Please revert the Rage change.

[Vanden]

I still think that either removing the -Def or making it resistible is the best option. Anything else would be an unnecessary change to the function of the power.

[Rylas]

I still think that either removing the -Def or making it resistible is the best option. Anything else would be an unnecessary change to the function of the power.

 

I'm pretty sure just removing it is out of the question, as much as I'd agree with you. Are there any strongly Def reliant sets that don't offer -Def Debuff resistance? I can't think of any off the top of my head. If not, I could get behind this idea. That or turning it into -def and -res. Or a self damage penalty. At least those options affect everyone the same.

[Vanden]

I still think that either removing the -Def or making it resistible is the best option. Anything else would be an unnecessary change to the function of the power.

 

I'm pretty sure just removing it is out of the question, as much as I'd agree with you. Are there any strongly Def reliant sets that don't offer -Def Debuff resistance? I can't think of any off the top of my head. If not, I could get behind this idea. That or turning it into -def and -res. Or a self damage penalty. At least those options affect everyone the same.

 

Removing the -Def sounds strong, but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, Rage was under Castle's spotlight years ago. He knew that the Def crash was avoidable with perma-Rage, and that perma-Rage is easily possible even with only SOs, and he still left it as is. That says to me that he didn't see the -Def as a necessity for keeping the power balanced.

[Erratic1]

 

Every other set does something no other set does. Why should Super Strength not get it's own special thing?

 

You dodged the question with your, "I'm sure any other set..." reply. How about answering the question?

 

SS has good amount of crowd control along with being a relative easy to go by set. It's simple and the animations/feedback feel good and impactful.

 

Stone Melee has comparable controls, better damage (ignoring Rage), and greater chance at its controls occurring.

[Number Six]

I'm pretty sure just removing it is out of the question, as much as I'd agree with you. Are there any strongly Def reliant sets that don't offer -Def Debuff resistance? I can't think of any off the top of my head. If not, I could get behind this idea. That or turning it into -def and -res. Or a self damage penalty. At least those options affect everyone the same.

 

Removing it isn't out of the question, especially on the Tanker version.

 

It would be nice if there was something else besides just the -Dmg to make the power have some sort of tradeoff (note that earlier I said this could even be something to replace the -Dmg). The endurance mini-crash is borderline since it's only -25 end, which can hurt in some circumstances but depending on the build and the team is fairly likely to be ignorable. It's not that much worse than Hasten.

 

I'm not a powers balance person so I can't say for sure if just removing it would make SS overpowered or not. I do have a couple experts in that area on speed-dial that I'm going to be running these ideas through, and also wanted to get a feel for what the community thought.

[MalphiteMeIRL]

I still think that either removing the -Def or making it resistible is the best option. Anything else would be an unnecessary change to the function of the power.

 

I'm pretty sure just removing it is out of the question, as much as I'd agree with you. Are there any strongly Def reliant sets that don't offer -Def Debuff resistance? I can't think of any off the top of my head. If not, I could get behind this idea. That or turning it into -def and -res. Or a self damage penalty. At least those options affect everyone the same.

 

Off the top of my head bio armor does not get def debuff res. But that's all I can think of.

[Profit]

 

 

• Replace -Def with self -HP

 

 

No, This is literally the only non negotiable thing on the list for me. Just no.

[Rylas]

 

 

• Replace -Def with self -HP

 

 

No, This is literally the only non negotiable thing on the list for me. Just no.

 

So long as the self damage was balanced to what could reasonably be considered equal to expected damage from the -Def, then I don't see why it can't possibly be an option. At least self damage affects everyone the same, unlike -Def. It's really no different from the same things Energy Transfer does in Energy Melee.

[Profit]

 

 

• Replace -Def with self -HP

 

 

No, This is literally the only non negotiable thing on the list for me. Just no.

 

So long as the self damage was balanced to what could reasonably be considered equal to expected damage from the -Def, then I don't see why it can't possibly be an option. At least self damage affects everyone the same, unlike -Def. It's really no different from the same things Energy Transfer does in Energy Melee.

 

Oh, you meant self damage which is much different than -HP. Ok, yeah sure, I don't care if Rage crash causes me damage.

 

But HP is to important to do -HP with on a tank. Every point of hp is basically a regenerating point of resistance once you are over the cap. Dull Pain for example, basically gives you an entire extra bar of HP. If dull pain were remade today it wouldn't be +HP it would be absorb. The reason is, +HP effects regeneration. So when you -HP you're not only taking away the top hp you can have, you are literally lowering the regeneration. So we can't just go around having crashes that all willy nilly lower the hp total. That would be death for any tanker using it.

 

 

[Wiseguy]

I could get behind self damage as a solution.

[Rylas]

Oh, you meant self damage which is much different than -HP. Ok, yeah sure, I don't care if Rage crash causes me damage.

 

Yup, my bad. Went back and edited that for clarity.

[kelly Rocket]

 

 

• Replace -Def with self -HP

 

 

No, This is literally the only non negotiable thing on the list for me. Just no.

 

So long as the self damage was balanced to what could reasonably be considered equal to expected damage from the -Def, then I don't see why it can't possibly be an option. At least self damage affects everyone the same, unlike -Def. It's really no different from the same things Energy Transfer does in Energy Melee.

What's reasonably expected damage from the -Def crash though? Because SS/Shield can easily mean "You die in 3 seconds" when the crash hits.

[Vanden]

What's reasonably expected damage from the -Def crash though? Because SS/Shield can easily mean "You die in 3 seconds" when the crash hits.

How about the amount of HP a Tanker with no set bonuses or accolades, with one even SO in Health, regenerates in 10 seconds, plus 40% (since -20 defense increases the damage you take roughly 40%)?

[Rylas]

What's reasonably expected damage from the -Def crash though? Because SS/Shield can easily mean "You die in 3 seconds" when the crash hits.

 

I won't argue that isn't highly subjective. How about this? Take a pure resistance set, like Fire. Find out how much damage mitigation is lost by the debuff. Then take a heavy defense set with strong def debuff resistance, like Super Reflexes, and calculate how much mitigation was lost if the debuff could be resisted. Average the difference between the two, figure out how that should translate into % of base HP, and make that the damage penalty. You're compromising between the arguably weakest resist set and the arguably strongest defense set. Seems like the best place for middle of the spectrum.

[MalphiteMeIRL]

The more I think about it the stronger I feel about just removing the -def crash. Would allow it to effectively mimic exactly how Castle and the other Devs left it on live. Without messing with any of the other bug fixes that came with the change.

 

I'd imagine it to be the easiest solution from a coding perspective as well. Freeing up resources for other issues/projects. (not that I am in any way a coder)

[HelenCarnate]

From a selfish standpoint because I know how to build SS I would want the defense debuff simply removed.  But from a balance standpoint I know that SS is OP once you factor in patron powers and ultra high recharge builds so something should be done to pay for that increase in power more than just a hit to endurance and taking a breather for 10 seconds.  When you use BU, you use up some endurance and are stronger for a few seconds.  When you use rage, you use the same amount of endurance and are stronger for 12x longer.  Overall it breaks down like this.

 

 

Endurance cost for BU 5.2 for 10 seconds for average of 0.52 per second.

 

Endurance cost for Rage 5.2 for 120 seconds with 25 crash at the end so 30.2 total for average of .25 per second.

 

If it is required to do something, I would much rather have rage cost increased up front as you would use more endurance to keep that damage active longer so an initial cost of 25 endurance with a crash at the end of another 25 would be a total of 0.416 per second for the damage increase with the difference offset by the 0 damage at the end.

 

This would discourage people from double stacking unless they built for exceptionally high recovery and/or having to reallocate slots to allow for endurance reduction IOs in Rage. 

[kelly Rocket]

What if the crash slapped you with a reasonably hefty unresistable -recharge debuff? That would make it harder to stack (And progressively harder to stack, the more you stack it) and also slows the use of your other powers, potentially disrupting your attack chain and such...

 

For a secondary like /Shield this would also mean you'd have to be careful how much you stack it to avoid disrupting your click mez protection.

[Vanden]

What if the crash slapped you with a reasonably hefty unresistable -recharge debuff? That would make it harder to stack (And progressively harder to stack, the more you stack it) and also slows the use of your other powers, potentially disrupting your attack chain and such...

 

For a secondary like /Shield this would also mean you'd have to be careful how much you stack it to avoid disrupting your click mez protection.

That's just another penalty that unfairly punishes some sets more than others.

[Profit]

How about we make it a branching power. For brutes and tanks only, you get the choice when you take the power of having it like is currently, or you get a always on passive dmg boost of some yet to be determined percentage. Then you port SS to stalkers and scrappers, but because of their increased chance for criticals they only get the passive version of the rage power?

 

There is precedence in one AT getting a different than another AT, scrappers only get a single target taunt for instance. This way everyone is happy. I get to keep my rage I like and you, whoever you are, can get a version of rage that functions completely different.

[Solvernia]

how about we leave it like it is and just pop a purple insp when it crashes

[Profit]

how about we leave it like it is and just pop a purple insp when it crashes

 

I'm ok with that to, but quite honestly the vocal majority around here seems to get thing's changed. re:always on instant snipe, AE, DFB, probably ITF next.

 

So what's the harm in offering up suggestion and seeing if it sticks?

[JusticeEagle]

From a selfish standpoint because I know how to build SS I would want the defense debuff simply removed.  But from a balance standpoint I know that SS is OP once you factor in patron powers and ultra high recharge builds so something should be done to pay for that increase in power more than just a hit to endurance and taking a breather for 10 seconds.  When you use BU, you use up some endurance and are stronger for a few seconds.  When you use rage, you use the same amount of endurance and are stronger for 12x longer.  Overall it breaks down like this.

 

 

Endurance cost for BU 5.2 for 10 seconds for average of 0.52 per second.

 

Endurance cost for Rage 5.2 for 120 seconds with 25 crash at the end so 30.2 total for average of .25 per second.

 

If it is required to do something, I would much rather have rage cost increased up front as you would use more endurance to keep that damage active longer so an initial cost of 25 endurance with a crash at the end of another 25 would be a total of 0.416 per second for the damage increase with the difference offset by the 0 damage at the end.

 

This would discourage people from double stacking unless they built for exceptionally high recovery and/or having to reallocate slots to allow for endurance reduction IOs in Rage.

 

Hold up, you can't just compare those two powers and then try to say that SS is suddenly OP if the rage crash doesn't kill you. You need to look at the sets as a whole. Compared to most other sets, without rage SS underperforms, and in high-level content there's a lot of s/l resistance set other power sets don't have to worry about. The defense crash needs to be removed for SS to be a set that is just on par with other melee sets.

[Solvernia]

How about we balance all the other power sets around having a certain inspiration too?

 

Yeah dude, that really was a shitpost.

 

I can't think of any scenario where having permanent Build Up with no significant drawbacks is 'balanced'. The 10 seconds of no damage and reduced defense/endurance once in a while is the significant drawback to having multiple stacks of +80% damage and +20% to-hit indefinitely.

 

If you absolutely cannot stand having -20% defense for 10 seconds, then pop a purple insp before the crash and ride through it.

 

My Bane survives almost exclusively because of orange insps and the occasional purple when his defense is debuffed. It's literally why they exist -- to give you a situational edge where you need it.

 

Rage is fine as it is, no change necessary.

[HelenCarnate]

From a selfish standpoint because I know how to build SS I would want the defense debuff simply removed.  But from a balance standpoint I know that SS is OP once you factor in patron powers and ultra high recharge builds so something should be done to pay for that increase in power more than just a hit to endurance and taking a breather for 10 seconds.  When you use BU, you use up some endurance and are stronger for a few seconds.  When you use rage, you use the same amount of endurance and are stronger for 12x longer.  Overall it breaks down like this.

 

 

Endurance cost for BU 5.2 for 10 seconds for average of 0.52 per second.

 

Endurance cost for Rage 5.2 for 120 seconds with 25 crash at the end so 30.2 total for average of .25 per second.

 

If it is required to do something, I would much rather have rage cost increased up front as you would use more endurance to keep that damage active longer so an initial cost of 25 endurance with a crash at the end of another 25 would be a total of 0.416 per second for the damage increase with the difference offset by the 0 damage at the end.

 

This would discourage people from double stacking unless they built for exceptionally high recovery and/or having to reallocate slots to allow for endurance reduction IOs in Rage.

 

Hold up, you can't just compare those two powers and then try to say that SS is suddenly OP if the rage crash doesn't kill you. You need to look at the sets as a whole. Compared to most other sets, without rage SS underperforms, and in high-level content there's a lot of s/l resistance set other power sets don't have to worry about. The defense crash needs to be removed for SS to be a set that is just on par with other melee sets.

 

That is not close to what I  said. Single rage yes it is on par with other sets. When you get double rage going on high recharge builds (my ss fire brute did this with 1 recharge IO) then things shift heavily in favor of SS.  Personally I would like to see the Defensive debuff tossed and call it a day but if something had to be changed that would not punnish one type of build yet still discourage double stacking the suggestion I gave would accomplish that. Does it have to be the numbers I gave? No it could be tested and adjusted as needed.

[JusticeEagle]

From a selfish standpoint because I know how to build SS I would want the defense debuff simply removed.  But from a balance standpoint I know that SS is OP once you factor in patron powers and ultra high recharge builds so something should be done to pay for that increase in power more than just a hit to endurance and taking a breather for 10 seconds.  When you use BU, you use up some endurance and are stronger for a few seconds.  When you use rage, you use the same amount of endurance and are stronger for 12x longer.  Overall it breaks down like this.

 

 

Endurance cost for BU 5.2 for 10 seconds for average of 0.52 per second.

 

Endurance cost for Rage 5.2 for 120 seconds with 25 crash at the end so 30.2 total for average of .25 per second.

 

If it is required to do something, I would much rather have rage cost increased up front as you would use more endurance to keep that damage active longer so an initial cost of 25 endurance with a crash at the end of another 25 would be a total of 0.416 per second for the damage increase with the difference offset by the 0 damage at the end.

 

This would discourage people from double stacking unless they built for exceptionally high recovery and/or having to reallocate slots to allow for endurance reduction IOs in Rage.

 

Hold up, you can't just compare those two powers and then try to say that SS is suddenly OP if the rage crash doesn't kill you. You need to look at the sets as a whole. Compared to most other sets, without rage SS underperforms, and in high-level content there's a lot of s/l resistance set other power sets don't have to worry about. The defense crash needs to be removed for SS to be a set that is just on par with other melee sets.

 

That is not close to what I  said. Single rage yes it is on par with other sets. When you get double rage going on high recharge builds (my ss fire brute did this with 1 recharge IO) then things shift heavily in favor of SS.  Personally I would like to see the Defensive debuff tossed and call it a day but if something had to be changed that would not punnish one type of build yet still discourage double stacking the suggestion I gave would accomplish that. Does it have to be the numbers I gave? No it could be tested and adjusted as needed.

 

Sorry, I quoted the wrong person I'm on my phone right now at the gym, posting between sets