Faeriemage

With a statement from Player-1 that another theme would be best for a set dealing with chaining attacks, since the dev team would like to have as many themes as possible, here is a theme and power set idea for a Blast type power set that would be built around chaining attacks. Portal Blast (Possibly called Dimensional Blast) This is a full blast set, compatible with Blasters, Defenders and Corruptors. Tier 1 || Projectile - Ranged, DMG(Smashing) - Pulls a small object from another dimension, through a portal, and flings it at the target. Adds up to 2 stacks of Dimensional Instability. (Animation similar to Gravity Control >> Propel, but with smaller objects if possible) Tier 2 || Planar Shear - Ranged, DMG(Lethal) - Open a portal inside the target, tearing them with the shearing force. Adds up to 2 stacks of Dimensional Instability. (Could use a mixture of Sonic Resonance >> Sonic Barrier for the on person animation (possibly reversed so going out rather than in) and an angled portal effect so it looks as thought it is cutting into the target) Tier 3 || Rip (or Dimensional Rip or Dimensional Tearing or...something along those lines) - Ranged(Targeted Chain), DMG(Smashing, Cold) - Opens up portals to a near empty dimension and propels frozen rocks and ice at the target. For each stack of Dimensional Instability another portal will open an additional portal targeting a foe near the target in a chain leading from the original target, up to the maximum of 6 targets with 5 stacks of Dimensional Instability. (Star scape visible through the tears in space. Could use the rocks from Thermal Radiation >> Thermal Shield for this, likely. Possibly with a different particle emitter) Tier 4 || Solar Flare - Ranged(Targeted Chain), DMG(Fire, Energy) - Opens up one or more portals to the surface of a sun, unleashing heat and radiation upon the target. Will open an additional portal targeting a foe near the original target. For every 2 stacks of Dimensional Instability, will open additional portals in a chain from the second portal. Tier 5 || Causality Collapse - Ranged(PBAoE Chain), DMG(Lethal) - Consumes all stacks of Dimensional Instability and hits up to 3 targets around the player. Attack will chain one more step for each stack of Dimensional Instability consumed, from each target hit. This damage may loop back to a previously hit target, provided it has hit at least 2 other targets in the interim. Maximum targets remain 16, while it does perform up to 18 hits. (Animation could be anything from ground eruptions, psychic bolts, laser blasts. Possibly, the more chaotic the better for this. No, this will not make the Tier 9 seem anticlimactic 😉 ) Tier 6 || Aim - 'Nough Said. Tier 7 || Shift (Don't have a good name for this) - Sniper, DMG(Smashing) Foe +Knockdown- Drops the target through a rift in the ground to the air above a gas giant. Dimensional resonance will bring them back after a second or two, maintaining their momentum and allowing them to be slammed into the ground. The longer they stay in the other space, the faster they will be travelling and the more damage they take, but leaving them there for more than a moment or two takes a lot of concentration. Tier 8 || Pinball - Ranged(Chain), DMG(Smashing) - Through creative use of portals and variable gravity therein, throws an enemy at another enemy. If the player has stacks of Dimensional Instability, the foe hit by the targeted foe will be flung as well, and so on for each stack of Dimensional Instability. Tier 9 || Wake an Old God - Ranged(Placed AoE), DMG(Smashing, Psychic), Opens up multiple portals around the targeted location through which the tentacles of an Old God protrude and begin to smash the foes in the area, while assaulting them with it's incomprehensible presence. (Lusca tentacles could potentially be used for this)

Gotta love when the actual Developers are more reasonable than the individuals who are championing them. Sorry. Frustrated with the sub-forum. Could I request that this thread be locked?

I currently have characters that use the current electric blast. That is fine. Doesn't mean I don't want something else as well. By using names like "Electric Boogaloo" and "+SnuffyWuffyJuice" you are simply showing your disdain for the idea, which was already patently obvious. Just because you personally disagree that Electric Blast 2 makes sense, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. There current is no set that has a chain attack mechanic. And before you say Beam Rifle, that is a spread effect to everyone around the first target, not a chain that can get longer and longer A La Electric Affinity based upon some specific counter. So, by your own logic, proposing an electricity set that uses the chain mechanic, something not in the game, it should be something we could do, something different enough that it is significant. I mean, we're just taking the mechanic from the Electric Affinity set and making a blast set out of it. I fully and truly understand the current paradigm is to not create a second set that is visually similar to a previous set...but I feel the paradigm should change as it stifles potential options. Should we indiscriminately add MkII, MkIII, MkIV, &ct sets to a specific aesthetic. Of course not. I also don't feel we should remove ideas, whether mine or otherwise, just because they would use the same graphics. I get the original idea was too far in scope, but part of the ridiculousness of the OP it was intended. This whole thread is meant to underscore some of the problems, as I see them, with a number of the paradigms under which the devs operate. Don't get me wrong. I think they have done a superb job so far, or I wouldn't even be here. We, each of us, can always improve, however. Sometimes, looking at the why of something we do is almost as important as, if not more important than, the what of our processes. If we don't take a moment, now and then, to consider why we are doing something, then we will be stuck with nonsensical, irrelevant, inefficient, or downright dangerous processes.

I'm sorry you could see no way forward. Others in this thread did.

A) removing -END is a huge change to Electric Blast, considering the damage would have to be rebalanced, as it is currently balanced around the current mechanic. B) Changing it to a chain lightning set, is, again, a major departure from the set as it exists. C) The current paradigm still disallows this sort of change. Even if it is "more than one change" since many things have to change from the first to the second, even when you are only, nominally, changing 1 thing. D) at what point are the people who say "that is not interesting to play" more important than those who say "that is interesting to play?" I mean, the cottage rule seems to say "Even if there is only 1 who wants a power as is, we will not change it." If that is the case, why isn't "even thought there is only 1, that is worthwhile to make" also a thing. Yes, I get it, it is more work to make something than to leave it as is, but under the current paradigm, we are under the tyranny of the small. Just because the small have a voice. But if we are already under the tyranny of the small, then I would like my voice heard as well, and others deserve it more than me, but they're small voices should be heard. The floodgates are already open. They are just going in reverse.

There is a difference between "Well, that doesn't work, but if you move it in this direction..." and "No. The devs say no. Other people here say no." Just saying it doesn't work is rarely constructive feedback. Constructive feedback requires that you actually give points where it can be improved, and methods of how to improve. Often it will state ways in which you personally would improve something. Yes, there is a time and a place for brutal honesty. Brutal honesty is rarely constructive, however.

This, specifically is what I have an issue with. We can't change the sets, because of the cottage rule, because there might possibly be someone who loves it the way it is, and changing it would hurt them, but then again, we're not allowed to "duplicate" sets because that would be too many sets that are "samey". When both of those paradigms are implemented together, you are left with so many sets that would be fun to change, but that you can't change because of how many people will be upset over what you are changing.

I get you all saying that a new set be proposed, but then when in the past new versions of Force Field are proposed, the same group of people in this very thread have said that we already HAVE a force field, and even if it's not perfect, they're not going to update it, and just having another one is redundant. I'm sorry, but you don't get to have this argument both ways. Either, we can have two completely separate versions of Force Field, both using basically the same graphics, or we can't and need to do something like herein suggested. If we can have two different variants of Force Field, sure, that "opens the floodgates" of sets they could update...but is that really a bad thing. Isn't fixing an old set easier than making a completely new one to a certain degree? My bro-in-law would love to see a variant of Electric Blast that's "mechanic" is that it has no actual AoE powers, and all AoE in the set is Chain attacks. The 'ST' powers have a very low chance of chaining, and the 'AoE' powers have a much higher chance of chaining. Unfortunately, without being able to add a new Electric Blast set (Possibly Called Lightning Blast) because there is "Already an Electric Blast set" then there is nothing people can do with ideas like this, since they are seemingly universally pushed down in this forum. I was attempting to put forward an alternative idea that might not get the same knee-jerk reaction of 'change bad' I've gotten in the past. Sure, not all of my ideas are great. Many aren't even good, but the lack of actual discussion on any idea I have put forward, and the lack of actual constructive criticism is really difficult to deal with.

For some of us, the original concept and implementation of a set is what we want. This so called Cottage Rule is the reason some sets get locked into a specific build and can never be changed. Force Field is definitely one of these. You could make the argument about other sets, but that isn't the reason for this suggestion, only the information regarding the why of the suggestion. Some of us want for the Devs to have the option to completely change some of the older sets in the game, updating them in new and interesting ways, like removing -END from electric, or adding +Absorb to Force Fields, something that can't be done as long as we are beholden to the Cottage Rule. Enter the Duplex Rule. At a certain point, Arachnos Soldiers and Widows are able to pick a path down which they can customize their character, which locks out the other path. They do this by picking one of the power options in the path they want to go down. I am suggesting we do this for any of the power sets that we want to change more than just a little, possibly that will completely change how the set operates and feels. This would allow those who still enjoy the old playstyle to continue with that playstyle without change. It will also let those people who like the idea of the power set but not the implementation another opportunity for something a little different (like Electric getting +Disorient instead of -End) Yes, I get that this is a huge departure from what has happened in the past. I also agree that not everyone wants certain things to change. This is why you let them keep what they have, while giving the option to everyone else. I mean, CoH is all about options, after all.

My proposal makes no changes to how they work under normal play, save for at the low end. It would make IOs more in line with the changes implemented into the current build of the game. Of course, I may be the odd duck out here, but I stop slotting any SOs as soon as I hit level 30. It simply isn't worth it. A) SOs are a continuous time and money sink after that point, and B) IOs get more and more powerful in relation to SOs as you level. This is already in the game. DOs and SOs only exist for the rich and lazy IMO. That isn't about 'choice' that is all bout how much effort slotting IOs take. There is no benefit, save exemplaring, to slot an SO into a power above level 30.

That would make sense as the reason for this, if it was a general reduction in power for SOs, but this isn't the case. SOs don't reduce until level 25. I have never heard anyone stating the reason for the reduction is to make up for not having slots. If that were the case, just removing slots makes more sense. Especially since it punishes single slotting much more the current way than it does someone who multi-slots (IE single Accuracy in a power vs. 3 Damages in the same power, the Accuracy of the power is affected more than the Damage of the same. Exemplaring already removes the powers (giving you at max +5 levels worth of powers). At no point does it make sense that you are trying to balance an Exemplar to a non-exemplar. You should be balancing Exemplars against each other, and non-exemplars against each other. There has always been, and will always be, strange differences in how the exemplar/sidekick system works in relation to their natural leveled counterparts. I am not suggesting we need to fix that, since no one else is talking about it. That being said, there is a lot of content that forces exemplar upon everyone involved. Every mission in Flashback for example, since to be involved in a flashback mission you have to be at or above the level range of the arc to be attempted. Sure, you don't have the slots to fit the same number of enhancements into your build at level 12 as at level 50. That being said, you can still slot a single Accuracy enhancement in a power at both levels. Unfortunately, that single Accuracy enhancement for your level 50 will be, at max, 1/4th as effective at level 12 as the level 12s single Accuracy enhancement. This is a problem that has existed since live. They implemented a simple fix without seeming to care much about the ramifications of said fix, especially since it made sense at the time. IO enhancements then followed the same formula, even if it made less sense at certain level ranges.

If you have an SO slotted, and exemplar down below the level at which you can slot an SO, then the SO will be treated as a DO, or TO depending on the level that you are exemplaring down to. This no longer makes any real sense, since you could have purchased an SO in those level ranges, and reducing their effectiveness still is simply because, in a prior build, it made more sense. This is not making 50s more effective, it is making ANYONE higher level than 25 more effective when dropping down. Or, a better way to put it, it is making the level 25+ just as effective as their at level counterpart, and not punishing them for dropping down to help. As far as making them "generically the same" there are extra steps to making an IO, and always will be. This is not a "Leveling up" equivalency, this is a "scaling down" equivalency. Currently, there is no contest in the way that SOs scale compared to IOs. I have, in the past, created a second build for my level 50s, filled with just SOs, that is otherwise identical to my primary build, just so I can do flashback missions. I don't think that we should be required to do that, just to have a viable build when doing those lower level missions, just to keep to an ideal that no longer makes sense in the current build of the game. This isn't just me stating "because I wants it precious". This is a case of it simply makes sense with the state of the game as it currently stands. I don't hear you suggesting that they go back to only allowing SOs to be purchased at level 25, so why should they keep IOs at the same levels they were before you could purchase SOs at a much lower level?

In a time before SOs could be purchased at level 1, having the level 10 IOs be significantly worse than an SO made sense. In this post SO availability world, however, I think it is more than time for a change. This change would also encompass Enhancement Scaling when Exemplaring down for teams or missions, since the old scaling was also implemented with TO/DO/SO movement as leveling. Suggestion Part 1: (No, this isn't about the IOs yet, but is important for that portion of the suggestion) Turn off all TO/DO/SO/HO scaling completely when exemplaring, whether in a team or through the flashback system, or what have you. Any time you are reduced in level, leave these enhancements alone. They keep whatever max level value that they had before the level shrink. Suggestion Part 2: Modify the base IO value to be closer to SO levels at level 10, while leaving the same max level value at 50. I would personally suggest starting at an A schedule enhancement value of 30% at level 10. Exemplar scaling would then be adjusted to reflect these values.

Two different controllers. First was an Afterglow Xbox 360 (I realize it is old) USB wired controller. It works perfectly for other games, of course. The second controller is the Microsoft Xbox controller that came with my Series S and run through my native Bluetooth on my system.

I just started using a controller recently. I set up a keybind for it, set both of the bumpers to extra keys, and mapped all of my abilities how I wanted them. All of the modifier buttons (left trigger, left bumper, right bumper) work perfectly. In the menu I can set anything to a Right Trigger+ arrangement, and it registers there. That being said, no matter how I configure a keybind for the right trigger, I can't get the game to recognize it outside the keybinds menu, What have I done wrong? Oh...the virtual mouse works perfectly fine.