Foxfyre

All that said tho.....I still agree with capping the Abyss and leaving the Hive the way it is. Best of both worlds.

Except you're completely discounting human nature. People would act as I said. The number of people who afk on the gathering rock during the whole process except when it's time to go in and attack Hami, and then run right back to the rock without assisting in clearing the buds or attacking GM's is proof enough. The number of people who still pull GM's to the rock to troll people and refuse to stop despite multiple requests is proof enough. The current Hami raid has spoiled people. And it would take weeks if not months to get people back to the mindset of how it worked on Live.

A comparison to what happened on Live isn't really accurate here. Live never had the ability to have 3-5 leagues of people in a Hami Raid. Homecoming can. People are used to being able to get in no matter what. It creates a totally different player dynamic. For those who do manage to get in.....I doubt we'll see willingness for them to try to alt due to fears of losing their spot.

Hamidon dies usually within one minute from the time we send everyone into the goo. Once hami dies you're free to fly away from the bowl and get away from the lag. We kill Hami 3 times a night. Reward > 3 minutes of lag.

See my above post. A limit of 50 is too restrictive....and actively discourages players from alting to a more needed AT due to fears of losing their spot.

What's ridiculous about it? Even with the lag, in 30 minutes or so you walk away with a Hami-O and 120 merits. Reward > Annoyance. Although I will agree that turning the Abyss into a zone capped area for hami is a good idea. You could even cap the Abyss at 100 (2 Leagues) and still not have much lag. While I agree with the intent behind capping at 50, it's not realistic. With only 50 people able to enter the zone....if you don't get enough damage, or enough holds for the greens, or enough tanks that can hold aggro.....you could wind up being boned. Because people would be resistant to switching to alt that could be of more help because in the time it took them to switch, someone else would enter the zone and take their spot. I'd say 100 is better.

Oh, not to mention..... The way we run raids right now, here's what the Aggro team looks like: 1 Tank taunting Hamidon 6 yellow Mito aggro Tanks 1 Hami Attacker. Total: 8 people (1 full team) We assign the 1 person for the team as an "attacker" so that the other tanks can go taunt and not have to worry about not getting their reward because they aren't attacking. So....you're telling me that ONE person managed to do 10% damage to Hami? Really?

10% in no way is correct. The math doesn't even add up on that. Let's break it down..... So, we already know that hami damage is per TEAM, not per person. So your TEAM has to do enough damage, not just you individually. We typically have AT LEAST 3 full leagues. 3 full leagues = 18 teams. If 18 teams had to do 10% damage that's 180%. If each team had to do at least 10% damage there would be entire teams that weren't getting the reward table. And the effects would just keep getting worse as we hit 4 and 5 leagues. Which can and has happened. Even when you consider Hami's healing.....hami doesn't get the chance to heal THAT much when you throw as many people at him as we do.

@boxhunterHamikaze (We call it Zerg) style is how we do it on Excelsior now as well. As @Apparitionmentioned, we've been doing it this way since early July. How does Indom's differ? We have tanks taunt the mitos, 1 tank to taunt Hami and then everyone else just beats Hami down. Hami goes down in a minute or less this way. My experience is you need at least a league and a half for this method, however we usually have at least 3 full leagues anyway. Also, if there's anything you guys would like to see added to the Hami guide let me know. Edit: I think I see now. I never added the FULL ZERG method because at the time of writing it we still didn't know if it was possible. Adding that now. Edit 2: Updated! If there are any other suggestions or ideas let me know.

Hang out in Pocket D or Ouro.....you should find iTrials forming.

Hey guys, just wanted to let you all know that we've decided to take a break from raiding. For many of us.....CoH burnout happened a lot sooner than we thought it would, and some of us are ONLY logging in now pretty much for the raids. We've hit burnout time. We love that so many of you come join us every night. Sometimes we have 3 full leagues of people! It's awesome! However.....we need a break. With that said, if anyone else wants to step up and start leading please have at it! Everyone knows how to do it now, it should work out fine for anybody who wants to do it. Thanks for the great memories....we hope to come back and raid again soon-ish. You may even see some of us at some of the other raids that hopefully spring up. We just won't be leading for a while.

Original post updated.

Ok, now I know for sure you're just a troll.

As stated in Profit's original post, the game was balanced around SO's. Brutes could not come close to Tanks at SO power levels. To give an example: A fire/fire tank vs a fire/fire brute. For a fire/fire tank to cap S/L resists, it only needs about an additional 18% in S/L resist over what the powers from it's own set give it. (This may include the Tough power....I forget as I'm going off a remembered conversation I previously had.) For a brute, that number was a bit over 40%. Thanks to incarnates and IO's, A fire/fire brute can still achieve capped resist. So no, it's not perception. It's actual numbers. Brutes were supposed to have extra damage at the price of being squishier. Tanks were supposed to be sturdy at the price of lower damage. Now that both AT's can easily achieve capped resists, something should be done to make Tanks stand out as actually being the Tank, and not just a weaker Brute.

I'll leave this up to interpretation, although I will say that me and Profit had many discussions about this issue before he made this post, so I have the benefit of understanding his mindset a little better. However, while the word fun may not have been used, he does pretty much start off his spiel with "Tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO power levels". If one AT is completely negated by another, and can out perform the other, then it's pretty easy to then say that makes the AT not fun to play as well.

1. Because it makes them more "tankier", and provides a difference between the tank and the brute that fits their thematics. The tank is supposed to be able to hold aggro. That is the tanks job. The brute is supposed to do damage while holding aggro. Increasing tank magnitude, or increasing the tanks aggro cap fits the theme of the AT, and provides a clear difference between the two. 2. -Res is better than -def. A defense debuff just means your more likely to hit. A resistance debuff means you're going to do MORE damage when you hit. And once you get past being a lowbie and have decent accuracy most toons don't have to worry that much about IF their going to hit something. Especially once you get to IO sets with accuracy and to-hit bonuses.

This is likely impossible as the old version may not even be in the code anymore.

You just walked yourself in circles. Profit: Here's a fix for tanks because they aren't fun to play and there's no real reason to play them over Brutes. Here's some changes I'm suggesting. You: My issue with tanks is that they aren't fun to play. And that they need changes. At this point, I'm wondering if you even read what you're replying to.

Gonna go one further and say he's actually suggesting a fix to a problem that isn't even a problem, and not only is it NOT a problem the solution that he's suggesting is already implemented. He just doesn't like HOW it's implemented. You can teleport to Cim or RWZ from ANY location in the game via the LFG tab.

It isn't toxic to point out that the feature you're requesting already exists in the game. It also isn't toxicity to point out the feature isn't suddenly invalidated simply because it doesn't work the way you would prefer it to work.

T B H I am surprised to find people who think vendoring the recipes is a good idea. I'm pretty lazy about making money but the return on investment for making all your yellows and oranges and converting them until something sells for a reasonable price (I aim for about 1.5 mil minimum; if it already sells for at least a million I don't bother converting) is usually pretty good. I would guess my average is about 500k to 1 mil profit per recipe, as opposed to... 1k or 5k for vendoring. Not everyone has the time or resources to sit around converting everything to something decent. And if I can only make 1k at the AH on a recipe vs 5-10k at the vendor, I'm choosing the vendor. EVERY. DANG. TIME.

So....everyone should suffer with non-vendorable loot because you're afraid you might accidentally click a button? NO.

Five minutes. If you were an actual programmer, and not a made up one, you could have done this already. If this were true the OuroDev team would have CoH recompiled into modern day code already.

Wrong, you obviously know nothing about coding, and selfishly impede real progress. Many people, including former CoH devs have admitted that the CoH code is "spaghetti". The OuroDev team that's working on cleaning up the code has admitted this as well. Just because you have no clue what you're talking about doesn't mean other people are "selfishly impeding progress".

It would take someone five minutes to implement this feature vs thousands endlessly hobbled and spending time quitting and rejoining groups to get to these zones. Wrong. It is implemented. The LFG feature. With as many different contacts and places you can teleport to with LFG you could honestly use it to get around without the benefit of any other teleports for the most part. Just because a feature isn't exactly the WAY you want it, doesn't mean the feature isn't what you're requested.