Leogunner

Ah, I like that spin! I always felt variety is the spice of life. Having some things already unlocked and some things you have to work to unlock keeps a nice medium. If capes required an unlock (with the over-the-shoulder capes being he only ones available at the start), you might see more people skating through that mission. Then they could have added an option in the P2W vendor to spend like 5 merits to unlock it without the mission. Frankly, if they added alternative means of unlocking them like that, maybe that would be a bit more inclusive just in case that working mom with 7 kids and working 80hrs a week can have an easier time getting that cape lol

I'll just say a metaphorical gun to the head ain't dangerous. Dopamine response aside, that's all there really is to playing games in general and considering all the costumes parts are already unlocked, the only option such a suggestion has to go is for new stuff that might be added. Maybe I'm just too open minded but I would try a lot of different kind of ideas if a good enough implementation were set up for them. Accessibility doesn't have to equal carte blanche, you just have to be open new ideas. I feel that's an exaggerated excuse. If you are so busy to unlock a specific costume part you want, how can you find the time to play at all? How is a costume part any different from tier 4 incarnate powers? Or merit points? Or contact unlocks? Or leveling at all? Not only that but who even said you have to unlock everything? Extra Credits is on my "meh, I'll pass" list. I used to enjoy watching his stuff when I was super into trying to make games but now I'm a lot busier not to mention a few of his videos start to morally preach to the audience which I'm not fond of. I never cared about badges. Even most accolades I tend to pass up unless it's on a specific character who could use extra END or HP or one of the clicks really fits into the character's concept. Don't mistake my criticism for blind support, I am not advocating locking anything behind anything. It's just, from my perspective, if I'm logging into a game, it's usually to get something done whether that is ranking up with PvP matches, mining daily quests for resources/money, gaining a few levels. There's definitely a positive to giving the player goals to reach for (even if they are small), namely retention. I'm sure there are other benefits as well as negatives but that's neither here nor there. As for the avid costume enthusiasts in the crowd, you could still create costumes using pieces you didn't unlock on live (I think you could even save it). You just couldn't go into the game with it on (it would notify you if a piece was locked). If anything, that was how you'd find out about parts you wanted and find out how to get them. There were plenty of noobs, I'm sure, that tried to put a cape on on their first characters who then sought out how to get that cape (or half-cape) and ended up interacting with a friendly player who would guide them. I'm not a huge socializer but I always hear people talking about "how great the community is" and giving players more reasons to interact could be a side effect of adding limitations of any kind in the first place.

You sort of hit a ceiling with regards to sustainability for most melee characters if you take into consideration IOs. If you don't heavily use IOs, I think the armor tier 9s still have some solo use. Even on mid-level teams, it's still possible to get use out of them if you're not IO'ed. Changing them to be crashless is likely the only change you could make which will devolve the balance of tier 9s that are currently crashless. They can also be used on non-armor ATs to decent effect as well.

I know it's an unpopular opinion: Why is Power Crash such a large AoE? And it's pretty similar in direction to changed cone melee attacks being made into "hit everything infront of you and slightly to the side". I've always been an advocate for variety, even if it's not all that "meta". Why not give EM a "longer" cone instead, like a concentrated punch penetrating in a line? I dunno, likely no one cares as long as it changes their solo-maxed spawn kill times but it feels very same-y as just another wide-cone. I remember having wide cones was a selling point to a set's AoE, not a standard feature. Which sets now don't have a wide cone? Super Strength? And it's widely criticized that AoE is getting a bit out of hand too....

We can worry about that after Stalker gets TW. Then I'm in agreement, some sets might be better left untouched lol

Is this in offensive mode, defensive mode or taking into account a players is freely able to swap into said modes + efficiency mode?

If you could come up with a mechanic/unique niche not covered by another armor sets' utility and give it some custom options that can vary it's look so it's not merely "spines/thorns/spikes" somehow, I could see practically anything becoming an armor set. Doesn't see anymore farfetched than some proposals for psi-armor that functions near identically to another set while also being conceptually covered by sets like willpower, SR or even Ice Armor.

I feel that should be a trade-off of its duration. It is unflavorful for a SS character not to benefit their Cross Punch but it's more flavorful that their Ball Lightning isn't affected since that's not really a physical attack that would benefit from someone exploiting their physical strength. It also give sets like Dark Melee more of a niche with Soul Drain to boost such extra-powerset attacks but requiring the limitation of needing targets to feed said boost.

Just limit it to SS powers and be done.

It was a suggestion I made in the past. I personally feel that Rage should only boost SS attacks with said smashing damage proc. Stacking it wouldn't really be effectual besides +ToHit and there wouldn't be any negatives. I was always under the assumption that SS's powers (everything but Rage) sucked BECAUSE Rage was too good and no one would just agree to nerf it and fix the rest of the powers because it would result in a net decrease when taking into account stacking Rage. Ultimately, if Rage added damage to your attack rather giving you +dmg stats, that overall increases the set's maximum performance (i.e. in a situation were +damage buffs are used). I feel that would be the overall trade off of reducing the effect of personally stacked Rage vs maximum performance if Rage isn't contributing to the damage cap. If the +smashing damage were also affected by outside +dmg buffs would make the overall non-stacking nature even more beneficial.

I think it'd be a cool aspect of the game to grant a user a kind of auto-analyzer depending on your origin, so a science origin character, when targeting Crey could then see any +stats they have in the target window. Of course you would need to give more mobs extra powers so you're not always sure what buffs they have.

It is pretty amusing. If there's anything I enjoy about this game's combat, it's the deliberate nature of its animation-lock combat. Other MMOs tend to have lots of complicating factors like Blade&Soul's animation-canceling strategy that was and exploit just incorporated into the base game when power-gamers discovered some of a class' attacks have animations you can "cancel" with other attacks, basically skyrocketing the DPA...but again, you have to use certain attacks and chain the shit out of them to get as much ani-cancel and chain back to it after it recharged. I still don't understand the system fully... Oh, and Final Fantasy XI has gear changing macros to maximize the effectiveness of skills, spells and abilities. Some people even had gear macros they used while resting. I think XIV did away with that system but the literal maze of skill chains is what it was replaced by. GW2 navigates a combination of movement/placement where you're pretty much strafing 100% of the time. CoH TW occasionally has a long animation and ZOMG it's sooOOOOOO BAD loL1

That wasn't a question, just a piece of advice.

Ok, do you want a cookie? Feeling terrible to play is just that: a feeling. While you're entitled to your opinion, I frankly don't give a rat's ass about it. As for how they are reworking the set, they haven't put down numbers so I wouldn't go celebrating just yet. And do try not to shoot yourself in the foot with your own bravado, the devs can just as easily roll back changes during beta when so much "feelings" get thrown about, it drowns out genuine criticism.

Okay, well did you at least ask what difficulty they DO run on? Without some kind of basis, we have no idea if the people you're asking have AVs on, if they are at +4 or -1 or any relevant information pertaining to difficulty. I have a variety of characters with various IO builds in various states of completion. While I do have a couple that are soft-capped at 45% to S/L, most of my complete builds only bothers to build up to about 32% def as that is the overall sweet spot to pop a purple if a situation calls for it. For the most part, I vary the notoriety of the missions dependent on the character (Tankers run at higher team count, Stalkers at higher level and various settings in between) but I tend to hover around +3/x4 on average (again, I don't have that many Tankers but I do play more Stalkers and Defenders) and to further clarify, that's not pushing anything for challenge, that would be just casual missions. +4 isn't beyond most of my builds but x5 on a build that doesn't have a loadup of AoEs can get annoying fast. On teams, I avoid most things in the 40+ range because it's boring. I only ever bother unlocking Alpha except on 2 characters whose concept particularly fits with Judgement and Interface. I don't bother with fiddling with TF settings because I just join others' TF and coast. It's rare that a TF will be "challenging", even for my mediocre concept-centric builds. Now to counter your point, those aren't options to make the game harder that you're mentioning, that is content I'm willfully ignoring. Not using incarnate powers most of the time, only teaming in certain level ranges, not filling out a complete IO build, intentionally aiming for lower values, using settings to decrease my potential, these are things I give up which is a completely different kind of challenge. My perspective is, there is not "this or that", you need a blend of both. You need both settings to a adjust your difficulty AND rebalancing so the upper ceiling poses a challenge. For whatever reason, you feel I want to just nerf everything and leave the game at that. No, I'd personally like to see +5 be an option (rebalance the purple patch a bit) and adjust things so that current +4 is around +2. Add in -2 as well, then add on extra powers to the mobs to make them more dangerous in groups. On top of that, add in "Promote Minion" and "Promote Lt" options among a variety of other stuff. If you have ever played Pokemon, it is a notoriously easy game and players use many self-imposed limitations to challenge themselves: nuzlockes which limit fainted pokemon to being discarded can be fun...but there are also other things like mono-type teams, solo-mon runs, no level challenge, no hit challenge, etc. I like nuzlockes as they still play normally and have some aspects of chance to keep things interesting but mono-type teams, solo runs, no hit runs, these are woefully NOT fun to most as a lot of those kind of runs require an ungodly amount of time grinding or precise calculations and research to manage. Not everyone likes the same kinds of challenge which is why I'm putting forward the argument that setting AND balance should be a better solution, not simply one or the other. Overall though, I'm curious how many run the game at the lowest difficulty setting or some adjusted version of it. Maybe if it was shown that a good amount run the game at -1, no bosses, perhaps I'd change my opinion. The upper and middle part of the difficulty spectrum is overcrowded while the lower difficulty is sparse and underused. If you've got a formula to solo max difficulty widely known and available, that illustrates the problem pretty plainly.

I've heard a lot of feedback about TW being clunky and unwieldly. Maybe I'm biased but isn't that the point? The weapon is supposed to feel heavy and that feel is emulated by having a slow wind up as well as big boomy effects (the AoE, KD and damage, not the sound fx). Even with the intentionally clunky mechanics, it's not even that bad. Who cares if you're stuck in a long animation if you've got nearly an entire spawn taking a seat while you do it. Again, I'm not saying you should like it for it's clunkiness but that was supposed to be the price of its effectiveness. Granted, if they removed that aspect from the set while bringing it's mechanics/damage in line with others, that would be a disappointment. Instead, why not just get rid of the +def and the -res? Leave everything else the same lol

Did you ask "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier?" [EDIT] A point of contention here: it's much easier to adjust difficulty to a point your team can manage it, basically lowering the difficulty to be beatable. That is a concrete measuring point. The opposite (adjusting difficulty to be harder) isn't as concrete, in fact I don't think anyone has put numbers to any of that side of the argument.

But they and many others also acknowledge that large balance changes won't happen and would still leave a power vacuum in its place to be filled by something else. Just because someone doesn't explicitly state the good points doesn't mean are wholly against them. I'd say, people overall like that you can turn a "meh" build into a great build thanks to IOs. The problem is obviously the extreme cases that are hurting balance. Further still, it wouldn't be all that bad if said extreme cases were rather rare, but you'd be stretching the truth if you tried to tell me moderate-to-highend builds are rare. I guess we're all fretting over here. Okay guys, let's pack it in. @FUBARczar is telling us we're fretting and apparently that's bad, especially if you don't want to be called silly. If I'm fretting over IOs, you're fretting over people talking about IOs. Are you not sillier then? Is that before or after they neutralize foes with their superior buffs/debuffs? While there are some outlier buff sets, most of them can't buff themselves so rely on others for support and I'm sure they can become completely self sufficient with their comprehensive debuffs.... Oh wait, you point to an all Corruptor team? Well dang, where have I been. I thought support sets were *SUPPOSED* to be the equalizer with regards to pacing. Isn't that what we're all talking about? It's always been said that a full team of defenders is pretty much the pinnacle. I know that's not true now but I would suppose Corruptors should be right on their tail at least. Should *A* Corruptor outpace *A* Dominator? Depends on how safe that corruptor is compared. Should a *GROUP* of Corruptors outpace a *GROUP* of Dominators? You better believe it. I didn't think that was a controversial talking point.

Note should be made that Illusion Control is the least "controlly" control set in the game. Not saying it's ineffective but rather it's such a departure from any other control set that exists, the devs thought it wouldn't work well on the other control AT (dominator) because it wouldn't get any benefit from Domination. Scrappers are also built to be back-up tanks. Stalkers are not. In fact, Stalkers have a tendency to *drop* aggro, especially if you consider their premiere release set, Ninjutsu. Initially, Stalkers had no options for aggro management outside of using hard/soft control. Scrappers, on the otherhand, have a taunt and often times an aggro aura built into their sets. It was always to my understanding that the villain ATs were supposed to be corrupted versions of the hero ATs, or amalgamations that altered its overall style: Brute = blend of Scrapper and Tanker Stalker = blend of Blaster and Scrapper Corruptor = blend of Defender and Blaster Mastermind = blend of Tanker and Defender Dominator = blend of Controller and Tanker Another aspect that is sort of being ignored when talking about the "intention" of Dominator is their inherent. At the start, a portion of the AT's damage was actually in Domination mode. It was designed to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde AT so even if it had good damage, it was intended (at least initially) to be temporary and under certain conditions. I don't feel that warrants it being "close" to Blaster since it's current implementation is suppose to focus on aggro management with a secondary in damage. I will say, however, Doms should totally outdamage Controllers through and through. I'm not up to snuff on Controller metas, but I want to say some of their support sets really give Doms a run for their money, that much I'll admit. I still don't think Doms need more damage...maybe some normalization of powers...maybe even shortening some animations, but not a modifier buff.

I believe you did because... Nobody said IOs didn't do that, in fact people can still praise IOs for the good that they do while pointing to the imbalance they create...like with KB IOs and how it makes Acrobatics need buffing because of the ease of replacing it. Maybe if the IO had reduced KB protection, were unique or had some kind of drawback like reducing KB resistance in turn, but as is, it actually reduces some variety of build diversity in regards to power picks for reducing KB since an IO is just the better alternative overall... And to the context of the previous quotes you're being obtuse about, sitting here boldface telling people it's silly to talk about something you don't agree with while hypocritically defending the reverse with passive-aggressive jabs just shows you have no principles and really just means the best course is to just do what you do and throw jabs right back over and over. Of course, I don't really have that kind of boredom but maybe things on my end will dry up and I won't have anything better to do so who knows. Well buckle up, buttercup. Someone has to be "not the best" and until Corruptors are completely outpacing Dom, then they are where they need to be. Until the game's difficulty actually warrants a reprisal of roles (due to changes in balance and/or setting options), there isn't much need for anyone to get a boost outside of specific powers/sets (and maybe Sent if they ever get their inherent changed). Not having the best damage while having extremely comprehensive aggro control and mez protection is the price paid. If I were re-evaluating the momentum mechanic, I'd probably extend momentum's duration and just have 2 of the attacks "expend" momentum. Just give the player more control over when they are going to go on that slow-mode but at a cost.

I'd argue the point that American is more right than most countries. A lot of other 1st world countries, including the US, tend to have their own spheres that will change their perspectives where ever you happen to be standing on that sphere. So some aspects that seem more or less controversial isn't as such in other countries which will then, in turn, skew their perspective further. To put my point in perspective, I think Sweden's ethnic population is over 60% Swede but I don't think we call them "farther to the right" despite ethnic diversity being a more left-leaning agenda...but I don't know if as many people of varied backgrounds has been clamoring to immigrate into Sweden whereas with the US, the playing field for that subject is wholly different. From the sphere of a Swede, the US seeking to regulate immigration seems far right. I think, what is reality (or purported as reality) has to be taken with a grain of ignorance to better see biases within your own perspective and/or within others. The problem being, to do that, you have to actually listen and let people be heard because ideas can't be challenged otherwise. Tip-toeing around politically correct speaking procedures is likely why things become more difficult to discuss, become more heated and controversial.

I think this is squarely in the realm of "GM enforcement" as I've been on the receiving end of consistent treatment for far less. I don't think spoiler tags should be an out to escape enforcement either. Just to compare, in a discussion about overall game balance, someone made an example of the NBA and how they wouldn't suggest limiting every current athlete's performance so they could join. I didn't ask them to make an analogy or even criticize them for it. I merely countered with another analogy that is a current situation with regards to Women's sports that takes into account provable scientific facts and I still got reported, post deleted and a multi-day ban. I didn't even bring it up in an offensive way. But ultimately, I feel the enforcement pushed out is heavily influenced by if/who decides to report a post. If you're discussing things with chill people or those who are pro-free speech and no busy-bodies are lurking in the background, likely nothing will happen...but if it does get reported and the one reported is on a list, they will receive harsher treatment. You end up with people that get away with being political and those that challenge them get the brunt of the GM enforcement of those policies. I've actually tested it, lol

Then you read it and failed to understand. The whole line of discussion was criticizing the effect IOs had on balance, not harkening back SO-only. You loose grip on context when you start shot gunning your replies. And I find this line of discussion pretty hilarious. You're quick to cut off people asking for nerfs but you'll jump on an opportunity to ask for unneeded buffs. Doms don't need more damage and it'd be pretty foolish to go by blanket modifiers for an AT who has arguably made out like bandits thanks to the IO system. The only aspect Dom gets the short end of the stick on is that controls are not as effective in some late-game content. And lamenting the pet? ~Laughs in Mastermind~ Doms don't just do damage from the secondary. They get damage from all around, be it incarnate, IOs, procs, epic pools, their primary, etc. Are they the top in damage? Arguably no...and they shouldn't even be close because damage isn't their focus...it's control. You don't really hear Stalkers begging for extra buffs despite them doing less damage than a Dom, and again, the reason a Dom will outpace a Stalker has wholly to do with what its specialty is (it's Single Target DPS, in case you don't know). A Stalker will outpace mostly anyone in ST DPS but fights aren't done one at a time. That aside, I'll just say, if your Dom isn't doing enough damage then fix your build. If that excuse is good enough for you to throw out to others, it's good enough for you to take your own advice. Cheers.

Putting negative labels that instill motive is a defensive mechanism to demoralize your opposition. Shaming by purporting negative characteristics on those not in agreement with you might be an offensive (rather than defensive) move if it were actually true. As for repeatedly reminding people of the "play it your way" mantra, I'm sure is beneficial to keep people in perspective. It's similar to the reminder I would repeatedly post that "it's only a forum discussion. No one is taking your legos" so that people will stop basically telling people not to say "the words" and think "the ideas".

Oooh boy! If this weren't off topic, I'd continue this line of discussion. As a chronic apathetic, I have no wherewithal for political correctness, faux-politeness or social SOP on these forums. I've had multi-month bans from the game already for that (which is why I know this dialog thread would get quickly scrubbed if I even bothered to continue). I will say, you can't have a valid discussion if your goal is to stamp out discussion. Even your questions and hypotheticals are flat and pointless: "how are the "Support players" gonna be the center of attention when everyone else leaves?" lol how about taking that back a step and find out how you'd make support the center of attention at all first? You don't have to "take action" to talk about something...and if my posts wouldn't constantly get deleted, I'd be more frank rather than exceedingly dry in my replies.