Luminara

The question is too broad in scope. It needs to be narrower. Example: Are Defense/Resistance buff totals too high at max level and accounting for IO set bonuses? Probably. But that can easily be countered with minor adjustments to critters. What can't be easily countered, and would be seriously detrimental, would be approaching the problem without recognizing and considering all of the variables. Defense and Resistance are only parts of a larger equation. Failure to account for other parts of the equation will create more problems, and in actuality, resolve nothing. Let's examine a hypothetical scenario in which the HC team reads this thread, looks at the server data and concludes that all Defense and Resistance buffs, from any source, need to be adjusted downward by 25%. Now everyone who built up significant Defenses and/or Resistances experience a moderate increase in difficulty... but those who relied on smaller amounts of these buffs, "just enough to make it through a tough fight", may be struggling significantly more. Additionally, you haven't reduced ToHit debuffs or Damage debuffs, the inverse portions of the equation, and consequently attached much greater emphasis on them. These debuffs become more powerful by comparison, and concurrently, more important, because they restore the previous status quo. You've also left out Regeneration, Absorb and Heal, which, while less effective than high degrees of Defense or Resistance, are still strong enough to allow players to sidestep GDN 2.0. And then there are status effects. Preventing attacks has always been the strongest and most versatile method of damage reduction. This is why, when the original developers decided that there was little challenge or risk in AV fights, they didn't increase AV damage, or jack up AV hit chance, they gave AVs partial near immunity to status effects. In the end, all that has happened in this scenario is a shift the meta. Fewer people bothering to play melee archetypes, more people playing debuffers and mezzers. And "healers"... God or gods help us all. We're right back where we started, asking if the game is too easy. The difference, this time around, is that when the entire equation is gone over and all of the variables are altered, the changes which were intended to "encourage teaming" and "improve the feeling of challenge" for the end game crowd will hit the entirety of the rest of the player base like a Mack truck and make soloing easy content a tedious, defeat-laden slog. And everyone who wasn't narrow-mindedly chasing IO set bonuses would have to now, just to play the game as it was originally intended. This is why I suggested that your question should be reconsidered and focused. You can't ramp up the difficulty for some players and not for others. You can't ramp up the difficulty across all levels to address a lack of difficulty at one level. You can't ramp up the difficulty based on IO set bonus availability without addressing the players who aren't building around those bonuses. You can't ramp up the difficulty for those who use buffs without doing something similar to those who use debuffs with comparable net effects. You can't ramp up the difficulty across the board to address outliers in edge case conditions. Frankly, I don't consider unilateral nerfs to be a solution to anything, unless the problem is game-wide, and even then, I believe there are better options than nerfs. Enemies can be buffed and/or given new abilities, scripts can be changed, creative solutions can be devised, resolutions can be implemented as targeted solutions which don't degrade the playing experience in a sweeping and unpleasant manner. If you succinctly identify the problem, you can tailor an appropriate solution without undue nerfs.

Unless they're individually coded for it, none. ToHit buffs might offer resistance to -ToHit, in the manner that Resistance buffs resist -Res, but I can't offer a conclusive statement on that mechanic, as I never got around to testing it. In my experience, though, having mained a TA/Dark for four years, I can't recall ever encountering any sub-AV/GM I couldn't reduce to floored hit chance, which includes foes with ToHit buffs. It's also worth mentioning that the existing ToHit buffs for critters tend to be low (due to the inherent strength of ToHit in the attack equation), so whatever resistance might be offered by +ToHit would have to be miniscule, by nature of how the resistance would be calculated. You don't get much from a small percentage of a small percentage. For example, if you apply a 9% ToHit debuff, and the target has a 5% ToHit buff which would theoretically resist your debuff, the net effect would be a paltry 0.45 reduction to your debuff. Note, however, that there are level modifiers, so if you're facing +1 or higher foes, your debuffs become increasingly less effective. This is also not resistance in the same vein as +Res resisting -Res, but the effect appears similar from the player perspective. This scaled devaluation of player effects on +con foes is much more powerful than the postulated scenario above, and is the reason why fighting critters beyond +4 is significantly more difficult and usually not worthwhile. The same 9% debuff on a +4 foe drops to roughly 4.5%. For more information on this, you can read about the Purple Patch on the wiki.

Is this officially unofficial, or unofficially officially unofficial? Mmm... fish...

-Res has not been, historically, a trigger for flight behavior. The HC team may have made a change, intentionally or inadvertantly, but it's never been a problem in the past. But given that no-one's started a thread asking why enemies are running away from Sonic Blast attacks or Sonic Resonance debuffs, why Acid Arrow and Disruption Arrow are scattering enemies, et cetera, I think the logical conclusion here is observational bias. Test before making any assumptions. Every debuff can be tested, and you can alter variables such as personal defense totals to discover whether this is a real issue or misperception. I'd gleefully do it, but I lack access to the necessary equipment.

There are a handful of triggers. The Avoid mechanic is a component of some powers (Rain of Arrows and Oil Slick Arrow, for example). Avoid is pulsed, with variable timing dependent on the power, so some powers might appear to cause little fleeing, whereas others cause critters to run willy-nilly (with brief pauses to fire ranged attacks). If a critter with all melee attacks or almost all, is attacked from range and cannot retaliate, it will appear to be running away, though it's really an attempt to find a path to reach you. If there is no path, the critter will may continue to search until it resets and returns to the spawn point (at walking speed). Note that this is different from "leashed" behavior, in that the "leashed" critter immediately resets when the AI determines that no path to you exists (outside the map boundary, or attacking from extreme vertical distance (beyond normal snipe range)). "Leashed" behavior also includes returning to the spawn point if you try to pull it beyond a set distance or boundary (to prevent kiting). Slows also tend to cause critters to give the impression that they're giving up and going home, but this is typically a result of confusion on the part of the scripted behavior. They're trying to attack, can't reach you with their melee attacks and begin searching for alternate routes. Reducing a critter's health to a certain threshold without defeating it can cause it to run. Critters with teleport, flight or superspeed exhibit this behavior most noticably (and frustratingly). Some critters are scripted to run at specific health thresholds. Named critters and certain boss fights are notable examples, as the goal when scripting was to advance the story by extending the fight, giving the players a breather, giving the critter a breather, or moving the story forward by interrupting the fight and forcing a restart in another location.

When you live with a constant fear of failure which makes penalties of that nature hover over you like the persistent memory of that day when you walked into work still wearing your chicken feet bedroom slippers without realizing it, haunting you like derisive laughter, sly glances and barely hushed whispering behind your back, a source of humiliation and self-loathing which gnaws at you for the rest of your life and leaves you with an ashen, bitter feeling that drives you to burn... WHY IS EVERYONE STARING AT ME?! 😠

Things people say when you're naked.

What was the trade-off? Can it optimize multiple options simultaneously (select two, three, four or more bonuses to pursue)? What about exclusions, such as "no purples" or "any set except this one"? Is it named Magicjtv's Invention Set Specialization, Integrated Edition?

If you infer insult from that, it says far more about you than about me. If you would like to debate the content of my responses, or the reasoning behind and merits of my conclusions, I'm more than willing to engage you. But deliberately misconstruing my posts, putting words in my mouth and trying to start shit isn't going to get you anywhere, and it doesn't imply that what you imagine my opinion to be carries any weight.

I wasn't addressing sets. Individual set recipes drop. Those recipes are useful without considering the bonuses available for using multiple enhancements from an specific set. It's a simple matter to soft cap every enhanceable effect of any power in four or five slots by using double, triple and quadruple attribute IOs from varying sets. And the math for calculating that, it's standard addition. It's not advanced calculus or trigonometry, it's 2+2=4 math.

What I wrote. I think through everything I post, examine every possible avenue of which I can conceive and regard as feasible, consider every word before using it, and proofread and edit before submitting my commentary. I don't equivocate. I don't sacrifice clarity or completeness for convenience. As I stated, and meant, there's a functional plateau to the benefit of +Recharge, and that plateau can be achieved with neither Hasten nor IO sets. That plateau has nothing to do with caps, or diminishing returns, and pursuit of further +Recharge gradually decreases the total efficiency of a character by sacrificing different aspects of potential power gains in favor of minute recharge time improvements. A stable attack chain, with no pauses between activations, and with all other important aspects of the powers commesurately improved, is peak efficiency, and that is easily possible with neither Hasten nor IO sets. I assume that all players gain an awareness of IOs, as that is one of the missions given to everyone, regardless of origin or starting point (blue/gold/red). And I assume that all players develop an awareness of IO set existence, as random recipe drops are a basic component of the game. I also assume that all players are intelligent enough to either perform the very basic math necessary to comprehend how "garbage" IO set recipes can be used to effectively enhance powers well beyond what a simple global +Recharge increase alone can provide, or are capable of using a tool like Mids' to do this. Those are the only assumptions I make. But you may be right. I may be assuming too much. It is entirely possible that a large segment of the player base consists of slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging evolutionary throwbacks to Homo Heidelbergensis who are still screaming in terror at the sight of fire and marveling at the sharp edge produced when they drop one rock on another. Frankly, I suspect there are only a few of those here, but I can accede the possibility that there may be more than I anticipated. The imbalance is not caused by differing improvements of variables to combat equations, it is a result of lack of variability in combat itself. As I said previously, changing or removing either Hasten or IOs will not solve the problem because they didn't create the problem, and their impact on the problem is actually far more limited than most people consider. Deleting Hasten and IO sets entirely doesn't move the goalpost, it paints the goalpost mauve.

Hasten isn't overpowered, nor is it a problem. It may have been both early in the game's life, but the design and implementation of IO sets altered the situation. With minimal investment and no sacrifice, one can achieve Hasten-level global recharge bonuses via IO sets. Frankenslotting requires even less investment and can maximize the potential of every aspect of every power. Combining both approaches leads to better yields than Hasten alone could ever achieve. One could argue that Hasten in concert with global recharge bonuses from IOs and sets is a problem, but realistically, the threshold for useful +Recharge is lower than most people realize. Most of the "work" is accomplished through the use of attack chains, not powers with long recharge times, and an efficient attack chain uninterrupted by recharge limitations is easy to develop. Continually escalated global recharge buffs beyond attack chain breakpoints is a unicorn which many chase, not realizing that they're hindering themselves in the process, and as such, is more often than not detrimental, not beneficial. And I say that from the perspective of a die-hard TA player with an unhealthy adoration of Oil Slick Arrow. The problems are: stinkers in sets which few people like, or can find a use for, or which are viewed as underwhelming in comparison to other options (such as pool powers); limited options within existing pools which also fit character concepts and feel rewarding to use; and poor, outdated critter design. The first two problems have always existed, and likely always will. Revisions to existing powers have always been controversial, and new pools aren't guaranteed to fill holes in sets. Hasten is selected more often than not simply because the trade-off is "crap power, or something which improves non-crap powers". Removing it doesn't actually resolve the underlying issue of lack of palatable, thematic or useful alternatives within sets or pools. Nerfing it wouldn't make it any less attractive when compared to existing "bad" powers within sets. And granting it as an automatic would have the same impact as removing it, that being depriving players of an alternative to a "bad" power. The other problem, that of general "overpoweredness" at max level with fully realized dream builds, can actually be attributed to poor critter design. The standard MMO enemy is a bullet sponge. The higher the level, and/or more unique the encounter, the spongier the enemy. That is the problem. In the end, regardless of level, IOs, Hasten, or any other choice, it always comes down to the fact that we're just filling one sponge and moving on to the next sponge. Adding, removing, nerfing or automatically granting any power will never resolve this. A different approach is required, one which Co* is, in my experience, uniquely suited to address. Co* critters weren't designed poorly because there were few or no other options, they were designed poorly because the design fit the existing model for MMOs and player expectations. But whereas other MMOs are, by nature of their underlying systems, limited to bullet sponges with occasional alterations, Co* has built-in tools to create more unique and interesting encounters. Map-specific buffs and debuffs, and pseudo-pets. We could, for example, create an encounter in which the critters have very low HP, but can only be damaged after specific events (triggering a glowie, or pulling the critters into a certain area). We could create missions in which certain powers are disabled, not by level, but via specificity (disabling AoEs, locking out T7 powers while leaving every other tier available, mez only or no mez, etc). We could create environments with specific effects (swimming via a modified Fly field in an underwater map, specific damage types or attack vectors ineffective, reduced hit chances via constant ToHit debuff). By addressing the underlying problem of bullet sponges, making critters challenging in ways other than continually inflated hit point totals, being "overpowered" is no longer an issue. Whereas other MMOs have to create new enemies, or scripts which force players to dance around inanely to create the illusion of variety without actually changing anything, Co* can do more using nothing beyond what is already in the engine. This would, obviously, require redesigning existing missions, maps and enemy groups, or designing new ones, and creating the appropriate pseudo-pets and/or implementing map buffs/debuffs, but it's possible within the existing framework, and would be far more effective at closing the gap between "uber" and "scrub" builds. Co* has always been capable of being more than a measurement of damage output, and many of the inherent functions, such as variability of powers between sets, accuracy (the very existence of which opposes most MMO approaches), and multiple damage and resistance types, indicate that the original intent was to move beyond the bullet sponge paradigm, but it never quite made it to where it was going. That's why the power gap exists, and will until the game begins moving forward again, in regard to critter and encounter design. Any change to Hasten would be meaningless and functionally useless in light of the current design and implementation of combat and mission objectives, and when taking IOs into account. Until we are required to do more than throw increasingly large or rapidly repeated orange numbers at enemies, it would be nothing other than changing the goalpost. Not even moving it, just altering how players approach and pass it.

Archery is almost all lethal. A smidgeon of smashing (half of Explosive Arrow's damage, and Stunning Shot), a dash of fire (Blazing Arrow's DoT), everything else lethal. There's nothing exotic, or even notably special, about Archery's damage type. You want specific selections within powersets, which would be comparatively easy to implement via hidden powerset pools which become visible when predefined milestones are reached. The difficulty lies in determining those milestones, and creating the powers for the hidden pools. How you envision this working is the deciding factor for feasibility. Does every power branch (split to two selections), and every selection within a branch continue the trend (in which case, every powerset would need... 257 powers), or do specific powers offer an alternative? If your goal is the former, the basic math of of the situation moves it firmly into the "impossible" category. You're looking at creating several thousand new powers, even if you recycle powers from every other set, and corresponding animations. A massive development studio with hundreds of dedicated employees might be able to pull it off inside of a decade. A handful of people working on it in their free time... we'll have a colony on Mars before they reach the halfway point. Even of you homogenized every powerset by giving them exactly the same powers and varying the animations slightly, it would still take a prohibitively long time. If your goal is the latter, it already exists. Power pools. Granted, pool options aren't always complementary to our character concepts, or specifically usable in regard to our previously selected powers, but they still serve the purpose of offering a branching option. The choice to utilize that option, or not, is always available (within the existing limitations on character development, such as character level, or having a maximum of four pools open). IOs (specifically procs and set bonuses) further expand the existing branching structure. Obviously, the existing pools and IOs don't plug every hole in every set, or satisfy every individual's expectations, but the system works for the majority of players. It's also worth noting that more branches, power pools, are always possible. In fact, there were several unrealized pools under development when the original servers were shuttered, and which the HC team has been working toward implementing. If you have some ideas for new pools, there's a forum for suggestions.

It's been done. Rad's T1. Even with procs, before the proc timer changes, everyone who tried it reported it to be extremely underwhelming.

It could certainly be done, though new animations would be required for several powers. But in keeping with real physics, the damage for nearly every electromagnetic power would drop considerably. Single digits, max. Arrows kill through exsanguination (blood loss). Bullets also cause exsanguination, and they increase lethality by breaking apart (thereby inflicting more damage internally) or mushrooming (thus creating a larger exit wound). Lasers, by contrast, make tiny holes, and cauterize the wound in the process. Little internal damage, practically no blood loss. Even precise targeting, such as at the heart, isn't particularly dangerous. You'd need an absolutely enormous laser, with a power output of several hundred kilowatts (at least), for it to be more than a nuisance. Radiation doesn't kill quickly, either (alpha, beta or gamma). A "fast" death from radiation poisoning is typically several days, and even that requires such a massive exposure that it's all but certain to affect everyone in the vicinity. Radiation burns don't develop instantly, either. Energy attacks can be categorized with lasers, despite the magical +KB they have in-game. Theoretically, we could view Energy Blast attacks as particle beams, to explain the +KB, in which case they would deal more damage... but that's because they're no longer energy attacks, they're physical (protons or neutrons accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light). And if we're redefining them as particle beam attacks, we also have to animate them appropriately (what's the run-up time for the LHC?). We could treat that (particle acceleration) as a super power, but in keeping with real physics, it would require incredible amounts of energy to use those attacks, so recharge times would make it impossible to develop any attack chain. Electricity, now that would be a good candidate for a real physics implementation of instantaneous attacks. Except, it's actually incredibly difficult to make electricity cross a gap of air. You have to either shorten the gap significantly (near physical contact), or create a corridor of ions for it to travel through. You can increase the voltage by several tens of thousands, but that doesn't ensure that it will go where you want, only that it can cross a larger gap. So the ranged powers would have to be changed to melee, or have an animation added to reflect the creation of the ion corridor. And even then, you're really only talking about three possible electricity effects - seizures and spasms; second and third degree burns; and interrupting the heart's normal rhythm (IOW, heart attack). You'd need to create several new powers to flesh out Elec. Blast again, because it's unlikely there will be a blast set with three instant kills, three holds and three medium damage attacks. There's no chance of balance in that. Basically, an implementation of real physics for electromagnetic powers would be underwhelming. That was a nice thought exercise. Thank you.

That's the opposite of the facts of the matter. It was an exploit, whether you were aware of it or not, it was resolved the way all exploits are, quietly and quickly and without any need for your personal approval, and your belief that it was malicious is ridiculous and petty. Stop being a self-centered drama queen.

Hurdle is automatically granted at level 2, and the base speed is nearly identical to Fly's base speed. Swift (also automatically acquired at 2) and Beast Run or Ninja Run is comparable (and can be significantly faster if used in concert with a primary/secondary which grants +run speed). There are also other flight temp powers. I played without a travel power for years, was never last on teams, and there is a grand total of one badge which can't be obtained without some form of flight, teleportation or super leaping (on top of the Atlas statue in front of City Hall). The temp, veteran and Super Booster powers are all much more available now, as well. No-one has to take a travel power at any level.

Naked. >.> <.< Just me? Again? *sigh*

It's his own fault for not bringing construction paper and crayons.

That's okay. I'll still let you play with my kitty. Um... she's half Savannah. And a tortie. Might want to wear a bomb suit. 😄

That's what I said in the rest of that post. With less brevity.

I did, sort of, come to that point. 😉

Comparative analysis of goods valuation. If you know something is useful, and the cost seems low, and you believe it can be higher, and you can purchase a sufficient percentage of the supply, you can push the price higher. Theoretically. In practice, in the current iteration of the game, it's more difficult, due to convertors. That's why marketeers prefer not to disclose the specific recipes and enhancements they trade in, unless that item is of limited supply (winter IOs, for instance). As always, though, it comes down to "what the market will bear", not deliberate and malicious spiking. Pricing even the most valuable item too high does nothing but cost them currency. Despite what the short bus riders are asserting, it's highly unlikely there are any marketeers trying to push goods prices so high that no-one can buy them, or even so high that farming becomes necessary to afford them. Smart marketeers buy low, sell less low, and strive for the most rapid turnaround possible because filling their AH sale slots with overpriced goods means they're not making any inf*.

Inflation is countered by market manipulation. Prices for some goods might increase in the short term, but the net effect is reduction of total available currency for all via transaction fees. With less currency to go around, each unit is correspondingly worth more, causing a general trend downward in prices. Over a sufficiently long period, those downward trends become visible, and even higher-priced goods become less expensive simply by nature of fewer units of currency being available. Inflation is driven by uncontrolled influx of currency. Pumping inf* into the game economy rapidly, at a disproportionally high rate in comparison to the destruction of existing inf*, creates inflation by inducing rapid growth in prices of goods. The more inf* available, the higher prices trend. Over time, without control, prices escalate until each unit of inf* is worth so little that goods cannot be exchanged via the AH because of the inf* cap. This occurred on the original servers. This is not theory, it's history. And the removal of double plus inf* at 50 was not directly targeted at immediately driving market prices down, but at reducing the uncontrolled inf* flooding the economy at a rate grossly disproportional to both the rate of removal and the rate of growth of population. The short-term effect is some degree of stabilization of market prices in comparison to net inf* influx, so they are less disproportional and prices don't spike to levels beyond the reach of the players who neither farm nor play the market. The long-term effect, presuming sufficient inf* sinks exist and continued population growth, will be either a very slow, controlled increase in pricing (inevitable) in concert with a growing player base, or a gradual decline in pricing. Given the comparatively limited number of variables involved, this is relatively basic math.

Then prices would never increase, as that would violate said pattern. Obviously, prices have increased over time. Your statement is falsifiable, thus incorrect. Again, falsifiable, thus incorrect.