ScarySai

Hire this man, HC. As an aside, I really don't understand the hostility and misrepresentation in the replies to this thread. It's completely unwarranted, and frankly a pathetic showing from such an otherwise great community.

Debatable, TW is an outlier, when/if they hit that, are we going to go down the slippery slope and nerf top performers in every category? Does Cold need to be hit so pain dom can feel valuable? I don't think so. PPM does have quite a few broken things going for it, but are we going to revert to pre-I24 rules so procs in short CD abilities are valuable again, or just a weirdly selective version of PPM that's only meant to nerf proc bombs and nothing else? Lest we detract from the core point of the thread, keeping everyone on the same page regarding intention would make the entire implementation/feedback process in both instances a lot smoother.

What a shitty thing to say. OP is REQUESTING transparency, not demanding it, first of all. Second: Changes that are bad for demonstrably bad reasons getting negative feedback isn't due to the desire to tear down the HC staff, I love most of the work they have done, ripping into them doesn't serve any purpose. The fact you want to spin this as some hate campaign is a joke, and I won't humor further discussion with you if you keep it up. Lastly: They don't have to do it, they can tell us all to piss off and do their own thing, why dogpile on the OP and misrepresent his post for being slightly critical? That's nonsense. I get it, Homecoming essentially brought this game back in the most successful way, but that does not make every criticism an attack on the team. OP made valid points, yet his and other's words were twisted to fit some imaginary narrative.

Jack doesn't work for HC, but I see what you confused there, disingenuously or otherwise. As for your question? To start: A roadmap, insight on their design approach, what they consider to be problems so we can provide feedback that fit those parameters. @jubakumbiYou can play word games all you want, but backlash is feedback. Getting hung up over the choice of word just makes this into some stupid semantic debate.

Negative feedback in response to a decision is the backlash I refer to. Both times, the issue was overcomplicated and dropped unceremoniously, which made many testers feel kind of cheated as the set would be shelved for an undetermined amount of time. Jack was a clown, that does not mean I think all devs are clowns. What's your point? The dev team worked with the playerbase to learn things they didn't even know at the time. That's not dev hate, those are just the facts. Dev hate would be if we got personal with our feedback, rather than tackle the changes on their own merits. Being hyperbolic and disingenuous doesn't do you any favors.

If your case relies on us blindly accepting everything, when specifically asked for our feedback, then it's a bad case.

That's a rather interesting spin on otherwise non-hostile phrasing. Wanting to work with and to better understand the designer mindset isn't an attack on the devs.

Fixing what isn't broken for the former by nerfing double rage and removing a fantastic DC change in favor of a weird 15 second DoT due to irrational balance fears before shitcanning the whole thing, deserved the backlash they got. Devs can have their ideas, but CoH would never have crawled out of the hole Jack left behind were it not for community feedback.

As am I, and I stated earlier that you are correct in a sense with the client-developer relationship. But essentially calling the community at large mindless, unstable morons is uncalled for. Most are uninformed, few are educated, but only a handful are angry chimps.

/eyeroll A lot of pretentious assumptions, here. It was a quick fix, but the issue was vastly overcomplicated for whatever reason. The first round of changes was fine as it was, but if they had to nerf it, they could have scaled back the damage instead of two highly I'll advised reworks.

Preach.

It could work if it wasn't so much "community gets final say" so much as what to prioritize. Say the HC team wants to work on a bunch of things, but can only reasonably work on two. The community vote could let HC know what to prioritize.

I agree, it entirely depends on how they do it - but that's part of the problem, we have no idea how they would want to do it. If it was making under-performers stronger, great. If it was to hit top performers so that under-performers could be competitive, that's a bad call.

This would be a hard undertaking unless massive nerf-waves happened across the board, I for one don't care to see another Jack Emmert era for this game. I half agree - clients typically have no idea what they want in my industry and likewise, the majority of players aren't as well informed as some of us with how the game works, calculations, coding required and such - a voting system would have to be very carefully considered and more carefully implemented. Still, the call for transparency is something I agree with in the OP. A lot of decisions ranging from fantastic to questionablehave been made and I'd like some insight on how the developers are approaching this problem, so that I may offer feedback in a more...'digestible' way.

Can't speak for many others, but WoW is currently going downhill for exactly the opposite reason. @ApparitionListening to every bit of feedback would be bad, I saw a handful of awful suggestions in the dark melee forum - but the deciding voice should be informed enough to sift through the garbage and understand the data being presented.

This set needs a bit more power behind it, as it stands - it seems like you're afraid of making it too OP, which is making it end up rather anemic.

I don't understand why this thread lasted longer than DM's, but this should be settled by now. Just distracts from giving feedback on the actual powerset, the part that matters.

Working on an elec/shield build currently, but I'm having trouble working out the best chain for single targets. Side question: When do you use thunder strike? Seems kinda 'meh' even on AoE.

The sentinel should be either stackable, or permanent.

Don't pin this on us, the second iteration was worthless and a fifteen second DoT wouldn't be much better. You aren't missing much. First version just needed a slight nerf, honestly.

I wonder if you can go lower than Assault/ninja. At least it has a cool theme going for it.

From a purely min/max standpoint, Ice/elec/fire seems like the play here.

Funny you mention it, the lore AmAs referenced the idea of an elite variation of Malta where they all had a ton of nanite empowered sapper tech.

Gravity's already one of my favorite control sets due to wormhole and singularity, this would be all the more reason to dust off my grav/storm.

It really seems like it's being assumed that Dark melee is just able to naturally hit hard without Soul Drain, it really isn't, Soul Drain saturation is the set's claim to fame. That and the lack of AoE is why Shield is such a good combo for it. Soul drain is a huge part of the equation, a heavily damage buffed AoE SHOULD be wiping things out. I know a lot of people were critting for crazy amounts on +0 mobs in the first build, so what? If I send my blaster after some +0 mobs I'll be showing you some successive casual 1,500 hits with damage buffs. Please rethink your approach to this.