Naraka
-
Posts
1056 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Naraka
-
-
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...
-
1
-
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.
-
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...
-
1
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?).
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
*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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, cranebump said:
“Boomer hive-mind?”
Yes.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
2
-
-
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?
-
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?
-
Currently, the most complicated attack in City of Heroes is Brawl specifically because, to utilize the various stances some powers put you in, it will change the animation. So popping brawl with a Katana in your hand will give you a unique animation. Same with popping it with an Assault Rifle or a Shield.
That being said, I feel the tier 1 (or tier 2 in the case of some powersets) is actually the auto-attack you're talking about.
-
3
-
-
On 5/13/2021 at 3:28 PM, OmnibusOmnh said:
Hey @Leogunner, sorry for the absence, heard your criticism of the Permeable, great assumption that is exactly how I intended soul melees Permeable to work apologies on not being specific, as it would be unfair to phase in and out at will. There is now a lookout after 25 sec of usage of Permeable.
As for Revenant it is an already an existing concept in the game, creating a pet from a defeated foe, an example of such power is the similarly related Soul Extraction from Necromancy, it would work similarly to that. You'd be able to activate it only on a foe you defeated not at will it will only work on a defeated foe.
Hope that this clarifies thinks up. Saw your post on Reaper Scythe (Battle Axe), was very phenomenal a lot of work went into it. However I will contrast my set to the Reaper Scythe as it focuses on the weapon of the reaper himself while Soul Melee Focuses on manipulating or reshaping your very own essence onto others, eventually seeping into the underworld in terms of the theme as well as the abilities.
Overall thanks for the observation towards Permeable always appreciate the feedback.
On 5/13/2021 at 3:31 PM, OmnibusOmnh said:hey @Naraka, I made edits on Permeable and on the Revenant Pet you should see the add ons I made this as a light proposal without going into many specifics originally, but I went into more detail as to how Revenant works. it will use Soul melee abilities as well as degrading a foes defense. I added your suggestion on improving the casters own abilities, Now when a Revenant is active it increase the Dot and adds minor time towards Permeable
Not going to nitpick about the durations as a balance pass would likely have to happen with regards to just how useful and defensive phase shifting while fighting might be. Overall, I feel 25sec of usage might still be too high but again, it'd have to be examined fully to decide just what would be the best balance.
Having a "buff" pet sounds interesting. However, you didn't respond to the point @Leogunner mentioned about the missing Taunt ability. Every Tanker/Brute melee set has an AoE taunt with a -range debuff and the Scrapper version has a single target taunt. If I were recommending a fix to that, I'd just remove Seized Soul from the Tanker/Brute/Scrapper version and fit the taunt in its place. I think, in Psi Melee, Boggle is a mostly skipped power anyway but having the always up buff pet would likely be more preferred. For Stalkers, maybe tie some of the benefits that the buff pet has to Seized Soul so it at least gets some of the offensive benefits (improves the DoT) but not the defensive ones (extending Permeable durations) when you use it to confuse a target.
-
Funny, why is no one talking about buffing Battle Axe? Energy Melee just got a huge upgrade but it wasn't even that bad (just ST). Battle Axe is slow, rech and END hungry and is mostly sub-par DPS compared to equivalent sets (Broadsword and War Mace).
I hope they do improve battle axe more subtly rather than changing whole powers and adding whole new mechanics. Overall, if they did add a new set based around battle axe's cast times but two handed, it needs a bad-A whirling AoE.
I'd also recommend adding some chance of sleep in place of some of the Knockdown (keep KD/KU in some of the attacks). Sets like Electric Melee use it too so it's not unheard of. Also, the 6sec duration/lockout for minions sounds a bit frustrating. I guess it was so you're not chain stacking a bunch of AoE fear. A 4sec duration without a lockout on minions might be better but I guess that depends on the casttimes of this set. If it's only 4sec you might only get in 1 attack during that MFD period...I dunno. Seems a bit clunky.
-
Seems like Psi melee but with an actually powerful secondary mechanic.
Considering the defensive nature of Permeable, I'd ditch the single target confuse for an attack or that "soul extraction" pet but you don't say what the pet actually does. Does it debuff enemies? Does it buff/heal the user? Does it attack or taunt? What might be good is making the Revenant soul pet like a Photon Seeker that kind of explodes on a target when it aggros, doing some moderate damage but somehow improving your own attacks by reducing the foe's resistance to negative energy or maybe enabling your attacks to do more DoT.
-
1
-
Buff Brutes... or Nerf Tanks.
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
Sure.