How much better or worse would the game be if AT's except Stalker could choose the 1st or 2nd power from their secondary at creation?

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 hours ago, Replacement said:

I'd finally make a savage dominator.

 

Every time I get interested... And then come the bees.

 

[Haijinx]

On 3/19/2021 at 3:48 PM, Peacemoon said:

It would be better IMO if you could earn extra powers. Like every 100 prestige levels after 50 you got an extra power. 

Without slots this would be meh

 

With slots it would be OP

[Haijinx]

Really what you'd see is even more leadership powers spam

 

More Runes of protection

 

More Travel powers

 

It wouldn't change much.

 

 

 

[arcane]

2 hours ago, Replacement said:

I'd finally make a savage dominator.

 

Every time I get interested... And then come the bees.

I just delete those kind of t1’s from my tray.

[ForeverLaxx]

On 3/19/2021 at 2:19 PM, Grindingsucks said:

How?

 

Yes, my skepticism is extreme.

You can be skeptical, but we don't know for sure how things are coded and interwoven throughout the background code. Just like when they tried to implement the ability to change your character's origin after creation, a ton of things irreparably broke for that character and effectively bricked it. So that change was reverted and we're locked to the origin we start with on creation again.

 

I'm reminded of when Blizzard tried to explain that they couldn't increase the size of the base, starter backpack in WoW. Every time they changed it, it shattered tons of other things that apparently (and seemingly randomly) were tied to that bag always being a set size. Most often, it broke items that were auto-added to your bag for quests but it wasn't limited to just that.

 

I'm sure if they dug far enough, long enough, they could find the links that cause things to break when you're allowed to pick from two powers in your secondary, but it's likely not worth all the time, effort, and headache for a change that ultimately does nothing but be a nice QoL update. And, chances are, undoing those links will break other things that relied on the linked code existing to function. It'd be like trying to undo a kink in a hose just to make the hose further down line twisted and knotted once the original kink no longer exists.

Edited March 21, 2021 by ForeverLaxx

[Greycat]

8 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

You can be skeptical, but we don't know for sure how things are coded and interwoven throughout the background code. Just like when they tried to implement the ability to change your character's origin after creation, a ton of things irreparably broke for that character and effectively bricked it. So that change was reverted and we're locked to the origin we start with on creation again.

 

 

Or for one that did get fixed (though that should not be taken as support of this idea,) when we got a fifth power added to the pools, it broke Dominators and Kheldians in beta. Dominators could no longer activate Domination, and Kheldian powers got shifted around (so you'd try to activate, say, White Dwarf and trigger an attack or toggle a shield instead - I don't recall if that was the exact "this for that," but it illustrates the point.)

[Grindingsucks]

16 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

You can be skeptical, but we don't know for sure how things are coded and interwoven throughout the background code. Just like when they tried to implement the ability to change your character's origin after creation, a ton of things irreparably broke for that character and effectively bricked it. So that change was reverted and we're locked to the origin we start with on creation again.

 

I'm reminded of when Blizzard tried to explain that they couldn't increase the size of the base, starter backpack in WoW. Every time they changed it, it shattered tons of other things that apparently (and seemingly randomly) were tied to that bag always being a set size. Most often, it broke items that were auto-added to your bag for quests but it wasn't limited to just that.

 

I'm sure if they dug far enough, long enough, they could find the links that cause things to break when you're allowed to pick from two powers in your secondary, but it's likely not worth all the time, effort, and headache for a change that ultimately does nothing but be a nice QoL update. And, chances are, undoing those links will break other things that relied on the linked code existing to function. It'd be like trying to undo a kink in a hose just to make the hose further down line twisted and knotted once the original kink no longer exists.

 

My point was that someone said someone else (A Dev, I'll assume) tested this and found that it broke the game.  This is anecdotal (hearsay, would be the word, if we were speaking in legal terms) and offers no further explanation for how it broke the game.  I'm disinclined to rely upon anecdotal replies offered as evidence for why a particular suggestion isn't viable.

 

It may well not be viable for very definite reasons.  But if you want me to accept (and, more importantly, understand) that, you'll need to provide more specific details about why it didn't work the first time it was tried.  I feel a word or two from the person that actually did the testing would be helpful here.

 

I'm not particularly interested in removing the requisite power.  Although it would be nice to have the choice to decline to take it, it's not really that big a deal to me.  But, yes, I continue to remain skeptical of the claim that doing so would break the game, until someone can explain to me the how's and why's of it, with some solid evidence to back it up.

 

I don't think this is unreasonable.

[tidge]

On 3/19/2021 at 6:56 PM, MTeague said:

Personally, I'd like to see Stalker Hide become an inherent, and for them to get the various powers that were ripped out of their armor/defense set to make room for it. 

I don't expect to see that happen, mind you.  But I'd like it.

 

Hide happens to be a very good place to Mule pieces from Defense sets, and it does need to be a toggle or a whole lotta 'escort' content becomes miserable.

 

On 3/20/2021 at 7:21 AM, Carnifax said:

It'd make Traps secondary less horrific earlier on.

 

The Traps secondary (for Masterminds) is bad enough that the T1 and T2 powers ought to be swapped.

[Carnifax]

12 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

Hide happens to be a very good place to Mule pieces from Defense sets, and it does need to be a toggle or a whole lotta 'escort' content becomes miserable.

 

You mean "exactly like everyone else"?

 

I'd never not pick Hide on a Stalker, just like I'd never not pick my Hold in a Controller set or my Smashing / Lethal / Melee def on an Armour set. What I'm saying is that in this context (allowing a choice of 1st Secondary powers) I don't see any reason to make a special exception for Stalkers. 

 

If this happened a Hideless Stalker should be an option. Just an exceptionally crap / niche one (like petless masterminds). 

[tidge]

7 minutes ago, Carnifax said:

You mean "exactly like everyone else"?

 

Stalkers have their own particular pain during escort missions distinct from other ATs because other ATs aren't expected to be Hidden when not attacking.

 

Stalkers with the %Hide ATO can also lose their escorted creature by attacking!

[Carnifax]

1 minute ago, tidge said:

 

Stalkers have their own particular pain during escort missions distinct from other ATs because other ATs aren't expected to be Hidden when not attacking.

 

Stalkers with the %Hide ATO can also lose their escorted creature by attacking!

Sorry, I read that backwards. Quite a lot of sets have this. Dark and Storm it's always "Drop mist". 

 

I've also annoyed people with a poorly timed & placed Group Invis (til I apologised and said "You can right click it to cancel it!"

 

[Neiska]

Correct me if I am wrong but, isn't there background things tied into many of the AT's and their T1 powers? Not all of which are immediately known or obvious?

 

Here's an example: Bruising for Tankers? Here is a copy/paste form the Homecoming wiki -

 

Bruising

Bruising is a damage resistance debuff that was added to the game in Issue 18.

On a successful hit, any tier 1 Tanker secondary power set attack will bruise an enemy target. This bruising effect causes a resistible 20% damage resistance debuff which lasts for 10 seconds. Bruising cannot stack, even if there are multiple tankers attacking the same target; thus, it is a good idea for multiple tankers to spread attacks out on the whole spawn.

 

And this is off the top of my head, but if there is this it wouldn't surprise me if there were other similar effects for other ATs? I am no expert but it seems like a lot of work to redo that, to make it a power selection feature, rather than tie it into a T1?

 

Moreover, isn't the game already balanced with this in mind? I am not saying it may/may not change things greatly if it was removed or changed. (But I do leave that up to the number-crunchers like Galaxy Brain to figure out.) 

[Carnifax]

8 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Correct me if I am wrong but, isn't there background things tied into many of the AT's and their T1 powers? Not all of which are immediately known or obvious?

 

Here's an example: Bruising for Tankers? Here is a copy/paste form the Homecoming wiki -

 

Bruising

Bruising is a damage resistance debuff that was added to the game in Issue 18.

On a successful hit, any tier 1 Tanker secondary power set attack will bruise an enemy target. This bruising effect causes a resistible 20% damage resistance debuff which lasts for 10 seconds. Bruising cannot stack, even if there are multiple tankers attacking the same target; thus, it is a good idea for multiple tankers to spread attacks out on the whole spawn.

 

And this is off the top of my head, but if there is this it wouldn't surprise me if there were other similar effects for other ATs? I am no expert but it seems like a lot of work to redo that, to make it a power selection feature, rather than tie it into a T1?

 

Moreover, isn't the game already balanced with this in mind? I am not saying it may/may not change things greatly if it was removed or changed. (But I do leave that up to the number-crunchers like Galaxy Brain to figure out.) 

Bruising isn't a thing any more. 

 

It was dropped in favour of just turning Tanks into AOE Monsters and also buffing their other damage to compensate for it being removed. Because BALANCE. 

[Neiska]

4 minutes ago, Carnifax said:

Bruising isn't a thing any more. 

 

It was dropped in favour of just turning Tanks into AOE Monsters and also buffing their other damage to compensate for it being removed. Because BALANCE. 

 

Mhm, I read that it was removed on the wiki. But I haven't checked the other ATs and such if they still have similar features or not, or if there are other mechanics/behind the scenes stuff tied into T1 powers, which was my main question. But thanks for the follow up!

[Carnifax]

14 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Mhm, I read that it was removed on the wiki. But I haven't checked the other ATs and such if they still have similar features or not, or if there are other mechanics/behind the scenes stuff tied into T1 powers, which was my main question. But thanks for the follow up!

Can't think of anything significant baked into a Tier 1 secondary. 

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

Hide happens to be a very good place to Mule pieces from Defense sets, and it does need to be a toggle or a whole lotta 'escort' content becomes miserable.

I never said anything about changing it away from being a toggle.

Sprint is an inherent toggle, too. 

 

I do agree Hide's default slot is a it's a good place to toss a resist all unique. (or a LotG). But I'd be ok with not being slotttable in Hide anymore as the price of Hide becoming an Inherent IF, stalkers also got the same selections as Scrappers.  Meaning at lvl 1, you got an attack, plus your T1 armor, plus Hide.  If they did that, we'd probably have to give up Hide taking sets as the price for the extra armor selection.  It wouldn't be that hard for me to allocate an additional slot to combat jumping or something else (if my T1 armor was not also a Defense power).

 

Still. Since I don't really expect it to ever happen, I'm mostly just spitballing here.

[tidge]

3 hours ago, MTeague said:

Still. Since I don't really expect it to ever happen, I'm mostly just spitballing here.

 

I gotcha. It's just that I really like having Hide as the 'always on toggle' for Kismet.

[Grouchybeast]

6 hours ago, Grindingsucks said:

 

My point was that someone said someone else (A Dev, I'll assume) tested this and found that it broke the game.  This is anecdotal (hearsay, would be the word, if we were speaking in legal terms) and offers no further explanation for how it broke the game.  I'm disinclined to rely upon anecdotal replies offered as evidence for why a particular suggestion isn't viable.

 

As I understand it, one way that the game checks to see if a character is valid is by seeing if it has its secondary T1: it should be impossible to create a character without a secondary T1, ergo any character without one is not a valid character.  So removing the requirement would also mean finding and changing every single instance in the code of that check being made.

 

See this post by Captain Powerhouse, and this beta bug that popped up during the experimental Tanker T1/T2 switch.

[Replacement]

On 3/21/2021 at 6:04 PM, arcane said:

I just delete those kind of t1’s from my tray.

I caaaaaaaaan't!

 

I don't have it in me to remove any primary/secondary from my trays.  Move them way down the line? sure.  But I have to always... stare at it.

 

Bees.

[Grindingsucks]

3 hours ago, Grouchybeast said:

 

As I understand it, one way that the game checks to see if a character is valid is by seeing if it has its secondary T1: it should be impossible to create a character without a secondary T1, ergo any character without one is not a valid character.  So removing the requirement would also mean finding and changing every single instance in the code of that check being made.

 

See this post by Captain Powerhouse, and this beta bug that popped up during the experimental Tanker T1/T2 switch.

Perfectly understandable, then.  Thanks for the clarification and the link to the relevant topic.