DSorrow

It doesn't need to break the game to warrant a nerf. If there is a noticeable lack of parity between sets, adjustments are needed and sometimes those need to be buffs. While TW doesn't currently break the game it does pose an issue for future content which I think we all want. If the new content is supposed to be at least slightly challenging for your average team, there are going to be a lot of teams who only accept top performing sets. Players looking for the easiest way to rewards is what you see in all games, including this one: 1-2 Brute + 6-7 Corr LRSFs back in the day, people grinding BAF for incarnates, MSR for merits (pre nerf) and so on. Yes, more difficult content still sees the light of day but any time there's an easy way, a significant portion of the community will choose it and sometimes this might have negative side effects. If CoX were to stay completely static until the end of time, then I don't think the current state of TW would be critical. As for pylon test envy, that's just a silly argument. Many of the posters in the thread who think a slight nerf would be justified (including me) play TW. It's not that I want it nerfed because I enjoy it like it is, but it's just impossible to hand wave all the evidence pointing to the fact that it's at least a bit too good. Because the evidence has me convinced that it's pretty likely to be nerfed, I think it's better to try and come up with an appropriate adjustment rather than try to argue that the lack of balance is fine.

I think that depends a lot on how the adjustment is carried out. If it's something that mostly has an effect on top end builds while still keeping them top end builds, I don't think it's going to be a huge issue for anyone who wants to approach the change rationally. What happened to EM wasn't a <10% maximum DPS adjustment but completely nuking the set and I think the general reaction to it was pretty appropriate. I'll be among the first on the barricades if the same happens to TW, trust me on that. I'd strongly prefer buffing up the lowest performing sets over tuning down TW, but the latter option is unfortunately a lot more practical so I'm expecting it to be the more likely scenario.

I mostly go for perma-X because I prefer consistent performance when it's achievable. For example, without perma Hasten I'd be running attack chain A part of the time and chain B other times which may be fun alternation for someone, but personally I dislike that.

I think this is slightly exaggerating the issue. I can't even remember the last time I've been mezzed because of -Rech, but then again I haven't really played my /SD with vanilla enhancements.

This is basically my position with the addition that I'm paranoid enough that I think it will be nerfed, so I'd rather be in the discussion of how to avoid repeating what happened to EM. Definitely this. I like your original suggestion as the DPS impact wouldn't be huge and the changes wouldn't require completely redoing attack chains and builds.

Definitely. The data indicates that TW is in need of some down tuning, but I'd hate to see it go the way of EM because I genuinely like the set. That's why I'd like to move the discussion from "is TW OP" to "how it should be tuned", unless someone can provide evidence that would contradict the currently well argued position that TW is at least slightly too good.

Well, in that case the only thing I can ask you to do is stop trolling because that doesn't help your argument nor does it help solve the potential issue of how to slightly tone down TW if it happens. Other than that, I think that wraps up any reason to continue discussing with you. Have a good one, partner.

So you're seriously saying that rebalancing Titan Weapons in the video game City of Heroes is an act comparable to brain surgery? This time, maybe false analogy [53]? Are we trying to check all the boxes on the list?

That would be a strawman [126].

No, I don't see any problem in that. I see a problem in your argument, though: Citation [Number 64]

I honestly find it pretty hilarious that you chose to write these two things one after another.

I just tested this with my TW/Elec. 161.25% Global recharge, T3 Agility, purple sets (without the straight Damage enhancement) in AoD / RA and a full set of Obliteration in Whirling Smash. I'm getting something under 1.5 seconds gap with this chain. It's significant enough that it's definitely over 1 second, but I can't be bothered to take a video and analyze the frames to say exactly how long the gap is. Paying some more attention into my attacks, what I think happens with TW attack recharges is that they start recharging when their Momentum animation time is over. I.e., AoD starts recharging after 1.716 seconds of animation and RA starts recharging after 1.452 seconds of animation whether or not Momentum is up . So: in the case AoD is activated outside Momentum, it would need to recharge in (1.188 + 1.452 + [2.904 - 1.716]) = 3.8 seconds for that chain to be gapless, or in other words, need 20/3.8 -1 = 422% recharge enhancement when +400% is the hard cap. in the case RA is the one that activates out of Momentum, AoD needs to recharge in (1.188 + 2.508) = 3.7 seconds obviously there's a gap if Momentum stops before Whirl In short, I can't make that chain work experimentally with almost ~180% Global recharge (Agility included) and ~90% Recharge enhancement and there's no way I can see that chain working theoretically.

Well, if in 14 pages you have been able to make a point that wasn't just resorting to ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, strawman arguments, slippery slopes, and appeal to popularity to try and squash dissent because what you feel is far more important than any information or data that can be gathered, then I'm sorry I missed it. The only point I'm seeing is "I don't want TW nerfed" which is a sentiment I share, but being completely honest there's nothing I have that would back up that a slight nerf wouldn't be justified. If you want to make a concise point that isn't straight up hyperbole, then sure, we can continue the discussion but otherwise it's pointless because to me it seems you've decided on an opinion that can't be changed. It has the best damage over activation cycle. Looking at the activation times posted earlier: Combined with damage numbers from Mid's (Brute), we get the following DPA: FT: 101.2 (includes DoT) --> 85.2 DPA [1.188 activation time in Mid's, Arcanatime] AoD: 108.3 --> 63.2 DPA RA: 134 --> 92.3 DPA RA is higher DPA than FT, but unlike RA you can activate FT twice within one momentum cycle so it will end up giving you better damage contribution. If you're looking at "best" attacks from a pure DPA point of view then stuff like Inferno and such are great, but it's pretty apparent that the overall contribution to damage starts to get more limited with higher recharge. RA would be the better attack if you could activate it as often as FT, and looking at the DPA numbers it's apparent that AoD doesn't even come close.

Because repeating arguments is fashionable in this thread: Especially in the case where you deliberately skip the best ST attack in TW (which is Follow Through) there's absolutely no reason it "should" be better than EM at ST damage or even good for that matter. I don't feel that TW is overpowered either, but I realize my that my perception of how the set performs is very subjective and that view isn't supported by the numbers. Like I said, I'm not a fan of nerfs, but after looking at the numbers I can't honestly say that TW isn't at least a little bit too powerful even if we account for the drawbacks. Hyperbole much? If a 10% cut in TW's maximum single target damage output in optimal conditions causes this, I'll eat my hat. Anyways, arguing against cognitive bias seems like an exercise in futility so I'll just show myself out and go do something more productive with my time.

This sounds really good. Covers lag and any circumstance where you might need to spend a moment planning your next teleport while also making teleport less clunky in situations where you just want to zip from place A to place B and continue running.

I park my inf on purple bids. Worst case scenario, I get cheap purples that I can use at some point in the future or flip right now for even more profit. Then again, with my net worth there isn't all that much to park as I don't really make an effort to earn more once I'm in the 3-4B zone.

Nobody is contesting that EM is quite crappy. It's not a build issue, it's an attack sequence issue. You don't need a respec to start using your best ST attack in a ST attack chain unless you didn't pick it in the first place, which brings me to: I don't think it's "finnicky" design if an attack chain comprising mostly of AoE attacks doesn't work well for ST. That's just trying to make the square peg go into the round hole and complaining that the benchmark has unreasonable standards when you're expected to use round pegs. But that isn't required for average performance. If you look at the numbers posted by @Hopeling on page 3: TW has good DPA even without Momentum, so you'll most likely outdamage a comparable attack chain from other sets. Add in Momentum and the difference just grows. Look, I know you don't want to see nerfs and I don't like nerfing either, but for me it's impossible to handwave all the evidence pointing to the fact that TW is maybe at least a little bit too powerful. Momentum as a mechanic can be pretty clunky at times and the set is really hard on Endurance, but even accounting for those it seems like TW needs to be toned down slightly (<--- the keyword here). Sure, I'd rather see everything else buffed but if we're being honest, slightly taking down TW is just a whole lot more practical. I'd be absolutely livid if they nuked TW to the level of EM because I really like the set, but even with a ~10% reduction it's going to be a top tier set but just with less gap to the next best performers.

Well it's funny you should say that when you have no qualms about EM being "built right and played correctly": Do you honestly see absolutely no issue if EM a single target specialist with a correct attack chain is almost matched by an AoE focused unoptimized attack sequence from TW against single targets? I have a TW/Elec character I really like so I really don't want it to get nuked, but I have to admit that the numbers posted here do indicate that TW should maybe be toned down a little. Reducing its damage output by ~10% at the top end would still keep it a top performing set.

Changing AD to a toggle would be a nerf. Right now I can choose to activate it every 60 seconds to get double stacked mez protection along with some extra DDR if it's needed or activate it closer to the once every 120 seconds mark if extra DDR/mez protection isn't needed. Take away that choice from me and you've nerfed my /SD Scrapper's performance against heavy def debuffers / mezzers for no gain other than the small convenience of allowing Hasten or Ageless to be autocast.

It's impossible because the answer depends on so many other things besides the AT. Basically you're asking something akin to "which are faster, motorcycles or cars?", to which you can't really give one universally true answer. Does faster mean higher top speed, better in a drag race or higher average speed on a track? What kind of track? Is it one lap or an endurance type of thing where refueling cycles and such matter? Are we comparing the best supercars/cycles or average performance over several price levels? Etc, etc. If you narrow down the specifics of the comparison, you can most likely reach some kind of conclusions. The comparison between debuffers is much easier. Besides actual support sets, there's only one set that's worthy of mentioning when it comes to debuffing: Sonic Blast. Two debuff classes have access to Sonic Blast to stack on top of the debuff set and Defenders get the higher modifiers which results in more total debuff. As for my personal opinion, I'd guess the DPS order (given ideal circumstances and comparable builds) should be Scrapper > Stalker > Brute > Tanker. Tankers get the most survivability, so they pay the highest price in damage. Brutes get the second most survivability (same defensive modifiers as Scrappers/Stalkers, but higher HP/Res caps). Stalkers have lower HP than Scrappers, but they get aggro avoidance tools and exceptional burst damage, so it makes sense to me that Scrappers should be allowed to do better sustained damage. Then again, Stalkers typically lose out on AoE so maybe they should have the edge in sustained ST? That said, I have no idea how universally that order holds when you start mixing in variables such as the various ATOs, varying levels of attack chain interruptions due to differences in survivability, enemies fleeing due to lack of taunt aura, differences in the damage sets and so on.

Came to post this. Also perma Unstoppable would be extremely OP in the sense that it alone would cap all of your Resistance besides Psi making Invuln sit in a similar place as Stone Armor where everything besides the taunt aura, T9, Tough Hide and Dull Pain are rendered irrelevant. I would like more useful T9s in general, but allowing them to become perma isn't the way to go about it.

The issue with challenge is that it comes in several forms and not all of those forms are fun for everyone. Personally, I usually classify PvE challenge in four categories: The numbers challenge. Basically the "are you tall enough for this ride" type of challenge where the difficulty diminishes as your gear improves. This is, in my opinion, a very artificial form of difficulty because it usually just boils down to handicapping the player in some way. Obviously these types of challenges don't work (unless maintained) in games where the players obtain more power over time through new content releases, and they also often suffer from that fact that in order to be considered challenging, they become very exclusive as very specific team combinations and gear levels are required. The puzzle challenge. Especially in the case of static puzzles, these also cease to be a challenge once the players learn what they have to do. The strategic challenge. As the name implies, this basically challenges players by requiring adaptive playing. In CoX terms, this could be something like special enemies that require priority targeting, such as Sappers. The don't make mistakes challenge. This is essentially the Dark Souls type of challenge. Everything is pretty fair, but mistakes are punished heavily. My favorites out of these are 3 and to a lesser extent 4. I also don't think 4 is really applicable to CoX because the combat isn't interactive enough to leave space for "mistakes" as, for example, damage mitigation isn't decided by skill as much as it is decided by RNG. Puzzles are fun at first, but it's actually quite difficult to make puzzles that don't just become obnoxious pauses from action once you've done them a dozen times. Finally there's the numbers challenge which I think is pretty antithetical to CoX in general. Obviously some forms of this exist and have to exist, for example level requirements and expecting basic enhancements at 50, but I don't think we should ever get into the territory where IO sets are required unless we're talking about silly challenges like solo ITFs and such. This pretty much leaves us with the strategic challenge which I think is the best fit for CoX. At higher levels of difficulty we should see a wider variety of dangerous individual enemies that would require special attention because they could debuff the tank, summon enough henchmen that aggro caps are surpassed, tank for the NPCs and so on. Up until now the design of dangerous enemy groups has been "let's slap every type of debuff and a DoT on every attack of every enemy" which basically leaves us with only one counter-strategy: nuke them before they nuke you. I'm all for some challenging content, but I'd really like to avoid the pitfall of the new difficult stuff just being obnoxious and not fun. Like @Murcielago I prefer to play the "easy" stuff most of the time because I'm here to kill skuls with a nuclear powered steamroller. If I want real challenge, I can push my limits by soloing an ITF or LRSF or then I can just play a game that was designed to be challenging from the ground up.

Isn't the cooldown of Rest already drastically reduced compared to what it was back in the day? I haven't really used Rest much but rather than make it automatic after a delay, why not just get rid of its cooldown entirely if recovering between fights is actually an issue?

A lot of the time I play with the game muted or the sound way down so sound effects don't really bother me enough to stop me playing a powerset. There are only a handful of things that really stop me from playing a powerset: It's weak. While no powerset is bad to the point of being unplayable, I have a hard time enjoying powersets like non-Sentinel Electric Blast or Tanker Ice Armor knowing the character would be meaningfully more powerful with another primary or secondary. This only applies to a handful of powersets so it's not a huge limiting factor, fortunately. It doesn't fit my playstyle. Regeneration is probably the best example I have because it offers very little proactive mitigation so it feels kind squishy in a lot of content with burst damage and when it isn't squishy, I feel like the clickies distract me from my main purpose: dealing damage. It's ugly or covers my whole costume. Most notably Stalkers and stuff like Granite Armor because not seeing my costume/looking like anyone else of the same AT/powerset takes away a big part of my character's identity. I do enjoy a Warshade, though, but I guess that's down to the pretty unique gameplay that comes from constantly switching between the different forms. It feels "clunky". Don't really know how to describe this, but it's basically sets like EM with glacial animation times without enough oomph to offset them.

But is it double across the board or only in a very niche scenario such as a Pylon (immobile punching bag + IO'd to the gills character built specifically for fast pylon times)? How does the relative performance change if you take out incarnates, swap to SOs only or even just uncommon IO sets? How does the choice of secondary influence the relative difference? Besides, pylon time as a metric is pretty one dimensional because it represents such a niche environment. I don't see anybody claiming Spines/ or /Fire is OP because Spines/Fire Brutes are great in fire farms. IIRC, my TW/Elec Brute got around 4 minutes on the pylon test which is a great time, but nowhere near exceptional. This is with a purples out the wazoo incarnate build for general gameplay. When it comes to gameplay that's not beating down on AVs, I have to echo @Veelectric Boogaloo: Basically I think TW is a great set, but I've yet to see evidence that it's overpowered. Better than some others? Sure. Significantly better than some in specific settings? Definitely, but isn't that the point of having different powersets available to us? I think we have more evidence for buffing the sets lagging behind.