Leogunner

I'm assuming you're replying to my post. I don't feel you formed a proper argument because you're obviously basing said argument on false pretenses. I'm not defending the set (although @Crysta Clearseems to be). I'm a believer in open debate and discussion and you are advocating for a change. I don't just jump on a bandwagon, especially when we're talking about power creep. You ask why I defend the set and this is partly why I entered the discussion. It's not a crappy secondary effect. Had you formed a reasoned opinion on this matter rather than exaggerate, I probably would have continued spectating. You assume the devs had a mean streak... Or do you have actual proof? Or are you so short sighted to not understand when you yourself are making assumptions?

That's the very thing I DO get. That electric blast is better suited for another AT is analogous to fire blast being less suited for those same ATs. Again, it's the same for melee ATs. I get that, for a Defender, at least fire blast is less shitty damage, but that goes without saying for every blast set compared. You'll still do more damage with elec on a blaster. The proponent argument seems to consistently assume things, be it not understanding, having little experience, having a mean streak or some other retarded crap. If you can't form a proper argument then so be it. That being said, I never said that the set shouldn't get changes, I just don't think the changes it should get must conform to the needs of a particular AT, in this case Blasters. More avenues of change should differentiate it from existing sets. Conforming to other sets isn't bad (such as fixing the recharge of the nuke) but I'd like to see changes to its unique aspects rather than giving it the same tier 3 blast or souped up DPS.

Your saying I don't understand your point (the -end and recovery aren't treated like a debuff for support) while ignoring the rest of my argument (that a set with inherent utility should shine on a build that is constructed around it). If I'm talking to the thread, why would I quote an individual? That isn't to say you can't respond to my posts but you might want to form your posts in that context rather than ruffle up tangent argument. You seem to have a beef with me. I'll be happy to "shout you down" since it must be working on you.

I'm sorry, was I talking to you? But my criticism was mainly aimed at the prospect that the secondary effect is not an offensive enough in nature for a blaster and thus it should be changed. If the secondary effect doesn't scale as a debuff then that is likely something that should be fixed. I'll have to look up the powers to confirm.

You're excellently proving my point. Fire blast on a Defender will be inherently worse because it is a damage set that has no utility secondary effect. The same goes for any other blast set like that (archery) or with a niche use utility like -regen (beam). Sets with more utility or defensive debuffs will shine on Defender more. Sonic blast is another elephant. It doesn't outright overshadow a blaster but it can work the proper powers and team. The same thing happens with the melee. Some sets shine on certain ATs or stink on others. Regardless, those sets tend to have unique aspects that broaden what the AT can do in exchange for the lower power. That's balance.

If a set happens to function better for one AT over another, then I say you have a successful powerset. So long as the AT that gets all the mileage doesn't overshadow another in their specialized niche, it's all good. That a Defender or debuff oriented build uses electric blast's effects better than an offensive oriented AT its not actually a problem until said Defender or debuff oriented builds start outperforming Blasters in offense. If changes are being made to the set, it should be aimed at what makes the set different... Like it's the only set with a mini-pet so maybe improvements to that.

Yeah I want to say they sell for 6mil now. The universal travel kb protection is a little cheaper IIRC.

I haven't really said my piece on the actual topic but I generally agree with this. But not particularly because of the perceptions of the game being easy. The point about players having life obligations and responsibilities, to be blunt...I don't care. I'm sure we all have obligations in our lives but if the game were launched with more menial tasks, do you think those making that point would actually leave? Or would they just not be filling out their 3rd incarnate character on their 8th lvl 50 character? A level of challenge and difficulty has a tendency to "push" people together. That being said, I'd probably approach accomplish such a thing in a different way.

I was actually considering making a series of jedi/sith characters. Paired with something like Electric colored red and you've got a Force Choke (Choking Powder), Force Domination (Blinding Powder), Mind Trick (Smoke Flash) and I'm sure there's some kind of force power that would boost your overall constitution/endurance (Kujiin to) and you got a sith. For a jedi, Sonic would be a good pairing with your force push and there are more passive jedi powers that put people to sleep...you might have to skip out on the force choke though.

Wow, the condescension. Do you really want to get into that? Do you really want to drag in more people (like me) into it?

The "lots of passives" concept for an armor set...ah, that brings me back. I remember suggesting something with that gimmick a long while back. Although my concept was extremely niche, that is to use it's mez protection, it required you get mezzed (it only had knockback protection under normal circumstances) but when you get mezzed, you actually grew more defensive rather than your armor detoggling (back when getting mezzed dropped your toggles) and it had a breakfree variant with a short cooldown that, when used while mezzed, cast that mez on all foes around you. I could even imagine there being a tier 9 that would either rez you, if you drop below 0HP it would bring you back to full and cast a self hold that you can then reflect onto foes around you. It was a sort of Psi Armor variant but if I were reconceptualizing it, maybe something like Reality Anchor Aura or Mirror Aura. That being said, a variation of Ninjutsu that is a more balanced for defense and resistance wouldn't be a bad variation. Although having your mez protection be also a click heal feels off...like you probably couldn't capitalize on that part if you're constantly keeping your mez protection up. I'd suggest converting that healing into +regen or absorb or +max HP. Something others seem to ignore is that the set's Tier 9 is very useful for offense. Depending on how effective the +rech and +dmg is might end up shifting this to being a favored set for IO builds. Having less effective mitigation in a SO build but higher utility in IO builds is something that shouldn't be looked over.

The 1st quote didn't have a position I attacked. What I put up was an observation. @Bossk_Hogg didn't say everyone is asking for nerfs, he was targeting his message to those asking for nerfs. The observation was that there aren't as many as those asking for buffs.

What original position? I had the original position that was attacked. How am I attacking my own argument?

Well the other things you listed are countered by straight opposite counter examples like the IO thing (yes, people question the level of defensive bonuses on set IOs a lot) countered by just straight up asking for more IOs, shifted bonuses or making them more easier to slot. Not going to lie, I didn't read that whole hasten thread by @Steampunkette but it wasn't the only thread regarding +rech or hasten (and I don't mean the times she?(or maybe a mod did it) renamed the thread). I don't know what it "devolved" into but that wasn't my claim to begin with. It's purely what people ask for period. Also I don't hold the burden of proof. I was already asked to prove my stance using the 1st page of S&F. I believe I've used that metric to prove my point. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove that my conclusion is faulty. Telling me to prove it with another metric is just shifting the goalpost.

And I read topics about ideas and suggestions because I enjoy reading such topics. I read a lot of bad suggestions to which I sometimes don't reply. Other times, I will play devil's advocate to spark discussion or if I just considered aspects of an idea in other context and come up with my own spin on an idea. I know the nerf threads exist and a lot of times they're ratio'ed by people that disagree. That's not really the case compared to people asking for buffs though. To reiterate, my post on the subject was merely responding to someone dismissing nerfs in general to say they aren't as common. So far I've now been criticized about what basically pertains to the semantics of what the opposite of a nerf is and if the ratio is actually congruent while being asked to look at the 1st page of S&F board. I even had to read some of those threads I skipped to prove the point. I've at least tried to back up my statements.

I already did. Your only counter was basically "that hasten thread was calling for nerfs, not buffs" but ignore the thread asking for +rech in swiftness to replace the need for some builds to want hasten. It's the same gimme template. Try harder.

Considering the atmosphere of this game in general, it is a faux pas to ask for nerfs. I know people do anyway, but you will see FAR MORE people say something like "I know Titan Weapons is an outlier..." or "We all know Bio over performs..." or insert whatever powerset or AT that is very good...and then they will follow up with asking for buffs. You cannot deny that because no one actually wants to nerf things. The game isn't trying to be balanced in the realm that everything is tough to get/manage/progress because it's not trying to monetize the time spent on it. You want to talk about "whole picture", why not friggen read past your bias against those that call for nerfs because if you're looking for them, of course it will seem like there are more.

Nope. You're wrong.

And there are even more counter examples to your counter examples like eliminating TO/DOs so you can slot all SOs from the get go, shifting all IOs to have 10-50 versions, etc etc.

Now you're just performing linguistic gymnastics to try and justify your misrepresentation of my posts. Power creep is power creep primarily because it's a creep i.e. little changes here and there justify more changes here and there for a cumulative effect. I haven't contextualized the validity or necessity of any of the changes, merely quantified them. You interpreting things as dismissive is your interpretation and predicated on you misrepresenting the context of someone else's words. And it was based on a statistic that the majority of players use Hasten. The reason it is a gimme is because using Hasten is a choice, not a right. I have plenty of characters that don't use Hasten and if you want to have Hasten then you should have to choose which power slot to fit it in, not give it out to everyone carte blanche. Even if you're correct in your rationality there, what about the posts asking for more slots post lvl 50? Is that not a gimme? Is that premise not sound? They are social constructs. And I CONSTRUCTED it's context SOCIALLY via communication and quotations to direct said context. And no. Slang doesn't have to be agreed upon because it is often times used fluidly. It's best when you give slang context or explain it so that it can be agreed upon what it means but, again, that meaning will change depending on who is using it, in whatever context or environment. If you use a slang term and someone else doesn't know what it means, that is a situation where the term ISN'T agreed on its meaning. And I do believe I did elaborate. I even made a friggen diagram.

Again, considering the context of the quote it was replying to, the same condescension and entitlement was reflected. Believe me, I know what I was doing and I meant what I said and I have no issue explaining it. And I'll leave it at that. I could say more but I've got like 3 replies in a row.

Hopefully this is the last time I have to explain this: I made the term "gimme" with specific context in mind. Therefore it is MY terminology and context. You can argue that I used the term incorrectly but you cannot dismiss the context I used it in...especially a made-up slang term. It means what I want it to mean in the context I use it...that's how slang works. The point is, comparing how often people ask to nerf/remove things isn't as prolific as asking to boost things. That I have to literally lay down exactly what I mean in baby-school terms should at least make you guys less apprehensive and possibly a bit ashamed when the context is literally black and white.

Balancing is a neutral term. It can mean both nerfing or boosting. Parity is also a neutral term. The context is the requests usually made are of the latter, not the former (clarification: asking for boosts). You may not think asking to boost things up is considered asking for more but to someone with a sense of basic logic, it certainly isn't the opposite. If you want to argue false dichotomies, perhaps you missed the train on the initial post I replied to targeted at forum busybodies (who ironically are now quibbling over the definition of "gimmes" lol) which literally outlined the two sides: MY options for YOUR preferences vs YOUR options for MY preferences. Lastly, I severely hope you've reflected on the substance of your argument before criticizing the substance of mine.

No one said anything about dragging everything down. The point was people ask for MORE more often than they ask to TAKE AWAY. I guess we've completely gotten lost in this discussion...and by "we" I mean you guys lol

It's semantics in the realm that we have two different definitions for a vague uncentralized term (a "gimme") which is pointless to argue. I have a definition that you disagree with and you have a definition I disagree with. You can continue to argue your point but neither is right or wrong thus it's a waste of time.