacks obviously, and become an Ice MM set. (Which is the obvious solution I was expecting as response, but don't think I saw in the thread.) Edit Again: There is a problem with the idea though. All MM pets are lieutenants and degrade (in level) as their numbers increase. And the proposed pets are not all lieutenants. Even if they were not subject to negative levels based on their numbers, the minions would die even faster than the current T1 pets, and the bosses would be stronger than current T3 pets. So maybe they would need to have alternate versions of each made specifically for the MM that made them all lieutenants?

And you keep re-emphasizing the problem with the OP. That only your view point is valid. No one that disagrees with you is sensible, we are all dinosaurs. You can't make an argument in favor of the OP except by denigrating everyone that disagrees. Which is itself a fairly toxic mind set. Only Damage (taken or dealt) and Heals matter! Nothing anyone else has mentioned in this thread has any relevance to anything a player may conceive of as fun or useful to see/know! Only Damage (taken or dealt) and Heals matter! Anyone that disagrees with the suggestion of making it more tracked and viewable in the game than it already is by making it as a final stat window is not sensible and a dinosaur! Some ATs are useless! I will let them tag along if I feel like it though! (Barring any thought of others that won't when given any further incentive to consider them useless despite what they contribute to any team.) You see the problem? Do you see the growing toxicity of the OP? It hasn't even been implemented, and yet you and some others are already showing disdain for your fellow players and some ATs. Instead of providing justification to support the suggestion, which some of the OP's detractors have themselves posited even as they weigh the toxicity of the OP as it was in other games, you and a few other posters choose to attack your fellow players. It is that sort of behavior that we are trying to keep out. And yes, it may already exist in the game, but that does not mean we should encourage it or give it more ways to rear its ugly head in a game where players are encouraged to work together to achieve their goals.

You are misguided. As people have mentioned the stats you mentio are not trackable, hence, they would never be included. Let’s stick to the stats that are actually possible. The point is that they would need to be tracked, and failing to track and report them for the OP leads to some very toxic game play. (Edit: The other point @Luminara is making is that you are already exhibiting the sort of behavior we are trying to keep out of the game in your comments that anyone that disagrees with you is not sensible and their comments have no meaning, their experiences with the things that occurred when the OP was introduced in other games have no meaning, and that only your view point is what matters. Players have given reasons why this is a bad idea, even citing problems with implementing it in addition to what has occurred every other time this was implemented. And so far your response is our comments mean nothing because we are not sensible because we don't share your point of view.)

Here's the thing about the damage mitigated part, just to tackle one thing. In order for the game to report damage mitigated, it has to track a few things. First, we look at straight damage resistance. 1. Starting damage caused by the target. 2. Base damage resist against specific damage type on the character. 3. Additional damage resist granted said character, broken up by other characters. (So Player A was the mob's target. Players B and C both buffed Player A's damage resist. Player B and C would both be affecting Player A differently depending on what powers they used and what enhancements those powers had slotted. To give Player B and C credit for their damage mitigation, their separate buffs would have to be tracked and calculated separately.) 4. Damage resist reductions inflicted on the character. (Edit: Mob -RES effects amplifying the damage the character would take.) And that is just for damage resist buffing, not even looking at other forms of damage mitigation. Now we get more complicated. Holds, Stuns, Enemy Intangibility (Only Affects Self), Confuses, and Sleeps: These effects mitigate damage by preventing the mob from attacking players in the first place. So now the game would have to track which player those mobs might have targeted, whether or not they would have hit that player, and how much damage that mob would have done to that player after damage resistance. Interestingly, this category also includes effects mobs can impose on themselves, though those situations would need to not be counted for this. Defense Buffs and Enemy ACC/ToHit Debuffs: These effects mitigate damage by preventing them from hitting the player. To track this, the game would have to separately track the character's own defense and check to see if the attack would have hit despite that defense, as well as the extra defense provided by each other player that granted a defense buff and whether or not the -ACC/ToHit prevented the hit in the first place. Which gets really interesting to figure out on a team running multiple instances of Maneuvers. Each separate defense buff would have to be checked to give credit to the buffing player for damage mitigated. On something that is tracked as a single lump sum to be applied simultaneously. Slows and Fears: These effects mitigate damage by reducing the rate at which such damage may be applied. To track this, the game would have to basically run two versions of itself. One version where these effects don't exist so the game can track how often the damage would have been applied, and the played version where the effects worked as we see them in the game. Because that is the only way to know how much damage was mitigated by slowing your enemies. Decoys: I list this as decoys rather than pets because some pets do not take damage but can still be targeted by enemies. So now they would need to track how much damage they would have taken if they had health bars for damage mitigation, but only if the attack would have been aimed at and hit a player instead of another decoy or pet. Pets: Pets are like decoys for this list, except they already track damage since they can be defeated. I'm sure there is more I am forgetting, but this is what the devs would have to look at tracking, none of which the game tracks currently in any capacity, just to give a Damage Mitigated result. Let alone anything else the Stats Window would need to report. (I also find it ludicrous that a dedicated PvP game is being used as a comparison for a designed as PvE game like they have any correlation to each other. I find it funny as well that the reason why I and others I know hate PvP is because of the highly toxic player base we encountered in PvP, and that further supports our argument about the toxicity of the OP, whether intended or not. And if the justification for this is "Well, these PvP games do it, so we should too", then my "No" vote is a most decidedly "Oh Hells NO!" vote.)