TotalThunder
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by TotalThunder
-
-
6 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:
Like when Psychic and Dark Blast were proliferated to Blasters, for example.
That doesn't seem to matter to most people, because I'm assuming that when a power set gets proliferated it's considered a new set and "cottage" doesn't apply. Which is why Sentinel Assault Rifle has Aim, and Fire Melee is mid on Scrappers and Brutes, but overpowered on Tankers. See: Combustion.
-
26 minutes ago, Wavicle said:
It's not really a question of whether Aim is better than Beanbag (it is).
The issue is one of changing the basic functionality of a powerset that has been in the game since launch, that is played by many, many people.
If they can find a niche for the set that is satisfactory in performance that includes Beanbag and Ignite, then great.I don't think a low mag, single target stun is the "basic functionality" of Assault Rifle. It's a bad set. It's always been a bad set. Not that many people actually play it. Replacing the low mag, single target stun, with Aim, makes it actually playable for a larger number of people who wouldn't even look at it normally.
Disregarding my personal opinion that mezzes on DPS classes are worthless, every class that can take Assault Rifle has more powerful mez in their secondaries.Beanbag is a worthless, useless power.
Aim is a 62.5% damage buff. Damage that Assault Rifle has ALWAYS been lacking.
-
2
-
4
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:
Then why not add stun to Slug or something instead?
Making Slug a stun just to make people happy and putting Aim back in is the correct solution, seeing as a single target, low damage stun is functionally useless in all but the most base level of play.
-
4
-
-
Quote
- They still need to provide their own enhancements, there's no easy mode for that. Because their own ability to get rewards is so limited (the only available source of rewards is critters in PVP zones) the expectation is that those characters will receive influence and enhancements from other characters that are PVE enabled.
- The goal here is to remove the barrier of entry for players that are curious about PVP, but don't want to spend the time leveling up a new character that would be useful under the PVP rules.
These two lines are... kind of contradictory? Having a level 50 character, even with full incarnates, but no enhancements is just going to get bullied by normal hybrid pve/pvp characters. It removes one barrier, but will just lead to people who are 'curious' just getting ganked and not liking PvP because they don't understand what's going on. This seems like it's mainly just beneficial to people who already PvP.
I feel like this could be... slightly mitigated by giving these PvP only characters access to a vendor that gives them SOs, or untradable base IOs.
-
1
-
3
-
Quote
- Powers that play a sound on each target that is hit will no longer reach a deafening volume when there are many targets. When the same sound is queued multiple times at the same instant, the audio system now reduces the volume.
I'm 100% against this change. What's the point of using Howling Twilight if it doesn't rupture your eardrums?? RIP legend.
-
2
-
1
-
50 minutes ago, McSpazz said:
There's been a few people that have said things similar to this and I want to make an argument against it that doesn't simply rely on telling them to try the beta.
First, the fact that you could min/max by focusing on just two stats (smashing/lethal) was part of the problem. This isn't just a question of defense characters getting access to capped smashing/lethal defense, this applies to all player characters. A defender can get the survivability of a scrapper by focusing entirely on smashing/lethal because that's the defense that is currently checked the most. If you are really into end game +4/x8 content, you should REALLY consider this a problem because it means that any new end game hard mode content is going to be fundamentally flawed. They are going to be looking at the +4/x8 madlads, see how they are building, and be left with only two options: higher to-hit or higher debuffs. Either way, it's not an actual solution. You aren't fixing the actual problem. If the only way the devs can introduce a fun challenge to players is by nerfing defense via enemy effects, you are basically doing this but worse.
And I kind of find it amusing you'd say this makes squishy AT's useless because...well. The exact opposite is true!!!
The hard mode TF's ALONE gave powersets like Empathy more purpose because people were actually suddenly in need of heals and even revives. Defense and resistances OTHER than smashing/lethal becoming important actually gives all squishies more reason to exist. Forcefield defenders will actually have a reason to play in teams, additional resistance buffs from /sonic controllers now have a clear role to play. Hell, it gives tankers more reason to actually be tanks, scrappers a reason to focus their efforts on picking off random enemies that change their focus to squishies, brutes more reason to do both. Stalkers....well, they just do whatever they do. Stalkers be stalkers.
And all of this is under the presumption that the end effects of the change are having a HUGE impact on gameplay. Which, based on feedback, doesn't seem to be the case. It just means that you can't focus everything on smashing/lethal, makes squishies actually live up to their name, and gives support archetypes more reason to actually support.
The new meta, if this does force a new meta, is going to encourage people to diversify their roster and builds.
Plus. Let's be REALLY real right now. +4/x8 is intended for EIGHT people with enemies tailored to be FOUR levels higher than you. The fact that anyone can do better than +4x4 is impressive enough.The comment wasn't about squishies being useless. The comment was about soloing as them.
But you have outlined another problem of this change, as mentioned by another previous post, even if it's not as dramatic as previously preceived. Forcing you to bring specific support by nerfing something else. Nerfing individual survivability just artificially makes support more valueable. It's a bandaid solution (not that I'm blaming the dev team for looking for easy outs) to the bigger problem of game difficulty.
-
1
-
3
-
-
I think there's some disconnect in this discussion between two different types of players.
For people who play the game normally at +0/x0, and build characters for RP or theme, always play on teams, etc, this change doesn't seem that bad or seems like it doesn't change much.
For people who min/max characters, solo +4/x8, and try to push what they really can and can't get away with, this is a real real bad time. If this goes live, squishy ATs are essentially dead and we enter the Energy Aura/Shield meta.
Even resistance based sets will be much, much worse if this goes live. That 90% res cap seems great on paper, but you'll be taking dramatically more damage after this.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
2
-
-
It occurred to me that, while this change makes sense and is probably how it should've always worked - this screams as a reactionary change to make support characters more valueable.
I don't think nerfing, ballpark 50% of characters is the way to do that. If I wanted to team with support characters, I wouldn't design my builds around solo play.
Nerfing every character doesn't make the game harder. It just makes it less fun.
-
7
-
11
-
-
This is a massive nerf to any character that is not a defense based armor set.
Like, I'm all for big and interesting changes, but this is meta shifting at a fundamental level. This literally removes the ability for a large spectrum of min/maxed characters to solo at +4/x8.
Also, can we get a little info on the reasoning for why this change only effects NPCs attacking Players, and not the reverse?
Edit:
Aight so maybe these changes weren't as dramatic as they sounded. Maybe I didn't give Power-dad as much credit as he deserves.
My concern about slippery slopes is still there.
-
4
-
1
-
8
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:
Stating that considering pvp niche in this game, and following that with a statement that server population was low, is a direct contradiction. PvP was always niche in CoH, proven by actual data that showed the miniscule pvp population, even on live, when compared to PvE.
Regardless of feelings nothing Is a simple fix, it would require considerable resources, which has an opportunity cost.
Contributions are not equivalent to a tax, should pvp become a significant resource allocation, I'll cease contributing. Funny how that works, eh? More whimsical is the point that if pvp should become world "flagged" and I had no choice but to witness it, I would quit and move on.
And no, you couldn't have my stuff 😜
Then just quit and move on already, and save the rest of us the trouble. Imagine being this entitled over a dead MMO.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Fighting Statesman with empowered enemies and debuffed players sounds dank.
-
5 hours ago, SwitchFade said:
An open world new server that is in addition to the servers already there?
Ok. Who pays for it? I'm not. Not a cent of my contribution should go to it.
Would all the pvpers agree that they, and only they, pay for said server and find new development talent to volunteer, in addition to the current dev team? And, any development time necessary to set up the code to allow the open world pvp and continuing balance and maintenance should be below all PvE priorities, unless said new team is found.
Essentially, that's a pretty big ask for me to go from hard no vote forever, to yes. If the pvp player base was large enough, this would already have happened on live. As is, could instantly revert to the first issue it launched and still be sparse; pvp in CoH was never well populated, compared to PvE. It was never a good fit.
Yeah, and I don't want my taxes to go towards making bombs. Funny how that works.
PvP has been part of the game since Issue 4, and one of the main features with Issue 6 and the release of CoV. Pretending that it's some niche side thing that the actual devs didn't care about is just being willfully ignorant.
It didn't happen on live because there were already too few players on too many servers, which is a problem that Homecoming already has. Torch, Indom, and Reunion playerbases could easily be merged (once a solution for character names is found), and then one of those other servers could be turned into an open PvP server. Which removes one - actually reducing the overall server cost. Everybody wins.
Edit: Also, I have this distinct feeling that you wouldn't need extra talent or devs to make it happen. Something tells me that PvP is just a flag that can be applied to a zone or area.
-
1
-
-
Crabs (and Banes) definitely need a general damage buff, and Omega Maneuver definitely needs an overhaul. It either needs to do a lot more damage, or have a third the cooldown time. Omega Maneuver's cooldown is more than twice as long as a blaster nuke, and it does half the damage.
A few other things about VEATS;
- Can we please please get No Redraw?
- Stalkers were updated, but Banes didn't get the same treatment. It would be really cool to see some kind of soft integration of Assassin's Focus (Executioner's Will? 👀) and a base crit chance. Banes don't get a re-Hide ATO proc or base crit, so you basically only get to "crit" whenever Placate is up.
- As stated by the OP, the VEAT inherent Conditioning is complete trash. Almost anything else would be a dramatic improvement. Conditioning increases your base Regen from 0.42%/s to 0.50%/s, and base Recovery from 1.67%/s to 1.90%/s. That's it.
- Banes could really use some form of sustain. Soft capping your defense to everything is really cool, until you get defense cascaded and die instantly. Maybe replace Web Cocoon with a self heal of some kind ala Reconstruction, or give Banes DDR (Defense Debuff Resistance) in their armor passive.
-
2
-
That's a real cool change to Ignite, but it doesn't fix the core problem with the power.
Ignite is a Mag 50 Terrorize. It's functionally useless, and even detrimental, except in niche situations where a lot of stacked enemies get held together.
Also could ya'll also pretty please take a look at Flamethrower? Not only is the animation really long, the damage also happens really really late in the animation, so it just all around feels bad to use. Which is a pretty low bar for Assault Rifle, but still.
-
4
-
-
48 minutes ago, Monos King said:
I'd take it more if it were 90s. Rune at the very least ought to go back to 90s.
Adrenal Booster is already better than the other 3 without being 90 seconds.
-
On 10/25/2020 at 11:46 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:
Energy Transfer, indeed, does not crit extra damage.
To clarify: this is an extremely old rule that has been maintained by the live team and I am not ready to dismiss. Basically, powers that are too high damage (usually powers with a recharge of 20+ seconds) are not allowed to crit, as their crits (3.56 x2) results in more damage than Assassination (7.0.) The only exception to the rule is Crushing uppercut, and you need to build 3 stacks, something Stalkers cant actually do before entering combat since they have Build Up instead of Combat Readiness. Even then, a regular crit for Crushing Uppercut, at 25s recharge, is just 3.18x2=6.36)
For years before shut down, it was the goal that they would simply give such powers (like Concentrated Strike, or Energy Transfer) special functions instead of a damage crit, reason why you see Auto Recharge on CS for Scrappers, BU recharge on CS crit for Stalkers and Self Damage Avoidance on Energy Transfer.
Again, it is a design rule I am not ready to throw out the window at this time.
This is something I've actually been confused about for a while, regarding Energy Transfer. (And Concentrated Strike, I guess.)
Radiation Melee. On a Stalker, Devastating Blow from Rad Melee not only has the same (long) animation as ET, and does only slightly less damage - it can crit for double damage, doesn't do self-damage, and has a slightly shorter recharge, *edit*and it AoEs if the enemy is Contaminated.* (I guess this is sort of justified now because you can fast ET, and DB is just always slow. But I'm referring specifically to before the change.)
Psionic Melee. Greater Psi Blade (which does more damage than Concentrated Strike) does only slightly less damage than ET, but has a shorter recharge, can crit for double, and has a slightly shorter animation.
Total Focus is also a strange subject for not being able to crit for double. Thunder Strike uses the same (current slow, not test) animation, and does slightly more than half the damage. But it can crit, resulting in a hit to your target that does more damage than TF, as well as damaging everything around it. Atom Smasher is another example of this, along with (although having a different animation and being a pbaoe) Mass Levitate from Psi Melee.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Energy Melee and Kinetic Melee's heavy hitters got this weird crit nerf while other very similar powers are allowed to function as normal.
-
I was inspired by the other Assault Rifle Rework posted recently to post my own that I've been sitting on for a while.
Assault Rifle, since the original launch of the game, has always been an under-preforming set, and like many original overlooked sets has never seen any real love. I attempted to be extremely conservative with buffs, while also throwing in some ideas that I felt would be interesting and refreshing, making Assault Rifle a 'competitive' pick against sets that do more damage, or are just more fun to play because of their gimmicks - or both. All the while attempting to keep the 'spirit' of the power set by not changing the entire thing dramatically.
Anything marked in orange are things that I'm not 100% set on, because I feel they are either too good, too bad, or are impossible to implement due to engine limitations.
Any feedback on possible improvements are encouraged and appreciated!
-
1
-
-
After some quick testing on the beta server, Knockback enhancements seem to have no effect on the KB distance of powers.
The tests were conducted on Possessed Scientists, random Nemesis mobs, Carnival and Rikti in Peregrine Island.
The tests were conducted on an Energy Blast/Energy Manipulation Blaster, and a Kinetics/Energy Blast Defender.
Tested powers were six (6) slotted; with six (6) level 50 KB IOs, then three (3) level 50 KB IOs, then no (0) KB IOs.
Tested powers:
Power Blast
Energy Torrent
Power BurstPower Push
Explosive Blast
Nova
Power Thrust
Repulsion FieldRepulsion Bomb
RepelIn all tests, Knockback distance appeared completely unchanged - with occasional discrepancies of either being a VERY slight increase or decrease in distance. (But I attribute this to the ragdoll animation itself.)
I'm unsure if this is an actual bug or was an intentional change?
-
You're suggesting this because they removed the Accuracy cap (which was 95%) in Path of Exile, aren't you?
Aggro cap is silly. AOE cap is silly. And yeah, always having a 5% chance to miss is silly.
But hitting enemies that extra 5% of the time won't even be noticeable unless you're actively looking for it. That being said, I sort of feel like this change is sort of... bad in the grand scheme of things. CoH is already easy enough. The "clamp", like aggro and aoe cap, is a balance thing.
All the people calling the system outdated just because they don't like it are being silly. CoH, like other MMOs, is the mutant abortion of a Pen-and-Paper RPG. You're rolling a d-100 when you attack. It's not weighted to roll a 96-100, it just happens sometimes. Critical Failures have always existed in RPGs. It's not a "dumb roleplay reasons" thing. It's a fundamental part of the experience.
In real life, even if you keep a firearm perfectly clean and oiled; It can still jam. It happens.
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that's life."
That being said, I've always thought missing with CERTAIN ATTACKS is a little silly. Like Laser Beam Eyes. Or Inferno. Did you get distracted suddenly? Did the explosion just WOOSH past them? (The same with AOE caps.) I feel like giving certain attacks a "This attack always hits if you have above X% Tohit Bonus" would be a more appropriate change. More challenging to implement, but more interesting.
But even if you're a master... punch.. man? Master Punch-man. Sometimes the person you're trying to punch might get lucky and dodge. That's the 5%. It's kind of one of the last tiny bits of difficulty that CoH actually has. Yeah it's random. Yeah it's silly. Everything else is random chance. That's an RPG.
-
Would a good 8-man team have two Brutes? Two Defenders? Two Peacebringers? Two Dominators?
Why deliberately single Tankers out as "the only AT that we currently and will always want one or fewer of"?
I was an an Ernesto Hess TF a week ago. It was 4 Brutes, 2 Scrappers and 2 Stalkers. We giggled our way through it on +4.
It's not about wanting one or fewer of a class, it's about giving the Tank a special utility that separates them and makes them more preferable on a team. Because at this point, there's no reason to pick a Tank over a Brute if you're trying to make a specific team comp.
-
WoW and City of Heroes have many differences, but they also have many similarities. One of those similarities is the role of the Tank. Now, each tanking class does each one a little bit differently, both in mitigation and keeping the aggro, but I could feel the difference when I couldn't employ AoEs to help maintain that control. It would be easier if WoW Tanks did have Gauntlet to help them out and have pulsing Taunt auras, but instead they employ AoE abilities which are punch-vokes in the code. I went from running Stone/Energy to Shield/Stone, and their techniques are going to be very different, especially when Stone Melee is primarily a ST build, in timers of damage, till later in the development.
They're not similar at all.
In WoW, (in dungeons, etc,) you have to have a tank. You literally can't avoid it. It's mechanically integral to the game design.
In CoH, in 95% of content, you don't even really need a tank on the team. Unless the everyone on the team just sucks at the game.
-
Unless you're doing Hami, Brutes are better tanks. (And that's only because Tankers have a slightly higher health cap.)
Because of IOs, Brutes are better tanks.
Because of Incarnates, Brutes are better tanks.
Brutes do not have a problem holding aggro. They have the same mag of taunt as Tankers.
Also the classes don't exist in a vacuum. Controllers and Dominators exist. Hell, with a good Controller on the team, you don't need a Tank even in "difficult" content. Calling aggro a form of "crowd control" is trying to make it sound more impressive than it actually is. Most mobs die almost INSTANTLY. Even more so if they're actually mezzed.
I can 'tank' mobs on my Blaster. Because he has soft-capped defense, and good resistances. Because of IOs and Incarnates.
And that's the problem. This thread isn't about "TANK > BRUTE. MY OPINION IS UNDENIABLE FACT." It's not about that other classes invalidate Tankers.
This thread was originally about giving Tankers an extra edge by changing their inherent, so they can more specifically fill the niche they are intended to fill.
Giving Tankers a higher aggro cap than other classes would give them an entirely unique utility that would make them a preferable choice for actually TANKING. Because holding the most aggro would truly make them "the tank."
-
I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.
- All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Taunt_(Status_Effect)
Brutes literally can't lose aggro to any other AT except a Tank, unless the person playing one is an idiot. They also have the same resistance caps and only slightly lower max health than a Tank. So saying they're less survivable is just plain making shit up.
You're right about one thing, though. Brutes are not Tankers.
They're better than Tankers.
- All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
Focused Feedback: Epic / Ancillary Power Pools
in [Open Beta] Focused Feedback
Posted
Could we get any kind of logic clarification for this change? You might as well rename it if you're going to make it essentially a completely different power.