Shield Defense's "Active Defense"

[GM Sijin]

17 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

But why? Doesn't SR already cap DDR?

With all defensive abilities save Elude and (near) fully kitted, yes. A tanker can get away with less. Giving it to PB may open the door to a little more build diversification outside of tankers. Not sure it would given the nature of defense, but it might. It'd also make SR a tiny bit less susceptible to CDF if they detoggle or get hard mez'd through PB.

[MunkiLord]

 This makes sense, I didn't even consider builds not min/maxed when I asked my question. 

[StrykerGaming]

Everyone is now worried about Endurance issues making Active Defense a toggle or lowering the cool down? Pfft! You should run a Stone Armor or Electric Armor toon. I've conquered the "Endurance" issue for my toons. Specifically, on my SA/SS Tank. I run around with Mudpots on all the time. I'm Endurance Positive with my build. Mudpots and Lightning Field are the two highest endurance usage powers in the game with Mudpots the highest at .78%/sec, Lightning Field is a close second. I run with ALL toggles (Leadership (Maneuvers, Assault, and Tactics) and Energy Master's Focus) with Mudpots & Granite Armor and Rooted when required. I have no endurance issues. You believe that I'll have it if I make Active Defenses a "perma-on" power? Oh all ye of little faith. Endurance usage is minor inconvenience under level 47.  Yet there are ways to overcome that still. Hint: IO Sets and Enhancement Catalysts are your friends.

 

As for Active Defenses, I get it. Y'all don't want it changed. You believe changing it is unnecessary and it does not need improvement. I'll leave you with this statement:

Quote

5. Improve Processes Constantly. Improve Them Forever

In this point, Deming encourages businesses to continuously analyze and improve the way they perform processes. He points out that by improving productivity and training its staff so that they’re able to deliver their best, a business also improves its profits.

 

For many busy managers and business owners, this may seem like a daunting prospect. Just when you thought everything was perfect, it turns out that something could be done better. The temptation to adopt a short-term fix is great. But Deming points out that we can fix flaws in our business processes permanently. Once we’ve done that, we can move on to the next process improvement secure in the knowledge that the last issue we uncovered won’t be a problem ever again.

 

Back in the eighties, it would probably have been very difficult for businesses, especially small ones, to constantly keep tabs on every process. Today, Business Process Management software makes your task a whole lot easier. And when you need to tweak a process, doing so is as simple as editing the business process you set up. The workflow automatically adjusts to the change.

Citation: Deming's 14 Points On Improving Quality

Everything in this game is involved in some type of improvement. The process of improvement is not a one-and-done action. Example:

3 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

If anything this topic has convinced me that Practiced Brawler could maybe use a little defense debuff resistance added to it as well.

These 14 points of Improving Quality isn't limited to manufacturing or businesses. It is process that can literally be used in everyone's own lives. Most assuredly, it can and should be used in game development at all levels. How does this relate to Active Armor? Active Armor can be improved without "changing the way it works (manually activated)," but by improving how it works. By saying "nothing needs to be done to improve it" ignores the truth. All things can be improved. If you want to debate me on this, I'll enjoy doing so. I teach this very topic as an Associate Professor. I've lived these 14-points as part of the Navy's Total Quality Leadership/Management program. I am intimately familiar with these and how to apply it to whatever I'm doing. How do you think Japan became the manufacturing powerhouse during the 80s/90s while US manufacturing quality declined during the same time-period? Japan embraced TQM while US manufacturers scoffed and turned it down.

 

All it takes is for those in the position with the ability to make changes to look at everything in this game and asking "how can we improve this?" Process/Quality improvement is and should be a continual process.

 

Now, after reading Point #5, who here still believes that none of these defensive sets need no improvement?

[n00baka]

Improvements? Sure. But I would not say making Active Defenses a toggle is an improvement. If you’re going to claim it’s an improvement, you’re going to need facts to back that up and show people it’s an improvement. Go ahead, be the spunky little hero in your personal adventure and prove to us you’re right. 

[StrykerGaming]

7 minutes ago, n00baka said:

Improvements? Sure. But I would not say making Active Defenses a toggle is an improvement. If you’re going to claim it’s an improvement, you’re going to need facts to back that up and show people it’s an improvement. Go ahead, be the spunky little hero in your personal adventure and prove to us you’re right. 

With replies such as I highlighted, your name fits you.

 

Did you ever read what I wrote? Or did you just ASSUME (you know what that word really means?)? Let me show you what I said that you conveniently ignored:

Quote

How does this relate to Active Armor? Active Armor can be improved without "changing the way it works (manually activated)," but by improving how it works.

What part of "Active Armor can be improved without changing the way it works (manually activated)," do you not understand?

[n00baka]

Probably the part where you haven’t shown how you would improve the power beyond “make it toggle”? That was the initial point you made, and continue to make, and I respect that you feel it’s an improvement. I don’t feel that it would be an improvement. So yes, be the hero in your narrative and break down why it’s an improvement. Because I have read your beliefs, and the opposing side of the discussion has made more, and better, valid points for keeping the current system. 

 

You say “it can be improved”, and I believe that to a point. I also believe that it’s working as intended. So I want you to change my mind. Use all those skills you've acquired as an Associate Professor and in the Navy to do it. 

 

Or don’t. I enjoy my characters with Click Mezz protection more then those without and have not come across the problems you describe, at least not at the same level of difficulty you seem to have with them.  

[MunkiLord]

32 minutes ago, StrykerGaming said:

Now, after reading Point #5, who here still believes that none of these defensive sets need no improvement?

I don't think making Active Defenses a toggle is an improvement and nothing presented so far has convinced me otherwise. Quite the opposite actually, upon my own further reflection and the points presented by other people, I am now very much against the proposed change. I get that other people have different preferences, but I disagree.

 

Also, being against this particular suggestion is not the same as believing these defensive sets need no improvement. This is a misleading question.

[Rylas]

44 minutes ago, StrykerGaming said:

Everyone is now worried about Endurance issues making Active Defense a toggle or lowering the cool down? Pfft! You should run a Stone Armor or Electric Armor toon. I've conquered the "Endurance" issue for my toons. Specifically, on my SA/SS Tank. I run around with Mudpots on all the time. I'm Endurance Positive with my build. Mudpots and Lightning Field are the two highest endurance usage powers in the game with Mudpots the highest at .78%/sec, Lightning Field is a close second. I run with ALL toggles (Leadership (Maneuvers, Assault, and Tactics) and Energy Master's Focus) with Mudpots & Granite Armor and Rooted when required. I have no endurance issues. You believe that I'll have it if I make Active Defenses a "perma-on" power? Oh all ye of little faith. Endurance usage is minor inconvenience under level 47.  Yet there are ways to overcome that still. Hint: IO Sets and Enhancement Catalysts are your friends.

I hope you realize that you're arguing against a point no one made. Endurance maintenance has nothing to do with -End attacks. If a Sapper hits you and drains you down to zero, how many +end/+recovery bonuses you have doesn't really matter. And not all sets have protection from said attacks. Your Stone Tanker gets a bit of a leg up since Rooted provides some End Drain resist. It's easy to scoff from using a specific example. But Fire Armor, for example, has none. Just the other day during a Numina TF, when the leader accidentally left it at +4 when they started it, my Rad/Fire brute didn't have much to stop a couple of Super Stunners from draining her down to zero after I'd already used Consume in a full group. Had she a clickie for mez protection, I'd have been able to at least pop a blue to run to safety and toggle back up. But she was held and flattened pretty quickly.

 

Nothing in what you just said really seems applicable to the argument.

44 minutes ago, StrykerGaming said:

Now, after reading Point #5, who here still believes that none of these defensive sets need no improvement?

I won't speak to all sets, because the topic at hand is Active Defense being a click power, and I can say that I've seen no convincing argument that it needs to be improved. That's nice and all about people's business philosophies, but improvement/progress for the sake of improvement/progress doesn't work if good reasoning isn't provided. And the only reasoning you seem to be providing so far is "I don't like the way this mechanic works" and "other sets do it differently." Those aren't great reasons. Do you have other reasons?

Edited September 10, 2019 by Rylas

[Steampunkette]

The intent of a business is to increase profit margins as much as possible without being arrested.

 

The point of a power in City of Heroes is not that.

 

 

But since you're big on Business, let me Jargon you a bit with a Paradigm Shift. Literally. I'm saying shift your Paradigm. Not every product will do as well in every market. You need variety to keep the customers coming in, I.E. players playing the sets. If everything is the same, standard, undifferentiated, one dull play is all it's going to take to drop interest. And then your business tanks.

 

Diversify your Portfolio and Diversify your Powerset Design Choices.

[GM Sijin]

TL;DR? Skip to the last line.

Process improvement is not really akin to powers balance. The general concept might kind of apply, but the concept as a whole does not. The former involves iterating on the steps of a known process that creates a definable result by incorporating new knowledge and technologies as they become available, removing wasteful steps and ensuring consistent output so that the results of changes to said process can be measured. This doesn't really apply to designing how a power works because the point isn't to make the power as efficient as possible. It can apply to how you manage programming teams, or how a business approaches change management, or any other number of business practices, but it does not plug neatly into managing powers balance.

 

First of all you'd have to define what improvement is in regards to a power in an objective, measurable manner in order to apply iterative process improvement systems to it. That'll be a hard sell given how subjective the topic of powers balance is. Is improvement making it more powerful? Well eventually you reach a point where more does literally nothing because you've already made the game a pointless exercise in pressing your I-Win-Button. Is it achieving identical performance across powersets? Well there's only one reliable way actually achieve that: homogenize the sets to remove variability, which makes for a bland, boring play experience with little replayability. Is it how fun a set is to play? Well that's subjective and can't really be measured, especially since it's a perception that tends to change with familiarity, typically on a bell curve.

 

Without an objectively measurable output to any "process improvement" the entire process improvement system fails. Which is why it is not a literally universally accepted system. It's fantastic for what it's good for, but doesn't apply well to everything.

 

That tangent over with, I believe the core of what you're getting at is making sure a powerset is performing well, which starts with a question to determine if there is a problem, not a problem to determine a solution. Such a question might look like this:

• Is Shield Defense reliably under-performing in a variety of general scenarios compared to other defensive powersets?

Prove that question as true, objectively, and we'll have something to really work with. If you can't/won't directly address this question, or something reasonably like it, you're not going to do much to encourage change. Note that 'performing' in this context doesn't necessarily mean numerically. If a set performs as well as any other, but is universally loathed to play, that's a pretty good indication that part of the design of the set is probably a bit askew.

 

So allow me to address the topic now at hand as directly as I know how to to hopefully prevent any further derailing:

Regarding Active Defense, is there something that appears to suggest it performs poorly in the context of providing Shield Defense with status protection compared to every other defensive powerset?

[Jeuraud]

19 minutes ago, StrykerGaming said:

All it takes is for those in the position with the ability to make changes to look at everything in this game and asking "how can we improve this?" Process/Quality improvement is and should be a continual process.

Why "should" there be a continual improvement to CoHH?

Why "should" the CoHH Devs spend their time on CoHH?

 

That they do, and that there is a Suggestion Forum where we can provide input and the CoHH Devs provide feedback, is fucking fantastic, but there is no reason for a "should". CoHH is not a product you purchased with the expectations of improvements over time. CoHH is a free download that cost you absolutely nothing to play.

 

33 minutes ago, StrykerGaming said:

Now, after reading Point #5, who here still believes that none of these defensive sets need no improvement?

First, there is a difference between a Need and a Want, and I would say that none of the Defensive sets "Need" improvement.

Second, just because you see something as an improvement, does not make it so. Your opinion that SD's AD needs to be turned into a Toggle is just that, an opinion, not a fact, and is no more valid than my opinion that SD's AD should remain as is.

 

 

[StrykerGaming]

4 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

TL;DR? Skip to the last line.

Process improvement is not really akin to powers balance. The general concept might kind of apply, but the concept as a whole does not. The former involves iterating on the steps of a known process that creates a definable result by incorporating new knowledge and technologies as they become available, removing wasteful steps and ensuring consistent output so that the results of changes to said process can be measured. This doesn't really apply to designing how a power works because the point isn't to make the power as efficient as possible. It can apply to how you manage programming teams, or how a business approaches change management, or any other number of business practices, but it does not plug neatly into managing powers balance.

Process of improvement is modified to meet the requirements of said product, in this case, power sets. Yes, that can be applied to in this game.

Improvement Overviews:

- Improving Balance in relation to other powers

- Improving Balance in relation to PVE/PVP

- Improving performance of said power based on the observation and actions of the two aforementioned improvement overviews

- Improving balance of said power with improved performance

- Implement changes to reduce any spikes or lows that degrade performance

- Repeat the process until the desired optimal performance is obtained and maintained.

 

That's how process improvement works. You just don't take say, "this power has this minimum performance and maximum performance specifications. The purpose of the improvement process is to reduce these specifications where said powers (similar types) perform at the optimal specification that is desired. The continuation of improvement will raise the minimum until such time that the difference between the maximum and minimum performance values will be at the smallest tolerance producing the optimal quality performance wanted from that power. This is exactly how it is done in manufacturing and business.  You just don't set the goal to be between these specifications where all the deviations of highs and lows far out preform optimal performance values. It can be done; however, it takes full commitment from those in-charge to make it work. You cannot do this half-heartedly. That will lead to failure and degrade performance.

 

Process improvement comes when the specifications and tolerances are so small that the results produce the highest quality performance and the results exceed expectations.  This results in the highest quality product and will continue that way by monitoring it with the Improvement Process.

4 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

First of all you'd have to define what improvement is in regards to a power in an objective, measurable manner in order to apply iterative process improvement systems to it. That'll be a hard sell given how subjective the topic of powers balance is. Is improvement making it more powerful? Well eventually you reach a point where more does literally nothing because you've already made the game a pointless exercise in pressing your I-Win-Button. Is it achieving identical performance across powersets? Well there's only one reliable way actually achieve that: homogenize the sets to remove variability, which makes for a bland, boring play experience with little replayability. Is it how fun a set is to play? Well that's subjective and can't really be measured, especially since it's a perception that tends to change with familiarity, typically on a bell curve.

I address this above; however, the highlighted sentence I will address. No, you don't have to homogenize anything. That's a false assumption to improve anything, even powers. You are basing this on the perception that I want to change it to a toggle. I've given up on that because that's not going to happen. Let me reiterate this: I do not desire for it to be a toggle because no one will change it because no one will accept any suggestion or argument to change it. Therefore, I have given up on that.  I did; however, offer a suggestion in this below, not once, but twice.

On 9/1/2019 at 4:41 PM, StrykerGaming said:

I see two ways they can fix this if they don't make it a toggled power. Lower the cooldown by 30 seconds and give it the ability to slot a defense, resistance, or endurance modification set. (For both Shield Defense and Super Reflexes).

I'll refine this even further. Lowering the cooldown to 30 seconds from level 6/10 to level 20. Level 21 to 30 increase it by 7.5 to 3:07:5. From 31 to 40 increase it 7.5 to 3:15, from 41 to 46 increase it by 7.5 to 3:22.5 and from 47+ return it to its full value of 3:30 where theory crafting and min-maxing can be employed to reduce it as it is currently done. This is the base suggestion. The improvement process can refine these settings to obtain maximum optimal performance and characteristics. Since Active Defense and Practice Brawler have such a long cooldown it does hurt the performance of those using these powers. This is agreed by many posting here that it does promote an issue. You can only carrying so many break frees/emerges/escapes without sacrificing other needed inspirations.

 

This can work using the inverse of the degradation of SO/DOs reduction of efficiency and effectiveness. Will it be easy? No, probably not. Will it take extensive testing? To be sure. Will it improve play-ability for lower level toons? At this point, a strong maybe, it cannot be confirmed until such time this change and tested. Will it cause an imbalance? That cannot be answered until metrics are reviewed for the performance results. However, the latter can be easily identified and it can be refined even more. That's the brilliance of TQM process, it identifies issues and can offer necessary suggestions to resolve these issues.

 

The point is, you asked below; "Regarding Active Defense, is there something that appears to suggest it performs poorly in the context of providing Shield Defense with status protection compared to every other defensive powerset?" The answer to that is yes, with a caveat. It does perform poorly compared to the others because it has a high cooldown. Currently, On my 19lvl Elec Melee/SD Brute, I have one slotted DO with 19.2% Recharge enhancement. My current cooldown is 2:51seconds. That leaves 51 seconds of no protection from mezzes whatsoever. PB has the exact same thing. The others using toggles have no such issue. That alone indicates there's a performance issue. Note, when I hit 21, I will put 2 more slots into this power. However, I have to do this in order to use AD effectively to improve its performance while foregoing improvement of other abilities that may be required.

4 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

Without an objectively measurable output to any "process improvement" the entire process improvement system fails. Which is why it is not a literally universally accepted system. It's fantastic for what it's good for, but doesn't apply well to everything.

You really need to look into the ISO program. TQM has morphed into an international process improvement program accepted by nearly every industrial nation with a manufacturing and business based economy. So, no, it is universally accepted and implemented by the majority of nations desiring produce quality products, this is especially true for the Oceania and Asian areas of this world.

4 hours ago, GM Sijin said:

 

That tangent over with, I believe the core of what you're getting at is making sure a powerset is performing well, which starts with a question to determine if there is a problem, not a problem to determine a solution. Such a question might look like this:

• Is Shield Defense reliably under-performing in a variety of general scenarios compared to other defensive powersets?

Prove that question as true, objectively, and we'll have something to really work with. If you can't/won't directly address this question, or something reasonably like it, you're not going to do much to encourage change. Note that 'performing' in this context doesn't necessarily mean numerically. If a set performs as well as any other, but is universally loathed to play, that's a pretty good indication that part of the design of the set is probably a bit askew.

 

So allow me to address the topic now at hand as directly as I know how to to hopefully prevent any further derailing:

Regarding Active Defense, is there something that appears to suggest it performs poorly in the context of providing Shield Defense with status protection compared to every other defensive powerset?

I answered this above.

 

Now, you and everyone else can continue to say, "there's nothing wrong, this has always been like this, no one will like it, no one will accept it, and we will not bother looking at improving anything because the Improvement Process only works in selected areas and cannot be applied here. Those that do that fear changes, fear trying, and are happy to let things go as they are.

 

I give you SWTOR as the epitome of such thinking. The game has more issues than countable and the developers refuse to look at and fix anything from the original content for fear of causing major issues with the new content. I know they were approached on how to improve and they gave this answer; "We're using an Alpha version of the Hero engine that has gone through so many changes that not one current developer/programmer is capable or comfortable enough to make any changes that will cause issue with the current content."

 

Because of the use of EA's go to standard engine, Frostbite, Anthem is an abysmal failure because they were forced to use an engine not designed for games like Anthem, SWTOR, or other Multiplayer MMOs of that nature. Why do I mentioned this? TQL/ISO process would've identified these issues and allowed them to resolve them and improve their products. That can be done here. Far too many companies from Japan, Korea, United States, and other nations proves that notion as a straw-man argument "that it isn't universally accepted and only works in certain areas."

 

The only way to see how to improve any ability or power is to try and and analyze the metric data on how it performs.

 

I'll state this again about SD current iteration:

13 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

I will Frankenstein my 'Active Defense' for my Electric Melee/Shield Defense Brute to having this power on all the time. From my experience as a developer, I have to believe that this is a situation the original developers did not intend for players to do.

If one of the developers could chime in on this view, I'd appreciate it.

 

I'd finished this earlier; however, we just had a very big earthquake hit near here. 😮

[StrykerGaming]

5 hours ago, Jeuraud said:

Why "should" there be a continual improvement to CoHH?

Why "should" the CoHH Devs spend their time on CoHH?

 

That they do, and that there is a Suggestion Forum where we can provide input and the CoHH Devs provide feedback, is fucking fantastic, but there is no reason for a "should". CoHH is not a product you purchased with the expectations of improvements over time. CoHH is a free download that cost you absolutely nothing to play.

 

First, there is a difference between a Need and a Want, and I would say that none of the Defensive sets "Need" improvement.

Second, just because you see something as an improvement, does not make it so. Your opinion that SD's AD needs to be turned into a Toggle is just that, an opinion, not a fact, and is no more valid than my opinion that SD's AD should remain as is.

 

 

Understood. You do not desire any changes.

[StrykerGaming]

5 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

The intent of a business is to increase profit margins as much as possible without being arrested.

 

The point of a power in City of Heroes is not that.

 

 

But since you're big on Business, let me Jargon you a bit with a Paradigm Shift. Literally. I'm saying shift your Paradigm. Not every product will do as well in every market. You need variety to keep the customers coming in, I.E. players playing the sets. If everything is the same, standard, undifferentiated, one dull play is all it's going to take to drop interest. And then your business tanks.

 

Diversify your Portfolio and Diversify your Powerset Design Choices.

So your saying that I much "change my way of thinking, disregard my beliefs in improvement processes, and follow the crowd here. In other words, 1984's "correct way of thinking" must be applied.

 

Meaning of Paradigm Shift: an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.

 

Now, your suggesting that I rewire myself to be part of the crowd that believes there is nothing wrong, all is well and it is as it should be an never changed or improved. This is correct, yes?

 

The fact that I'm using a paradigm shift here to counter "the currently belief and thinking of nothing wrong, it is as intended, it does not need improvement" and you are unwilling to even look at the possibility for that to be tried? And you use a straw-man argument to substantiate your post?

 

You might want to take your own advice you tried to give me.

 

Citation: Paradigm Shift

Edited September 10, 2019 by StrykerGaming

[StrykerGaming]

5 hours ago, Rylas said:

I hope you realize that you're arguing against a point no one made.

Really? I suggest you re-read those posts prior to mine where this came up. I'll wait. Oh, never mind. You'll not do it because your mind is set and made up already.

 

BTW, if you've read anything, as stated, from me, you'll KNOW I no longer desire or want to change AD or PB to a toggle; however, that has escaped your attention because you must believe no one is capable of altering their opinions.

[StrykerGaming]

6 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

Also, being against this particular suggestion is not the same as believing these defensive sets need no improvement. This is a misleading question.

You believe so because it requires a truthful answer regarding your position on whether or not you believe none of them need improvement. I understand, you don't want to on record supporting something you feel should stay the same and not addressed or even looked at to improve.

[Vanden]

Can we close this thread yet? I don't believe it's headed anywhere good.

[n00baka]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

Can we close this thread yet? I don't believe it's headed anywhere good.

I don’t know. I think there’s still some to consider here. I had missed where he changed his suggestion, and that was my mistake, and while I may not agree with the suggestion still, it shows that there is still discussion to have. 

[DSorrow]

7 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

By saying "nothing needs to be done to improve it" ignores the truth. All things can be improved.

All things can be improved, but you still haven't demonstrated:

• what improvement would mean for sets like SD in concrete terms
• the need for that improvement to justify the associated resource cost for implementing it
• the gravity of the need to justify these improvements taking precedence over something else

It's been a while since I've left the field of management research, but I'd assume as an associate professor you would be familiar with the concepts of resource allocation and prioritization. 

 

2 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

However, I have to do this in order to use AD effectively to improve its performance while foregoing improvement of other abilities that may be required.

And how is this different from prioritizing slots on any other important power? Should the base values of defensive powers be increased because I have to allocate slots on my attacks to improve their performance while foregoing improvement of my defenses? Resource allocation and prioritization. 

1 hour ago, StrykerGaming said:

all is well and it is as it should be an never changed or improved

I'll call you out on this strawman. Nobody is saying things should never be changed. The game isn't a static environment, so right now I'm not convinced there's anything about SD that would warrant changes considering that it's currently a top performing set. After we get new content, balance changes to other sets and so on my stance might change. AD is slightly annoying at low levels, but there are ways to overcome that such as slotting 5 DOs and respeccing later, and when the whole 1-22 phase lasts a handful of hours max, it's hard to see why a likely large amount of development resources should be allocated to fix such a small issue.

 

Before you go into the "no other powerset needs 4 slots in their mez protection" argument, let me remind you of the big picture: SD only has two powers that require the enhancement of one attribute (Defense in Battle Agility and Deflection) to achieve comparable levels of mitigation to most other sets. With the 4 in AD, you're looking at a very similar number of slots spent between sets. 

 

Resource allocation and prioritization. 

[Steampunkette]

2 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

So your saying that I much "change my way of thinking, disregard my beliefs in improvement processes, and follow the crowd here. In other words, 1984's "correct way of thinking" must be applied.

 

Meaning of Paradigm Shift: an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.

 

Now, your suggesting that I rewire myself to be part of the crowd that believes there is nothing wrong, all is well and it is as it should be an never changed or improved. This is correct, yes?

 

The fact that I'm using a paradigm shift here to counter "the currently belief and thinking of nothing wrong, it is as intended, it does not need improvement" and you are unwilling to even look at the possibility for that to be tried? And you use a straw-man argument to substantiate your post?

 

You might want to take your own advice you tried to give me.

 

Citation: Paradigm Shift

Yeah, 1984 double plus good! That's clearly what I'm saying because I'm a caricature of Big Brother you myopic hack! You don't get to be snidely insulting and claim the high ground.

 

A paradigm shift from you perspective of "Everything should be toggles 'cause it's easier' is what's in order. You clearly believethat it would be a massive improvement to the game but the numbers don't line up. At best it would be a marginal change that weakens Shield Defense to provide slightly more ease of use. And it's already pretty easy to use. You appear to be ignoring all the associated costs and losses your proposed change would cause.

 

Going from a Click to a Toggle expands the dangers the set faces, requires a downgrading of the defensive functions (probably the defense debuff resistance and fear protection), homogenizes the defensive sets more, and removes the utility of recharge investment. The cost to benefit ratio is pretty damned high, here.

[StrykerGaming]

10 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

Yeah, 1984 double plus good! That's clearly what I'm saying because I'm a caricature of Big Brother you myopic hack! You don't get to be snidely insulting and claim the high ground.

 

A paradigm shift from you perspective of "Everything should be toggles 'cause it's easier' is what's in order. You clearly believethat it would be a massive improvement to the game but the numbers don't line up. At best it would be a marginal change that weakens Shield Defense to provide slightly more ease of use. And it's already pretty easy to use. You appear to be ignoring all the associated costs and losses your proposed change would cause.

 

Going from a Click to a Toggle expands the dangers the set faces, requires a downgrading of the defensive functions (probably the defense debuff resistance and fear protection), homogenizes the defensive sets more, and removes the utility of recharge investment. The cost to benefit ratio is pretty damned high, here.

You really need to read and understand what I'm saying, not what you want it to say to fit a narrative that defies logic and reality. You still believe something I have stated 3 times, now four times to the contrary of your premise in your diatribe.

3 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

You are basing this on the perception that I want to change it to a toggle. I've given up on that because that's not going to happen. Let me reiterate this: I do not desire for it to be a toggle because no one will change it because no one will accept any suggestion or argument to change it. Therefore, I have given up on that.

Is this clear enough for you? Or do you still wanna believe otherwise? Yes? Good, moving on.

 

 

[Steampunkette]

1 minute ago, StrykerGaming said:

You really need to read and understand what I'm saying, not what you want it to say to fit a narrative that defies logic and reality. You still believe something I have stated 3 times, now four times to the contrary of your premise in your diatribe.

Is this clear enough for you? Or do you still wanna believe otherwise? Yes? Good, moving on.

 

Then why are you still posting in this thread? Why are you presenting yourself as the lone voice of righteous rational improvement in a sea of yes men?

 

Why are you rambling on, irrelevantly, about Business Practices and applying them to the game if you're not trying to convince people to change their minds?

 

Why are you accusing people of making Strawmen Arguments and shit where there are no strawmen standing or being tipped over?

 

Your actions do not line up with your words, here, Stryker.

 

And if you are 'Just looking' at the possibility of reducing the cooldown: Eh.

 

As was previously shown number by number, the power can already be triple-stacked with a pretty massive overlap by the time you get into high end. I guess it kind of sucks that putting one DO into the power doesn't give you 100% Uptime but in just 3 more levels you can slot 2 SOs and not have that problem any longer. Most sets and archetypes in the game have a growth curve. Often their more iconic powers are in the late tiers and don't show up 'til the mid to late 20s. 

 

Shield Defense is one of 2 defense sets that gets all three positioned defenses by level 10. To offset that comparative defensive strength, at low levels it has mez protection gaps and relies more heavily on it's positioned defenses to avoid getting hit by mez protection. But once you get to SOs that weakness is largely gone.

 

Growing Pains is probably the best way to think about it. 'Cause you get some big and unusual benefits early on (Especially having Ranged and AoE in -one- Toggle compared to SR which needs 3 toggles for their positioned defenses) and then you get a big change, later on, when you play with speed.

[DSorrow]

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

Then why are you still posting in this thread? Why are you presenting yourself as the lone voice of righteous rational improvement in a sea of yes men?

 

Why are you rambling on, irrelevantly, about Business Practices and applying them to the game if you're not trying to convince people to change their minds?

It's a red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. Citation

Edited September 10, 2019 by DSorrow
wording

[Rylas]

4 hours ago, StrykerGaming said:

Really? I suggest you re-read those posts prior to mine where this came up. I'll wait. Oh, never mind. You'll not do it because your mind is set and made up already.

 

BTW, if you've read anything, as stated, from me, you'll KNOW I no longer desire or want to change AD or PB to a toggle; however, that has escaped your attention because you must believe no one is capable of altering their opinions.

Actually, all I had to do was re-read the post I quoted. I mistook what you were talking talking about; a toggle AD being an endurance drain. My bad.

 

Now see, I was a grown up and admitted my mistake. Maybe you can try taking a different tone with people online. Seeing as how you're the one accusing this community of being terrible and not worth posting in. Yet... still posting. Because as far as I can tell, I haven't been rude to you or dismissive. Only making the mistake of misreading one post. It happens. But you had to turn around and make an accusation about how I think of people. Exactly how does that make you better than the community of people you're deriding?

Edited September 10, 2019 by Rylas

[GM Tempest]

This thread has derailed too much. I am locking it. If you want to discuss this, it needs to be done without anyone resorting to ad hominem. Please be civil to one another.