ScarySai

Sure, they can change whatever they want and ignore us, they own the server, of course. Yet, if your default response to to criticism is "they own the server they can do what they want" or "if you don't like it just leave", you're not really making a strong case. I'd of course rather this server get things right than drive people away, as 90% of the stuff HC has done thus far has been fantastic, it's power balancing where they are really slacking, and that's a very important thing to be slacking on. With large scale changes on the horizon, these concerns need to be voiced now, not later when it's half committed already.

There's that word again. I'll quote an unnamed friend of mine here. "What they fundamentally don't get, is it doesn't matter that it follows AT modifiers now, you're changing something that has been well established for the entire lifespan of the game under the guise that it's a bugfix. This is not going to sit well with people. No amount of numbers or coding jargon reasoning you throw out will change the sour taste you've left in peoples mouths, this is why you don't change shit like this. You can bring in more players by revamping older out of date content/powers or inventing new ones but damaging popular non-op powersets is a lose/lose venture."

It's incredibly unreasonable to leave a power that was untouched for the entire game's lifespan alone, obviously.

No, just keep fixing things that aren't broken, it worked out so well for super stre-oh. Honestly, I was mad about tar patch on principle, I don't have any /dark characters. The potential of TA getting nuked from orbit is more worrying, at this point. Did not expect that tidbit of info, but I guess the warning is better than none. I'm growing rather sick of these blatant nerfs being disguised as 'bug fixes', personally.

Fun detected, fun removed.

It would be easier to tell you what isn't wrong with them. The list is short. To start for AR: The animations are too long, especially on FT and FA, no aim, ignite is way too situational to be useful in 90% of encounters and it needs a larger target cap.

Off the top of my head: Trick arrow (Being worked on, apparently!), Electric blast (All ATs), Energy Melee, Super Strength, (Fix. Rage.) Battle Axe, Scrapper Savage Melee (Doesn't scale properly for scrappers), Dual Pistols (DPA is still horrendous, a DPA buff was confirmed but we never got it due to shutdown.), Assault Rifle (Do I need to explain?) Force-field (Almost completely useless.) Plant's going to be in a rough spot, depending on how these changes proceed. Carrion creepers and confuse carry the set hard. Storm could be helped or hindered, if Tornado, Storm and rain all eat a nerf, that's really rough. If they end up doing the same in addition to benefiting from something like scourge, that's amazing.

Finally giving this a go, since I actually have a much better frame of reference for MMs than defenders. Trying it on bots, I'm pretty happy with the results, it's fairly tanky and hard to take down, though a few small things make it seem 'eh' for me. 1: Shock and Amp Up really feel like they should be chain powers, were it not for me using Defrib, AoE debuffing is kinda weak. Additionally, When I fire off my absorb and buffs off, I often feel like I have nothing to do aside from spam circuits to keep myself busy. 2: Empowering should have a slightly longer CD, but stack, or the buff should get stronger with more static The single 22% is kinda underwhelming for masterminds. @Galaxy BrainTry a panacea proc in Rejuv. Edit: I really don't like the pet, it's not firing off it's ability reliably enough to justify it's existence over just mashing discharge ourselves. Edit 2: Current build, will refine slotting should I further test it. Had some extra slots where they weren't needed due to it being a copy of my bots/traps in terms of pool/primary. Left a LOTG out of protectors while testing to measure how much it would be needed in the power, which seems minimal now.

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.