Fade and Farsight Should Not Benefit from External Buffs

[Infinitum]

14 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

But it could make you redundant, which I think was the point:

 

• FF defender? We got Farsight and IOs
• Don't nerf Farsight/Fade, we have IO defense cap anyway. It's no big deal
• We play to be powerful, not balanced, so no point starting here even it it sounds reasonable
• The fun of the many over the fun of the few despite having no measured census of the many's actual count

The arguments just reek of redundancy to try to explain away a reasoned post.  The same old arguments of double-downing on OPness.

Everything is redundant in the end game if you min max.   I haven't seen anything grind to a halt as a result though.

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

See, you're flinging insults now.  All I said is you guys min/max which ruins the fun.  Do you not min/max?  You said you did.  You're calling me cowardly.  What proof do you have that I'm hiding behind intent?  I said what I said because I felt like saying it at the time.  If you want to censor me, just report the post.

 

And like I said before, not every *you* is you even if I quoted your post.  Had I stated something that was opposite of your post but said "you people", would you really assume I'm focusing the statement on you?  At the very least, you could have asked for clarification.  Even though you didn't ask, I'll clarify that quote for you:

 

"As for ruining the fun, you people have already done that.  I mean, okay, we have the capacity to softcap practically every character and give them ridiculous recharge and good to broken damage but should we do it?  And if we don't do it every time, do we just point to those exploiting the system and say "everybody's doing it!"?  You can't go north and south at the same time."

 

When read fully, the accusation is pointed at the OP min/max levels vs the difficulty of the game.  I say "you people" with regards to those that actually make it their goal to min/max practically all their builds but also garner the same mentality in new players and even old players who want to participate in certain content.  It's not directed at people who have a couple min/maxed characters (because I have some too), but at the mentality that min/maxing is the game.  Because a min/maxed character can practically solo the game.  It makes it unfun for the other 7 guys not contributing much.

 

If you really want to go on a tirade about saying "you people" just because I accuse you of ruining the fun, then have at it.  I think you're just trying to bait me into accusing you directly because that's probably breaking some forum guideline.  That you'd even have the wherewithal to complain about a benign accusation as that is comical.  For frick's sake, stay on topic lol

That's fine, keep hiding.

[Leogunner]

3 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

Do you mean "And if we don't do it every time, do we just point to those exploiting the system and say "everybody's doing it!"?" Cause I don't see how that changes the intent in any way. 

It was directed at the argument opposing the OP.  It's not a reasonable argument which was what I was trying to demonstrate.

 

Do you feel, just because "everyone" runs around with IOs and 30% or above defense, that Farsight should remain the same?  It's a false equivalency (or something...maybe false correlation?)...basically, I'm saying having IOs and high defense isn't an argument here.  Especially considering how often people will throw around the statement that "things are balanced around SOs, not IOs" which is why I said you can't go north and south at the same time.  If people aren't min/maxing all the time, then how are we using the argument that everyone runs around with capped defense to argue against the OP?

 

9 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

My parsing of that statement takes it as saying "We can't have min-maxers because then EVERYONE has to min-max!"

I'll stop you there and say you're thinking of a movie quote because I never said that.

 

10 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

This isn't true, as this game got along just fine before IOs, and I'd imagine that the average player could join most groups with a pure SO build without anyone else noticing and/or caring. Now, I can understand that people can dislike the current systems because in the end almost no one wants to do this. Having crazy OP characters is a lot of fun for most of the player base & the ones who aren't looking for that feel obligated to do it so that they don't drag down the team. I can empathize with this causing a bit of frustration for those who don't want it, though obviously I don't agree with it. My actual issue with that line & the post in general is that calling this type of play style "exploiting the system" sounds dismissive or demeaning towards those who enjoy said system (which seems to be a majority of the playerbase). IOs were was created by the developers, & seem to have been implemented for this exact purpose, and the resulting min-max shenanigans are one of the biggest selling points in the game to a lot of players. 

 

To me, behave as if this has "ruined the game", when it's one of the foundational pieces of CoH at this point & has been for years, reeks of old-school MMO Elitism; "If it isn't hard it isn't fun!" & "If you don't enjoy the game the same way I do you're doing it wrong!" are staples of that mindset, and I can't parse anything from that paragraph that seems to be expressing anything other than those ideas.

 

Perhaps thay wasn't the intent, but if so it was expressed poorly IMO.

I appreciate you explaining how you read my post.

 

When I play the game, I just play.  What the numbers are or the effectiveness of the team isn't as important as what is actually in front of you.  It's a computer screen.  A game.

 

The forums is another matter.  It's where you read and understand people (no matter how jerky they are) and where you share ideas.  I don't let people ruin my fun because if I am not enjoying the game, I just turn it off.  But that's different from making arguments or sharing suggestions on the forums.  If I don't like an idea, I'll say so and likely suggest a compromise.  If someone makes a nonsense argument, I'm drawn (sometimes) to make a statement on it.  If few share my opinion on something, I'm compelled to put my 2 cents in.  

 

And try not to assume someone expresses things poorly without actually discussing it.  You obviously misconstrued or escalated a statement.  Maybe you just poorly read the post?

[Doomrider]

Regardless of whether the OP's suggested change becomes a reality or not, the larger issue of power creep will still continue be prevalent until something is done to raise the difficulty ceiling either through new content and/or higher difficulty settings, assuming that's even possible.

When I think about playing certain content in the context of what character to bring, role seldom is a factor, if ever. Usually it's whether we're doing a full 8 man team or not. If there are even 2 or 3 of us min/max'd, we leave the team composition at that in order to still feel like there is some challenge left. This is a somewhat half-baked attempt trying to handicap ourselves in order to feel some semblence of difficulty and if anyone is feeling like the game has been too easy for a long time (assuming you aren't already doing this) I would suggest giving it a whirl. 

Kind of on that note and the subject of Fade and powerboost, recently we did a 3 man Lambda Trial with a Corruptor, Sentinel and myself on my Fire/Dark Controller. While it was still somewhat of a challenge, we completed in our second try (much to our surprise). I think the notion of something like that being doable with such a small team definitely emphasizes much of what other posters are saying about the state of difficulty in the game.

If anyone is interested in seeing this, i'll post a video below. The video is shot from the Corruptor's @Septipheranperspective but take a look at his combat window to see exactly what Fade and Powerboost is able to achieve on top of someone already building 32.5% + ranged defense. 
 

Sometimes I find myself yearning for the pre-io days... Simpler times.

[Seroster01]

9 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And try not to assume someone expresses things poorly without actually discussing it.  You obviously misconstrued or escalated a statement.  Maybe you just poorly read the post?

I mean, I obviously wasn't the only one who thought the tone of your post was dismissive and/or confrontational. So, maybe not? If your intent with these statements was something other than that what's been discussed in the responses, then you seem to have caused at least 2 people to make repeated posts disagreeing with a point that you apparently weren't trying to make. Sounds "Poorly Phrased" to me.

 

8 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

When I play the game, I just play.  What the numbers are or the effectiveness of the team isn't as important as what is actually in front of you.  It's a computer screen.  A game

Great! This is exactly how everyone should act. That's the whole point of my half of the argument. Well, that & "+defense is the least useful support effect in the modern game". The +To-hit is a much bigger deal for me.

 

19 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Especially considering how often people will throw around the statement that "things are balanced around SOs, not IOs" which is why I said you can't go north and south at the same time.  If people aren't min/maxing all the time, then how are we using the argument that everyone runs around with capped defense to argue against the OP?

I don't know who "Everyone" is in this statement, because I certainly never say that or have any opinions to this effect, and nobody in this thread brought up anything similar before this post. Quite the opposite, everyone that has posted in this thread on the side you're arguing against has said the reason it doesn't deserve a nerf is because people ARE min/maxing all the time. Labeling the other side of the argument as "Everyone" & bringing in talking points that haven't actually been brought up in the current discussion sounds dismissive to the other side of the argument. Much like following "you people" with an accusatory statement...

 

To the actual point, none of the content from before IOs existed is balanced around IOs. The community seems to approve of this, because that's the content that most gets done most frequently. I don't care very much what it's balanced around; as long as I can join any given group of randos & clear content, I find this game enjoyable. I'd rather not have to screen applicants & construct the perfect group to do content. Having individual characters that are significantly more powerful than is needed is the whole reason that this is possible, and it doesn't seem to have much of a detrimental effect on players seeking groups. If folks still like to group & having individual characters being OP increases the ease of finding enjoyable groups, I don't see any reason to complain about OP characters. In fact, I'd rather like to keep them that way.

[Infinitum]

37 minutes ago, Doomrider said:

Regardless of whether the OP's suggested change becomes a reality or not, the larger issue of power creep will still continue be prevalent until something is done to raise the difficulty ceiling either through new content and/or higher difficulty settings, assuming that's even possible.

When I think about playing certain content in the context of what character to bring, role seldom is a factor, if ever. Usually it's whether we're doing a full 8 man team or not. If there are even 2 or 3 of us min/max'd, we leave the team composition at that in order to still feel like there is some challenge left. This is a somewhat half-baked attempt trying to handicap ourselves in order to feel some semblence of difficulty and if anyone is feeling like the game has been too easy for a long time (assuming you aren't already doing this) I would suggest giving it a whirl. 

Kind of on that note and the subject of Fade and powerboost, recently we did a 3 man Lambda Trial with a Corruptor, Sentinel and myself on my Fire/Dark Controller. While it was still somewhat of a challenge, we completed in our second try (much to our surprise). I think the notion of something like that being doable with such a small team definitely emphasizes much of what other posters are saying about the state of difficulty in the game.

If anyone is interested in seeing this, i'll post a video below. The video is shot from the Corruptor's @Septipheranperspective but take a look at his combat window to see exactly what Fade and Powerboost is able to achieve on top of someone already building 32.5% + ranged defense. 
 

Sometimes I find myself yearning for the pre-io days... Simpler times.

You can still simulate simpler times, theres a thread on excelsior.

 

See thats the beauty of this game.  You can play it any way you like and there are people that will gladly join you.

 

Theres no right or wrong way to play.

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

I mean, I obviously wasn't the only one who thought the tone of your post was dismissive and/or confrontational. So, maybe not? If your intent with these statements was something other than that what's been discussed in the responses, then you seem to have caused at least 2 people to make repeated posts disagreeing with a point that you apparently weren't trying to make. Sounds "Poorly Phrased" to me.

 

Great! This is exactly how everyone should act. That's the whole point of my half of the argument. Well, that & "+defense is the least useful support effect in the modern game". The +To-hit is a much bigger deal for me.

 

I don't know who "Everyone" is in this statement, because I certainly never say that or have any opinions to this effect, and nobody in this thread brought up anything similar before this post. Quite the opposite, everyone that has posted in this thread on the side you're arguing against has said the reason it doesn't deserve a nerf is because people ARE min/maxing all the time. Labeling the other side of the argument as "Everyone" & bringing in talking points that haven't actually been brought up in the current discussion sounds dismissive to the other side of the argument. Much like following "you people" with an accusatory statement...

 

To the actual point, none of the content from before IOs existed is balanced around IOs. The community seems to approve of this, because that's the content that most gets done most frequently. I don't care very much what it's balanced around; as long as I can join any given group of randos & clear content, I find this game enjoyable. I'd rather not have to screen applicants & construct the perfect group to do content. Having individual characters that are significantly more powerful than is needed is the whole reason that this is possible, and it doesn't seem to have much of a detrimental effect on players seeking groups. If folks still like to group & having individual characters being OP increases the ease of finding enjoyable groups, I don't see any reason to complain about OP characters. In fact, I'd rather like to keep them that way.

i remember back in the day not being able to complete the stf without some kind of -regen and a lot of other debuffs.

 

Now You can pretty much roll it with any group or pug you can find.

 

I like that about being OP as well.

 

Not only that but you can be a good tour guide for other characters that aren't setted out to show them wonderful experiences they may have not been able to get otherwise.

 

You can also make it as grindy as you want.  Only the user has control of the build they play and slot and what content and how hard it is they play too.

[siolfir]

Two things:

1. I'm for flagging Farsight. I think if it needs anything in return, the only change would be removing the rooting from the animation and allow people to use it while running/jumping. Comparing with the closest possible analog, Mind Link, which also doesn't receive any benefit from outside effects: yes, Mind Link gets you 30% psi resistance, but has less +to-hit (helpful for people trying to boost their snipes), a shorter duration (interrupting your attack chain more often), and a longer animation (so the interruption lasts longer unless you're running at the time, since Mind Link doesn't root). Depending on the AT, Mind Link is either lower (Defenders) or slightly higher (anyone else) in defense than Farsight. Then again, my Ice/Time Corruptor doesn't have Power Boost, so changing the flag doesn't affect me.
2. Fade should definitely be flagged to not accept outside buffs, simply due to the resistance effect. This one is purely for consistency of how the flag is applied, whereas the Farsight change is more about trying to make similar powers operate the same way.

Okay, I've expressed my opinion. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled arguments and trolling of each other.

[Leogunner]

30 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

I mean, I obviously wasn't the only one who thought the tone of your post was dismissive and/or confrontational.

Two people? And his interpretation was I was blaming him for some wrong or injustice because I made a generalization about "you people" while you interpreted something completely different but rationalized your interpretation.

 

32 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

Great! This is exactly how everyone should act. That's the whole point of my half of the argument. Well, that & "+defense is the least useful support effect in the modern game". The +To-hit is a much bigger deal for me.

If +def was the least useful support effect, why does everyone want it in their build?  

 

I think you mean the most abundant.  Which actually goes handily with the OP's argument, don't you think?

 

34 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

I don't know who "Everyone" is in this statement, because I certainly never say that or have any opinions to this effect, and nobody in this thread brought up anything similar before this post. 

I'd assume it's a general enough statement when put side-by-side the argument that "+def is the least useful support effect".  If that buff is so abundant for such a statement, what are you arguing against me about?  And obviously, "everyone" isn't literal, that's why I put it in the statement to begin with, because people are using absolute statements as arguments but it goes both ways when putting the same argument down.

 

41 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

Quite the opposite, everyone that has posted in this thread on the side you're arguing against has said the reason it doesn't deserve a nerf is because people ARE min/maxing all the time.

And I'll say it again: That is not an argument.

 

Well, technically it is, but it's one that is deflecting to some outside issue that doesn't pertain this this.  

 

And then you go on to deflect about labels just like @Infinitum is deflecting going on about phrases with baggage he doesn't like.  Both infinitesimal points if you're trying to make an actual argument that sum up at best to "Leo said something a way I didn't like". Lol

 

I'm glad you like the game.  I enjoy it as well.  However, this is the forum *talking* about the game.  They are two different realms of interaction that can be kept separate.  Just because I make arguments with regards to power creep or share opinions that are critical of the game doesn't mean I'm some grump who complains while playing the game or something.  I support the OP's post because they made a sound argument, not because I'm crotchety and like to complain at people in game (on the forums is a different story).

 

 

[Leogunner]

49 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

See thats the beauty of this game.  You can play it any way you like and there are people that will gladly join you.

 

Theres no right or wrong way to play.

Off topic but I remember someone in one of the KB threads replying to someone who was pro-KB (I'm actually pro-KB, fyi) and saying similarly "there's no wrong way to play the game".

 

Someone replied to that with: "Sounds like something a wrong player would say" or some such.

[Seroster01]

 

9 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

If +def was the least useful support effect, why does everyone want it in their build?  

 

I think you mean the most abundant.  Which actually goes handily with the OP's argument, don't you think?

It is the least useful support effect for a support SET to provide, because of a combination of factors: it is one of the most generally abundant, one of the most efficient effects to boost within a character's own build, on top of all of that it has a significantly lower functional cap than most other support effects. I said it earlier & I'll say it again, I care comparatively little about the defense portion of this discussion. Which leads to this next bit: 

19 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

If that buff is so abundant for such a statement, what are you arguing against me about?

I believe that I've stated several times that what I'm ambivalent to the defensive portion of this discussion. Honestly I don't even care overmuch if this change did happen, and the tiny bit of care I do have for it is about the To-hit being boosted. It's right there in the section you quoted!

 

Ive probably gone way out in the weeds, but what I'm ultimately trying to get across is that I don't want to start a trend of nerfing things considered overpowered. My protests in this thread are much more about the fact that this just doesn't seem like something that really deserves a nerf when there's sets like TW that are 30-50% more effective than any similar set, or buffs like Fulcrum Shift that will be more impactful for less build investment. It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and as a general principle I'd 100% rather boost underperforming sets than start swinging a nerf bat at anything currently in the game... except for TW, that one is such a huge outlier that SOMETHING needs to happen to it.

[Leogunner]

1 minute ago, Seroster01 said:

 

It is the least useful support effect for a support SET to provide, because of a combination of factors:

Well I'm glad you clarified that you meant "within the support sets" but I still don't think your factors run counter to the OP's suggestion but then perhaps you're not trying to counter the OP since you're ambivalent.

 

8 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

Ive probably gone way out in the weeds, but what I'm ultimately trying to get across is that I don't want to start a trend of nerfing things considered overpowered. 

I severely doubt there's any danger of that trend.  The devs might tweek some powers that are bugged but I've seen very few (I can't even remember any off the top of my head) nerfs coming down the pipeline.  I think there's a change to Brutes coming but it's more a give-and-take to have regular fury generation...I'm sure they're there but just can't think of any.  Anyway, most people have their eyes on buffs.  Buffs to underperforming powersets, underperforming IO sets, out of whack pools, etc.  Things like Energy Melee and such.

 

13 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

It's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, and as a general principle I'd 100% rather boost underperforming sets than start swinging a nerf bat at anything currently in the game... except for TW, that one is such a huge outlier that SOMETHING needs to happen to it.

Well I'm a realist.  It'd be nice to just give everyone a $1000 dollar raise and we can just print more money and do it...but there are consequences.  Just buffing sets and overlooking outlier overperformers just isn't realistic if some kind of structure is to be maintained.  You need to do both, not in equal measure but just what is needed.

 

EDIT: I just remembered a nerf.  Rage having consequences for double stacking it?  I think you don't get a crash if you don't stack it.  You can still stack it but you get a crash...I dunno, I don't play Super Strength.

 

[oedipus_tex]

Farsight's impact on the rest of the team is not a concern for me. It's a PBAoE and realistically hitting the whole team with it all of the time isn't feasible. In that sense it's less reliable than Force Field's shield buffs. It's the personal armor numbers that make Farsight + Power Boost inappropriate.

 

If the fix were super complex I'd understand arguments about spending time fixing other sets. This one is front and center and obvious. There is a nearly identical power in the game that already has the fix applied.

 

You should not be able to soft cap to all positions and elements with just 4 powers. Y'all. Stop it. If an armor set was released with those values we'd never let stop talking about it. We haven't even discussed finished builds. You can soft cap with 4 powers. Either numbers don't matter at all or that is broken. The reason it is broken is obvious and staring us in the face, so please flip the switch and lets get back to balancing more challenging stuff. 🙂

[Seroster01]

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I just remembered a nerf.  Rage having consequences for double stacking it?  I think you don't get a crash if you don't stack it.  You can still stack it but you get a crash...I dunno, I don't play Super Strength

As I understand it the issue is that they increased the crash even with a single stack. I'm relatively hazy on it myself, but from what I understood of the topic, Rage has always had some component of the crash that was in the original code but didn't trigger because it was "bugged", and that said bug remained in this state for the whole game. Said "bug" was "fixed" at some time during the SCORE years & the end result was that it made Rage an unpopular power pick in a lot of builds.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Seroster01

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

Two people? And his interpretation was I was blaming him for some wrong or injustice because I made a generalization about "you people" while you interpreted something completely different but rationalized your interpretation.

 

If +def was the least useful support effect, why does everyone want it in their build?  

 

I think you mean the most abundant.  Which actually goes handily with the OP's argument, don't you think?

 

I'd assume it's a general enough statement when put side-by-side the argument that "+def is the least useful support effect".  If that buff is so abundant for such a statement, what are you arguing against me about?  And obviously, "everyone" isn't literal, that's why I put it in the statement to begin with, because people are using absolute statements as arguments but it goes both ways when putting the same argument down.

 

And I'll say it again: That is not an argument.

 

Well, technically it is, but it's one that is deflecting to some outside issue that doesn't pertain this this.  

 

And then you go on to deflect about labels just like @Infinitum is deflecting going on about phrases with baggage he doesn't like.  Both infinitesimal points if you're trying to make an actual argument that sum up at best to "Leo said something a way I didn't like". Lol

 

I'm glad you like the game.  I enjoy it as well.  However, this is the forum *talking* about the game.  They are two different realms of interaction that can be kept separate.  Just because I make arguments with regards to power creep or share opinions that are critical of the game doesn't mean I'm some grump who complains while playing the game or something.  I support the OP's post because they made a sound argument, not because I'm crotchety and like to complain at people in game (on the forums is a different story).

 

 

Aaaand you are still hiding.

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, Seroster01 said:

As I understand it the issue is that they increased the crash even with a single stack. I'm relatively hazy on it myself, but from what I understood of the topic, Rage has always had some component of the crash that was in the original code but didn't trigger because it was "bugged", and that said bug remained in this state for the whole game. Said "bug" was "fixed" at some time during the SCORE years & the end result was that it made Rage an unpopular power pick in a lot of builds.

On live double stack eliminated the crash - it was a bug.

 

Homecoming fixed it to where it crashed for every instance.

 

There was a proposed change to where it would only crash if you double stacked it but that was pulled.

 

As of now it crashes after every expiration.

[Infinitum]

25 minutes ago, oedipus_tex said:

Farsight's impact on the rest of the team is not a concern for me. It's a PBAoE and realistically hitting the whole team with it all of the time isn't feasible. In that sense it's less reliable than Force Field's shield buffs. It's the personal armor numbers that make Farsight + Power Boost inappropriate.

 

If the fix were super complex I'd understand arguments about spending time fixing other sets. This one is front and center and obvious. There is a nearly identical power in the game that already has the fix applied.

 

You should not be able to soft cap to all positions and elements with just 4 powers. Y'all. Stop it. If an armor set was released with those values we'd never let stop talking about it. We haven't even discussed finished builds. You can soft cap with 4 powers. Either numbers don't matter at all or that is broken. The reason it is broken is obvious and staring us in the face, so please flip the switch and lets get back to balancing more challenging stuff. 🙂

You are comparing oranges to apples.

 

These are clickies not toggles and absent is ddr or anything to guarantee it.

 

It doesn't make the user OP or invulnerable.  I've been dropped running power boost and farsight with chronoshift.

 

Soft capping with 4 powers isn't unheard of and it doesn't matter if you are positionally Soft capped or typed soft capped - it takes the higher of the 2 values.

 

I always build for positional unless it's an invul.

 

I soft cap my trollers to ranged and AOE minus power boosr - doesn't matter which kind.  Melee doesn't matter because if I'm going into melee range with my Troller that's equivalent to the tcs victory ramming the kilrathi dreadnought in the losing endgame sequence for WC3 Heart of the Tiger.

 

These aren't game breaking issues like you are making them out to be, because there are lots of different ways to be more OP than what you are saying.

[oedipus_tex]

5 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

You are comparing oranges to apples.

 

These are clickies not toggles and absent is ddr or anything to guarantee it.

 

It doesn't make the user OP or invulnerable.  I've been dropped running power boost and farsight with chronoshift.

 

Soft capping with 4 powers isn't unheard of and it doesn't matter if you are positionally Soft capped or typed soft capped - it takes the higher of the 2 values.

 

I always build for positional unless it's an invul.

 

I soft cap my trollers to ranged and AOE minus power boosr - doesn't matter which kind.  Melee doesn't matter because if I'm going into melee range with my Troller that's equivalent to the tcs victory ramming the kilrathi dreadnought in the losing endgame sequence for WC3 Heart of the Tiger.

 

These aren't game breaking issues like you are making them out to be, because there are lots of different ways to be more OP than what you are saying.

 

 

A clickie is better than a toggle. If it was a toggle we wouldn't be having this discussion because Power Boost's behavior with toggles is established. 

 

Farsight is a clickable with 120 second duration that can be made perma without set bonuses or Hasten. On a "good" build it recharges in 60 seconds. Once it is up it can not be detoggled by endurance drain or mezz. If you know how to push buttons, you can be soft capped to all positions. 

 

+12.5% to all positions is already amazing. Allowing a character to have 2 copies of this power (this is what Power Boost does) pushes it past the extreme. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[Wavicle]

 It seems pretty clear to me that there are a lot of people who either do not understand the ways in which powers are balanced against each other, or don’t care. In many cases they have explicitly stated that they don’t care, with comments such as if the person is solo then it doesn’t make any difference.

 

Well, fortunately it seems thus far that the homecoming devs do actually care about game balance and understand it fairly well. Therefore I predict that eventually both Fade and Farsight Will be marked to ignore power boost.

Edited January 4, 2020 by sacredlunatic

[Redlynne]

On 12/29/2019 at 12:38 AM, Redlynne said:

there is (sadly) a higher priority that must take precedence.

 

DON'T FEED THE CONCERN TROLL(S).

 

Because ... let's be honest here ... there are some fights that just aren't worth the energy it takes to fight them, for the "winning" is not worth the effort and the "fighting" is not worth the cost.  Let them think that their braying of "NAY!" has won the day ... while privately noting that they have not provided a single positive thing or constructive idea, let alone a counter-proposal, in what they have been so determined to waste your time about.

 

'Tis a very simple thing to do ... once you get the hang of it, because a closed mind is a terrible thing to waste your precious attention span on.

Was true when I wrote it then for that other thread ... and it's just as true now.

 

DON'T FEED THE CONCERN TROLL(S).

[Seroster01]

14 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

On live double stack eliminated the crash - it was a bug.

 

Homecoming fixed it to where it crashed for every instance.

 

There was a proposed change to where it would only crash if you double stacked it but that was pulled.

 

As of now it crashes after every expiration.

I thought this change was already done by the time I quit playing. I certainly remember having a discussion with a SG member that there was some change that made double stacking it unpopular, but I thought it was still considered good at 1 stack. I thought the change on SCORE was something different, though perhaps I'll just have to go read the threads on it. 

[Mopery]

Could this be fixed if Power Boost's effect only lasted a certain amount of time on any boosted power? Say, 10-15 seconds, like Build Up or Aim do for a power's +to hit and damage?

Edited January 4, 2020 by Mopery

[siolfir]

14 minutes ago, Mopery said:

Could this be fixed if Power Boost's effect only lasted a certain amount of time on any boosted power? Say, 10-15 seconds, like Build Up or Aim do for a power's +to hit and damage?

That would involve changing most of the power system so that you could track external buff durations on clicks just to avoid setting a flag to true that already exists on two powers.

 

Sure, you can do it. It would just be one of the biggest wastes of time you could possibly invest.

[oedipus_tex]

21 minutes ago, Mopery said:

Could this be fixed if Power Boost only lasted a certain amount of time on any boosted power? Say, 10-15 seconds, like Build Up or Aim do for a power's +to hit and damage?

 

Good question. IMO they shouldn't do this because Power Boost's interaction with Fortitude (Empathy) and especially Deflection Shield (Force Field) was a selling point for these sets. Like, the only reason Force Field players haven't mutinied is that Power Boosted Force Fields are a thing. On an iTrial a Force Fielder can Power Boost his or her Force Fields and the whole team has good defense. Other than AoE mezz protection Force Field brings little else to an iTrial.

 

 

Unrelated notes below. 🙂

 

Note Time and Dark can also power boost + shield a league, just with somewhat less certainity they'll hit as many team members. Unlike Force Field though at least they have other stuff they can do. FYI part of the reason Force Field and other set's shields were made into AoEs is there was a period of time where PBAoE buffs could buff a league and a Force Fielder had to shield each teammate one by one.

 

In terms of personal defense, the real attraction of Fade and Farsight, Force Fielders routinely have less Defense than Time characters. With Power Boosted Farsight in play, they have about 14% less total personal Defense. Force Field relies pretty heavily on Power Bosot to remain relevant. So the fact that it's that specific power that gives Time Manipulation so much more Defense rubs salt in the wound. I suppose you could argue that Farsight + Power Boost is 2 powers where Dispersion Bubble is just 1, but the next closest power the Force Fielder can grab for +Defense is Weave which only adds +5% or Manuevers adds +3.5%. Power Boost adds 12.4% to Farsight, more than Weave + Combat Jumping + Manuevers + Hover (ie all the toggles the Force Fielder can grab).

 

Oh, and by the way--Time can also grab Weave. So....

 

Next, Force Field's defense is a toggle, so it can be detoggled by running low on endurance or mezzed. Farsight's defense is there whether you are held, slept, sapped, whatever.

 

Because Farsight is a power that also affects teams, sometimes people lose sight of the fact that this power is viewed by most not as a team buff but a personal armor. Defenders and Controllers do look at those numbers on their builds. The fact that Farsight also happens to hit the rest of the team is secondary to its 

Edited January 4, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[Seroster01]

5 minutes ago, sacredlunatic said:

 It seems pretty clear to me that there are a lot of people who either do not understand the ways in which powers are balanced against each other, or don’t care. In many cases they have explicitly stated that they don’t care, with comments such as if the person is solo then it doesn’t make any difference.

 

Well, fortunately it seems thus far that the homecoming devs do actually care about game balance and understand it fairly well. Therefore I predict that eventually both Fade and Farsight Will be marked to ignore power boost.

It's obvious you're talking about me, and you're right I don't care very much about balancing the sets against each other, unless one set is such an outlier that it trivializes every other set of the same type.

 

As such, if the HC devs cared that much about game balance then I'd like to think that TW wouldn't be left as it is; insurmountably better than any other melee set in the game. It has a parry-style power for some free defense, copious CC via multiple Knockdowns, it's own -res power in addition to multiple -def powers allowing it to slot the Achilles Heel -res. All of this, while doing so much DPS that, despite it being a smashing damage set, its performance is still several standard deviations better than any other melee set. 

 

Yet people are in this thread freaking out about 5-12% extra defense from a combination of powers that won't be available until 41+...