Kimuji

Indeed and Superman works as a comic book character not as a playable one in a video game. Taking Superman as a reference is just terrible: that character is so OP that they had to create Kryptonite as a plot device to keep him in check. Superman is basically in perma god mode unless he's completely depowered. We can't compare a CoH character with that.

Sorry if it has already been discussed but the thread is 35 pages long now, does the AoE and target cap increase also applies to taunt Auras? I mean making damage auras (like Blazing Aura or Death Shroud) hit 16 targets instead of 10 is a substantial increase but it isn't a massive imbalance, however auras that give a buff based on the number of affected targets are a concern. Invulnerability, Shield Defense or Willpower for instance (or even rad armor). The bonus increase from 10 to 16 targets would make those auras completely OP: massive regen for WP, huge defense for Invul, stupid damage for SD etc... Speaking of auras, and balanced changes, Willpower could certainly benefit from a longer duration of its taunt effect.

Scrappers can survive everything as well you know. 75% res+ soft capped defenses is enough to handle everything the game throws at you. I don't understand why people focus so much on Brutes. There are defenders who can solo everything, Controllers as well, Corruptors too... Even Blasters are a lot sturdier than they used to be. But all we hear is that Brutes are too tough compared to their damage (or deal too much damage compared to their toughness) and that it hurts Tankers. That's ridiculously selective, and besides it only applies to end game. And that's why I think that people who say that the problem is between OP Brutes and under performing Tankers haven't been playing Tankers as much as they claim. Because most of the times when I've felt useless as a Tanker it was not because of Brutes, it's the overall lack of need for tanks (brutes or tankers). And everyone has been so contradictory on the matter, you'll find a lot of players praising how CoH broke the Dps/Tank/Support trinity and on the other hand they're also complaining that Tankers are useless, go figure... And so, just because endgame IOs and incarnate powers are making all ATs super tough we're gonna give Tankers a big max endurance increase AND a massive AoE radius and target increase AND a large base damage increase AND a huge damage cap boost AND switch T1 with T2 attacks? That's completely out of proportion. The only thing we're achieving here is running even faster into the wall.

But Rage is being modified precisely because people whined about the def crash bug being fixed. If this topic even exists that's because it was fixed and a lot of people didn't want it to be fixed. I had no issues with the fix. But I certainly have an issue with the way SS is going to be completely altered just to accomodate those unable/unwilling to adapt to the way it had always been designed to work.

Rage is just as necessary as Build Up. Yes if you remove Build Up and Rage StJ will pull ahead, if you add Rage SS WILL take the lead and if add Build Up StJ should be slightly pulling ahead again. But it is just as disingenuous to compare SS without Rage to StJ with Build Up.

I call this broken.

The imbalance is more about going from 1 crash every 2 mins for 1 rage and 1 crash every minute for 2 rages to no crash for 1 rage and a bigger crash every minute for two rages. Stacking Rage was already 'punished' with a crash that occurs twice as often. Stacking Rage already came at a bigger price but now the gap is even bigger: Rage is free and double Rage still comes at a very high cost. Balance has been completely thrown out of the window.

This is just the death of Rage stacking. Who's gonna bother going double Rage when every 60s you get your defenses decreased, your resistances decreased and your damage reduced to zero when a single Rage comes at absolutely no cost? There is no real benefit to stack rage anymore. It's a massive punishment for a marginal increase in sustained DPS: The whole point of stacking rage is to deal more damage if keeping Rage to a single instance doesn't incur a damage penalty when stacking means that you get your damage reduced to zero for 10s every minute then it completely defeats the very purpose of stacking Rage. The 10s -999% damage debuff should at least remain for 1 instance of Rage to make double Rage even remotely desirable.

Well I won't beat around the bush: I'm terrified by most of these changes. 😅 But first the good: - the base endurance increase. Very welcome. - the cones increase. Welcome change as well. Now the scary stuff. The removal of Bruise, it was a team oriented passive power. Tankers are team players, I don't like the idea of removing this aspect to replace it with a substantial damage increase. Especially with such a massive change for the damage cap as well. 600% with a base damage multiplier of 0.95 means that Tankers have a higher damage potential than Brutes. Bring a Kinetic in the team and the Tanker will clearly out damage all the Brutes, especially when combined with the buffed AoEs. I'm ok with the buffed angle for cones because most of them suck, but making all AoE 16ft+ that's completely over the top and it also contributes to the uniformization of all sets. So I'm not that enthusiastic regarding the AoE buff. Just buff to 10ft all AoEs with a radius inferior to 10ft but anything above that would be too much. I don't like being forced to take the T2 either, most T1 are better are low level thanks to their faster recharge (there are very few exceptions to that rule, like Eneregy Melee's T2 being faster than the T1). I'd rather keep the T1 or being given the choice between T1 and T2.

On the matter of PVP IOs half of their set bonuses are already disabled for PVE so there's that.

Apologies accepted.

Did you even read the answer before giving your +1 to a completely baseless accusation thrown at the wrong person? I have openly spoken against any sort of nerf affecting other ATs in order to make Tankers "better". Since people are too lazy to follow links and more akin to strawmanning I'm gonna quote myself: Is that proof enough?

And big ass mob pulls are the Tankers and Brutes' department.

I think you are misreading what I wrote. I play Brutes and I tank with them. I wrote it did you miss it? So no I don't think that Tanker should be the only AT "allowed" to tank. And I've been defending Brutes against suggestions aming to cripple their aggro management abilities on this very thread. So that accusation doesn't work here. If you don't believe me go check these posts: https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/6271-addressing-the-tanker-brute-connundrum/?do=findComment&comment=71317 https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/6271-addressing-the-tanker-brute-connundrum/?do=findComment&comment=71326 https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/6271-addressing-the-tanker-brute-connundrum/?do=findComment&comment=71455 And there are more I didn't link them all. What I was talking about was strategy and optimization when you have a Tanker and a Brute on the same team. The Tanker assuming the main tank role and the Brute the off-tank's just makes sense. Brutes are better damage dealers than Tankers so if the Brute spends most of its time herding mobs while there is somebody else with a lower damage output able to fill that role then the Brute is lowering the team's dps for no practical reason. And it's the same against AVs, a Tanker spaming Taunt hurts the team's dps much less than a Brute spaming Taunt instead of using an optimized attack rotation. And yes making a point at pulling the aggro from the Tanker while it's its biggest contribution to the team is a bit dickish, especially if you are playing an AT that have the possiblity to contribute in a different manner. It's a good way to make them feel useless and then you can't be surprised if threads like this one appear on the forum.

They bring diversity to builds, (they also tend to trivialize the game...). What does a +rech inspiration bring to the game aside from giving one more tool to deal with its already inexistant difficulty?