ScarySai

I figure then if it wasn't adding up properly it would have been brought up by now, but if this leads to a discovery, guess that's something! Thanks, Six.

It used to list itself under the typed/positionals like the resist aura is doing there, but I checked live because you mentioned it and it's doing the same thing. When did this happen? Last time I played my MM was a few months ago, it displayed differently. Might be a false alarm, in any case, assuming it'd adding up properly.

Nasty little bug I caught while trying out the Bot/Electric MM. It's not benefiting the typed or positional defenses, which is a huge hit to survivability, especially for a set like EA. Command of the mastermind is working fine, but edict of the master/call to arms are broken. This is on brainstorm. Defense auras Resistance auras seem to work properly.

Fair enough for TA, since that is your baby after all. Personally, I think it's an amazing set that should have been how secondaries for blasters worked to begin with, and could have been a nice alternative way to build future secondaries. Either way, try not to nuke it too hard. For the sets Paragon left behind for us, however - I don't agree with making so many sweeping changes in the name of balance. Personally, I think trying to balance this game like what Jack Emmert tried to do all those years ago would do more harm than good. Bring up the underperformers, nerf extreme outliers if you must, but otherwise leave it alone.

Same thing for the instant travel cheat command, really. I'd still argue that getting attached to how tar patch works is more justified than say, FOTM rolling to TW/bio and not expecting the inevitable nerf.

I'd probably start with something like this, then play around with slotting after field testing it on Brainstorm. | Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Reborn : Hero Designer to view the build | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| |MxDz;1486;703;1406;HEX;| |78DA6594594F135114C7EF4CA774A1947D6905CA66E90285515FDC42A288895242D| |2C427B58CE5520626D0744AA2468DF8157CE0C5ED13F81D7C74FF027E003716B744| |E38267E6FC29249D64F29B7BF67BCFB993BD3E197A7A7E7D4228E1B39661DBF95CA| |16C944AB2ECCD1A45B3209CC7476F744F9ECF4A4BCACCE49A61E5CF58C6BCB42355| |D5A45C902BB6CCCC982B4B66C55E130DB3ABAB5666CA2C2E56CC9562A3BB9A96E45| |4B617CD52686F5D2265D05DE44A52CE47CE95CC42265731AC650A9A5B5DB3F259C3| |AEC8F28D085592A4F7A64FE0D9F52A6F3D42E89A505F802F99DA1BF015B3EE35D3E| |B04505C5F8FB205DD17A67F1B6C575CDEF2C194F2A869D59505E36082191A0693CC| |F033622BC5A43C1ECEA36AC8D384F82D88EF231B2F6CEAF674B06D83CD1D9FD301C| |5ADC12F35D6CD313B0CF01AB3AB00CE33FD143FA0B8BE229826E87E719BE2D5F39E| |B4D01FAE392A3867F41FAFBB7F837F990AF934B08F08EFD2230214B91192A6FB6C7| |597AC9A715A2D0BC295F59A60115C62F62D838BCC20C56BE593F0B66D72357D1F98| |FD9FC0CFE07BE6E047A687F2B6A3A31DDFA1FB05FE640EFDC034906D27F2747D830| |E273E840EC477404C45FC2B739D7C23D85FF434EF79F814781C3CC14C9E0427D8B7| |997C0F715EA5BB8D3B9B4487EB69EF3DE848AFEED807446ACCA157A48EB07FCA29B| |A4713235DCC7B142F069FD813EEF6C803F02173F411F81853423E035C8318BCE871| |E33450EEC3E8631CF5B4905D02B244BFC0740B91C6DED373BCB7D1CBCCB12BE0553| |0CFD40DE600C5CB60EF19770A0342070749378E5CFA3B4C9D56BDDD4271A72DA655| |EFEC6EAA463B5E23D16B24476B24C76A24D3072501AE6556ABFE0184CA93DF249CD| |BE2D6B219242D4E541D250C68627B5FA6AAFDDCBDF005120CD3FDBFC427BC75D02F| |C17E3B07651B9C7D264527875C1BAD24C2F773BA663ACE63AA73FFFB3FE33EEACE| |-------------------------------------------------------------------|

It's not hyperbole, it's a valid concern, and is a massive hit if were to work like that. How is that hyperbole? Kinda upset to see Jimmy like a post so void of substance, that's incredibly off the mark. Don't need to taste a turd to identify one, I would hope a reasonable person could come to that conclusion through other means well before having to handle it.

Another concern, @Captain Powerhouse If powers like Tar patch, Sleet and Freezing rain lose their Pseudo-pet status, will they no longer stack? That in itself is a massive hit to those powers, turning an otherwise minor change into a disastrously large hit, if so.

Semantic arguments are stupid and go nowhere, I used the term correctly, I'm not biting. They absolutely do in terms of potential, potential is where the argument has the most foundation, in fact. The main difference would be +hp if we're talking defense caps, because if both are at cap, they both function as unstoppable walls of meat, and the tanker's increased scaling is irreelvant, because again - they are both at the resist cap. Of course, the tank could reach it earlier and easier, but in a group that brute is getting buffed. We're sort of getting aside from the point, here. It was not intentional, as was domination - are we to expect those to get nasty hits down the line that change everything for the sake of 'fixing' the game? I don't personally think that would be a wise course to take, and now it seems like a very real concern for the long term.

And that's exactly why I'm worried about TW becoming irrelevant after this. I don't play it, whatever happens to it doesn't affect me and I was getting rather sick of it's unmatched dominance for little effort, but I still don't want to see it end up like regen. Not from a developer, but I suppose this confirms that you agree with others earlier in the thread. I still vehemently disagree, but suppose your mind is set on the matter. The caps are largely what I refer to, a buffed and/or properly build brute is essentially a roided out tank from a practical standpoint, and very rarely will the difference matter between them. Synapse didn't care for it or Domination, but removing/nerfing either would greatly hurt if not cripple both ATs. No, it doesn't. By virtue of the resist caps, HP pools and scaling, this is not possible even on a capped resist build with softcap to everything. Resist, especially when you get close to the 70 mark, gets very interesting with the scaling.

I can count the number of sets that actually need to be reigned in with one hand. TW is one of them, though I do hope it's not nerfed to irrelevance, but rather reigned in to not be such an outlier. @CoyotedancerI wish I could like your post fifty times.

If I ask "Why are you fixing this", then "We already fixed this" isn't an answer to the question. @Captain Powerhouse Able to divulge any details?

And I appreciate the restraint, despite finding that sentiment very troubling, as suddenly crippling these sets would be awful, but the minor change going through as-is remains less than ideal. You didn't answer the question, but aside from that, where are we going to draw the line? Are we to expect dominator nerfs down the line as their performance wasn't technically intended? Are we to expect further nerfs to brutes for having tank-like defenses? Kinetics for it's unmatched support? Tactical arrow for not following essentially any blaster secondary rule? I understand wanting to keep rules consistent, however I don't think making negative sweeping changes to legacy sets is the best way to go about this.

Sure, ignore the rest of the post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: It wasn't the foundation of my argument, it was one of many potential ideas. Though in hindsight, I probably should have picked something else so you couldn't derail this as easily.

A key power from one of the earliest sets in the game not being altered in any way despite several opportunities being presented to do so, it could very well have been a consideration in some form. This was a random throw-out and hardly the foundation of my argument. I've explained this to you several times already, and I'm not repeating myself. The burden of proof is on you, now. You're the one claiming it's unintended, yet it remained this long. Your stance justifies change with assumptions, my stance advocates for leaving it alone on assumptions (Neither of us worked for Paragon, after all.) there are quite possibly other reasons we aren't aware of that it was left alone.

Your case is "It has to be broken because it's different!" Which is about as flimsy as it gets, as well. There's nuance to consider here, I'm choosing to consider all variables and don't see a reason to change it now, of all times. You're looking at it as broken because it doesn't follow a rule most powers do, ignoring other reasons it might have been left alone.

Yet, the change is neither 'invisible' nor insignificant. The patch notes read like DM was singled out for 'testing' before the changes roll out to other powers, hence why FR and Sleet aren't mentioned either. I don't think anyone has a problem with fixing the whole psuedopet issue from a mechanical standpoint, the issue at hand is the consequences, unintended or otherwise, from doing so without consideration for abilities like Tar Patch.

I know how it worked, @Vanden. I've spoken with some ex-devs, very interesting stories there, especially with how janky introducing new sets was on the old engine. I also expected someone to bring up the "Well they couldn't do it because of deadlines and priorities" argument eventually, which is normally a good argument for this sort of issue, but it ignores a few other considerations in this context. My point remains, you have yet to make a convincing case for the change, besides the fact it doesn't follow the AT scaling like most other powers. There are multiple reasons that could be the case, not just strictly that they never got around to it, like the good ol' Cottage Rule, as an example. Hence, why I said you are making an assumption.

As a developer, let me tell you that the best solution to a problem often involves some weird behind the scenes trickery. It's entirely possible Paragon saw no reason to change those powers to be 'correct'. They absolutely had the means to do it, they did it for Burn, which inadvertently nerfed Bots, but they did it. As far as I'm concerned, what Paragon considered to be fine shouldn't be touched, we did come back for their game, after all. I'm not acknowledging it because that's not going to be as impactful on /dark's performance as the tar patch nerf. Twilight is a great heal and will continue to be a great heal, but it can eat a nerf with relatively little loss in practical performance. Tar patch is insanely important, a slight to nerf to that is a big hit for the set. Nobody is 'ignoring' it, tar patch simply stands out more. Yet, Paragon had the ability to modify pseuedopets at any time if they felt it wasn't intended. You're jumping to the conclusion that it's simply an accident, I have reason to believe it was left alone by design.

1: You don't know if it's "wrong", that's an assumption. 2: When misrepresented, any case can be made into a non-starter.

"Proper" my ass. It was already proper before this. Paragon left it alone for eight years, they had the opportunity to change the powers multiple times and didn't.

Whether a misguided attempt to fix what isn't broken, to obey a design principle Paragon didn't adhere to, or a poorly justified nerf, the tar patch change is bad and the implications are worse. Do what you did to dark consumption, kill this one in the womb. If it's an unfortunate side effect of the pseudopet overhaul, have it match it's former values.

That's not how it works...

It's far too late to start systematically nerfing all non-defender buff/debuff values. It would just feel bad, and there's zero reason to do it, especially since we're not even official yet. Do what Paragon did, bring under performers up, only nerf when absolutely neccesary. Bio, most of the i25 sets and TW come to mind. I don't want them nerfed either, but if you're to start anywhere, start there. Not with freaking tar patch.

Because for the entire game's history, for every port of those sets and in every single balance discussion, it never came up. Now I'm to believe it's an issue and it needs to be fixed, as rage was, because of a technical "rule" that wasn't adhered to before. Side note: If this goes further than debuffs, Blizzard's on the table next, good luck, corruptors.