UberGuy

You may have wanted to test it before posting. That's what the most recent ones do.

There are probably a lot of OG players here who've seen all but the most recent content hundreds, even thousands of times. They don't all want to rush through content, and all new players don't want to stop and smell the roses, but I am sure it's part of what you're seeing. As far as your complaint about scatter, while it's usually extra annoying for melee, it's annoying for anyone who has their own AoEs to leverage. Spreading foes all over does no one any favors. But everyone isn't interested in efficient play. Some folks just want the visceral fun of sending things flying. I'm not a fan, but I sorta get it.

Actually, a little bird pointed out to me a bind combo that I think (?) does what you want, @Blackbird71 Bind this to start or stop flying. Hover turns off if it was running "powexec_toggleoff Hover$$powexec_name Fly" Bind this to start or stop hovering. Fly turns off if it was running. "powexec_toggleoff Fly$$powexec_name Hover"

That seems like good info. I would not expect any NPCs to do that shuffle any more. Hopefully the right devs see this.

OK. I've given you all the help I can offer. If one more key (to land) is that much of a QoL decrease, I literally cannot assist.

Some of the slash commands that affect the game client's own settings (render / cpu settings, for example) can be added to the command line as "switches", written as the same command string preceded by a dash instead of a slash. But ones that interact with in-game stuff like chat, various windows like /ah or /trade can't be invoked from the command line.

For comparison: Single keypress to go from on the ground to Fly active. The first bind I provided will do this for you Single keypress to go from on the ground to Hover active. I don't have a bind for you here, but you can use the bind above to get to Hover (only) in two clicks. Alternatively, you could use a reversed version of the bind above to do this (and bind it to a separate key). Meaning first click gets you hovering, and additional clicks toggles between Hover and Fly. Let me know if you'd like the "inverted" version, but basically you just need to reverse the order of Hover and Fly in the binds. Last power in the bind is executed first. Single keypress to toggle from Fly to Hover The first bind provided does this after it gets you off the ground into Fly. Single keypress to toggle from Hover to Fly. The first bind provided does this after it gets you off the ground into Fly. (Next click is Hover, then Fly, repeat.) If you go with the reversed bind to get to Hover from the ground, it will do this too. Single keypress to turn off Fly. The landing bind I provided does this. It turns off Hover and / or Fly Single keypress to turn off Hover. The landing bind I provided does this. It turns off Hover and / or Fly All of this in no more than two buttons. Anything more than that is worse than what we had before the patch. You can do this in two buttons if you're willing to double click to get from ground to Hover. If not, you'll need three. I don't see how you had this in two buttons before, though, as you could not have had "ground to Hover in one click" on the same key as "ground to Fly in one click", and you also had a landing key.

Nothing's changed with respect to this according to patch notes.

What I posted gives you a single bind (the first one) you can use to alternate fly and hover. Since only one of those two power will be on at a time, you can just click whichever is on to land, if you don't want a key for it. If you don't want the stuff that detoggles run powers while you're flying, just remove that part and leave the references to Hover and Fly. In terms of keys involved, I'm not sure how this could be more complicated than before, since you had to have at least one bind in order to toggle between Hover and Fly previously. All the rest of what I posted is optional - I posted it for completeness, because it's what I use and I thought it might be useful to you (and others).

That's what the first one does. Just bind the first one to whatever key you want, using this /bind <SOMEKEY> <THE_COMMANDS> Include the quotes around the <THE_COMMANDS> part. The second one is a convenience to have one key to stop flying with,

Here's what I did. The character in question uses Ninja Run if I want fast ground movement. If you don't need that, remove references to it, and if you want something else, just change the power name. To start flying from a ground state, and then start alternating between Fly and Hover. "powexec_toggleoff Sprint$$powexec_toggleoff Ninja Run$$powexec_name Hover$$powexec_name Fly" To stop flying and start sprinting. Click a second time to start toggling fast ground movement on and off, if you have it. "powexec_toggleoff Fly$$powexec_toggleoff Hover$$powexec_toggleoff Evasive Maneuvers$$powexec_name Ninja Run$$powexec_toggleon Sprint" Note that you will need another key to toggle on Evasive Maneuvers, if you have it. You can't have the alternation as part of the fly/hover bind - toggling on and off between more than two non-exclusive powers doesn't work in one bind. (Edit: Well, it can, sort of, but since EvMa has a non-zero recharge time, while it's recharging you can end up turning off Fly and not turning Hover on, so you just fall, so I considered it not worth it.) I also use this additional bind to start running Afterburner. Note that this will not work as given if you have the popup tray disabled and don't have Afterburner in a tray somewhere. (It will turn on EvMa instead of AB.) "powexec_toggleoff Sprint$$powexec_toggleoff Ninja Run$$powexec_toggleon Afterburner$$powexec_toggleon Fly$$powexec_toggleoff hover"

Ah, I was looking at the links on the main page, not the powerset pages. I didn't even know those existed. That said, they seem to be working for me. I see these links For Controllers: https://cod.uberguy.net/html/powerset.html?pset=controller_control.gravity_control&at=controller For Dominators: https://cod.uberguy.net/html/powerset.html?pset=dominator_control.gravity_control&at=dominator Edit: If those links directly above aren't working, the standard advice is to clear your browser's file cache. You don't need to reset cookies or anything else except cached files. Sometimes browsers really like to hold on to the backing data for CoD after it's changed, and when the data and the code are not in sync, that can really break the site's functionality.

It will not stack with itself, from any source. It will stack with the other -res procs, and other sources of -res.

Not sure what you mean. The links seem to be fine. The site seems to be working.

I think the issue was that originally there was no way around it. Someone must have cranked out a way. 🙂

They've done that since Grandville was added, at least. So yeah, it's absolutely not new.

CoH's designers very much based it on turn based games. Literally D&D and Champions (the pen and paper version, not CO). Stuff like attacks hitting you after you ran around a corner is because all attack rolls are resolved immediately. The fireball flying to its target is just a visual representation of something that's already been resolved, back before you got to cover. (Which may have been only moments before, given the speed of travel powers.) It seems unlikely that this game will ever be able to move away from that core behavior. Its assumptions run too deep into the engine design. But making it more responsive in the sense of cutting down on time spent rooted is certainly possible, as long as there aren't balance or, in some cases, animation concerns involved.

To the best of our knowledge, the Homecoming team is still involved in negotiations around legitimizing having access to the game at all. It seems incredibly likely that the tooling described by Cipher requires intimate knowledge of CoH's code and database structures, which are (very) likely considered part of the content under negotiation. Thus, until they get the go-ahead, they likely cannot publicly release things so tightly coupled with CoH's engine code. We know there are NDAs involved. We can hope that, if they ever do get some sort of legal "blessing", it would come with the right to share such things, but sadly even that is not guaranteed.

There are actual mechanical issues with "levelless" mobs in CoH. The "level neutral" critters in the game have an actual level, usually level 30 for non-GMs, along with jiggery-pokery in the code that attempts to transform attacks from both level 1s and level 50s into something appropriate to a level 30, and vice-versa for its outgoing attacks back. Why level 30? Because combat effectiveness in CoH is complicated and very non-linear, and you can only scale it so perfectly in a performant way. The further apart the real and apparent levels involved, the worse the scaling matches expectations. As a result, level 30 "levelless" mobs are actually pretty easy for level 50s to take out (especially since level 50s tend to laugh at +0 mobs even at level 50) and level 1s have a horrible time fighting them. If you've noticed, invasions no longer happen in Atlas or Mercy. They used to, but were removed. The above is a major part of why. This doesn't even touch on some of the things others have mentioned. What powers characters have have, and how many different powers they can synergize, is a huge part of what makes high-level player characters (and critters) more dangerous. Even with perfect scaling of damage and other effects, a level 50 critter is likely to have combinations of powers (offensive and defensive) that you would never want to throw at someone level 10 or under. Critters of different levels have pretty hard-coded lists of abilities, and scaling their challenge by level is achieved by providing different critters at different levels. If you design a critter for level 50 content and present it with a level 10 player, it's going to unload on them with everything it has. Having the AI scale its offensive patterns based on the level of the target is not something the game currently supports. (And I say "currently" only with the context that anything is possible with time and effort spent writing code - I am aware of no plans that would change this.) So there are some real technical hurdles to making a zone that legitimately works right in terms of challenge across levels 1-50.

I remember seeing something about these two powers interacting poorly. Here we go. And it's referenced in the May 4 patch notes. So ... known issue except they thought it was fixed, so the fact that it's not is probably new info.

OK, with this I finally have (I think) a clear understanding of your point. I don't agree with it, but I at least think I understand where you're coming from. Just personally, I won't be unhappy about having a new option that is better than an old option I liked. Part of that is that I am very performance-minded - for me the thing that is more fun is likely to be the one that performs better, because it performs better. But even if I actually still liked the less performant way more, I just would never be upset by a new, more performant way being added. (If it was a direct replacement and the old, less performant way was gone, I might be salty about that.) But that part directly above is purely my opinion.

FWIW, I never played my OG Stalkers as AS-and-run away to rehide. I always played AS then scrap, with Placate+AS on another target as circumstances allowed. I still will position and slow AS on targets if I get the chance, but if the fur starts flying before I get into position, I just scrap instead and look for (slow) AS opportunities on the next spawn. Of course, the folks I team with tend to be the "everyone split up and solo your own thing", so there's that - I can often fight each spawn however I want, because I have it to myself.

Huh? I am not sure how I'm conveying that. I mean, I seriously am not sure I understand what you think I'm saying, but it's not that. This conversation started because I understood you to be in disagreement with the changes to the AT. I made a qualified, subjective statement about why I disagreed (strongly) that the changes were bad, backed by some statements I feel are objective about the difference in performance on teams in particular. Everything else is just us debating the facts behind our opinions, and in the case of what you're saying here, me trying to understand what your opinion actually is. This literally was in the context of comparison to other ATs, which mattered because other ATs can prioritize damage on targets too. Why are you're assuming I didn't prioritize targets? Of course I did! Why wouldn't I? And why would my prioritizing targets change that the team screwing with AS going off (first or second) mean that this took more effort and luck than if I was just playing a Scrapper instead. The point of a damage AT on a team is to kill things - the how only matters for personal playstyle preference ... and how it interacts with the team. If being blasted by a shotgun blast aimed at a Brute (who repositioned himself after I started my AS) stops or slows down my carefully planned attack, I haven't done my job. If I have to spend my placate+AS on something that failed because something like that, that's potentially a second prioritized target I could not take out. Maybe because people responding back to me on this topic keep posting in ways that feel very much like attacking me instead of the facts or their interpretation.

a) Never PvP'd here to speak of. I never liked MMO PVP, having been a team FPS player for years. So no, my perception of Stalker performance is not about how they did in PvP. b) Oh, please. Anticipation on this only went so far. Anticpation didn't stop the Brute from running in on you and pulling AoE splash on you while you AS'd. Any time you lost even one AS in a spawn (even if you got a 2nd through placate) that dropped your performance relative to a Scrapper, which was the point I was making when I talked about teams screwing up AS. Lets remember, this all started before IOs were a thing, and even softcapped defense gets hit, and the more stuff is flying, the more likely that is to happen.

I did. And I just re-read them, and I don't see any of the things you just mentioned in them making this something that has "consequences". I think the issue is that I don't understand considering using the thing you like better to have the "consequence" of missing out on something newer that is, depending on context, more effective. To me that's like complaining about no longer being one armed, because now you feel bad using your one arm when you have a bionic prosthetic that's stronger. Use the arm you want unless there's a damn good reason to use one over the other, and enjoy the fact that you have two arms.