Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

570 Excellent

About Leogunner

  • Birthday 11/08/1990
  1. I know it's an unpopular opinion: Why is Power Crash such a large AoE? And it's pretty similar in direction to changed cone melee attacks being made into "hit everything infront of you and slightly to the side". I've always been an advocate for variety, even if it's not all that "meta". Why not give EM a "longer" cone instead, like a concentrated punch penetrating in a line? I dunno, likely no one cares as long as it changes their solo-maxed spawn kill times but it feels very same-y as just another wide-cone. I remember having wide cones was a selling point to a set's AoE, not a standard feature. Which sets now don't have a wide cone? Super Strength? And it's widely criticized that AoE is getting a bit out of hand too....
  2. We can worry about that after Stalker gets TW. Then I'm in agreement, some sets might be better left untouched lol
  3. Is this in offensive mode, defensive mode or taking into account a players is freely able to swap into said modes + efficiency mode?
  4. If you could come up with a mechanic/unique niche not covered by another armor sets' utility and give it some custom options that can vary it's look so it's not merely "spines/thorns/spikes" somehow, I could see practically anything becoming an armor set. Doesn't see anymore farfetched than some proposals for psi-armor that functions near identically to another set while also being conceptually covered by sets like willpower, SR or even Ice Armor.
  5. I feel that should be a trade-off of its duration. It is unflavorful for a SS character not to benefit their Cross Punch but it's more flavorful that their Ball Lightning isn't affected since that's not really a physical attack that would benefit from someone exploiting their physical strength. It also give sets like Dark Melee more of a niche with Soul Drain to boost such extra-powerset attacks but requiring the limitation of needing targets to feed said boost.
  6. It was a suggestion I made in the past. I personally feel that Rage should only boost SS attacks with said smashing damage proc. Stacking it wouldn't really be effectual besides +ToHit and there wouldn't be any negatives. I was always under the assumption that SS's powers (everything but Rage) sucked BECAUSE Rage was too good and no one would just agree to nerf it and fix the rest of the powers because it would result in a net decrease when taking into account stacking Rage. Ultimately, if Rage added damage to your attack rather giving you +dmg stats, that overall increases the set's maximum performance (i.e. in a situation were +damage buffs are used). I feel that would be the overall trade off of reducing the effect of personally stacked Rage vs maximum performance if Rage isn't contributing to the damage cap. If the +smashing damage were also affected by outside +dmg buffs would make the overall non-stacking nature even more beneficial.
  7. I think it'd be a cool aspect of the game to grant a user a kind of auto-analyzer depending on your origin, so a science origin character, when targeting Crey could then see any +stats they have in the target window. Of course you would need to give more mobs extra powers so you're not always sure what buffs they have.
  8. It is pretty amusing. If there's anything I enjoy about this game's combat, it's the deliberate nature of its animation-lock combat. Other MMOs tend to have lots of complicating factors like Blade&Soul's animation-canceling strategy that was and exploit just incorporated into the base game when power-gamers discovered some of a class' attacks have animations you can "cancel" with other attacks, basically skyrocketing the DPA...but again, you have to use certain attacks and chain the shit out of them to get as much ani-cancel and chain back to it after it recharged. I still don't understand the system fully... Oh, and Final Fantasy XI has gear changing macros to maximize the effectiveness of skills, spells and abilities. Some people even had gear macros they used while resting. I think XIV did away with that system but the literal maze of skill chains is what it was replaced by. GW2 navigates a combination of movement/placement where you're pretty much strafing 100% of the time. CoH TW occasionally has a long animation and ZOMG it's sooOOOOOO BAD loL1
  9. That wasn't a question, just a piece of advice.
  10. Ok, do you want a cookie? Feeling terrible to play is just that: a feeling. While you're entitled to your opinion, I frankly don't give a rat's ass about it. As for how they are reworking the set, they haven't put down numbers so I wouldn't go celebrating just yet. And do try not to shoot yourself in the foot with your own bravado, the devs can just as easily roll back changes during beta when so much "feelings" get thrown about, it drowns out genuine criticism.
  11. Okay, well did you at least ask what difficulty they DO run on? Without some kind of basis, we have no idea if the people you're asking have AVs on, if they are at +4 or -1 or any relevant information pertaining to difficulty. I have a variety of characters with various IO builds in various states of completion. While I do have a couple that are soft-capped at 45% to S/L, most of my complete builds only bothers to build up to about 32% def as that is the overall sweet spot to pop a purple if a situation calls for it. For the most part, I vary the notoriety of the missions dependent on the character (Tankers run at higher team count, Stalkers at higher level and various settings in between) but I tend to hover around +3/x4 on average (again, I don't have that many Tankers but I do play more Stalkers and Defenders) and to further clarify, that's not pushing anything for challenge, that would be just casual missions. +4 isn't beyond most of my builds but x5 on a build that doesn't have a loadup of AoEs can get annoying fast. On teams, I avoid most things in the 40+ range because it's boring. I only ever bother unlocking Alpha except on 2 characters whose concept particularly fits with Judgement and Interface. I don't bother with fiddling with TF settings because I just join others' TF and coast. It's rare that a TF will be "challenging", even for my mediocre concept-centric builds. Now to counter your point, those aren't options to make the game harder that you're mentioning, that is content I'm willfully ignoring. Not using incarnate powers most of the time, only teaming in certain level ranges, not filling out a complete IO build, intentionally aiming for lower values, using settings to decrease my potential, these are things I give up which is a completely different kind of challenge. My perspective is, there is not "this or that", you need a blend of both. You need both settings to a adjust your difficulty AND rebalancing so the upper ceiling poses a challenge. For whatever reason, you feel I want to just nerf everything and leave the game at that. No, I'd personally like to see +5 be an option (rebalance the purple patch a bit) and adjust things so that current +4 is around +2. Add in -2 as well, then add on extra powers to the mobs to make them more dangerous in groups. On top of that, add in "Promote Minion" and "Promote Lt" options among a variety of other stuff. If you have ever played Pokemon, it is a notoriously easy game and players use many self-imposed limitations to challenge themselves: nuzlockes which limit fainted pokemon to being discarded can be fun...but there are also other things like mono-type teams, solo-mon runs, no level challenge, no hit challenge, etc. I like nuzlockes as they still play normally and have some aspects of chance to keep things interesting but mono-type teams, solo runs, no hit runs, these are woefully NOT fun to most as a lot of those kind of runs require an ungodly amount of time grinding or precise calculations and research to manage. Not everyone likes the same kinds of challenge which is why I'm putting forward the argument that setting AND balance should be a better solution, not simply one or the other. Overall though, I'm curious how many run the game at the lowest difficulty setting or some adjusted version of it. Maybe if it was shown that a good amount run the game at -1, no bosses, perhaps I'd change my opinion. The upper and middle part of the difficulty spectrum is overcrowded while the lower difficulty is sparse and underused. If you've got a formula to solo max difficulty widely known and available, that illustrates the problem pretty plainly.
  12. I've heard a lot of feedback about TW being clunky and unwieldly. Maybe I'm biased but isn't that the point? The weapon is supposed to feel heavy and that feel is emulated by having a slow wind up as well as big boomy effects (the AoE, KD and damage, not the sound fx). Even with the intentionally clunky mechanics, it's not even that bad. Who cares if you're stuck in a long animation if you've got nearly an entire spawn taking a seat while you do it. Again, I'm not saying you should like it for it's clunkiness but that was supposed to be the price of its effectiveness. Granted, if they removed that aspect from the set while bringing it's mechanics/damage in line with others, that would be a disappointment. Instead, why not just get rid of the +def and the -res? Leave everything else the same lol
  13. Did you ask "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier?" [EDIT] A point of contention here: it's much easier to adjust difficulty to a point your team can manage it, basically lowering the difficulty to be beatable. That is a concrete measuring point. The opposite (adjusting difficulty to be harder) isn't as concrete, in fact I don't think anyone has put numbers to any of that side of the argument.
  14. But they and many others also acknowledge that large balance changes won't happen and would still leave a power vacuum in its place to be filled by something else. Just because someone doesn't explicitly state the good points doesn't mean are wholly against them. I'd say, people overall like that you can turn a "meh" build into a great build thanks to IOs. The problem is obviously the extreme cases that are hurting balance. Further still, it wouldn't be all that bad if said extreme cases were rather rare, but you'd be stretching the truth if you tried to tell me moderate-to-highend builds are rare. I guess we're all fretting over here. Okay guys, let's pack it in. @FUBARczar is telling us we're fretting and apparently that's bad, especially if you don't want to be called silly. If I'm fretting over IOs, you're fretting over people talking about IOs. Are you not sillier then? Is that before or after they neutralize foes with their superior buffs/debuffs? While there are some outlier buff sets, most of them can't buff themselves so rely on others for support and I'm sure they can become completely self sufficient with their comprehensive debuffs.... Oh wait, you point to an all Corruptor team? Well dang, where have I been. I thought support sets were *SUPPOSED* to be the equalizer with regards to pacing. Isn't that what we're all talking about? It's always been said that a full team of defenders is pretty much the pinnacle. I know that's not true now but I would suppose Corruptors should be right on their tail at least. Should *A* Corruptor outpace *A* Dominator? Depends on how safe that corruptor is compared. Should a *GROUP* of Corruptors outpace a *GROUP* of Dominators? You better believe it. I didn't think that was a controversial talking point.
  • Create New...