Leogunner

And your point of view is completely superfluous. No one said Regeneration WOULDN'T have regen. And just because Invulnerability is named Invulnerability doesn't mean the character is invulnerable. You're just pouting that just because the set requires active clicking that SUDDENLY it's not Regen?! Go home. You're drunk.

Then just rename Willpower to Regeneration. I've been over this whole concept shenanigans in other threads, describe it with similes and no one ever bothers commenting after that. No point wasting my time doing it again.

Because your OP is beating around the bush, not stating what you want to say and just implying you're ushering a conversation rather than just being frank. What does it matter that other effects are duplicated through sets/pools? De-clutter the secondary? What does that even mean? Worrying about keeping IH up...I'd suggest don't. Someone mentioned how regeneration can be wasted if you heal to max HP...well, how is making IH a toggle going to waste less? Because you don't want to hear why I don't want IH as a toggle. I say, if you want to have a passive regen secondary, use Willpower.

I also vote no.

Before I go into my critique of the suggestion, just wanted to make a comment: Lol this isn't even a ****ing snipe build. If you have to use an AoE foe generated buff to bolster your damage, 1.) you've already alerted your target to your location so you're not "sniping" and 2.) you're wasting Soul Drain if you're using a long ranged attack at long range on an AT with minimal ranged attacks. A competitive effective sniper needs to be able to reliably take out foes with minimal interaction with the target. Just doing loads of damage on a ranged attack is just Blasting (i.e. Blaster). That out of the way, my first impressions: Neat and well crafted/organized post. I feel, people that put some effort in making a readable and aesthetically pleasing presentation deserve extra effort put into the critique. Not going to lie, I was somewhat in agreement with some of the others criticizing the necessity for the AT as aspects that make it unique (being ranged, using stealth, utilizing long range, -perception and placate) are niche to pointless in this era of PvE or enclosed narrow spaces (PvP is a different story and might even be a bit stronger than most other DPS ATs). It's all busy work to take down a target that can just as easily be taken out close along with all the other targets around them. Few foes present a need to utilize such tactics that this AT's style wouldn't end up being a burden than just using a Blaster. Then there's the concept. Sniping, IMO, is more geared to special weapon types. While technically there are "snipes" in a log of ranged blast set, if we're being honest, who snipes with a bright blast of energy or a sizzling bolt of fire? It's too visible and gives away your position. Sniping is meant for silent hard to see projectiles (i.e. a Bullet). Now I can easily come up with concepts for things like Fire, Ice, Electric Blasts, Beam Rifle and the like, but those seem like special "techniques", not a whole kit to build an AT with. But then that is just surface level criticism of what the *AT* might face but stops there. If I were to make a "Sniper" AT, it would probably be a "mode" of some kind. Like instead of the inherent that Sentinels get, I'd have made the AT around shifting between long ranged high powered ST attacks and very short ranged but AoE buckshot-like attacks. As is, they feel like a powered down Blaster with armor...if they had a mode that alters their AoE attacks into attacks that do more damage to a single target (or just disable AoEs but power up the ST attacks), that might begin the differentiation of Sentinel and Blaster (I have more to go with that idea, but this isn't about my idea). As for mobility...I don't think mobility is a "thing" limited to AT. In this game, you're mobile if you have travel power pools and you're less mobile if you don't. Unless you're talking about animating attacks while moving... I wanted to say the primary and secondary layouts seem very "same"y to each other but I'm sure if I went through the other ATs' sets, they'd all have similar looking spreads. I think for this game, what makes the powersets play differently are the secondary effects and the set's gimmick mechanic so I'm sure if delving into the sets, there would be similar nuances as other ATs' sets. As for the inherent, I think it's overall solid if not very similar to Stalker's Assassination. I'd probably say a Stalker but just given ranged blasts would play similarly. Have you ever played Guild Wars 2? One of the newer release Profession Specializations was the Deadeye for the Thief Profession and it was one of my favorite released since. The way the Thief's profession mechanic works is, when you click Steal, you teleport to the target and steal an item from them which usually was a 1-time use weapon or item. The Deadeye changed Steal into Deadeye's Mark which, instead of teleporting to the target, you just put a mark on that target and instead of stealing an item, you get basically random "stare" effects (concept like a "death glare"). What marking the target does is gives you (the Deadeye) a series of buffs and/or increased damage on the target the longer they were marked. There were also interesting mechanics with regards to killing the marked target, namely instantly resetting Deadeye's Mark, incentivizing the killing of your mark before the mark expired. If I were reworking the inherent, I'd probably drop much of the "stay hidden" stuff and give it the inherent to mark a target (doesn't notify foe) that would give buffs if that mark goes down, things like mez protection and "marks" that act as a similar mechanic to Assassin's Focus but instead of increase crit chance, it improves ToHit and is consumed by the skills in the secondary to either buff yourself or debuff/control foes. The more marks you use with those powers, the more effective it would be. But this is all just a tangent. Overall, I don't think anything is wrong with your suggestion. It'd would just be a very niche concept. It'd work, it's not really like a Blaster or Sentinel (especially since it has quite a few powers exchanged), and would likely rule over PvP just like GW2 Deadeye with its initial un-reflectable Death's Judgement attack.

And I don't disagree, I just think considerations for power changes being "too extreme" isn't quite common sense. As for the Time Bomb example, I also think considerations for power changes shouldn't revolve around just 1 style of play. Just because "most groups" blitz groups of mobs at blinding speed doesn't mean all groups can or always could or will. Some players solo too and they don't all conform their playstyle to min/max IO def softcap standards. Some players solo *because* they can capitalize on such powers in a controlled environment where optimized standards aren't enforced.

But it wasn't an argument. It was an explanation of their policies.

I don't see how it's a strawman. A generalized example? Sure. But I feel this whole concept of this "rule" should be contextual. When presented with an alteration, asking if this changes the functionality or if the functionality should be changed is the spirit of the rule. One could say it's common sense but again, it depends. If someone proposed shorten the animation of Shadow Maul, I'd say that's encroaching on removing the powers concept so changing animation times should also be considered in the rule. Or do we want more examples of Energy Transfer animation nerfs? One might consider shortening an animation an overall improvement but it depends on the context of the power and alteration. It's not common sense. I've heard suggestions about changing Time Bomb into a toggle that you can initiate or stays on for a set duration before detonating (like Phase Shift having a limited duration as a toggle). Turing Instant Healing into a toggle is a boring and unsightly solution. If I'm not mistakes, it used to be a bit of a costly toggle to run offset by Quick Recovery... But stalkers don't get quick recovery and turning IH into a toggle again causes imbalances in managing END. It also just repeats the concept Willpower currently emulates. Those that just want massive passive regen, play WP. Regen is now the "healing" set along with Fiery Aura. If I were suggesting changes to keep Regen competitive with other sets but unique, add a moderate heal to instant healing (so now the set has 4 heals, Recon, Dull, Revive and IH) and then add stacking debuff resistance to all its heals (call it Calluses). Even if it doesn't have native defense (beside the tier 9) it could get defense debuff resistance temporarily comparable to SR among other resistances.

I was one of the posters who was writing off Brute Savage a few months ago. I asked why the set seemed mediocre on my leveling SM/Elec Brute and didn't get much answer on improving it. Since then, I've learned how the Stalker version improves on the set and the advantages of the bursts from scrapper. From what I've learned since I last played my character, my Brute will get better once pouring resources into him. So if I were pontificating on why others don't sing the set's praises is because it requires more IOs than a standard set like TW, Claws or WM. And I'm not saying strictly DPS. It's also survival prior to high set bonuses... At least to me, the sets lack of omph or mitigating effects means you're relying on the armor set in your 20s to not die.

A change I would advocate for is maybe a slightly wider cover but also a native chance of KD (maybe around 30%). After playing with the busted KD procs over the last few days, it was so awesome using that Tanker-Maul and flip over like 5 or more with it. It really is a great power, it just might not pay off if used against less than 3 foes. The KD would just be for aesthetics.

Does this guy count? He's my Geraldine/Legendary Aura Stalker. I'm not at my PC so don't have a screenshot of him in game.

Well, you could buff Voltaic Sentinel to grant the user a power boost specifically to -END and/or chance of applying -recovery for all your Electric Blasts powers. Or even some other effect like END>Health conversion so draining END heals you instead. Doesn't change the power from what it currently does but adds more utility to it.

FYI, I usually don't reply back to a post if I agree with it and have nothing to add.

If the set doesn't under perform and the power has minimal use or function, you can just leave it alone. No need to delete or replace. You could look into making the power more accessible or customizable but if resources are limited, it's best to do nothing.

I'd say, look to what the power is being used for currently and what the power was intended to do when developed and go from there. In some cases, you might run into a dead end and the purpose is moot and its use nonexistent. From there I'd say look at the rest of the set and take into consideration if the SET underperforms. If so, you might look into revising that power's intended purpose with the intent in mind. Basically, there shouldn't be a blanket response. Actions should be contextual.

I started to be come wise to my own failings in doing that. In essence, the various forms of fallacy are merely tropes that, if you can find fault in someone's position (easier if they use some sort of absolute statement or do not mention explicitly or implicitly that exceptions could put their stance in the wrong) you can basically categorize the whole argument as some sort of fallacy. I try to always take a central stance as it's easier to adjust as people present more information or persuasive arguments and it makes thrusting certain positions (such as @Super Atom's and others on this topic) into their logical extreme. And to @Super Atom, it's apparent @biostem's stance is it's not about votes (because that is popularity, not data) but rather if it can be proven to be in need of change. That instigates change even in circumstances where the majority is ignorant of an imbalance existing. I believe that's the point.

And people still sometimes moan about ED and the various nerfs. And I'll fuck off right about when people accept nerfs as willingly as they'll accept buffs...which is likely never.

And that's not changing a power. Please stay on focus within the scope of the discussion. We're talking about changing tier 7 into a single target attack that debuffs the target instead of just a moderate damage AoE. Even in your example, where a tier 2 is garbage, it's completely ignoring what the rest of the set does. If the rest of the set is balanced, what do you think buffing one of the attacks might do? It might push it over the edge of balanced. But again, that isn't in the scope of what we're talking about. It's changing the function of a power to not resemble its previous function for the sake of being more powerful.

Are you oblivious? It still requires 3+ power picks. What we got (inherent fitness) is making people more powerful moreso than having a pool that people feel bogged down taking being more attractive but still competing with other pools. ***** please. I didn't put words in your mouth. I state your intent. If people asked for power creep by majority, you're applying the rational that it is justified. That is exactly what you implied. You may not have explicitly said "power creep" but you didn't make an exception for such a situation but rather double downed on your argument. That must mean you endorse power creep if everyone else is on board.

And I'd say does it really matter if the power is under performing? What's important is if the POWER *SET* is under performing. If you're trying to make every power within every viable set nearly equally desirable, then it's no longer a question of "should this power be changed" but "what portion of the rest of the set are you willing to give up for it"? I suppose it's in our nature to ask for things and offer nothing in return, but it gets annoying seeing people constantly asking for free lunches. What you gonna pay for your lunch?

And I was one of those that opposed it primarily because it was something flavorful to accent a character meant to be particularly athletic...but also because it didn't make a difference! People still whine about END. If anything, it just made people worse at managing their own END. I'd have much rather they kept Fitness its own pool and then make the pool better (and most pools in general) so that CHOICE matters more. But then changing Fitness to be inherent isn't changing the powers in Fitness. You're making an argument for power creep via majority rule. Don't do that.

So no one's run into this issue? Or am I just blind and the setting is right on my face?

ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA ORA! With the bugged prestige enhancement chance of knockdown proccing 100%, it's super fun just Ora Ora ora'ing 5+ foes. I kind of wish shadow Maul also had a native chance to KD. Seems fitting.

As I was playing my Shield/DM Tanker I just made, an idea came to my head. What about an option to upscale certain FX? Like take the after-image punches in Shadow Maul and have the option of having GIANT after-image fits? Not super huge but just 2-3x larger? Same could be considered for Psi Melee with it's various psi-punch animations.

And even if that data proves what you say but you still like and want to use that power? Frankly, I don't give a damn what data proves, if it's between me using Shadow Maul and me not being able to use it or have some mutated min/maxed version that is devoid of the aspect that makes me like the power, I'd prefer a new set be created where you can have new powers. As is, I don't like Rage and don't play Super Strength at all. I can think of various ways to fix the set but I try to leave it all as hypothetical ponderings because I don't even play the set so it's no skin off my back if the set goes unchanged or not. This is a different story when talking about powerset proliferation tho. If the powerset doesn't exist on an AT, it's free chicken to change some of the powerset.