Kinetics: Set Categories-None

[Jeuraud]

There are two powers in Kinetics that have this ??? Condition ???, and are 'should take', as in, 'You took Kinetics and did not take these... really?  ::) '. Both of them require hit checks, and both of them are, 'you want them up ASAP', which means your going to slot them. You might opt out of the first power after you take the second, but CoHV/CoHH is supposed to be about the journey as much as the end, so that should not be a reason for not fixing both of the powers in a set that now affects four ATs. The CoHV devs should have fixed this issue, especially after IOs were introduced, but they didn't, so it's now up to the CoHH devs to fix. From what I have seen so far you-all seem to be up to the challenge.

 

My suggestions for Siphon Power and Fulcrum Shift are

  Make a new set category.

  Allow them to be slotted with Ranged Damage sets, even though they do not do damage.

  Add a small Damage to them, and allow them to be slotted with Ranged Damage sets.

  Add a small Absorb to them, and allow them to be slotted with Heal/Absorb and Accurate Heal/Absorb sets.

 

Now I'm sure that others will have other suggestions, but I kind of like the last suggestion. I have no idea what it would take to fix the Kinetics issue, just that in the world of IO sets... it should be fixed.

[Shinobu]

 

So you're saying Fulcrum Shift is underpowered as is, and needs to be fixed....?

[Jeuraud]

 

So you're saying Fulcrum Shift is underpowered as is, and needs to be fixed....?

I could just say 'Strawman' and leave it at that... but,

Do you not need to slot Fulcrum Shift?

 

The IO sets are not just about improving the power, but the character overall with the global buffs that come with the sets. To be frank as an Altaholic I was thinking more about Siphon Power, but I feel fair is fair.

 

How well the power works is irrelevant, if it can be slotted then there should be IO sets that can be slotted into it. Of course this is just my opinion, maybe the rest of the community is fine with having to spend slots on a power that you cannot slot with IO sets.

 

[Sunsette]

I have no opinion on this one way or the other, but I don't think "you should spend slots on this but there's no set for it" is, in and of itself, a strong argument that something should receive a set.

 

Many common powers have few good sets or no sets and need slotting. They're the exception, but they're not extraordinary.

 

Is there a wider issue with kinetics (particularly at low levels, since that seems to be a concern) that this addresses?

[Redlynne]

Not every power has (or even should have) Sets that can be slotted into it.

 

/thread

[Jeuraud]

Many common powers have few good sets or no sets and need slotting. They're the exception, but they're not extraordinary.

Then IMO they should be fixed... not with "good" sets, just with sets. Now if they turn out to be good sets that's great.

 

I mention Kinetics because I'm currently running a Beast/ Kin MM and noticed that these two powers did not have slottable IO sets... in primary powers no less. I'm not having an issue with her, she's only 12 right now but she is a Beast in melee, which is what I wanted from her, and is not really due to Kinetics at this time. As she levels I'm going to need to spend slots on her Kin powers and I would like the global buffs that come with IO sets (Especially if I continue to run her in melee.), and I'm not going to get them from these powers, but other power sets will get global buffs from the same number of IO slots spent.

 

Not gaining the same benefits from the same number of slots is fundamentally wrong, and I cant believe that I'm having to argue for my suggestion. You people shouldn't be telling me "this is the way it is"... you should be listing the other powers that also should be fixed... and maybe suggestions for other, maybe better, things for the Kinetic powers I listed, which is what I thought I would get from this thread.

 

 

 

[Leogunner]

Not every power has (or even should have) Sets that can be slotted into it.

 

/thread

 

Seems more like a self-fulfilling argument.

 

"Some powers can't be slotted with sets so not every power has sets that can be slotted therefore they SHOULDN'T have sets slotted!"

 

I'd say, come back with a better argument.

[SwitchFade]

Many common powers have few good sets or no sets and need slotting. They're the exception, but they're not extraordinary.

Then IMO they should be fixed... not with "good" sets, just with sets. Now if they turn out to be good sets that's great.

 

I mention Kinetics because I'm currently running a Beast/ Kin MM and noticed that these two powers did not have slottable IO sets... in primary powers no less. I'm not having an issue with her, she's only 12 right now but she is a Beast in melee, which is what I wanted from her, and is not really due to Kinetics at this time. As she levels I'm going to need to spend slots on her Kin powers and I would like the global buffs that come with IO sets (Especially if I continue to run her in melee.), and I'm not going to get them from these powers, but other power sets will get global buffs from the same number of IO slots spent.

 

Not gaining the same benefits from the same number of slots is fundamentally wrong, and I cant believe that I'm having to argue for my suggestion. You people shouldn't be telling me "this is the way it is"... you should be listing the other powers that also should be fixed... and maybe suggestions for other, maybe better, things for the Kinetic powers I listed, which is what I thought I would get from this thread.

 

Also, fulcrum is juuuuuust fine.

 

Nothing to see here, fulcrum needs no adjustment. Please don't look at fulcrum.

 

Pssst.... You DO realize what fulcrum does, right?

 

NOTHING to see here!

[Burnt Toast]

Interesting people are talking about the actual powers and not the slotting of the powers. Is there a valid reason either should not be able to have sets for them? The argument that the POWERS work fine has nothing to do with the slotting. If that logic were the basis for enhancement sets - there wouldn't be many sets out there. No one has given any VALID reason as to why this suggestion shouldn't be implemented - and "No" and "/jranger" do not count as valid reasons.

[Redlynne]

and "No" and "/jranger" do not count as valid reasons.

 

So the only valid answers are supportive of the proposition?

 

[Replacement]

and "No" and "/jranger" do not count as valid reasons.

 

So the only valid answers are supportive of the proposition?

 

 

If you interpret it that way, I don't think you're cut out to be providing feedback.

 

EDIT: I can't stand being this blunt and mean, but there is nothing respectful about a community that knee-jerks with "nope." The whole /jranger thing comes off 100% douche., Every time. Come on guys, this was the game with the good community.

 

If you want to say "Fulcrum Shift is so good that it requires giving up set benefits to keep it in line" then Goddamn say that. None of this "lol have a meme" crap that helps no one.

[Trickshooter]

I'm against the idea of allowing slotting of a set category in a power doesn't at least benefit from the attribute the category is named after. It causes confusion about what a power actually does, will likely result in bug reports being sent in from people that don't follow the forums, and will open a can of worms. The doors would be open for people to petition that any power they happen to like also be changed to accept a set that they want bonuses from, whether or not it makes sense.

 

Having said that, I'm all for adding attributes to some powers that currently don't have enhanceable effects. Several suggestions I've made (or plan to make) do include that. The thing is, I only feel it's something to consider if the powerset overall could stand to benefit from the additional effect; I don't suggest it be done to powers just because you want more set bonuses. Fulcrum Shift is such an amazing, game-changing power already that even thinking about adding effects seems like a bad idea.

 

If the goal is just to get more set bonuses, I think the better suggestion, that would benefit more than just these two powers, is a new type of IO Set Category: Universal Efficiency. These would be sets that just offer Recharge, End Redux, Accuracy, and maybe Range. They'd be slottable in just about anything, including powers with effects that can't be enhanced, of which there are, I think, 18 in the Support powersets.

[SwitchFade]

Interesting people are talking about the actual powers and not the slotting of the powers. Is there a valid reason either should not be able to have sets for them? The argument that the POWERS work fine has nothing to do with the slotting. If that logic were the basis for enhancement sets - there wouldn't be many sets out there. No one has given any VALID reason as to why this suggestion shouldn't be implemented - and "No" and "/jranger" do not count as valid reasons.

 

Can't argue that toasty, you're right about the angle of argument for sure. But, I don't think fulcrum needs anything, as is it's singly the top power in game. We all know exactly what it can do, and making it set capable... Is begging for a rebalance.

 

Let's just move along and not stare at the elephant.

[Blastit]

Not every power has (or even should have) Sets that can be slotted into it.

 

/thread

 

How many powers are entirely without sets?

[Coyote]

Not every power has (or even should have) Sets that can be slotted into it.

 

/thread

 

How many powers are entirely without sets?

 

Not many. Powers that provide +Recharge and/or +Damage (but not +ToHit), I think.

So... Haten', Siphon Power, Fulcrum Shift, and all of the Quick Reflexes copies.

 

BTW, I agree that using memes may be funny and cute at times, but it can't be taken as a serious response, much less a real argument. If you're posting /jranger as a joke, heh. If you're posting it as an argument, it's really weak.

 

I don't think that it's reasonable to argue that a power shouldn't have access to IO sets just because it doesn't have IO sets. That's a circular argument. A better argument, however, would be to ask: an IO set combines multiple effects into single IOs. So, what effects would be combined into a single IO?

 

Frankly, thinking about it, I could really see having a few GENERIC IO sets made available to all powers:

Two IO sets for powers that need To-Hit, and would enhance Accuracy, Recharge, and Endurance. Probably a 4-IO set.

One IO set for powers that are auto-hit, enhancing Recharge and Endurance. 3-IO set since there is only one combination: R, E, and R/E IOs.

[Trickshooter]

Not every power has (or even should have) Sets that can be slotted into it.

 

/thread

 

How many powers are entirely without sets?

 

I'm sure there's more, but at least these:

 

Any Placate power

Any version of Power Boost

Any version of Conserve Power

Concealment/Phase Shift

Leadership/Assault

Leaping/Acrobatics

Medicine/Field Medic

Speed/Burnout

Speed/Hasten

Teleport/Long Range Teleport

Cold Domination/Benumb

Dark Miasma/Black Hole

Darkness Affinity/Black Hole

Empathy/Clear Mind

Empathy/Ressurect

Force Field/Detention Field Field

Force Field/Force Bubble

Kinetics/Fulcrum Shift

Kinetics/Siphon Power

Nature Affinity/Corrosive Enzymes

Radiation Emission/Enervating Field

Sonic Resonance/Clarity

Sonic Resonance/Disruption Field

Sonic Resonance/Sonic Cage

Sonic Resonance/Sonic Siphon

Thermal Radiation/Heat Exhaustion

Trick Arrow/Disruption Arrow

Pain Domination/Enforced Morale

Poison/Noxious Gas

[retiarius]

If you're posting /jranger as a joke, heh.

It was old (and ceased to be funny) hours after I first saw it originally in the forums, and that was over seven years ago.

I don't think that it's reasonable to argue that a power shouldn't have access to IO sets just because it doesn't have IO sets. That's a circular argument. A better argument, however, would be to ask: an IO set combines multiple effects into single IOs. So, what effects would be combined into a single IO?

 

Frankly, thinking about it, I could really see having a few GENERIC IO sets made available to all powers:

Two IO sets for powers that need To-Hit, and would enhance Accuracy, Recharge, and Endurance. Probably a 4-IO set.

One IO set for powers that are auto-hit, enhancing Recharge and Endurance. 3-IO set since there is only one combination: R, E, and R/E IOs.

 

I don't have any issue with something along these lines -- as long as the idea is well-considered and implemented well, it's hardly going to break the game.

[Leogunner]

and "No" and "/jranger" do not count as valid reasons.

 

So the only valid answers are supportive of the proposition?

 

 

Lol this has got to be the most retarded justification I've seen.

 

The whole "/jranger" joke is just that, a joke.  It's not serious.  Or did you forget its origins?

 

It's fine if you don't have a measured response to something but don't conflate criticism to your lack of ability to form a response that can be discussed some sort of push toward censorship or disregarding proper criticism.

 

 

[Maldroth]

Perhaps there just needs to be a set focused for powers that just adjust End cost, Recharge, Range. Not sure if it would be better as a 6 or 3 slot set and what would you do with it? Likely just a combo so you could get near to ED but then would that throw off the balance of those powers? I'd say focus more on the sets than adding things to powers to make other sets work for them. Also many of these powers are already great on their own.

 

Also from a build perspective I do like having some powers I don't have to 6 slot and fully enhance to enjoy their effectiveness. We only have so many slots to work with.

[Sunsette]

/jranger is not helpful or funny, it's just rude and dismissive.

 

I do think, however, that the burden of argument has to be on the people asking for the change for this one. It's a change that requires work and potentially makes a set much stronger. I don't know enough about kinetics to opine usefully about whether or not such a change would be broken.

 

This is just my opinion, but: Enhancement sets were created to get around the problems of enhancement diversification; in return for no longer being able to boost single categories to absurd heights, you are now able to add more rider effects and overall improvement to the power. I think this means the standard for whether or not something needs an enhancement set is really about whether or not it needs the benefit of that additional breadth in function.

[GM Capocollo]

"/jranger" isn't a worthwhile post.  If you disagree with someone's suggestion, say why.

 

I don't care how venerable a reference it is or if you're absolutely sure that something is so self-evident you can just blow it off with a single word.

[Jeuraud]

If the goal is just to get more set bonuses, I think the better suggestion, that would benefit more than just these two powers, is a new type of IO Set Category: Universal Efficiency. These would be sets that just offer Recharge, End Redux, Accuracy, and maybe Range. They'd be slottable in just about anything, including powers with effects that can't be enhanced, of which there are, I think, 18 in the Support powersets.

 

This is the kind of idea I was hoping for from this thread, and what I can get behind.

 

As for the possible tweaking of the That Which Shall Not Be Named; I figured the Home Devs were not tweaking preexisting powers for 'balance'. They are Gamers just like the rest of us, and I figured what tweaks they are doing are to make a fun game for themselves and us, after all they are not trying to sell us the game, nor are they responsible to provide us a balanced game.

 

Am I wrong about what the Home Devs are tweaking, and why?