Sunsette

I made some suggestions to that end in the topic linked in my signature!

Yup. You can also sometimes see dialogue balloons from another floor especially in a team where you're split. Always funny.

That would be a really bad move considering there are still a lot of builds and casual play that struggle with existing settings and cause more problems for people starting out. While there are times it must be done, it is always risky to make players weaker rather than giving tougher challenges for stronger players.

DA is much more challenging for many builds even considering the level shifts, due to the unique mechanics the enemies use. I don't go to Peregrine for a challenge at all. The toughest there for me is the Carnival, and that just means I do mop-up first while the toughest foes are phase shifted.

It's actually a double arrow, as in fast-forward. (Well, it's ACTUALLY a guillemot which is a French quotation mark but it's being used as a double arrow.) That said, I completely understand the confusion, tbh. It would be best, I think, to put the word 'Last' adjacent to double arrows and a single arrow next to uh, Next, in order to improve accessibility and intuitiveness of design.

In American intellectual property law, that is in fact applicable at times, particularly for trademarks, and it is part of why companies so vigorously act in seemingly-ridiculous manners to squash potential trademark challenges that appear innocuous casually. CoH private servers is a tangle of trademark and copyright law. Admittedly, most of the big concerns for HC are copyright but since the forum thread is about trademark I wanted to point that out. So I don't know if I'd use the phrase "tacit permission", but NCSoft's silence has been meaningful and is fairly unusual across IP holders in America. I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. It is relevant that in the last few years the LOC ruled that private servers were broadly legal for abandonware, but there's the additional complication that HC has access to the official backend and I really have no idea where that could go. Also the LOC isn't binding so much as guidance here. By the same token, though, to my casual eye, not sure there's a good legal case for any third parties to get mad about people using this now-defunct game to represent their trademarked characters, any more than there would be to get upset about fanart posted in deviantart. No one is making a profit through direct operation of the game, nor using it to promote anything profitable (like "merch".) That doesn't mean that someone couldn't get mad about it, and this server would probably fold under any real legal challenge, so people may want to err on the side of caution. But I suspect most IP holders would err on the side of "not worth the PR blowback", same as they usually don't go after fan operations selling handcrafted art of their trademarked characters. It's only when it goes into industrial scale that companies commonly get involved these days. I do have some legal education and experience but IANAL so, as always, consult one with relevant experience and education if this is actually important to you.

We need to get a master list of these toggles that aren't toggles.

I find it depends a lot on screen brightness settings.

And if that don't work... Well done; my question is, what's the natural partner to this in a Dominator? Perhaps we need a Suppressing Fire control set.

I'm confused because we already have this. Do you not see these buttons?

My goal is to make it a one-stop shop of what you need to know to play this AT as effectively as you would like to; I took a similar approach with my Energy Blast Guide and people seemed to appreciate it. I'll update our template accordingly and wait for any last feedback. I won't ask @drbuzzard to resubmit, I'll try to fit your information to what we have, and I'll create a sign-up sheet in the first post so we can see who's contributed to what.

Experiencing this on a BR Sentinel and on a Blaster. Every time I go into the tailor with a specific costume for the first and second times after logging on, the rifle gets changed on that costume and I have to revert, back out, and retry.

...I actually find this forum style much easier to read on my desktop, too. Better contrast, better post spacing.

@XaoGarrent and @oldskool, thanks for the feedback. After some more thought I think it may be best to eliminate a per-set section discussing dissynergies and instead have a primer section discussing common benchmarks optimizers try to reach and considerations that should be taken into account. This will reduce per set clutter. Such a primer would also be a good place to discuss hidden mechanics like how defense and resistance work to begin with, PPM slotting, Enhancement Diversification, debuffs, etc. The powerset review would retain a per-set review of strong synergies, just not a warning section. Does that seem like a better alternative?

Eh, I notice a big difference between 50 Def and no DDR and 50 Def with 40% DDR. They're hitting you rarely in the first place, you don't need a lot to stop a death spiral if you've got a comfortable cushion over cap.

YUP. I'm actually in this boat -- even if my current characters with crashing T9s got 'em fixed to simply be crashless, not withstanding @nihilii's accurate analysis, I'm not sure I'd actually take it on all of them. I like having the freedom. But I like trying to look at the game from the perspective of a new player and a friend of mine was talking about frustrating it can be when a newbie asks for build help and they don't understand why you're skipping their ultimate power. And I sat there and went, "well, hm. Wouldn't it make more sense for the powers to work intuitively?" Obviously this doesn't have an easy solution, but if we can work one out that'd be great.

yeah I know about SR Sent, but I could very much believe it's the sort of thing that's so randomly hacky that reverse-engineering to add to an existing powerset might cause all sorts of bugs, heh. Anyway, good points all 'round.

What about mutually exclusive T9 options -- keep the existing ones as-is, introduce an alternative with reduced numbers. Is this technically feasible?

4 because the faster I change floors, the faster things die are arrested.

Thanks! Added it to the linked build list, and glad it was helpful for you.

I was thinking about Bio Armor and Radiation Armor when I mentioned explicitly excluding some from consideration. Those are extremely powerful T9s that work on a completely different paradigm, with only a tiny and manageable end penalty. I think Fire and Dark have somewhat weak T9s but I am not sure how the heck to cottage rule that, and they're both very thematically appropriate. Will I think needs to be considered though -- the crash is somewhat manageable, but as you say, the benefits are slight. Also I think at the very least, Icy Bastion needs to be a choice at T9 alongside Hibernate for all ice sets. Cottage rule for the people who like Hibernate but that is like, awful for most of the ATs that get ice. If we were looking at giving benefits to the crashing defensive T9s beyond removing their crashes, I think the benefits should be AT specific. e.g. increased scrapper critical rate, fury bar doesn't decay, boosting both defense and resistance for tankers, perma-opportunity bar for Sents, no idea for Stalkers. Not an official suggestion, not at this stage, just something. Because the more I look at that table, the more I realize that -just- removing the crash is really not going to matter for tankers at all for most of these.

Thank you, I think that's very helpful to have on hand!

I actually completely agree, which is why I named the section something more cautious than "BAD COMBINATIONS" but perhaps a better name could be chosen? Looking for suggestions. I just think it's good for people to realize walking into a set combination if they won't have a lot of freedom to still hit something close to what we might be thinking of as a benchmark.

Fyi I recommend linking to this topic instead: Bopper has kept it updated with new information as he gets it and that is the most accurate and clear repository on the PPM formula. As for the reddit thread, it has outdated formula information but a good list of PPMs. One bit of missing information is that Annihilation: Chance for -Res is a -12.5% penalty, it was blank in this thread last I checked. Oh also, Force Feedback does not appear to have an internal cooldown. Think that's it. Hope this was helpful!

I would like to exclude T9s that do not crash at all or have a very soft crash, as in Radiation Armor, from this discussion. Why remove the crash? Part of what makes many of the newer sets so strong is that they effectively have 9 powers to work with, not 8. ATs with defensive sets presently reach very durable status in most situations anyway. T9s can't be permaed, though some may need recharge increased to balance. Many T9s maintain psiholes, so this will improve performance chiefly where strong solo ATs already are doing quite well. It increases build freedom since you may not feel as much of an imperative to cap if you can press a button when you get over your head and not regret it. Precedent from Blast sets having their crash removed. Reduces the effect of the Blaster<>Sentinel<>Scrapper design space being crowded due to increasingly durable blasters and increased ranged damage beginning to reach parity with melee. Concerns: Increases the design space crowding between Brutes and Tankers. As most T9s do not significantly increase offense, Tankers may feel more marginalized, while Brute tanks can survive in more difficult scenarios. This could potentially be off-set with a buff to tanker offense during a T9's active period. Although it is a power boost chiefly in areas where Stalkers, Sentinels, Scrappers, Brutes, and Tankers were already designed to excel, it is still a power boost that may be unnecessary. How to handle T9s ported to another class via epic pool?