Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Bunmaster

  1. My main is a km/ea stalker. He has enough +rech to only use t2 and t3 attacks. My rotations usually starts with BU, t9, BU, AS, Moonbeam, t2+t3 till i have 3 stacks of AF, AS, t9 (if hidden). The idea is to sprinkle in as many BUs and Moonbeams as possible, everytime AS procs hidden, you basicly have BU. With the Gaussian proc in BU, you can sometimes stack a bunch of BUs.
  2. An healing arrow would be nice. But i am sure it took an arrow to the knee.
  3. Would really love that, but there are stuff that are in much worse state than Stalkers.
  4. If we balance with IOs and ourside buffs in mind, might as well lower all values across all ATs by a percentage. Cannot single out Brute and Tankers. With IOs Blasters can output immense dmg and tank. Just don't open that can of worms.
  5. This is a post from the tanker thread about Invulnerability. It has some older info, but should give you an idea on atleast the invul side of things.
  6. Shouldn't balance the Brute/Tanker around IOs. Need to really stop using the "Brute is as tanky with IOs" argument. If that's the case, might as well delete IOs or lower every single value down to 90% (or even lower) of current values. Honestly, if you wanted damage in the first place, roll a Brute then. Sure there is no reason to do low damage as a Tanker, but it comes with the territory of having you damage powers as a secondary. I personally prefered not touching the dmg modifiers. Increased AoEs and cones are great ideas, some form of improved bruising (i know CP said no bruising). But these 2 things still improves dps indirectly. With current patch, it's choosing between a brutey Tank and a Brute.
  7. From my experience, my brutes usually averages @75% fury in parties/TFs. In a itrial it is usually less, due to boss mechanics and forced breaks. I don't do AE farms, so cannot comment on that. Reading other comments, that 95% fury seems more like an outlier than the norm.
  8. I think this is the best compromise we can get. Considering that we will NEVER get Live Rage back without a nerf (which was left as is by Live devs after tests). Stackers gonna stack and suffer the HC consequences, non-stackers gonna have their non-crash. Why is there even a complaint? Personally i'd remove the -Dam component and keep the rest (def, res and end crash). But it appears players don't understand that SS is balanced around Rage. I have to spend 10 sec with -1000% dmg every 120sec, just to be average compared to other primaries dmg-wise. Balancing double Rage is like balancing IOs, since Rage is perma with SO.
  9. It depends, all my toons have a vanguard costume when doing mish for vanguard or when in rwz. Most have a swimsuit because we have a sweet sweet swimming pool in the base. Most of the slots are filled with their "early" career to their current costumes. The rest it depends on their backstories, since each have a unique background. Like being part of hero corps or former knife of artemis or being a cook etc
  10. While loving the aoe and taunt changes, i just don't feel the rest of it. With these changes, it feels like choosing between a tanky brute and a brutey tank. Tank will be just as "selfish" as the brute. But since this direction was already decided and these changes are inevitable, there is nothing left to say nor suggest. Except this last bit. Specifically the endurance changes feels tacky, every single AT can make a case about not having enough endurance. I feel like it should be either all AT or no AT. Also since tanker has more dmg now, it shouldn't have more endurance, since the justification for it was, no dmg need more end to keel stuffs.
  11. I personally think that the proposed 575% is still too much. Damage is a brute thing. Tanks should be tanks, the increases aoe and cone radius is amazing, it definitely helps with aggro. Theoretically when tanks and brutes team up, with these new changes, brutes would have less aggro. Thus less fury and damage, thus an indirect nerf. Though this is merely a theory, needs some tests first. I would expand bruising , revert the modifier change back to the original, make ta cap 550% and increase the aoe/cone radius. That should keep the tanker playstyle the same. That +20 End makes 0 sense, every AT can make the claim that they need more endurance, why is the tank the special one? On a side note about the secondary T1 powers. I don't know how the code works, but is it possible to make it non-mandatory when respeccing? As in, have it start out empty and allow the player to choose an extra power?
  12. Ppl need to stop saying that it was the Live Devs intention for it to keep the -Def. Yes, it was a bug and yes it was fixed by HC. But the fix had been on beta servers before the sunset and tested thoroughly. It was decided that it was NOT a good fix. And thus the bug was allowed to live. After playing my SS/SD brute extensively, my opinion is that the Rage crash is more annoying than deadly. Even when i am the main tank. To me the annoying part isn't even the -Def, it's the -DMG. Sure when tanking i need to pay extra attention to the crash but it's survivable. Can it be better? And more FUN? Hells yeah! Personally, i think it Needs to lose the -DMG. For those who wants Rage nerfed because it's a perma BU, Rage cannot be looked at in vacuum. It's part of SS and that whole set is balanced around Rage.
  13. I don't see the need to completely reinvent Rage. Just remove either the dmg or the def debuff. If that cannot be done, then add a dmg or def buff while the crash is active. Reinventing Rage means reinventing SS. HC devs are regular joes just like us, keeping it simple should be the best course of action.
  14. Can we do something about that -def when rage ends? I can deal with the -dmg but the -def is a huge killer. At this point i am skipping rage despite it being 1 of the set defining powers.
  • Create New...