Naraka

That you took that sentence out of context to make it sound like I didn't play the set to smear? I should report your post for being off topic.

Do you really want to start this?

Well, if you actually enjoyed building for the Mez moreso than the damage, every guaranteed stun=a pesky target temporarily nullified with the help of OG so it's more of a cumulative effect moreso than an either or choice of Stun and TF... Or it would be if that functionality remains more similar. Having TF pushing out with a faster animation does improve that aspect of the power's purpose but if you're not rocking great rech bonuses to get TF up faster, your going to get less stun potential. I understand that. What i don't understand is random schmucks shouting me down for suggesting to ADD to the current changes since a lot of the feedback seemed aimed at the upper set ups and not much of the niche perspectives. To be brutally honest, I don't have the patience to test anything, just try stuff by doodling with it. From my time with it, I can't juggle targets as neatly and relies more on rolling dice for random stuns from the AoEs which isn't as fun. Another possible avenue is just giving the different ATs different spenders/gainers of Energy Focus. We kind of already see that with Stalkers/Scrappers but Tankers/Brutes get a less specialized version of the spenders. Maybe they could have a higher control version instead?

It isn't unprecedented to have a guaranteed Mez on a high damage power. I would like confirmation that, if PC has a 100% stun on the primary target rather than the current iteration of Energy Punch+focus, that it would be unbalanced so the damage would have to be lowered. While I can understand your rationalization, you're not describing anything I haven't already concluded. The point of my feedback is the set now has to fulfill conditions (and they are much more restrictive on a non-Scrap/Stalk) to achieve the same level of functionality. Again, the rationalization had been "it has AoE now" but that argument is particularly lacking considering the set was nearly last in that department as was ST DPS and likely isn't winning any rewards in those regards now. Overall, the perspective is coming from a player who used Stun and now gets Stun with extra steps and only sometimes. I don't think the power would have to be lowered for the sake of the effect I'm advocating, only losing the 100%stun on EP+focus.

Oppressive Gloom applies a passive mag 2 stun that can last from 8 to 10 seconds and is why I can make a control oriented melee with the help of Energy Melee. I wonder under what conditions Oppressive Gloom is skippable.

And since it is merely an inconsequential secondary effect that fits perfectly good within the set moreso than some of the replacement effects, there really shouldn't be a reason it'd be controversial. And if stacking Mez was something preserved for control ATs only, then just say that otherwise, working around EF for current baseline Mez is the objection I'm making.

My concern isn't with kill speed since I built the character to control moreso than damage. I still argue it could have been set too have the stun on the primary target of PC and kept the complexity to a minimum as that was a complaint I empathized with from the thread in the suggestion forums. You're literally telling me I'm wrong, I'm failing to read or understand and badgering me about my feedback. Did you ask yourself if that was really necessary to do that?

Only after using another power do I get a less potent effect. The potency isn't even my criticism, it's the ease of which they can retain the functionality. I'm sorry you seem to be on some kind of defensive loop that you forgot why I'm posting.

Yeah, I did. I ported my dark/em tanker over.

I'm not disproving anything. I'm just trying to get people to say what they mean rather than deflect to "it has AoE now". Rather than trying to point out people's "failed logic" why not try to see things from their perspective (I think there's an "e" word for that). I even asked if it still has the general CC capabilities it did before with a minorly slotted Stun but since no one is talking about that I'm pointing out that particular complexity. If you have a problem with that, I don't know why you bothered quoting my post directed to @Galaxy Brain.

Ahem: And good for you, I'm not suggesting the "as is" to be altered, just to keep the same purpose of the Stun replacement which is easily doable. So what you're saying is, if PC stunned it's primary target 100% rather than EP doing it using EF, that wouldn't be balanced? Dark Armor says hi.

You're bouncing back and forth between "too good" and "useless". And how is adding -regen and -special not infringing on support/debuffers? Like I said, it's one thing to say something was too effective and needs alteration and another to say "you don't need that Mez but you do need this debuff".

Then why not restore it to preserve current functionality? It's one thing to remove it if the functionality pushes the effectiveness of the set too high and it's another to presume what someone needs while not knowing what said person needs or desires.

So what you're saying is the set shouldn't have that capability anymore. EDIT: to clarify, I'm talking about the guaranteed Mez outside of your focused ST DPS rotation.

And what if there are multiple of said targets worth stunning that would require that new 1-2 punch that one could theoretically 1-shot stun and then work on another target using the live set?

I'd probably have gone the other way and altered the amount of categories down to 3, at least for defense and rech bonuses (so just small, moderate and huge and roll any tiny set bonuses up to small and any large set bonuses down to moderate). As for changes to the set, I'm not sure. The only premium effect I would really like FF to have that it doesn't is the ability to create a placable obstruction that cannot be fired or walked through by ally or foe. Only teleportation and phase shift can bypass it. That is more powerful and has far more possible applications than any numerical stat change ever could.

That's a turn of phrase. As for aspects of self-nerfing, I tend to already do that as explained above but reading through the thread (it's short enough), there is room for a little bit of everything if the overall mentality is there. Adding more notoriety settings as well as adjusting the mob capabilities upward in the high end (+3 and up). But this thread is focused on AoE and it's effect on balance. Having some kind of inherent protection on mobs if they out level you or needing some sort of strategy to overcome would make it easier to create harder content for the upper echelons of characters.

Rage? Okay. I did put the @s in the to get people to read and respond to the thread so glad that worked as planned lol You want to talk about forced, go take a look at the changes in beta lol. Blasters aside, I think the overall game is being made more and more easy and simplified which could be nice if it was an option.

You disagree that the idea of adding self nerfs isn't new? That means you think it's a new ideas not yet implemented? Are you sure about that? I just had to check but this thread is a few weeks old so maybe you don't remember the post you made in this thread over a month ago... That's more a commentary for the general dissenters but I included you since you wanted to comment about how those discussing possible additions seem to be trying to "tear everybody down" for "equity". But again, you weren't the only one shouted out there. Considering the devs are actively putting even more AoE on my toons as we speak, I think it's a worthwhile thing to discuss possible options to quell AoE, not by specifically nerfing powers (or at least not just) but other avenues on top of options we already have.

Is it demeaning because it's true? Well I'm not one of those people. In fact, I tend to play ATs I don't have much experience with and aim to use the majority (if not all) of their primary/secondary/chosen pools specifically to gain insight on less used combos/powers. Minimal min/maxing, mostly solo and small teams, no purples/incarnate because I'm mostly playing alts and mid level locked characters. The thing is, if I get bored, I just stop playing. It's not so much about challenge, but rather variety. . . That all aside, I decided to come into the thread and criticise your posts. So what? It really supports my stance that you lack perspective because it's not particularly controversial to discuss about buffing a set that might not be meta... But apparently there is a problem discussing other issues in the game like the prevalence and abundance of AoE? So we have to devise extra ways ourselves to keep variation in combat ultimately but when buffs come down the line we also have to change course for that as well... But don't you dare touch other player's settings, they should be able to keep their arbitrary settings at the tippy top. Mmhm.

Not sure what this quoted reply even is for. Didn't say anything about unique or useful. My main point and criticism is keeping functionality. If the functionality isn't useful to you, is that why we aren't keeping it? Or maybe the functionality is still there (no one has directly replied to me saying the set is better at stunning than before and maybe it is) but at what cost/hoops needed to jump through? Overall, some are a bit annoyed they have to work around mechanics at all but I just don't see a reason the particular functionality I'm talking about was altered or removed since it wasn't overpowered (thus not useful, as you say) and is so simple to keep in place.

I didn't say pat yourself, I said pat each other.

Perhaps try a target not resistant to END drain then? While it's a decent test set up, it doesn't give definitive results. I wouldn't be so bold to say resistant target should be made fully vulnerable by default. I'm assuming you might be able to turn an EB who is barely tickled by drains effectively drainage but probably not all targets.

I think it's funny that posters suggesting self nerfs are here patting each other on the backs (like @Dragon Crush, @Lockpick, @RageusQuitus2, and @Epoch Paradox) like they came up with a new original idea but fail to see the overall perspective: We already have the ability to nerf ourselves so that's not new. If people are talking and discussing actually new ideas instead of self nerfs, it might be because they DON'T enjoy self nerfs and might want something else to add variety to the combat. If you opposed that notion, just say "I don't want new stuff" and save yourselves the effort of posting. EDIT: the ironic part is, those that are like looking out for the overall bottom line in difficult get completely washed out when discussing changes than over buff stuff that makes the game even easier. And the decrying of needed nerfs really touches on that irony too.

But that was the main goal of my dark/em tanker, to keep aggro and stun on a lot of meaty targets (and even the little ones but they are mostly ignored). It also conserves my END since I have to use dark Regen less (actually used it more for an END replenishment with IOs). Having the guaranteed ST stun meant I could focus my hard hitters on the tough targets or spread them around to neutralize more foes. I could reliably contain 3 bosses/lts if need be with only my primary and secondary and possibly more if I get lucky with WH. If that is something not desirable for a tanker to have outside of a moderately IO'ed with good rech bonuses just say that then. Don't beat around the bush trying to justify some denial of Dom role or some such superfluous reason. Like I said before, the same functionality could be retained by just moving the EF disorient boost on BS over to PC primary target and not needing EF for it just like current Stun. Then you can keep the power as a stun tool and you don't have to slot it for damage unless you wanted to.