Waljoricar

You're right, it would. An inherent/physiological weakness to fire being the underlying cause for J'onn's pyrophobia hasn't been consistently supported by canon, however, and you originally asserted that J'onn didn't have pyrophobia at all, in the truest sense - despite them having been confirmed as having the conditionn on a number of occasions. I totally forgot about Quantums having not played Khledians very much. That's might be the most in-game practical application of the kind of "weakness" I was originally referring to. The general consensus seems to be that charatcer weaknesses ala Kryptonite are best left within the realms of RP. There's clearly a much greater interest in a CoH nemesis system!

The underlying cause for J'onn's lack of resistance and fear toward fire hasn't consistently been attributed to a physical or inherent weakness. On more than one occasion it has been referred to as pyrophobia and, at times, been treated as an expression of longstanding anxiety and/or PTSD.

I was definitely imagining a relatively binary system (weak against X, resistant to Y), for the sake of simplicity, but I love the idea of a system that could accommodate more nuanced and RP-centric. There are plenty of heroes with notable "weaknesses" that extend beyond an actual physiological deficiency; Storm has their claustrophobia, Green Lantern their agoraphobia and Martian Manhunter their Pyrophobia, etc. I guess stuff like that can simply be RP'd without the need for a game mechanic to accommodate it (how would that even work?), though I'm in no way against the idea!

I've considered rolling a character that is permanently afflicted with the Vahzilok Wasting Disease for RP purposes, but they would be a real challenge to play. I wonder if anyone has done that...?

Yeah, exactly! It's a nice way to layer your character's backstory if you want to. Having fire powers but also being weak to fire damage is a really fun concept, I think.

I mean, min/maxing already exists; the people that do it in CoX will always do it. I find the idea of people avoiding certain enemy groups interesting though, as that borders on RP - if I'm weak to Toxic damage, I stay the Hell away from the Vahzilok - just common sense really.

Back when CoX was in its infancy, I recall an interview in which a dev desbribed a proposed gameplay system where you could ascribe your character a specific weakness (Psycbic/Fire/Physical/Etc) that, in doing so, would net you buffs against other damage types. I may be misremembering, but I've always liked the idea of such a system. If you could, would you give your character a specific weakness? If so, what? If no, why not? What kind of resistance would you want in return? Do you think such a mechanic would work in-game?

Is the build you've attached in this post the correct one? It doesn't appear to have Spinning Kick or Phase Shift? Would love to get sight of that build; everything you've posted in this thread has been top notch and super helpful. Thanks!

In order to access Penelope Yin as a contact, you must be introduced to them by Jim Temlbor. Before Temblor will do so, however, you must accept an introdution he makes to an old-school Contact. "Find Contact" will not introduce you Penelope Yin under any circumstances, I've found. I like to fully complete the Contacts that I pick up, but a lot of these old-school Contacts are just awful; they run out of missions/content to assign you even when you're within their level band, give you three or four "Defeat twenty X" missions or send you to places that you can't hope to survive (Terra Volta at level 20, for instance). My suggestion is - let us decline suggested/offered Contact introductions permanently so that Contacts may go on to suggest someone else. Or just add Penelope Yin to the Find Contacts functionality.

I second this! It's my favourite stance for screenshots and would be perfect for a number of RP scenarios.

Hi all! I have a terrible cold at the moment, but reading all of your comments has been super nice. Thanks for continuing to keep things interesting. I'm gonna do just that! I was never really at any huge risk of compromising my character concepts, but I was curious about how relevant the language being used to describe their powersets was and, frankly, it isn't very. There are just too many variables, from my own short and long-term goals, gameplay style, difficulty settings and budget, to the context of original conversation I've been attempting to glean tips from. Trying to extrapolate universal truths about a powerset's eficacy is futile, especially if I'm not actually joining the conversation. I might give Regen (except on Sentinels) and Posion (on Masterminds) a miss though.

👍 In all seirousness though, this is a very nice discussions thread and I'm enjoying the discourse. Please be chill. This is a really interesting factor I hadn't considered. Being someone that has never actually altered difficulty or team size, it never occurred to me that the thresholds had been increased in HC. Realising that many of the perspectives on powerset efficacy are completely outside of the scope of what the OG came could offer is enlightening. Which is kind of funny, because I just finsihed perusing the Corrupter sub-forum for opinions (I'm going to stop doing this, this is the last time I swear!) on Sonic Blast and a nice Sonic Blast/Cold Domination build. I came across a pretty consistent theme of "sonic is bad anywhere", that its "rather lackluster" and that taking it on a Corrupter (as opposed to a Defender) is just kind of shooting yourself in the foot. The latter concept was particularly prevalent. Reconsidering those opnions with the knowledge that +4/x8 didn't even exist way back when, I get the impression that +0/x0 content is just not a part of those conversations anymore. With good slotting and a solid gameplay technique, terms like lacklustre, weak or underperforming seem wholly redundant for any powerset, even Regen*. Unless I'm way off base? Sure, I could eke out a little more oomph from a Sonic Blast Defender, but am I really going to notice the difference in a +0/x0 setting? I'd certainly notice the compromise I made to my oriignal concept. Even if I do decide to switch it up post-50 and start playing +4/x8, do other players really do that much vetting before allowing a player to join them in running that kind of content? "Oh, you chose Sonic Blast on a Corrupter? Pass". *Poison on masterminds does sound absolutely awful though.

This is an odd tone to take with a total stranger. Concept remains the single most important part of making any character for me. Seeing my idea realised on screen is what has kept me playing this game for so long and what motivates me to log in every day. The CC is where I spend most of my tine; everything else is just icing. Starting a discussion about an aspect of the game that gives me pause, or wanting to hear others' opinions about the language we use to talk about powersets isn't evidence of mendacity or a fallacious assertion. It's very normal for people to have discussions because the enrichment is in the exchange. Not every conversation has to be an opportunity for you to assert dominance or whatever. What? Do you think we're playing Top Trumps?

There's a really good discussion about how this term, amongst others, may be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context of its use and the dissoance created when those terms are taken literally by lay players not familiar with said context.

Things got a little heated in my absence! I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and contributions to this thread. There have been some very measured and thoughtful responses so far regarding how we talk about powerset efficacy within certain parts of our community and how relevant those perspectives are outside of those very focused discussions. I'm not making value judgements about how people choose to enjoy the game and I'd encourage otherwise to do the same. This is a really succinct way of describing the feeling I'm often left with after looking for general build advice for one of my character concepts and the catalyst for my original question - is the language used to talk about those often derided powersets relevant or helpful outside of conversation specifically about min/maxing? The obvious answer is, of course, it depends on what your intention is with the character you make; there's nuance to consider. I almost exclusively solo or, at least, I intend to for 1-50 content, which is a not insignificant investment to make time-wise. Once I've achieved my personal goal of hitting Level 50 solo, I may very well want to change things up. Start teaming, doing tougher content in general, etc. I'd be gutted to learn that I had chosen a character that, from the very beginning, had a immutable handicap that relegated them to a "carry spot" on a team or, worse, makes me not "economically viable" for a team to want me in the first place. Or, if we were to stick to the playing solo example (as that is the reality of my playstyle and the premise upon which my original question was built), learning that I'm about to choose the absolute worst version of a power (Poison on Masterminds in this example) across all ATs is definitely alarming. Now I'm wondering which is more important - enjoying being a Mastermind or enjoying the Poison powerset, because they seem at odds with one another, considering there's a really awesome Poison powerset one street over (Corrupters). This is a really well articulated response and highlights how important that nuance I mentioned is. Though, to be clear, I've never been in pursuit of the best power, I've just been wary of choosing powers that are oft looked at as kind of a dud. I fully appreciate that even that "dud" designation is subjective and influenced by so many variables that it loses all meaning without a frame of reference which is, really, a player's goals/intentions with a character. Yeah, exactly. This is kind of the feeling I get when I'm considering certain powersets these days. The "waving hands around" just makes me think of the KM nova and it cracks me up. It's so extra for no reason at all 😂 Sidenote: if anyone wants to quote me (love being included in this discussion!), please feel free to address me directly and not in the third person. I promise, the OP is very much in the room with us now 😉