Super Atom

Do they need help? No. Could they benefit from a slightly recharge decrease without completely breaking everything? sure i guess. Controllers are extremely good and like i said this change is largely low priority and lets be real, probably never gonna happen. I've never seen anyone go "oh great a controller on the team, we should kick him and get something better".

I understand your point, but again this is a balance change and needs to be done at an SO level. At an SO level, controllers could use maybe the tiniest bit of an increase if you were goign to do it at all. I'm not saying you should, I'm open to exploring it and testing but I wouldn't be so rash as to say it's a very important change.

I think the OP probably is more whining than he is being constructive, however a lower response has a decent point about controllers. I'm not entirely sure about the %'s but you can easily test that. IMo they should start a different thread so it can be explored without the initial crying.

On a side note, dominators do not need the purposed change in the above response. Controllers maybe, not domis.

You clearly don't understand what you're even asking. You're asking sets be entirely balanced around IO's yet you think it will have no impact on pre 50? What about enemy groups, they need to be adjusted as well to match up to current IO's. Also, you don't understand the basics of balancing in this game. I wouldn't throw stones in your glass house about qualifications. I'm also not saying i use SO's at 50, I min/max entirely around the idea of soloing +4/x8. I'm just aware and understand why the game is balanced around SOs, as is most of the HC team like leandro. Luckily people who don't understand are not in charge of balancing.

SO's are hardly garbage when you're level 24. If you balance around having IO's, Whats the point then? You get to 50 and die repeatedly until you IO entirely out and then you can do the content? Most people seem to miss why the devs kept it at SO level, It's not because the game was intended to be easy its because it was intended to be accessible. A casual player who plays for 1-4 hours a day can jump into pretty much any content and not be forced to grind relentlessly to get the gear he needs to play the game. City of Heroes is a casual MMO. More so, what do you do at level 35 when all your abilities are balanced around having 5 7.5% recharges, performance shifter procs, multiple purples/ATO's? Do you just wait 5 minutes for most big abilities because they expect you to have a lot of global recharge? Bold and underline was actually just a mess up on my end, any good dominator will still make it attack statue simulator, any good controller as well as long as the teams damage is at least ok.

Absolutely not. IOs were intended to be optional. City of Heroes was always a casual based MMO that does not force people to need specific gear to do content. 1-49 would be tragic, a lot of people don't really understand the basic min/max benchmarks of making an IO'd character be to its fullest potential. Balancing around SO's is the entire reason people can make an assault rifle/ice manip and get through all content. Changing this formula would be a tragic mistake. The devs always had the mindset of fun before difficulty. If you want difficult, play on +4/x8, i do and it can be plenty challenging enough depending on enemy groups.

The point stops at the SO level. Powers are balanced around SO and need to stay that way. Redlynnes post is solid.

I agree, but given how much work an overhaul is i'll take small QOL improvements in the meantime.

We're only talking about apperence, no power changes. The other server already did this with the crystal form. So I'm sure Hc could figure it out too. I can't imagine its too different from weapon models being swapped out or gun models, a system we already have had in place for years.

The animations shouldn't be an issue considering how silly granite already looks. There isn't a female/male/huge version of any of the listed forms. They're pretty universal and i don't see that becoming a sticking point.

[This is not a thread about Stone Armor being good or bad) So Granite armor kind of got the short end of the stick for customization. All other armors can be changed to Lava/Crystal versions. We know from the CoxG server granite armor can be model swapped easily enough. So my suggestion is to let granite change to crystal/lava versions. For crystal we obviously have the crystal enemies from the same place granite is from. Lava could be something like the Magmite lord from the Minions of Igneous. photo below. thoughts? https://paragonwiki.com/w/images//a/a5/Magmite1.jpg

The problem is not damage. Tanker issues start at IO's not before. They fall off when sets are brought into the mix so just adjusting damage values isn't gonna solve any problems. If you want to fix tankers focus on their tanking utility and not how much damage they put out. Nerfing brutes isn't the answer either as again this all starts with IO's. CoH is not balanced around IO's nor should it be.

This was the wrong move. Tankers didn't need a damage buff they needed something to set them apart from brutes not make them closer to brutes.

If the aggro thing is truly not possible, adding the -resist into gauntlet on top of the -range i suggested is probably the fastest way to make tankers have something to set them apart from brutes. As we've seen, theres plenty of good ideas about how to further tanker identity but a lot of them would require a lot of dev-time and testing. It would be a good step in the right direction though.

You'd have multiples of the same attacks for most of these. This would require a rework of many sets to include brand new abilities.

Thats because they are tanks. They were the red side tank and since they've been capable of being blue side the tanker has just fallen short since it doesn't really do anything better than the brute other than have some more HP.

I do like the idea someone suggested of betraying him before killing the longbow, but that's a wider topic on a whole. If every story line had praetorian tiers of choice that'd be lovely.

I don't see how this arc is any different from Terra or blinding the two children so the guy can creep on their mother. If you can't see the connection i can't help you.

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me. and thus the "slippery slope" argument represents itself.

I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise. But this is where the slippery slope argument falls apart. 1.) It supposes that one change will most certainly lead to a 2nd change - no one who has suggested changing the storyline has made the insinuation 2.) It supposes that we can't have a separate discussion, based on the merits, when the next change is requested. So instead of discussion this storyline on IT's merits, we are discussion potential future storyline requests based on potential merits... If you don't care about this storyline, then just leave it at that. "I don't care if we change this storyline, but I don't want us to go willy-nilly and change every storyline..." is a perfectly valid opinion without jumping into a slippery slope. I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

and when you're killing all the men in the game, are they not just a prop with a weenie? agree 100% I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise. this is exactly why I'm concerned eventually this topic will be about other Arcs. This arc is not unique and happens for both genders throughout the game. The carnival and dominatrix alone are all that really need to get mentioned to support the other side getting the same treatment. Like i said above, i agree with you on the nav text. She isn't his girlfriend and it shouldn't say she is. Also, isn't she apart of longbow and in arachnos's way? she would have to be killed just like all the other men and women "Fodder" of longbow to accomplish that.

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope". I don't think you understand this, yet... Slippery Slope NEVER APPLIES. It's a logical fallacy. Maybe someone will present the Terra arc as being problematic. Maybe they'll do it as a result of this discussion. But any argument about that is a separate argument. Not a "Continual Trend" And it absolutely won't lead to "Female Characters are Immune to attack!" See, it's that last part of it where you go from a reasonable discussion "If this arc is a problem, would this other arc also be a problem for similar reasons?" straight to "PANIC and DESTRUCTION!" "A is B. Is C also B?" is a continuing discussion. "A is B, therefore C, D, E, F, G, and all other letters are also and thus we can't have anything related to A or B unless we ignore A is B!" is a logical fallacy. It presents an emotionally charged potential outcome of -many- different discussions down the line as the logical outcome of making the current decision. It is maddening. Stop it. Also, the patronizing ad hominem "Think for 5 seconds"? REALLY not conducive to constructive discussion. You're arguing semantics at this point and trying to invalidate others opinions that this correlates directly with other story lines in doing so. Most of the arguesment in this thread are boiled down entirely to and in doing invites the comparison, if you don't like the term slippery slope then we won't use it for your sake. The concern that this will lead to more changes is absolutely valid however due to the sheer evidence from wording using in the arguments to change the story-arc. Maybe it was rude, i apologize for coming off as rude. I don't know you outside of this and it was wrong to attack you. What i should have said better and with more respect was don't assume our concerns are invalid just because of the term used. edit; my phone is just auto correcting everything. silly phone

Poor wording on my part, i apologize that this became your focus. People are being over dramatic ;) I'm not arguing FOR the story line, merely that changing it on claims of sexism is silly. I don't see an issue with the story line because It's not suppose to make you feel good about what you did. I don't see a problem in using a female character in tragedy in one direction or the other. We shouldn't immediately remove stuff just because it's against a women. If the storyline was killing her because shes a female and females don't deserve life then sure but that's not what this is.