William Valence

Like I said, strange request, but it would be helpful. Heck of you have a link to a vod of your friend's stream I may be able to see what I need there. And if no one can/wants to, that's fine, I'm not the boss of anyone and I'll do it when the test server changes over.

Bit of a strange request I know, but I don't have a character with dark control and the test server isn't set to allow me to just get one at the moment. Could someone make a video with them using the dark hold on someone who's just running? The person getting hit should just be holding the run forward button the whole time to show the first frame they regain control. Extra credit if the target player is held for more than 6s. If no one is able to I'll just wait until the test server is swapped back and dual box it.

I've always wanted CoX to return in a fully develop-able state. Preferably with our character data intact. The two biggest things that made CoX so unique and positive to play and be a part of, for me, and that I think are crucial for it's future: The dev team were members of the community. They had more of an investment in the game, than the average player even, because it wasn't just their livelyhood, they were also part of the community. This made them protective of the game system and styles that made the game what it was and not something else. They also had respect for the players. They would occasionally look to players for answers to question, but they would always look to the community for questions that they themselves needed to answer. I've never played a game where a Dev answered one of my 1:30am can't sleep DMs at 3:45am because they also couldn't sleep and were still. The community. The CoX community always felt indestructible. I could take a break around a holiday, and when I came back the community was still there. The game could shut down and the community was still there. The first thing that ever made me doubt the community could survive anything, was the secret server. So I would want to see transparency, and I would definitely want to see safeguards put into place to assure us that we don't have another situation of allowed and not allowed. With the differences in opinion on how the game should be developed going forward; certain things need to be decentralized. The non-specific community platforms (I.E. Reddit) should be independent of any server group, for example. No matter what I'm just in standby mode until whatever is going to happen, happens.

That's tremendous hyperbole, and I know this because I main tanked A MoSTF on my Dark/EM tanker back before Incarnate powers. Here's a 4man STF, that 10 years ago should be pre incarnate powers. The main tank is a Fire/EM I think their Ego is just fine too. This is not the case. The amount that Acrobatics was nerfed was known. It was known to the players prior to release as it was announced ahead of time and put on testing, and your belief that it was supposed to be 90, while your opinion, is wrong. The patch note provided even said the intent was to allow KB to affect players in rare situations through acrobatics. Something that would not be possible if it was nerfed only 10 pts. to 90mag. I don't generally use inspirations. I tend to forget, so you could remove them and I'd be unlikely to notice. They are not required for play. Though it's interesting you keep mentioning them considering they do provide KB protection. So, I guess there's that at least.

Doesn't seem like a medium, just a different implementation of "I want to ignore Knockback despite that being a weakness of my powerset/AT selection". IOs are not restricted to Fire, Dark, or Electric armor, and Recluse has the big daddy knockback, so if IOs can get Dark armor to ignore Recluse's KB, then it lets everyone ignore KB.

No, and I'm not sure how you read it to say that. I specifically said that there is no connection between damage auras and KB resist. I said that there *wasn't* a connection between the two. What we can see is that when sets were designed they had a fairly consistent structure, with two exceptions that still prove that KB protection costs something from the set. If they have meaningful mitigation to Psi damage, they don't get strong KB protection. WP got both psi and KB protection but traded it's taunt magnitude and raw resist numbers. Fire got all it's resists and mez protection in two powers, which is a big advantage, and got an AoE attack and build up power, and healing flames. Set's have strengths and weaknesses. Getting knocked while using a set with KB as a weakness in one of the most difficult bits of content in the game isn't showing poor design or an oversight IMO. And acrobatics was changes specifically because of the fact that it let everyone from blasters and defenders to tankers ignore KB.

This is not the case, it was not and oversight, and it was tested and announced more than a month before it was actually brought live. As it said in the patch note you provided yourself, the change was implemented so there would still be instances where some enemies could overcome the KB protection of a pool power, occasionally vs targets that had no other KB protection. The change was to make it so you couldn't just pick Acrobatics and ignore KB. The trade off isn't damage aura -> KB resist

The reason I'm asking is there's supposed to be a hard-coded limit to mez in PvP to keep it from exceeding 4s. That's why I'm asking if people see the mez actually apply longer than 4s or is it just people seeing the duration on the power being higher than 4s.

Is it all CC that is capable of exceeding 4s, or just this one specific hold? Player CC should be hard-capped at 4s when in PvP. If all CC is capable of working past 4s then that whole chunk isn't working.

Has it been confirmed that dark control can *actually* hold for more than 4s? Not that it has a duration for more than 4s, but that a player affected by it is held for longer than 4s?

It isn't an oversight, and everything about Recluse is excessive in that instance. Hardcapped S/L/E resist, health, recharge and Def(all). With +2000% regen to boot. The weaker KB protections has always been an intentional design decision.

Unmodified. The calculation is just to determine what the chance should be. The chance does not change dynamically with recharge rate like PPM enhancement procs. It just is.

It depends on how much you value Psi resists. Willpower and Fire are exceptions due to unique shticks, but generally sets with meaningful protections to Psionic damage have weaker protections to KB. And if they don't value Psionic mitigation that much then there will be some sets to add it to. *cough*energyaura*cough* But yeah, the general trade-off is KB protections and Psi Mitigation.

They got a 6s full auto animation for a very specific reason. Everyone had a 6s Full Auto animation until Jan 2009 IIRC. Critters and players alike. When they went and lowered the animation to 4s; they just didn't port the changes to mobs.

There's a buff Icon for it. Looks like a grey and red version of the Assassin's Strike Icon: You get one per level of Assassin's Focus.

Not to be Johnny come lately, but It just occurred to me. Would it be possible to see the rewards earned metrics, to provide some context to these numbers?

The best part is you don't have to believe it. The numbers were exposed to the players. The devs didn't tell us what the formulas were, the players figured them out. If there was no formula we wouldn't have had the threads in the old forums nor the thread in this forum about it. Whether you believe it or shove your head in the sand is irrelevant. Do me a favor. Show me. Don't just make a claim and assert it as true. If you're not just blowing smoke you should be able to demonstrate the "quite vast disparities". So which sets and which powers do not line up appropriately in the Damage, recharge, and endurance triangle? What damage scale do they do, and what damage scale should they do? I'll be nice and give an example: Fire Blast -> Fire Blast T2: Recharge time is 4s -> damage calculation: 0.2 * (0.8 * 4 + 1.8) -> Damage scale: 1 with blaster ranged damage mod -> 62.56 Energy Blast -> Power Bolt: Recharge time is 4s -> damage calculation: 0.2 * (0.8 * 4 + 1.8) -> Damage scale: 1 with blaster ranged damage mod -> 62.56

BG mode splits the damage between you and any henchmen in supremacy range that are Defensive + Follow/Goto/Stay BG mode splits the damage into shares. The MM effectively counts as two. If you have 6 henchmen then there are 8 shares of damage to be taken. The mastermind takes 2/8 and each henchman takes 1/8 meaning the mastermind takes 1/4 damage. 1/4 damage is 25% damage taken, or 75% damage resisted. In this case the "Resistance" is damage taken by henchmen instead of the Mastermind.

So it's (((Power Recharge - 1) * 5) + 55) Most common power recharge times and Assassin's focus chances (Any recharge time higher than 10s is 100% chance): 1.7 58.5 2.5 62.5 3 65 3.2 66 4 70 4.8 74 5 75 6 80 6.4 82 7 85 7.5 87.5 8 90 8.87 94.34 9 95 10 100

BG mode would have to be gutted in a way I don't think MM players would want to do something like this. Would rather it stay the way it is.

My implementation is simpler, and is as fair as is possible to both mitigation types. No need to cleave babies, unless you're a redsider.

I'm going to attempt to convince you that's a bad idea, fully aware I may not succeed. But that's ok. If the debuff is a -def debuff then it is more punitive to defense sets than resistance sets. Additionally the amount of extra damage taken is inconsistent. If the debuff is a -res debuff that can't be resisted, you've done the same thing, but just traded punishing resist sets more than defense sets. If the debuff is a resistable -res then you can say how much more damage you want a player to take, and have it remain consistent without regard to type of mitigation used. Example: 2000 damage thrown vs softcap comes out to 100 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - .45) 2000 damage vs capped resist comes out to 100 damage taken through 2000 * .5 * (1 - .9) 2000 damage vs softcap def and current crash 500 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - .25) 2000 damage vs capped resist and current crash 140 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - -.20) * (1 - .9) 2000 damage vs 64% resist and current crash 504 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - -.20) * (1 - .64) Swap to a resistable -resist and the effect hit's both more equally. Lets say you want it to cause the player to take 50% more damage so the crash becomes -50% resist: 2000 damage vs softcap def and new crash comes out to 150 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - .45) * (1 - -.5) 2000 damage vs capped resist and new crash comes out to 150 damage taken through 2000 * .5 * (1 - (.9 - ((1 - .9) * -.5))) 2000 damage vs 64% resist and new crash comes out to 540 damage taken through 2000 * .5 * (1 - (.64 - ((1 - .64) * -.5))) Compared to 360 damage taken without crash 540/360= 1.5 2000 damage vs 32% def and new crash comes out to 540 damage taken through 2000 * (.5 - .32) * (1 - -.5) compared to 360 damage taken without crash This even works for other values of -resist, so long as the debuff is resistable it is applied equally. You could have it do double damage, a -100% resist debuff. It should still work. Players can't resist these debuffs 100%, and their ability to resist is proportionate to their damage resist itself so the math works out as the damage resist and debuff values change.

Would it be possible to also test an alternative mitigation crash at the same time? If you swap the -def for a resistable -resist, then you can better control the amount of extra damage taken by the crash. And do it in a way that is equal for both defense sets and resistance sets. It should only fail if cumulative -resist exceeds -300%.

What enhancement do you think is being traded for the KB->KD? Seriously, like @Vanden said, it's a very powerful slot just by it's own right. Going by the template of other Alphas, it's traded a soft control for the KB->KD intentionally. How is not having a Sleep, Slow, or Fear enhancement short-slotting twenty-plus powers? Honestly if you think this slot is Petless-MM tier gimping I think you don't have proper perspective on effect balance.