Tannim222 wrote:

Mixing between them provides some unique play as well.

It just struck me that -- in addition to thinking up all these cool Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Mastery, and Travel powers for us to use -- you have to test them [i]in all possible combinations[/i]. How do you have time for this and real life/family/job as well?!?

Lions and Tigers and bears oh my !!

Tannim222 wrote:

Taunt is a control effect and it may be found elsewhere in the game.

The reverse cone utilizes our bodyguard effect, the effect itself may be used else where in the game, but the specific use of the Stalwart Mastery ina reverse cone behind the player character is solely found in this Mastery Power.

Thank you again for the answers. Yeah, Im curious to see if a Bruiser can pick up a few tricks from outside and still "tank" even in a team, or even for the taunter to get a bodyguard effect or vice versa, again from outside the masteries.

Do we have more information on the aggro mechanic and how its choosing its targets. Will a Bruiser still be able to hold aggro off a control or damage dealer without the other masteries dipped?

Shadow Elusive wrote:

Planet10, can you describe what else besides medial makes the description seem awkward and clunky to you? I can't guarantee it will change, as the terminology was chosen by people far more deeply involved in the creation of our powers than me, but I'm certainly prepared to listen.

There isn't much else beyond just 'medial' that makes it awkward in the sense that when we were in grade school and had to write a five page paper we had to break out a thesaurus to insert fancy words to make our paper stand out from all the rest. My exposure to these documents is limited to what MWM has released, so there might be a grander plan that I do not comprehend yet.

Technical writers will always strive to be precise in the documents they create, but part of that process is understanding and tailoring your work to the intended audience. The most important part of that output is that the audience is able to find, consume and comprehend what is being laid out before them. When trying to convey information you want to use common/known terminology to set the groundwork for more complex ideas that the user will encounter later. If you do a quick word search on all of the power set and mastery pages you will not find a single instance of the words 'medium' or 'moderate'. You will find multiple instances of descriptors like 'short' or 'long' or 'swift' to describe durations. If medial is a more precise descriptor, why is that standard not applied evenly across all of the other descriptors? It feels like there was a moratorium put in place for the words 'medium' & 'moderate'.

From the [url=https://cityoftitans.com/content/ranged-sets]Ranged Sets[/url] page:

Quote:

Force Torrent (tier 3): One of the branched tier 3 abilities, this ranged area attack can hit all targets in a medial cone repelling them away and doing [b]light[/b] [u]physical damage[/u] over time. Should any target be critically hit, they will be left disoriented for a very short duration. Recharge Very Fast.

Focused Blast (tier 6): This snipe attack does [b]strong[/b] [u]physical damage[/u] in addition to knocking down or knock away a target depending on the method of activation. Passively charging this ability by not being hit and remaining still during the full activation cycle increases the damage to extreme as well as improving its ability to knock the target. Any interruption will cause the snipe to fire off at its current charge level. Recharge Fast.

Rapid Burst (tier 2): You attack your enemy doing [b]medial[/b] [u]physical damage[/u] over time and leave it with a light resistance debuff for a short duration. The damage will have a very light portion pierce protections if the target is already under the effect of a resistance debuff. Recharge Very Swift.

Atrophic Scythe (tier 8): Activated with a timed toggle, this ability causes strong energy damage over time in a [b]MEDIAL[/b] cone area which can be repositioned as you move to affect more targets leaving them taking [b]MEDIAL[/b] energy damage over time. Recharge [b]MEDIAL[/b].

The descriptions setup medial as a reference to intensity (wrt physical damage). Then medial goes all over the map in the Atrophic Scythe description. Medial is being used as a geometric descriptor (cone area), a measure of intensity (energy damage) and relative measure of time (recharge) all in one power definition. It feels like its usage is being overloaded. What is a medial cone exactly? Does it refer to the angle of the cone? The reach/length of the cone? If you are defining medial to be a precise middle plane/point of something, then is it a 180deg cone (half way between a line and a sphere)?

I'll dive deeper into this later.

Follow-up comment:

You stated that the mastery effects for defeating enemies only procs for the character making the killing blow. I see this becoming a problematic issue for groups, and kill-stealing could become a [i]thing[/i]; especially when more than one character in the group is trying for kill procs. I hope this is something you will remain open about as we go into testing with real people.

Cinnder wrote:

Dark Cleric wrote:

I really can't imagine those that have been consistent on these forums for 6 years. Like how do you have that much patience for so long and still hold out hope? Not sure I could stand waiting that long.

For me, it's two things:

1) Almost everything MWM has told us about CoT describes a game I really want to play.

2) Nothing else out there that's live or in development comes close to the game I want, so I really have no choice. It's CoT or bust.

And these games take a long time to develop. Consider the title which is in the news lately, Bless Online. It was *announced* in 2011. It was already in development for several years by that point. It was released to Early Access in the US only a little bit ago. So, we're looking at a multi-million dollar title in the same category as us, with a development schedule about 10 years long. Imagine the people who signed up for Bless in 2011 right now.

Actually based on my line of work they are using this word appropriately. The issue is not its intended meaning being unclear. The issue is the audience not having the end points of the scale it is referring to clearly defined. This leaves the definition of medial vague and unclear to an audience that is rather insistent on having a great deal of nomenclature for mechanisms they do not fully understand in the first place. An issue which I don’t think really merits the degree of “not picking” it is receiving.

It’s a game, let it have some mystery. We don’t get to know all before it comes out. Disappointing I know but that’s just part of life.

Personally, I would prefer to gain a better understanding of all these things through playing the game rather than having my hand held before it even comes out. But that’s just me I know others will disagree.

Planet10 wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Planet10 wrote:

I am still amused that MWM is so dead set against using any common terminology that appeared in CoX. An apple is an apple is an apple except for when CoH had an apple, so you have a Globoid Fruit.

I'd rather have to bother to learn a few new terms than to give NCsoft any more ammunition to file frivolous lawsuits to kill MWM in its crib than they already have. *shrugs*

It just feels awkward and clunky to read these descriptions. It feels like they were written in some foreign language then crammed through a Google translator about a half dozen times before they ended up on an English output.

Really? With all the OTHER significant terminology changes MWM has made between CoH and CoT the one that seems to be bothering you the most is their generic use of the word "medial"? I guess we all have our own little pet-peeves about things but this one is pretty "peevy" all things considered.

Lothic wrote:

Really? With all the OTHER significant terminology changes MWM has made between CoH and CoT the one that seems to be bothering you the most is their generic use of the word "medial"? I guess we all have our own little pet-peeves about things but this one is pretty "peevy" all things considered.

At least this is taking the pressure off of you for a moment Lothic.
Jiggle physics
There, I said it.

Planet10 wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Really? With all the OTHER significant terminology changes MWM has made between CoH and CoT the one that seems to be bothering you the most is their generic use of the word "medial"? I guess we all have our own little pet-peeves about things but this one is pretty "peevy" all things considered.

At least this is taking the pressure off of you for a moment Lothic.
Jiggle physics
There, I said it.

And people say [b]I'm[/b] obsessed by that particular subject. *sigh*
Why you brought it up here is again anyone's guess...

Tannim222 wrote:

I could point out how video games use a ton of terms inappropriately but over time, players have come to accept the version of the definition of use in video games.

Some players, heck even people in the gaming world will use design terminology incorrectly to this day.

I support your decision. I just think it will be met with varying degrees of quizzical confusion by the masses.
The historians will look back at this day when MWM said the line must be drawn here. This far, no further!
[youtube]s3RNsZvdYZQ[/youtube]

Lothic wrote:

Planet10 wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

I could point out how video games use a ton of terms inappropriately but over time, players have come to accept the version of the definition of use in video games.

Some players, heck even people in the gaming world will use design terminology incorrectly to this day.

I support your decision. I just think it will be met with varying degrees of quizzical confusion by the masses.
The historians will look back at this day when MWM said the line must be drawn here. This far, no further!

With all the collective asshatery going on in the world today if the "historians" bother to mention something like MWM's amazingly unnoteworthy use of the word "medial' then something, somewhere has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Let's get back to talking about something worthwhile here shall we?

For one I said ai don’t care if we change it only if we change it to one terms d. It multiple terms.

Second, don’t get to far ahead of yourself there Lothic, you just never know what might go so wrong with the world and this really happens.

Super M. wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Super M. wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Taunt is a control effect and it may be found elsewhere in the game.

The reverse cone utilizes our bodyguard effect, the effect itself may be used else where in the game, but the specific use of the Stalwart Mastery ina reverse cone behind the player character is solely found in this Mastery Power.

Thank you again for the answers. Yeah, Im curious to see if a Bruiser can pick up a few tricks from outside and still "tank" even in a team, or even for the taunter to get a bodyguard effect or vice versa, again from outside the masteries.

Do we have more information on the aggro mechanic and how its choosing its targets. Will a Bruiser still be able to hold aggro off a control or damage dealer without the other masteries dipped?

Generating threat and allowing the AI to “see” the threat of each enemy is one of the few exceptions we had to enforce on our AI dev when it comes to mechanics that mess with the AI. Hence why Taunt doesn’t directly mess with threat rating of the originator but instead is a control effect on the targets’ powers.

Threat mechanics may require its own update. But the short of it is that everything a character does generates threat and then there are modifiers. Attackingba target generates threat. Being closer modified that threat. Having a Masterynthat also adds effects to attacks generates threat.

Being attacked and mitigating the effects of the attack generates threat. Being closer modifies that threat.

We plan to test this as a baseline. Depending on how things go, we can include an Archetype modifier to threat if we must.

Nice - are there any slotted modifiers to powers planned that will give them a +threat component? Or even a taunt component?

No Sugments or Refinemnts mess directly with threat itself. Threat isn’t a man apsect of the power’s design like recharge rate for the value of applied effect.

It is a result of multiple situations. So neither improvements affect it directly. Applying an Augment thantimoroved a Power can cause that power to generate more threat when used however. So consider improvements an indirect way to improve threat.

Taunt is a control effect as much as holds or charms, etc. are control effects. The only way it would show up as an improvement to add to a peer would be a proc - if we make such a proc.

Tannim222 wrote:

I could point out how video games use a ton of terms inappropriately but over time, players have come to accept the version of the definition of use in video games.

*cough*CLIPPING*cough* <-- one of my pet peeves, because, as I have pointed out before, current common usage is the [i]opposite[/i] of the actual meaning.

For the record, I have no problem with the use of the word 'medial' but I can also understand how it might seem like an odd choice to some readers.

While the way I read the concerns about the word 'medial' were not about whether it hides the data, as a separate point I definitely agree with:

rookslide wrote:

It’s a game, let it have some mystery. We don’t get to know all before it comes out. Disappointing I know but that’s just part of life.

Personally, I would prefer to gain a better understanding of all these things through playing the game rather than having my hand held before it even comes out. But that’s just me I know others will disagree.

Life is good. This game looks to make it even better. :)

Myri wrote:

Don't know if it's been covered before, but how exactly do we choose the tiers of Masteries? Does for instance, choosing the tier 1 in a Guardian mastery unlock tier 2 across all Guardian mastery sets? Or do we need to start over at tier 1 to reach tier 2 when we mix and match with different sets?

I thought they said that to get the second or third tier, you have to have the one before it. I might be wrong, though. It happens, from time to time. :D

Yeah, kill stealing for kill bonuses is probably not going to be much of a problem. Borderlands 2 has a bunch of characters with kill skills (buffs that activate on kill) but there's usually enough enemies for a group to all have their own targets. The only time it ends up mattering is if there's only one enemy and then the group usually decides whose skill is most useful. So I don't foresee it as much of a problem.

As for the medial discussion. I'm probably pretty average as far as the game playing populous goes, no post secondary education, don't really raid on MMOs, plays both casual games and non casual games, have no prefered genre of game, and I had no problem with medial. Especially when it's surrounded by other words for various other magnitudes of thing. So when one attack says it does light damage I can pretty easily figure out what medial means/is from the context clues.

Not to mention, it helps those of us who may be insomniacs get relief. :)

Brand X wrote:

I was thinking about the Masteries today, Enforcer ones really, and specifically Inspiration Mastery.

Is this set in stone? Instead of on defeat of an enemy, I was thinking, why not make it on Crit? That would seem to make it much more useful and much more tempting for players to take.

Still wondering if Surprise Strike will get a lot of love or not, but I imagine with a melee set with stuns or some such, it might.

You have to keep in mind that players can combine Masteries, with increased crit rate and a buff on crit, it can be quite powerful, especially since the buffs are applicable to the group.

We will keep an eye on performance for all the Masteries through testing.

If the are under performing because of the defeat condition we will make adjustments.

Brand X wrote:

I did think of that and I was basing what I said purely on that the other Masteries didn't look like they really increased crit rate that often.

The first Surprise Strike one, if on a team, and with the Inspiration one, may be the benefit to that, but it would go back to needing a team and not as good solo. Then could get it on CCed enemies too, but that left them with just the first team buff.

Solo can be set up with the proper builds: take a stealth Tertiary, have a primary with control effects, take a Manipulation Tertiary (when they come out). When the different Specifications are released, Support Sets May carry control effects, or when the Protection-Manipulation Hybdrid Secondaries are released.

Are they more team friendly? Certainly. But they restricted to a team only environment either. We have a couple of Masteries which are team oriented.

Huckleberry wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

The language of the cone area as medial applies to both width and length of the cone. We could have just left it at cone, droppingbthe descriptor but felt hat since we have different cone widths and lenghts, proving at least the descriptor woudl suffice. I was specifically told to not use any numbers in the descriptions of powers, so I didn’t.

A medical code width is not 180 because that would be half a sphere. 180 is are largest cone we have m. I will leave it up to you to extrapolate what a medial cone width is from there.

The point was to provide a description using our common descriptors of powers. Over time players will get used to learning understanding what he numbers are behind the descriptors.

One can also complain about what a slow recharge is compared to a very slow rechsge or a quick compared to very fast. There are no numbers to go by, but they provide a description that is meant to convey a value.

If the issue is with medial instead of medium, or moderate, consider that the issue behind the term as far as “what the heck does that mean in terms of numbers”
Would still lie unanswered.

I don't think you understood his point.

The point is that the word medial not only is being used incorrectly, but is not being well understood by the intended audience.

Yes, I know that the word medial means in the middle. But that is the Webster's Definition, which is faulty in that it is attempting to be too concise to impart the full meaning. The word median is being used as if someone speaking English as a second language picked it from a dictionary because of its definition, without realizing the implications. When Marriam Webster states "In the middle," it means "in the middle with regards to an object, entity or thing that has discernible sides, edges or boundaries." Even the mathematical use of the word Median is used with regard to geometry and the relationship between apexes and sides and edges, depending upon which branch of mathematics we are discussing.

So we can use the word medial properly when referring to cones if we want to show the damage increases towards the medial of the cone. But to call a singe cone medial is a total misuse of the word. And yes, I realize that you are not referring to the cone as medial, but rather the size of the cone is medial. And by this, it is implied that you are looking at all the sizes of all your cones arrayed in front of you in ascending or descending order and attempting to impart that among this array, the cone in question has a size that is in the middle of this body of numbers. That is a stretch of the term and is not one that gets its point across well when used in the fashion that you have used it.

This ^.

Anyone with half a brain and an education can use a technical term when talking to a non-technical audience. It's not an effective way to communicate, though. Especially when you irk even the subset of your audience that *is* technical by using it inaccurately.

You ahould also be thinking about how you will translate those terms into foreign languages, or how your audience will do so. You're buying yourself grief you don't need.

Stick to common words that are easily understood and worry about technical accuracy when it's time to talk numbers. Until then it isn't providing added value.

Atama wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

Follow-up comment:

You stated that the mastery effects for defeating enemies only procs for the character making the killing blow. I see this becoming a problematic issue for groups, and kill-stealing could become a [i]thing[/i]; especially when more than one character in the group is trying for kill procs. I hope this is something you will remain open about as we go into testing with real people.

This is common in many MMOs I play and in practice it’s never a problem. And I’ll tell you why.

When you have a stacking bonus that builds up based on the number of kills you have, the only way to effectively have it work is to go after enemies that die quickly (gangs of mooks). Otherwise you’re taking too long to build up that stack, and it’s futile. One side effect of mowing down hordes of enemies is that you can’t really tell who is getting the credit for each individual kill, or which enemy you’re getting credit for and which you’re not. You’re only able to pay attention to killing stuff and occasionally glancing at that stack of buffs. If there’s 3 people in your group and you all attack a group of 6 enemies then you’re all going to average out 2 kills. As long as you’re going through mooks fast enough to keep building the stack you’ll be okay.

If you’re not, well, maybe that’s just not the mission to support doing that so live with it and get past it.

What you’re probably not going to ever have is a situation where you’re never getting any procs because someone else is always taking them. That’s the only way that “kill stealing” can occur. And if somehow you’re never landing the killing blow and someone else is, that can only mean that you’re putting out puny damage and a teammate is just destroying stuff with larger and faster damage numbers. So either you’re too weak to participate, the other guy is too strong (a high level going with newbies for kicks maybe), or your build is unbalanced negatively against theirs (which is a whole other problem).

In any case, I can tell you from experience that it shouldn’t be a problem because it works just fine in other games.

My experience is completely the opposite so I disagree. Also, you're completely sidelining builds focused on support. I've never understood this last hit business and in a superhero MMO. What experience exactly are we trying capture here? What's the point of this mechanic?

dreamcatcher wrote:

My experience is completely the opposite so I disagree. Also, you're completely sidelining builds focused on support. I've never understood this last hit business and in a superhero MMO. What experience exactly are we trying capture here? What's the point of this mechanic?

No offense but I have trouble believing that you’ve played an MMO where there was conflict because a teammate was stealing kills from you and you never stacked buffs. What game was that exactly? I can’t even see how that’s possible. I’m honestly curious about this.

Also, yes, of course I’m ignoring support builds when discussing a mechanic that is increasing your ability to deal damage, is maintained by dealing damage and defeating enemies, and is part of a Mastery focused on dealing damage. I also failed to account for the price of tea in China with my argument.

You may as well complain that a mechanic that is triggered by healing allies doesn’t benefit a pure damage-dealing build.

As for what experience you’re capturing, again I can speak from my past history with identical mechanics in other games. It encourages speed play, what I’ve always called the “gogogo” playstyle. It is like playing a Warrior in WoW, where you build up Rage in combat that is a resource you spend for special maneuvers, and outside of combat your Rage steadily depletes when it’s not being replenished. It simultaneously supports a no-downtime playstyle while encouraging it. It’s basically the opposite of the mechanic that gives you a resource that you use up in combat and is replenished by resting outside of combat (like “mana” in many traditional MMORPGs).

Some people like the no-rest, DOITNOW style of play (I’m like that, I admit). While some people don’t like the feeling of being pushed to keep going without a break. Fortunately this is an optional Mastery and hopefully it doesn’t end up being the only viable Mastery for dealing damage, so that players really do have choices.

I forgot to add... When a game uses the mechanic that you have to kill to gain, maintain, or add to a buff, usually that means that the skill is functioning as a “trash cleaner” or “mook killer” focused on killing large amounts of weak enemies. This is contrasted with an ability that procs on hitting an enemy which is typically better against bosses. That’s the other kind of playstyle being encouraged.

I personally prefer the “on-hit” mechanic since it’s less specialized, but typically for balance reasons the “buff on kill” benefits give higher bonuses. Yes you’re better at killing trash than killing the Big Bad, but you’re [b]really[/b] good at killing trash.

The main Masteries that require the harscter defeating the target are:

Rage - Explosive Rage
This makes an attack causes area effect damage off the defeated target.

Inspiration (all 3 tiers) provides AoE buffs (mainly sustain, but the T3 adds critical chance buffs).

Resolve (all 3 tiers) provides self sustain buffs.

If these effects were based off every hit the would quickly result in too great an impact on play.

Thresholds on damage dealt favors certain sets over others.

Many of these tier 1 and 2 Masteries can be pairs with a Mastery within the same Archetype that buffs crit rates (conditionally) an there are Refinements that improve crit rate.

There Masteries are on Archetypes designed with the main function of dealing damage and attacking.

The consideration I have if testing shows performance isn’t where we want (insufficently where we want) ornit results in negative play behaviors in groups, is to have the defeat condition include if there is a current effect on the target. This can be instead of the “you must defeat” condition, or in combination with it (either / or, not and).

Current effects include: damage over time, debuffs, and controls. Which most offense sets have some some form (or more) of these.

The edge case here are knock effects which generally don’t last as long as other effects. And there are some that rely more on knock effects over other kinds of effects.

Overall, this increases the probability of the Mastery triggering without using a threshold effect. It also eases the group play dynamics. Without hopefully resulting in over performance. It may still be necessary to limit some Mastery powers to the “you must defeat” (eyes Exposive Rage).

Cinnder wrote:

This discussion of masteries based on kills made me think of a related question:

Will there be a system to prevent kill-stealing when it comes to experience points? I assume CoT will share xp among everyone on a team, but if you're alone outside of an instance and you have an enemy whittled down to 1 hp, what happens regarding xp reward if another character happens along and hits the enemy for that last hp before you can?

Good question. Another is, once you defeat an enemy, can someone else get the drops off it, or only you? If only you, then referring back to the kill-steal, will the kill-thief then get those drops? Hmm... I hope those questions were coherent...

I think that the defeat mechanics will work fine. The Borderlands series have had kill skills (bonuses that apply on kills) since the first game and as far as I know there's never been any real problems with it.

Just have to make sure there's enough enemies to go around.

Also another thing to remember is your hero won't be useless or anything without your bonuses.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

I think that the defeat mechanics will work fine. The Borderlands series have had kill skills (bonuses that apply on kills) since the first game and as far as I know there's never been any real problems with it.

Just have to make sure there's enough enemies to go around.

Also another thing to remember is your hero won't be useless or anything without your bonuses.

I see what you're saying PH but I'm not sure Borderlands is a good example. They designed the game so that nearly all skills were passive, severely limiting their options and forcing most skills to be flat stat changes or automatically triggered. They also had a hilarious amount of bugs and I don't think the devs have ever heard the word "balance" in their lives. The games are fun but you aren't going to hear people say "you know I really felt impressed when I put my 17th point in a passive skill that did not change how I played the game".

It was also a game where you would generally kill enemies in droves in fractions of a second and all characters were designed to dish out the hurt. Many bosses even had minions that spawned as part of their fights, so players were rarely without easy targets to stomp on. While CoX will certainly have mooks to smack around the chance of it having gameplay as fast paced and action focused as that is slim given the stated design goals from the devs about appealing to a broad audience and requiring no special reflexes or attention. Even if it did, having the mechanic not triggered on deaths but on a more reliable meter like combat state can give you the exact same gameplay mechanic with none of the downsides.

So you just make the mooks squishier and numerous, make the buffs from the kill skills last longer than a handful of seconds (or fractions of seconds in some Borderlands kill skill cases), give bosses minions... And there you go.

It's pretty easy to have it work the same just over a longer time frame.

Edit: Also from reading the masteries part there's not that many of them that key off of defeats. We got one enforcer mastery (a class that will be defeating the lion's share of enemies anyway), one part of one of another enforcer mastery, one part of one ranger mastery, one ranger mastery set who's bonuses would matter less in a team anyway, one part of one guardian mastery that also works when an ally defeats something... And that's it.

So like, 9 mastery skills that key off when you defeat an enemy. Most of them on the high DPS classes. And three of those are less useful in a team (providing regen and defensive abilities on a class that's likely the squishiest which will matter less on a team with a tank and a guardian), one of those that works whenever a member of a team defeats something, one mastery tree that lets an enforcer do a little support (good for duos and small teams), one that does a little damage to things around the target you defeat (great of it can trigger itself on targets defeated by the effect), and finally one that makes you a bit better at what you already are doing/what the other masteries give you.

In short, I really doubt it'd be game breaking if you took one of these and it didn't get activated and the only way I can see it not activating (remember all of these that require the player to defeat something are on the high DPS classes) is if you're on a team with a large number of DPS classes. Which if you are you'll be mowing down enemies anyway so it'll likely not matter too much.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

It comes down to the execution in the end, as you said there are ways to make it work.

It just requires more effort to balance the abilities and ensure all content is created with it in mind in order to make it work that way. You can do it, but why create work for yourself?

Because doing so might make a more interesting and varied experience?

I mean it's just a few things to keep in mind when creating is all. Like, write it on a big board or something.

Enemies: Numerous and squishy
On defeat abilities: time frames between x-y
Bosses: have minions

I don't see how it requires any more effort at all. Giving all bosses some minions might be, but there's tons you can do with it; small drones, illusionary copies, turrets that pop out, actual dudes, fires targetable energy balls, spawns targetable objects, etc.

Also also. They might/probably have designed the content to be completely doable with no masteries.

Also also also. Balancing the game is going to be needed anyway. Even if those skills were anything else they'd still need balancing, I don't think them being on defeat makes them much/any more harder to balance.

Also x4. If a player doesn't like using them, or finds that they're underutilized they can respec/make a build not using them... So I really don't see any problems with the abilities.

Yeah, they could be under/over powered but so could anything else in the game and likely after testing will be balanced accordingly.

I trust the devs know what they're doing. Buffs such as these have been in other games before so it's nothing new or groundbreaking and they have lots of sources to go on.

Fireheart wrote:

As for Loot, I'm hoping that rewards go with the defeat and there's no looting separate from defeating. So, if one does most of the defeating and earns most of the exp, as a result, one also receives most of the other rewards, as well, and immediately.

One-button auto-loot is okay, but I'd rather not have to slow down at all and just keep earning rewards of every kind.

Back in '04, that was one of my favorite features in CoH, coming from EverQuest. Once you defeated your opponent, there was no need to stop and loot and skin and butcher the critter to gather its components. That was all 'auto-hoovered' into my inventory, so I could keep fighting! Keep moving. Keep on saving the city!

Be Well!
Fireheart

Point. I had forgotten about that from TOG; I've been playing SWTOR lately. :)

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Give it a chance, and wait to panic or revolt IF it turns out not to work properly. It can be fixed. Of course, that's what I said about Disney taking over the Star Wars franchise and it worked out just fine. :D

Fixed it for you

:P

No, you made a lie out of my statement. Please don't do that again.

Ok there were several diffferent topics brought up.

Loot drops automatically, there is no “corpse looting”.

Non-grouped asssits for earning loot works the same way as the old game.

There are 8 Mastery Powers in total that use the “you must defeat” condition.

Yes, even these will have a higher probability of triggering on AoE builds. But no where as prevalent if these were triggered “on hit”. If you were to compare by a spawn to spawn basis the single target builds would provide yield smaller but consistent results while an AoE build would have larger but more spaced out results.
The AoEs may have opportunity to provide a faster, larger result (depending on the set) clearing Mooks, but would prove less consistent. Remember, there are less global bonuses for recharge than the old game. It is going to be more difficult to hit that max recharge so pumping out AoEs will be less prevalent.

Those Masteries that use the defeat condition have potential to be very potent. Of those, Resolve is the one I could see as possibly easing up on and adding the assist on defeat with a current effect condition.

I will explain.

Explosive Rage and Kill Streak both lend themselves to occurring more often due to the 2 Mastery powers that precede them.

Inspiration has a lot of potential due to the team buffs aspects and the T3 improves the buffs with Momentum, The buffs can be very significant.

Resolve is the one Mastery that has the least impact on team play. Outside of a Ranger that regenerates, can keep using powers, and is difficult to control can affect a groups performance. But this is the one Mastery Set I am most interested in seeing how it performs.

We will monitor all of them of course s d make changes where necessary. Using an assist in defeat with current consiftion may be a good fit for Resolve.

Atama wrote:

I really like Resolve also. It fits very well with my Ranger concept and it’s the Mastery I’m most interested in for that archetype. I hope it works well.

A solo resolve ranger with a defensive tertiary (or later, secondary) sounds like it would be tough to bring down.

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Mordheim13 wrote:

Give it a chance, and wait to panic or revolt IF it turns out not to work properly. It can be fixed. Of course, that's what I said about Disney taking over the Star Wars franchise and it worked out just fine. :D

Fixed it for you

:P

No, you made alot of fun out of my statement. Please do that again.

Fixed it for you.

I try to be reasonably civil in my discourse, but congratulations, Project: Zero. You have inspired me to abandon that policy. GO FUCK YOURSELF, SIR/MA'AM/IT.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/WHvAeo1.gif[/img]

Wolfgang8565 wrote:

One of the most annoying things people do on here is editing what someone says.

It's not cute, its not funny, and saying it was just for laughs is a joke. We all know how much that touches a nerve with people.

Actually, I don't know that. This is literally the first I'm hearing of it. I see it done on other forums and no one minds. Because it's a joke. I made it clear that I had edited it, so there's really nothing to get mad about.

It's the forum equivalent of

"This thing sucks"
"I think you mean it's awesome."

There's literally no harm in it.

So what's the beef with it, exactly?

Agreed. Never took the editing to be anything more than what PH said. Never took the fixed it for you posts seriously. Don't always agree with them either :p

I was unaware that it WAS possible to edit someone else's posts. For someone who believes deeply in Free Speech, that bothers me, whether I was ever the victim of it or not. I'm not one who cries "Rape!" about everything, but it's kind of verbal rape. "I don't like your opinion, so I'm not going to argue with it, or ignore it, I'm going to FORCIBLY CHANGE it." I can't imagine any world where that is cool. If you disagree with me, be man/woman enough to argue it, or just ignore it. I do not express my opinions as fact, but I DO express them. We Americans believe in that kind of stuff. We will fight for it, for ourselves and others. Many of us have died for it, but that doesn't stop us.
Oh, and considering you a douchebag for acting like a douchebag does not mean that I have no sense of humor. It might just mean you're a douchebag. Or not. Who knows? ::shrug::

Mordheim13 wrote:

I was unaware that it WAS possible to edit someone else's posts. For someone who believes deeply in Free Speech, that bothers me, whether I was ever the victim of it or not. I'm not one who cries "Rape!" about everything, but it's kind of verbal rape. "I don't like your opinion, so I'm not going to argue with it, or ignore it, I'm going to FORCIBLY CHANGE it." I can't imagine any world where that is cool. If you disagree with me, be man/woman enough to argue it, or just ignore it. I do not express my opinions as fact, but I DO express them. We Americans believe in that kind of stuff. We will fight for it, for ourselves and others. Many of us have died for it, but that doesn't stop us.
Oh, and considering you a douchebag for acting like a douchebag does not mean that I have no sense of humor. It might just mean you're a douchebag. Or not. Who knows? ::shrug::

[img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/430/877/271.gif[/img]

You are aware your original post still exists, right? Literally nothing was changed in it.