Booper

That was a patch note bug...more specifically, a copy/paste mistake when generating the patch notes. The correct description has been updated in the patch notes.

When monitoring take a look at the totals. Although you'll always see the Terra Firma stats in green, you should see those contributions disappear from the totals (in white) when you're not near the ground.

Everyone, standard rules for Focused Feedback still applies. Test the changes and provide your feedback from those tests. Don't argue with eachother, otherwise the GMs will have to start mass-hiding posts.

No, and to avoid wasted uses, a target already affected by Vulnerability can't be targeted again until it wears off.

Great expectation, this is exactly correct. 10% for superior, 7.5% for regular. This keeps the performance in line with what 35% and 25% offer on live (technically, it's a slight buff from live, but close enough).

You can still do this. The stealth IO still stacks with all other forms of stealth.

Very cool. This is the first time I've seen my old posts in over a decade. Thanks for putting this together.

Reach out to a lead GM, like @GM Kal

New End Cost = Base End Cost / (1 + EndRedux) Normalized to percentage: New End Cost % = 100% / (1 + EndRedux) Plug in 2.5% End redux 100% / (1 + 0.025) = 97.56% So your endurance is reduced 2.44% (100% - 97.56% = 2.44%). What you're seeing the screenshot is that calculation...which honestly is not useful to display.

Typically with Epics, they're penalized with double cooldown. So a 1.0 damage attack would normally be 4s cooldown, but as an epic it's doubled to 8s. The endurance cost for such an Epic attack should be 6.5 endurance. That being said, the rule isn't followed consistently and you'll find many epic attacks that don't make sense.

It should be only given to DoT powers, where the ticks of damage will not trigger if the foe is asleep. In the case of Confounding Chant, it will still do Containment, but it will be a duplicate DoT that also checks if the foe is asleep. If the foe wakes up, both the main DoT and Containment DoT will start hitting the foe. As for Impassioned Serenade, it does both upfront damage and a DoT. Containment will duplicate both of these effects. The upfront damage will still always apply and would break sleep. But if the foe was to be slept again, the DoTs would suppress so that it does not disturb their sleep.

Wasn't trolling, I was giving you the out "if" you ever saw CPH state Cold Snap aka Shivers aka Shiver was a TAoE in development. I am looking at the repo now and not once has the power ever been anything other than a cone. I don't think he ever said Cold Snap was redigned as a TAoE, but if so that would be the only justification for making such a statement as, again, the power has never been a sphere at any point in development. But to the point of using a sphere attack instead of a cone, a targeted sphere attack (commonly referred as TAoE) does have benefits in melee as the area around the target is easier for expectations. Aim for the guy in the center, likely hit the most targets (assuming grouping is near that target). However, the size of Cold Snap's cone should not be overlooked. A 30' radius with 135 degree arc has a circular sector area similar to a sphere attack with 18' radius. And if you wish to get three dimensional with it, the volume of the spherical sector is similar to a sphere attack with 20' radius. This is just the fear component, the slow component obviously quadruples the area and octuples the volume. Going back to the cone in two-dimensions for a second, the wedge it creates at closer range (11.5 feet away, so practically melee), you get a cone width of almost 28' radius. That is a wide area, and given most attacks happen when targets are in front of you (as you would engage a goup) typically would hit more foes with this cone than you would with a 15-20 ft sphere attack. I mention the 11.5 feet also because it acts as a target point for anyone who likes to get into melee range and use jump powers to shape there cones into PBAoEs. By leaping 11.5-17.5 feet off the ground and targeting a foe right below you, you should hit everyone on the ground within that 28' radius. Again, that's just the fear component. For the slow, double the height and get double the radius. Also worth mentioning that's at base range only. If you wish to enhance the range of the cone, all those values would scale up linearly. At this point, I only see 3 possible outcomes for the fear. It stays shorter range but have full arc width (current version, benefits melee), revert to the same range but narrower arc (previous version, benefits range), or make the fear component a "chance for fear", likely around 40% chance (you get full coverage but less control on the fear reliability).

Most cones are targeted AoEs.

It was mentioned as a change in the Build 3 the patch notes, however it was accidentally left out of that build and introduced in this build instead. These patch notes will need to fix that omission. To answer your question, the AI behavior of the pet has changed from Base AI to Range Preferred AI. This should result in the pet not trying to run into melee range so often which should also help maximize coverage with its cone attacks along with a few other benefits.

It may be worth noting that the radius of the fear can still be enhanced. It does not use the inner/outer radius implementation that most other powers use for varying coverage areas, which would be unenhancable.

Removed

That is already fixed in Page 4. There were a lot of enhancement slotting fixes.

We can use some more feedback on Symphony Control's Reverberant. Last build this pet had its AI reconfigured to prefer range, so we need confirmation that it's working as intended or if there are some bugs/behaviors that still need to be addressed.

Let's knock off the arguing, it's not constructive. The replies are intended for focused feedback. https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/36502-focused-feedback-guidelines-read-this-first/

All, We are approaching the Release Candidate for Page 4. At this time, we would like focused testing on changes being made to Hard Mode ITF. Build 3 has introduced some new things to the task force that will require testing now so that fixes will be in for RC1 and hopefully won't require an RC2. In particular, we're looking for issues in the finale Romulus fight, any peculiarities with the hostless possessions in their potential release iteration, etc. As a reminder, the changes introduced in Build 3 are listed below.

Good catches. I misinterpreted the Recover in 3.5s statement. I assumed it meant they were mezzed for that long (and toggles recharged during that time). If it meant 3.5s unmezzed but waiting on toggles, then yes your numbers look right. That goes to my statement earlier, there is an opportunity cost with each of these methods. In this example it was being able to use 2-3 powers (3.5s) then spend 5.1s retoggling in a sequential order (toggle 1 up sooner than toggles 2 and 3) versus being able to use 5-7 powers (8s) then have all your toggles back on at the 8s mark. How much value each of these scenarios will have is dependent on numerous factors for the player.

You're not wrong in this breakdown with your personal numbers, but for completeness, I added the other opportunity costs that were left out in your breakdown (in Yellow). Is it worth the loss of 8 seconds of being able to use other powers to gain the earlier on-time of the 3 toggles? Perhaps. That will depend on the player and their situation. This is why it's important to test the two scenarios (Live vs. Beta) in-game to get a general feel for how the change affects your gameplay. Getting time with both scenarios and experiencing the range of outcomes across multiple builds helps in identifying where the QoL change balances with gameplay experiences. As you're likely aware, there are too many variables to properly work out this balance with math (various number of toggles, various cooldowns, various recharge strengths, various importance of re-toggling, various duration of mez, etc). But with enough gameplay testing and feedback of those tests, a balance point can be found between having to wait on suppression to end while being able to use other powers versus spending time re-toggling powers before using other powers.

No, there isn't a way to know how many toggles need to be turned back on.

A 0s suppression is not on the table. This is a Quality of Life change, not a power-creep change. A balance must be found between having to retoggle powers (as it is on live) versus having a suppression timeout that still captures the penalty but with the quality of life improvement of not having to spend time on re-activating those toggles; allowing you to spend that time on anything else. If you want penalties removed, then make the suggestion on Suggestions & Feedback forum. Here, we are discussing the changes as I mentioned in my previous post.

Everyone, this Focused Feedback thread is for the changes made on Page 4, (what's on Beta). The change, as they relate to Toggle Suppression of offensive toggles (a toggle that negatively impacts a foe directly), is replacing the detoggling-when-mezzed mechanic with a suppression-after-mezzed mechanic. Speaking about those changes is appropriate for this topic. If anyone wants to discuss removing mez penalties altogether from offensive toggles, that is best served as a suggestion post in the Suggestion & Feeback forums, as that type of game change is outside the scope of what's being done on Page 4 and would be off-topic for this thread.