macskull

PPM works the same way in PvE and PvP. For PvP IO damage procs the amount of damage the proc does is different between players and NPCs though. Defender Paralytic Poison looks like it's been fixed. EDIT: It also looks like all the mez procs have been fixed.

Yeah, that was my thread. I posted it, it didn't get any replies the first day or two, and then I came back after a weekend away to see it had exploded into a "blame PvPers" thread. Another example is the PvP accolades thread where I spent page after page trying to reason with people who either couldn't be or didn't want to be reasoned with.

You are aware of the popup that literally says "You are now entering a PvP area and can be attacked by other players" whenever you enter a PvP zone, right? No one going into PvP zone is ignorant of that unless they can't read.

This is tangential to the thread's topic. The entire enterbasefrompasscode fiasco exploded because there are some very vocal people on here who insist it is now getting removed for PvP reasons when this isn't the case. The very vocal group of posters who keep blaming PvP and PvPers for taking away their toys are getting kind of old.

What if I told you that there is no travel suppression in PvP? Go on, look for yourself, it doesn't exist.

You can claim all you'd like that PvP was the sole reason for any of those changes but you're wrong. The only PvE nerf that happened solely for PvP reasons, in the entire history of this game, is a change to the way the repel ticks in Hurricane function. But hey, I'll bite. Intangibility powers - does anyone actually take these in PvE? If yes, obviously being able to completely remove a targeted enemy or enemies from the playing field for as long as you want without any downtime via an autohit toggle is broken (but nevermind that even after they got changed to click powers you could still perma-cage things). Toggle dropping - toggle dropping was a PvP-only mechanic and didn't exist in PvE. Why even bring that up? ED - lack of ED meant builds were shoehorned into certain slotting combinations pretty much without exception. ED was necessary to pave the way for the IO system. Neither of those are PvP-only concerns. GDN - defense-based sets were too good relative to resistance-based ones. Not an exclusive-to-PvP concern. Defense has almost never been in a good place in PvP because of the amount of tohit you can put out. Travel suppression - being able to kite NPCs with zero risk to yourself because you're out of range of their attacks by the time they aggro on you is obviously not a balanced mechanic. Nevermind that you can completely get around travel suppression by having a Kin on your team. Like... the idea that travel suppression was put in because of PvP is laughable. Regen nerfs - toggle IH was obviously way too good in any situation, PvP or PvE, and trying to argue otherwise is disingenuous. Enterbasefrompasscode - is Leandro saying that people can use it as a cheese mechanic to avoid deaths during "Master of" runs going to be something that you conveniently ignore? PvPers don't need to "own up" to any changes because with one exception they haven't been the sole cause of any of them. You can argue all you want about why PvP is bad and the dirty PvPers took your toys, but you're wrong, plain and simple. ...You are aware that PvP powers and mechanics are vastly different because of an ill-advised and misguided effort to rebalance PvP by a developer who did not PvP, which no one asked for, and were pushed through despite the PvP community already having presented their ideas for how to improve PvP? Let's not be disingenuous and say that PvP was "added much later." This game existed on live for eight and a half years and PvP was part of that game for seven and a half of those. I know you have your opinions about how the game should work, about game mechanics, about the effectiveness of powers and powersets, and you can defend those until you're blue in the face because they're your opinions, but in this case they're objectively wrong.

My point was that people are quick to blame PvP for things getting nerfed when in reality there were PvE reasons - to use your Regeneration example, old-style toggle IH meant that a Regen Scrapper was literally unkillable if they survived an alpha strike. Saying things like that got nerfed for PvP is disingenuous at best and downright wrong at worst. To your Total Focus example, there was no functional difference between a mag 3 stun and mag 4 stun in PvP, but there was a huge functional difference in PvE because it allowed you to stun bosses in one application.

I'm not going to address these individually because other people have already done so, but... in the entire history of the game there has only ever been one power or mechanic nerfed in PvE specifically for PvP reasons and it's probably something 99% of players don't know about. However, there are multiple cases of powers getting buffed for PvP reasons that then had those buffs carried over into PvE. Do you like the -75% range on Taunt? That's a PvP change. Melee attack range going from 5 to 7 feet? PvP change.

IIRC there aren't any autohit damage attacks in PvP but PvP diminishing returns makes building for resistance or defense on most ATs worthless.

Name one of these things you enjoyed that have been nerfed or completely removed due to PvP. I'll wait. (Also, did you miss the spot in this thread where Leandro said it was also abusable in PvE as a get-out-of-jail-free card for Master TF runs?)

I'm not sure where you're getting that from but in my hypothetical scenarios if you were at the HP cap you would not have died in either scenario. If you were at base HP with no bonuses (1017) you would have died on the resistance-based character and survived with over half your HP left on the defense-based one. Even if your resistance-based character had the extra 20% HP from the passive accolade bonuses they still would've died. Regarding hitting the HP cap, it is very much possible but not at all necessary for PvE builds. My scenario was designed to be an easy-to-understand demonstration of the math behind resistance and defense and why defense is almost always the better option until you reach the breakpoint of 45%. It doesn't matter if there are five enemies, or seventeen, or any other number attacking me, and it doesn't matter if they're doing 50 damage, or 100 damage, or 500 damage, the point was that the resistance-based character will always take more damage than the defense-based one when you look at it over a given period of time. It is true that defense is left up a bit to luck and the streakbreaker, but 1) the number of times you'll get insta-killed because two heavy hitters land quickly is very small and 2) you're probably killing things so fast that streakbreaker will never matter. Given a long enough time frame, yes, you would die on either character if you just stood there and did nothing. You'd probably die faster on the resistance-based one though. The beauty of this game is you can build it however you want, and you're not wrong for focusing on recharge (hell, most of my builds back on live were the same way). However, at the end of the day if you've got a build with permahasten and some resistance and a build with permahasten, some resistance, and softcapped smash/lethal defense, the second build is going to be more survivable especially in more aggressive playstyles. It's also worth pointing out that defense is much easier to obtain in meaningful amounts from pool powers and set bonuses when compared to resistance. EDIT: Another thing you haven't even considered with resistance vs defense is debuffs and mez. With defense, you can sort of shrug most of them off because they won't hit you. That's not the case with resistance.

Let's look at two scenarios, one where a Controller is at the defense softcap (45%), and another where the same Controller has no defense but is at the resistance hard cap (75%). Scenario 1: An even-con minion has a 50% chance to hit. With 45% defense, that even-con minion now has a 5% chance to hit, which is the lowest possible chance anything can have to hit, ever. Let's assume that this Controller is surrounded by 100 minions who all attack at the same time with attacks that deal 100 damage. In this scenario, you will get hit 5 times for a total of 500 damage. Scenario 2: An even-con minion has a 50% chance to hit, which is not reduced at all because in this scenario our Controller has no defense. If the same minions fire off the same 100-damage attack 100 times, they'll hit you 50 times. Ignoring resistance that is 5000 damage. However, with 75% resistance, our Controller will actually take 25% of that damage, or 1250 damage. In other words, the defense-based character takes 40% of the damage the resistance-based character took over the course of those 100 attacks (and the amount of damage the resistance-based character took is above a level 50 Controller's base HP which means in the absense of any +hp that Controller is dead). While it is true that each of the 5 hits on the defense-based character hit harder, the likelihood of a series of hard-hitting attacks landing within a small enough window to kill that character outright before the player has a chance to react (get healed, use their own heal, pop greens, whatever) is pretty small. EDIT: Basically the only time defense and resistance provide equal survivability at their respective hard/soft caps is if you're on an AT with a 90% resistance cap (so... Tankers and Brutes).

FWIW Stealth hasn't had a -speed component since the September 10 patch.

Let's remove badges, IOs, accolades, travel powers, and supergroup bases too, while we're talking out of our asses here.

This would be awesome but IIRC because of the way Hamis are coded being able to convert them would mean you'd only be able to slot one of a given kind of Hami-O in a given power (like IO set pieces) and would require significant backend work to change that.

I'd be less concerned with the tohit roll changes as I would be with the streakbreaker changes. Defense/elusivity is in a weird place in PvP because unlike in PvE where you always know what you're balancing a set against (and only breaking that if enemies have some kind of +tohit), you can come across any number of opponents in PvP that can dramatically change what the same amount of defense and elusivity will get you in terms of survivability.

If you're going to use Assault's endurance cost as a reason why it's okay for that to cause a little bit of power creep, what about Hasten's endurance crash? You're going to be doing more damage to targets with your proposed recharge reduction, sure, but those targets will also have more HP. Right now we have the recharge but not the extra HP - there's no other way to look at this than a global nerf except to those who didn't take Hasten.

Three things here: 1. Basically, the proposed change has no overall effect on anyone except people that didn't take Hasten EXCEPT 2. Enemies are now up to 30% harder to kill so really you're nerfing everyone EXCEPT 3. Now you're freeing up a power pick and power pool which can directly lead to the power creep you're trying to avoid, and you're going to shoehorn people into taking power picks (Assault, probably) to make up for that 30% survivability nerf. This is just a bad idea all around. EDIT: Mods, can we just lock this thread already? The fact that it's exploded up to 22 pages in only a few days should be enough to show that it's not something players want.

It depends on the environment it's being used in, really. Fire's biggest drawback is the fewer opportunities to slot damage procs. It's still a competitive set.

While I understand the experimental powers changes will not be going live with Page 3, will the bugfixes be pushed to live along with this?

What

Hasten really only becomes "problematic" in edge cases involving high-recharge builds. With SOs it makes sense that people want Hasten. Sure, 83% of level 50s take Hasten. So what? Your proposed changes have merit, I will give them that, but as proposed you basically nerf everyone at worst, and maintain the status quo at best (except for nerfing a few high-end edge cases) at the expense of potentially weeks of developer time. If your argument is that the game is too easy with Hasten, and too many people pick it, then so be it... there are plenty of ways to make the game more challenging without completely overhauling power recharge and NPC hit points. You can ignore the IO system, you can run flashbacks and TFs with player debuff/enemy buff, you can run incarnate content, the list goes on. It should be obvious that the majority of the players of this game aren't necessarily looking for a challenge and that's not a bad thing. We no longer have shareholders or a company to appease - there's no reason to make things more difficult for difficulty's sake.

As another poster said upthread, the hit roll system is hardcoded. This change alone would be a massive undertaking, let alone then having to keep scenarios where the old rules apply. Sure, it sucks to miss when you've got a 95% hit roll against something, but that's part of the randomness that the game was built around. /Unsigned.

^ This right here.

Once again, the game is not balanced around the IO system.