Leo_G
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Leo_G
-
-
38 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:
Ugh. Please by the dark and elder gods get this fixed. It offends my OCD to psychotic levels when a power isn't using the right AT modifier. Set them in stone and fix everything for Satan's sake.
Well obviously, the problem is that a lot of the complicating factors have been ironed out and it's too easily gameable which is why we have the capability of min/maxing to such a degree that there is contention with the extreme minutia of who does the most damage while having the highest calculated mitigation rather than just how the set handles overall.
Need more differentiation between melee and range mods so some niche benefits muddy the waters.
Heck, why not start separating damage buffs too? So just like resists, those damage buffs don't always apply to every attack. Now you need the niche "energies" damage buff to buff your Energy/Dark melee exotic damage whereas "physical" damage buffs are more prominent for how often resistances exists.
I look upon people with OCD and scoff. You barely know the meaning of pain as yours is only imaginary.
-
1
-
-
I was very much against the increase in damage mod for Tanker when the buffs were being tested. I was also against reducing the area buff. The primary goal, IMO, should have been adjusting the AoE to provide a mechanical difference to playing the AT, not a means of overcoming a DPS disparity. Increased AoEs would, overall, increase clear times but its target is using the extra range allows a unique style when lining up attacks.
People get constantly caught up in DPS comparisons (like here). It's not that important. If you think Brute is pointless, don't play them. You should be playing Brute or scrapper for their mechanical difference not a hypothetical mathematical equilibrium between it and 2 other ATs.
-
16 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:
Don't get what you mean by player control over damage scaling, unless you mean difficulty options but that is a different thing.
Buffs that mitigate damage for you are an outside X factor that all sets can enjoy, its not a uniquely Regen thing. Sure, it may help Regen more comparatively but in total a more mitigative set + buffs would generally fare better.
The last point here is basically saying "don't play regen" 😞
Yes, I'm talking about the notoriety settings.
And I disagree. A team that caps def and resistance, the Regen will be better. A team that boosts rech reasonably will benefit Regen more than sets like Inv, WP or SR.
As for changes to Revive, I'd just add the functionality of being usable while alive. A cool factor that might have to be adjusted is Revive instantly recharging all your Regen powers (Reconstruction, Integration, Dull Pain, Instant Healing and Moment of Glory). If used while alive, it recharges all your regen powers but has a 3x penalty to Revive's recharge (so 900sec instead of 300sec). If used while dead, it recharges all your regen powers with the standard Revive recharge (300sec).
-
To the points about Regen scaling: do we not, as players, have nearly full control of damage scaling? Or does that no longer matter?
In the cases of teaming, buffs that mitigate damage no longer matter?
In the cases of soloing: we do have this wonderful feature called power customization. If Regen is not within your liking, why not use those standard self mitigation sets?
-
1
-
-
The damage type really doesn't matter for concept. The thing to be worried about is animation/vfx/sounds and mechanics(if it has anything to set it apart from other similar sets).
What I mean is, I always assumed Cyclops' optic blasts were mostly smashing/concussive damage but it really wouldn't matter if it did cold damage and looked the same. You'd still have your character who obliterates stuff by ocular beams.
My suggestion here is to create a focused set (not choose-your-beam-flavor) with a unique damage type combo (Energy/toxic, Neg energy/lethal, etc) with an engaging mechanic or specialty (make all it's AoEs are cones and it had a range boosting mechanic or a varied radial cone damage or something)... But on top of that, look at an existing set (like energy blast) and 100% copy all it's animation times. Them make it so you can interchange either new or old animations as you see fit. You'd be giving that other set a bunch of new usable animations while also allowing your new set to have things other than optic beams as an option.
-
1 minute ago, krj12 said:
I do have an Ice/Cold troller. It's an ok combination, though very light in the dps. There is only one power, Glacier, which requires me to be in combat range.
I have no problem with the power, and I use it when appropriate, but it doesn't make me feel like I have to use it constantly.
What about Arctic Air?
-
3 hours ago, krj12 said:
Looks interesting, my take:
1. I prefer controller sets with a pet, so don't lose the pets.
2. Not a fan of ground targeted AE powers in this game, so having more than one power of that type would be a big negative.
3. I prefer to stay at range when possible with my trollers, I'm not a tank or a blapper. So, all the PBAE powers... not sure about that.
As to whether I'd play the set ... with me, character concept always comes first before I decide to try a powerset.
After that, it depends on how it plays - I've deleted characters due to either awkwardness of a power set or relative lack of performance.
Hard for me to tell based on descriptions, I'd have to actually try it.
Have you, by chance, played much of Ice Control?
While it can be played with some range, it benefits from close ranged and synergies with other sets that either bolster it's ranged capabilities (I paired mine with Trick Arrow to stack it's control and damage but still wade into the thick of it) but I could imagine Poison, Dark and Empathy being a decent pairing due to wanting to be near the action or having PBAoE effects to capitalize on.
Overall, I think there could be more control sets made for that type of synergy similar to Ice and Illusion, simply because there's just not many like it
-
5 hours ago, archgemini24 said:
As far as the idea of beefier minions that have more HP in exchange for counting as more than one mob for the sake of adding some single-target emphasis or adding more value or to staying around to clean-up after the initial AoE wave, why not have the option to expand the concept to lieutenants and bosses, as well, so long as the defeated enemy is worth the same as the original mobs it replaced (or at least in the same ballpark)? More options to customize the playing experience are usually a good thing, but if the return doesn't stack up, the options may never be used. If I am dealing with a Lieutenant with the HP of 3 Lieutenants, and it effectively consumed 2 other enemies in the group, I am already losing the extra drop chances by not blitzing lesser enemies, but no need to stiff me on XP and INF, too.
To clarify the idea: take a standard spawn of 16 mobs and a Blaster used an AoE with a 16 target cap. Every mob in range of the attack would take full damage.
Now take the same group but upgrade 4 of the minions to "minion+" that have Lt level HP and the unique "body guard" passive. There are still 16 enemies just some mechanically count as more than 1 target (each counts as 3 targets). That Blaster with it's 16 target cap AoE will, instead, hit all 4 of the minion+ mobs which uses up a total of 12 of the 16 target cap of the AoE, and only 4 additional targets (so 8 of the 16 targets take full damage). Those upgraded minions have effectively guarded their allies from the blaster.
Overall, it's just an idea. I don't think it'd be enough by itself to challenge incarnate teams but it might be going in the right direction since AoE is such a strong and easily exploitable tactic and very little exists to counter it.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, cranebump said:
It's not that I can't adequately follow, or don't know how to follow, or don't have stealth, yaddyaddayadda. It's the tacit expectation that I'm supposed to sweep up after someone else, which gives the impression that the spawn hopper's fun is more important than mine (I should note here, I'll stay behind and clear with my melees, unless everyone else has run off).
My overall point though was, you don't HAVE to do any of that. If it feels demeaning to you, then don't. Some members of a team actually do like picking off weak stragglers. I know for a fact, my Stalkers don't bother clearing up the aftermath. I only worry about bosses and trouble targets while on teams. Only if the team is struggling and need everything to keep going do I put in my all. Heck, sometimes I don't even fight (if the team is a snoozer stream roll) and just collect/take out the mission requirements (unless the leader explicitly said not to). I find that is a fun change of pace.
But then I'm an oddball and rarely use my full kit as it makes me feel like an anime character who only needs 10% of my power to dispose of my enemies (not literal 10%).
If the team is struggling is when the leader needs to assess the situation. If not, it's a free for all. Don't feel obligated to picking up sometime else's trash. Do what you find fun.
46 minutes ago, Hew said:The tank (assuming it is a tank) needs to be aware of the team. If the team is performing at X level of function, and then decides to get stupid with the AOE damage @Leo_G, you can't fault the tank.
Not sure if you were talking to me but I'm not faulting the tank. What I was saying is there's just a meta that favors AoE and no AI or mechanic that opposes that meta. All in all, it's only logical to maximize your output by constantly rotating high AoE on mass targets and when there are less targets available, move on to the next mass of targets.
One recommendation I once made to counter this was, at x6 and above, a new "rank" of mob could start showing up that has the effective strength of (thus replacing) a minion, the HP of an LT but have an inherent ability that counts that target as 3 targets and push them up as priority when AoEs are used in their proximity. Having 3 show up in a spawn effectively cuts AoE's target caps in half which are more easily focused down with ST.
The usual rebuttal is players don't want their AoEs nerfed but this isn't a nerf to AoE, it's giving the foe a fighting chance. People say they want to have content that is harder at the top end but they don't actually want the enemy to be able to fight back.
-
5 minutes ago, cranebump said:
While I don't disagree at all with the logic of the above, speaking as one who is very often one of those ranged toons who ends up playing free safety when the tanks (and not always the tanks these days) run off to the next group while I clean up their mess, I can tell you I don't view that action as "confidence" in my ability. It looks and feels a lot more like, "I'm going to take care of me, and the hell with you." Fair enough, save when you bail out and leave multiple purps and oranges, which me and maybe 2 other people have to clean up, thus putting us behind the rest of the group while we sweep up the detritus.
And while I solidly agree with the argument that I'm in charge of my own fun, and therefore don't have to play with bumrush teams if I don't dig that, it is increasingly the standard mode of play, which, for some of us, is something to be more tolerated than enjoyed. I'm not gonna begrudge anybody their steamrolling. but, honestly, teammates don't seem to need each other near as much as they used to (except, as this example attests, to clean up their scraps). We've gained a great deal, but this feels like an unfortunate byproduct of making the rare run-of-the-mill.
This is a problem that has, by and large, always existed but had escalated more and more as changes are made and knowledge is shared.
I think the trend you are experiencing is the fixation on AoE damage. This had always been an unquenchable thirst to make more mobs be swept away by a tsunami of high damage, large sized, stacking, fast recharging AoEs and nukes to the point that is most of some players' contribution and the type of mob has little to no effect on this tactic.
But I don't see a big issue with your particular situation (encounter balance aside) as there will be a point in navigating a map where those spawn-hoppers will have to change direction, change floors or some situation where they are forced to take care of the whole spawn or they just de-aggro and if you have stealth, you can just ignore the stragglers and fully catch up.
-
16 hours ago, hakurr said:
Everyone in COH now a days seems to be in a huge rush to get through everything i find my self at times wanting to rush through content as well i wonder how many people playing today know the story behind the missions that they are running and how many just click to get to the next mission.
First you're complaining about scattered mobs slowing down your DPS then you complain about players rushing to defeat stuff too fast? Seems a mite contradictory.
FYI, every set-up is going to have their ups and downs. Did you know a debuff powerset has trouble contributing on teams that kill too fast? Or that single target focused sets have to waste their potential waiting for a team to gather the mobs in neat little herds? Or that over-control can reduce the effectiveness of other control effects?
If you're having problems contributing, try reassessing your tactics. You're a melee, so go jump into a spawn early. Focus on meatier targets instead of button mashing every minion with a hair of health. Pick up some ranged attacks so you can plink at foes instead of chasing them. Even if your contribution isn't at its maximum, does it really matter if the team is successful?
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, Razor Cure said:
No. There are already enough AE noobs running round.
When you can go from 1-50 in an hour (or how ever long) in AE, that already IS basically skipping levels.
Well, would you rather those "AE noobs" be power leveled in an hour and have a decent chunk of inf in their pocket? Or maybe shifting some of the exp away from AE and put a price on PLing instead?
I guess if you think everything is fine while also criticizing those using the system the way they want, more power to you. I see problems and solutions, it mostly depends if people are willing to talk about them genuinely.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, BrandX said:
Which is what I would like to see, as I enjoy the set, but haven't gotten it to feel as survivable as other sets and all I feel anyone can really say to get it there, is "Take weapon sets with parry"
Well, if you can make a Defender, Blaster, Dominator, etc extremely survivable to the point of maximizing solo-ability using IOs, I have no idea why you can't do that with a Regeneration melee with even more ease.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:
Well, if it worked it'd be a bug that needs fixin.
Intentional bugs aren't bugs. That's just functional coding.
-
Wouldn't it be cool if Claws had a gimmick where it can use its own powers during the cast of other powers on the set? Particularly, using Shockwave while Eviscerate is animating.
-
1
-
-
Apparently you don't know what "heal based" means. Resistant isn't healing. +MaxHP isn't healing. +Regen isn't healing. You have 2 powers that could qualify as healing, nether of which are active at all (in fact, nothing in the set is active or utility).
Secondly, the whole premise is faulty. You want to make a set based around a game mechanic that you didn't even put in the set with a concept that already exists (twice!).
Lastly, the over all set is bad. It's probably keel over quickly after that 5sec of invulnerability since it had nothing within the set to come back from it.
Just go willpower. If Regen isn't your cup of tea, don't take out your frustrations by making a crappier set in spite of it.
-
2
-
-
On 8/11/2020 at 12:12 PM, Hyperstrike said:
And thank you for telling me I'm being dishonest and hiding my true intention.
...Way to overreact.
You didn't even make a suggestion to disagree with in the quoted post. Context says that part of the post is targeted at the overall thread or more specifically the OP.
-
21 hours ago, HelenCarnate said:
So even though it would not affect you in any way, you are against the proposed change because everyone else should have to play the same way you do? Am I following that correctly? Also who can rez and retoggle in 2-3 seconds? Most of my characters have 6 or more toggles. Tough, Weave, 2 or more leadership, Combat Jumping and that is before any toggles from the AT.
The irony is, it probably affects those that don't take the rez powers the LEAST but that is who this change is targeted for.
Whether or not our to what degree the effect has is rather tangential to the discussion. If the suggestion is good or something else is going to be subjective.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:
The thing that always annoyed me about self-rez powers is the annoying habit enemy mobs have of corpse camping.
You could run the hell away from the mobs that kill you. And they'd trot over and stand right on you. Meaning that if you wakie or self-rez, they hit you IMMEDIATELY and you're back to frenching floor. Totally destroying the utility of the power. This is why I tend to avoid taking them.
Absolutely infuriating.You do realize self rez powers come with invulnerability periods, right?
You can use Regen's self rez in the middle of a mob of foes, retoggle integration, tough and weave and still have a handful of seconds left before the mob's can affect you. I usually do all of the above then leisurely select a target to Assassin's Strike and wait out the long animation for it.
Edit: in fact, I see no reason this suggestion is needed. The only thing wrong with the self rezzes is the retoggling and that's not because you can't but rather its inconvenient. Since you failed to honesty express that true intention, I will just disagree with it.
-
19 hours ago, SwitchFade said:
I thoroughly enjoy traveling our city, so...
No vote, sorry.
I think it's part of the spirit of CoH that you fly, speed and leap about saving the city.
Lore source material also indicates that all comic heroes did this.
I'm one of those players that trend to get one or no travel powers on a character and I feel a lot of the "convenience" takes away from the utility of travel powers as well as the necessity to make certain mission lines more fruitful.
That being said, I don't see a problem with making fewer missions hip-shot with where they are and give them a more logical progression. Like if some contact pushed you into a hazard zone but rather than 1 mission being there, maybe a string of 3.
-
12 hours ago, Greycat said:
It's not fun, and it's not funny. A popup saying "Better get out of here, the phalanx is on the way and they're pissed" would be enough.
Basically... can we just get rid of this post-mission middle finger?
You hear all the time about "show don't tell". Seems more interesting in this circumstances.
So why is telling better than showing here? Or better yet, both.
-
10 hours ago, AerialAssault said:
The key difference is that Mayhem missions have a time limit, so eventually you'll be put out of your misery.
This is the point of contention with regards to this mission.
Spawn camping the players is a failure of games design. As a games designer, you want the flow of play to be continuous. If you're holding the players head underwater and saying that the only winning move is not to play, you've failed at your job.
I don't know many games, even ones designed to be difficult, which will knowingly trap players in a loop they can only escape by turning the game off.
Bad
Games
Design
Can't argue there. Seems to be exactly what happened to me. I'm sure I could devised a way to counter this either with planning or possibly Brute force or even just asking for help.
Either or, it did feel wrong that the spawn point and their aggro were in the same spot. The easiest fix would just be putting the respawn inside the mansion and barring floors from entering.
-
Ah, I actually parked my 35 Ice/nin stalker dead on that map and haven't picked her back up.
Not that I don't like challenge, I just got frustrated, turned the game off, took a few days break and when I came back I had an idea for a different character. That was over 2 months ago lol
She was pretty cool tho, one of the characters in my series of magic androids/robots/cyborgs. I'll eventually go back and start the mission over.
-
3 hours ago, Arnabas said:
First time I made a villain, I couldn't empathize with him because he was a horrid individual. I deleted him and killed him in my head cannon.
The trick for me was to ultimately create a stalker that was actually an undercover hero. When sent to "deal with" people, she would defeat them, tell them "I was sent to kill you. As you see, I could have done so. I suggest you run fast and far, and take a new identity." Then she would report them dead.
I suppose there's a difference between "empathizing" and "understanding". Understanding is being able to comprehend, maybe even with some context. Empathizing means understanding and sharing a feeling.
You don't have to empathize with a rioter or looter to understand why they do what they do, how they planned to get away with it or rationalized doing it in the first place. And yet, understanding those things, I still know those things are wrong.
Buff Brutes... or Nerf Tanks.
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
You're either complaining that attack modifiers shouldn't exist and each individual power's effects should be separate or that you looked under the hood when you shouldn't have. The reason caps exist at all is due to modifiers.
And jokes aside, I'm not self-diagnosed with OCD so in the real of this game, none of that matters, please and pardon.