aethereal

It is impossible to miss 8 times in a row if your hit chance is 95%. The streakbreaker kicks in after one miss if your chance to hit is 90%+. If you saw a multiple miss streak, that necessarily means that you did not have capped to hit chance.

I mean, they don't. Brute and Tanker get defense in Thunder Kick in Martial Arts. Brute and Tanker have different T9s in Ice Armor than Stalker and Scrapper. I'm sure there are a bunch of other differences. But there are a TON of melee ATs and a TON of both melee attack and armor sets. If you make each set substantively a different set for Tank/Brute/Scrap/Stalk, you're talking about making like 50ish differently balanced powersets. It's just clear that the HC team doesn't have the capacity to do that.

Nope.

From the patch notes: Working as intended. If you had recall friend, you'll have Teleport Target.

Just saw this in Pocket D, it's not my portal, so don't know how to repro:

Could we get some details on what used to stack and no longer stacks in Invincibility?

Blasters get 40% resist-all in PVP.

I don't have a strong answer to this, but comparing everything to War Mace (which may be the best melee set with TW nerfed) isn't productive. However, does Staff have better AoE than Claws? Savage? Spines?

File a bug? I was able to successfully use Slide stance.

I think that on a thematic level, the difference between regen and healing is pretty small, and absorb of the type offered by bio is also not very different (rapid-tick absorb shields like blasters get feel different from healing, bio's big chunky one-off absorbs don't). SR and Ninjutsu remain good, popular sets despite their clicky status protection, but also I think there's a pretty notable difference between a strategically used mitigation click and a status protection click. I'm not suggesting that we need a bunch more sets with clicky status protection.

We have good healing-oriented armor sets in Bio and Willpower, one click-heavy and one click-nonexistent. I understand that people have historical affection for the regen powerset and gravitate to the name instead of modeling their Wolverine-like characters as Willpower, but a Regen rebalance would bring relatively little to the state of modern CoH, and a radical reimagining of it wouldn't be much less work than building a powerset from scratch, and would be more contentious. So, no, I don't think that's a good prioritization.

Sure. Regen, but good, and with a focus on defense/resist instead of heals/regeneration.

I'm saying, imagine an armor set where you got a (lower-than-usual) baseline level of mitigation through toggles and autopowers, and then supplemented that with a series of medium-duration clicks, one where, say, you got a defense bonus per enemy around you, one where you got a flat resist bonus, and one where you did a short-lived AoE Terrorize and a heal. Or something like that. Maybe a short-duration crashless godmode. And so, like you had to think about how to layer or ration out those clicks so that they're available in the situations you need them the most.

Yeah, the way it works for my bio armor characters is, I mean, it's not a super reactive save-your-ass thing, each one has a fairly long cooldown and somewhat different conditions needed to activate it for best use. Ablative Carapace is agnostic to conditions around you, DNA Siphon wants a few alive and a lot of dead enemies around you, Parasitic Aura wants lots of live enemies around you, and is on a longer cooldown. It's not rocket science to get coverage from them, but it's not just completely blind "click when they're off cooldown," either. That's the kind of thing I'm asking for. Just injects a bit of variance into your attack rotation.

Sure. That sounds healthy, as long as it wasn't all-or-nothing.

I don't think the meta is that strong in CoH. It seems within the realm of reason to imagine a few different ATO sets where a given build/powerset would benefit from one ATO and another would benefit from another. Just have an ATO that juggles its big defensive grants would create some diversity, I think: if you had one that grants positional vs typed defense, and another that doesn't grant as much defense but does grant more resist, there are clearly ways that all of those would end up being sought after for different characters. You might have to make the procs very similar.

You guys are acting like bio armor and rad armor aren't good, popular armor sets, or that shadow meld isn't a commonly used epic or whatever. Which is weird. Clearly there is a constituency for Willpower, SR, or Invul-like "absolutely minimal clicks" in CoH. But there are plenty of players who are fine with juggling a few clicks and using them at appropriate times. Most sets have a click heal.

I know that I'm in a minority here, but I like armor sets that give me things to do. Managing my clickies in Bio armor gives some added interest in play. Clicks in armor sets in CoH seem to be heavily heals/absorbs (and endurance tools). There are only a few cases I can think of where you get click defense or click resist, usually as a secondary effect of a heal or endurance heal. Doesn't seem any inherent reason why that would have to be the case, and it means that if you have my preference for a click-heavy set, you get pushed towards healing/absorb based sets like bio, rad, or regeneration. Which is fine, but sometimes I want to make a character who doesn't theme well with healing. I think it'd be cool to get a new armor set or two which are based on clicks rather than toggles but get resist/defense primarily through their clicks instead of healing. You could theme a "tactical defense" set kind of like a Batman deal where an intellectual fighter uses the positioning of their opponents to defend themselves with a +defense-per-target power, for example.

Sure. And we shouldn't make it even more so.

I don't really support a third set of ATOs, not because of any particular issues with the detail of your proposal, just because two sets of ATOs already pushes things a little far in the direction of "everyone slots the same." Having there be a little more variety and choice in slotting is I think more interesting. Another ATO that was mutually unique with one of the current ATOs would be interesting, though. So you could have any two of three or four ATO sets.

Yes, the old limitation has been overcome, there are now possibly multiple effects in each effect group. The effect group is the one with the random condition, then any number of effects can be tied to it. It's new in HC or maybe Score, was not available on Live.

Back in the NCSoft days, there was some general sense that people shouldn't have too many animated costume parts in part because it might be hard for lower-end machines to handle lots of animation in groups and so forth. And I'm sure that you can find people on HC who are still playing on decade-old machines that might have that kind of problem. But it's clearly much less of a problem in the year of our lord 2020 than it was in 2008 or whatever. It is doubtless also the case that those various capes would clip against various things. But capes do too, so.

You've also got some weird thing where you tried to blame your failure to read the first post on my editing. I edited the first post twice: the first time very shortly after I created it in order to add the link to the other thread (which I created after this one, so I couldn't link it in the original post). The second time, later, on rereading, to correct a typo where I described both fast-recharge and slow-recharge powers as "high-recharge." The whole substantive first post was there from the start. Nobody is being "defensively hostile" to you "asking questions." Where you provoke hostility is when you make claims about other people -- not their arguments -- that are not true.

I expressed in the beginning of the thread, and have expanded a few times, on why I'm making this suggestion. The PPM mechanic is extraordinarily opaque, rewards proccing a narrow subset of powers, overly rewards global recharge, and has to then have yet more terrible kludgey patches (like the global lockouts of various procs) on top of it. I'm also not really a fan of having everyone do this weird smattering of damage types. I don't think that damage procs are particularly too strong, and the sort of ur-mechanic of sacrificing set bonuses for more damage is a good tradeoff. To your actual substantive criticisms, rather than speculating as to my motives when I've described them: I think you're incredibly overstating the case for damage caps being a problem. No, teams do not "ordinarily brings both brutes and scrappers beyond their damage bonus maximums already." If this proposal were accepted, what scrappers and stalkers lose in occasionally going above their damage cap, they'd more than get back in having their crit damage be improved by "procs." Blasters would get additional performance in their nukes, which under PPM mechanics "waste" a ton of their recharge at the 90% ceiling for procs. All ATs would perhaps find that six-slotting an attack with damage procs was a little less rewarded, but that there were a large number of attacks that currently don't proc well that would be more rewarding to proc. Would it change balance? Certainly. I imagine some powersets would be winners and some would be losers. Would it be an overall nerf? I think it would be relatively straightforward to tune the numbers so that it wasn't.

Accusing people of bad faith in their discussion is spectacularly douchey.