Remind me why they don't want an Assault-primary AT?

[biostem]

33 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

That's an interesting idea... allow me to make a counter suggestion:

 

A pair of passive auras for 2 parts of a 4-part inherent. One pulses to 90ft, one pulses to 20ft. The one which pulses to 90ft grants one stack of "Meleetastic!" per enemy hit. The second inherent at 20ft pulses and removes one stack of "Meleetastic!" and grants one stack of "Shoot 'em!" per enemy hit. Both Meleetastic! and Shoot 'em! have a maximum of 5 stacks.

 

Each melee attack in the Assault Primary gets tagged with a new inherent effect that each stack of "Meleetastic!" grants a bit of extra damage per stack (Let's say 10% per, scaling with enhancements). Each ranged attack in the Assault Primary gets tagged with the new inherent effect that each stack of "Shoot 'em!" grants a bit of extra damage per stack (Let's say 8% per, scaling with enhancements).

 

Having the "Short Range" aura remove 1 stack of Meleetastic means it'll strip away characters in the short range aura who are also tagged by the "Long Range" aura.

Interesting approach.  Question:  Do all powers have extra coding to allow for the extra damage from a power like 'assault', or can this hypothetical AT's inherent just work like that?

[Replacement]

5 hours ago, siolfir said:

You're not that new to game forums are you? 😛

 

With all of the "proliferate everything!" calls that have been around since before I started, you know that as soon as someone sees that an assault wasn't ported as-is there will be complaints, and then someone is going to demand that a new <insert attack type here> set is created because they couldn't possibly make their concept work any other way even using power customization options to make it look different and no they won't just play the AT that already has that powerset combination because it needs to be on this one instead.

 

"Happy with 4x4 set options" won't even make it past the patch notes announcing the new AT.

Wow.  I guess over the years, I've just become incredibly good at writing off entitled forum bitching.

[Steampunkette]

1 hour ago, biostem said:

Interesting approach.  Question:  Do all powers have extra coding to allow for the extra damage from a power like 'assault', or can this hypothetical AT's inherent just work like that?

It would require extra lines for each and every power in every Primary.

 

Like a Scrapper having "Additional Fire Damage" coded into every single primary attack just in case they grab the fire build up.

[siolfir]

 

9 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

11 hours ago, biostem said:

Interesting approach.  Question:  Do all powers have extra coding to allow for the extra damage from a power like 'assault', or can this hypothetical AT's inherent just work like that?

It would require extra lines for each and every power in every Primary.

 

Like a Scrapper having "Additional Fire Damage" coded into every single primary attack just in case they grab the fire build up.

To specifically answer the question asked, a power like Assault doesn't require extra lines in each power, because it applies +damage (for all types of damage). That counts against the +damage cap, though, instead of changing the base damage of the power. This is how Fury and Defiance work.

 

To have additional base damage, the extra lines are added to each affected power.

[biostem]

42 minutes ago, siolfir said:

To specifically answer the question asked, a power like Assault doesn't require extra lines in each power, because it applies +damage (for all types of damage). That counts against the +damage cap, though, instead of changing the base damage of the power. This is how Fury and Defiance work.

 

To have additional base damage, the extra lines are added to each affected power.

So, then, it *would* be possible to have an inherent that applies stacks of a flat damage buff while enemies are not near you?

[siolfir]

21 minutes ago, biostem said:

So, then, it *would* be possible to have an inherent that applies stacks of a flat damage buff while enemies are not near you?

Yes. It's also possible to have an inherent that does extra base damage, which can be enhanced. The difference is how much work each would take to add, and how much maintenance each would require for power changes.

[Steampunkette]

.... I feel sheepish. Yeah. What Siolfir said.

 

That said, a defense/resistance bonus in melee as an inherent seems a bit -too- strong in my opinion. I get that it could be "A little bit", but this is an AT concept that would thrive in melee, and since damage bonuses have a cap, they'd no longer gain the ranged benefit of their inherent if hanging out with a Kinetics character.

 

So you'd just become another melee character with bonuses to def/res as an inherent and be blasting people at point blank range once you got into the higher levels/had buffers hanging around.

[Pbuckley818]

5 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

.... I feel sheepish. Yeah. What Siolfir said.

 

That said, a defense/resistance bonus in melee as an inherent seems a bit -too- strong in my opinion. I get that it could be "A little bit", but this is an AT concept that would thrive in melee, and since damage bonuses have a cap, they'd no longer gain the ranged benefit of their inherent if hanging out with a Kinetics character.

 

So you'd just become another melee character with bonuses to def/res as an inherent and be blasting people at point blank range once you got into the higher levels/had buffers hanging around.

That would seem to be a design oversight... 

 

I mean personally I am pretty in love with the Operative desighn wise. Though even that seems to have never settled on a final innate. I wonder if this could be implemented into the test surver without an innate, so that any gaps or needed changes could be diagnosed and addressed via innate?

 

I think most can agree though that they want an Asssault primary AT to want to swap between Melee and Ranged, but how to produce this effect is a bit of a challenge. Their was that rage like idea on the Operative wasn't there? Or did that prove to be too unworkable?

[siolfir]

6 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

they'd no longer gain the ranged benefit of their inherent if hanging out with a Kinetics character.

To be fair, this is already true for Blasters and to a lesser extent Brutes, and the VEAT inherent may as well not even exist for all that it provides. Not all inherents are created equal.

[Pbuckley818]

3 minutes ago, siolfir said:

To be fair, this is already true for Blasters and to a lesser extent Brutes, and the VEAT inherent may as well not even exist for all that it provides. Not all inherents are created equal.

Well the Veat Inherent is basically just a cop out, more like a, we don't actually know what to do, so just live with it. 

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, Pbuckley818 said:

That would seem to be a design oversight... 

 

I mean personally I am pretty in love with the Operative desighn wise. Though even that seems to have never settled on a final innate. I wonder if this could be implemented into the test surver without an innate, so that any gaps or needed changes could be diagnosed and addressed via innate?

 

I think most can agree though that they want an Asssault primary AT to want to swap between Melee and Ranged, but how to produce this effect is a bit of a challenge. Their was that rage like idea on the Operative wasn't there? Or did that prove to be too unworkable?

I just recently silently edited the OP of operative. I very intentionally underdeveloped the Inherent specifically because it would need a lot of testing and tuning.

 

This is where I point to Stalker, which took something like 18 issues to become good, and now its Inherent reads like Scrapper Fanfiction.  I wouldn't want a repeat of that.

 

It's best to have the bones in place and leave room for definition.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Replacement

[Pbuckley818]

1 minute ago, Replacement said:

I just recently silently edited the OP of operative. I very intentionally underdeveloped the Inherent specifically because it would need a lot of testing and tuning.

 

This is where I point to Stalker, which took something like 18 issues to become good, and now its Inherent reads like Scrapper Fanfiction. It's best to have the bones in place and leave the room for definition.

I had vaguely remembered that being a point of order on the AT suggestion. 

[Steampunkette]

For some reason I cannot get rid of this quote...

 

I still stand by the Operative as a very well-designed class overall. I would love to see it implemented.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Steampunkette

[Rathulfr]

34 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

For some reason I cannot get rid of this quote...

Edited January 28, 2020 by Rathulfr

[Steampunkette]

1 hour ago, Rathulfr said:

Turns out my cell phone just hates me.

 

Took it out instantly with my laptop once I got home.