Naraka

I guess it only matters if people get upset and make noise. I think apathy is probably worse for this game in the long run. But no, I was never asking for help. That ship sailed when I suggested making Power Crash stun it's primary target and not the rest of the mobs in it's AoE which would keep the powers initial functionality. My build didn't need more chance stun.

It's not as minimal as you think. The more simple the build, the more profound it feels. Just the notion of having the stun in your back pocket for some purposes is something you completely ignore which isn't the case with TF+Barrage since they'll be in your rotation constantly. Look, I'm not even complaining the change is bad or messed up or ruins my game. I'm saying you're pissing on people's legs and telling them it's raining. It's dumb and obvious and I doubt anyone appreciates it. As for it being a minimal change: I somewhat agree (I could adapt, I just have less enthusiasm to try) but when you put these changes in along with all the other buffs, the casualization guised as QoL (Blaster had become a whole different monster than it was live, Tanker is a whole different monster with it's buffs, Stalker became a whole different monster with all it's additions), those little things add up and continuing to let them slide uncontested is a mistake you should recognize. And don't take any of those shout outs as a call for nerfs. They are just examples to prove a point.

Nope. I tried it. If you utilized minimal slotting for stun duration in Stun (basically just an Acc and Stun), relying on juggling TF to enable Barrage to simulate Stun alone ended up getting less stun or just more juggling. Keeping those targets stunned, at best, could be accomplished faster but you're reapplying even more often made more tedious with TF. Can you get better stun and damage with the new EM? Probably. Shaved down animation times does work wonders and an added cop out power to pump up AOE with is a sure fire performance bumper. It still took base performance and locked it being more high-end build slotting because +rech is even more important to that build than it ever was before. I believe I mentioned, if they wanted to keep the same base performance, they could have just kept the new power as a ST sun while the AoE was just damage. All in all, the individuals arguing the numbers pan out and I'm just complaining for nothing usually never took Stun in the first place and don't take into account targets aren't training dummies that stand around for you to parse your damage numbers. It only takes them a portion of a server tic to get their moves off.

I'm assuming you have some reference or example to support your conclusion. Putting "full stop" means jack all here lol

Uh huh. Before the change I could swiftly stun 2 foes using Stun and TF then proceed to stun a 3rd with ET. Depending on the situation, I could juggle multiple bosses nearly guaranteed and still have the other attacks to concentrate damage on some more resilient foes. Even though I'm over it (haven't really touched EM since but that's for other reasons), I do find it interesting how the defenders will go so far to validate their own perspective that they try to shape those that disagree as unreasonable or uncompromising. No if, and, or buts. If you liked your guaranteed stun mags in old EM, now it's locked behind using TF.

You don't have to say the word trolling to encapsulate the term or meaning in an argument. Why wouldn't you want the actions of a few to affect the whole zone? From what I could tell, one argument made was about putting the responsibility of further regulating their own difficulty which just seemed like an excuse. The other argument seemed to be only wanting to opt into things which, either or feels like kicking the ball further down the road because the only way to make players do more difficulty content is to put a reward behind it and you likely won't be able to put a noticable reward behind it because people want the ability to opt into difficulty while still gaining the same reward. You're just kicking the ball down the road so the next sub-group of dissenters get their turn to kick. Which leads to what someone else in the thread said: "this is why we can't have nice things."

You're talking about putting power of change in the hands of a few individuals. The simplest conclusion is someone my abuse that power (Ie, troll).

Imagine playing an MMO and lauding the community but not wanting anything to do with said community or their actions lol. And before you response with "it's because they don't have the tools to troll", I don't see anything here that is putting power in the hands of a few, merely the environment shifting. At worse, is a learning curve which comes with it's own hardships. You're exaggerating the results.

You don't get to pick what mobs show up in a mission arc and sometimes there isn't going to be a uniform single faction you face for every mission.

Isn't that the same as shifting from Devouring Earth to Arachnos or Malta? Some stuff will just be harder to do.

I don't think making Recon an absorb click would be that bad but I bet the first thing people would be asking is "can you put more than one power on auto-cast?"

💯%

No idea why you had to go so hard on this topic. I tend to play devil's advocate but the OP didn't say anything about gender binary or have some sort of agenda to the suggestion. It's merely a grammatical suggestions since you, in fact, can make characters of any AT that are male, female, asexual (ex: robots) or some alien combination or absence of sex and gender. Nothing to do with controlling speech, just outlining an oversight of the character creator feature.

Well I understood what your suggestion was for, I even agree it wouldn't be overpowered. I just feel every expressed change is almost always increasing and pushing higher the power curve. There have been plenty of suggestions to "modernize" power sets, "fixing" tier 9s, covering over sets' weaknesses and buffing Regen's heal to an absorb is no different in my eyes. Some might say that's just a slippery slope fallacy but it's not... It's more like a slippery slope observation. But really, any positive change could possibly fall under such a trend, even the ones I suggest.

Why not suggest nerfs to melees and tanks?

I have other counter arguments to this and some other points made in the thread but I'll only respond again with my main one since others can engage the talking points if they choose: How much of the disparity you're observing is actual necessity and how much is due to the expectations you have of the new and improved ATs and sets and IOs and other conveniences? Because I'm personally not arguing you can't throw a bone to the set, but rather you don't need to throw a whole chicken dinner at it just because of a perceived handicap of that others view as a playstyle. Considering the vast amount of sets one can pick from and the custom colors and animations to set them to, parity is mostly a pipedream that has spiraled the game ever closer to boredom. I think the main tactic to such a change wouldn't be trying to get the absorb mid-combat but rather overclocking while out of combat.

I find it arguable that it's thematic but I don't think anyone is arguing that your suggestion wouldn't improve the set. It's mostly if the armor set is good enough.

I think it is fine. Your expectations have, however, changed.

Eh, but Regen functions just fine as is. It also plays differently overall. I'm indifferent to your suggestion. I'm not going to go on a crusade to swing people's opinion one way or the other as any changes are at the whims of the HC devs. I think it will make Regen better to give it an absorb shield but it might also make it very one-note, relying on that click shield more so than it's other powers. Giving the Regen set comprehensive debuffs resist to nearly all and stackable using it's clicks would be more unique, flavorful and make it tops on teams. Only takes a bit (around 6-8%) per click with maybe a static 10% to resilience or integration to most effects (-movement, -rech, -regen, -ToHit, -def, -END, -recovery). Make Revive usable while alive that adds a bit of debuffs resistance (60sec if revived from dead and 120sec if used while alive). Every time you heal, everytime you click a Regen power, you're progressively more difficult to affect with powers to degenerate your abilities.

Not too keen on the rech buff but I like the prospect of replacing the dmg buff with a damage proc (100% chance during Rage). If you make the additional damage proc also affected by damage buffs, you're actually buffing the damage since you're own Rage won't count against your damage cap and you'll be doing additional damage on teams when you are capped. Although, to balance out that buff, having the damage proc only affect SS attacks would be an adequate nerf that does make sense.

Doesn't it have, like 0 END cost and recharge relatively fast for the huge heal it provides?

Well you're talking about Trick Arrow, which last time I played it before all these changes pushed through, still had to contend with the massive amount of clicking and targeting to maintain those effects. Also, Hurricane is particularly restrictive in it's application mostly due to range. It's disingenuous to look at specific powers target than the set as a whole. Not really trying to debunk or anything but the less comprehensive you make your argument, the easier it is to pick little counter points here and there and then you end up with a bunch of posts back and forth that eludes prayers actual intentions and no ground is ever made.

Old school Stalker fan, I'm rather resentful how the messed with Stalker. It's cool that is basically a better Scrapper now (with less AoE), it ignores what stalkers were (most probably don't even know what demoralize is) and they defend their perspective by trying to say "the hit and run style was weak" ignoring that that wasn't even the AT's style to begin with.

Don't forget target caps, range, diminishing effect as kill speed increases, invulnerability states and wasted activations (targeting a for that might be in the process of being bursted down) all contribute to an aspect of debuffs that buffs don't have to contend with. There's probably a name for it but I'd probably call it "target confusion". With something like a Stalker utilizing AS and demoralize (uncommon playstyle) it has some aspects of target confusion because you tend to want to prioritize annoying targets that aren't immediately about to be bursted down by your allies, but they really only have to worry about that one attack at the beginning of the flight. With a debuffer that factor is multiplied by every power that has meaningful effects and the number of targets/range and deciding if waiting for the foes to be gathered vs team survival.

I think it's really going to depend on the inherent ability. One thing cited as an issue was low damage and/or too much mitigation. You can alter that with a striking inherent ability. How that would work would depend on what the concept of the AT or the unique playstyle it's trying to accomplish. Like what if the target was a mid-range DPS DoT focused AT and utilize that Jekyll/Hyde concept where the inherent cut the control mag but quadrupled the DoTs by doubling the DoTs and doubling the duration. It would still be low-damage but melt resilient foes rather efficiently for a time.