Leogunner

My opinion: I feel it's not unfair that certain ATs benefit more or differently from certain sets across ATs. Some coniserations: Stalker Spines takes a penalty in AoE damage, control and crit chance despite their being the burst damage melee but gains some ST DPS. Brute/Tanker MA gain more benefit from the low tier Storm Kick granting +def which tends to carry more utility than a small +% crit chance. Anything that grants a substantial amount of +dmg or high scaled damage benefits a Scrapper far more. If Energy Blast's secondary function isn't as beneficial to a Defender or is the same just means you'll have varying degrees of utility depending on AT from a set in a vacuum. If you just want to feel Defender isn't shafted because the secondary effect doesn't scale, why not grant it some other benefit instead, like +range, or slightly reduced endurance costs? As is, I think Energy Blast specifically is just a middle-ing set. It grants soft control to any AT that uses it and Blasters and Corruptors just happen to do more damage with it. Not every set should be taxed the same as every set doesn't have the same levels of output.

You've got the wrong person. Rebalancing to IOs? What does that mean? Without context, I couldn't say we should or shouldn't rebalance for IOs. I DO feel IOs should be rebalanced, likely with categorizing a lot of the +def and +res bonuses to the same tier (tiny, small, moderate, etc) so it's harder to get a large amount of defense or resistance. Should difficulty be balanced around min/maxed builds? You've definitely got the wrong person if you think I condone balancing around min/maxed builds.

Depends how far away from the ground they are.

And this is why we don't let the kids drive the bus.

Frankly, I don't think I'd like a chaining snipe primarily because the way I picture a chaining snipe, the "chain" part would be nearly instantaneous the moment it strikes the initial target and would need a good flashy "ZZZZKKTTT!" like animation to go with it. I don't think a good flashy animation would be in the works for it. Besides, you'd also need it for every other AT that gets Zapp. Just a what if, but what if the whole "all attacks having a chain chance" was its means of spreading -recovery? Just a moderate long lasting (15secs) of -recovery per target chained.

Adding attacks is something else I had suggested before to VS. Some suggested giving it a -recovery or a pulsing sleep aura. A chain attack wouldn't be too bad either. But adding the "chance to chain" on casting VS was just a tossed out idea. My first choice would have been the Power Boost to ENDmod effects. There's a lot of ideas with what you could do to improve electric blast.

No, I was saying, when you cast VS, you summon the pet AND get a buff that gives your blasts a chance to chain. It's adding a bit of additional benefit to the "needing to cast it frequently" part people complain about current VS.

Well then, THAT could be the effect Voltaic Sentinel applies. For 20sec upon casting VS, all your electric blasts have a chance to chain.

The main part of my suggestion here: is granting powers (and randomly from a set pool) for enemies to liven combat up and requiring more adaptability rather than just nullifying foes via overwhelming damage or mitigation. There are mobs with damage patches currently, some of which only exist to die and put down these damage patches. Most, however, are generally ignored or mitigated by just taking a few steps to the side of the mob cluster. I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion, but I think more can be done...like what if some of the Carnies in the group had World of Confusion and/or Misdirection as well? Okay, mostly mitigated by stacks of Leadership toggles, but if only 1 member is using Leadership, for example (or the unfortunate circumstance when no teammate has Leadership toggles), those effects can pose a difficult threat. The other portion of my suggestion in that thread is creating the dynamic of "toggle dropping" and the ability for powers with KB having the chance to "knock off" those toggles depending on their KB mag. Give mobs some more KB and suddenly, those melees have to pay attention to their toggles rather than just having infinite safety (it also gives more advantage to armor-set buffs that are clicks thus cannot be knocked off or dropped). Of course, I suggested this as a "difficulty mode" as I'm sure people would complain at making mobs more obnoxious (which this basically is doing) wouldn't be greeted if brought on board across the whole game. I was thinking of lots of aspects of this (making mobs harder) to include player incentive, viability and difficulty of implementation and so on. Overall, a lot of thought should be put into "difficulty" beyond the tools we currently have and deserves more discussion than it gets (not including the ceaseless chatter about nerfing yourself, shouts of unbalanced IOs/incarnates, whines of playing games to relax, etc etc). A good discussion about what makes an encounter "difficult"...

I suggested adding a buff upon casting. Currently, Blaster does get a defiance bonus for using VS (at least I think so, every other click power gives defiance +dmg). Give VS a +ENDmod buff for 30sec when cast or a buffed chance to drain endurance or maybe something crazy like stacking +absorb for endurance drained. Think of it like Static Shock using his powers to create and control electromagnetism to block attacks using objects or energy around him.

And I think that part is wildly taken out of context to just mean "If you try to bring up the so-called "Cottage Rule" we can just bring up this part and throw it all out". The reason that it's at the discretion of the dev tends to hinge on the necessity to change at all. Yes, they can choose to change something just because they want to but the likelihood of that happening will hinge on not just if it's a good idea, not just how much effort would be involved but also what effect it'd have on balancing the game. Not saying it won't ever happen (that devs would attempt to violate that rule) but you're aiming for constellations aligning AND lining up in your favor.

The problem is, the people who play the game most often and most avidly don't know what's good for them. When you just have your cake and eat it too, you get unstable servers that delete everyones characters after an update. Sometimes you need an adult who knows how to practice some restraint to put reason over hedonistic desire otherwise you just ruin everyone's play experience just because you wanted to be pandered to.

To counter your argument, what about Repel? Or Hurricane/Repulsion Field? I think the advantage of Transfusion isn't that it requires you be in melee range to get healed but rather you can heal a teammate that is in melee range while you are safe...inverse as Twilight Grasp can heal a teammate near you. But what I'm getting at (very slowly) is that no matter how minimalistic you try to keep the changes to the support sets, you're going to need more than just "make a team buff into a self-affecting buff" to facilitate melee range. So if you're going to be altering the support sets for this AT, might as well make it more custom fit rather than giving it hand-me-downs.

But if you create a concept that isn't fleshed out enough and people question it or take the discussion in a whole other direction because of it, do you get the desired results than if you just fleshed it out in the first place and get direct criticism of the suggestion? Like the portion you bolded, do we need something that is primary support? Why are we making it primary support? Considering that usually the primary is set as the primary because it is the stronger of the two sets, how does that pair off with the secondary if the scales and invisible nerfs set the primary as the weaker of the two? All in all though, there's no doubt people would enjoy a mix of melee and support of some kind so there's no reason to test the waters with ambiguous proposals. Ultimately none of the suggested ideas will be used but perhaps portions of ideas could make it into the finished project...which is why I'd criticize hazy suggestions by criticizing their haziness. And FYI, I did read the post. I had to skim it though to respond to your previous response. My take-away from it was mostly focused on the fact that it has a complete array of support powers but with a decent helping of self defense crammed in thanks to turning the mez protection and PBAoE click or toggle into a self-buff as well. The only stipulation it pays is requiring melee range for its attacks which it seems to gain back benefit from by having more damage than 2 out of the 3.5 support ATs...as well as having an inherent that buffs its damage temporarily when casting buffs. It'd basically be a Defender with melee attacks and better self-support which seems unfair. Considerations can be made and sets can be altered to balance this but again, I haven't read any here. Things like a reverse Gauntlet effect on the attacks that enhances ST damage attacks but AoE attacks have shorter range/radius and have a smaller target cap...but that might make the melee portion less fun overall. That's fine, conceptually. Although with the recent buff Tankers got, their toes really aren't going to be hurting if stepped on while piddly Defender back there scraping by with Proc-monster IO builds likely don't need anyone testing their boots. Just saying, having a "tanker" with pre-buff damage and attack ranges but some of Corruptor-level support powers feels like it's not edging anyone out of their comfort zone...basically being a Tanker with less damage but way better support lol. We can keep pointing fingers but I wouldn't try assuming people criticizing a suggestion is because they don't like it. It could be entirely the opposite and said individuals have had conversations at length about this very subject and rehashing those arguments because they've been ignored, glossed over or forgotten in another similar suggestion. The funny thing I notice is, as the thread continues, the whole "minimalist" approach stops looking very minimalistic and requires more and more "work" to make it function. Hopefully, sooner or later, we can start portioning off these ideas into branches and get more focus on how to make a better branch rather than just reinventing new twigs.

Well the reason I say what I do about the idea being clear is because the effort to bring it all together seems half baked. It doesn't elaborate on the other side of support (debuff, which seems completely absent from interacting with the inherent), and I'd like to hope the interaction with the secondary is somewhat noticeable to the player since the buff granted sound short term. Then there's the concept which sounds pretty white bread (basically a clone of Defender). And the justification (not enough support primary)? There should be a purpose for everything. Is this suppose to compete directly with Defender for the support top spot? Is this suppose to entice melee to play support? Who is the target audience? It all comes off like you're aiming more at the minimalist portion of the idea and not focusing at all on the concept, audience or entertainment factor. As for your elephant, I can separate my previous ideas from other suggestions quite easily, thank you very much. The only reason I brought up mine is a joke like reference to the name and how I also "borrowed" it. But I also shouted out the person I stole it from. Not saying you should too but at least take a joke if you're not. But if you really want to delve into the aspects of a tank vs whatever this suggestion is supposed to do (if assume it's similar to Defender) I have clear reasons why I didn't want my Interceptor to be a clone support role and why I don't think it's a good idea to make a clone support role in general. As is, there is already 3 clear support ATs and 1sub-support. The difference between the number of support (3.5) and the number of DPS (6.5) is that DPS dominance is wholly unobtrusive. Tanking is largely an untouched field (2.5 w/ MM being the half) and control (mostly just 2, with partial mez spread unevenly among certain sets) so these have a clearer purpose to be focused on (part of my justification) but it also has clear interaction with the secondary being its ability to grab aggro. And your term "bastadization" (I skipped it despite not enjoying your use of the term there) also flies in the face of balance considerations presented thus misinterpreting why fitting in armor to replace some support is more balanced than just fisting self defense in support sets which upsets the balance between the other support ATs. Also also, is the assault sets now just a bastadization of melee and blast sets? But again, this isn't about my suggestion versus yours, my criticism was focused on the fact it was unrefined and lacked conceptual continuity and purpose and seemed focused on being "minimalist" thus appealing to an audience whom benefits most from such a goal.

Seems forced and incomplete. Like you had part of an idea clear in your head so started a write-up but then got to the uninteresting bits and just tossed something down. Making a "minimalist" suggestion seems to portray your target audience is the devs, not the fans. And then you use my AT name for it (that I properly stole) and do nothing with the concept. I'm sure someone will chime in liking it. I'm not a fan lol. I suppose having an AT that attempts to "standardize" the Support sets (because they're the most varied sets we have still) may not be a bad thing.

I'm not particular concerned with dev time or implementation difficulty. My aim is exploring difficulty as more than just a "setting" to turn off and on but rather a line of content that is somewhat unique. I've dabbled in the various mission settings and flashback but it feels more like a level cap shift rather than actual added difficulty.

You can make up a random name and then rename for free at any time. Just some advice from someone who is horrible at naming characters. Inspiration may come as I'm thinking of their past history or how their powers work. Also, I was surprised that I managed to get Zero Kelvin for my Psi/ice stalker. I even decided my mutant polar bear with cryokinesis has the real name Kevin to keep his identity a secret lol. But come on, Zero Kelvin? That wasn't taken? That's absolute zero, BTW.

I didn't particularly intend for that as I think it might be difficult to program that way without making lots of similar copies of a mob type. I could see that working within the scope of my idea, though. What I had intended is for the difficulty slider to alter the strength of their powers. So using the -1 setting on a Hellion that happens to have Fire Shield, the effectiveness of the shield would be reduced by (ballpark estimate) 25%. +0 would be at like -10%, and +1 would be neutral. At higher difficulty, it might be difficult on a fire blaster to take out even minions with splash damage alone. And Street sweeping isn't affected, only instances. That being said, I think another consideration might be how the powers skew damage types. Smashing and lethal are both balled into the above Hellion example and would face resistance practically any time a mob has some sort of extra armor toggle. A way to remedy this might be to adjust such powers so the s/l portion isn't enhanced by difficulty unless it is a power aimed at s/l like invulnerability... Or maybe certain effects or powers within primary s/l sets can get added utility in the ability to drop toggles in some way.

Well, like I said before, I proposed the suggestion that way not to make it easier but so that all the content can be scaled for any level so exemping isn't required.

Ok, I just tested it on a few CoT mobs, the Spectral Daemon Lords and the Behemoths. I used Will domination the moment they finish the animation for their toggle power which suppresses the power. I then immediately cast Mental Blast to wake them up. On all cases, their toggle power didn't reactivate once awakened. I've heard this explanation that NPCs can't use toggles before and that these powers aren't true toggles but behave exactly like toggles. I didn't test if the powers detoggle once drained of END but if that aspect can't be done, I'll take hard mez merely suppressing toggles (maybe have sleep have a rolling chance to detoggle every few seconds they remain asleep) and KB having the chance to drop toggles completely, giving KB another niche in this mode. Feel free to bring up more tests as I don't think people really put much thought into those mechanics...I guess another thing I could do is get off my lazy duff and start making AE mobs like I used to. I just know that mob AI acts weird when you give them too many powers. That being said, back when I was making mobs, giving some of the minions of my suped up Hellions faction Rise of the Phoenix and some Melt Armor made dealing with quite difficult. With that RotP untouchable state afterwards means you have to bide your time with those.

I also forgot to comment about Ouroboros and re-doing missions which, frankly, isn't particularly important. I could see a lore reason being made that requires an extensive unlock process...but more importantly, I forgot about how Incarnates factor into the suggestion... I honestly didn't think that far. Unsure how they'd fit in but maybe these could link into the mechanics of flashback. I dunno. Open to ideas.

I can only presume this thought is in regards to the suggestion making all 40 powers available at level 1. I'll reiterate that the purpose of that is to incentive players to play in this mode. Because in MMOs, you tend to tie risks and rewards in some way. This incentive allows players to have a character who has all their powers and techniques from the start rather than being allowed to or trained to use these powers as you acquire security levels. Another incentive is that the content is no longer gated by level so players can duke it out with scaled up Skulls and Trolls rather than be limited to the same level ranged foes one cycles through once they reach max level. So it's hardly "more power" especially when you take into consideration the plethora of other harsh restrictions. In fact, you'll be at the exact same level of power once you unlock all the slots and obtain all your enhancements...it's just that the journey is different (both in the progress of obtaining slots and enhancements as well as the mobs you fight against).

I don't see it that way. I do see a possibility for a bit of a divide but it'd be more in regard to players who have advanced their diffusion dimension build vs those who have not. Participating in certain TF/SF without advancing the build may cause more difficult encountered which might be beyond some player's patience, kind of like how some will rage quit if a wipe/near wipe occurs and dipping out asap. It wouldn't be particularly elitist not interacting with non-diffusion build because the only way to play together is using the same type of build. And all will have access to both. It would require a new type of respec, particularly with regards to slot unlocks making slotting available for a power. No new enhancements. It would be all the same (SO, DO, IO and sets), the only difference is how they are flagged. They are attuned and flagged as untradeable and only slottable in the special build. Same set bonuses but it requires another level of commitment to get all your sets without farming inf. I mentioned that this difficulty is only for instanced content. Not Street sweeping. In fact, the only method of gaining exp for this build is mission completion, not individual mob defeats. Yes, the idea would require more work. Lots of coding. I'm not denying the difficulty of implementation.

Are you taking into consideration that the foes would also have increased stats and varied powers? I say, how would you fare in level 40+ content but with few or no slots? Because technically you could go straight to Bricktown right after you roll up your character and those Outcast missions you have in the hollows would have minions and LTs with powers like Fire Shield, Smoke and Rise of the Phoenix.