Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent
  1. You're right. Must have missed it. I like that version better. I think we we're coming at it from different angles: you for the enhancement values, and me for the recharge stacking. But either would be great!
  2. Regarding bombardment, I started thinking it might be preferable to have the recharge bonus at 5%, and increase the enhancement values somewhat. My rationale is that most ranged and ranged AoE sets generally have 6.25% as a recharge bonus. This would increase variety and facilitate recharge stacking on ranged characters. Then again, maybe 6.25% was chosen by design to prevent excessive, easy recharge stacking. Or to prevent conflict with melee and PBAoE sets, which generally have 5% recharge. Either way, I think it will be a great set.
  3. Gotcha. Yeah I don't like your proposed change. Better to have good set bonuses than a little more enhancement values.
  4. Does 100% slow resistance negate the movement and recharge penalty of Granite armor? If so, electric melee + 5x this set solves most of Granite's downsides. Still can't jump though. And as stated, the damage enhancement value is not that good.
  5. Please do not change ranged defense to aoe defense in this set. AoE defense is the least useful defense. Ranged, on the other hand, is extremely useful for dominators, blasters, defenders and corruptors.
  6. Yeah, if multiple travel powers were active and their animations/stances were incompatible, then that would make sense to me.
  7. I confess that my OP was very much a "change, because want" type of post. You initiated a response and the discourse continued. Sure, I could have done a better job selling it in the first place. Just as you could have done a better job dismissing it. But the start of a discussion has value, even if the ideas are half-baked, no? Isn't that what discussion forums are for? To discuss? Not all ideas unravel perfectly at first pass. As you have given me unsolicited advice, let me reflect back on you: when taking the time to disagree, try not to be so dismissive. It only antagonizes the person you're speaking with, and endears you to no one. You'll be far more effective at building consensus if, well, you come off a little nicer. As to your invitation for a private literary debate, I will decline. There will, I assure you, be no victory for either of us. As to the topic of my OP: I don't really care anymore.
  8. Actually, your original response and your second response are both very condescending. That said, I can sort of read between the lines and see how you perhaps did not intend to be condescending, at least in your first response. However, conversation is a two way street; imagine any conversation with your mother wherein you simply said "I disagree, the reasons are obvious, and I won't explain them" and then walked away. How would that be interpreted? Apologising via "verysorrynovote" comes off as insincere and further amplifies the condescension. Disagreeing that you have been condescending, and correcting me to say that I meant you were being terse is an obvious example of condescension. Do you not see the superior, patronizing tone in your second response? Really? Truly, if you have nothing to offer than "verysorrynovote," then I'll have to ask you to no longer participate in the thread; registering disagreement is a nearly pointless exercise in self-gratification. Yes, the developers read the forums, but game development is not a democracy. The far more useful thing you can do to help both the developers and your fellow players is to explain why something should or shouldn't be changed; you might just change someones opinion. Finally, some reasons to change jump powers may be obvious to you, but they may not be to others. In fact, questioning the obvious is actually a valuable life skill, something many great scientists and companies do on a regular basis. To move the conversation forward, a reason to change might include: such a change would not really be game breaking, but a small quality of life improvement for some. A reason to not change might be: a lot of people already have macros that work based on the current exclusivity, and making my suggested change would invalidate said macros. In the end, it's probably a wash. That said, my listing that was neither difficult nor tiring.
  9. No, apparently I was wrong about that.
  10. I know, but I want to turn sprint off as well.
  11. The more I think about it the less convinced I am, to be honest. Hover and fly have different functions (fighting vs travel), but the same could be said of combat jumping and super jump. Mostly I made the post because I genuinely find it annoying that ninja run toggles off combat jumping when I'm running around in missions, and I haven't yet come across a single macro to toggle between sprint+ninja run and combat jumping.
  12. My bad. SS and sprint works. But I guess that just means sprint works with everything. Oh well.
  13. Combat jumping, super jump, ninja run. Why can't we have all 3 active at once? I mean, I understand why fly and hover are mutually exclusive, but I don't see why the jump powers are. By way of comparison: sprint, super speed and ninja run can all be active at the same time.
  14. Cross posted from the dominator forums. Not entirely sure if this is a bug or not, but it seems like one. Domination does not apply to a variety of pseudopet control powers such as synaptic overload, static field or volcanic gases. This is well known and long standing. My guess is that this is a "spaghetti code" issue. Anyway, having the class mechanic not apply to key powers in your primary powerset is kind of ... terrible. Scrappers and stalkers have a similar problem with shield charge and crits, but at least there shield charge doesn't break stealth. Anyway, I know a lot of people don't play dominators, but for those of us that do, a fix would be deeply appreciated, if at all possible.
  • Create New...