Jump to content

Leogunner

Members
  • Posts

    1367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leogunner

  1. An interesting set. I like it. I feel there are some references to Castlevania in there too. Seems like it would be a set low on damage (kinda like Ice Melee) but makes up for it with sustain which I believe Savage Melee was going to have that angle but they just chopped it off and released the set, which is a shame because I like the animations of Savage but the effects are milk toast and the overall damage feels low for no reason. I think a lot of people wouldn't play the set for that reason though, because with IOs, nobody cares about sustain as they can get some of their defense soft capped and a good chunks of resist. Personally, I'm not a min/maxer so if the set is moderate on damage and good on sustain, I can just pair it with a set that needs the sustain or has supplementary damage. Some things: What damage typing is this? I think I saw some psi damage in there for one attack but you didn't mention the other attacks. I opened up your .doc and so I guess that answers some of it. A bit of a pet-peeve of mine is I'd rather just read the idea on this forum instead of google docs, mainly because of how bright the screen is. There's probably a "night mode" option somewhere but I just tried to finish reading it quickly instead. Some interesting ideas but I'd say it's quite over-designed. You've got a semi-seeker drone power in there, a teleporting attack with T1-T3 attack modifiers, a PBAoE with defense bonuses, a self+foe hold heal/attack, Heal over Time aura if near target, a single target sleep+taunt walking mechanic, plus ANOTHER teleporting attack that has varying effects depending on AT. You could take 1-2 of those ideas and expand that into an entire set! Basically, to avoid over-complexity and confusing players as well as not over-shadowing every other set, sometimes simple is best. In the vein of the above paragraph, I'd say drop the Taunt/Confront/Placate replacement. It might seem like a useless power but when you start cutting them while other sets still have to be bogged down by it, it's like leaving the other sets with 8 powers while this set gets 9. If this is a staple power, replace it with the other teleport power. For Enthrall, I'm not really sold on it. It's rather easy to break sleep. Unless you really just want to have a sleep to break, Disorient works just like you'd want it, just add a taunt that causes the foe to want to move toward you and it won't be easily broken. Not sure about Assassin's Bite. How often do you go to use AS with low health? I'm not sure the utility of a healing AS is worth losing damage. Maybe instead of healing, it'd be Absorb? Either way, I'd probably just prefer to have regular AS effects, personally. I read stuff in there about life-drain. If you mean heal depending on how much damage, I don't know if that is a mechanic that exists. If it does, it must be rare. All effects I've seen have static damage and heal amounts that have to be enhanced separately.
  2. If we're mincing animations, why not both? Both a fast and a slow animation. Use the tech for snipes/Titan Weapons that basically swap powers from the slow activating power to the fast activating power. You just need a hook for what triggers the swap, like landing another specific EM attack or having some other effect on you or the target.
  3. When talking about prospective powersets, the logical means to obtain boundaries within which you'd build the set is to take a measure of what a set outputs on foes, on the user and on the team. I wouldn't make a suggestion for a boon here and there without a trade-off not because I think it'd unbalance an AT but rather because it's not fair. For example, if I'd propose adding in a PBAoE team+self buff to a set with moderate defensive or offensive numbers, it should be at the cost of something especially if a similar support AT with the counterpart set outputs a limited amount of the effect or not at all. For example, if Cold Domination's shields were made PBAoE to include the user, that is a significant defense buff to the user and should come at the cost of something. The PBAoE should be balanced to be long recharging with shorter range, or another utility Cold Domination has should be put on the chopping block because you're providing more buffs with those powers, the user. With this increased buff effect comes different needs for the user, i.e. they don't need things like Benumb or Heatloss to make up for the fact that the CD user themselves are the most frailest member of their team. Either that or just make the aspect of personal defense have a cost, i.e. a power choice slot. There are many possible roads to retain parity. The act of mashing powers together to cut down on power costs or trimming "useless" powers to make room for better choices doesn't. Since there are so many powers already, it'd be like having free-form ATs that can just choose any power...of course players will chose the best ones. That is an aspect you have to actively reject. The things I said above are some of the ways to do that. Also, balancing by mods is trickier than you'd think. For example, you'd put the AT below Stalker in damage or just above Corruptor but layering some support sets on that can shoot them past Stalker. In survivability, if they retain that advantage, they will just be better. But you can limit the support instead which can put them above a Corruptor but missing certain support utility aspects, still leaving room there. There's a lot of possibilities there.
  4. But it's just power creep. You can do that if you want to, but sometimes, maybe look through the idea from another perspective and consider that maybe that's the intent: to not create a better revision of another AT. It's a different balance consideration, IMO. If it's a toggle, it either can't stray too far ahead in effect from what a defender gets, has to have a restrictive range or must have different effect values on the user vs the team. If it's a click, recharge plays a role in how effective and restrictive the mitigation the AT has and if it'd be effective. I'd have to see some speculative numbers. That being said, a Scrapper has little to no support so your final point there is baseless hyperbole. Not sure why you even put that there. I had to look it up, as to make sure why I couldn't slot -res procs in my Chilling Embrace. I think you meant -DMG debuff? Or did you actually mean a defense buff? But Snow Storm has a few of its own control aspects, namely the -fly. But that's another topic. Also, your final point doesn't make sense to me. Who is limiting people's critiques? You can call people lazy if you want, I'll just critique your critique. But you've already seemingly withdrew that part of your statement.
  5. And I'm certain you know this for a fact... Possibly by design. Imagine if you took a Kinetics support set, replaced Inertial Reduction and Repel with a PBAoE mez protection and a moderate -DMG PBAoE debuff to foes? That's just a suped up Kinetics that's objectively better at support than a /Kinetics Corruptor or Controller. I'd say, compromises that are made, aren't because it's melee, but rather not to replace other ATs completely. I wasn't defending the OP, more other people (like myself) that suggested adapting the support set by "gutting the utility of the support powersets to place a bunch of armor powers on an AT" as you would say. I'm not suggesting the OP use that line of idea but then I'm also not going to label him or others lazy for it either. But making powers that aren't PBAoE into PBAoEs is objectively more work. You say it's lazy if they don't do that but it could just be more clever to try and utilize a more ergonomical to use a different solution. Doesn't mean PBAoE buff conversion isn't clever or ergonomical, it just might not be as much so as something else. And how does a melee support AT overshadow a support? Well, if they are melee, they likely do either more damage (because it's melee) or more support (because it's short-ranged attacks need it). You're either going to overshadow the support or be overshadowed by support. Probably better to try something different instead. Being a bulky support would likely be it's niche since support alone are known to be glassy compared to the team they support.
  6. While it's a neat idea that has worked in other game types, have you considered how this would work in actual CoH gameplay? Consider if you went to the extreme and put this mechanic on a character in a turn-based environment: the circumstances of such a mechanic's usefulness would then be decided how quickly turns occur thus how long it'd take to go from one extreme to another. The likely outcome to best utilize such a character then is to just abandon one side of the character unless you have no other choice and then it takes several turns to ramp up. Or in a similar environment, but instead of shifting between offense and support, it's offense and defense: FFXIV kind of has this with Blackmage using Astral Fire and Umbral Ice. The "fun" of the mechanic is how one uses them to shift quickly and seamlessly from offense to sustain and back again. No one actually likes spamming ice to get into full Umbral or spamming fire to get back into Astral. With those considerations, I believe if implemented the way you say, many would find it tedious or just aggravating to need to use the inherent to shift between the two and you'd either have to tone down the effect to be nearly imperceptible or make it so it drastically shifts to the extremes you'd get from Scrapper offense and Defender support...and with that, it likely would be actually played in a min/max format that abandons one side of the character the majority of the time. I came to this conclusion by putting myself in the headspace of playing on a normal PUG with this AT and picking a likely point of contention: Cold Domination as support and Kinetic Melee as offense. So I'm in the middle of a lvl 31 mission, my team is coasting pretty good and I've gone to offense mode but my shields are starting to blink. Do I just cast them to get everybody good? Or is it best to use a few support powers to get my support effects up and *then* cast them? What if we're between spawns? Likely, I'd just end up casting the shields multiple times to get the best effect (fun?) or I can wait until the next spawn, throw out some debuffs and Frostworks and then cast the shields maybe with just a bit of a gap of shields down. The problems I see with the playstyle is it might seem engaging to describe but it's actually just a limiter. Most inherents enhance the AT, not limit it. Another is, it's doesn't seem fun to me. Another is, there could be situations where a team could dictate your play instead of yourself ("Stop using your attacks and just use the heals"). And yet another is concept-wise, it's also limiting as it's pushing a very specific type of character concept on the AT...it's not quite as concept limiting as the Stalker but if you really don't want to be sneaky, you can just turn off Hide.
  7. Is it necessary to put down a possible configuration like that? I can understand not agreeing with the prospect of "recklessly throwing support powers on a melee AT" but you ignore WHY it might be a good path. For example, you may not want to overshadow other support ATs by basically putting the new AT in direct competition for role/purpose. Or you may want to seek to fill a different role that a support is proposed for (for example, if you want the AT to be a tank more so than an DPS type). Also, we are doing the laziest form of developing: typing up words. No need to be aiming accusations of lazy at anyone.
  8. But blaster has ridiculous damage. Even a Scrapper, with the highest damage in melee and most without taunt auras, can't survive in melee range without armor and mez protection. I'm talking about sets that don't have support that included the caster, like sonic, FF, cold, empathy, ect. Those would have to be changed.
  9. You say that in early levels but when you start facing Lts that can hit you for a quarter of your health and stun you at the same time or facing multiple minions that will stack mez, you'll be singing a different tune. Also The latter solution for the buffs is another implementation and balance compromise. It's not much different from armor except it has to be balanced for a while team.
  10. I'll just say, I think there's a reason some blend armor powers into the concept and it's for the same reason you're leaning on the inherent power and the Confront replacement: the AT would need something that keeps it alive while it hits things in melee. And it's the most straightforward solution. Also, what would you do about buffing sets? The ones that might not have prominent debuffs to keep it alive?
  11. What you posted there seems in line considering any novice melee knows what an AoE is and how AoE vs ST is supposed to be balanced. It's almost like you pay something to get strong ST damage by having less AoE... I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record but the person you quoted didn't ask for minion clear speed...
  12. The reason I say it's deflecting is because the person you quoted didn't ask for a realistic reflection on farm maps or PUG type scenarios, they asked for an specific measure of maximum DPS. Think of it like someone asking you how long it takes to get somewhere then someone brings up traffic congestion, stop signs, tolls and what not. They're both useful information but some can gauge those aspects or compensate mentally for certain variables just fine or even get a ballpark feel on how to cut down on the time. Of course, there could be certain posters that aren't good at that and might jump to conclusions but that's where you'd qualify the numbers with other information rather than perform mental gymnastics and bat around qualifiers without relaying any actual data.
  13. One is a yardstick for overall DPS (whether ST or AoE) and the other is more a measurement of efficiency. They're two different types of metrics so it's not logical to deflect one with the other.
  14. Why not broaden the level they are usable? Like rather than being +/- 3, make them +/- 6. What I mean by that is, the range that the enhancement is green is +2 to +6 (so you could slot a lvl 16 TO/DO at level 10 instead of being limited to enhancements below lvl 14); the enhancement would turn white at -1 to +1 and enhancements -2 to -5 levels would be yellow. It basically gives you room to use the enhancements and drops rather than them being already in obsolete status (yellow) when they drop. You shouldn't be fighting things that low anyway but it's not uncommon, in the early game, to level twice in the same instance only for the drops you get to have little or no use. As for me, I tend to buy Acc TOs in occasions I feel frustrated with hit chance and just fill my attacks with Acc. By DO level, I only buy if I feel I've hit a wall and can't keep END or die too fast or can't hit my targets, etc. I tend to wait until lvl 22 before I invest in enhancements and those are lvl 25 IOs. If anything is less useful to me, it's SOs. I just don't see a reason to buy them, I only use them if I get them as a drop and I just happen to have an empty slot because I got new powers/slots. I think TO/DO work if you don't keep the mentality of regular sloting conventions. It's meant to cover a weakness, not complete a build. If you're running out of END, slot all Endredux. If you miss too often, slot all Acc and it's compounded when you don't have many slots. This is coming from a player who has the most fun in the game around lvl 10-38. There is definitely a feeling of progress from one stage to the next.
  15. Could make a different kind of difficulty setting. Make it so that all passive bonuses are turned off (so just the bonus stats) but you're still getting the benefit of the actual IOs in the slots. Would have been cool to make it so normal settings with bonuses on allowed uncommon/rare salvage and brainstorms to drop but not rare recipes and then the setting with bonuses off gave the rare recipes but only common salvage. Kinda too late now since much of the saturation of salvage and recipes wouldn't change anything but perhaps over time?
  16. I was attempting to bring to light that Super Strength and by extension Rage, is an outlier example and doesn't reflect the other melee sets. It'd be like measuring Scrapper using Titan Weapons as the standard when in fact, Titan Weapons is an exception of DPA. And in general, when discussing base balance, you don't include IOs because they vary the playing field even more (it basically breaks the game in more circumstances than it doesn't). I'm just trying to present likely rebuttals that will usually extend an argument several more posts/pages as participants have to clarify, qualify, reclarify and reconstruct talking points. If you'd rather not engage those points, it might be something you'll see down the line.
  17. I want to say such an addition would feel like Brute Fury but instead of hitting, it's defeating mobs. That isn't to say it'd be off the table to me, it's just so many seem adamant about targeting certain suggestions and representing them as "Brute-like" if it does anything to increase damage. I dunno, considering it's also buffing the team, maybe being a "Team Fury" isn't so bad. There'd still be the means of activation though. Victory Rush you have to target to use so what would be use to activate the effect?
  18. So we're using IOs to prop up Tanker damage (with damage procs) but also using IOs to tear down Brute (it's got too much mitigation) in the same thread. Also, using the most controversial melee buff (Rage) and only measuring it on a single attack (while the person you were quoting didn't actually state it, I'm sure they were talking about the measure of the two AT's DPS, not the DPA of a particular power). I'm just pointing out possible rebuttles as they appear. I don't think Tankers do half of everyone's damage, but they certainly have less to leverage which is why others can pull ahead easier.
  19. Well, there are sets that don't have as hard a focus on buffing/debuffing and deal control or damage as a means of support. I believe there are sets considered better suited to one vs the other...there's also a larger gap between the levels of support that support sets offer so the amount of buff/debuff to offer is more dependant on the powers, not just the AT. I'm pretty sure there's a Dom out there that would tell you to hold their beer. But modifying the powers of said AT isn't necessary (you haven't proven that) so it's a wash. I was at least trying to appeal to an idea that's not singularly focused on nerfing a particular thing for no reason while also trying to give some peeps a springboard for other ideas that might make taunt actually useful. You say I'm downplaying aggro management via taunt; as it exists in game, I disagree. It's nice to have but about as reliable as -rech vs a hold. Also also, sorry if it seems I'm ganging up on you. I just happen to be board BBQing with nothing to do but read the forums on my phone.
  20. I was talking about situations where AS would trigger both its hidden damage and its out-of-hidden extra damage. I believe it was a bug though and might have been linked with the re-hide from ATO or Placate. Or maybe that's what you meant?
  21. Like I said before, if only moderate non-specialized amounts of aggro management is necessary (people often get by quite swimmingly without a Tanker OR a Brute), it's like grasping at the fact Tankers could grab entire maps of mobs at one point in the game therefore that is the totality of their existence. I just don't see it that way. If all you're going to add to a team is being the aggro grabbing guy, you probably should just get a Dominator unless its an AV. That aside, if your whole issue is that Brutes hold aggro AGAINST a Tanker (because if you've got a problem with sole-Brute holding aggro, I've got many other arguments to leverage against you) well, why not just focus on the hate algorithm? I'm not sure exactly what or where this is centralized in the system but apparently every action has an affect on aggro compounded by modifiers that lower/increase aggro generation. Again, if Brutes seemingly grab aggro so well, why not just drastically decrease how much damage applied affects aggro generation as a whole? Then you'd get situations where debuffs, heals and controls draw lots of attention (more than damage) and taunt would be actually necessary. That being said, you'd end up with situations where you put both these "aggro management" ATs (Tanker and Brute) in direct competition with their actual rivals for aggro management: control specialists. Suddenly, those AoE slow patches, AoE immobs and knockbacks/downs might rip aggro off those melees.
  22. I had a whole other response questioning your post but I deleted it as really just continues a circular pattern of logic. I'll just say it feels wrong making sweeping generalizations on "what the AT is built to do" when it's mainly the powers that do that. When I play my Tankers, I'm not a babysitter pretending to support the team by being the "shield" for everyone. I'm more like the leader directing the charge in place of the others who might be waiting on someone else to charge in first. Anything else, in my book, is personal preference and current circumstances. I'm willing to consider taunt changes to both Tankers and Brutes if presented...but I disapprove of this notion of Vet Tankers holding the AT hostage with their personal agendas as leverage for what is and isn't Tanker. I also think it's mean-spirited to aim that leverage for nerfs to another AT unless there's some consensus that said AT is overpowered and needs to be rebalanced.
  23. But B isn't needed in much doses anyway so why does it matter?
  24. You could probably just take the animations from Kinetic Melee and just remake some as ranged attacks (modifying them to be ranged versions) since the animations are kinda ambiguous. But your ideas save Repulsive Aura are pretty nifty. Exchange it for that one repel+KB attack in that Martial secondary from Blaster instead.
  25. Frankly, unless you remove all aggro holding capabilities from Brute, it likely wouldn't make a difference. There are even Scrappers you can manage to rip aggro off of a Tanker with the proper auras alone. Even if you were right, and the Brute couldn't just grab all the aggro in the span of jump in with aura + 1 AoE, they would still likely grab it with the 2nd AoE. It'd likely be the difference of allowing the Tanker to "manage" the aggro for a couple extra seconds. I don't feel that is a good trade off (lowering effectiveness of an off-tank that might have to be main tank in some groups) just so Tankers get their few seconds of fame. But then I'm of the opinion that the job of aggro management isn't so glorifying when you've got multiple ATs with AoE soft and hard controls that neutralize aggro completely...other ATs have tools and roles to neutralize alpha strikes and maintain/manage aggro too. If that's all Tanker has to hold onto, doesn't it feel like charity that the controller or dominator (or heck, even blaster) allow you to feel like you've maintained the aggro? Why not look for means to synergize with groups rather than have the group conform to Tanker?
×
×
  • Create New...