Parabola

Eat greens: /macro_image "Inspiration_Health_Lvl_3" "Mmm" "insp_exec_name Respite$$insp_exec_name Dramatic_Improvement$$insp_exec_name Resurgence" Combine to red leaving greens: /macro_image "Inspiration_Damage_Lvl_1" "red" "inspcombine Sturdy Enrage$$inspcombine Insight Enrage$$inspcombine Luck Enrage$$inspcombine Break_Free Enrage$$inspcombine Catch_A_Breath Enrage" /macro_image "Inspiration_Damage_Lvl_2" "Red" "inspcombine Keen_Insight Focused_Rage$$inspcombine Take_A_Breather Focused_Rage$$inspcombine Rugged Focused_Rage$$inspcombine Good_Luck Focused_Rage" Eat reds: /macro_image "Inspiration_Damage_Lvl_3" "Boom" "insp_exec_name enrage$$insp_exec_name Focused_Rage$$insp_exec_name Righteous_Rage" Turn off protection, resurrection and all large inspirations at ptw. I also turn off mediums until my tray is large enough that they don't clog it up.

Not sure how general you're looking for. Brutes are fairly simple to build and play. One thing to note is that due to fury you can devote more slots to your armour set while levelling than other melee archetypes. Brutes are possibly the best low level characters because of that. Staff is fairly straightforward. Your secondary is super reflexes right? That's pretty straightforward too. I like it on brutes actually. Build for softcaps obviously and try to get a baseline of resistance in so the scaling resistance from the passives has something to build on. One tip that I find really benefits characters who lack a self heal is to make yourself an 'eat green inspiration' macro and put it in your power tray where you'd normally put a self heal power. I go a step further and adjust my usual 'create red insps' macros to leave greens behind so I can still fuel my offense while maintaining my emergency supply.

Given that many of the claw attack animations are basically punches I don't see the problem with this. I'd love more flexibility to use a set whose mechanics I love in different thematic ways.

I have a couple of alien type characters whose costumes only looked right with the female body but they aren't supposed to be female (or any gender for one of them). I'm all for unhooking the 'gender setting' from the body plan in the costume creator. I can't see any possible downside to this.

I've put some thoughts that are relevant to this in the thread below.

On the subject of better communication around beta testing I think we could also do a bit better at dev feedback to player testing. There is a level of antagonism in some of the feedback threads that I believe comes from people feeling they are being ignored or that other players opinions are being favoured over their own. Take the latest update that has changed the team composition bonus from a prismatic aether to a badge as an example. The patch notes simply state the new system without explanation. The old feedback thread was closed with a 'thanks for the feedback' which is a good start but could have gone much further. As it stands the new feedback thread has seen a few 'well the whiners won' type comments which I believe could have been avoided. Imagine if this change had been accompanied by the following message: 'Thank you for the feedback and lively debate over version 1 of the team composition reward mechanism. We acknowledge good points on all sides. We believe that the core idea of encouraging diversity in team composition is a worthwhile one, while acknowledging that the way archetypes work in this game is complicated. We also consider it important to avoid any possibility of incentivising antagonism in game. Therefore we have decided to try a new version of this mechanism with a lower key reward that will encourage both diverse team building and the long tradition of single archetype teams. Please let us know your thoughts. We are also aware that having extra rewards for completing task forces and getting more aether into the economy were popular ideas, just that there were drawbacks to adding them in the way version 1 did. We will look into alternative ways of doing this in the future. Thank you all again for your feedback on this.' Or something like that. Acknowledge people's feedback and try to make them feel listened to. At the moment there is a lack of feedback on the feedback which leads to frustration. I would also like to see more of this kind of communication in the feedback threads as they go on. Currently various feedback threads are awash with players repeating the same things over and over again because that feedback isn't being acknowledged. It becomes even more frustrating when a dev does drop in but only to answer an isolated technical question. To get more of the type of feedback you want you have to acknowledge the feedback you get. Perhaps you could try reserving the second post in each feedback thread for feedback acknowledgement and commentary and then sticky it. Then use it to echo the feedback you are receiving with any relevant commentary from your side. 'We acknowledge that some epic pool powers now have significant recharge times and are considering it internally'. 'We understand that the lack of immobilize in arsenal control is a sticking point for many people, our intention was to design a control set that will work without an immobilize and we will adjust other powers until this works'. I can sense the frustration with the beta feedback process on the devs side and I sympathise. The endless spinning off into arguments is exhausting to read through even when I don't have to try to comb it for useful information. If you put better communication into the process however, you will hopefully get better communication out. You might benefit from some sort of 'game development community representative' who can act as a bridge between the devs and the players when it comes to this kind of communication.

SS would be my poster child for a set that exemps badly, particularly on tanks. I want aoe early and something that approximates to an attack chain. Dark, claws and savage would be where I'd start looking. Armour sets are all a bit too reliant on having all their pieces in place to be really effective at low levels. Some are of course better at it than others though. I've been impressed with the revamped stone armour at all levels. Rad is also notable for being good against vazhilok which is useful early. Dark armour can do quite a lot of early tanking with heavy investment in dark regeneration. Ice is also a set I feel is better early on, it achieves decent defence numbers and the aura really helps.

I've raised this a few times over the years. I understand the blank canvas argument but I don't think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Open beta testing is quite limited in terms of really getting to grips with how to use a new set. Without a bit of forum wisdom about how a set works and being able to play with it in mids I'm frankly lost. All I could do would be to build and play it like another set it most resembled and make comparisons which if you're trying something new isn't the most helpful thing. In building the set the devs clearly have a vision for how it's supposed to play, what it's supposed to be good or weak at, what synergies it may have with other sets. Tell us. Endless feedback of 'it doesn't work like other sets' is pointless if you've specifically designed the set to work differently. It also makes it hard to distinguish 'it doesn't work on it's own terms' from this background noise. Yes, there will be arguments about the design vision. But we get those anyway and they might be currently amplified by the irritation of having to figure out that design vision rather than being told it. Trust your players with more information. I'm a developer myself and whenever I hand over a new piece of software to QA I always take them through how it works and why the design is as it is. It allows me the opportunity to explain technical limitations that shaped the design and also to point out any areas that need particular attention in the testing. My testers are still going to try every random thing they can think of but expectations are shaped and time and effort are saved.

A (not so) quick word in defence of fault. I find it an effective aoe and would never dream of not taking it. The control it offers is worth the pick alone and the damage they have added is gravy. One thing that isn't obvious is that it is now effectively two powers fired with a single click. The first power is the classic radial aoe stun and knockdown the power has always had. The second power is a cone aoe damage power that on tanks has a decent arc. This creates a couple of important nuances. Firstly the powers roll to hit independently and the damage cone actually has the standard accuracy modifier. The radial control has an accuracy penalty and it is this accuracy value that is showing in mids. Both powers aim at the target you highlight but as they are different shapes it is possible for other mobs to be in the area of one and not the other. With the tanker arc bonus taking a step or two back from the pack and targeting something in the middle will hit most things with both powers. The other thing to be aware of is which of the powers fire which procs. Knockback, stun and taunt procs all fire from the radial control power. Ranged aoe procs fire from the damage cone. I slot it with two winter pieces (acc/dam, acc/dam/end), three damage procs (I go the taunt and kb procs with one taoe proc but I tend to pack a lot of global acc/to hit and so am happy with accuracy of the radial control power) and a ff+rech. If you have decent global recharge and you hit enough mobs the ff proc will cycle this power very effectively. The stun is mag 2 with a chance for mag 3 (I forget the percentages). So it will stun any minions and some lieutenants which thins out the incoming damage considerably. Even if damage itself isn't an issue it's always useful to stop some annoying debuffs. Watching sappers stagger around drooling never gets old! And last but certainly not least fault is just so satisfying to use. It's loud, visceral and exactly the kind of thing I'm playing the set for in the first place!

I've been thinking along these lines too. I totally get the idea that they don't want player a using a power from an epic pool outshining player b who has that same power from their primary. But, a lot of these powers are pretty marginal in the first place. You can easily tell that by how infrequently you see them. The earth epic for brutes and tanks is a case in point. Are there really a secret legion of characters out there using these powers and making earth controllers feel bad? I've never seen it mentioned. We should be encouraging people to branch out and select interesting epic powers not rendering them all not worth the opportunity costs of taking or using. I'm smiling to myself a bit because I take focused accuracy on 99% of my melee builds and that has actually been buffed. I often want to use something else but the debuff resistance is just so useful. Now I'll be able to run it more cheaply and have even less interest in the alternatives. I really don't think this is the right way to be moving though.

I'm still waiting for the assault sets to be rebuilt across the board to be more user friendly. I appreciate that isn't going to happen but I can dream!

The issue of how rigid role categorization isn't a great fit for this game can easily be demonstrated as follows. Which of these teams has more control? Team 1: Tank, blaster, defender, scrapper, scrapper. Team 2: Tank, blaster, defender, scrapper, controller. Should be team 2 right? The proposed rules certainly consider team 2 to be more diverse. But what if the powersets are as follows: Team 1: Tank (dark/stone), blaster (ice/ice), defender (dark/dark), scrapper (psi/dark), scrapper (ice/stone). Team 2: Tank (fire/fire), blaster (fire/fire), defender (emp/fire), scrapper (fire/fire), controller (ill/emp). In team 1 the enemy would be almost permanently controlled. They would be stunned, knocked, slowed, feared, immobilized and held from various sources. There is even a confuse. There is no control AT but barely anything would manage to get attacks off. Team 2 however has a controller but very little control. They have single target hold and confuse but they have to stack mag with themselves. The every spawn control consists of a fear which is going to be constantly broken. Team 2 would probably be a lot of fun (and very burny) but in no way does it have more control than team 1. I'd rather be able to look at a team I was joining and say 'this team needs some control, I'll bring a controlling tank, or a controlling defender', rather than needing to bring a controller to fulfil arbitrary criteria. Similarly with tanking. I've successfully 'tanked' general content using blasters, controllers and defenders. The capability of a character is not rigidly defined by its archetype in this game.

I also suspect there is a certain level of nervousness about turning on the name release system, and if there isn't there should be. People who can't get what they want become upset. People who had something and have it taken from them get UPSET. I don't entirely disagree with the policy but I wouldn't do it if I were them.

I'm a bit undecided on this whole idea. I see the potential for people to behave crappily using this as justification but then again people can gatekeep team composition now. I think the bigger problem for me is just that this game has such a hybrid role structure that the categorisation is always going to be a bit wonky. On balance I'm probably more keen on the 5 different AT's idea. If the intention is to look at ways of helping newcomers and low level characters in general fund their basic builds then in my opinion the place to look is at drop rates in teams. As it stands you can make all the inf you'll need if you level up by soloing content set for multiple people and hoover the drops up. However, if you level up in teams (which a newcomer is probably more likely to do), you basically remain poor. I think recipe and salvage drops should be boosted relative to the number of actual players on a team (if you have the tech to tell the difference between actual players and multi boxers all the better).

Stalker because assassin's strike replaces the laughably misnamed 'greater' ice sword. Ice armour is thematic and good on stalkers too.

The bonuses are not evenly distributed. As a rule positional defences tend to be the 5th or 6th set bonus and so favour 'full set' builds. Typed defences are often available with lower investment (kinetic combat at 4 slots, eradication at 3 for example) and so are easier to fit in around other priorities like procs. On the resistance side certain types are a lot easier to build up than others. You can pick up a fair amount of s/l resistance from set bonuses you pass on the way to something more interesting (and tough of course), and you get a big chunk of f/c from purple and winter sets. Psy res can also be built up pretty effectively with 5 impervium armours (that 6% io is not unique) and other bonuses. E/n is more difficult to build up though and toxic similarly. So it really comes down to what gaps you are trying to plug. On the defence side tanks have such high modifiers I rarely feel the need to build for defence on a defence armour. So I'm generally more interested in adding resistance to both resistance and defence sets. Then it comes down to gaps; one of the things that makes radiation armour so strong in my eyes is the way it dovetails so well with the io system. It needs some s/l res added and the psy hole plugging, both of which are easily achievable and then you are left with a cold hole that is rarely an issue.

I solo pretty much all the time so in theory I could split my time evenly between the factions right? Nope; blueside, all the time. Every now and again I try redside thinking I'm missing out and I never stay long. I don't like the zones, or the enemies, or find the content any more engaging than blueside. I suspect that part of the problem is that heroing is reactive and so fits the medium, villainy is supposed to be proactive but you can't do that with pre-written content. So basically you end up doing missions that are almost indistinguishable from blueside missions but with a grimy coat of paint. I'm not sure there actually is anything that could be done that would encourage me to visit redside more often. Certainly without ruining it for people that like it the way it is. If the redside AT's hadn't been brought over I probably would dabble a little more but as it stands there's not much to draw me to it.

Because this is an incentive to balance the load on the shards and everlasting and torchbearer are presumably more popular than reunion or indomitable.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised it took this long for a 'not playing if ncsoft are involved' post. I don't agree with the thinking but I was expecting to see more of it. Anyway, congratulations to all involved. Looking forward to the upcoming release and all future developments!

If you are interested in teaming to learn the ropes I'd go for a ranged damage dealer so you can watch how other players perform their roles from relative safety and with little expectation. Blaster if you want to live by the seat of your pants, sentinel if not, or maybe corruptor if you want a more involved team role. If you want to solo then I'd recommend pretty much any of the melee archetypes. Tanks sound like they are a teaming only option but they are very strong in just about every area of the game and are forgiving while learning. Be aware that taking them into teams can come with an expectation of role fulfilment though. The only archetypes that come with something of a warning label for newcomers are masterminds, controllers and dominators. Pets can result in unwanted aggro (attracting more foes than the group can handle) and certain control powers can upset teammates if used indiscriminately. All the archetypes are great though so the best advice is to play the thing that you most like the look of.

Moar powerset revamps please 🙂. In terms of return on effort it must be the most efficient thing to do. I am perfectly happy to replay all the old content on a bunch of new or rerolled characters. The revamps to stone armour and melee spawned the better part of a dozen characters and months of play.

I admire the dedication necessary to level fire/fire to 50 on all four melee AT's. That's a lot of crossover. Bit sad to see the demons/thermal is the only one not to make it to high levels, out of all those listed that's the combo I find the most fun. Earth is another element you could try. You might need to get creative with a buff/debuff set though.

All the story arcs are available via the flashback system in ouroboros. Between that and trials/task forces where you are automatically exemped, most of the content you'd actually want to play is available to go back to. If you really want to experience all content 'at level' then the trick is to turn off xp at every level that ends in a 4 or a 9 (4, 9, 14, 19, 24, etc.) and keep talking to contacts until they are exhausted. Be aware that there are a lot of missions that could be described as filler, things like hunts, particularly blueside. I've started several 'do everything at level blueside' runs but never completed it. Trying to run all the story arcs via flashback is more doable and frankly more fun (and profitable in terms of merits).

I only take something other than fly if I can't afford the extra power pool. I have a couple of characters who are so tight on powers they have to live without a travel power altogether and they have been designed to look ok with the generic jetpack. Flight is convenient, fast enough, and just feels right in the game.

After a bit of futzing around this just about works, thanks. For anyone that's interested I had to install a new browser that allows extensions (kiwi on android), and then the dark reader extension. The settings that seem to work are theme: light and mode: static. The forum looks ugly and runs badly but it displays as black text on white.