General Feedback: Page 5 Build 5

[Captain Powerhouse]

Just now, ROBOKiTTY said:

Powers shared between blasters and doms, between blasters and melee ATs, and between doms and melee ATs have different base numbers irrespective of AT mods. Widow/fortunata versions of attacks have different base numbers compared to equivalents in other control/blast/melee ATs. Bane/war mace attacks have different base numbers.

 

This is not the complete picture. The powers still obey the same modifier tables, they are just balanced differently by giving them higher recharge and endurance cost.

 

Modifiers in this game are not "shortcuts", they are the Archetype equivalent of a class's base attributes on most MMOs.

[ScarySai]

8 minutes ago, Vanden said:

there is no way to claim that the Cottage Rule has any influence on these powers going unchanged without making a bad faith argument.

Sure, ignore the rest of the post.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: It wasn't the foundation of my argument, it was one of many potential ideas. Though in hindsight, I probably should have picked something else so you couldn't derail this as easily.

[Caulderone]

45 minutes ago, Bopper said:

Not sure if this helps anyone, but I took the Power Data Standardization v2.0 and reformat it into tables (below). I did make one tweak, which are the recent Tanker damage modifiers (I marked the changes in red, I know there are more that I missed, please point them out and I'll update).

Didn't the Brute range modifier change to match it's melee, then the APPs use ranged?  Yeah, found it, it's in the Jan. 23rd page 4 patch.

[csr]

20 minutes ago, Bopper said:

My guess is because powers like Health, Stamina, and Hasten would benefit some ATs more than others. Probably best to just keep them fixed as they are common self buffs for all ATs.

Self-buffs use different modifiers than those that affect others.

[Vanden]

5 minutes ago, ROBOKiTTY said:

No? Ranged attacks in melee ATs used to use melee numbers until HC decided to tweak them to follow ranged mods (albeit they did so without changing the resulting numbers). This is also why melee AT ranged attacks in epic pools outdamage their defender equivalents despite defenders having a higher ranged mod.

I don’t like to get into semantic arguments, but I’ll bite: Yes, those powers still use and respect the AT mods. If you open the detailed info window for the powers and change the Archeytpe with the drop down menu, the numbers will change to reflect any differences in the modifiers. Powers like Tar Patch won’t do that, the numbers stay the same no matter what AT you have selected.

[Bopper]

4 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

Didn't the Brute range modifier change to match it's melee, then the APPs use ranged?  Yeah, found it, it's in the Jan. 23rd page 4 patch.

Thanks, I'll edit it now. It is a very old table, so I'm not expecting amazing accuracy at this point. I just went through and updated Max HP corrections to Blasters, Stalkers, and Tankers

[Captain Powerhouse]

Just now, ScarySai said:

There's nuance to consider here, I'm choosing to consider all variables and don't see a reason to change it now, of all times.

 

If all values were considered, the controller version of all these powers would receive a true and harsh nerf.

 

As to the "why fix it now?" question: this was fixed long ago, internally, but was never pushed because of crash bugs that were fixed during Page 5 development (the crash bug some might had seen when customizing Faraday Cage earlier in testing.)

[Bopper]

6 minutes ago, csr said:

Self-buffs use different modifiers than those that affect others.

I am aware, but I'm not sure as to how AoE effects work in that regard. I would assume it is treated as an "affect other" effect, despite also buffing yourself. Powers like Chrono Shift come to mind. Either way, it'll be interesting to see if those modifiers get added. I also thought it was weird seeing Regen/Recovery not impacted by AT.

[ScarySai]

13 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

If all values were considered, the controller version of all these powers would receive a true and harsh nerf.

And I appreciate the restraint, despite finding that sentiment very troubling, as suddenly crippling these sets would be awful, but the minor change going through as-is remains less than ideal.

 

13 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

As to the "why fix it now?" question: this was fixed long ago, internally, but was never pushed because of crash bugs that were fixed during Page 5 development (the crash bug some might had seen when customizing Faraday Cage earlier in testing.)

You didn't answer the question, but aside from that, where are we going to draw the line? Are we to expect dominator nerfs down the line as their performance wasn't technically intended? Are we to expect further nerfs to brutes for having tank-like defenses? Kinetics for it's unmatched support? Tactical arrow for not following essentially any blaster secondary rule?

 

I understand wanting to keep rules consistent, however I don't think making negative sweeping changes to legacy sets is the best way to go about this.

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Bopper]

4 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

You didn't answer the question

  

12 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

As to the "why fix it now?" question: this was fixed long ago

He did answer the question, or at the very least invalidated the question you asked as it was already fixed.

 

Do you want to ask a new question "Why was it fixed long ago"?

[Captain Powerhouse]

6 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Tactical arrow for not following essentially any blaster secondary rule?

THAT one is getting a nerf, yes.

[ScarySai]

6 hours ago, Bopper said:

Do you want to ask a new question "Why was it fixed long ago"?

If I ask "Why are you fixing this", then "We already fixed this" isn't an answer to the question.

 

@Captain Powerhouse

Able to divulge any details?

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Bionic_Flea]

31 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Titan Weapons will see significant adjustments in Page 6

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

 

[Coyotedancer]

'Sounds like you guys are opening a giant can of worms... I just hope our characters are still playable in something like an enjoyable way when you're done.

[ScarySai]

2 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

 

I can count the number of sets that actually need to be reigned in with one hand.

 

TW is one of them, though I do hope it's not nerfed to irrelevance, but rather reigned in to not be such an outlier.

 

@CoyotedancerI wish I could like your post fifty times.

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Faultline]

3 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

If I ask "Why are you fixing this", then "We already fixed this" isn't an answer to the question.

The answer has been given to you multiple times: because powers should use the tables for the AT they belong to. You refuse to accept it.

[Bionic_Flea]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

I can count the number of sets that actually need to be reigned in with one hand.

 

TW is one of them, though I do hope it's not nerfed to irrelevance, but rather reigned in to not be such an outlier.

 

Allow me to cite Energy Melee and Regen as previous over-performers that "needed" to be reigned in.

Edited March 14, 2020 by Bionic_Flea

[Bopper]

8 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

If I ask "Why are you fixing this", then "We already fixed this" isn't an answer to the question.

 

9 minutes ago, Bopper said:

or at the very least invalidated the question you asked as it was already fixed.

I already responded to your question, but I'll quote myself with emphasis on the portion that currently applies.

 

As for something else you said...

14 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Are we to expect further nerfs to brutes for having tank-like defenses?

Brutes already use AT modifiers. The only way for a brute to have tank-like defenses is if they both hit soft-cap or the tank chose to heavily not invest in their buffs. For what it's worth, my Blaster has tank-like defenses, as does my defender. 

Edited March 14, 2020 by Bopper

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Allow me to cite Energy Melee and Regen as previous over-performers that "needed" to be reigned in.

And that's exactly why I'm worried about TW becoming irrelevant after this. I don't play it, whatever happens to it doesn't affect me and I was getting rather sick of it's unmatched dominance for little effort, but I still don't want to see it end up like regen.

 

7 minutes ago, Faultline said:

The answer has been given to you multiple times

Not from a developer, but I suppose this confirms that you agree with others earlier in the thread.  I still vehemently disagree, but suppose your mind is set on the matter.

 

6 minutes ago, Bopper said:

The only way for a brute to have tank-like defenses is if they both hit soft-cap or the tank chose to heavily invest in their buffs.

The caps are largely what I refer to, a buffed and/or properly build brute is essentially a roided out tank from a practical standpoint, and very rarely will the difference matter between them. Synapse didn't care for it or Domination, but removing/nerfing either would greatly hurt if not cripple both ATs.

 

6 minutes ago, Bopper said:

For what it,s worth, my Blaster has tank-like defenses, as does my defender. 

No, it doesn't. By virtue of the resist caps, HP pools and scaling, this is not possible even on a capped resist build with softcap to everything. Resist, especially when you get close to the 70 mark, gets very interesting with the scaling.

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

No, it doesn't. By virtue of the resist caps, HP pools and scaling, this is not possible even on a capped resist build with softcap to everything. Resist, especially when you get close to the 70 mark, gets very interesting with the scaling.

Then you used the term "tank-like defenses" incorrectly if you actually meant "tank-like survivability". Defense, Resistance, Regeneration, Max HP, Absorb, Healing and mitigation tools all apply. Tankers have higher modifiers for Defense, Resistance, Max HP (and HP in general), and Heal than Brutes (I believe the mitigation tools are the same, I don't know about Absorb and Regeneration).

 

Ultimately, Brutes do not have tank-like survivability in terms of potential. The only argument may come in the form of tank-like survivability for current game play (as you reach a certain level of survivability in the current content of this game, nothing will currently kill you...but that state is not permanent). 

[ScarySai]

8 minutes ago, Bopper said:

Then you used the term "tank-like defenses" incorrectly if you actually meant "tank-like survivability".

Semantic arguments are stupid and go nowhere, I used the term correctly, I'm not biting.

8 minutes ago, Bopper said:

Ultimately, Brutes do not have tank-like survivability in terms of potential.

They absolutely do in terms of potential, potential is where the argument has the most foundation, in fact.  The main difference would be +hp if we're talking defense caps, because if both are at cap, they both function as unstoppable walls of meat, and the tanker's increased scaling is irreelvant, because again - they are both at the resist cap. Of course, the tank could reach it earlier and easier, but in a group that brute is getting buffed.

 

We're sort of getting aside from the point, here. It was not intentional, as was domination - are we to expect those to get nasty hits down the line that change everything for the sake of 'fixing' the game? I don't personally think that would be a wise course to take, and now it seems like a very real concern for the long term.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

Semantic arguments are stupid and go nowhere, I used the term correctly, I'm not biting.

I felt the same about questions being answered repeatedly, yet were somehow not being answered due to semantics. 

 

10 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

They absolutely do in terms of potential, potential is where the argument has the most foundation, in fact.  The main difference would be +hp if we're talking at cap, because if both are at cap, they both function as unstoppable walls of meat with the same resist caps.

I don't know how to give a rebuttal when you gave the rebuttal in your argument. But no, tanks and Brutes don't have same survivability. Not only do tanks have greater modifiers in healing, defense, resistance, and HP (which makes it easier to reach soft/hard limits) they also have higher caps in max HP and Absorb. So mathematically, they do not have the same potential. 

 

That said, I'm moving on. As much as I love a good flame war, focused feedback should be constructive. You have your answer, everyone has their answer. All powers should use AT modifiers.

[ScarySai]

Another concern, @Captain Powerhouse

 

If powers like Tar patch, Sleet and Freezing rain lose their Pseudo-pet status, will they no longer stack? That in itself is a massive hit to those powers, turning an otherwise minor change into a disastrously large hit, if so.

Edited March 14, 2020 by ScarySai

[Vanden]

16 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

If powers like Tar patch, Sleet and Freezing rain lose their Pseudo-pet status, will they no longer stack? That in itself is a massive hit to those powers, turning an otherwise minor change into a disastrously large hit, if so.

Hyperbole like this doesn't help, especially when as far as I can tell, you haven't even tested the changes.

[Frosticus]

Getting ( former )psuedo pets to correctly follow AT modifiers is a change I've been petitioning for since about i8. 

 

You cant really look at improving/nerfing sets until they work correctly across all the ATs that access them.

 

As to why didnt former devs do it when implementing each psuedo pet? They used a butt load of copy paste back then for a "good enough" result. If they had the tech this team has now it would have been done then by default as the powers no longer use custom psuedo pets.