Blaster Epic Pool Def/Resist Toggles

[Aracknight]

1 minute ago, Stormwalker said:

 

Except that your interpretation of what I'm saying is both out of context and invalid.

 

I want the game to remain the same as it has been.  Because the decisions to make the game the way it is were not made in a vacuum.

 

I want my existing builds which are already active on characters and were created within the framework of the game as it exists to continue working.

 

Icecomet wants to change the game, to change the way power pools work, and others in this thread have proposed changes that break existing builds.

 

Those are not the same thing.  That is a false equivalency.

 

Which is why I said most of it wasn't aimed at you.  I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.  Your sentence was interesting to me, and I riffed off it.

 

Coming up with a way for both sides to either get or keep what they want via a change is a greater way to deal with this, which I can absolutely agree with.   

 

 

 

[Icecomet]

9 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

 

Except that your interpretation of what I'm saying is both out of context and invalid.

 

I want the game to remain the same as it has been.  Because the decisions to make the game the way it is were not made in a vacuum.

 

I want my existing builds which are already active on characters and were created within the framework of the game as it exists to continue working.

 

Icecomet wants to change the game, to change the way power pools work, and others in this thread have proposed changes that break existing builds.

 

Those are not the same thing.  That is a false equivalency.

 

Don't twist my words to make false equivalencies.  That makes me very angry.

 

Except you just proved the status quo comment that was made previously.

[Stormwalker]

1 minute ago, Aracknight said:

 

Which is why I said most of it wasn't aimed at you.  I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.  Your sentence was interesting to me, and I riffed off it.

 

Coming up with a way for both sides to either get or keep what they want via a change is a greater way to deal with this, which I can absolutely agree with.   

 

You still twisted my words.  The fact that you twisted my words to attack someone else and not me is irrelevant.

 

For the recxord, I'm not angry at them.  I disagree with them very strongly, and will defend my opinion fervently.

 

I am angry at you.

[Stormwalker]

Just now, Icecomet said:

 

Except you just proved the status quo comment that was made previously.

 

I support the status quo not because it is the status quo, but because it works.  Because changing it would remove an aspect of the game that I think is important.

 

Just because I am opposed to change does not mean I'm opposed to change just because it's change.  I have reasons for opposing this change, which I have given.

 

The proposed change would remove an element of skill and challenge from the game.  I am opposed to this.  Period.  End of statement.

[Icecomet]

14 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

 

That's not strictly true.  Because when you change what is possible - when you introduce power creep into the game - then the standard changes.  The expectation of other players changes.  So that's not actually the viable option people like to pretend it is.

 

It is strictly true that you don't HAVE to change anything you're doing, so my statement is correct.  You might then CHOOSE to do it differently with this change, making a conscious choice.

[Aracknight]

3 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

 

You still twisted my words.  The fact that you twisted my words to attack someone else and not me is irrelevant.

 

For the recxord, I'm not angry at them.  I disagree with them very strongly, and will defend my opinion fervently.

 

I am angry at you.

 

I'm sorry I made you feel that way. 

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Icecomet said:

 

It is strictly true that you don't HAVE to change anything you're doing, so my statement is correct.  You might then CHOOSE to do it differently with this change, making a conscious choice.

Your proposal as it stands will re-organize the ancillary pools. That will break existing character builds. So your comment is false.

 

(Edit: If the devs changed ancillaries to have T1-3 selectable at 35 as someone else proposed, which I really don't see happening, but that doesn't mean it can't/won't, then your statement holds true. Given the extra power that would afford characters though? Again, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

 

Edited Monday at 03:26 AM by Rudra

[Icecomet]

Just now, Stormwalker said:

 

I support the status quo not because it is the status quo, but because it works.  Because changing it would remove an aspect of the game that I think is important.

 

Just because I am opposed to change does not mean I'm opposed to change just because it's change.  I have reasons for opposing this change, which I have given.

 

The proposed change would remove an element of skill and challenge from the game.  I am opposed to this.  Period.  End of statement.

 

Then they should introduce an I3 shard with only SO/DO enhancements and the game as it was in I3 for people that are nostalgic and want a real challenge,  but in addition to I3 still having all the incarnate level and trials that were introduced since that time.

 

Problem:  Solved

[Icecomet]

Just now, Rudra said:

Your proposal as it stands will re-organize the ancillary pools. That will break existing character builds. So your comment is false.

 

Really?  Because I have a toon that the powers were rearranged/changed, its sonic or mental blast, I'd have to go look.  Anyway, I have a power before its available now and everything still works great, so, not sure to what you're referring.

[Stormwalker]

1 minute ago, Aracknight said:

 

I'm sorry I made you feel that way. 

 

All's forgiven.  Thank you.

 

Sorry for the intensity of the response.  That's a bit of a raw nerve for me based on past experience, so I tend to overreact to it.

[Rudra]

Just now, Icecomet said:

 

Really?  Because I have a toon that the powers were rearranged/changed, its sonic or mental blast, I'd have to go look.  Anyway, I have a power before its available now and everything still works great, so, not sure to what you're referring.

If that is the case, then I sit corrected. I speak from CO experience, not CoX experience on the matter, so I may very well be wrong.

[Stormwalker]

1 minute ago, Icecomet said:

 

Really?  Because I have a toon that the powers were rearranged/changed, its sonic or mental blast, I'd have to go look.  Anyway, I have a power before its available now and everything still works great, so, not sure to what you're referring.

 

Up until the first time you need to respec for some reason.  And there are plenty of reasons to use a respec that don't actually involve changing your power selections.

[Aracknight]

4 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

 

All's forgiven.  Thank you.

 

Sorry for the intensity of the response.  That's a bit of a raw nerve for me based on past experience, so I tend to overreact to it.

 

We all have bad days.  We all have strong beliefs, and we all want what's best for the game.  Thank you for your grace.  See you around the city.

[Stormwalker]

7 minutes ago, Icecomet said:

 

Then they should introduce an I3 shard with only SO/DO enhancements and the game as it was in I3 for people that are nostalgic and want a real challenge,  but in addition to I3 still having all the incarnate level and trials that were introduced since that time.

 

Problem:  Solved

 

That's also a false equivalency.

 

I already stated that I was in favor of *some* of the relaxation that was done to power pools between Live and Homecoming.  But that I believe that relaxing it any further than it already has been is starting to remove too much decision-making from the character build process and would add additional power creep when we already have too much of that distorting the game balance.

 

Being opposed to one change does not mean I'm opposed to every change.  But I am opposed to this one.

[Icecomet]

I am done bickering about this topic.

 

You think I am wrong because you don't want change or you think it will break something.

 

I want a change because I feel half of my builds are currently broken and will remain so until we have equal opportunity of power choices.

 

So we're at an impasse, any further discussion will only foment hate and degenerate further than what is has, so with that, I bid you and this thread a fond adieu...

[Stormwalker]

1 minute ago, Icecomet said:

I am done bickering about this topic.

 

You think I am wrong because you don't want change or you think it will break something.

 

I want a change because I feel half of my builds are currently broken and will remain so until we have equal opportunity of power choices.

 

So we're at an impasse, any further discussion will only foment hate and degenerate further than what is has, so with that, I bid you and this thread a fond adieu...

 

Fair enough. 

 

For what it's worth, I do feel the same frustration as you when I work on my own Ice/Ice/Ice blaster's build.  But I feel that having to work around that frustration and find a way to accomplish my goals within the game systems as they stand is part of the challenge of the game, and also I feel like we have a bit too much power creep already.

 

So, while I don't agree with you, I do understand how you feel.

[Wavicle]

Balance in terms of build concept isn't actually how the Epic sets are structured, but they COULD be. If the sets were reordered to make a Shield available for all relevant ATs at tier 1 there would be balance changes made to the powers that are now available earlier or later.

But just changing the levels they are available without altering the relative power levels is clearly not going to happen.

Edited Monday at 05:42 AM by Wavicle

[Wavicle]

3 hours ago, Icecomet said:

I didn't insult anybody

  

On 3/8/2025 at 4:11 PM, Icecomet said:

I always avoid the forums for just this sort of garbage

I guess whether you insulted me or not is a matter of opinion, but I certainly felt insulted when you called my entirely non-personal discussion "garbage".

[tidge]

Now I want to see this Ice/Ice/Ice Build that is 'broken' because of the current Epic power pool.

[Ghost]

I just want people to skip over all the baby steps, and go right to asking for the “Instant Win” button.

Edited Monday at 10:09 AM by Ghost

[Stormwalker]

14 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Balance in terms of build concept isn't actually how the Epic sets are structured, but they COULD be. If the sets were reordered to make a Shield available for all relevant ATs at tier 1 there would be balance changes made to the powers that are now available earlier or later.

But just changing the levels they are available without altering the relative power levels is clearly not going to happen.

 

Yeah, that's part of what I was getting at.  And I don't want that to happen, either, because I like the powers as they are.

[Jacke]

20 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Balance in terms of build concept isn't actually how the Epic sets are structured, but they COULD be. If the sets were reordered to make a Shield available for all relevant ATs at tier 1 there would be balance changes made to the powers that are now available earlier or later.

 

Except that Mu Mastery's protection at T1 was better than Electricity Mastery's at T2 until there was a change.  Then the Electricity Mastery one was made EXACTLY the same as Mu Mastery's, but still at T2.

 

Protection shields are not made better in Epic Pools because of their Tier.

 

And @Icecomet's thought on making the first 3 powers T1, similar to the Travel Pools (and should be spread to the non-Travel Pools), is a way to implement this thread's proposal without upsetting existing builds.

 

 

[Stormwalker]

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

 

Except that Mu Mastery's protection at T1 was better than Electricity Mastery's at T2 until there was a change.  Then the Electricity Mastery one was made EXACTLY the same as Mu Mastery's, but still at T2.

 

Protection shields are not made better in Epic Pools because of their Tier.

 

And @Icecomet's thought on making the first 3 powers T1, similar to the Travel Pools (and should be spread to the non-Travel Pools), is a way to implement this thread's proposal without upsetting existing builds.

 

 

 

The fact that there's a single exception doesn't mean that they aren't generally better by tier.  It just means there's a single exception for some reason.  And do remember that when the Patron pools were originally created, they were not interchangeable with Epic pools, so they weren't intended to be directly compared.  If anything, the change to Electricity Mastery later was likely a reaction to the fact that they became interchangeable, which created an imbalance where there hadn't previously been one.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, - yes, I am fully aware that there was not originally a Patron pool for blasters and that this only became available at the time that Patron pools and Epic pools became essentially interchangeable.  However, the internal design rules that go into Patron pools vs. Epic pools do appear to have been somewhat different for reasons (see Wavicle's post below mine for more info in this regard), and this did initially apply to the creation of Patron pools for blasters.  

 

Also, you keep harping on making the first three powers all T1, which several of us have already stated that we oppose on the grounds that the game does not need more power creep than it already has.

Edited yesterday at 06:00 AM by Stormwalker

[Wavicle]

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

Except that Mu Mastery's protection at T1 was better than Electricity Mastery's at T2 until there was a change.  Then the Electricity Mastery one was made EXACTLY the same as Mu Mastery's, but still at T2.

 

Protection shields are not made better in Epic Pools because of their Tier.

 

This is a misapprehension due to the belief (very common, but incorrect) that powers are balanced against each other, when in MOST cases (there are exceptions, such as Blaster t1 and t2 attacks, Assassin's Strike, etc) it is Powersets that are balanced against each other.

It isn't just a question of how strong the shield is, it's also a question of what ELSE comes in the set, AND what may be required to gain access. The Patron Pools were (originally) stated to be better than the Epic Pools (whether they still are is a question I'm not trying to address). This superiority included the order some powers come in.

 

To use your example of Electric vs Mu:

Mu requires specific content to be completed to unlock it. That's why it is "better", at least in the sense of what level the shield unlocks. This is also why the set gets a pet, although clearly that distinction is beginning to be erased or at least eroded.

Edited yesterday at 05:51 AM by Wavicle

[Wavicle]

The argument is "Fulfilling character concept is of such importance that game balance ought to reevaluated (and possibly even disregarded) in order to facilitate it."

 

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but that's really the question the devs will have to ask themselves to make a decision on this issue.

Given that they already lowered the level most Epic powers become available at, I wouldn't hold my breath for the t1-3 opening at 35. Even "Epic shields should all be t1 to make character concepts more accessible" seems like a bridge too far to me, probably.

Your best bet is probably specifically Leviathan. "Patron shields should all be t1" since they require an unlock seems to me a bit more convincing.

Edited yesterday at 06:07 AM by Wavicle