Naraka
-
Posts
1035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Naraka
-
-
1 hour ago, ironjoe said:
gaslighting
manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
We have all seen enough discussions on these forums and on other platforms to generally know what the player consensus is in this area. You comments are manipulative and dismissive of reality. I did in fact run a poll of players and out of 236 responses, only 29 like knockback. That fact that you have to use manipulation and what we all know are lies to back your arguments detracts from any further points you would make.
I see you have an issue reading context.
As for your poll, unless you actually outline what it was asking and its context, liking and not liking KB has nothing to do with attempting to abolish it either wholesale or through coercion.
14 minutes ago, Alimorel said:
So... Vagabond HAS to have some "proper" statistics, but YOU'RE allowed to not have "proper" statistics? I see how it is.
We all know @PeregrineFalcon's statistics were balked. That was the point. You can just make up statistics all day when you don't show the numbers and the context. Like, out of 236 responses to a poll, only 29 liking KB likely excludes the 41 that like *some* KB but don't like uncontrolled AoE KB or chance of KB as well as the 24 who don't like to inconvenience other players who complain loudly and avoids using KB or the 63 that don't like having to use the tools to position for KB but don't want to negatively impact the players that *DO* tactically utilize KB to their team's advantage or the 18 that literally don't care either way because the game is easy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Veracor said:
I'd be down for some way of changing KB to KD without the player having to waste enhancement slots for it.
Well I just can't take this rationality seriously.
Is it wasting a slot if it's giving you an effect that you want the power to have? Also, if the IO is giving additional damage slotting (in the case of Overwhelming Force's KB>KD also enhancing damage), how it is a wasted slot? It's no different than putting procs or uniques in other powers so you get those bonuses too. This is how IOs work. You're not meant to just get stuff for free (on top of all the free stuff we already have) all the time.
Now maybe they could add accuracy enhancement to Sudden Acceleration so you have a choice of +dmg/KB>KD (Overwhelming Force) and +acc/KB>KD, but slotting these enhancements power by power *IS* the optimal solution for *EVERYONE*, to include the players that like to have some focused KB but altering the scatter on AoE KB as well as players that want all their KB turned off.
To push for a change that adds a global switch, you'd have to prove the current situation is detrimental to builds. And by detrimental, that would mean worse with it than without and I think that would be difficult to prove overall.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The simple solution is just add damage enhancement to the IO.
-
1 hour ago, Greycat said:
There's ... easier, and then there's "I want to feel more powerful," thus guides on capping defense, recharge, etc. The two are *not* the same. I mean, take - say - an MMA fighter. He's put into a cage match with ten other guys, more or less equally skilled. If he defeats them, he feels powerful. Now drop him into a cage with a bunch of ten year olds. He'll still manage to defeat them, but probably (hopefully!) not feel as good about it.
Notoriety comes with zero visual differences. It'd be more akin to an MMA fighter going into two fights with overall normal looking fighters and one fight being far easier than the other.
On the point of challenge, this is exactly what most suggest when adding difficulty settings: just mess around with the stats as an option with no mechanical difference. That's what increasing the level does, it's what nerfing yourself does and what this particular suggestion does.
-
3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:
I'm of two minds on rewards.
First, I firmly believe in the maxim of higher risk, higher reward. Both in games, and in life. And probably in a few other things.
Second, the risk/reward in this game is seriously out of whack. I hopped on a double Hami run last night for, I don't even know, 160 merits? Essentially zero risk. Which is roughly 23 Eden trials. I don't see those as equivalent. I'd like to see some progress made on that front, to be honest.
And I'd argue that the amount of risk when fully kitted out in IOs and incarnates is so small, people find rez powers useless let alone support or control in general.
How much risk does a full team ever face when not split up? It can sometimes vary but it's rare the situation calls for team wipes or pull tactics or LoS controlling.
[EDIT] There aren't as many circumstances in game where failure is even possible. If ever there is risk, that is likely where you'd look. Even taking a team wipe really isn't risk.
-
I'd also postulate, why not give players max rewards on the lower difficulty too? If farming is so accepted, why not let practically everyone have farming characters.
Some might ask what would be the point of running at higher difficulty and the answer is very simply "so you can say that you can". It's basically the inverse of the argument people have for players that ask for more challenge. If players like to trick out their characters to feel powerful, setting the difficulty low also accomplishes that so give those players the same reward as players running cruising builds with soft-capped def and oversaturated AoE.
-
It should be simple to calculate how much a slot's-worth of damage gets you from an individual power on a specific AT then compare it to whatever proc you're thinking of slotting it in. Damage-slottable powers that do very minor damage would definitely math out to a much bigger gain, of course, but just like the various other disparities like slottable power effects or proc chance by power's recharge, there will be some set-ups that don't benefit directly from damage procs.
I would say try the same powers but with a Brute instead.
-
2 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:
These threads keep popping up for good reason, but I think we are all a little guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees. Individual procs as a whole are not an issue by themselves outside of very specific instances, but they do exacerbate issues with power creep + encounter design as a whole which has a lot of interlocking parts to it that go beyond just IO slotting.
I don't think the proc thing affects encounters much beyond adding power to less powerful aspects of the game. One of the main reasons I made the thread is to get down some of my ideas, specifically the 2nd one, because if done right, you'd have fewer procs to "proc-bomb", so to speak, and have a bit of an avenue to "buzzsaw build" or even create new kinds of "procs" rather than them all being PPM and bound to high usability on certain powers with certain recharge times.
It got bogged down because people just don't want to lose their current power proc-bombs or just purely dislike procs or some varying degree of the two. But overall, I agree with your sentiment. Perhaps me not wanting to pay attention to the specifics like "Are procs OP?" or "What specifically is wrong with procs?" might be my blind spot but to my defense, even if presenting numbers to outline a point, it would inevitably get dismissed because it is numbers looking for a problem which, in this context, would likely be easy to find such.
4 hours ago, Olerus said:I would argue that the game needs more 'easy to kill' dangerous enemies, not more difficult bosses. Consider the following:
- Sappers
- Cimeroran Surgeons
- Devouring Earth crystals
- Nemesis lieutenants
None of these are hard to defeat by themselves, but substantially change the gameplay patterns. If a sapper survives an AoE burst, it can mean death despite it being a minion. Surgeons aren't as lethal, but because they don't rush into melee they can be a major timewaster especially if they heal a Cyclops or Minotaur that has gone Unstoppable. Nemesis lieutenants, on the other hand, are almost deliberately easy to kill in bunches but punish wanton AoEs with their vengeance buff. The Devouring Earth have the Rularuu aspect of almost flat-out ignoring defense buffs, but do so in a way that is more engaging (find the summon or kill the summoner, rather than eyeballs just being always on deathbots).
This is far aside from the proc discussion, but I think the fun of difficult content comes from a variety of factors:
- changes in gameplay
- excitement from risk/storytelling
- planning/puzzle solving
- personal achievement/bragging
I've also put up some share of ideas to diversify play and not merely bolster HP.
I put forward a blanket change to give all mobs toggle armor and transfer some of those player detoggle changes to the NPCs, making it some there is only a minor chance of the toggles dropping with a hold or stun and a much higher chance with Sleep mez (as well as a scaling chance to knock off toggles with knockback depending on the magnitude of the KB/KU). Spread more "toggle drop" utility around other useful powers and maybe even a certain kind of mez that nullifies toggles for a short time (even on players). That last one would be a doozy and might make click buffs from support and tier 9s a bit more interesting.
I also suggested a kind of upgraded-minion that has HP between Lt and minion and also has the inherent ability to count as more than one target (I suggested 3) that would randomly replace a single minion. The result would be, if 3-4 of these get sprinkled in a spawn and you throw your volley of AoEs, it would cut a 16 target AoE in half and the other 8 targets you could have hit would have "Guarded!" float over their heads. Couple that with the idea of them having certain abilities to make you really have to pull out all your tricks at the right time.
25 minutes ago, oedipustex said:I agree with you. More specifically I'd like a revisit of how randomized dungeons are generated. Right now the formula tends to create homogenized maps, especially when generating x8 enemies. What team content should be doing IMO is generating maps more like this (numbers made up):
- 60% of packs as now
- 20% chance of a pack made entirely of 1 to 4 randomly selected enemies
- 5% chance of a pack made entirely of bosses
- 5% chance of a pack made entirely of a specifically troublesome minion (Sappers etc)
- 1% chance of an exotic enemy pack (whatever that means)
- etc
Something else kinda subtle I think should happen is that some enemy Auto powers that represent "armors" should suppress the way player powers do. The tech is there to do it, an Auto power behaves just like a Toggle, the check just needs to be added. That would bring Dominators and Controllers further into the role they are supposed to be playing and allow us to ease off the raw upper echelon damage restrictions. I particularly feel this way about enemies in iTrials where Dominators and Controllers tend to contribute less.
I want to say some missions do mix around the mobs a bit but not often times intelligently. I want to say there might be some limitations on mob spawning from the perspective of AE but no idea if any of the rest of your suggestions is currently possible. Although, making an enemy group that just have 25 different minions from different factions, 18 Lts from various factions and every boss in the game and putting them on a map would certainly make for an interesting map.
-
Another easy solution that I don't recall hearing: what if procs just had recharge enhancing properties, maybe even along with other stats. Example: Blasters Wrath has Rech/fire damage proc; just give every proc get an attuned Rech/damage proc. If all you're trying to do is balance the proc chance in proc bombs, that could be another option that also comes with a benefit.
And I'm for looking at some of the weaker procs to just make them uniques. They don't have a proc chance, they just go off 100% in the attack you slot it in but you can only slot it once. Beef up the effect a bit too. Putting these in fast rech powers would be better.
-
1 hour ago, Luminara said:
I happen to have Seismic Smash on my Grav/TA. I took her existing build and replaced the 5x Hecatomb with 6x procs to make a comparison. No other changes were made.
With 6x damage procs, which includes the Hecatomb and Unbreakable Constraint procs, 41.15172835729581 damage per second. The endurance cost is 17.84, the recharge time is 11.36s, the hit chance is 131%.
With 5x Hecatomb (excluding the Damage enhancement) and the Unbreakable Constraint proc, 35.60713561727144 damage per second. The endurance cost is 13.52, the recharge time is 8.15s, the hit chance is 189.2%.
5.5 damage per second gained, at the cost of 4.32 extra endurance, 3.21 slower recharge and 68.2% lower hit chance. There's nothing to fix here. The DPS increase isn't huge, it's miniscule. That miniscule gain isn't free, it has costs associated. And capping damage doesn't give the proc bomb slotting a lead, it actually decreases the gain. Just switching the secondary from TA to Kin and bumping FS up to 10 targets to cap damage, as a quick and dirty analysis, I see a DPS differential of 3.46336754116357 in the proc bomb's favor. 2 DPS lower than my previous calculations.
If this is the shining example of why procs "need" to be nerfed, I'd advise the nerf-herders not to hold their breath. The HC team isn't going to be hornswoggled that easily.
I guess I'm just crazy but, why would DPS matter on a controller? Wouldn't a controller be using more support and control powers? This wouldn't DPA be the point of using this type of slotting? Not to use it off rech but rather to delete targets?
-
30 minutes ago, Olerus said:
It isn't that it is impossible. Rather, it is that having to do the effort is a big part of why inventions work as a system.
~snip~
Current proc mechanics aren't what is broken about bypassing the ED damage softcap. The only real proc that behaves significantly better in comparison to its live version is Gaussian's.
And even then, the biggest issue with balance at this point isn't IOs at all. It is incarnates. ~snip~
It was mostly just a fun jab since the considerations you're talking about aren't all that difficult to overcome at all.
Also, I already have a means of dealing with incarnates: I don't level past the upper 40s on teams just like all the incarnate wanking players tell everyone to do.
I'd say, if we're comparing the level of broken-ness of the two, procs are probably close to even with incarnates if only because they affect the entire game even as early as level 1.
On a completely other tangent, what is the earliest "proc bomb" one can make in the game? I'm not asking to prove a point, I'm just curious. I'd assume it has to be some Trick Arrow character paired with some set that has another hold or maybe Infrigidate? And how much damage could it do at that level?
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Olerus said:
The thing is, to actually achieve 353 DPA from that power you need:
* 84.1% in accuracy buffs (after Kismet's +6% Tohit boost)
* some way of accounting for 12.34 endurance/second being added into an attack chain
These aren't minor considerations...
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, aethereal said:
You can buy the ATO for 100 merits or about 8M inf. You don't need the rest of the set, you don't need a complex build. It will make a huge difference in performance even if you use it at 3PPM with no global recharge. Players in SGs I was in who didn't make "builds," who mostly used common IOs or SOs still bought the ATOs for their AT, with merits.
I also want to be extremely clear to both you and @Naraka: Do you think that well-build Scrappers with the ATO make Blasters have laughably bad damage? Are blasters obsolete because Scrappers are the only kings of DPS, once we're talking about the kind of play that includes ATOs?
That's not my holistic impression. Mine is that at a given level of build sophistication, blasters, scrappers, and stalkers are all fairly close to each other in terms of performance. If anything, people tend to think that blasters are a little ahead of scrappers, in environments that don't highly value mitigation (soloing TFs at hard difficulties, for exaample).
So it's very convenient to use Scrappers for mathematical comparisons. Their mechanics are simple compared to Stalker or Blaster mechanics. But if we accept that Blaster ~= Scrapper ~= Stalker, then comparisons between Sents and Scrappers are implicitly comparisons between Sents and Stalkers or Blasters.
To be frank, I do not care how simple it is to obtain or how convenient they are, you don't compare ATs to other ATs with ATOs in the equation. Because, what if it was deemed a certain AT's ATO was overperforming and needs to be changed? It's much easier to balance if an AT's ATO is underperforming and needs to be change vs an AT's ATO was overperforming and you balanced every other damage AT on that metric and now need to revisit them all.
Comparisons aside, I am for the approach of giving Sent some kind of "crit" or "damage proc" mechanic because they are A.) somewhat behind on damage compared to Scraps and B.) because you can accentuate that using the ATOs as well as C.) damage being so prominent, it is the most visible change you could make to the AT that I can think of.
If we are bringing up the mechanics of the various DPS ATs, you're probably going to have to delve into their intent and actual performance there to then highlight possibilities for Sent (not compare then directly but rather to gauge what potentially they could do).
-
5 hours ago, ScarySai said:
Nerf everything powerful in the superhero game, then we can truly balance the game that thrives on powerful characters doing OP things.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, Llewellyn Blackwell said:
Like right? How can anyone post as this guy you responded to be taken seriously. Like since the dawning of the age of villains, the Brute was well understood to be an AT that did not need a lot of its enhancement slots devoted to raw dmg% boosts. The rage bar alone covers a huge chunk of their total damage buff cap. Hell one of the things I love about Brute is you can easily just put a couple franken slot set IOs for acc/recharge,and end cost reduction on each attack for leveling, and never suffer blue bar issues even at the levels most others all do just because they do not need to devote their slots to raw dmg.
I actually agree here, when leveling my brutes, I usually focus on END redux, Acc, rech and get those ToHit/recovery IOs and use inspirations for +res/def/healing ontop of whatever my armor provides. In the case of procs, they also get a nice boon having a low melee mod so slotting for damage isn't quite the premium except for certain high-damage attacks. So make the attack cheap to use and proc it out...although proc rate sometimes affects if slotting for rech is even a goal at all...but then I also don't mind having a squishy character (again: inspirations) and tend to play in the mid levels anyway.
8 hours ago, Cherry said:After reading this entire thread, some of you take this way too seriously and I'm glad I don't team with you.. you would make this game no fun for a player like me, and yes I know I'm the kind of player that would drive you nuts. There is a place for everyone in this game but some of you need to stop acting like elitist bullies and embrace the community as a whole and stop trying to change the way others want to play, or how they want to build. Leave this elitist crap for the PVP threads.
And y'all do realize this dev team is all volunteers, right? Stop demanding things from them and show a bit more gratitude we even have this game back to play.
Partially agreed. I personally feel people fixating on solving certain problems and not making precise calculations to determine if you are doing blah blah blah feels pretty elitist. I'm not here trying to get the devs to do overtime, I'm just asking for civil exchange and input on suggestions. The devs can decide to read and interpret that how they will. I'm also not trying to change others way of playing...at least not anymore than others have pushed to change the way I now play. It basically limits me from playing anything above lvl 45, half-and-half solo, limited build focus (so no soft-cap, limits on perma-stuff, budget limits on builds, etc) or sometimes only uniques and generic IOs.
I'm perfectly content with all the limitations I work with and still like discussing stuff (even if it's more a bias on anti-power creep). I find it's moreso the elitists that want to keep their power so much so they feel obligated to stifle expression and free thought on a public message board. I've even repeatedly said I don't want to remove proc bombs but I'll be put in the camp that is anti-proc bomb regardless.
Why is it so hard for you to set aside your bias and just stop and think "what if"?
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, aethereal said:
The game is easy. You can play it successfully with vastly underperforming builds (certainly including Sentinels, my first 50 on Homecoming was an archery/ninj sent, and I soloed AVs and so forth). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider how ATOs affect classes, and very specifically how they differentially affect classes.
Again, I didn't propose gigantic, game-changing ATOs. I proposed broadly useful ATOs, not broadly useless ones like Sentinels have now.
Scrapper or Stalker without ATO IS NOT UNDERPERFORMING!
Just accept that your point of perspective to compare has shifted up. And it has nothing to do with the game being easy, it has mostly to do with the game not changing. YOU are the one who has changed, specifically your expectations.
And this isn't about Sent ATOs vs other's ATOs, this is you comparing base Sent to Scrapper with ATOs. You shouldn't be doing that.
7 hours ago, aethereal said:Scrappers have more of an aggro-management role than Sentinels, they are protective of the group in a few ways:
1. Some scrapper sets have taunt auras.
2. Just being in the middle of melee means that AoEs that get sent a scrapper's way will not tend to hit the fragile ranged classes who are keeping their distance. Sentinels who do draw aggro will tend to draw AoEs into the fragile folks.
3. I guess confront, but who cares.
At any rate, well-built Scrappers have ST damage that I think is comparable to or exceeds Blaster level. Blasters have nukes and 16 target-cap AoEs.
Regarding the aggro auras, it's mostly a coin flip. Most sets that have damage auras don't have taunt, if I recall correctly. It's the buff auras that have taunt, so your Invicibility, Against All Odds and Rise to the Challenge have taunt but I don't believe things like Death Shroud, Oppressive Gloom, Blazing Aura, etc etc have taunt. In which case, I wouldn't even grant "aggro management" as a plus to lone Scrapper unless they take some kind of pool taunt....you can do the same on Sent.
As far as aggro, there is more to it than merely taunting. Debuffs, damage and threat all play a role as well as retaliation (the foe being able to hit you back for the effects you cast on it). If you want some kind of role in that regards, why not just suggest increasing Sent's threat level? As is, Sent can be pretty slippery since they can just hang out in the air or at range meaning retaliation is going to be minimized.
That all being said, I don't think "aggro management" would be a reason not to compare Scrappers to Sents. Sents are Scraps that get to use ranged attacks and upgraded armor sets.
-
54 minutes ago, aethereal said:
Scrapper and Stalker damage without their ATOs would collapse compared to Scraps and Stalks who do use their ATOs.
A basically competently slotted Scrapper who uses their chance-for-+50%-crit-rate ATO should get around a +20% to their damage just there (that is: it's not particularly difficult to get 50% uptime with this proc. A crit is roughly +100% damage for a power, but not including procs etc so let's call it +80%. So if you crit 50% more often, that's +40% damage. Half uptime, +20% damage). That's not a tip-top, I'm going to actually get the most out of this ATO build, it's a basically competent build. Their other ATO gives another +2-5% damage just by itself.
It's harder to put exact numbers to the Stalker ATOs, and probably certain sets value the chance-to-hide one more than others (it really shines if you have another really big hitter in your set that you can crit with), but it shouldn't be hard to get +15-20% damage just by using the two ATOs for most Stalkers.
Scrappers without their ATOs would be comparable to or worse than Brutes in damage output. It's a big deal.
(It's worth pointing out that I'm NOT proposing huge-deal ATOs. I'm proposing ATOs that are broadly useful and support damage dealing, without being game-changers like Scrapper/Stalker ATOs. As opposed to current Sent ATOs that don't really add any damage.)
If Sentinels are to provide a team benefit based on "merely damage," then their damage should be comparable to Blasters (who also provide mere damage). That'd be a HUGE damage increase for Sentinels, something I don't think anyone has much appetite for.
A benefit should not be seen as mandatory and Scrappers and Stalkers can function competently without ATOs. There's already a huge debate about balancing around IOs, and ATOs are like IOs on speed.
As for Sents needing to be comparable to Blasters, why? Why not Scrappers? To give them comparable damage to Blasters, you'd first have to take most if not all their mez protection away...
-
Just another outlier idea that I was thinking, since considering add-on damage such as from procs is more rare to get across the board...
...what if they actually did decide to nerf procs quite a bit (exactly how, I'm not focusing on in this particular post) and while they did so, they looked at other means of adding "proc damage" buffs throughout powersets? Shock Therapy has a kinda-proc debuff/control power it casts on enemies and Plant Manipulation has Toxins that add toxic damage to all your attacks, what if they changed more powers (ally buffs and self buffs) either to assist balancing powersets (FF and Sonic buff giving some damage procs or giving Martial Arts mechanics to add proc damage and/or debuffs to its attacks) or to just diversify buffs that feel stagnant in the upper-levels. So reduce proc-bomb builds but enable proc-bomb teams, so to speak.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ScarySai said:
Proc slotting provides build diversity and allows otherwise underperforming sets to perform at a decent level, like DP or rad blast.
I don't really have a problem with proc bombs either. The only part I really take issue with is how harshly recharge punishes procs in general.
I enjoy procs as well and having some proc-bombs is fun but it can favor some powers and sets over others. Like, imagine if they went in and made every proc "generic", still apart of a set but that one enhancement could simply be slotted into any power you wish (I bet no one else considered that idea). At least that would be *fair* and it might put +ToHit team buffs on even more of a premium, but even then, the way some powers propagate (i.e. things like pseudo-pets or special mechanics) would still cause an uneven playing field.
As is, procs are closer to a coin-flip: hopefully the set's powers have slottable effects with recharges and AoE that can best take advantage of some procs or they're just unlucky and barely have beneficial procs or procs that are unwieldly. It also has the side-effect of trying to future-proof powers to have specific propagation methods to best take advantage of IOs/procs rather than being something experimental/unique.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Luminara said:
Is that the thread in which I examined one of those proc bombs, compared it to traditional IO set slotting with one additional proc and found that the damage output was not, in fact, better when the power had six procs, but also that the hit chance, endurance usage and cycle time were all significantly worse when used as a proc bomb, and that the proc bomb's recharge time (which was already worse than the traditionally slotting) was dependent on the Force Feedback proc in another power, which could miss and drop the proc bomb's performance over time even further?
And this is evidence that procs need to be nerfed? Hm...
I think it was more a statement of consensus of what people think the problem stems from (context: the statement that "Nobody thinks that 1-2 procs in a given power is bad.").
And you're not going to isolate procs as the specific problem because it's not procs but rather the culmination of stats you can garner (context: the statement "That whole thread dives more into it than just procs...") I think it can be obvious that a traditionally slotted power will start to outperform a proc-bomb power over time, but "over time" is only one relativistic parameter here as battles vary from moderately long to extremely short. Performance, thus, can't be only determined in one over all else AND in a vacuum of stats that will quickly favor the more valuable (i.e. rare) effects like add-on damage compared to the less valuable (i.e. not-as-rare) effects like +ToHit, +dmg and +rech.
I'm just glad there is some kind of cap to proc damage being you can only, at max, have 6 extra over-damage-cap damage effects per applicable power...but then the imbalance creep of IO set favoritism would then have a foundation in the discussion of effectiveness of procs and them needing to be looked at.
-
10 hours ago, Katharos said:
I like the perception improvement because when you notice you're having perception problems, you're usually a deep breath from having full-on survival problems. If just because Arachnos are already a hard enemy group without all the rare debuffs and status afflictions.
Speaking on that, it would be an interesting niche if more factions used stealth and -perception more often. It's such a powerful effect and has multiple counters, I can see making this an enemy option if faced at +3 and +4 difficulty...if it is at all possible to swap in the proper mobs dependent on your relative level, that is.
11 hours ago, aethereal said:The inherent is interesting, and I'm worried that my proposed inherent is less interesting. But also, the current inherent is baaaaaaaaaaad. So bad that trying to fix it is I'm not sure a workable approach.
Problems with the current inherent:
1. It's really confusing. You have to increase the meter to full, then use a T1 or T2 power. Then the visible effect that people notice is a heal/end heal for defensive opportunity, or a damage proc for offensive opportunity. So much so that people don't necessarily even realize that with either opportunity, you're also doing a -20% res debuff on your main target. People have a LOT of questions about the sent inherent.
2. It's single-target, and comes late in a fight. In most situations, by the time you can get the inherent off, the person you want to target with it is half dead or more. The actual -res effect is useless for AoE.
3. You have to slot your T1 and/or T2 to at least well enough to hit things, which is often a waste -- specifically, in the context of sentinel blast sets that almost invariably have at least two powers that are on rapid-enough recharges to be in your main rotation and do a lot more damage than your T1 or T2. So it kinda doesn't play well with the basic dynamic of sentinels.
4. People get excited about -res as a mechanic, but we should note that against a +4 opponent, your debuffs are at 48%. It scales really badly against high-level opponents.
5. They sacrifice one of the ATOs for it, and it's an underwhelming proc.
Haven't really only recently started rolling up various Sents, I have a fresh view of how I perceived the inherent after mostly forgetting that Sents exist over the course of nearly a year.
1. I actually noticed defensive opportunity more than offense. Working on a DP/Fire at the time, I had the toggle for fire damage on my attacks as well as Incendiary rounds so the extra damage procs I got from offensive opportunity were drowned out. The main res debuff seems pretty obvious to me but I've played other games with a similar mechanic that gave a similar visual cue.
2. This, I'd agree, is the most annoying part in that, I built up opportunity and end up wasting the debuff on something I'm finishing off. I too suggested a rework to that particular mechanic to refresh the target once the target is taken out.
3. I think rolling the opportunities together so there's only "Opportunity" instead of offense vs defense would also mean you can take either the tier 1 or tier 2 instead of both. You have to take 1 anyway. But as for needing to take and use them, I tend to do that anyway purely so I can experience the whole set.
4. & 5. I would say are limitations many ATs experience in some fashion or another.
12 hours ago, aethereal said:I mean, that's one concept for design, but it's not CoH's one. Scrappers' damage collapses without their ATOs. So does Stalkers'.
I feel like the inherent is the weakest part of my proposal. I'm pretty hemmed in. Powerhouse is on record as not wanting to give sentinels any kind of taunt, and wanting to be somewhere between rolling back the -res and at least no more of it. I'm trying to give sentinels a role as sentinels, as like watchful guardians, and do it without taunt. They'll never be allowed to have blaster-level damage, so giving them some kind of protective role without taunt is tough.
Collapse compared to what? I've played plenty of Stalkers who do and don't use the ATO.
As for the conceptual role of Sentinel, I always perceived it as providing an overwatch which you can kinda do if you're at a distance, you can see the whole battlefield while you engage and take action from that perspective. Your mechanical suggestion might assist in that concept but I think the AT's actual role will always be merely damage.
-
1 hour ago, America's Angel said:
Well this just isn't true. I've been quoted more than anyone else in the thread, and have received more emoji reactions (22) than anyone else.
Lol, you're counting?
You are the authority on the subject, apparently. You should be expecting more interactions here.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, America's Angel said:
This suggests to me that those who believe procs should be nerfed don't actually understand (or at the very least, aren't prepared to demonstrate that they understand) the numbers behind game balance. So their claims that ALL PROCS are causing power creep/must be nerfed/etc should be taken with a grain of salt.
Also, this is pure strawman.
Just saying...
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, America's Angel said:
Also worth pointing out that there has been no agreement on what the problem with damage procs actually is. (Or if there even is one!)
I would argue that, just because you and a couple of people that decided to post in the thread have decided to label people's opinions as wrong doesn't suddenly create the contention to throw out their position part and parcel. It'd be like me saying "If there was no problem then you wouldn't be posting in the thread so much". I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in that type of reasoning but I'm not versed in philosophy and orational discourse.
1 hour ago, America's Angel said:All justification for global proc nerfs in this thread have been anecdotal/appealing to authority ("everyone knows that..." etc).
That's not appealing to authority. That's appealing to consensus. If anyone has been appealing to authority, it's you. You decided what the problem was by appealing to the authority of a dev's statements. I'm of the opinion that the devs are human too and can be swayed if you provide them enough reason to diverge from their personal opinion. You've also appealed to the authority of studies that no one can see unless they join your discord.
I'm not saying you're wrong for doing any of that, but maybe explaining it to you will help you understand the perspective of others here. Like I said in my OP, I'm not here to debate *IF* there is a problem because that can happen elsewhere. I'd much rather pontificate on what would happen *IF* you changed it so you can only slot 1 proc in a power or if the damage scaled with the chance of proc'ing. You said you did all that testing but you didn't bother telling anyone what the results were. You just say it's less effective or unbalanced and you don't show or state why.
-
2
-
Proposed Knockback modifcation/fix
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
You say IO tax, I say near-equivalent exchange.
As is, the KB>KD IO already breaks certain powers (looking at you, Bonfire) because some powers just aren't meant to do KD. Getting that functionality using an IO seems somewhat fair but getting that for free is likely a problem you haven't thought through or simply don't care about.
At best, I think getting some kind of enhancement value added to Sudden Acceleration's KB>KD should be the best compromise here because no one wants to go picking through powers to balance them just because some players just want everything for free.