Leogunner

None of that was targeting you. I merely looked at the first page of the suggestions forum. It doest cause any sort of clutter to have separate threads.

I guess you prefer to fill the suggestions forum with threads that suggest something cosmetic or maybe an improvement to a power that isn't controversial so gets maybe 5-8 replies about 3 sentences on average that pretty much agree and cordon off all those nasty nerf suggestions in to one mess of a consolidated mish-mash thread?

I don't see a problem keeping such threads separate since they often cover different subjects. There's usually 1 or 2 threads like this on the front page at a time. That's not a problem.

Hero moments, you say? So a hero moment is rushing into a hoard of toddlers that are wearing pillow filled boxing gloves who uselessly flail at you while you stomp them in the dirt? I usually attribute hero moments to self sacrifice. Putting yourself in danger so that someone else can survive, saving someone on the brink of death, going into odds you know are against you because it's your duty, making the ultimate sacrifice. Now if you said villain moment, I could see that. Hero moment? That's subjective, IMO. Seems like people are just dressing up being OP tyrants as being a superpowered god then later tattooing some virtue about sacrifice on their ankle and pretending they are actually risking anything to call themselves heroes. But then I've always been the CoV fan but maybe it was because they seemed the underdog here. I'm just saying, "hero moments" is a vague subjective viewpoint that will change from person to person. Do you think just because you managed to survive a hoard ambush in a team because you are IO'ed out with capped def, that you are more a hero than those that didn't make it? Or are we talking about something other than a "hero moment"? I don't see it as being a wrong way...it might not be a popular way, but the game seems to capitalize on the thrill of large hoards. Making it so you can't circumvent the danger of such circumstances doesn't seem like it'd be wrong, especially considering we used to survive these circumstances without IOs. At best, you could say it's wrong because one couldn't solo those odds. Care to elaborate? I'm actually ignorant on the subject. I participated in these but I just don't remember much about the exotic damage. Me? Just to clarify, I'm not the OP so I hold different views. When speaking of hypotheticals, I don't leave anything off the table (or I try not to). So I could be talking about one, the other, both or neither. While I can accept something that is flawed, I can also accept that the flaws hurt the product and things could make it different while also accepting that even if fixed, there is no reversing the damage done. With regards to the last question, I feel the suggestion is trying to accomplish a mechanic that doesn't require continuously escalating force in order to challenge the higher end builds. It's not a specific scenario or engagement but instead a rudimentary aspect of engagement. As above, I'd suggest elaborating on what you are describing as "exotic damage" so no misunderstandings are had with your suggestion.

Which roles are negated? What power slotting isn't being included? Care to explain how (that is, how exotic damage fulfills the desired goals here)? What you described previously doesn't really reflect that though. It doesn't have any measures to stop certain builds from stepping on any toes, nor challenge to include incarnate levels. As far as I can tell, once you blitz past as much distance as possible, it becomes standard fare. You didn't outline anything after that. Perhaps you've got more to your idea than you're putting to text but as far as I see, it's a niche scenario whereas putting danger to mob size kind of facilitates various scenarios that can are more rudimentary to enemy encounters as a whole.

Has it already been reported Rune of Protection always plays its animation even when RoP is on recharge? It doesn't apply the effect but it does lock you into the animation.

Sounds like you could just play on the beta servers and just use the slash commands for instant 50, max inf and all IOs can be bought with inf from vendors.

Two problems I see: What do you mean melee vs ranged numbers, mechanically? So a blaster or defender would just take normal damage? How exactly do you create such an effect? I could conceive the thought but I'm not sure why a Brute meant to take damage is now being harmed more in these circumstances. And closing gaps is very much an easy task for most who invest in a travel power. Slotted SS with Combat Jumping would close a gap the 2nd fastest behind slotted Teleport. Maybe if there were obstacles and waypoints along the way that had objectives to complete before you could engage (have to destroy the generators powering the force field around the volley firers) and cater the terrain to make it inherently difficult for all the travel powers to get to them all. But there are people who just run with multiple travel powers. This would be more a scenario suggestion which I'm not sure if it's covered in some of the incarnate content (so much crap going on, there's probably a mechanic in there somewhere I don't know about). A different scenario that I feel could benefit engaging content is group content/TF/SF that require splitting up your team more. I believe there is some but it's more a measure to speed things up rather than a requirement.

So some ideas about the MO stat specifically as per the brainstorm session from everyone in the thread: Some foes may count as more than 1 (like some Bosses, EBs, AVs and GMs counting as a lot of foes). Nullification would be an effect that acts to reset or remove the "line-up" and is usually applied by mez and some debuffs Still considering how each mez could fit in this puzzle of Full Nullification Partial Nullification could be like reducing how many foes a target counts as....like Smoke/Flash Arrow blinding foes, making minions that counted as 1 foe reduce to counting as .5 foes, Bosses that counted as 3 reduced to 1, AVs that count as 5 reduced to 3, etc ATs have different values of this stat at base: Personally attributed values, I like the concept of having 3 value groups: Lower set at like 4 foes (Defender, Controller, Mastermind), Mid set at 6 foes (pretty much everyone else) and High set at 8 (Tanker and Brute) Inherents can modify this value or be modified by the value (although ignoring partial nullification or buffs). Gauntlet would add +1 MO stat per teammate over 2; Fury would add +2 to base and foes over the MO limit are counted as higher rank when granting fury (so anything over 10 and they grant Elite Boss or higher amounts of fury); Defiance gives +10 MO stat while mezzed; Scrapper get +10% crit rate for hitting that MO limit plus +3% for every foe above that limit; While NOT under the effect of Domination, mez effects have a chance of Nullification (think if you're Dominating people, they are still drawing your attention as you relish in their anguish while not in Domination mode, you're more collected and worried about your well being); Vigilance gives +5 MO stat when solo or when a teammate is under 50% HP; Assassination causes any foes hit with the demoralize effect to count as 0.25 foes for the effect's duration; etc etc etc Some powers grant +MO, such as something in Force Field, maybe some of those ally rez powers, the armor set tier 9s, etc. Overall, the MO stat is a product to base value, meaning it is a value multiplied by your buffed stats that doesn't exceed your base values. So being overwhelmed reduces you to what you would be without buffs, not below (debuffs on you would be required for that). Thinking about this further, would be kind of neat if passive powers were immune to this value. Probably wouldn't do much but give a bit more value to those powers and a slight leg up for armor types that get passives. Is there anything else? Of course a lot of these numbers are just personal values and meant as a demonstration (such as setting the MO stat AT values intentionally low so that other means can be used to shore this up such as via Nullification, boosts from inherents, etc) and doesn't really delve into the core of how this actually maths out overall. So what do you think? Anything I missed or misconstrued?

Do the tier 9s not buff your stats to a ridiculous degree that it sort of doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20 foes surrounding you? I suppose there might be edge cases, but how many foes would it take to get slotted Elude ontop of all your other defenses to below soft cap? I guess if they also had buffs on the foes, but a lot of those tier 9s are super overkill. Now for tier 9s like Rise of the Phoenix/Soul Transfer, I definitely think adding a +10 to that MO stat for a good 45sec or so.

I'd actually limit that too. While I do see using mez as a means of shoring up being overwhelmed, mez in and of itself already does a lot to limit incoming attacks. So I'd actually allow stunned foes to still count as enemies in your line-up, held enemies to have a chance to not count in that line up and sleep/placate to 100% remove an enemy from that line-up with immobilize and knockback never altering the line-up and confuse...I dunno. I guess there isn't any choice but for confuse to remove a foe from your current line-up since it's changing targets. Or you can go a step further and limit this effect by AT making it so ATs like Defender and Controller reduce numbers via nullification/control while ATs like Dominator and Blaster do it by HP (meaning a Blaster and Dom only have a chance of/no chance of changing that line-up). As for the surviving insta-gibbing minions, some aspects you could think about playing with is perception/aggro range. Currently, you can be around 50-60ft away from the mob sitting on the outskirts of a group and they not notice you. What if just turning that corner and those mobs 90ft away will notice and start filing in at you? @Saiyajinzoningen mentioned mixing more buff/debuff mobs in there and if they are triggered at a longer range, they will start using said buffs/debuffs sooner. Maybe if it's tough enough, people might consider using ambush tactics like Team Teleport and/or some longer range in certain AoE control powers.

And I think that's a shame. The reason I put forth the idea of doing something (my suggestion is just a prelim) is because just like IO def/res stacking minimalizes other aspects of a build or team, AoE minimalizes aspects of tactics and target prioritization. The funny thing is, the moment you propose something to put a hurdle for either (IO'ed builds or cluster nuke strategies) people assume you're trying to kill the game, kill farms, remove being super, ect. It's an odd accusation considering it's mostly hypothetical but the actual intent is right in your face. I don't believe anyone here has nefarious intentions here, just looking at aspects that might lead to something engaging and fun. If you believe the suggestion would have an adverse effect, we can discuss that (like the alternate plan of giving foes +ToHit and damage auras instead). But all the accusations and strawmanning isn't productive. For example, pointing to individual circumstances like Council gunners vs an Inv tanker. In that last example, the OP is talking about specific content but when I'm participating, I'm generally incorporating as much of the game the idea could be applicable for. Even the Inv vs council one.

Do you think this might be something for some AoE's? That is, the whole limited effect on crowds. If we're talking about a mode that makes crowds dangerous, the solution is usually nukes. If we remove target caps for some AoE's like nukes, but in turn, re-introduce part of the crash per foe hit over a certain limit (set to like 14 foes, if a 15th foe is hit, you'd get like an additional -10 END and -20% recovery for 20sec). The funny thing is, Blasters already get a ridiculous amount of base recover so dipping into 18 foe nukes would be a hit in END but they'd still be in the green for recovery. It would be the likes of Corruptors, Defenders and Sentinels that would need to really be careful. Of course this is only for nukes, haven't touched on what you could do with other AoEs yet. Maybe a diminishing effect after reaching their limit?

See ya. Good to know you just ignore people with different opinions than yours.

Now you use ignorance to deflect. That's fine. I guess if you want to repeat the "no one is forcing you to OP" argument (BTW, you don't need to OP your character to face roll this game. Basic IOs are cost efficient, less hassle and more effective. Shilling SOs is more like telling players to throw their inf away than to tell them to its the challenge path) them I'll say no one is forcing you to participate in this thread. If you're going to dismiss an argument, don't deny it. Just make a better argument.

What people choose to do is outside of my power. Frankly, I think the US should have manditory conscription into the military for all males over 18 for a min of 2 years (like South Korea) because frankly, males have become f'ing doormats rather than individuals that can protect anyone..but what I think doesn't hold any power in these circumstances so you asking that is (in my perspective) asking if things should be balanced toward teams or groups. Group content should be for groups. Saying anything beyond that is like saying things should be imbalanced. So basically you want everthing to be unbalanced. If you want a more unbiased answer, ask a less biased question. As for diminishing returns, that's not a speed bump. That's literally the devs stopping you from exploiting the content for easy gains before they catch on themselves. I mean, I bet if Chinese gold farmers somehow manages to get a foothold here, you wouldn't be against finding means to curb them.

I'm not missing the point. What you just said merely dismissed someone's viewpoint and restated what you just said. Why not ask if intentionally nerfing yourself makes you want to play and replay content rather than make assumptions based on trying to trump a forum argument. I'm telling you right now, if I'm playing for difficulty and I make a build to intentionally nerf myself, at best, I'd participate just to prove something and never again. Have you looked into some of the challenge Final Fantasy no save runs that can push past 12hours of straight gameplay? I doubt they do that on a weekly basis for fun lol

Like I said, you're then just divorcing the gameplay from progress and incentive. It's different from a static game that is complete once it goes on the market.

People that aren't steamrolling are the ones that pull, that die and use rezzes, that wipe and start again. This really wouldn't change that. Those that steamroll this is one means of actually giving them a speedbump or tripwire when they engage too many. The point is to make it more possible to bite off more than you can chew. Since the game is aggro capped, that's going to introduce a different paradigm. But you SHOULD be able to streamroll when fighting within your means. So I disagree with your assumption. I think people who don't streamroll are going to be just fine. In instances where the game thrusts challenge at them, they will fall just as they would have fallen with the current system. And going down the nuke discussion, again, we've only scratched the surface of the proposal.

You said it, not me (I just implied it). Personally speaking, I min/max because I like to progress. A character builds and builds over time and once you cap levels (and sometimes before) the only way to make the character progress is to get some purple IOs out some incarnate powers. Either that or the character is complete and there's not much reason to play them except maybe to get some badges or modify their costume. The problem with player made challeng like that are, sometimes they can take away fun. Completing Zelda with only base hearts removes the fun of finding them or the incentive to complete those quests. Playing FFX with the no sphere grid challenge might be hard, but it also divorces the game from progress incentives. I'm not saying these things aren't hard, I'm saying it's a flat pointless thing to bring up here as I'm sure we all know you can nerf yourself. We aren't discussing what we can do to challenge ourselves but rather what the system should have done so you wouldn't need to nerf yourself like that. It'd be a different story if it was like Undertale where nerfing yourself opens up new parts of the game, but it doesn't...

That's the basic tactic behind all fights though. That's like saying "well it just promotes taking out bad guys..." yeah. Yeah it does. AoEs have target caps and some challenges could be made that wouldn't simply play out to just spam a bunch of AoE's and hope it thins things enough that the tank doesn't have to kill himself so those nukers aren't dog piled. We've only scratched the surface of the possibilities here. I think the OP has some merit to at least brainstorm on a forum.

Or, it would just make a new "incarnate soft cap" like level of set bonuses to shoot for while introducing more danger to the support in the back that isn't at that cap who happened to draw aggro for a little bit. There are certain goals put forth in the OP proposal that your idea has ignored. It doesn't really introduce any kind of new tactical considerations either. Emphasizing buffs/debuffs isn't changing the simple formula of cluster and nuke which has de-emphasized a lot of other aspects of the game.

I suppose I have to explain what "half admitting" means because people will only look at the words they are offended by and ignore the rest. And I also have to explain "it's like" in the context of the quoted subject because people lack that as well even when I put a contrary statement to what you quoted in the same post. Simple rationale here : if nerfing my build is the intended challenge mode in the game, shopping the forums for a build that checks off the min/max staples would then be the equivalent of putting the game in easy mode...that is, if you actually believe SO only build with only pool power attacks is a valid mode of challenge the game facilitates for your enjoyment rather than a painful player made trial of patience.

So then a % of base buff. I don't think it's that much tougher, but it would require a change in your numbers.

That and it's half admitting the min/maxers are actually playing the game on easy so what exactly do they have to brag about? I'd like to assume those that min/max their characters spend time and effort gaining knowledge but the message here seems to say otherwise.