Jump to content

DSorrow

Members
  • Content Count

    610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

DSorrow last won the day on September 5 2019

DSorrow had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

516 Excellent

About DSorrow

  • Birthday 01/01/1004

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As many others have pointed out, there is no one solution that fits every situation. Generally I follow the practice of giving less outright influence and more information on how to generate it to people I don't know, and I feel like in the long run this has been pretty successful practice considering the number of in-game friends it has resulted in. Then again, I also have a childhood friend whom I routinely gift full-purple builds to because we have a lot of fun playing together but he has absolutely zero interest in planning builds or marketeering / farming for enhancements. Fro
  2. And thank the deities the tedium is gone. If the main challenge in a game is calendar management to fit in enough grinding time or developing enough perseverance to endure an abysmal ratio of tedium to enjoyable stuff it's just bad entertainment design. I wouldn't mind actual difficulty that comes from designing a good build, game skill (i.e. reacting to enemy actions effectively) or such, but CoH isn't really a game like that at its core.
  3. I think negative level shifts are the biggest handicap for MMs playing at higher difficulties. Just looking at how the purple patch affects damage output and ignoring the impact of level difference on hit chance completely: Going from two -1 T1s to three -2 T2s is a damage output downgrade at +3. Two pets at -1 [-4 vs enemies] deal 0.48 x base DPS each for 0.96 total while three pets at -2 [-5] deal 0.30 x base DPS each for 0.90 total. Essentially, being able to choose to only summon two of your T1 pets at -1 would yield a ~7% increase in damage output. Going from two -1 T1s to thr
  4. Just to clarify this, the 5% vs 5% x 20 = 100% thing usually means the same thing, but from two different perspectives. Consider a group of 20 people in the raid and assume everyone does 100 DPS just for easy maths, if you apply a debuff that causes the enemy to take 5% more damage every individual raider now does 105 DPS. Your raid's total damage output is now 105 x 20 = 2100, which is exactly 5% more than the previous 100 x 20 = 2000. However, because you added 5% DPS to each individual raider, you get 5% x 20 = 100% of an individual raider's worth of extra damage. As you can see
  5. What are your goals for the build?
  6. Shadow Shard TFs probably have to take the top spot for me. I've only ever done each of them once on retail CoH for the badges and never went back because they simply felt artificially prolonged to an extent where even the special enemies and locations couldn't make up for it. With more reasonable mission design they would probably be great because Shadow Shard and Rularuu are otherwise criminally underused for being such interesting lore wise. As for other TFs, Synapse and Citadel are both extremely boring because it feels like you do the exact same mission ~10 times, so you don't
  7. I think the issue with this is that for a lot of people the min/maxing specifically is a big part of the game experience. Asking to "not overenhance" is basically just saying "stop doing that thing you enjoy in order to make the game more enjoyable" which doesn't really make any sense. Another way of looking at that is telling someone who no longer feels challenged by a 5K run to stop training so much or run it in impractical equipment rather than encouraging them to find a nice 10K route. Well, it was already noted that the game does expect one to use enhancements to an extent
  8. Yes. I don't think there's any reason why any AT should not be able to progress generic content without the help of a team. I'm inclined to say yes. Why? The question does leave quite a bit open. +4/8 with a build specifically geared towards heightened solo performance? Can't say there's anything wrong with this, it's not like any AT or powerset combo is +4/8 capable by default (besides any Control sets with Confusion). +4/8 against which enemies? Council and Banished Pantheon are quite different enemy groups in terms of challenge. +4/8 with or without inspirations? With insps,
  9. There was a point in time when +DMG/+Range HOs were the optimal slotting for most ally shields because the +33.3% Damage actually enhanced the Resistance the powers provided meaning you could hit the ED soft cap (~56%) with just two enhancements as opposed to three using standard +Res enhancements (+20% a piece). This has since been fixed, but given that it worked in the first place, it's pretty obvious how +DMG and +Res are tied. Anecdotally, the same was true for +Def vs. +DefDebuff and +ToHit vs +ToHitDebuff enhancement values given by HOs.
  10. But isn't the same true for all survivability bonuses? Scrappers get the exact same +Def and +Res bonuses as Tankers despite their lower defensive modifiers, and thanks to their better offensive base values, they can catch up with the Tanker defensively if they don't go for an offense focused build. Basically, I don't really see a huge issue if one AT that is strong offensively and weaker defensively invests a lot to shore up defense ends up closing the gap to another AT that is weak offensively and strong defensively but invests in improving their weaker offense. Exactly this,
  11. I'd have to disagree with this. Looking back at the introduction of IOs, the only things that were readily available and useful to a wide variety of characters were +Rech and to a lesser extent +Def (positional). Unless you had positional Def to stack with bonuses, everyone built for +Recharge because there were no competitive alternatives. The way I see it, the first iteration of IOs was boring. Everyone, regardless of AT or powersets, built for the same thing because only one category of exceptionally useful bonus (+Rech) was easily available. After that, we got typed Defenses so
  12. I'd probably keep my Illusion/Cold Controller. It's the closest thing to a do-it-all character I've ever played, capable of soloing just about anything but also providing a lot of utility to fast or slow moving teams. The character is also themed around being a mage/sorcerer which happens to be my favorite class in most MMOs.
  13. One of my favorite things about CoH is that unlike in most MMOs, pretty much everyone runs around with their own build instead of a copy pasted cookie cutter. Anything made with some common sense is (i.e. slot attacks for damage, low frequency game changers for recharge, etc.) is viable, and with full IO sets you're going to be more powerful than the game is designed for even if your build wasn't designed by a Mids' PhD. Having said that, there are a couple of generic bonuses I usually look for when making builds: Recharge: most builds will have some big powers that no
  14. Completely agree. If it were up to me, I'd give all melee ATs the 90% Res cap (Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes, Tankers), let EATs have their special 85% and keep the squishies at 75%. Why? The squishies have essentially zero access to DDR, so their Defense is easily taken away from them while Res comes with built-in stops against that. For these classes, it's a question of taking the more risky Defense with higher maximum mitigation (inherent volatility due to the binary nature of hit/not hit combined with low HP, as well as the likelihood of losing all of it) or the constant Resistan
  15. Oh dear. I'm not trying to support my case, I'm undermining yours, not by cherry picking numbers, but by following a standard practice of showing a proposition ["hard capping defense at 40% is a minor nerf"] false: counter examples. Besides being wrong twice in one sentence, the attempt at a gotcha is especially amusing when you avoid addressing any of the individual points presented and go into a long winded number rush to change the topic into "Def Scrappers vs Res Scrappers". To a diligent reader it might even seem you're using a lot of rhetoric masked as an argument supporting
×
×
  • Create New...