golstat2003

Honestly, for things like this I say the cottage rule be damned. (The same rule that Castle outright blunty said he had no issue violating if the need arised). SS needs to be modified.

Pretty much this.

Balance should NOT be around peak performance time, or "one true IO builds". Plenty of folks DON'T softacap their Brutes, Blasters, Controllers ETC. Or are we saying we'll only look at balance by IOs for Brutes and Tanks only? Aka what farmers do can be taken into consideration but it sure as hell should not be considered the "one true build".

Pretty much better explained than the explanation that I gave earlier in the thread about the level of complexity folks aren't considering. This doesn't even get into what happens at level 50 when you throw Incarnate abilities on top of that. Or are we going to look at IOs for balance but then ignore Incarnate abilities? Also some folks use purples and Attuned, while scale down to appropriate levels. And some don't. They just use set IOs that you lose the function of depending on their level.

Sure, but it should still be able to miss in pvp.

And what of those Brutes who don’t soft cap with IOs? I don’t build my brutes to be tankish nor do I take taunt on them.

I think it would be wiser to spend the time elsewhere, based on the type of team we have now.

Except we're not talking about scrapped together builds. Or are we? That's the problem, what is the balancing point you start and end with, if you start balancing around IOs? And again, using your example, what if it's Brutes that choose damage or recharge as their IO build focus and not defense or resistance? EDIT: And how would the DEVS (again DEVS, NOT PLAYERS) make that determination of what to balance around? Does that new balancing point become the one true way to IO out your build? What if players then find a new balancing point, or the devs release new IOs that move that goal post? Are we prepared to keep playing wackamole with balance based on what the changing IO meta is? EDIT2: If this game were still live, and had a full paid dev team, I might be moved on the argument for us to start considering IOs for balance. As it is now, with a volunteer team, NO. There are too many permutations for those builds (including billion inf builds, 250 million builds, and frankenslotted cheap builds) for us to waste precious dev time playing wackamole with that. I'd prefer if the devs focused on things like more content, actually fixing the bugs that were left over from live, etc etc etc).

This actually isn't a bad idea.

I would rather they increase the cap. I'm FIRMLY against making the zone lvl 35+.

Disagree. If we start balancing around IOs does that mean we start balancing around all configurations of those builds? Do we consider defense focused builds, recharge focused, damage focused, etc etc? Also what level? Fully purpled out setups with attuned IOs? Frankenslotted builds that don’t have set bonuses? Or builds that have sets but aren’t the max farming builds or those built for the max? At which balancing point if we are considering IOs do we start with and who makes that determination? I would be against any group of players making that determination. For a small volunteer team of devs this seems unrealistic. Keeping the balance somewhat focused on one universal starting point like SOs seems more manageable. Edit: in this specific example for Brutes vs Tanks are we focusing on Brutes that build for defense vs tanks? And what if Brutes that don’t build for max resistance or defense? How about those that build for recharge?(Hint: NONE of my Brutes build for defense or resist, including my farming ones and they do just fine) How are you balancing that against IO’d Tanks?

I would love to throw an aircraft carrier at someone! LOL

Ummm was that actually confirmed as happening. I thought it was just a suggestion made in the last tanker feeckback thread. I never saw CP or any other dev confirm that THAT WAS being done. But maybe I missed a thread/post.

I don't mind it during halloween time.

I DISAGREE with the suggestion. Even more so now that you can start a raid via LFG.

Possibly. And possibly meaning that more players care about that than about absolute performance. Which wouldn’t be surprising since the live dev team of old mentioned more than once that most folks aren’t really forum visiting players who care mostly about performance. To them Super Strength’s performance is just fine, as long as it’s fun. Which one could surmise from the gathered stats above, most players in fact DO find Super Strength fun. For many fun does NOT always mean perfectly balanced performance.

Ha ha! Just noticed my unfortunate typo! But with that said, TRRRUUUUUEEEE!!!! LOL

They also have to make sure it does introduce some unforeseen bugs.

Pretty much. Also I’m not sure how easily this could be done to keep some pre-refs for balance reasons and drop others. Seems like a coding nightmare waiting to happen.

For the record I don’t think a level cap increase is a good idea. For one it would make Homecoming diverge even more from the other servers. Secondly MANY players would expect content to match that level increase pretty much immediately. Not sure how much of a burden that would be for you ladies and gents; a volunteer team. On the other hand if you open up creating content even more to player volunteers . . . 😁

What if those level 50+XX characters with extra slots could only be played in Incarnate Content? (Aka if you pick the extra slots and use them you can no longer participate in anything other than incarnate content like DA and Trials?)

Seems pretty clear to me /shrug

Agreed to making it more noticeable.

And maybe do something to make it noticeable to the rest of the team. Cause most teams simply don’t notice such a tanker contribution in the face of more noticeable debuffs that fly around in the average team. I’d be down with such a change.

There is absolutely nothing of these buffs or the responses from the lead dev that shows they are throwing caution to the wind in terms of these buffs. This has been one of the most methodical and well explained feedback threads I have seen discussed in ages.