Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gulbasaur

If you could redesign the inherent powers...

Recommended Posts

Tbf, dealing bonus damage to a foe you controlled seems very dominator-y. Even if the controls themselves didn't do bonus damage, control -> assault is delightfully villainous for a gameplay loop.

 

Though that is a can of worms when it comes to targets that cant be controlled unless you got domination... which is a seperate mess between the two ATs.

 

 

To throw my hat in the ring, to be honest I think that Critical Hit should be an inherent that all ATs get, bot just scrappers.

 

Scrappers, Stalkers, Controllers, and Corruptors all get this ability in a way anyways but with caveats:

 

Scrappers have the vanilla version but you have either a 5% / 10% crit chance based on rank. Pretty straight forward.

 

Stalkers have a 10% perma crit chance on top of +3% per team mate, +100% chance from hide or on AS with 3 stacks, and a x3 crit with hidden AS. A lot of room to work with here.

 

Controllers have critical controls, and they have 100% crit on targets that are controlled. 

 

Corruptors get a scaling crit chance based on the target's HP (starting at 50%, lower is better).

 

 

All these could probably be kept intact if there were say, a base 5% crit chance across all ATs. Any and all damaging powers have a 5% chance to crit, but the inherits could drastically change the chances:

 

Corruptors are essentially the same. They just get +chance on top of the 5% as their target gets hurt.

 

Controllers are the same except they have 100% crit chance on controlled targets, and maybe a much smaller chance increase with epic powers / etc.

 

Stalkers... would pretty much be the same.

 

All other ATs would enjoy the benefit of occasional damage spikes too. 1/20 hits being double damage is just nice to have.

 

Scrappers though, would get hit by this. In this system, they would still enjoy +5% extra crit chance on tougher enemies, but that is not something to brag about exactly. We could do a couple things to make them stand out, but two things I think could be fun are:

  1. Make their crit damage uniquely hit harder than other ATs under some criteria. Like every X crits might be a super crit, or they just happen to deal 2.5x instead of 2x damage on crit.
  2. Or, maybe they have a bonus when they crit. The description of their inherit says they are very skilled in battle, which allows them to occasionally crit. How about we feed into that and say they get an extra bonus when they crit: a small endurance return / recovery boost, and a short lived +5% crit chance. This bonus when you score a crit could be called "Scrapper Lock" 😉

 

 

As for powers, like with Scrappers already we can adjust the crit rates and such depending on the set and powers in question. For some sets, like say Battle Axe or Archery where they may have balance issues, we can introduce Crit rate changes to their powers to grant an edge. Likewise, some powers may not be able to crit if they may be too good (like burn/patch powers). Pets may have a seperate base crit chance.

 

 

Idk, seeing as crit chances are such a staple of RPGs in general I always found it odd that it's not a global thing in CoH and that only a few ATs get it in any form.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 11:25 AM, MetaVileTerror said:

I'd decouple all Inherents from Archetypes, which would be a LOT of work . . . looking at you Controllers and Scrappers . . . 
But then I'd allow for each Archetype to have a choice between one of three Inherents, with a design philosophy of:  Solo, Team, Wild Card.  These Inherents would be Respec'able, and I'd toss in another Build to facilitate players having greater ease in choosing an appropriate Inherent for their present play experience.  None of these Inherents would be Slottable, though, so there wouldn't be any concerns surrounding that potential can of worms.

 

I actually have a list of Inherent ideas along these lines on my other computer when I was working on a tabletop version of City of Heroes.  I should go dust them off and propose them to the community.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MetaVileTerror said:

 . . . I'm not sure if I should feel insulted  . . . 

Not at all! I just love that scene. If your wild card inherent let's me do the equivalent of cutting a team's brake lines you'll become my new favorite person. If it's something more realistic and not destructive, you're still cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 . . . what would "cutting a team's brake line" even be?  Giving the whole team Furylock, and if it runs below 10% after exceeding 40%, then they all explode?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MetaVileTerror said:

 . . . what would "cutting a team's brake line" even be?  Giving the whole team Furylock, and if it runs below 10% after exceeding 40%, then they all explode?

You get me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 12:25 PM, MetaVileTerror said:

I'd decouple all Inherents from Archetypes, which would be a LOT of work . . . looking at you Controllers and Scrappers . . . 
But then I'd allow for each Archetype to have a choice between one of three Inherents, with a design philosophy of:  Solo, Team, Wild Card.  These Inherents would be Respec'able, and I'd toss in another Build to facilitate players having greater ease in choosing an appropriate Inherent for their present play experience.  None of these Inherents would be Slottable, though, so there wouldn't be any concerns surrounding that potential can of worms.

 

I actually have a list of Inherent ideas along these lines on my other computer when I was working on a tabletop version of City of Heroes.  I should go dust them off and propose them to the community.

I like the idea.  If pie-in-the-sky is the backdrop for such a suggestion, I'd also put them as "unlockables" and "enhancable" in some way like it being a reward for some kind of content.  Like, let's just say that when you start off the game, every AT gets the same inherent (Beginner's Luck) that fades until lvl 15 where you can then complete an certain arc or be granted a certain badge that then gives you your AT's base inherent.  Then later, you can achieve certain AT goals that unlock other inherents for your AT.

 

In the purview of your particular idea, I don't think it has to specifically be Solo, Team and Misc but just different means of doing what your AT does already.  For example, some Stalker Inherents:

 

Assassination - same bells and whistles as current Assassination.

Executioner - trades in the 3% crit chance per nearby teammate and Assassin's Focus. Stalkers with this inherent always have fast AS (even when hidden) and when AS critical hits, it will always create the Demoralize effect (even when unhidden). AS also has a 50% chance to critical vs feared foes when not hidden.

Dissection - trade 10% crit when unhidden (you still get 3% per nearby teammate), demoralize and Assassin's Focus. Assassin's Strike is always interruptible (no fast AS) but it will always crit for its hidden value.  This value will do current AS damage +% of the target's health depending on rank (minion = 10%HP, Lt = 5%, Boss = 3%, AV/GM = ?%).

 

I can see there being some inherents that are rarely picked but at the same time, I could see players utilizing those lesser used inherents and making a build around them as more of a flex and for fun.  With the examples above, I don't really see any of them being more prone to team or solo but they emphasize different attributes of the current Stalker AT.  Executioner might have lower overall crit chance but enjoys faster DPA on hidden AS and that tasty demoralize debuff.  Dissection is for those old school AS users that like to get off their meaty damage on the hard targets.  It would have overall less DPS but have a place where using AS on tough targets is their sole purpose.

On 10/31/2019 at 8:49 AM, Schizophobia said:

i mean you could keep both i guess, but man. imagine being the gal/guy who has to figure out how to make sure every possible combination of inherent, at, power set, and power set combo a relevant and interesting choice. i'd feel bad for them lmao

 

cause if you couldn't you'd end up with like: this is fire blaster bob. he punches fire!! this is fire blaster sally. she punches fire, uh... HARDER!! rrrrr!

Obvious answer: you don't.

 

Your blaster example is already the case because if Bob doesn't want to gear up for perma-hasten, capped defenses and utilize the best secondary for their purpose but rather build for *gasp* concept, there will undoubtedly be a Sally who punches harder and faster.

Edited by Leogunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Obvious answer: you don't.

 

Your blaster example is already the case because if Bob doesn't want to gear up for perma-hasten, capped defenses and utilize the best secondary for their purpose but rather build for *gasp* concept, there will undoubtedly be a Sally who punches harder and faster.

oof, i feel like there's a lot going on in just two sentences. im not smart but i'll try. 😞 

 

here is my takeaway of the point you're making: the benefit of keeping AT's + multiple inherents is that it allows for more player expression of, erm... identity? we'll call it? i think? is that right?

 

i think maybe we're talking at cross purposes. my point wasn't bob is less effective than sally and that is Bad™ because Balance® (that's another discussion but idc about that one its less fun). its that i don't know if that's an interesting choice for a player to make, or if its just a choice for the sake of a choice?

 

like, in your example above. i can choose to be an [executioner] [stalker] or an [assassination] [stalker], and those stalkers behave differently. so that's neat. but at that point, what purpose does the [stalker] AT serve in that equation? why not just... choose executioner inherent and then pick ur powers? its like, now you have to invent an identity for the stalker. b/c as far as i can tell, the only real difference in expression between [exec] vs [assn] [stalker] is that one has orange numbers that behave differently. does that make sense?

 

then my second point was, pulling back even more from that, real big picture: does this system really function any better than the current one we have, in this specific game? is there really a substantive difference between a stalker that executes and one that assassinates, or is picking Stalker + power sets actually more robust of a system? doesn't Stalker Assassination kind of already cover the identities you listed, plus a whole bunch of other ones Well Enough©? its a cool idea, but is it better than what's in place?

 

the way i see it, the way to make this idea work would be to simply divorce power set choices from inherents. you can be a fire blast executioner or w/e. but at that point you've just... reinvented AT's. with more power set choices. which is also neat, but at that point ur just making a new game. so you might as well make a new game instead of dealing with a 15 year old game's limitations/design choices.

 

sry im not smert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Schizophobia said:

like, in your example above. i can choose to be an [executioner] [stalker] or an [assassination] [stalker], and those stalkers behave differently. so that's neat. but at that point, what purpose does the [stalker] AT serve in that equation? why not just... choose executioner inherent and then pick ur powers? its like, now you have to invent an identity for the stalker. b/c as far as i can tell, the only real difference in expression between [exec] vs [assn] [stalker] is that one has orange numbers that behave differently. does that make sense?

It's the same as other RPG Class Specializations.  The reason you don't just pick an inherent (skip picking the AT) and then pick powers is because the specializations are a subset of the class (or AT).  You don't pick Domination and then proceed to build a Tanker who has inherently high HP, high defensive caps and taunt while giving them the most aggro management/nullification in the game.  I mean, you technically CAN but that would be even more steps of extra balance further than "decoupling" the inherents so that they have a level of interchangability...you'd also need to link in AT mods to inherents and so forth which further complicates the balance and character building for inexperienced players.

 

As for what the Stalker AT plays in the above example, since they have some level of interchangability, if you made your Stalker and chose Executioner but after playing it, find it's less fun, you can respec to the other inherent without having to reroll a new character from scratch...or you can just use the multiple build option and have 2-3 different playstyles if you fill out each build and on one character.  It's basically taking the Stalker "pool" and making it wider to swim around in (horizontal progression, some call it).  Just removing ATs and relying on inherents is basically a whole other game.  You might as well try and make a CoH2 because its concept is so vastly different.

 

15 minutes ago, Schizophobia said:

then my second point was, pulling back even more from that, real big picture: does this system really function any better than the current one we have, in this specific game? is there really a substantive difference between a stalker that executes and one that assassinates, or is picking Stalker + power sets actually more robust of a system? doesn't Stalker Assassination kind of already cover the identities you listed, plus a whole bunch of other ones Well Enough©? its a cool idea, but is it better than what's in place?

 

The question of if it's better is rather a misnomer since no one could actually answer that definitively without at least fleshing out the idea first.  At best, one can presume it'd give players a few extra build options they currently don't have.

 

On the second question, is there substantive difference between those stalker inherents?  Yes.  I have played stalker since CoV launched and I have been around for all iterations of its inherent change (both on live and test servers).  It had some pretty interesting changes and the current Assassination inherent, while not my favorite (and some will also argue it's a bit too strong), it is the most effective.  I was around before when crits happened from hide or on mezed foes only (still the case in PvP), before demoralize came about, when they tested %HP of the target and so on.  Every time they changed the inherent, it changed the way the AT played.

 

And yes, Assassination does cover most of the identities listed, but it emphasizes Scrapping more than Assassinating to such a degree that it has shifted Stalkers into being arguably better Scrappers than Scrappers, which was the point of outlining ideas for specialized Stalker inherents.  It covers the same things but emphasizes different aspects.

 

If you're coming at the idea questioning why bother, then perhaps you're reading the air of the thread a bit too seriously.

26 minutes ago, Schizophobia said:

the way i see it, the way to make this idea work would be to simply divorce power set choices from inherents. you can be a fire blast executioner or w/e. but at that point you've just... reinvented AT's. with more power set choices. which is also neat, but at that point ur just making a new game. so you might as well make a new game instead of dealing with a 15 year old game's limitations/design choices.

 

sry im not smert

You're free to elaborate on your own ideas.  Go ham.  I just think your idea would require a whole slew more elaborating to even get a minor glimpse of what implications it would have on a similar game as CoH.  And if you're not suggesting removing ATs from the balance equation then I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

It's the same as other RPG Class Specializations.  The reason you don't just pick an inherent (skip picking the AT) and then pick powers is because the specializations are a subset of the class (or AT).

ima put a pin in this, cause its really important but it will be more important later. (i had to get out paper to organize my thoughts lel)

 

3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

You don't pick Domination and then proceed to build a Tanker who has inherently high HP, high defensive caps and taunt while giving them the most aggro management/nullification in the game... you'd also need to link in AT mods to inherents and so forth which further complicates the balance and character building for inexperienced players.

this is my bad, by "powers" i meant "power sets," and i assumed (without saying ha) that which ones were available were determined by inherent. which probably seems weird, but put a pin in that too.

 

3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

The question of if it's better is rather a misnomer since no one could actually answer that definitively without at least fleshing out the idea first.  At best, one can presume it'd give players a few extra build options they currently don't have.

 

On the second question, is there substantive difference between those stalker inherents?  Yes.  I have played stalker since CoV launched and I have been around for all iterations of its inherent change (both on live and test servers).  It had some pretty interesting changes and the current Assassination inherent, while not my favorite (and some will also argue it's a bit too strong), it is the most effective.  I was around before when crits happened from hide or on mezed foes only (still the case in PvP), before demoralize came about, when they tested %HP of the target and so on.  Every time they changed the inherent, it changed the way the AT played.

this is my second bad. [better] at [giving players more ability to express "identity."] since that was how i read ur point when you first quoted me, sorry if that was wrong. same with [substantive]. am i making a substantive, meaningful choice in identity when i choose execute over assassinate? because in game, the only expression of that choice will be when/how often i crit. so like im jill the executioner, i crit like this, rawr. vs im bertrand the dissector, i crit like that, roar. they're both neat, and neat in diff ways. but is it a meangingful difference, overall?

 

omg, i am reading 4 posts and then also notes, i am going to cry. lmao

4 hours ago, Leogunner said:

And yes, Assassination does cover most of the identities listed, but it emphasizes Scrapping more than Assassinating to such a degree that it has shifted Stalkers into being arguably better Scrappers than Scrappers, which was the point of outlining ideas for specialized Stalker inherents.  It covers the same things but emphasizes different aspects.

 

If you're coming at the idea questioning why bother, then perhaps you're reading the air of the thread a bit too seriously.

ok, last stretch. real quick: i am a bit confused. you left assassination in unchanged. i feel like this is a contradiction of stated purpose? i hope i can make it clear why below. and reiterating that im not terribly concerned with balance (numbers, math, blah, hate em) just with defining a character's identity.

 

alright, my pins. Specializations vs AT. in my mind, the AT's are inextricably linked to their inherents. functionally, they're the same thing. melee AT's are the best example because they all get the same powers/sets. the only real difference between them is their inherents. the choice between Fury and Assassinate is far greater and more defining than Dissector vs Executioner will ever really be (sry i don't mean this in a bad way or anything). people already talk about how they're not sure what difference there is between a tanker and a brute. i guess b/c they do the same thing, in similar ways. and as you said, stalkers [arguably scrap better than scrappers]. im reading this as the line between those two AT's being blurred.

 

so, new inherents--because of the way this specific game already works--are like tripling the # of AT's. and since we already have 10, for comparatively little gain [for the stated purpose of allowing a player more expression]. and then yeah, as you mentioned, this is all dropped in the player's lap at character creation. how does poor, idk, im out of names. wilhelmina choose between six inherents that all sound kind of scrappery and kind of stalkery, when the line between those two broader categories was sketchy to begin with? its making the same kind of choice, but twice, and then also in a way that's harder and more technical to understand. its complexity, but is it depth? am, am i making any sense?

 

hm in thinking thru it: are you thinking the lines are already blurred so screw it, blur em moar? i guess that'd make sense.

 

anyway, im not unhappy or angry, i am just confused. and dumb. thank u for taking time to explain 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Schizophobia said:

this is my second bad. [better] at [giving players more ability to express "identity."] since that was how i read ur point when you first quoted me, sorry if that was wrong. same with [substantive]. am i making a substantive, meaningful choice in identity when i choose execute over assassinate? because in game, the only expression of that choice will be when/how often i crit. so like im jill the executioner, i crit like this, rawr. vs im bertrand the dissector, i crit like that, roar. they're both neat, and neat in diff ways. but is it a meangingful difference, overall?

 

Unless you define substantive, the only answer I can give you is what difference it would provide.  For the example of executioner, it would have less ability to crit and do burst damage but have, instead, greater application of the demoralize effect.  The demoralize effect is a -5% ToHit on all foes within, I want to say, 25ft radius that cannot be resisted.  That is, on an AV target who has high amounts of resistance to debuffs, a Corruptor's Darkest Night normally debuffs -15% ToHit but it will be resisted by an AV to very little (likely below 5%) but demoralize will always be -5%...it also casts fear on all foes in range at a 20% chance up to Lt rank for 8 sec.  With proper building, you could pump out lots of this, keeping foes at -5% and spreading lots of fear.  In contrast, many stalkers ignore the demoralize effect because it only occurs when you are hidden and you wind up the interruptible AS.  At best, it's limited because of the requirements.

 

On the other hand, a dissector Stalker will need to build and be aware of their surroundings so that they can pull off AS as often as possible and for the optimal amount of damage.  It'd be similar to how old Stalker played (which was very different) but have somewhat of a payoff in the big numbers they could pull off on hard targets with AS.

 

So it's not about "I crit like this, rawr", but what leads up to those crits and what is the result of those crits.  All these factors matter when you are actively playing the Stalker and building to optimize their specialty.

 

4 hours ago, Schizophobia said:

alright, my pins. Specializations vs AT. in my mind, the AT's are inextricably linked to their inherents. functionally, they're the same thing. melee AT's are the best example because they all get the same powers/sets. the only real difference between them is their inherents. the choice between Fury and Assassinate is far greater and more defining than Dissector vs Executioner will ever really be (sry i don't mean this in a bad way or anything). people already talk about how they're not sure what difference there is between a tanker and a brute. i guess b/c they do the same thing, in similar ways. and as you said, stalkers [arguably scrap better than scrappers]. im reading this as the line between those two AT's being blurred

 

Not really.  There are differences in the AT beyond their inherent, even for ATs that are very similar like Brute and Scrapper.  Again, a good deal of their differences comes with their AT modifiers.  Brute gets a 0.75 damage modifier and Scrappers get a 1.125 damage modifier; Scrappers are capped at 75% resistance and Brute is 90%.  As for the difference between Tanker and Brute, that differentiation is being shifted as we speak in the test servers with regards to both inherent AND AT modifiers.  So it's not a "choice between Fury and Assassination" because there is so much more at play, to include the powers available to each AT.

 

That being said, the point isn't to make an Executioner Stalker as uniquely defined from a Dissection Stalker as an Assassination Stalker is from a Brute.  It'd merely be a means of giving horizontal customization to an individual AT without opening the flood gates of just giving more power at the cost of nothing.  To get a different inherent, you have to drop the old one...but the new inherent isn't going to transform you into a tri-form Kheld or something, you'll still be the same AT, just with different functionality.

 

4 hours ago, Schizophobia said:

so, new inherents--because of the way this specific game already works--are like tripling the # of AT's.

I think you've jumped the gun.  What example presented expresses tripling the ATs?  The ones I presented, you're still a Stalker, using AS and BU and Placate, they just have slightly different effects.  One could even say it'd just be having different era Stalkers in the same game: Early-game Stalker, Beta-test Stalker and Current-game Stalker.  Conceptually they are the same.  If you're talking about the coding to make such a thing possible, that is the pie-in-the-sky conceptualization of "decoupling" inherent powers to begin with, which we know would be a herculean task.

 

4 hours ago, Schizophobia said:

how does poor, idk, im out of names. wilhelmina choose between six inherents that all sound kind of scrappery and kind of stalkery, when the line between those two broader categories was sketchy to begin with? its making the same kind of choice, but twice, and then also in a way that's harder and more technical to understand. its complexity, but is it depth? am, am i making any sense?

 

hm in thinking thru it: are you thinking the lines are already blurred so screw it, blur em moar? i guess that'd make sense.

 

anyway, im not unhappy or angry, i am just confused. and dumb. thank u for taking time to explain 🙂

 My particular suggestions don't blur anything.  Like I said before, the examples I presented ARE what Stalkers were but in the past.  They don't make a Stalker more like any other AT because no AT shared its same purpose or execution.

 

As for how would a newer player choose: they don't have to.  It should be something that you pick later in your character's career similar to an Ancillary power pool or Incarnate powers.  At that point, if you can't tell if you'd benefit from spreading demoralize or shoveling more DPA on a hard target is better for you, you can just choose nothing and stick with the basic inherent power.  Even if you choose and choose wrong, you just need to respec.  

 

Moreover, the powersets tend to favor certain styles of play as well.  Some sets can be compensated for so they can fit better within the status quo, but it can't be said if those same powersets would shine better if they used a different approach that linked with the inherent.  For example: combo sets like Street Justice and Dual Blades and AoE sets like Electric Melee greatly benefit from having the steady stream of ST DPA with Assassin's Focus + Assassin's Strike but sets that are more ST focused or debuff focused, like Ice Melee, Dark Melee, Claws or Savage Melee might benefit more from spreading CC and debuff.  This type of favoritism of sets isn't limited to Stalker either, as portrayed by other posters commenting that Vigilance doesn't help their Kinetics Defenders since they don't need END discounts with their abundance of +END.  One could just add more bonuses to Vigilance so that Kinetics can be satiated but you're also adding the same bonuses to every other set at the same time.  You could do that...but you could also compartmentalize those bonuses by having alternatives to the inherent power. That's the basis of the suggestion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing i'd change is VEATS. I can't comment on khelds because i don't even like them at all but the one for veats always was useless. Rest of the game is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dig the idea of inherit variants a lot!

 

Like, each AT gets 3 flavors of their inherit to pick from instead of just the one they have now.

 

For example:

 

Fury: standard version we have now. Both attacking and being attacked give a balanced gain and loss of fury over time.

 

Defiant Destruction: You build fury only from incoming enemy attacks. Fury can reach a higher total than standard and also grants health regen the more you have. The less HP you currently have, the faster fury builds.

 

Aggravated Assault: You build fury only through attacking, and even get bonus bursts of fury through defeating enemies. Fury gained this way decays much more quickly, but also has a small recovery component attached. Has a smaller cap than standard fury.

Edited by Galaxy Brain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Noyjitat said:

Only thing i'd change is VEATS.

The inherent is boring, sure, but it's actually really useful (more endurance is always good and they have a lot of toggles) and ties in with the lore (loosely, but at least they try). "I'm like you, but better" is a very Arachnos way of thinking. 


My Widow Fortunata can solo AVs, lock down elite bosses and tank task forces. I honestly can't think of anything I'd change about them that wouldn't push them into stalker levels of overpoweredness. I've not played seriously with a Spider, but I know they can be built to have absurdly high DPS (I think highest AoE and second-highest single-target after one specific stalker build) while still being pretty tanky. 

 

Maybe a reverse of the kheldian one would work thematically - they give out specific buffs based on team composition. A tanker makes everyone tankier, a blaster makes everyone hit harder and a defender makes everyone... more... defensive? I don't know. Call it "Coordination" or "Synergy" or something. 


Doctor Fortune  Soulwright Mother Blight Storm Lantern Corona Borealis
Blood Fortunado Dark/Dark Corruptor Rad/Rad Brute Storm/Sploosh Defender Dark/Dark Tanker

 

Blueside Story Arc Levelling Guide 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My widow is my main and I don't find it even helps having higher base recovery/regen since it doesn't solve the endurance hog problem or add enough extra survivability with a small regen boost. Endurance is a huge problem on the widow/fort with or without taking all the toggles and being purpled out. Comparing it to the usefulness of domination for dominators, or vigilance for defenders etc it just isn't that useful for the at.

 

I don't want to make a suggestion on how to improve it because shes my favorite, my main and i'd be biased in asking for a buff. I think homecoming has made far too many changes to ATs and powers now as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Noyjitat said:

Endurance is a huge problem on the widow/fort with or without taking all the toggles and being purpled out.

Not to derail the topic, but I haven't found this to be the case at all on my fortunata and I'm far from purpled out (though I have one or two). Are you running a lot of pool powers? They often have a hefty endurance cost. It's comparable to any other toggley powerset from my experience. 

 

I agree the regen boost is pretty pointless, though. 

Edited by Gulbasaur

Doctor Fortune  Soulwright Mother Blight Storm Lantern Corona Borealis
Blood Fortunado Dark/Dark Corruptor Rad/Rad Brute Storm/Sploosh Defender Dark/Dark Tanker

 

Blueside Story Arc Levelling Guide 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...