Luminara

Don't add them directly. Add them via the built-in difficulty scalar. They don't appear at default, low end builds aren't forced to encounter them. Increasing the difficulty manually or by joining a team of <insert minimum here> allows them to spawn. Pushing the difficulty higher allows numerically more, or challenge-wise more difficult, critters to spawn. This mechanic already exists and is in use. Bosses are replaced with lieutenants at the lowest difficulty level. Link the tougher critters to the same code. No-one adversely affected, no-one more challenged than they choose to be.

I wasn't referring to primaries which floor critter hit chance by design. I was referring to the combinations of primaries, secondaries, pools and APPs/PPPs which grant every AT the opportunity to soft-cap Defense through concerted passive and active manipulation of different sections of the critter hit chance equation. Trick Arrows is most definitely not, by any definition, a set which was designed with "not get hit" in mind. But it was one of the tools I used to do just that, rebalance the critter hit chance equation in my favor, "not get hit". I didn't even intend to build toward soft-capping, it just happened. My initial goal was the same as most TA fans at that time, reducing OSA's recharge as much as possible. Coincidentally, that goal reduced TT and Nightfall's recharge times to their animation times and initiated, on my part, a deeper examination of the game's mechanics and a reassessment of my build and goals, which led to a greater comprehension of the possibilities the developers freely gave to us in regard to our play style and character concept choices. Extreme ToHit Debuff values aren't necessary. I didn't slot TT or Nightfall for -ToHit, I slotted them with damage procs, and even optimally slotted, Flash Arrow has never been a particularly strong debuff on its own, but in concert with a seemingly small amount of +Def, these sources add up to... soft-capped Defense. Stacking of -ToHit, from multiple sources or rapid recharge of a couple of self-stacking sources, is all that is necessary to manipulate part of the equation, and it is, by no means, difficult to achieve, nor even particularly restricted. Every AT, with the exception of Kheldians and Arachnos Soldiers (who have their own unique mechanics and play style, and are tank-mages in their own right when played well), has at least one primary or secondary with ToHit Debuffs (or, in rare cases, Accuracy Debuffs). Almost all of the ATs have two or more primaries or secondaries with ToHit Debuffs, which opens up dozens of potential combinations per AT, and in almost every case, there's also either an APP or PPP which offers more options for -ToHit (defenders and corruptors being the exception, and they already have the widest variety of primaries and secondaries with -ToHit), or fills that hole in the tool kit. Even Arachnos Soldiers are given two AoE ToHit/Accuracy Debuffs (one of each) in PPPs (specifically, Soul Mastery). That's all it takes, if you have sufficient +Recharge, just a couple of debuffing attacks. And that +Recharge? Despite significant controversy over nearly a decade, they didn't nerf Hasten to the degree some people feared (and others hoped). They didn't flag it to ignore +Recharge. They didn't increase the recharge time to the point that it couldn't be made perma. No, in fact, not only did they allow us to continue using it as a a perma power, they dumped insane amounts of +Recharge in IO set bonuses, and in multi-aspect IOs themselves (Acc/Dam/Rech, as an example, which, when used with other multi-aspect enhancements, allows players to maximally enhance powers using fewer slots), and in IOs like LotG Def/+Rech... which stacks, rather than being unique (could they have made this +Def/-ToHit/+Rech interaction any more obvious without putting it on billboards in the game?), making it even easier to achieve perma-Hasten, or skip Hasten entirely and still gain the benefits of the same level of global +Recharge. They even made a proc which granted near-Hasten +Recharge just for KB powers, and, even more indicative of the design philosophy behind the game, included that proc when they refactored the way procs triggered, so it could be reliably used (when they redesigned the PPM math). Oh, and they tacked on Incarnate Abilities which enhance global recharge. And bypass part of ED. Intentional, knowing, deliberate design choices. The other part of the equation, Defense, never required IO sets, either. Yes, I absolutely agree that they do make it easier to obtain, but I was playing with an absurdly low Defense total, easily achievable by melee ATs, and eventually achievable by squishies, without IO sets, because it was given to squishies in pools and APPs/PPPs in sufficient cumulative quantities to effectively layer with -ToHit. The developers knowingly and deliberately gave everyone access to not-insignificant (when viewed from this perspective) amounts of +Defense (typically Smashing/Lethal, which also, not by coincidence, happen to be the most common critter damage types) in the *PPs, just like they gave (almost... sorry, Kheldians) everyone access to -ToHit/Acc. They didn't lock Defense into melee ATs, or give squishies a lower soft cap, they laid it out on a silver platter and presented it to us with a smile. That didn't come about months or weeks before sunset, either, it was very, very early on, when APPs were created and released, and expanded upon in the design of PPPs, and still further when *PPs were proliferated. Further exploration of this from a design perspective reminds us that critter spawns reflect AoE target limits, in the number of critters spawned, the proximity to one another within a spawn and the diameter of the spawned group. Spawns almost never contain more critters than can be hit with an AoE (16 target limit). Spawns almost always consist of all critters standing within a specifically definable area, which is, concurrently, almost always within the radius limits of most AoEs. And individual critters within spawns are almost always generated in close proximity to one another, in order to enable efficient and effective use of cones and AoEs. These design choices were intentional, and are they lay a foundation for soft-capping through manipulation of the critter hit chance equation. Another design aspect is the self-stacking nature of most powers with a ToHit Debuff component. While there are limits, primarily the unenhanceable durations of the debuff, these powers were intentionally allowed to self-stack. Consequently, one does not need five or six or nine powers with -ToHit to floor critter hit chances, or a single power with -25% ToHit, it can be achieved with as few as two with sufficient +Recharge. By design, the game allows, even encourages, players to stack appreciable percentages of -ToHit before a spawn can retaliate to any significant degree (defeat the player), simply by attacking or debuffing... which, again, by design, is how we play this game. Pew pew, stab stab, win win. Continuing with the design analysis, there's powerset and APP/PPP proliferation and expansion. ToHit debuffs were, early in the life of the game, generally restricted in availability to Dark * scrappers and specific defenders/controllers/blasters, but with powerset proliferation, that availability broadened significantly. Not only were powersets with -ToHit given to ATs which lacked them, but more -ToHit was offered in the APPs and PPPs, and still more when access to those was expanded. Typed Defense Buffs were given similar treatment. Whereas originally, pre-I3, one had to play a melee AT or a specialized squishie (FF defenders and controllers, for instance) to acquire viable +Def, the options were significantly expanded, several times. Again, with the exception of Kheldians, no ATs were excluded from access to Defense in either primaries, secondaries or *PPs, and the developers explicitly stated that this was intentional. At any point over the course of 9 years, the developers could have made adjustments to hit check calculations or stacking mechanics or recharge, to curb layered soft-capping, or restrict that approach to specific powersets, or define a harder limit to how much each mechanic could be manipulated. Instead, they verified the math for us and gave us ever-increasing ways to manipulate it. And, as @macskull mentioned, IO set Defense bonuses were even buffed, with the developers going so far as to spoon-feed players extra positional Defense to complement the typed Defense in the bonuses, and vice versa. That wasn't a typo in one field of a spreadsheet, they actually went into the set bonus tables and manually changed dozens of entries, a deliberate action intended to increase general availability of Defense for players, and to make Defense as a mechanic more effective and even less constricted. None of this was accidental, or the result of multiple oversights. If this wasn't actively mapped out as one of the design parameters before I3 was released, it was adopted as the direction the developers wanted to take the game toward very soon thereafter. Every design choice they made over the years makes that evident. Every AT has access to +Defense, without IOs, and in sufficient quantity to layer with -ToHit to effectively soft-cap (once again, except Kheldians). Every AT has access to -ToHit (and again, Kheldians), with at least one primary and one secondary powerset which uses it, as well as in APPs/PPPs, giving players a very, very wide array of potential combinations (hundreds) to fulfill the design goal of allowed soft-capping without restricting it to rare or niche builds, or builds which force players to make unpalatable choices. And everyone has access to nearly capped +Recharge, without the need to sacrifice anything. But what of those sacrifices we "have" to make to accomplish this? Having to give up a choice *PP, or skip some primary/secondary powers in favor of pool powers, or deal with fewer slots to go around, or decide whether a character concept is compatible with layered soft-capping? Some of those sacrifices aren't actually sacrifices. Frankly, I have yet to see a powerset with 9 perfect powers, primary or secondary. Let's be honest, some of them are just garbage. Damage is too low, or the status effect is of too limited utility, or the animation time is too long, or the penalty for using the power is too high, or the power is just too situational to justify taking or keeping, etc. We're not giving anything up by skipping some primaries and/or secondaries, and we have enough power selections by level 50 to justify adding a bit of +Def or -ToHit. Heck, I my soft-capped "proc monster" TA/Dark still had all of the Fitness pool as selections. I never respeced her to change them to inherents and free up the power selections. And slots are abundant with IO sets and their multi-aspect IOs. So, realistically, we're only talking about conceptual limitations, and I have little doubt that our few thousand current Co* players can find concepts for a few million characters among the hundreds of potential choices of +Def/-ToHit combinations available. And there are hundreds combinations across the ATs, multiplied still further by *PP options, which accomplish this. Soft-capping isn't something restricted to a handful of primary/secondary combinations available to specific ATs within narrow parameters, such as "only melee ATs", or "only Rad/FF/Dark squishies", it is widely available through the fundamental pairing of primary/secondary powersets and the APP/PPP "fill the gaps" design. This isn't the result of little quirks which couldn't be controlled, or bugs in power interactions, or developer design mistakes, it was intentional. They did this purposefully, built it into the game from the beginning. So, no, my point wasn't that specific combinations within specific ATs have always been capable of "not get hit" play, it was that there are sufficient options in both primaries and secondaries, not one or the other, for all ATs, which open up vastly more potential for players and removes numerous concept-oriented restrictions. Selecting a primary or secondary with -ToHit and tacking on +Def from an APP/PPP, or selecting a primary or secondary with +Def and coupling it with an APP/PPP with -ToHit (or, in a rare few cases, -Acc), and minor supplementation with pools to round out +Def totals, is achievable to everyone (except Kheldians, as noted previously), is capable of reaching soft-capped levels (presuming the player foregoes IO set Defense bonuses), and is not unduly restrictive in either character concept or actual mechanics. So reducing, restricting or even outright removing IO set Defense bonuses wouldn't make one bit of difference. We've had what they amount to since I3. What those bonuses have done is remove the last minor restriction to reaching the soft cap, that of character concept, so no-one has to feel "forced" to select a combination of primary/secondary/*PP which mate +Def with -ToHit. And all of that is ignoring the ridiculous ease of completely and utterly sidestepping critter hit checks via hard controls and knockback, which are both far more prevalent and egregious "abuses" of the game. As long as +Def, -ToHit and +Rech are so freely available, the critter hit equation is nothing more than another guide to character construction, and IO set Defense bonuses are merely one ICBM in the silo. This is the game. This is what was intended. This is by design.

There aren't enough relevant and worthwhile power choices to necessitate the kind of limitation you envision. Everyone has 24 power selections by level 50. Half of those are frequently used. Half of the remainder are occasional or emergency options. The last six are "I had to pick something". There are simply too many non-viable options available and little reason not to use them to obtain set bonuses. And of the first half, it's rare that any are so limited in slotting that they can't be slotted differently to achieve the same goal because set bonuses were widely spread across sets for all types of powers. There are no real sacrifices, beyond "Aw, I wanted to use that once per mission power once per mission. Oh, well, I'll take this other power instead and slot it for a Defense set bonus... and look a little less awesome. Woe is me." And the tactical variance you imagine occurring, refer to the previous sentence. Do you honestly believe it wasn't always prevalent, or easy? My TA/Dark hit the Ranged soft cap after three power usages on the original servers (only two of which caused aggro, with fast animations), and I only had 17% Ranged Defense. And I built for massive +Recharge, not Defense. That 17% Defense was unplanned happenstance. And this was before ATOs and Winter IOs. No mules for Defense bonuses, no crazy frankenslotting to squeeze a little more +Defense in. Soft-capping has always been possible for anyone who understood the mechanics of the game. Soft-capping was a given once IO sets were introduced, even if Defense bonuses had been flagged as Unique and non-stacking. Why is it suddenly worthy of attention now? And how can anyone believe the best solution is nerfing IOs, in light of the above facts?

Not when everyone else can change the other two thirds and return the result to it's previous value. The math still comes out the same in the end. 2+2 and 3+1 both equal 4.

((B + (T+ - T-)) - (PS - P - AP - TP - (IP + IT + IA)) * A = H B = Base Critter Hit Chance T+ = ToHit Buffs T- = ToHit Debuffs PS = Powerset Defense Buffs P = Pool Defense Buffs AP = Ancillary Pool Defense Buffs TP = Temporary Defense Buffs IP = IO set Defense bonuses (Position) IT = IO set Defense bonuses (Type) IA = IO set Defense bonuses (All) A = Accuracy Modifier H = Final Critter Hit Chance Reducing IO set Defense bonuses to half their current values without acknowledging T-, PS, P, AP and TP is pointless. Players will still be capable of soft-capping, they'll simply alter the meta to focus on more pool powers which offer Defense, more powerset combinations with ToHit debuffs, more IO set mules which allow comparable accumulated totals. Reducing I* variables by allowing fewer stacks will have no effect. Players can and will reslot with more varied IO sets to achieve comparable (or higher) bonuses. Players can and will drop infrequently used powers for set mules. Players can and will slot sets which grant Defense bonuses at 3 slots, twice in a single power. Players can and will substitute Hasten for previously accrued IO set Recharge bonuses, freeing up more slots to dedicate to IO set Defense bonuses. Players can and will slot for more Recovery and take Defense buffing powers like Maneuvers and other pool and APP powers (which are affected by AT modifiers). You can't change the game, end or otherwise, by altering the one third of the variables in a vacuum because the math doesn't work that way. As long as the remaining variables can be altered, the equation can always be rebalanced in the players' favor, at little or no cost. Nothing short of absolute dictatorial control of Defense and ToHit Debuff, every aspect of them which affects critter hit chances, will be effective. You simply cannot prevent players from flooring critter hit chances any other way without changing how hit chance is calculated (flagging every source of +Def and -ToHit as Unique, or reducing all +Def and -ToHit via lower AT modifiers, or limiting all +Def and -ToHit to the highest single instance from a given source (Maneuvers, Tenebrous Tentacles, etc.)), and then you have to rebalance multiple powers AND powersets to compensate for the decreases in utility and/or survivability. The good news is that you can download and modify the server code to do exactly that, be a dictator. Let us know how it goes and what your population numbers are when you've had it up and running for a while.

Foce!

Ditto on SAD. I've spent most of my life incapable of socializing. Even without being able to play, Co*'s resurrection has allowed me to converse more in the last few months than I had in the previous seven years.

And still, there are key points which aren't addressed in this proposal. For instance, only a few of the Defense bonuses in sets are Defense (All), and those are unique. They can be obtained once, and they're small. All of the rest are Defense (Type) or Defense (Position). Consequently, the high Defense some players can accumulate is, ultimately, situational. Soft-capped Defense for two positions or types can, with some juggling, be achieved, but that still leaves numerous gaps. You're slashing Defense bonuses wholesale, at all levels, for the sake of preventing a blaster from soft-capping Ranged Defense, or a Dominator's soft-capped Smashing/Lethal Defense, at level 50. And to attain those high Defense totals, the player has already sacrificed in potentially critical areas. That was one of the original design parameters of IO set bonuses, you could select what you wanted to improve your character, rather than follow a predefined path, but it meant giving up other options. You can't build for massive global Recharge and soft-capped Defense. You can't have 200% Recovery and soft-capped Defense. You can't do a lot with set bonuses without giving up other set bonuses. Pursuit of specific set bonuses to achieve maximal potential also means you have to sacrifice efficient slotting, too. Your powers aren't going to have the best slotted attributes. You have to decide what's best for you, high Defense versus optimal slotting versus Recharge bonuses versus etc. Plus, when you've finished reducing all Defense bonuses, you haven't actually prevented most of the players from soft-capping, you've just forced them to change their approach. They'll change their set mules, they'll drop a couple of infrequently used powers to add mules, they'll switch to Defense-based or ToHit debuff-based powersets, they'll pick up those more expensive IOs they previously skipped, they'll squeeze in more pool powers which offer Defense (All), they'll keep rolling along... except, now, they're soft-capping to more positions and types, exacerbating the issue. The "nerf everything" approach has been tried, numerous times, and it's never been effective. Haven't we learned anything from the original development team's mistakes? Is it really wise to do to IO set bonuses what was done to Trick Arrows, for the same basic reason (too good in extreme outlier situations), when more elegant and appropriate solutions can and should be applied? How many times are we going to go down this road? The problem lies in the content, not in the approach to playing it. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

September 5, 2017, I packed or disposed of the last of my possessions and moved into a tent. I lived in that tent for three months, while I built my cabin. I chose to do this. I spent ten years planning for it, saving to purchase the land and building materials. I knew my life would be more difficult, less comfortable, and require more physical effort than living in a house in a large metropolitan area, but I made the choice and stuck by it. In the same vein, players make choices about their builds, and many choose to accumulate appreciable Defense totals. Some difficulty is good. It gives people a sense of accomplishment when they prevail, or a goal to pursue if they have to try again. But, in truth, most people prefer the easy path. Why? Because they don't want their game experience to be comparable to living in an unchinked, unplumbed 12'x16' cabin without 120v electricity. They don't want to struggle. They don't want to have to try again. Some people want the game to be more difficult. I understand that. But that's a choice each person can make, and it shouldn't be an imposition on everyone else. You can challenge yourselves without forcing others to go through the same ordeals. Play "weak" powersets. Try less than ideal builds. Skip key IOs. Run Oro content with challenge settings. Build your cabin and live in it, without insisting that everyone else has to do it, too.

Okay, but what about the previous 49 levels? What about the sets with no Defense or Resistance, being played with moderate set bonuses to provide just enough mitigation? What about the ToHit and Damage debuffs that players at 50 are now using to compensate for the lack of buffs? And what about all of the other sources of Defense buffs, like the Concealment pool, Hover, Combat Jumping, etc.? You'll have to address those as well, because any reduction to Defense in set bonuses which doesn't equate to "nuke from orbit" will still be capable of accumulating to soft-cap levels when used in conjunction with those other sources. Buff the level 50 and Incarnate content, either directly, with increased hit chances, or creatively, with a wider spread of powers used and more intelligent scripting. Leave the rest of the game alone. The reason Damage buffs from IO sets are less valued is because of the way they're calculated. All Damage buffs are additive. Build Up, a damage SO, a 4% IO set bonus, it's all the same thing. It all goes into the same pile. Moreover, the cap for Damage is much higher than the caps for Defense or Resistance, the enhancements are on a different schedule (33% versus 20%), and by the time one can accumulate a 40% Damage bonus from IO sets, one is likely to have already slotted for Damage and potentially have extra Damage from other sources (Assault, Build Up or Aim, Rage, etc.), so that 40% is reduced in both value and real effectiveness (a 40% increase to base Damage is only a 20.4% net increase in damage output if you've slotted Damage to 96%). And that's not taking into account the fact that some characters can cap their Damage without IO set bonuses. Or that a single damage proc can provide a better increase in output than IO set Damage bonuses. Defense set bonuses could, theoretically, do with a minor reduction, as they do exhibit a greater return on investment than practically any other bonus, but realistically, it wouldn't make any difference because there are too many other Defense buff sources available. You would have to gut IO set bonuses, or reduce Defense in every non-primary/secondary source simultaneously (GDN 2.0). Alternatively, redefine all of them as typed Defense, removing position, so they're of much more limited utility, in concert with some rejiggering of critter attack types. That could work, without much disruption in the rest of the game, but it would be a hard sell.

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.