macskull
-
Posts
2094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by macskull
-
-
13 minutes ago, Greycat said:
Honestly, of everything I don't give a damn about this as an argument. There are so many ways to get enhancements, and cost can be variable, so...
As for the rest? Yeah. No acc check would be ideal, as it's already getting penalized pretty hard, and no, it doesn't seem all that sensible for the power.
I’m coming from this with the perspective of having to pay a slot tax for the accuracy that’s required. I don’t know if the summoned pet inherits accuracy buffs from the caster but I’d assume it doesn’t since many summoned pets don’t. Ideally I maximize the accuracy and recharge with as few slots as possible. Tar Patch is unique among area -res patches because it will continuously require hit checks for the most desirable part of the power to work. It takes slow sets but unfortunately only one slow set has both acc and rech in one power and that’s a 4-piece so you’re not getting much out of it. That pretty much leaves you with common 50+5 IOs or the acc/threat/rech D-Sync/Hami.
Sure, the cost is going to be variable, and you might get lucky if you run enough Aeons or hard mode LGTFs, but at the end of the day no matter how you slice it you’re having to spend the time or inf or rely on luck just to get a power that still performs worse than the power it’s based on because of an arbitrary design decision.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Hi it’s me! I would have submitted this as a bug report but it is apparently Working As Intended so I am here to lay out a few things so that others may understand how ridiculous this power is.
Dominators got access to Tar Patch with the new Dark Mastery pool in Page 7. Sounds cool, good new thematic match for some existing builds. Of course, since Tar Patch is an epic power, it must be strictly inferior to the in-set version for reasons that are still unclear. Generally this is accomplished by a recharge time penalty on the order of 2-3x the source power’s recharge. In-set Tar Patch has a 90 second recharge, so the epic version is set to 180 seconds. This change alone isn’t particularly egregious but it does already put epic Tar Patch at a disadvantage from a usability standpoint. If it was just this difference, I would probably have just shrugged and moved on.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
Dark Mastery’s version of Tar Patch is not only slapped with a three minute recharge, but it has a few other key differences that aren’t immediately obvious but make it an objectively worse power even if it wasn’t already on an obnoxiously long cooldown:
- The power has a reduced radius of 15ft instead of 25ft (epic Sleet is the same way, 10ft instead of 20ft).
- The resistance debuff requires a hit check to work. This makes no sense since the rest of the power effects are autohit. On a power like Sleet the hit roll is annoying but not a problem because once a tick lands the target is debuffed for a further 30 seconds, but because of how Tar Patch works the power must make a successful hit roll every 0.5 seconds for 45 seconds. This already means the power is at best 95% as effective as the in-set version during its half-as-much uptime. That’s the best case scenario, which will only happen 0.0063% of the time (and no that’s not a typo).
- The power takes accuracy enhancements to account for point number two, but in order to actually maximize accuracy and recharge you’re forced to turn to multiple enhancements which cost 350-400 million each just to still get worse performance than the in-set version.
Come on, we can do better than this.
-
8
-
1
-
2
-
The closest thing to a Mids analogue hasn't been updated since Issue 16. Unfortunately Mids is pretty much it.
-
1
-
-
I read these tags @Videra, don’t worry.
Yeah, I understand that they’re called “alignment” powers because they’re locked to an alignment, but when I can switch alignments at will with 3 mouse clicks it doesn’t make much sense to make us wait a week to get a power and then have to stay as that alignment to keep it. Frenzy and Call to Justice are good but especially in the case of Frenzy it’s not worth being alignment locked to the side that has less content and fewer players. You can get either Frenzy or Call to Justice clones in PvP without being alignment locked, there’s not much reason the same shouldn’t be true in PvE.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Meh if I’m leading the team and I can’t fill for a piece of content I might log on an alt, or I might just run with 7. Multiboxing ain’t against the ToS (in this scenario) and it ain’t hurting anybody.
-
1 hour ago, FupDup said:
Hardmode's meta is kinda sorta fucked, to the extreme, so if even the mighty Tanker of all things can't compete against a Scrapper there, it's gonna be real hard to make a Brute compete without just making them outright better than Scrappers. Again, I'm not saying don't change Brutes, I posted some ideas of mine earlier, I'm just saying that maybe there might be some underlying/overarching metagame issues to resolve so we can get a more clear picture here. And hopefully have a meta that isn't a harem of 7 ranged supports following an armored melee AT of some sort.
FWIW a Tanker is usually the play over a Scrapper on LGTF because the higher resist cap, better aggro management, and higher HP actually does end up mattering (for one 5-10 minute portion of the TF, anyways). Outside of hard mode, though, if we're talking "speedy meta" teams it's almost always just a bunch of Blasters with one or two Corruptors, melee need not apply.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Shin Magmus said:
What about the other Epic Armor which is both Def and Res: Frozen Armor - https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=epic.defender_ice_mastery.frozen_armor
It appears to have the same flag. Maybe this should be looked at in a batch, good find Macskool.
Frozen Armor's +res can be enhanced, so the power has to be flagged that way.
-
8 minutes ago, biostem said:
It's a weird conundrum; If you got the name you wanted first try, there'd be no discussion, so that's moot. OTOH, of course someone is going to argue to have a name released that they want! All that being said, it seems to me that any and all policies should be in favor of active players over potentially returning ones. I don't think it's an extreme stance to take that people should play their characters periodically in order to keep their name9s)...
This argument assumes that if a player isn't actively playing the game, they are no longer interested in the game or their characters. Sure, there are going to be people who play for a while and leave and never come back, but there are also going to be players who are away from the game for extended periods of time for other reasons, sometimes through no fault of their own. Who are we to decide whether the reason for their absence is enough that we should release their character names?
-
1
-
-
Ooh, I love these threads and I'm bored so here are just a few reasons the proposed name release policy is A Bad Thing.
- It doesn't actually address the stated issue of "name camping." Getting to level 6 and spending a few minutes once a year to maintain "activity" on a roster of characters takes very little effort.
- The players who are holding their breath and crossing their fingers and waiting for a name to get released will more likely than not end up disappointed when the name they want doesn't magically become available.
- By releasing names used by existing players we are telling those existing players that they do not matter.
- Any time-based inactivity rule is simply an arbitrary cutoff. Why does it have to be 365 days? Why not a month? Why not a day?
- A player who has left the game and later returns to find the name of their favorite character has been taken is likely to simply log off again and not return. Meanwhile, the player who snatched that name up could have simply found another name in the first place.
- The "players who don't want to give up their names are entitled" argument sucks. You want their name released so you can have it. How is that not where the entitlement lies?
As always, I'll close with the disclosure that I am sitting on some fun, non-basic names, but just like back on live I am more than willing to consider releasing one to someone if they ask. Over the last 17 years someone has asked for one of my character names zero times.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
Just now, ThatGuyCDude said:
Nudging Brutes towards control as well would give them a great deal of distinguishing identity from the other three (point five) Melee Archetypes, and I believe it could be done without risking stomping all over other controller rolls: the key is in replacing Build Up.
Build Up is boring (press button, damage up, wait for button). Build Up on Brutes is especially boring. Let's dump it for a Fury spender... a point blank area of effect crowd control stun "ROAR" with more duration the higher the Fury bar was before you emptied it. It'd make the power a panic button, boost survival of the Brute AND the team without hammering more defense or resistance, and force the player to actually monitor their Fury bar and refill it after hitting their panic button.The issue I see with something like this is that non-hold controls are pretty much an afterthought in higher-performing teams and this wouldn't really do anything to address the perception that Brutes are lacking in those situations. If controls as a whole got an overhaul, perhaps this might have merit.
-
5 minutes ago, skoryy said:
That actual players are okey dokey with what the forums would consider 'bad' and 'worst'.
Hi it’s me, an actual player who doesn’t at all care if someone enjoys playing a bad set or AT but who would also like the set or AT to not be bad so that I could enjoy it too.
-
6
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, skoryy said:
I mean, there's an awful lot of brutes I see out in the wild despite the constant refrain around here of 'Brutes Bad'.
Empathy is the most popular Defender primary but still manages to be the worst support set in the game, what point are you trying to make?
-
3
-
1
-
-
Scorpion Shield for Blasters, Controllers, Dominators, Defenders, Corruptors, and Masterminds is incorrectly flagged to ignore external strength boosts. The power has toxic resistance but this resistance is not able to be enhanced. This application of “ignores external strength boosts” is inconsistent with how it is applied to other powers which grant both resistance and defense.
-
2
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:
They're saying don't have it toggle off automatically after a certain period of time, like other toggle powers.
Spirit Ward doesn't detoggle after a certain time period. Enflame, sure, and there's not much reason it should have that timer.
-
What is a "normal toggle?"
-
I would support giving Brutes the pre-I18 Fury buff (3% damage per point of Fury, 850% damage cap). Who cares if a Brute at damage cap can theoretically outdamage a Blaster at damage cap? The Brute's got to work a hell of a lot harder to get there and can't really maintain those numbers for a long duration.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Vanden said:
What if it was just made into a damage proc? Both of the ranged damage-primary classes have a damage proc ATO, but none of the melee damage ATs do. Just keep it simple, you know?
Hey it's me, the Sentinel, a ranged damage-primary class that doesn't get a damage proc ATO (though it's fitting that someone would completely forget that Sentinels exist).
As an aside, giving Brutes an AT-unique damage proc would be of pretty limited utility since there are already three non-unique melee damage procs (one of which is the least-resisted damage type on average), compared to only one non-unique ranged damage proc (which is the most-resisted damage type on average)
-
1
-
1
-
-
Sounds like it's time to turn this bug into a feature!
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:
Might need to clean up the power attributes/effects naming.
Probably. The key difference between the two is that toggle suspension is handled for the entire power so during suspension it’s like the power is not on at all, while toggle suppression is handled for individual attributes which means the power is still running and using endurance but not having some or any of its effects. The latter is how powers behave while you’re mezzed (in PvE, at least, in PvP defensive toggles don’t suppress at all while mezzed).
-
12 hours ago, Rudra said:
When I cite CoD, it is because I just finished looking at it for the topic in question.
Now to continue with the thought experiment. Let's say the Energy Manipulator: Chance to Stun simply said target rather than foe rather than what it actually says. When slotted into a power that accepts endurance modification enhancements, does it stun? Are the targets the power is affecting being stunned? If it only affects enemies and not players, then it is a bug and it should be reported for having an incorrect description. If it affects both, then it isn't a bug, it was a very, very, very poorly designed enhancement and needs to be changed with a suggestion.
Let’s talk Misdirection again. You’re looking at the final number instead of the actual math behind it, which is why you’re coming to the conclusion that it is working correctly. Because Misdirection is using melee_ones instead of melee_taunt to determine its duration, two problems arise: 1) the duration is the same for every archetype and 2) the duration is the same regardless of level. Neither of these issues are present in any other placate power. The way the scales are used does mean that the PvP duration is 60% of the PvE duration (which is correct) but the rest of the way the power behaves is not. To put this in perspective, this is the same as if Tough and Weave gave the same protection values for every archetype. Considering we know that’s not how it’s supposed to work, we can conclude that such behavior would be a bug.
EDIT: I will reiterate again that the OP’s premise is wrong and the placate should not be 2 seconds, but the power is using incorrect scales, so it is bugged, just not in the way OP thinks it is.
Now, let’s talk Energy Manipulator. I chose that very specific example because the way I described the proc in my thought exercise is exactly how that proc worked when it was released (I.e., it did not distinguish between friendly and enemy targets and was an equal opportunity stunner). A reasonable person would conclude that a proc which puts a mez or debuff on a friendly target is very much not working as intended - and it wasn’t - so the proc was changed to its current, correct, behavior. You call it “poor design but not a bug” with the insistence that it must be working like it’s supposed to because that’s what the power info says. I call it a “bug” because it was clearly not intended to work that way and only did so because of an oversight.
At this point your argument is entirely semantics-based rather than standing on any actual merits, so I have to assume you’re no longer arguing in good faith and the only reason I’m still responding is so anyone doing a drive-by reading of this thread will understand the absurdity of your position.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:
I think there's also a caging and intangible status effect rule in there too. And fear. And teleport mag/resistance. And invulnerable status.
One rule to rule them all though? Not so much. I guess I thought it was more rigid design than it actually is.
Cages are 4 and 8 seconds, but the rest of the stuff on there doesn't have an AT-specific modifier.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Rudra said:
And yet Stalker placate effects are all 6 seconds in duration in PvP according to the game (and 12.3 seconds according to CoD). So it doesn't look like that "rule" applies to placate effects.
You should do yourself a favor and actually take a look at CoD sometime. You'd be amazed what you can learn about how the game is supposed to work, and you'd stop saying incorrect things in these kinds of discussions.
19 minutes ago, Rudra said:In the OP, what the game says something should do and what it does are the same. That makes it not a bug.
Let's try a thought exercise here: let's say I have an end mod IO set, we'll call it, I dunno, Energy Manipulator. Let's say this set has a proc that stuns the target. The power data for this proc says "target" and not "enemy," resulting in the user being able to stun allies with powers like Speed Boost, or themselves by slotting it in powers like Stamina. Is this a bug?
-
I've got a doubleheader here:
- Blaster/Dark Mastery/Black Hole incorrectly has a 10ft range, this should be 50ft.
- Blaster & Mastermind/Dark Mastery/Possess is incorrectly applying the -dmg and -special effects to the caster and not the target.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Rudra said:
(Edit: If the game says something is supposed to work a certain way and it does, then it isn't a bug. If you think a 9 second duration is too long, then submit a suggestion.)
Being a pedant about "if the game says something then it's not a bug" doesn't make you right. The game also says all the debuffs from Blaster and MM Possess apply to the caster and not the target but I can promise you that's not how it's supposed to work. For example, Sentinel Dark Grasp was lasting something like 8 seconds in 2019 when Sentinel mezzes are supposed to be 2 seconds - the power worked exactly like it was written to work, but the way it was written to work was incorrect.
Placate duration in PvP is supposed to be standardized to 6.0*melee_taunt based on the information on CoD for Stalkers and Banes, but Misdirection is using 9.0*melee_ones. This is clearly incorrect despite "the game saying something is supposed to work a certain way."
Regardless, 2 seconds is also the incorrect duration, since taunt and placate don't follow the same 2 second/4 second rule that stun/sleep/hold/confuse/immobilize do.
Fix Dominator Tar Patch
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
Turns out the Tanker version of this power also has the same limitations, except that one is a level 44 power pick so you’re even less likely to have the extra slots available to give it the attention it needs to perform well.
If you’re looking at Mids for data, most of the Page 7 powers changes aren’t on there - Dominator Sleet used to have a 90 second recharge and now it’s 2 minutes along with other nerfs that Sleet as a whole got.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a case of “oops accidentally gave a critter power to players” since the pet the epic version of Tar Patch spawns is named “Tar_Epic” and it’s flagged to allow enhancements. This seems to be a conscious design decision.