Monos King

They don't. They should.

I'd keep the level ups at every 10 levels as is now, its quicker to access than the alternative. /levelup is still there for if anyone wants to customize.

That'd be cool, and in the future I'm all for it. People have been tending to lean towards the standard since we can't do anything radical or different from the general MM format yet. We'd be seeing that happen for every single MM, and a mastermind archetype revamp would be so large it would likely be an entire issue. But I like that idea anyway. I had a couple of ideas for swap ammo though, and as far as that goes alone I think that could happen now.

Already said everything I needed to say in GB and I's thread performance wise (link above), but I wanted to echo potential cosmetic changes. Giving the medic (as the level 18 power) a makeover and changing the soldiers too would be a good idea. I'll just recap absolute needs. 3 soldiers, medic becomes special pet Vastly lower activation times Add greater debuff variety (-res, -special etc) Medic gets serum Serum changed to affect multiple pets (method can vary)

Agreed.

Mercenaries came up again, and the one thing that has bothered me about these changes are the possibilities of Serum not working exactly how we'd intend. This would be from the Serum being dispensed according to health priority, which might mean certain squishier soldiers get it a lot more than who we really want it to go to (Commando) and the fact that since the Field Medic could stack, the debuff might stack as well. If this were to be taken, hopefully: -Serum Priority could be given to the Commando via AI things -Serum's debuff could be made to take the higher of two values like how power boosts now operate If those could occur, it would be perfect (at least our vision of it). Technically, serum doesn't even need to keep the debuff, but giving it that weakness keeps it more balanced.

@blue4333 Tell me what you think of this thread:

You're being disingenuous. How about the dev team stop manipulating information. Heathens...

The reasons that are really here are subjective, moreso philosophical, which is where your disconnect lies. You aren't going to find pure fact or quantifiable data in people's preferences here, unless those are related to something like combat performance, yet you're attempting to debate this decision with facts like ebfp before was faster and these changes could be made even more convenient. You are right, of course. But fundamentally, what drives these and other actions is that the developers have an experience they want to maintain. That is the experience of the game's progression. How you progress through power (leveling) how you progress through zones (travel) how you progress through achievements. There is a weight to balance between qol convenience and the constraints that create this (or any) games sense of progression. "What" exactly something is better for is subject to scrutiny. You might call it arbitrary, but the HC team wishes to preserve that experience and the response to that is primarily positive, though there are of course moments of dissent like now. Even then, for the sake of precedent and professionalism, consistency matters. Despite this, the HC team has opted to reconcile some of that balance (Ouroboros at 1, base portal ebfp, faster than ebfp LRT) so that players could continue to travel similarly to before...so long as they earn the right. Therein lies the act of transitioning the dev command to the rules of the game, and the overall experience. I've read your suggestions myself. I don't find them necessary. To be fair, I also don't see much harm in them, but that decision isn't mine; it's that of the devs who will consider the above. The truth simply is, anyone who dislikes these changes and/or just wants old ebfp back disagrees with the developers philosophically, and there will be no winning for you there. This is something to keep in mind for you and @NewXToa. I think reductions in recharge time are feasible. I don't think they are needed. I doubt they are likely. If you're looking for an answer to "why does it have to be this way" chalk it up to philosophical difference.

Interesting...

lol @PeregrineFalcon I don't think mercenaries are in any danger of getting a combo mechanic. Not to mention all that would do is put their deaths on a hit counter. There has been a good deal of interesting and effective proposals on how to fix mercs up, so I'm sure no matter what the end results are they will be infinitely better than what they get now. It's on the radar, for sure.

Yeah wow this needs to be a thing no matter what, farming be damned. AE enemies are so skittish and cowardly, all they do is run away. It's like they all have Aeon or Akarists AI. It's been the most terrible experience fighting custom AVs as a result. Not only that, but there are cool "holding your ground" options for story mode and stuff too...this one in particular + infinity.

@Tyrannical I am inclined to agree with Grey on that matter. I don't think he's a troll or anything. Since I've said what I needed to say here, I'll be bowing out now. Mercenary proposals are calling to me.

Interesting strategy, separating your summation from your thesis. Listen. Your initial post, as Ruby so kindly iterated, is littered with dissent. This is not a problem in of itself. Your proceeding refusals to acknowledge the constraints of the developers with comments like what you ended with, and your disrespect of them with comments like are what I am informing you of, are bad, and construe contempt whether you intended it or not. And your obvious rebuke to my statement that you made a contemptuous comment, was obviously a rebuke. I believe that you are conflating two different conversations. I am not angry - you could say that's in your head. But I already stated that your feedback element was perfectly fine. You are more than welcome to deny, to defy, to dismiss and to decry what I have said. But I'll put it very simply, and repeat myself. This comment right here - you'd be better off not making. You're barking up the wrong tree with this kind of comment. Here's the advice: Don't do it. Take it or leave it.

Don't state the obvious and frame it as a rebuke. Contempt, as with all feelings, are captured through interpretation. And there is a lot of reason to interpret contempt through what you said. Lead of which, is how you expressed that the volunteer development team with limited time and hours "isn't doing well to release content". There was nothing constructive in that sentiment. Do you think that you offering that opinion without feedback to the internal process is criticism? You are simply lampooning them for factors outside of their control. I say this for the sake of your good and well criticism being further acknowledged. Regardless of how you feel, your comment was not useful, nor something any developers so limited would like to hear. You hurt your chances.

I think your opening reasoning is very correct and your criticisms are to be considered, even if I disagree. But this comment right here - you'd be better off not making. You must not realize how absurdly wrong note it is. Think about why, at least from your perspective, that might be. Realize that what you just said was not criticism, it was contempt.

I will be clear, the potential issue is that the two powers clash and not any measure wanting more stealth. The example of Superior Invisibility and Arctic Gust is the prime one, as the only reasonable cause of them not stacking originally would be to prevent too much stealth, but Superior Invisibility already does that on it's own. This is interesting because right now it it is mostly powers whose primary purpose isn't stealth that are subject to the lack of stack. Such as arctic gust, steamy mist...whereas Hide, a true stealth focused move, does. This is besides the point, though. It seems outdated that stealth moves that are not explicitly the same (Shadow Fall vs Invisibility, Steamy Mist vs Superior Invis) can't be used with each other. Whatever reasons for that don't hold up. There are those that are the same and shouldn't stack (Superior Invis vs Invis, Tactical Operative vs Stealth, idk about VEATS), but the AoE stealth moves might as well.

Pretty much that. It occurred to me that this would occur with superior invisibility and secondary AoE +stealth and went and tested it for myself. It is rather lame that you're forced to pick one or the other for essentially no reason considering what the powers offer and the state of concealment powers and options currently.

Yeah it is the first, but what's really puzzling is that stealth stacking couldn't be the reason they are prohibited from stacking because Superior Invisibility is the strongest in the game and automatically puts you at the cap.

I must say, I'd like to see that for quite a few temporary powers. Probably not the super OP ones...but that'd be cool. Edit: Not something I'm calling for myself, but with things like warburg nukes? If you still only get one charge per missile launch itd probably actually be fine. The nukes have long recharge and are unavoidably tedious to get.

I get Stealth + Invisibility being a no-go. How do we feel about powers like Arctic Gust still not being able to be used with powers like Superior Invisibility? Steamy Mist and Invisibility? I always thought having powers from secondary and primary just outright clash was odd. Is this something that should be reconsidered?

Ok we're off topic a bit but real quick...I don't know about that, and tanks really don't need to be more impervious to harm than they already are. On paper sure, hitting the soft cap and beyond will let only 5% of damage in, but it's not like the damage is a constant stream. There are attacks that slip through that will just instant murder you, which becomes more and more likely the more enemies you are surrounded with. You only have so much health, and as this very threads purpose is in proclaiming...luck is not always on your side. In fact, it's inevitable that it won't be. Try facing AVs with damage buffs like Statesman TF Lord Recluse, Miss Liberty, Aeon, or even the ones with build up or -res. Or even run into a fire farm. You're not about to be doing better with SR or Energy armor than you would with Radiation or Elec. I think you have a point about it being better for squishies due to the nature what not being hit can protect against, but it's definitely not the case for the melees. Res with some def is nearly always better than def with some res.

This is the funnest thread in a while. Here's something to keep in mind. The game is a fictitious simulation of reality; because it is fiction you can abridge physical reasoning infinitely to fit or dismiss anything *cough* Entangling Arrow *cough*. You can argue whether or not it makes sense in real life all you want but it won't matter because in translation to game, both sides will be right. This is why when making logic related changes you instead look at precedent and balance. Example: it mostly makes sense for psychic attacks to never miss, but as it's a game and that would be poor balance since there are other powers that would still miss, it's off the table. Instead, very few armors have def/res to them. Example: various powers could (and do) apply -defense logically, but the game primarily thematically limits it to moves that explicitly pierce or bypass armor (radiation, swords, bullets, etc.) In the end though, the logical criteria for -def and -res become so interchangeable in many places, that you see overlap. Logic can not be universally applied into games because you can't factor every straying element of reality, so you stick to what you can control. You leave your game mechanics to be an approximation of the infinite possible factors (like what if they slow down, or slip, or has a burst of energy) and move on. The only argument to really discuss here is whether or not removing the cap is OP. Personally, no opinion. This is exciting though.

Hilariously enough, I was just talking to Galaxy Brain about this exact idea. We were also discussing more weird ideas like defiance adding status resistance or other inherents adding health-scaling status protection. I'm personally all for increased Mez Resistance; people don't really talk about it and it's much more manageably potent.

The major concerns there are on top of everything I stated before, some of which you have yet to respond to. I mentioned in that very post that mez applications are generally "one and done". This means you rarely need anymore than one, or enough to shrug off 1 or 2 applications. You don't get assaulted that often. Powers like Clarity are there to allow you to fight through and survive mez. When you can already do this, you are contributing as normal, attacking enemies, likely from a distance, or escaping, and not getting mezzed again. I know this very well because I have the funds to have experienced Defense Amplifiers, which if everyone always had, would do the same and already raises brows. That is the effect of +4 status effect protection, which will shield you from up to 2 mezzes ordinarily, and when combined with existing methods it infringes on their territory even more. Not to mention, the below applies. As has been noted in various previous responses, squishies have other options. It is not laughable, you are ignoring the many other available options squishies have because you desire a melee playstyle on them, and fail to realize the significance of increased mez protection that is extremely coveted for this very reason of how potent it is. You should begin reading those responses. There is a reason a properly specced corruptor is a god of soloing. Because of the design of the game, it is not even remotely subjective. Your opinion on it is literally that, and thus subjective, and you need to do a better job addressing the above two concerns if you expect to get the squishies any additional protection outside of what they have. The "it's not fun" argument is the only one that has had any remote relevance thus far, as you have been rinsed with examples of how squishies can and do address mez, and dismissing the balance problems above so poorly doesn't add to it.