ScarySai

I'll give it a look when I get home tonight and edit this post with my suggestions.

@CrysisWere you not running the -res procs in sweeping and ablating? With the attack vitals chain (lower recharge) and the Blind>Ablating>Sweep>Ablating chains (high recharge), you should be doing some amazing damage on things like AVs and such. Yes OP, DB is very good once you invest in it. I don't like it personally, but it gets good results overall.

I don't know about the customization, but those necromancy changes sound amazeballs. Actually makes necro live up to it's name. Warshades are better necromancers!

@VoodedYou won't catch me defending the current system, so you're on point as far as I'm concerned. Things getting worse due to meddling would be less than ideal. I'm for the pre-i24 rules simply because it was proven to work. Was it still kinda OP? Sure, so what? Nothing compared to right now. Of course, I have very few characters that rely on proc slotting for damage, much less dependance, so I don't exactly have as much of a horse in this race as others do.

...upping the target cap wouldn't change the fact it's a cone, what?

The 'fix' if it's ever implemented should keep procs valuable/make them more valuable, especially in attack chains, while reigning in long-recharge proc bombs. Procs should be valuable in short recharging powers as well, hence why I'm in favor of pre-i24 ruling. There's no reason why my -res proc should be less valuable in say, foot stomp, than it would be in the rad armor AoE that I totally forgot the name of as I'm writing this. My primary concern with fixing this is that I fear a rush job, over-correction or over-complicating of the issue. We saw it with super strength - especially rage, Gun drone on devices, consumption on DM, and the entire electrical affinity set. Simply put, I have heavy reservations that this would be done properly.

Either revert to pre-i24 rules or don't touch it. I'll be frank: I don't trust Captain Powerhouse to fix this without either making procs useless, or breaking things more.

I'd be down for this.

Don't touch Katana, but yes - BS needs some work.

Why not?

Was the speed capped due to hardware capabilities at the time, or was it an issue with the engine itself that caused things to bug out at a certain speed threshhold? I forget what Jack's reasoning was. If the former, I don't oppose the idea, but if the latter, better safe than sorry, eh?

In fairness, the P&P version of Champions was pretty good. virtue is still better :>

That's a funny way to spell "Virtue".

I'm aware of it's origin, but the way it's often used is really just an immature way to shut down discussion.

I'd be down with this, but the dev posts should be archived. As for Jrangers, it's essentially a declaration of "I'm not mentally mature enough to handle this discussion."

I don't mind that stance at all, I took great issue with the hostilities earlier in the thread more than anything. Edit: To clarify, I still disagree, but don't really see a point in arguing, essentially.

So, why did you nerf the one cool thing in the set? Jaunt was harmless. Far be it from me to want a pool power that isn't hasten/fighting/leadership/jumping to be useful, but maybe this should get rolled back?

"Can we have some transparency and maybe a bit more community involvement?" "You hate homecoming, it's devs, and wish to eat their children you elitist powergamer." "wait what."

See, why couldn't we start out on a positive note like this?

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.