Please revert the Rage change.

[Burnt Toast]

It was removed from Issue 24 beta before the game shut down. After much discussion and data mining it was determined that it was not needed and was punitive to the set. I beta tested for 18 issues and know for a fact that the -Defense was not going to be pushed to Live. This is not to say that there were not other plans for Rage in the pipeline, but this... was not one of them.

Things that were discussed:

-5% Defense and -10% Resistance for 10 seconds instead of the -20% Defense

Increasing the Recharge of Rage so that getting double Rage required A LOT of +recharge - while still maintaining the -Damage aspect

Reducing the effectiveness of Rage altogether (Do not remember the exact numbers for that suggestion) - I do remember it brought SS to either the #2 or #3 spot damage wise if you had Perma.

 

These were all options that were being openly discussed in Beta with the devs at the time. Sometimes you need a foam nerf bat and not a wooden one.

 

The -Defense was never on live - that was an Issue 25 change. The game closed... before Issue 24 was Live.

Issue 24 change, not issue 25 change. So yes, it was on Live (The beta server counts).

[Chronocrator]

I haven't tested whether it works or not, so I'll have to take your word for it. It would have taken far, far too long to get a character built up to a high enough level to test.

 

The powers are more than mediocre. They're literally useless for a Brute or Tanker. You already have Taunt, which is better than Provoke in every way. You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT a Placate of any sort. You have no use for Fears, especially on a Brute. These are all powers that no Tanker or Brute in their right minds would ever take by choice, ever.

 

And as I noted before, you're also forced to build to +305% global recharge to even use it properly.

 

It was a bad idea.

 

Not useless. Worse than existing options, sure. Unyielding itself is quite a decent power, only held back by its long recharge time. Provoke is a bad taunt but if your powers are really that tight you can take it instead of taunt if you want unyielding. Fear is crowd control and there's no class in the game that finds that completely useless. Sure, you'd never go out of your way to pick it, but your goal is to pick up Unyielding, which could be quite a big deal for various different builds.

 

You keep bringing up this recharge issue but I literally said it's something that can be easily tweaked and apparently applied differently to other powers. Could you read my whole post?

 

Now, I don't understand why adding a feature that is too weak is a reason to remove it altogether. If it's such a bad option, what's the harm in leaving it there? Why not fix the pool and use the design somehow?

[Primantis]

I'm not sure I get the resistance to rolling back the change coming from some quarters. Even if no-crash Rage gave SS an edge, I didn't see it preventing people from playing other powersets and making them very effective. Am I wrong about that?

 

A SS/Inv Brute must have [Footstomped] their dog at some point in their childhood.

[FUBARczar]

EASIEST FIX - cut buff values in half, get rid of any crash, allow double stacking, that way there is a point to double stacking, and actually encourages it, allowing players to reach customary SS levels, and also that way it rewards higher-end builds that have more recharge.

 

Then buff:

Jab - quicker animation more dmg - Like KM's Quick Strike or DM's Shadow Punch

 

Change Hand Clap into a power equal to Proton Sweep, or Psi Blade Sweep or Jacob's Ladder and give it Smashing and "Sonic" Energy with a little -res debuff.  That will bring the set up to the current standards.

 

*edit - In fact, for Jab just use the Psionic Melee Mental Strike animation without all the extra mental art.

[JusticeEagle]

The -Defense was never on live - that was an Issue 25 change. The game closed... before Issue 24 was Live.

Issue 24 change, not issue 25 change. So yes, it was on Live (The beta server counts).

 

No, it wasn't. Changes that were tested, but purposely not implemented, weren't really on live. There is a reason Castle purposely left the Def crash avoidable, and that was not to break the powerset, like it is currently.

[Super Homer]

There is also a reason he never removed it, and that leads me to think the only reason he never actually make it unavoidable is that he was not allowed to do so.

[SwitchFade]

I'm not sure I get the resistance to rolling back the change coming from some quarters. Even if no-crash Rage gave SS an edge, I didn't see it preventing people from playing other powersets and making them very effective. Am I wrong about that?

 

Just to be clear, I favor rolling back the change, as it was more fun with rage having no def crash.

 

But to be pointed, people should use arguments to support positions that are viable.

 

1. Case for change 2. Proposed solution 3. Supporting evidence 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

Where most people run afoul of proper persuasion is 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

So, I want the change rolled back and people need to argue from the perspective of syllogism to properly persuade others.

[MalphiteMeIRL]

I'm not sure I get the resistance to rolling back the change coming from some quarters. Even if no-crash Rage gave SS an edge, I didn't see it preventing people from playing other powersets and making them very effective. Am I wrong about that?

 

A SS/Inv Brute must have [Footstomped] their dog at some point in their childhood.

 

Pretty much my thoughts as well. I'm surprised to see so much resistance. You'd swear I was asking to remove all crashes on it and buff base numbers or something. lol

 

Easiest fix is still just to remove the -20 def debuff and NOTHING ELSE, so it mimics how Castle and the other live devs intentionally left it.

 

That way it still has a period of doing effectively 0 DPS (No other set has this weakness) along with the big end hit. The endurance crash is much harder to mitigate on just SOs especially pre 50. Footstomp is an incredible AoE but it's also the only multi-target damaging attack in the set. On just SOs it will not have crazy low recharge. Other sets have far higher AoE DPS in comparison to SS at that point. TW and Rad come to mind as good comparisons since they also have good single target damage unlike spines/elec.

 

On the flipside the 0 DPS crash moments punish super high recharge builds. Particularly on brutes since they already run on a high damage % to offset their minimal base damages. This is all without the -def.

[JusticeEagle]

I'm not sure I get the resistance to rolling back the change coming from some quarters. Even if no-crash Rage gave SS an edge, I didn't see it preventing people from playing other powersets and making them very effective. Am I wrong about that?

 

Just to be clear, I favor rolling back the change, as it was more fun with rage having no def crash.

 

But to be pointed, people should use arguments to support positions that are viable.

 

1. Case for change 2. Proposed solution 3. Supporting evidence 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

Where most people run afoul of proper persuasion is 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

So, I want the change rolled back and people need to argue from the perspective of syllogism to properly persuade others.

''

 

I've actually done this. Essentially, I've stated:

 

All melee damage powersets should be comparable

 

The def crash not being avoidable like it was on live makes SS a severely underperforming set vs. others

 

Rage needs the def crash removed/made avoidable

 

But cognitive dissonance being what it is, some people are trying avoid or ignore this.

[nihilii]

(Edit: and because I know it's coming, the "game is balanced around SOs" applies less than ever here. Perma-Rage is PARTICULARLY overpowered in the SO world, where you get to hit +2s and +3s with ease as soon as lvl 18 while everyone else whiffs helplessly; where you can easily choose to trade some of your damage and accuracy SOs for extra recharge and end reduction, while everyone else must stick at least 1 ACC/3 DAM as a baseline.)

 

And yes the game should still be balanced around SOs because nobody starts at level 50. Any changes made should take the whole game into account.

 

The point I was making here is that compared to other powersets, SS is *even stronger on SOs than it is on IOs*.

 

So, if you want to argue for a reversal of the nerf on the basis of "balance", you probably don't want to look too closely at SO balance...

 

Between IOed out builds, SS shares the top with a fair few others.

 

But on a SO build, it's rather easy to herald SS as the king of melee.

 

Best to pick arguments that help your desired goal, rather than work against it.

[Nixeras]

I'm not sure I get the resistance to rolling back the change coming from some quarters. Even if no-crash Rage gave SS an edge, I didn't see it preventing people from playing other powersets and making them very effective. Am I wrong about that?

 

Just to be clear, I favor rolling back the change, as it was more fun with rage having no def crash.

 

But to be pointed, people should use arguments to support positions that are viable.

 

1. Case for change 2. Proposed solution 3. Supporting evidence 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

Where most people run afoul of proper persuasion is 4. Syllogistic reasoning.

 

So, I want the change rolled back and people need to argue from the perspective of syllogism to properly persuade others.

''

 

I've actually done this. Essentially, I've stated:

 

All melee damage powersets should be comparable

 

The def crash not being avoidable like it was on live makes SS a severely underperforming set vs. others

 

Rage needs the def crash removed/made avoidable

 

But cognitive dissonance being what it is, some people are trying avoid or ignore this.

 

I agree with this.

[BZRKR]

I have a lvl 50+9 Vet lvls Super Strength/ Invulnerability Brute.

With all of my lvl 50 IOs and my Incarnate powers running, this is a pretty fun character.

Exemplared down to do a task force, I feel slow and weak. I have fallen into the habit of just not using Rage, which isn't a satisfactory answer. In the meantime, I have made a new non-Super Strength Brute.

 

I'm very glad to see that a GM has touched base in this thread. Hopefully, it will be decided to just remove the -Def penalty in the crash, but if not I'm glad the community will have a chance to be heard. To that end, my first suggestion is to just remove the -def part of the crash and gather data. If in 6 months' time, Super Strength has overtaken the game and no other kind of characters are being played, then we'll have a proper dataset to tell us where to make adjustments. If not, then leave it alone.

 

All things aside, I'm so grateful to even have a reason to have this discussion :)

[SwitchFade]

Also, pie>cake.

 

Discuss.

[justicebeliever]

Also, pie>cake.

 

Discuss.

 

Depends on the pie.  What are you serving, and will there be cookies?

[Mantidae]

(Edit: and because I know it's coming, the "game is balanced around SOs" applies less than ever here. Perma-Rage is PARTICULARLY overpowered in the SO world, where you get to hit +2s and +3s with ease as soon as lvl 18 while everyone else whiffs helplessly; where you can easily choose to trade some of your damage and accuracy SOs for extra recharge and end reduction, while everyone else must stick at least 1 ACC/3 DAM as a baseline.)

 

And yes the game should still be balanced around SOs because nobody starts at level 50. Any changes made should take the whole game into account.

 

The point I was making here is that compared to other powersets, SS is *even stronger on SOs than it is on IOs*.

 

So, if you want to argue for a reversal of the nerf on the basis of "balance", you probably don't want to look too closely at SO balance...

 

Between IOed out builds, SS shares the top with a fair few others.

 

But on a SO build, it's rather easy to herald SS as the king of melee.

 

Best to pick arguments that help your desired goal, rather than work against it.

 

Could you provide some examples? I've never heard anyone making this sort of claim about the set so I'm curious to see your math.

[Vanden]

(Edit: and because I know it's coming, the "game is balanced around SOs" applies less than ever here. Perma-Rage is PARTICULARLY overpowered in the SO world, where you get to hit +2s and +3s with ease as soon as lvl 18 while everyone else whiffs helplessly; where you can easily choose to trade some of your damage and accuracy SOs for extra recharge and end reduction, while everyone else must stick at least 1 ACC/3 DAM as a baseline.)

 

And yes the game should still be balanced around SOs because nobody starts at level 50. Any changes made should take the whole game into account.

 

The point I was making here is that compared to other powersets, SS is *even stronger on SOs than it is on IOs*.

 

So, if you want to argue for a reversal of the nerf on the basis of "balance", you probably don't want to look too closely at SO balance...

 

Between IOed out builds, SS shares the top with a fair few others.

 

But on a SO build, it's rather easy to herald SS as the king of melee.

 

Best to pick arguments that help your desired goal, rather than work against it.

 

Could you provide some examples? I've never heard anyone making this sort of claim about the set so I'm curious to see your math.

 

I think they just mean that once IOs' recharge bonuses start coming into play, Rage recharges more and starts crashing more.

[nihilii]

My examples for SS being particularly strong on SOs sits at the very top of the quotes. Out of the blue, with SS, you have access to perma +20% tohit and +80% dam. This lets slotting like (i.e.) 1 ACC/2 DAM/2 END/1 RECH be viable. Most other toons on SOs have to slot at least 2 ACC to hit +3s and +4s with any reliability, have to slot 3 DAM to dish out decent numbers, leaving only one slot for END or RECH. In essence, you're getting 2 extra slots for free on each attack.

 

For some builds with good end management built in (say SS/Elec), it's even possible to build strong attack chains through 1 ACC/3 DAM/2 RECH slotting, something other builds can only look at with envy.

 

Everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too on IOs. On SOs, there's so little to play with, SS brings unprecedented flexibility.

[kelly Rocket]

My examples for SS being particularly strong on SOs sits at the very top of the quotes. Out of the blue, with SS, you have access to perma +20% tohit and +80% dam. This lets slotting like (i.e.) 1 ACC/2 DAM/2 END/1 RECH be viable. Most other toons on SOs have to slot at least 2 ACC to hit +3s and +4s with any reliability, have to slot 3 DAM to dish out decent numbers, leaving only one slot for END or RECH. In essence, you're getting 2 extra slots for free on each attack.

 

For some builds with good end management built in (say SS/Elec), it's even possible to build strong attack chains through 1 ACC/3 DAM/2 RECH slotting, something other builds can only look at with envy.

 

Everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too on IOs. On SOs, there's so little to play with, SS brings unprecedented flexibility.

Your example is crap, tbh, because even with that slotting, the SS damage would suck. The base numbers are pretty poor.

[Galaxy Brain]

At this point, just remove the defense drop since even though it was a bug on live, it still essentially didn't exist for many years.

[JusticeEagle]

My examples for SS being particularly strong on SOs sits at the very top of the quotes. Out of the blue, with SS, you have access to perma +20% tohit and +80% dam. This lets slotting like (i.e.) 1 ACC/2 DAM/2 END/1 RECH be viable. Most other toons on SOs have to slot at least 2 ACC to hit +3s and +4s with any reliability, have to slot 3 DAM to dish out decent numbers, leaving only one slot for END or RECH. In essence, you're getting 2 extra slots for free on each attack.

 

For some builds with good end management built in (say SS/Elec), it's even possible to build strong attack chains through 1 ACC/3 DAM/2 RECH slotting, something other builds can only look at with envy.

 

Everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too on IOs. On SOs, there's so little to play with, SS brings unprecedented flexibility.

 

Um, no, this is not a valid argument. As I've said in this thread a number of times, you can't look at Rage as some standalone power. the powerset must be taken as a whole compared to other powersets. The rest of SS is underperforming, and perma-rage brings it up to par with other powersets. Without perma-rage available, the set is completely broken.

[SwitchFade]

At this point, Devs, I think we should let this thread idle, and at least TEST the revert on Beta. Or, crank down the def debuff. Something.

 

We're debating semantics, and it's clear that balance for the sake of balance is merely an opinion, and a numbers game.

 

Knowing the game is organic, this probably deserves beta server testing.

 

Any thoughts, HC team?

[ShardWarrior]

I don't get the reasoning behind the -DEF Debuff.  This makes it a pointless ability for DEF based sets as you're essentially cutting your own throat by using it in prolonged engagements and endgame content.

 

Rage doesn't apply a DEF bonus - it's not Elude... why give it a -DEF debuff?  Silly.

[Blastit]

I don't get the reasoning behind the -DEF Debuff.  This makes it a pointless ability for DEF based sets as you're essentially cutting your own throat by using it in prolonged engagements and endgame content.

 

Rage doesn't apply a DEF bonus - it's not Elude... why give it a -DEF debuff?  Silly.

 

The reasoning is that you rage out, then get exhausted and become weaker and more vulnerable. You're tired so you can't punch quite as hard and you can't dodge things as well.

[grinningsphinx]

Personally, i think its fine the way it is...with T4 incarnates, someone in your raid should have Barrier.

[HelenCarnate]

Personally, i think its fine the way it is...with T4 incarnates, someone in your raid should have Barrier.

 

So you are saying it's fine because it can be mitigated on teams with several incarnates. Not everyone raids and not everyone is lvl 50.