DrInfernus

I’d say a trade off was how pretty atrocious punch, jab, and haymaker are. Or the long animation in Hurl. Or the -defence in the Rage crash. No one is saying there shouldn’t be a trade off. Just there are plenty of trade-offs already without inflicting a punishment that basically renders you weaker than a chocolate fireguard for 10% of the time.

No, but you’re missing the point. Super Strength IS the power, just like Fire Blast IS the power or Martial Arts IS the power. You’re literally supposed to be able to hit harder than everyone else all the time, otherwise it’d just be strength, not super strength. So why shouldn’t you be able to use the set’s power all of the time? Why should we be happy with 90%? Could understand if you just lost the buff for 10% of the time, but make you literally unable to bruise a peach for 10% of the time? When you’re meant to have super strength? Come on…

So would you call it a positive of War Mace if you could only use it 90% of the time? Or if an archer couldn’t use archery for 10% of the time, would that be a positive for the set? An empath who could heal 90% of the time… ‘positive’? A damage buff is literally the entirety of super strength. That’s what the ‘super’ part is. That’s the ability. Fire blasts are available to fire blasters 100% of the time. Martial Arts are available to martial artists 100% of the time. Archery is available to archers 100% of the time. Why the hell should super strength being available to super strength characters 90% of the time be seen as anything other than a negative?

Mine too. Played to 50, game got quicker with incarnates and everyone rolling out their IO builds, and I couldn’t stand my lvl 50 SS tank anymore. But this is the problem, though, isn’t it? People who currently have what they want dismissing those who don’t with a ‘pull the ladder up Jack and stuff the rest’ attitude.

It’s the entrenchment I find frustrating. Take my favourite powerset in the game and if some players were saying ‘this is unplayable for us’ and I’d be more than happy to make concessions to make it more inclusive. Sadly, that’s not the case with Rage and it’s quite sad.

Shows people make SS tanks, not that they play them. 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m not expecting anything to change. I’m not demanding. I don’t even want Rage completely changed to meet my hopes. I’d just absolutely love to be given something though to open up a powerset to me that is currently very much closed because of one mechanic. I don’t think that’s even remotely unreasonable. I’m just giving my honest opinion on the question that was asked, and I’m far from a lone voice on this thread.

If I’m off base with that then fair enough, but it doesn’t really change my opinion on it. If we just left things with the flaws they had from design, we’d have a very different game today. And in my opinion - and that’s all it is - double stacked rage is a flaw if clinging onto it means clinging onto the crash which many players feel renders a set unplayable. There needs to be some middle ground found somewhere.

I personally think double rage is a bit of an abuse of the IO system. We were never supposed to have double rage. My solution would be to make rage unstackable and remove the -damage from the crash. Think there probably should be some kind of crash. Or make it unstackable on Tanks without crash but leave it as it is on Brutes. That way there is a path for both sides of the debate. I get that rage is up 92% of the time, but excessive strength is the whole point of the set, so I don’t understand why we can’t expect it to be up 100% of the time. We don’t tell War Mace they can only use their mace 92% of the time, or fire blasters they can only use fire 92% of the time. So you’re right in that I don’t acknowledge the upside, but that’s because I don’t personally see Rage as having an upside for 92% of the time, I see it as doing what it should do for only 92% of the time, while other sets get 100% uptime. Either way, it’s nice to have a rational debate about it, and I thank you for that.

What about those of us saying: We are happy for there to BE a cost for Rage. You could even argue that ‘the pathetic jab, punch, and haymaker’ are already part of that cost. But the HUGE -damage cost is too high. Where do we fall on the “filtered disingenuouity” scale? Like I’ve said before, there are no solutions on Rage, just surrenders. Apparently, we’ve surrendered to the people demanding it stays the same. That’s fine. It’s not my decision. Doesn’t make it a solution though, and neither is just hoping people stop moaning about it.

Indeed. If Rage isn’t perma then you don’t have a super strength character. It’s literally set-defining. I mean, if we are honest it’s not a great set anyway. Knockout blow and footstomp are good, but the rest are very meh. Rage is the reason to play super strength, and then you’re punished for using it 🤷🏼‍♂️

Don’t think that’s fair at all tbh. How can we give something up when many of us are saying SS is unusable to us in its current form? From my perspective, at the moment there is nothing about SS to give up because I’m not using it specifically because of Rage. So what position would you like me to take?

If stacking Rage is the problem, then why not just make it unstackable like hasten is? I mean, it was never supposed to be stackable. IOs made that happen. I know a lot of people kicked off about that but there’s plenty of us who have been left with a pretty much unplayable powerset for us because others want a bit more damage. That’s not a solution, it’s a surrender. You could even make it so Rage is stackable with crash on Brutes yet unstackable and crash less on tanks. That way those who need the damage fix are served, and those who can’t abide the crash are served. Everyone has an option, everyone has a solution. Feels like there’s so much middle ground to explore yet we are stuck in an ‘all or nothing’ mentality.

I think the theme one is definitely quite subjective, although I’d argue that the Hulk style theme has been completely catered for by the Brute AT and the fury. That’s literally a case of the madder you get, the harder you hit, and once you calm down you return to normal. So that theme is definitely catered for. But then there’s the Superman style theme, where they just have super strength. And yet, with Rage how it is now, you make a super strength character and you somehow end somehow end up with (as far as my memory serves) the only powerset in the whole game which leaves you unable to do any damage at all for a spell, i.e. no strength at all. Definitely think super strength should come with a cost. You shouldn’t get it for nothing. Just don’t think the damage crash is remotely reasonable.

The farming suggestion isn’t right, as my SS tank has literally never done it. I never run out of end and I never feel squishy on rage crash, and the damage crash doesn’t freak me out. It does annoy me though. A lot. Sufficiently to make me just not want to play my SS tank. Wind up a knockout blow, connect, and zero damage - like a wet fart. It completely undermines the theme.

My own opinion is that Rage makes super strength unplayable in its current form. If you don’t use it, there’s nothing special or ‘super’ about super strength at all. If you do use it, the crash means you don’t even have strength for a while, never mind super strength. It’s literally theme-destroying. What’s the answer? Personally I’d say remove the +tohit and remove the crash. Maybe add a hasten-style mini-end crash if you must. A simple, yet set-defining large damage buff. I mean, why are we over-complicating this?

Love any archer, but my favourite matched build has to be Elec/Elec/Elec Sentinel. Can hover blast, can take alpha, can sap, can AoE, can survive just avoid anything. It’s a delight.

Absolutely no reason why it’s not viable. I had a similar idea with my Fire/Pain corruptor: Good active blast set for when things are going well, valuable team resource for when things aren’t. And don’t let anyone tell you that heals are no longer needed either. They are. They’re not as important as they used to be, but I find I’m healing at least as often as I’m blasting. And if you find yourself on a great team that needs no heals, that’s great too. Just blast 💥 😎🙂

I do wonder how much ego is involved in the whole ‘heals aren’t needed anymore’ rhetoric. Over the last couple nights I have specifically played my healer exclusively and find she’s been needed on teams more often than not, including high level content. To me, it honestly just feels like declaring healers as obsolete is just another way to show off their superbuild. Admittedly, some people on some ATs have incredibly survivable builds. I’m one of them. But there’s always someone somewhere on the team who needs some help to get out of trouble. We should value and appreciate our empaths more.

Empathy certainly isn’t dead, no. Empaths, well, heals in general, are certain not as important as they used to before IOs, but they are far from obsolete. Back then they played a vital part, where as now they are more like lifeboats: You hope you’re not going to need them, but you’re pleased to see them there. Last night I did two task forces with one of my healers (fire/pain corruptor - not empathy but close enough) and had two very different experiences. On the first I was actually told off by a tank for healing him because he ‘didn’t need it’. On the second there was a lot of heeling needed and a lot of gratitude sent my way. One thing I do love about playing my empaths or pain doms is they put you in a position to influence the outcome, and last night was the perfect microcosm of that. You might not always be needed, but you’re able to make a massive difference when you are.

I’d suggest Ice/Plant/ice. Three holds, two doing high damage, so bosses are no problem at all. Lots of AoE control, ranged nuke, and a tonne of survivability in the epic power pool. It’s a powerhouse of a solo blaster (and great in teams too).

Good question! For me it’s a bit of a chicken/egg situation. Dr Infernus, my fire/NRG/fire blaster is my favourite. He’s veteran level 82 without ever setting foot in a farm. Poor my many people’s standards but remarkable by mine. However, whether I’ve played him so much because he’s my favourite or he’s my favourite because I’ve played him so much... well that’s anyone’s guess! I do love fire blast. It’s fast, it’s frantic, it does great damage, the animations are satisfying, and the AoE is great. Dr Infernus has a great build too. And NRG manipulation is highly versatile I find. So there’s all that. That said, I have about half a dozen fire blast characters with a great build and don’t love them like I do the Doc. I do think that practice with a character makes perfect, and that makes you enjoy it much more as a player. I’m faster with Doc than I am any other character I have. I need no time to respond to a situation in-game and know exactly how to get the best out of him. But of course, if a character is not great to play in the first place you’re not going to get to the well-practice stage with them, are you? So, just to summarise... I have absolutely no idea.

But looking at the power balance, it’s all off. IF we accept the idea that Sentinels were designed (badly) to be a damage dealing AT or that they should be, I don’t understand the obsession with penalising them so much. Blaster - Bigger base damage, range, extra damage in secondary, build up and... survivability penalty Scrapper - Bigger base damage, extra damage from crits, build up, strong survivability and... range penalty Sentinel - strong survivability and... damage penalty, range penalty, AoE penalty, no build up So all I’m really asking is what does a Sentinel have that justifies more penalties that strengths?

Why though? I mean Sentinels would be trading something compared to blasters (extra damage, melee attacks) for the buff to their primaries. I genuinely don’t know what people think that Sentinels have that is SO unbelievably amazing that they have to have massive penalties for anything good. Scrappers get top level damage AND survivability and no one thinks their secondary should be nerfed. Why Sentinels? What am I missing?

Yeah, think that’s the sweet spot personally.

Agree with this. As has been mentioned elsewhere on the thread, a blaster will always have a damage edge over Sentinels because of the secondary. Absolutely nothing wrong with making Blaster and Sentinel primary damage the same and then giving the player the choice: Want more damage? Blaster Want more survivability? Sentinel