Jump to content

kenlon

Members
  • Posts

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kenlon

  1. The overperformance is in comparison to other melee sets, regardless of how they're enhanced. Titan Weapons breaks the formulas that (AFAIK) every other attack set in the game follows. @Galaxy Brain did a really great write up of it in one of the beta patch discussion threads, but I can't seem to find it now.
  2. You seem to have missed the other question I asked you, so here it is again: Would turning Domination into a standard click power with 90s duration and 200s recharge, without the need to fill a bar, address your problem with removing the effectiveness cliff? (At least in principle.)
  3. In the case of the Domination thread, because finding a way to make PermaDom and NotQuitePermaDom closer in effectiveness would be good for Dominators, and isn't a large change. The AH stuff is, I think, an outgrowth of people seeing the no more double inf for exemping change and completely failing to understand how that impacts the economy and their effective income. And for this thread, well, I've had some discussions in game that included Abysmalyxia, and I think he may have green skin and be taking Superadine. . . 😄(This is assuming that he's the guy with that global chat name, of course.) Though, amusingly, in a vacuum I would agree that Hasten is bad game design. But it's baked into the balance assumptions of CoH at a level where removing it would require reworking a ton of things from the ground up, if you don't want to make players feel like they've been nerfed into the ground. Now, changes like that have been made before, and are sometimes needed (Enhancement Diversity being the canon example), but Hasten doesn't distort balance to the point that there's no good option but to remove it.
  4. No, the problem that GalaxyBrain, Replacement, and I have all expressed is: "Domination has a problem because the gulf between 122% global recharge and 123% global recharge is huge in terms of Domination uptime." It's out of line with everything else in the game, and is out in line in such a way that limits build diversity (because you can't have AlmostAllOfTheTimeDom.) On my tanker builds, for example, I almost always end up with not-quite-permahasten, with an effective 130-140 second recharge, because I choose to prioritize other things over squeezing out that last bit of recharge. If Hasten worked like Domination, where you had an enforced 30+ second downtime if you don't make the power permanent, then these builds would be a waste. The only way that Permadom is too good is this: "PermaDom is too good in comparison to being 1% recharge short of PermaDom." I don't have any issue whatsoever with Permadom. (I think that there are some core design flaws around putting Dominator's ability to reliably use controls behind a click power, but that's beside the point.) Other AT's do not have built-in "You must be this much +recharge to ride this ride" signs in the same way that Dominators do. I see no reason that Dominator players should be punished for not having a certain level of +recharge. I'll ask you the same question I asked Salty: Would turning Domination into a standard click power with 90s duration and 200s recharge, without the need to fill a bar, address your problem with removing the effectiveness cliff? (At least in principle.) And this is easy enough to test: How long does it take for you to fill your bar the first time? If this change was being considered for real, then one of the things that would absolutely come up in testing is how long that takes and whether it needs to be adjusted.
  5. Since I first noticed it with Fighting, I'm seeing that there are lots of other places sprinkled around various sets that this shows up as well. I know a lot of the code for CoH is best classified as "crawling horror", but this would be a really nice change to get made.
  6. If you are 1% short of recharge to perma, say, Carrion Creepers, do you suddenly have an extended downtime on the power? And you still aren't replying to my other question. If Domination were to be changed so that you didn't need to fill a bar to activate it, and it was just a 90s buff on a 200s cooldown, which would leave Permadom builds entirely unchanged while greatly smoothing out the experience for players who don't have Permadom, would that address your objections?
  7. This is something that I especially noticed in the Fighting pool, since with the synergy changes, they're actually worth considering now. Checking the info and seeing "Special smashing damage on target" instead of a damage number, and then having to go look up what damage it should do for your AT and add the appropriate percentage buff is really pretty annoying. Is there any chance this could get addressed, or is there a reason the UI can't deal with the power expressions?
  8. . . . you are dodging the question. Again. I can tell you the answer, though. Less recharge = less damage in a reasonably linear manner. If you lose enough recharge that you have 0.1 seconds of dead time, the loss of damage is going to be half of what you get for a 0.2 second dead time, and so on. (Yes, there is an edge case around powers that provide short term buffs, but that does not disprove the general case.) Would you agree with that? Reposting this, since I think you missed it earlier, and I'm interested in your thoughts.
  9. Okay, you're skipping the actual question I was asking. Is the loss in damage linear based on the amount of recharge you are short or not? The Tar Patch fix was due to them changing the backend of the game so that powers can spawn other powers directly, allowing them to have them use the proper AT modifiers directly instead of needing to make a whole pile of pseudopets for different ATs. See this for confirmation: Having ATs actually use their AT modifiers, and then balancing the sets if needed from there is far better than keeping things buggy and less maintainable to preserve bugs that some players like. We'll have to agree to disagree over the Rage -Def crash fix, because I've not found it to be crippling, though it is something I have to pay attention to. Tanker changes. Mastermind AI. Asymmetrical Costume Editor changes. Origin power pools. Combat log fixes so it's actually consistent. Electrical Affinity. New, and useful, IO sets. Addressed inflation *before* the economy gets broken. I'm not sure what changes they didn't implement that you're unhappy about, but they've done an excellent job. These are just the things that I could think off off the top of my head, because they've affected my play. Thunderspy, from what I've seen in patch notes, has a much more devil-may-care attitude towards radically altering the game. I'm perfectly happen with them being out there, but I wouldn't want to play there.
  10. That feels like an attempt to stick a bandaid on something with fundamental design problems to begin with, though. Needing an ATO to 'fix' an inherent makes baby Jesus sad. Think of the baby Jesuses. If we want to keep Domination as something that can be kept up all the time without needing ongoing damage, then I'd say just remove the need to fill the bar at all. At level 1, you'd have 90 seconds of uptime with a 200s recharge, scaling smoothly with +recharge buffs until you get to perma status. Would that cover your problems with the idea, ScarySai?
  11. And if you don't have enough recharge to use the absolutely most optimal attack chain, how much of a loss in damage is it? Is it linear based on how short you are of the needed recharge or does it drop off a cliff? (Assuming a situation where you keep trying to use the optimal, as opposed to subbing in some other power, simply to make the point.) The fact that the devs are fixing bugs is a good thing, even if it inconveniences a set. I distinctly disagree with you on it destroying the set, though SS is fundamentally badly designed and needs fixing. (Leaning on an overpowered stacking Build Up to make up for the powers being undertuned garbage is bad.) The gun drone thing I dunno anything about, so I'll refrain from comment. And the Dark Consumption change was removed because people didn't like it in the feedback threads, which I will admit was baffling. I'm not sure why you'd hold them not making a change to something against them, given that you've said you'd prefer to leave it in the state Paragon left things. . . (The Shadow Maul changes have been great, though, and it's not like Dark was a bad melee set to begin with.)
  12. Enh, I can't view having to be, you know, playing the game as something worth considering a nerf. Especially since it opens up build possibilities and makes the AT better for players who don't have the build knowledge and free inf* lying around to get permadom. (Huh. I wonder how low level you can squeeze into permadom? TO MID'S!)
  13. I'm not aware of any other AT in the game that has the same behavior - adding enhancements, up to the ED limits of course, results in an increase in capability in a roughly linear way. IO set bonuses are the same way: 5% resist is always 5% resist, whether you're at 0 or 70. Are there any other ATs with this sort of situation? I'm genuinely curious now. EDIT: And how is it a nerf, anyway? No one is suggesting taking away permadom, though would have to either a) actively play the game or b) turn off autocasting Domination when you plan to be afk for a while. I strongly disagree - the HC devs have made significant changes since they went live, and they have all been for the better, as far as I can tell. This is no longer a static shrine to a long-past glory day, but a live game again. And it's great. (Also, they're looking at Energy Melee soon, according to the good Captain.)
  14. The difference between having 122% recharge and 123% recharge is thirty seconds of downtime on Domination. The difference between 121% and 122% is miniscule, and anything 124% and beyond is irrelevant. How is it fair that that one percent makes such a large difference? People who build for permadom will still have it, under these proposed changes, and those who don't will have a better, less inconsistent time, especially during leveling. How would it harm you if other people could come closer to what permadom gives you?
  15. It was mentioned in the April 4th patch notes thread that TOs were being removed, but I'm still getting them as drops on test. Did I misunderstand what was happening?
  16. Fair enough - I mostly want to get the damage numbers, since in-game all the fighting powers just show "Special smashing damage on target" with no actual useful information.
  17. Honestly? I think the largest thing is how Replacement phrased things in the opening post. If he'd avoided saying anything about permadom having (or being) a problem, and instead focused on the issue of the cliff in Domination uptime outside of permadom, it would have been better recieved. Personally, I've been duoing a Grav/Psi dom with one of my wife's characters, and the idea of being able to build bar while the buff is active instead of having to wait until it's worn off would be great. I'm nowhere near permadom (he's only 27), but anything to smooth out Domination availability would be very welcome.
  18. It would be nice to have an EM rework that really leans into the single-target focus. Though I do like the idea of giving the stun a small AoE, so you can apply some crowd control to clustered minions while pounding on a boss.
  19. The biggest thing was no longer losing effectiveness when you level. With the ability to pay inf to upgrade in the field, I may start using SOs all the way to 27 or 32. Madness!
  20. Could you get around the issues by adding a slider/new power that lets you select how many of the fighting pool powers you have, and adds a bonus to the powers appropriately?
  21. Does the MRBU database take into account the bonuses you get from Fighting pool synergy, or do I need to mentally adjust the numbers it gives?
  22. Your proposal for bringing TW back into line is probably the best starting point I've seen for rebalancing it against other sets. The devs should definitely use it as a starting point for whatever changes they make.
  23. It's really good to see that the devs are focusing on addressing the mountain of technical debt that Paragon had accrued before shutdown. Making all the powersets conform to the intended AT modifiers is an unmitigated good, since it means all sets are operating on an equal level, rather than some arbitrarily behaving differently because someone did a copy and paste without correcting the values way back in the Before Times. If this does significantly nerf an AT/powerset, and needs to deviate from the AT modifiers for a specific reason, then that change can be made when testing proves that there's a problem. Going "NUMBER GET SMALLER FORUM USER SMASH" blindly the moment that a power is changed is not good for the long-term health of CoH Homecoming, and we need to resist the urge to do so. EDIT: . . . and now I'm tempted to make a SS/Willpower brute named FORUM USER. Dammit, I don't need more alts!
  24. To address your points in order: 1. Good point on the 4-slot of Unbreakable - though my numbers are with suppression toggled on in mid's, so they are accurate for in combat defense from Stealth. 2. ED means that I actually end up with exactly the same effect with a slot moved from Combat Jumping to Weave. At least it does if I slot a third piece of LotG - and I end up with lower health regen because of the loss of the 2 piece set bonus in Combat Jumping. If I add a 50 Def IO instead of the set IO, I get 0.1% more defense, but I lose about 1 Hp/s regen. Hence why I kept the two slot setup. 3. Moving the slot from Health to Fast Healing actually lowers my regen rate - a third 50 IO pushes me well over the ED cap, and I lose the additional 12% regen bonus from the Numina's 2-piece bonus. 4. The tradeoff is .26 HP/s vs .14 End/s - not sure it matters much, there. I may just see if I which option I can get cheaper and go with that. And now I get to start digging into which Incarnate powers I want!
×
×
  • Create New...