Leogunner

The way I see it, people want more content and extending faction level would assist with that.

Personally would prefer if all enemy factions had a lvl 1-lvl55 scaling complete with different mobs, abilities and sub-factions so that you can't outlevel any content.

I see. So you're more against the prospect of the ease of getting to that ToHit cap. In that respect, I don't have a particular argument for it besides the desire to look into the mechanics and formula for hitchance overall. I don't think giving SR an acc bonus would "add to" per se, to the issue since Inv, Bio (this gives a 7.5% ToHit buff if Offensive Adaptation is active, fyi) and SR are mutually exclusive. It's, imo, similar to giving multiple armor sets +recovery or +END management tools as part of its utility. If we were going deeper into the discussion about the hit/def mechanics, I'd probably lean on weighing the -def debuff heavier if only because -def is particularly ignored on the front of the player and mostly seen as a nuisance when used against the player. I haven't put much thought into that particular train of thought but that's probably an idea for another thread. Further still, we might even be able to bat back-and-forth the ease of managing END could be very similar to the ease of reaching hitchance caps or soft defense caps, etc.

I know what ToHit and Accuracy are and how they interact. You can reach hitchance cap with ToHit alone, which was the point of my inquiry. Under the same conditions, what is the base benefit of those other 2 sets' bonuses then translate that benefit into an accuracy bonus...you'll likely discover you'd need an absurd amount of bonus acc to compare, which is not what I'd recommend be added here. If another set can comfortably acquire a decent hit chance, that should be the benchmark that a side-benefit could grant in this suggestion. That a SR build with the +acc bonus would benefit procmonster builds is rather beside the point if, for example, another armor set offers a similar or possibly even greater benefit (since ToHit can have a far greater effect on the final hit chance than Acc). And there is practically no need to be so cautious when you're talking about Accuracy considering how easy it is to obtain in set bonuses anyway. A utility effect is supposed to give you something useful and beneficial to your build. Also, accuracy doesn't need a counter unless you're trying to balance defense as a mechanic of the game. As far as I can tell, I don't think anyone is suggesting giving SR an accuracy bonus to circumvent accuracy slotting completely(you still need to get more from somewhere, just not as much). If you can circumvent accuracy slotting by using SR's hypothetical +acc AND +acc IO set bonuses AND extra outside sources of +ToHit, that just sounds like a utility feature.

Sounds like an enhancement opportunity similar to using +recovery powers/bonuses so you don't need END redux in your attacks. Why not throw Invulnerability and Bio in the mix since they also have +ToHit buffs in their sets? Compare that with a hypothetical acc bonus to SR.

I'd agree. If slight additions were made to armor sets, this suggestion is far more saner than some of the other ridiculousness put out. Adding some limited niche effects to the sets might just give them flavor while letting the user overcome shortcomings rather than expecting the set to just have no shortcomings at all. Off the top of my head, I think Inv and Bio both have +ToHit outside of, like, WP's rez. Throwing a bit of accuracy into SR instead on top of its +rech and +movement wouldn't be bad. For people complaining over Elude, maybe give it a unique additional power while Elude is active similar to Speed of Sound, a no-animation teleport on top of its movement speed to hammer home the +movement factor of the set (maybe make it a "nothing personnel, kid" TP behind your target instead for some combat opportunities). Small little quirks like that are likely all armor set really need, like -ToHit resistance in Dark Armor and just straight up all debuff resistance spread into Regen. None of that "give the set what it needs" or "pile more stats to cap" nonsense.

You could also use the "possession" excuse: psychics can beat up a skull and use a special technique to puppet them around (only works on the weak); if you're tech, just implant a control mechanism in their ear/on their body and pilot them around remotely; if you're mutant or an alien, maybe you can just straight up hop into a Skull's body. There's also the prospect of just copying people's appearance with shapeshifting powers/copy powers (I actually have one whose main quirk is he can transform into people but there's an obvious feature that stands out like his tail or his eyes, kind of like a kitsune but he's a chameleon). For your no-power heroes, they must have something: street smarts, charisma/way with words or just plain guile to dress up, even if their normal form would look a little different because they have different skin or some mechanical limb or something. You're not dealing with the brightest villain group with the Skulls. Rather than pick apart why it doesn't work for your character, why not think of an aspect that fits your specific character and use your headcanon as your guide? As for the fitness thing: you got SO enhancements at level 1, I'm certain this is the most nothing of a nothing burger to get by without.

The game starts getting pretty repetitive around level 40ish. Teaming in that range is more repetitive. One can achieve a solid difficulty by just keeping a moderate build, not maxed without incarnates (adjust the notoriety to the enemy faction). Basically, nerfing yourself (what everyone repeatedly suggests)...the game gets boring so I'd end up rolling a new character instead.

What do you do with a toggle power? What happens when you turn off your toggle armor? an·ec·dote | \ ˈa-nik-ˌdōt \ plural anecdotes also anecdota\ ˌa-nik-ˈdō-tə \ Definition of anecdote : a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident You didn't even give us a video, let alone a screenshot. For all we know, you made that story up. I'm not requesting you give us video or proof, just saying it *IS* an anecdote and to offer it up as fact (a fact of what would yet to be determined) means it can be dismissed by a counter-fact just as substantial (in this case, another anecdote). Your point can be self-defeating though. You're claiming that the support builds were indispensable here. So what role does the capped IO defense play? Vengeance and some Maneuvers buffs can get you a lot of defense itself. We even have rez and self-rez powers, that you proport to have used, in this so-called "hardcore AE mission". So if this support plays such a key role in the hardest of content you can face while IO def likely only provided a minor boon in the situations armor wasn't fully up, why are you staunchly arguing for the status quo? Or was the IO def pivotal in everyone's' survival and the support just made it possible to pull through? If IO def had more diminishing returns, wouldn't that just mean more usage of unorthodox tactics like you describe and some encounters would just be super-hardcore? Then the high-end content would just lean toward the tactics you had to use in your story. IMO, that sounds far more entertaining than the majority of the content being steamrolled...and in the circumstances there are people with weaker builds, we have a notoriety system that can go to -1lvl.

Eh. Delete, destroy, obliterate...same thing. Yeah, putting words in people's mouths is the worst, almost as bad as assuming someone's intent. And this is all the same old sensationalizing, dramatization...it's not worth arguing because your emotions are your own and only have worth to yourself. And it doesn't seem you quite understand that no one has to care about them so arguing about it is moot. Come back when you want to discuss actual balance, game mechanics and throw around ideas. As is, they could introduce more varied enemies as challenging content but there will always be a limit to what can be accomplish with the binary defense system as it is. Reigning it in, as a hypothetical, is mostly just a band-aid anyway.

Considering your past posts saying it's "literally delete people's characters", guilt-tripping people by outlining the "billions of influence and tons of IOs" and how you're "making your dream comic book character", should you really be commenting about sensationalizing stuff?

Sure. But if you're going to make that analogy, why not look at the intent as well? You'll have some people pushing for banning things because it's a sin or it's too dangerous and it can potentially kill people or "think of the children!!", basically a bunch of moralistic arguments. So who here is appealing to emotions and ethics and morals? Just having the discussion is a far cry from "wanting to control people".

You're too laser focused on the OP then and not my post. I'm not only suggesting a notoriety setting that removes set bonuses but rather enemies who have the ability of sealing your set bonuses as an effect of their powers. Such a unique debuff could be placeable *using* a notoriety setting for those that would rather avoid it. In which case, that would be your opponent coming into a game with a different opening play or strategy that you then need to adapt.

Well obviously. That kind of gets closer to the crux here which is actually talking about the subject at hand (defense and its effects on builds): people want to speculate and discuss opinions on changes to it, not just the outrage or rage-quitting that'd be the result. At the end of the day, I don't believe anyone is expecting a change to actually occur no more than we're expecting to put babies on the menu.

You didn't quite use that correctly. Unless that was a jab at yourself. I put forth my own assumption ironically because it starts bringing in other opinions which are irrelevant (or only tangentially related) to the thread.

Nope, I don't want to hear you proclaim what it was "made to be". That's purely your own assumption because I'd assume the game meant for powersets like Force Field and debuffs like Dark Miasma's -ToHit to serve a purpose and not join the various other antiquated mechanics in the realm of obsolescence. And the reason I don't want to hear all that mess is because you're not going to touch on the power creep and over-convenience that removes much of the community aspects and charm of the original game either. If you're not going to go the full mile, no need to paint your agenda. Just the first sentence would suffice.

True. And those like-minded people gravitate to things like FFXIV or even old-school MMOs like FFXI. The Quadnity of the game has always had a lopsided form to it which is part of the point I'm making. You can quote me out of context but that hardly is going to win you the argument. I say we aren't asking for Dark Souls, more a team-oriented game. I didn't say CoX isn't team oriented but it is certainly being pushed toward solo. I'm not even against that since old games like this usually have to find a means of working with less of a fan-base. But the solo game is actually getting MORE EASY rather than making due. The higher difficulty settings should be just that: high difficulty. Lastly, I don't need you to be clear with me for the 1000th time lol. No idea why you'd even feel the need to appeal to me. The best you've got to push to me is "hold yourself back" and I've done that in a variety of ways. CoX is merely a nostalgia trip and I'm cool with that but don't try and gaslight me into pretending the flaws aren't there.

Let's not delude ourselves: no one is asking for Demon Souls. We're asking for a team-based MMORPG.

You know, all I want is for people that defend the status quo to admit their game has a baby system with baby mechanics that don't really have much challenge behind it besides lining up the right stats that are overall abundant in the games' setup. I can abandon pie in the sky suggestions and Red Spot level brainstorming of changes to add nuance to the game...I'd just like the consensus at large to admit the best resistance available to oppose the player is annoyance. Yeah, make the foes immune to damage. Make them unseeable/untargetable. Let them tear through soft cap defenses but give them the constitution of a champaign flute. With practically no AI, let the solution be just kiting the idiot game into oblivion or just out-stat the game. Don't insult me by saying I don't want to put any effort into the game. That's just ridiculous. I put in more effort adapting with a moderate IO build or a leveling build than most that keep their SOs topped off simply because I actively DO nerf myself and the game is still easy.

You're not wrong. I guess I'm more aligning with the conclusions that Arcana was making in that def just gives a disproportionate advantage compared to resistance or regeneration. If my memory serves, I think the whole reason Acranaville delved so deeply into the mechanics of the game was partly due to wanting to prove that Regeneration didn't deserved to be nerfed.

More like, if there is something obviously broken and exploitable in the source books, you're looking to the DM to either create homebrew mechanics to reign it in or create campaigns that, more or less, diminish the benefits of said brokent/exploitable mechanic [EDIT] by not needing/using/exploiting said mechanic..

Wasn't Arcanaville also putting out commentary on how the system likely needed to be adjusted because of its binary effect? Basically, Arcana was putting out the point that def was, cumulatively, too strong compared to resistance. Basically, a lesson not learned...

Well I think the reason I replied to your point was to point out that to some, everything that gets in the way of steamrolling isn't challenge. Although I wonder, what if inspirations counted as IO bonuses and there was a diminishing return on them at a certain point? Inspirations are supposed to be an equalizing tactical mechanic to help everyone but what would happen if they helped your 31% def Blaster less unless you use higher tier purples? Same with Tankers using high +dmg buffs and reds. Of course, it excludes mid-tier and high-tier external buffs (high tier buffs being Defender, Corruptor and MM while mid is your Controllers, Doms and Blasters) or armor tier 9s but it could be made to be that buffs, internal and external, are in a hierarchy with a diminishing returns effect affecting each level differently or not at all until the cap is reached. Inspirations and IO bonuses would just be the lowest tier so there's a choice in build outcomes when considering the whole of your playstyle to include inspiration use. Not sure if I'm making sense to some but it'd probably wouldn't be worth elaborating on since ultimately it would be a nerf to the upper end of the power spectrum.

Groups do avoid certain factions but it's not solely due to "challenge". Many avoid things like DE because they find the various pet spawning annoying or Sky Raiders because they teleport around too much or Cabal because they spread out and fly around. All in all, I don't feel any of the groups are particularly challenging if you're prepared to rework your approach if they start stacking their effects on you. That being said, I retract my previous statement as I'm reminded that Vanguard, if I recall correctly, have a debuff that reduces your max END by like 25% that lasts for 5 min. Maybe it was for one mission or something but it's more annoying than the Carnies' mask powers iirc.

Eh, I think you're projecting your own bias on others. I play mostly red-side where it's predominately SoA and Longbow so it heavily depends on the content available. It's bad enough the newspaper/radio missions are extremely repetitive and it gets worse when the game's own limitations start requiring you to tie one arm behind your back. Do I turn my notoriety down against SoA sometimes? Yeah, not because they are particularly challenging but rather I want to be able to actually see my foes sometimes without popping all my yellows. Malta are mostly scary if you miss a Sapper or if you only have lethal damage. I suppose I see a difference between "wanting challenge" and "wanting the game to be hard". A hard game just means grind, a challenging game means you have to adapt.