SwitchFade

The version, as I mentioned, is the most current version available on the mids site, from the link on the forums. I posted everything there, this is direct info from live, mids and pines. Pines correlates directly to live, the values match. Mids is off by the listed amount; I was thorough in detailing the apparent issue, that the enhanced values may be following the wrong schedule. Mids is showing resist enhanced by a value lower than live, as I stated, on an invuln tanker. I done use discord or GitHub, sorry.

I have been reluctant to DL Mid's for some time, simply because Pine's worked so well and there were not changes to the AT's I played. Upon deciding I would try the new teleport travel pool on a kin defender and creating an earth blaster, I decided to take the plunge. Unfortunately, there are some issues I am already seeing... I am able to open saved files from Pines. I opened several and noticed some disparities, where Pine's and Live agree, but Mid's data is incorrect, specifically, with resistance. PVE mode, no special circumstances checked in "Math" all variable identical in pine's and mid's... And I just downloaded in the last hour, the newest version directly from the link on the site from the link on the forums... lvl 50+ Inv/SS Tanker live - S/L resistance: 112.95% Pine's - S/L resistance: 112.95% Mid's - S/L resistance: 102.94% A whopping 10% difference, which rules out any single power or source, as none match that 10% number I inspected further using combat attributes, Unyielding Live - 8.59%: S/L resistance Pine's - 8.59%: S/L resistance Mid's - 7.88% S/L resistance Tough Live - 18%: S/L resistance Pine's - 18%: S/L resistance Mid's - 15% S/L resistance Temp Invuln Live - 51.55%: S/L resistance Pine's - 51.55%: S/L resistance Mid's - 47.26% S/L resistance RPD Live - 13.31%%: S/L resistance Pine's - 13.31%%: S/L resistance Mid's - 11.31%% S/L resistance Fire, cold Energy and negative energy resists are all 3% too low in Mid's also. So, it appears Mid's values for resistance on an invuln tanker on the enhanced powers themselves, is inaccurate. The above disparities add up to the missing 10%, not any set values or bonuses. Inspecting the enhanced values for Unyielding as a test case, Live S/L base value 5% Enhanced value 8.59% (71.8%)<-- this is the enhanced % reported on live Pine's S/L base value 5% Enhanced value 8.59% (71.5%)<-- this is the enhanced % reported in Pines, it is off by 0.3% vs live Mid's S/L base value 5% Enhanced value 7.88% (57.52%)<-- this is the enhanced % reported on live, it is off by 13.98% Resistances, in this case, as reported on live and Pine's, show that Mid's may be using the wrong enhancement schedule value, thus under reporting the true resistance values: 57.52 vs 71.8. I have only inspected Tanker -- Invulnerability -- however, this may be occuring on other AT's and powers that are resistance based. I need help from the community in checking if Mid's is using the wrong schedule value for resistance-based powers on other AT's and powers.

Agreed, fade put should be an option. If I want to have it the way it was I should be able to. I really enjoy the sound effects, so the fadeout is immersion killing. Should be put back the way it was with an option to enable fadeout. A little thread Necro to launch the new year!

To his continuing adventure, we toast! In the here and now, his memorialization in Cimerora should definitely occur.

The bottom line... WP is a great set for those that enjoy a streamlined set that requires no maintenance. It has layered mitigation that performs respectably and predictably. It leans heavily into regeneration to achieve a scalable dependent mitigation curve, which is a strength at low diff and a handicap at high diff. It works well out of the box, but begins to fall off when the diff is cranked up. I've pushed WP to absolute min)max extremes on all ATs and the set is fun but will not be able to keep pace with invuln, stone or even rad. If you don't care about meta, maxing or extremes, WP is great. Avoid foes that debuff Regen, this will dirt nap you. Be careful of cascade failure. In the end, WP is great fun and I love it, but when it's time to ProperTank, WP won't cut the mustard.

They're not council...

Absolutely no vote, very sorry.

Most of those are a bug, where there's no animation. As for dual blades, the animation for long and short is awesome, in my opinion, so no change there, but adding alternates is always fun.

Since it seems that there have been several responses that were glib, here's some information on why it will likely not happen. Devs have commented before that the secondary mandatory T1 choice is kind of baked in to how the set system works and changing it would be very difficult and time consuming. For this reason it's basically a non-starter. Not that I advocate one way or another, but thought that some responses from some people were less than cordial.

Sorry, no vote.

Hi Burt! Apologies, but I will no longer be sharing any information on this topic, it will be kept private now 🙏 Sorry to disappoint.

Cheers, sad you went down that road. Enjoy it.

Ah, Grey, sad really. I'm disappointed in you, but at least I am aware now.

Ah I see, because you like pvp and others disagree, then you can attack them with insults. That's very noble.

Interesting. So, when attacked, insulted, misquoted, misinterpreted, called a liar, shameful, disgusting and straw manned, its not acceptable to not allow it to slide. Gotcha. I had also expected better of you as well.

Sure sure.

Amusing. I did mention that there's two reasons pvp doesn't do well in CoH, the first was the toxicity of pvpers, by and large. I guess, thanks for validating that perception 😆

Hmm hmm, sure, after it was edited. Glacier, the fact you've thrown in with someone who unabashedly resorts to name calling and personal attacks is quite surprising. Sad really, I thought better of you, to this point.

All build advice removed.

Zombie threads. Wow is better at that.

Regardless of perceptions about how about how "huge" pvp participation was, the fact remains that pvp population was only ever a small fraction of the total player base, the actual numbers prove that. What's more, issue 4 did not have pvp zones, that was arena only. Issue 6 was when zones went live, so please be more pragmatic with the exaggeration when stating that "your entire experience from issue 4-13 was full zones," as this is technically impossible 😂 Issue 13 was a superb development for PvE, it assured that PvE would not again be affected by pvp considerations and pvp could be developed completely isolated from PvE, and left neatly secluded in separate zones where it never has to be witness, encountered or in the vicinity of anyone in PvE.

You're inferring I think they do answer to us, I was very explicit in stating that my contribution is exactly that, not a salary or a contingency. A decision to update a part of the game is fine, I was clear in saying that if major resources were dedicated, that comes at a cost, one which I do not condone and would be unwilling to contribute to, and that is 100% valid. Time spent doing that, when it would otherwise be spent on anything else, including PvE, is a cost.

Sadly, you've demonstrated with this behavior that taking you seriously will be difficult.

Apologies, but misguided information you're staying aside, pvp population was never "huge," when compared to PVE, as I have said. Please define your criteria for huge versus PvE, as I have said. Further, hyperbole is probably not a great tactic for convincing anyone that any argument is relevant. I would highly recommend against such derision if you want to be taken seriously.