Naraka

May 22, 2021

Is being immobilized for a couple seconds that detrimental?

Yeah, I know it's annoying, but I mean on survival...

May 22, 2021

Just going to say, as a Spines/DA Stalker, I ADORE Impale. Not it's damage but its animation. It's an old animation that used to be shared with Claws' Slash (I think) that was changed as well as EM's Stun (which was also changed). I think it's the only power left with that animation.

For it's long wind-up, I would wholeheartedly accept giving it full range (70-90ft) instead of shortening it's animation to make it a "better" DPS attack. Making it a snipe? I dunno...I am weary of how snipes were changed. It's only a short side-step to eventually just giving it a short animation (the only part of the power I really like, wind-up and all). Slightly improving it's secondary effect wouldn't be a bad change either in place of a shorter animation (give it some more slow, some more immob and increase it's DoT).

That all said, the only power I have an issue with is Spine Burst. It's the only "slow" animation I'm not a fan of but rather than replacing it, why not give it a cool mechanic like a +res buff during its animation (you're in place covered in spines armor) so at least you're just coasting while it's doing its thing.

As for redraw, I desperately want a "no body spines" customization. Having a no-redraw option is probably not an option (mainly because it should be the default). Just remove the redraw from it and add a "no FX" option for the customization.

Also, what if Spine's Build Up was similar to Fiery Embrace where it has an extended +Toxic Damage buff instead of increasing the DoT itself?

Hah, I'm contradicting myself on the power creep argument on that last one. The rest seems like utility (+range impale, protect user during Spine Burst animation, no FX option) than power though.

5 hours ago, Haijinx said:

I hadnt intended to be sarcastic.

Slow animations, no balance changes, a fairly weak secondary effect, redraw and the rest. It seems like a relic, lagging behind the times.

I'm of the opinion that, rather than racing to the future (which the game really isn't....I mean, what challenging content is on the table here?) we should be seeking to preserve the core.

Despite not being a premiere set, Spines still performs quite admirably in AoE (and adequately in ST on Stalkers). It's a rather moderate/slow set which I don't want replaced. It should be like the "Knockout Blow" of AoE sets for melees. Yeah, TW and all that but I said "like" so it's fine.

As for balance changes, has anyone looked at Battle Axe? Kinetic Melee could also use a bit of help. I'm all for helping lagging sets a bit but Spines is pretty decent.

May 22, 2021

To expand and more quantify my previous idea to give Regen some resistances, I think improving the cast/effect periods of the clicks so it's a bit more responsive would help a lot but also adding a new mechanic to the set built around stacking your clicks. Sent would retain it's advantage of +Absorb, incentivizing playing that AT for the difference in Regen for those that want to try all flavors of the set. My intent is to make you want to play more different ATs to get the full spectrum of a set OR pick the AT that has the flavor of a set you prefer. Equity across the AT, in this case, is purely homogeny and only benefits those obsessive with the exact numbers, clear speeds, etc.

Fast Healing (Brute/Scrapper): Added onto its base effect, Regeneration activation powers activates Fast Healing's stacking effect that adds -regen res (12%) and -rech res (8%) for 90sec and stacks up to 5 times.

Fast Healing (Stalkers): Same as Brute/Scrapper (12% -regen res and 8% -rech res per stack) but also grants the user 5 Max END (passive) and every Regeneration activation powers grant back 8 END and adds -END res and -recovery res (15%) for 60sec and stacks up to 5 times. [In this case, Regen for Stalkers doesn't have +recovery options outside of MoG. It only has this power that increases max END and an END rebate for every click you activate...also, it'll be the only AT for this set that gets -END res as well]. This power is slottable for END mod.

Quick Recovery (Brute/Scrapper): Every Regeneration activation power grants -recovery res (18%) for 60sec and stacks up to 5 times.

Integration (Brute/Scrapper/Stalker): Add to this the stacking mechanism. Every Regeneration activation power grants the user -movement res (12%) for 30sec and stacks up to 5 times. Nothing major, mostly fluff. Gives a slight boon in dire situations to escape when you're forced to activate a lot of your click regen powers. Activating DP, Recon and IH puts you around 36% to give you the chance to reposition or flee.

Resilience (Brute/Scrapper/Stalker): I could see them increasing the Toxic res up to around 15-18% but it's not necessary. Add to this the stacking mechanism. Every Regeneration activation power grants the user Psi dmg resistance (!!! some complain that MoG doesn't have Psi res. I think having holes in a set isn't a bad thing but conditional holes are a decent alternative too. This auto will add 6% psi res every stack), -ToHit res (10%) and -def res (12%) for 60sec. This would make the resilience power a pretty big deal for the set, specifically for the -def res. This power would be the only "stack mechanism" power that stacks up to 8 times but due to normal recharge times, it's unlikely to really stack that high for very long without outside sources of recharge.

Revive (Brute/Scrapper/Stalker): Taking the idea of @Leo_G, giving this power a kind of "Burn out" mechanic is almost like a different flavor "tier 9" but not. Having it used while alive recharging all your Regen cooldowns works in sync with the "stack mechanism" idea so if need be, a Regen character has the means of further escalating their sustain OR keep going when things have hit the fan and are still spinning. If used while dead, having it recharge all your cooldowns means you get back up at max rather than considering to wait for Integration/DP or some other reactive power to recharge. At worse, it could be skipped if you don't want a "Burn out" click but it still benefits someone who doesn't want just a self-rez.

Furthermore, this has a bit of synergy with the actual Burn Out as you could, effectively have your 4 main sustain clicks 4x available since your Revive click would be available 2x.

May 22, 2021

Trying to quantify Regen's mitigation will get you a rough approximation but having controllable bursts, whether it's damage, control or buffs, can be gamed to exceed rough approximations...or fall below them. Just like it's possible to completely waste your MoG if used at the wrong time, you can use it to mitigate a show-stopping burst or save it for another time by utilizing a plethora of other tools to allow your weaker tools to combine into sustain through tough situations.

It's one of the main fun things about the set: you're looking for your own synergies as situations change to maintain performance while leaving something in the tank to rotate while your other tools are coming off cooldown.

May 21, 2021

Just now, Infinitum said:

Well then you missed the point.

Sure.

May 21, 2021

3 minutes ago, macskull said:

This has got to be one of the worst hot takes I've seen in this thread.

Force Fields is in need of a buff because defense is all it does. If it were the only set which gave ally defense it would not be in this situation, but in reality it's completely outclassed by sets like Traps, Cold, and Time simply because those sets offer defense and other useful buffs/debuffs.

-Tohit is useful to a point but unlike defense it's subject to the purple patch and archvillain resistance, meaning any value of -tohit needs to be absurdly large to still be valuable. If you implement a lower defense hardcap, -tohit is not magically improved but rather is completely unaffected.

Calling this game "strategic-like" is laughable. A team of almost any sort of characters can be successful in almost any sort of content as long as the people at the keyboard aren't trying to wear their pants as a hat.

I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

Force Field was made mostly obsolete by IOs. I don't care if you think it's a hot take that wishing FF added even more buffs ontop of what it can already provide is overkill on an already unbalanced mess. You can bake that hot take into the hot take of the game as a whole lol

If def were adjusted so that defense buff sets (in part, and FF in full) filled in what was effectively that portion of soft capped not achievable via self-buffs alone, then you cross into what most MMOs tend to do pre-emptively to bring their support into prominence vs forcing said support into overpowering the game.

As for the point about -ToHit, put that take on a skillet. You contradict arguing it. We have -ToHit immune to the purple patch for a reason. The reason a lot of it isn't immune is because of 1.) overwhelming defense 2.) overpowering support and 3.) combination of the two. If we decided to, for whatever purpose, implement diminishing returns on defense balanced by other sources such as -ToHit, support +def and/or some other element requiring team coordination, is that somehow worse for balance? Perhaps if the only focus is self-reliance...

May 21, 2021

57 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

What the guy you quoted needs to understand, that the archytypes damage is only part of the equation, Base damage x scale x archytype modifer.

For example, blaster vs defender on snapshot

Defender is base of 36.1466 scale of 0.68 which gives damage of 24.5797

Blaster is base of 62.5615 scale of 0.84 gives damage of 52.5517

Understanding how each archytype does damage isnt just based on modifier but much more.

If that's the case, I suppose I have a misunderstanding of the base damage. I just assumed an attack (not specifically altered for a certain set) had a specific base damage and then the damage modifier was applied (melee or ranged) and afterwards, any current/capped damage modifiers afterwards alters that product.

I know some attacks have different base damage purposefully altered for balance reasons (like, for instance, some Dom Assault attacks or that Blasters have different attacks from what would be considered "base") but I thought the damage scale WAS the AT modifier....or that the attack's scale was determined mathematically by other factors (like recharge and endurance cost) which was then multiplied by the AT mod. I guess, overall, I sort of get what you're saying but I'll need a bit more info to fully alter my position.

May 21, 2021

2 hours ago, siolfir said:

That hard-capping defense to 40% is a Bad Idea™ and would have a "cascading failure" of other systems and encounters needing to be adjusted, for little to no benefit because people would just go about their merry way using, as you so eloquently put it, "non-defense mitigation such as heals, regen, resistance, -rech, sleeps, disorient, confuse, holds and knockback."

It's not a panacea, and making it harder to soft-cap would be met with equal vitriol without breaking existing encounters and would have the side benefit of not invalidating an entire set of support powers that provide +defense.

I don't believe it was claimed to be a panacea.

Using other mitigation methods in conjunction would reduce the reliance of pure def to a point, which was moreso the point, and bring about more prominence and purpose of other effects like -ToHit or outside buffing factors and outside sources (this is the thing I want emphasis on) to shore up the gap.

At best, your argument is people would use other forms of mitigation to break even or reach similar peaks of damage mitigation. I feel THAT is the actual goal since it's less gameable and more wide-spread than just putting the pedal to defense and letting the plebs use everything else to try to compare.

As for vitriol for harder soft-caps: cry me a river. I'm sure you could bury those cries next to Force Field and other defense-oriented buff sets whose only other option is to feed into power creep to keep up...or heck, even -ToHit debuff support sets toward endgame. At what point do we actually want every set to participate without just working around IOs, softcapped def and -regen on AVs? It's fucking pathetic for a non-twitch strategic-like MMO, honestly...

May 21, 2021

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No im saying its flat wrong this time, last time and every time because the game would need to be re written from top to bottom to facilitate it. If you want context do your homework and go read the last 4 beelion posts where its been argued against.

I'm not denying the framework changes, moreso the "wrong" conclusion. I suppose an admission that the current defense mechanics being shaky in the sense of balance could be a compromising argument though.

7 minutes ago, siolfir said:

They already are, which is why they're typically avoided. It doesn't matter how much defense debuff resistance you have when you need 100%+ defense to soft-cap - that's when those outside +defense buffs that everyone says aren't needed become really useful, though.

Or non-defense mitigation such as heals, regen, resistance, -rech, sleeps, disorient, confuse, holds and knockback are prioritized in said niche situations.

If defense is already finnicky by nature, what other point is trying to be made here?

May 21, 2021

2 minutes ago, siolfir said:

If it's hard-capped (as was suggested) it reduces the benefit of any defense oriented buff because you hit the wall that much sooner even without any external buffs. It also greatly exaggerates the effects of any mobs with +to-hit, many of which are already avoided by people.

Making +ToHit mobs a threat seems like a good positive.

Also, adding a mechanic for "aegis" (or over/to "fluid" capped) to buff sets would be another positive, so long as it was skewed to specific sets and not just outside buffs.

3 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Honestly, if you want to fix everyone building to softcap everything, cut the defensive set bonuses in half across the board and see how that shakes out. Both the defense and resistance set bonuses used to a) not be as plentiful, and b) not be set up in matching pairs (ex: separate defense for melee and smashing/lethal, kinetic combat was only smashing defense, etc). Some new resistance set bonuses were also added in for sets that only provided mez resistance, and those were also paired up. The set bonuses you saw in issue 9 were not this generous, and that's not just from having fewer sets.

Probably best saved for another thread, I suppose.

I don't have a solution to everyone softcapping. My best solution so far is limiting its benefits.

14 minutes ago, siolfir said:

It used to be 0.8, if they were going to lower it then I can't see it going lower than that.

I was meaning in conjunction with giving them a higher mod for ranged (so like a 0.75 melee mod but a 0.95 to 1.0 ranged mod). Make it so that it seems Tankers should take ranged attacks (the few good ones they can, at least) but make it so that ranged attacks have longer casts and recharge to balance that benefit.

16 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I have no idea what you just said, but what hes suggesting is still wrong.

That's fine. I'm not trying to appeal to everyone to agree. I'm more or less saying, anything perceived as "wrong" likely has some shred or form that is isolated to be outside of current represented perspective. I'm not a defense attorney, but if someone can argue down your claim of "wrong" to "unsubstantiated", that is a success in the argument of the defense. The only argument you seem to claim is it would be a nerf and most of the aspects trivialized in this game substantiates that a nerf might be needed.

May 21, 2021

4 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Going off on tangents again, but both Blasters (1.125 -> 1.0, 88.89% of the original damage) and Defenders (.65 -> 0.55, 84.62%) would see a nerf while Corruptors, who have a 0.75 modifier for both melee and ranged, would be unchanged. Sentinels also have matching ranged and melee modifiers, but weren't brought up.

Also left unsaid is that the AoE sizes for the blast sets are larger than those in the melee sets, which with a few 15' exceptions (Footstomp, Tremor, fully-charged Rending Flurry... am I missing any?) and the telenukes which have a smaller inner radius to deal the full damage, stay within the 10' "extended melee" range. You could easily use that as the cutoff point to differentiate, and then none of the ranged PBAoEs would be small enough to count as "melee," which is why I said earlier that I wouldn't worry about them. This also means that you don't get the arguments about why several sets have ranged nukes which wouldn't be affected while the others would be negatively impacted for half of the ATs that get the sets.

Might be able to compensate the PBAoE nukes with a decreased rech instead. Overall, you might be improving those sets in the tangent here to make them more DPS oriented rather than burst oriented. With the Defender, the point being made was to alter their melee mod so the PBAoEs would be slightly advantageous although that could be seen as incentivizing "suicidal" Defenders.

May 20, 2021

2 minutes ago, macskull said:

You're missing one of the key issues: every time I jump into a mob of +4x8 enemies on my softcapped <insert character here> I'm taking a gamble. I don't know that I will survive the encounter or even the alpha - there's a not-insignificant chance multiple mobs get hits in and if I'm not fast enough on the inspirations I'm taking a dirt nap. This disparity gets worse on characters with lower HP (pretty much everything that isn't a Scrapper, Tanker, or Brute).

Why are we "jumping in" exactly?

Don't we have controls, nukes, extra-buffs (like resistance/regen) to soften the blow? Or tactics like thinning out, sniping/pulling and LoS to shore up the fact that "this AT isn't Tanker/Brute"?

May 20, 2021

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

And you would be just as wrong as the previous 10k times you have posted it.

Personally speaking, when people say somethings "wrong", it activates skepticism the more it's expressed to believe it's wrong. Basically the Streisand effect: for example, at worst, a global 40% "fluid" cap for everyone (exception for Tankers, Brutes at 45%, Warshade/Peacebringer and Widow at 42%) might facilitate defense-oriented buff sets to fill the gap created rather than being nearly render useless.

This is just an example.

May 20, 2021

10 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

I think there's just a mindset of competition between the two AT's that once one gets a leg up on the other, which brutes had for a longer time, tanks now are a bit better overall imo because if we needed a tanky toon on the team I'd rather have the tank that's likely to do better with something like say Lord Recluse with less of a build than a Brute would require.

For the most part, I agree with your premise. The only issue I have with current Tanker, as I pointed out during the beta changes, is they shifted its meta toward DPS. With the damage buff (sacrificing the AoE and target caps, in some cases), they facilitate making brutish Tankers. If they decided to just reign back the damage mod to 0.75 or 0.7 but increase their AoE back to a square % across the board (even the 15ft PBAoEs), would Tankers still have some niche while keeping Brutes in the same realm of DPS-focused tank that differentiates both ATs?

May 20, 2021

3 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Not really, because the ranged attacks in melee sets use the melee modifier - and you could make an argument that PBAoEs in ranged sets should use the melee modifier, when they're currently using the ranged modifier, although that's not something I'd worry about.

I think Dominators already have this settled since the Assault sets were designed from the ground up as mixed, but I haven't gone through power-by-power to check for exceptions.

I'm aware (for the most part) of the exceptions. I just didn't want to go through and list out the specifics like blast set nukes and such. Like I said, that could be a point of rebalance to make the ATs have more niche advantages without specifically just buffing the AT wholesale. In the case of the PBAoEs and nukes in ranged sets, if they decided to change them to use melee mods (I always assumed they did but I guess I was wrong there) Blasters wouldn't see much of a change but Defenders, I believe, would see a nerf. To give Defenders a boost, what if they made their melee mod 0.80 instead while making those particular blast sets with PBAoEs shift to that mod? You might see a shift in the meta to favor certain blast sets among blast sets that have PBAoE nukes (most of them) and shifting to maximize those powers (although I think Electric and Rad are the only blast sets that have a PBAoE attack and nuke). Sentinel could also be a point of rebalancing in the damage dept here.

On the melee front, would people be opposed to shifting Stalker ranged mod to be equal to Scrapper melee mod?

May 20, 2021

10 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

No, I'm suggesting at no time should any power X AT has access to should use something other than the base AT modifier for range or melee. If I have 1 as my melee modifier, every melee attack I have access to should have a mod of 1. If I have .75 as my ranged modifier, every ranged attack I have access to should be at .75.

Okay, so how it's set up now then.

That some ATs were using melee modifiers for ranged attacks was kinda dumb in the first place. Heck, that some sets in the Primary or Secondary arbitrarily using the melee mod rather than the ranged mod (despite accepting ranged IOs) is the only exception that exist still.

Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to buffing the damage and rech of Focus/Impale/Shockwave/Throw Spines/Focused Burst/Repulsing Torrent/Serpent's Reach/Hurl/Hurl Boulder in exchange for making them ranged attacks. In certain circumstances, you could buff the ranged damage mod of one of the melee's to give that AT a niche advantage while using specific powers separate from their overall role tier. Like what if they reversed some of the damage buff on Tanker's melee mod back but boost their ranged instead? Overall nerf but could add to their niche (what does an actual rl tank even do?).

May 20, 2021

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm only stating that all AT modifiers should be applied to all powers used by said AT. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wouldn't that disrupt the balance of ATs that use varying damage modifiers? Speaking mostly on Blasters, Dominators and Defenders. I suppose one could just shift everything to their "best" modifier but that seems wholly unnecessary for a push to simplify the game. If anything, the game is TOO simple. The whole complexity of the game hinges on having many variables to juggle on the player's part.

May 18, 2021

6 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

Don't want to put words in their mouth, but I take it as this is blown up as an issue in the forums way more than it is actually a real issue in game. Only time I tend to see it with any frequency in the real game is on low level teams when the controller doesn't have a lot of powers to use and is probably inexperienced. Then you get the classic "throw an aoe immobilize on the mob and then die" as they take the alpha.

Low level AoE ghetto hold = find a corner or box, queue up your AoE immob and hop in and out of LoS. In low levels, this is easily a godsend when your team gets overwhelmed by too many foes. Later on, it could be a means of getting some breathing room for your other minimally slotted AoE controls to recharge.

May 18, 2021

16 hours ago, Peacemoon said:

What is “Boomer Hive-Mind”?
Why don’t you say what you mean instead of hiding behind made up terms? 😉

Geeze, you guys either are the most literal people in existence or very sensitive.

I didn't make up any terms. In the context of my point is just old people being sticks in the mud or people acting like old sticks in the mud (for a turn of phrase you SHOULD be familiar with). I'm not defending making copy-cat characters, per se, but rather highlighting that people DO find a different enjoyment in impersonating or reworking old established characters. To flippantly discard such things as uncreative or malice seems particularly detached.

I still got no response for the examples I presented. I guess the only concern left is pure fear, which is a perfectly valid concern.

May 17, 2021

*on a MA/ or DM/ or Kin/ or BS/ or NB/ Stalker* What's the matter? I see no issue.

*on a Beam Rifle, Psy or Energy Blast character* Eh, it's alright.

May 17, 2021

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

Yes, it's hurting everyone who plays the game, directly, by placing the game at risk of further legal issues and potentially forcing the HC team to abandon the project entirely. If this kind of behavior continues, it will, eventually, force a confrontation with a comic book publisher, which will, in turn, force NCSoft to take action in order to distance themselves, and then it's all over.

Furthermore, the HC team, collectively, would be held responsible in a copyright infringement lawsuit, which could cost them their savings, their homes, their jobs and their futures, and as decent human beings, we shouldn't be shrugging our shoulders and ignoring the risk they're taking in order to do everything they have done and are doing for us. Since they aren't properly staffed to monitor every zone and every mission map on every server, it falls to us to police ourselves to some degree, and this sort of thing is exactly where that kind of self-policing comes into play.

Don't act like this is a victimless crime. We all stand to lose, and the HC team stands to lose big, if this goes unchecked.

The other possibility is no legal legitimacy would ever be reached and this would fall under similar circumstances as other fan-driven projects to preserve failed or non-supported games that are becoming more prevalent as more games are having their support swept from under them and more consoles become defunct.

May 17, 2021

45 minutes ago, cranebump said:

“Boomer hive-mind?”

Yes.

May 17, 2021

26 minutes ago, siolfir said:

If I were to try to give the benefit of the doubt here (which is stretching things a bit, I admit), based on the timing I would hope that many of the instances are new accounts who saw this game through the now-legal streams and thought that they could make whatever hero they wanted.

Boomer hive-mind aside, it could just be some think it's funny and cool. I mean, why do people make copy characters on Soul Calibur?

May 16, 2021

Because I'm the contrarian that I am and because I have no reason to morally oppose either side since it hardly has an effect on me, I wonder if this is even really an issue anymore. Outside of the prospect of becoming the "legit server", would anyone actually take action against you for making rip-off characters?

I see it all the time in the Soul Calibur character customizer that can make some pretty strikingly similar characters. VR Chat lets you straight up rip models from other games and play as them. In the time that CoX shut down, a lot has changed.

If some determined group decided to make a server and put a bunch of costume pieces in to facilitate more copies, what could anyone even do to them that already hasn't been done?

May 16, 2021

1 hour ago, Li_Sensei said:

The fact that they're a more or less unlimited source of obedient and plausibly deniable super powered individuals that Crey can tap into for their less savoury operations that aren't as unreliable as the SKy Raiders, Freakshow and other groups that Crey's hired in the past as muscle is entirely a side bonus, honest...

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'm trying to sell.......

Are you talking about Crey or the rando "heroes" running about "arresting" things?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Articles

Patch Notes

Posts posted by Naraka