Updated Classification and Specification Chart

328 posts / 0 new
Last post
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

While I'm not sure a strict "build ratings" system (with stars/numbers) is necessary it might be useful if the Devs provided a very generic set of descriptive phrases they could use with each build combination. Such phrases could be limited to things like "considered good for causal play" versus "intended for experienced players" while avoiding specifically defining things like "We the Devs think this is easy/hard". They could also stress things like "build X is good for general team or solo play" versus "build X is mainly intended for supportive team play". Phrases like this would provide useful info without necessarily dictating "you must play X exactly like this" or attempting to rate certain builds as being easier/harder than other builds.

I'm thinking this would be the best solution as well. I admit I did mention a rating system could be generated by looking through all the beta feedback surveys and would represent the playerbase's own assessments, I don't necessarily feel that a star system is the goal of the effort and if people are wrapped up around that solution, I think they are losing sight of the original goal of difficulty rating systems in the first place. The whole reason I would want a difficulty ratings system is to help new players or inexperienced players choose power sets that let them play with the most gentle learning curve, or to point out to experienced players which sets might provide the greatest challenge. And before anyone addresses skill ceiling again, I am certainly willing to concede that any and all power sets could have an amazingly high skill ceiling at end-game when we start getting into a more horizontal progression system. I am instead referring to the player skill required throughout the levelling process as assessed by the beta feedback.

Lothic, it looks like you understand why the beginners would need to know that if they choose a difficult set no one is going to stop them; but if they get frustrated with it, then maybe it was because of the difficult powerset choice and not the game itself.

So a few choice phrases in the powerset descriptions could go a long way towards helping players understand the play style and learning curve associated with them. I know you were throwing up a couple of suggestions, but knowing this forum crowd, they are far more eager to attack your word choices than they are to attempt to understand what you tried to say. So I would stay away from descriptions like "intended for experienced players" and instead use something more akin to "this power set requires the player to balance power and momentum resources more than most others in order to get the most out of it," or the way the existing power set descriptions for Solid Form

Quote:

While Solid Form is still very functional while moving around, it is at its best when picking a place and refusing to budge. Positional awareness is a key strategy in making the most of this set’s abilities.

and Devices

Quote:

Devices requires smart placement of your abilities putting them to maximum use to hinder your enemies or to help your group.

provide a more descriptive idea of the concerns and limitations of the set. This way we're not making anyone feel any better or worse about themselves but at the same time we're making sure they know they are going to have a bit more of a challenge, or less of one, as the case may be.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Yeah the actual words used
Huckleberry wrote:

Lothic, it looks like you understand why the beginners would need to know that if they choose a difficult set no one is going to stop them; but if they get frustrated with it, then maybe it was because of the difficult powerset choice and not the game itself.

Yeah the actual words used don't matter to me as much as the need to convey the overall amount of "challenge" a typical player might face while playing a certain kind of build.

Basically we both know that some builds are so simplistically straightforward that you could probably set them up with a basic AFK macro and they'd almost play themselves for hours whereas other builds require so much "hands on" constant attention/effort that they're like juggling 5 running chainsaws at the same time. Sure the latter might be fun for someone who knows what they're getting into but a brand new player would likely just keep cutting various body parts off trying to deal with it.

So while I don't want the game to outright say "you must be an expert to play build X, Y or Z" I still want it to manage to convey, even if tacitly, that some builds are meant for "shallow-end" players while others require huge amounts of patience, experience or both.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:
Lothic, it looks like you understand why the beginners would need to know that if they choose a difficult set no one is going to stop them; but if they get frustrated with it, then maybe it was because of the difficult powerset choice and not the game itself.
Yeah the actual words used don't matter to me as much as the need to convey the overall amount of "challenge" a typical player might face while playing a certain kind of build.
Basically we both know that some builds are so simplistically straightforward that you could probably set them up with a basic AFK macro and they'd almost play themselves for hours whereas other builds require so much "hands on" constant attention/effort that they're like juggling 5 running chainsaws at the same time. Sure the latter might be fun for someone who knows what they're getting into but a brand new player would likely just keep cutting various body parts off trying to deal with it.
So while I don't want the game to outright say "you must be an expert to play build X, Y or Z" I still want it to manage to convey, even if tacitly, that some builds are meant for "shallow-end" players while others require huge amounts of patience, experience or both.

And let's not forget the experienced player who just wants some enjoyable game time without having to juggle chainsaws. Sometimes, I just like to throw on the cape and go punch bad guys, you know?


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Would listing 2-3 strengths

Would listing 2-3 strengths and weaknesses respectively when comparing them to all other sets of the same type do the job of potentially conveying how "difficult" it may be to play it?

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

Would listing 2-3 strengths and weaknesses respectively when comparing them to all other sets of the same type do the job of potentially conveying how "difficult" it may be to play it?

Something like that might work, like a bulleted list perhaps. I've always found, however, that when I have a task like this I always end up forcing the information to fit the format. In other words, I feel like I'd have to start reaching for, nearly inventing, strengths and weaknesses if there aren't enough to fill in the 'quota' or omitting some if the 'quota' is exceeded.

Using your idea, I think it could look something like this:

Let's say a player was looking at the Invulnerability Protection Power Set:

Strengths

  • Fairly straightforward protection set
  • reduces damage received so less healing is required
  • Best against Physical Damage

Weaknesses

  • minimal damage avoidance
  • minimal inherent healing included
  • less effective against energy and exotic damage types

and compare it to the Atrophic Aura Protection Power Set:

Strengths

  • ability to passively deal damage back to melee attackers and nearby opponents
  • includes some healing abilities
  • no vulnerability to any damage type

Weaknesses

  • must use experience and judgment to know which protections to activate at any time
  • least amount of total protection provided of the protection power sets
  • most susceptible to ranged opponents

Is this kind of what you were thinking?


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

So a few choice phrases in the powerset descriptions could go a long way towards helping players understand the play style and learning curve associated with them. I know you were throwing up a couple of suggestions, but knowing this forum crowd, they are far more eager to attack your word choices than they are to attempt to understand what you tried to say. So I would stay away from descriptions like "intended for experienced players" and instead use something more akin to "this power set requires the player to balance power and momentum resources more than most others in order to get the most out of it," or the way the existing power set descriptions for Solid Form
Quote:
While Solid Form is still very functional while moving around, it is at its best when picking a place and refusing to budge. Positional awareness is a key strategy in making the most of this set’s abilities.
and Devices
Quote:
Devices requires smart placement of your abilities putting them to maximum use to hinder your enemies or to help your group.
provide a more descriptive idea of the concerns and limitations of the set. This way we're not making anyone feel any better or worse about themselves but at the same time we're making sure they know they are going to have a bit more of a challenge, or less of one, as the case may be.

That is why I wrote the descriptions that way. I wanted to impart a sense for how they play and impart that some require more effort in how they play compared to the ease of play for others.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 38 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
By the way, i don't remember

By the way, i don't remember you broach the "main" ability of the tanks in those description : the taunt.
Does it works like a power or does it woks winthin the powers ? (like damages around you)

Pyromantic
Pyromantic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 36 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 08:20
Quoting a portion of my

Quoting a portion of my compilation relevant to what I found on taunts:

Quote:

Taunt will exist but as an effect rather than a power. It is only one style of “tanking” and not a requirement to effectively tank. Taunts may work by reducing the damage a target does to characters other than the taunter.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Pyromantic wrote:
Pyromantic wrote:

Quoting a portion of my compilation relevant to what I found on taunts:
Quote:
Taunt will exist but as an effect rather than a power. It is only one style of “tanking” and not a requirement to effectively tank. Taunts may work by reducing the damage a target does to characters other than the taunter.

That info is out of date refarding damage reduction. Taunt like it existed in the old game is not used in CoT. You won’t see “taunt”’in Protection sets. As taunting is but one way to “tank”’for your group.

Taunt is instead a type of control mechanic which affects how powers work (who can be targeted) and does not affext AI directly by force-locking to the taunter. It is also non-binary which means there are gradations to this mechanic.

If you want a tank that acrively “taunts” targets, you will want to take the appropriate Mastery Power(s).


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 38 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

If you want a tank that acrively “taunts” targets, you will want to take the appropriate Mastery Power(s).

Should i must understand that the "holly trinity" Tank/Dps/Support is not really maintained by default ?
I mean, the Protection Set is a tank set isn't it ? or it's just a set of protections with no taunt by default and we must put masteries and refinement to improve the taunts ?

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
TitansCity wrote:
TitansCity wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
If you want a tank that acrively “taunts” targets, you will want to take the appropriate Mastery Power(s).
Should i must understand that the "holly trinity" Tank/Dps/Support is not really maintained by default ?
I mean, the Protection Set is a tank set isn't it ? or it's just a set of protections with no taunt by default and we must put masteries and refinement to improve the taunts ?

It would seem to be the latter. A set of protections with no default taunt but a form of taunting can be obtained through masteries. This means that anyone who has protection as a secondary or a tertiary doesn't become a pseudo tank they just become tougher.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

TitansCity wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
If you want a tank that acrively “taunts” targets, you will want to take the appropriate Mastery Power(s).
Should i must understand that the "holly trinity" Tank/Dps/Support is not really maintained by default ?
I mean, the Protection Set is a tank set isn't it ? or it's just a set of protections with no taunt by default and we must put masteries and refinement to improve the taunts ?
It would seem to be the latter. A set of protections with no default taunt but a form of taunting can be obtained through masteries. This means that anyone who has protection as a secondary or a tertiary doesn't become a pseudo tank they just become tougher.

When they say "taunt" they mean the mechanic of forcing NPC's to attack you and only you, a.k.a the snap-aggro ability.

I'm sure they will have some form of threat table were threat can be generated and maintained through a few means so that tanks can fairly easily be the "center of attention" in encounters, but it won't be done by a default taunt mechanic as it was in CoH. Here tanks will have to actively work at being top of the threat table.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Stalwart Masteries:

Stalwart Masteries:
Living Target: You are best at drawing your enemy's attention away from allies.

Bruiser: Your attacks help debilitate foes over time.

Battle Leader: When your allies focus on you, their attention improves your ability to defend them.

Ruggedness: You can shrug off more damage.

Protector: Your team strengthens your resolve.

Grabbed this from the compilation of info thread. Seems that battle leader will likely grant you the aggro of allies targetting you, and living target would be a big ol' threat generator. The rest seem to offer just damage mitigation which is a tanks job. Not too sure about protector though...

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Stalwart Masteries:
Living Target: You are best at drawing your enemy's attention away from allies.
Bruiser: Your attacks help debilitate foes over time.
Battle Leader: When your allies focus on you, their attention improves your ability to defend them.
Ruggedness: You can shrug off more damage.
Protector: Your team strengthens your resolve.
Grabbed this from the compilation of info thread. Seems that battle leader will likely grant you the aggro of allies targetting you, and living target would be a big ol' threat generator. The rest seem to offer just damage mitigation which is a tanks job. Not too sure about protector though...

I got a different impression from Battle leader. First, my impression requires an assumption to be true. The assumption is that we will have the ability to set a focus target. This is nearly a standard feature in MMO nowadays, but we haven't been outright told it will exist in CoT, so I have to list it as an assumption. So, my impression of Battle Leader is that it applies a damage reduction of some sort to all allies who have you as their focus target. Other games have this feature, typically a body-guard style feature in which the tank character or healer character can pick another target and take some of their damage. In this case, it may be damage sharing, or it may be resistance or subtraction or any other protection mechanic that MWM decides to put in place. That's my understanding of the description for Battle Leader, but it could very well affect the threat meter like you suppose, such that any threat generated by your allies that have you as a focus is shared with you, for instance.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Could be the case. It could

Could be the case. It could be both our interpretations, grants an aggro boost to tank, and a def boost to allies.

Edit: the aggro thing would be nice so that healers don't get targeted for doing their job.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Neither currently grants any

Neither currently grants any change to the Stalwart’s threat rating.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Neither currently grants any change to the Stalwart’s threat rating.

Interesting... Can you shed some light on how they're planned function? Or is it too soon, or something?

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
Neither currently grants any change to the Stalwart’s threat rating.
Interesting... Can you shed some light on how they're planned function? Or is it too soon, or something?

Sorry, I can’t discuss the design functions of the Mastery powers. I just wanted to point out current speculation wasn’t accurate.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 33 sec ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Dang. So close...

Dang. So close...

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 23 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
Yes, we have focus targets.

Yes, we have focus targets. Brain dead to include.

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

AlienMafia
AlienMafia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 09:45
I would like need

I would like need clarification or reason why Blaster (Hunter) wont be available for Issue #0? How come your opting to run 3 support characters and 1 "Damage" type? ( i know about the others just wondering why not go the early city of heroes route)

-AlienMafia (Justice Server)
Main: Thorns 13xx Badges

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
AlienMafia wrote:
AlienMafia wrote:

I would like need clarification or reason why Blaster (Hunter) wont be available for Issue #0? How come your opting to run 3 support characters and 1 "Damage" type? ( i know about the others just wondering why not go the early city of heroes route)

You'll notice there won't be any ATs available at launch with the "Off/Mit" type of powerset either as a Primary (used with the Pets row) or as a Secondary (used with the Manipulation column). My guess is a simple one - they simply decided not to develop that specific type of Off/Mit powerset until after launch. By concentrating only on the broad types of "Offense" and "Mitigation" that fully define the 5 ATs they will launch with they likely saved themselves a bunch of time compared to worrying about one unique AT, in this case the Ranger/Hunter.

Basically instead of a Blaster we'll get the original CoV styled Corruptor and Brute in its place (based on the Masteries we've already seen). I suppose it's up to each player to decide if that's a fair enough trade-off for themselves.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 6 min ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
AlienMafia wrote:
AlienMafia wrote:

I would like need clarification or reason why Blaster (Hunter) wont be available for Issue #0? How come your opting to run 3 support characters and 1 "Damage" type? ( i know about the others just wondering why not go the early city of heroes route)

If memory serves I think this was discussed on the old forum, where the devs explained that it was specifically the Manipulation secondary, which was kind of like 'Control Lite' in the old game. Much like the pet class, to get it right will take some extra time. The lack of the Hunter (Blaster) at launch has been a difficult thing for me to accept, even after all these years. It was by far my favourite AT in the old game, but I understand the reasoning. If we have to choose I'd rather have it done right than done soon.

Spurn all ye kindle.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
AlienMafia wrote:

I would like need clarification or reason why Blaster (Hunter) wont be available for Issue #0? How come your opting to run 3 support characters and 1 "Damage" type? ( i know about the others just wondering why not go the early city of heroes route)

You'll notice there won't be any ATs available at launch with the "Off/Mit" type of powerset either as a Primary (used with the Pets row) or as a Secondary (used with the Manipulation column). My guess is a simple one - they simply decided not to develop that specific type of Off/Mit powerset until after launch. By concentrating only on the broad types of "Offense" and "Mitigation" that fully define the 5 ATs they will launch with they likely saved themselves a bunch of time compared to worrying about one unique AT, in this case the Ranger/Hunter.

Basically instead of a Blaster we'll get the original CoV styled Corruptor and Brute in its place (based on the Masteries we've already seen). I suppose it's up to each player to decide if that's a fair enough trade-off for themselves.

As far as I have understood it Manipulation will be a "light" version of Control, hence why it will not be a primary and why we won't get Control as a secondary, and they want to see how Control pans out before making any Manipulation sets.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Cinnder wrote:
Cinnder wrote:

The lack of the Hunter (Blaster) at launch has been a difficult thing for me to accept, even after all these years. It was by far my favourite AT in the old game, but I understand the reasoning. If we have to choose I'd rather have it done right than done soon.

Well when you look at the chart the only three original CoH ATs that used any version of the "Off/Mit" type powersets was the Blaster (as its Manipulation secondary), the Stalker (as its Manipulation secondary) and the Mastermind (as its Pets primary). Then when you consider how specifically difficult it was to make the Mastermind (with the pet AI) and the Stalker (with its "one-hit-kill" balancing issues) you see the ONLY AT left that was remotely "easy" of the three to create was the Blaster.

So the CoT Devs were left with a choice - should they spend a bunch of extra time trying to get a completely unique type of powerset, the "Off/Mit" (with its traditional mix of Melee, Ranged, Control and "weird" extras like Build Up type powers) working for just ONE AT (the Ranger/Hunter) or should they concentrate on getting the other main categories ("Offense" and "Mitigation") working for the other five ATs they decided to launch with? It seems like the choice was relatively clear.

For what it's worth Blasters were probably not my favorite AT from the old game but they were easily in my top five (I got several of them to 50 before the shutdown) and I feel bad for those players who really loved them. In the long run we'll probably be able to build Ranger/Partisans with enough Melee and/or Control attacks from tertiary powersets to create something fairly close to an old school Blaster.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 23 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Aye. Please understand we've

Aye. Please understand we've yet to put non binary controls through their paces as primaries. Let the Devs get some data to mine and we ALL get a better chance at them getting it right the first time. And also remember control sets will be available as tertiary sets too.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Impulse King wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Aye. Please understand we've yet to put non binary controls through their paces as primaries. Let the Devs get some data to mine and we ALL get a better chance at them getting it right the first time. And also remember control sets will be available as tertiary sets too.

Control Sets won’t be Tertiaries. Manipulation Sets will though .only if the set is a secondary placement will it have a Tertiary version.

And yes, we purposefully held off on the Manip Sets becuase they require some more consideration design wise. Especially considering that sets are designed around a mechanic and not a visual appearance, and the Offensive Maniparions will consist of a variety of effect types.

A Melee Set mainly concentrated on damage but may have other effects. Offensive Manipualtion will have multiple powers from damage to control to buffs and debuffs. Taking those variations and making them work under a cohesive mechanical theme takes time. Having sets designed around a main play style with a cohesive mechanical effect allows us to see how well (or not) everything functions before we try to connect separate main effects under one set .


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
o.O I don't recall Stalkers

o.O I don't recall Stalkers having any Manipulation powers. They had Melee/Defense. They then replaced Taunt in Offense with Placate and another power with a Big Hitter that wasn't made right until much later after release. Their Defense set had a stealth power that replaced, usually a passive or damage toggle.

Where was the manipulation for Stalkers?

.Foresight
.Foresight's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 57 sec ago
Joined: 11/24/2014 - 10:48
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

o.O I don't recall Stalkers having any Manipulation powers. They had Melee/Defense. They then replaced Taunt in Offense with Placate and another power with a Big Hitter that wasn't made right until much later after release. Their Defense set had a stealth power that replaced, usually a passive or damage toggle.

Where was the manipulation for Stalkers?

Ninjutsu had Blinding Powder, Caltrops and Smoke Flash for manipulation.
Dark Armor had Cloak of Fear and Oppressive Gloom.
It wasn't consistent across all sets but it was definitely there.

-The best way to win is to make your enemy do it for you.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Oh, then Scrappers and

Oh, then Scrappers and Tankers had it as well. :)

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

o.O I don't recall Stalkers having any Manipulation powers. They had Melee/Defense. They then replaced Taunt in Offense with Placate and another power with a Big Hitter that wasn't made right until much later after release. Their Defense set had a stealth power that replaced, usually a passive or damage toggle.

Where was the manipulation for Stalkers?

Brand X wrote:

Oh, then Scrappers and Tankers had it as well. :)

You're sort of confusing the collective apples and oranges a bit here.

If you go back and check out the list of Stalker Secondaries on the Titan Network wiki you'll see that even though Stalkers technically used many of the same "defensive" powersets as Scrappers, Tankers and Brutes when you look deeper at each specific powerset page you'll see that the exact "mix" of powers available to Stalkers was always unique to them. This is why in terms of CoT Stalkers have been more correctly listed under the "Off/Mit" column because they technically don't (and never did) share the exact same "formulation" of powers that the other ATs did.

Effectively if nothing else their "Hide" powers were not strictly "mitigation" the same way the other ATs defined that concept. Like Blasters their secondaries were "weirdly unique" to them alone.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Correction there are no “CoT

Correction there are no “CoT stalkers”. Their Protection-Manipulation Sets (which will have a better label than that as it’s a mouth full), won’t have a stealth requirement.

Protection-Manipualtion will be Sets with buffs (based on protections), debuff and / or controls.

Offensive-Manipualtion will be Sets with damage, buffs (based on offense), with debuffs and / or controls.

And things may need to change for Protection-Manipualtion as during development of our current sets it was determined we can have Support Sets also buff the originator. The Enforcer / Support Specification will essentially, be able to pick Support Sets with Protections and also debuffs or the odd control utility.

Which will require revisiting the basic design of Protection-Manipulation in some manner. I have several concepts to explore.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
alright so I have a question.

alright so I have a question. Will there ever be a point where we'll have a specification for a Ranged/Defensive Manipulation ranger?

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 15 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
How is manipulation defensive

How is manipulation defensive? I must've lost something because as I understand manipulation is melee and control

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

McJigg
McJigg's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/06/2016 - 05:14
At this point Defensive

At this point Defensive Manipulation isn't even a part of announced classes. If there was to be such a thing, I assume it wouldn't be explored until all the other announced specialties, including Commander and it's three, were finished.

edit: a word

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 15 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
Then for clarity can we call

Then for clarity can we call it something else :p
Assault: ranged damage melee damage
Manipulation: melee damage and control

Defense and melee? Seige? idk, titles aren't my forte :p

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
For now the labels are

For now the labels are Offensive Manipualtion and Protection Manipulation.

They will likely get changed. I’ve been down this road before with the team internally and trust me when I say, don’t worry about the labels for now, they are what they are.

Read my descriptions of each up thread to understand what they are meant to be designed around and leave it at that.

notears wrote:

alright so I have a question. Will there ever be a point where we'll have a specification for a Ranged/Defensive Manipulation ranger?

There aren’t any plans for such a combination. As I said earlier, Support Sets with buffs will work on the originator, and some come with control utilities. In essence, they provide somewhat similar functions to a protection manip. set up.

When I get to fully designing the protection manip. sets, they will most likely done so with horn Enforcers play in mind with some unique mechanics to differentiate them from Support Sets.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Impulse King
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 23 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 18:55
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Impulse King wrote:

Aye. Please understand we've yet to put non binary controls through their paces as primaries. Let the Devs get some data to mine and we ALL get a better chance at them getting it right the first time. And also remember control sets will be available as tertiary sets too.

Control Sets won’t be Tertiaries. Manipulation Sets will though .only if the set is a secondary placement will it have a Tertiary version.

And yes, we purposefully held off on the Manip Sets becuase they require some more consideration design wise. Especially considering that sets are designed around a mechanic and not a visual appearance, and the Offensive Maniparions will consist of a variety of effect types.

A Melee Set mainly concentrated on damage but may have other effects. Offensive Manipualtion will have multiple powers from damage to control to buffs and debuffs. Taking those variations and making them work under a cohesive mechanical theme takes time. Having sets designed around a main play style with a cohesive mechanical effect allows us to see how well (or not) everything functions before we try to connect separate main effects under one set .

Whoops! That's what I get for posting in a rush. Thanks for the correction Tannim222.

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
desviper wrote:
desviper wrote:

How is manipulation defensive? I must've lost something because as I understand manipulation is melee and control

You can design "manipulation" to mainly be defensive or offensive in nature, that is what makes them defensive or offensive respectively, as in that instead of damaging attacks you get group/personal buffs.

From what I gather Prot-Manip is barely off the drawing board as a concept, compared to Off-Manip which has an established design path and is basically waiting on data from Control before the actual sets can be designed.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Brand X wrote:

o.O I don't recall Stalkers having any Manipulation powers. They had Melee/Defense. They then replaced Taunt in Offense with Placate and another power with a Big Hitter that wasn't made right until much later after release. Their Defense set had a stealth power that replaced, usually a passive or damage toggle.

Where was the manipulation for Stalkers?

Brand X wrote:

Oh, then Scrappers and Tankers had it as well. :)

You're sort of confusing the collective apples and oranges a bit here.

If you go back and check out the list of Stalker Secondaries on the Titan Network wiki you'll see that even though Stalkers technically used many of the same "defensive" powersets as Scrappers, Tankers and Brutes when you look deeper at each specific powerset page you'll see that the exact "mix" of powers available to Stalkers was always unique to them. This is why in terms of CoT Stalkers have been more correctly listed under the "Off/Mit" column because they technically don't (and never did) share the exact same "formulation" of powers that the other ATs did.

Effectively if nothing else their "Hide" powers were not strictly "mitigation" the same way the other ATs defined that concept. Like Blasters their secondaries were "weirdly unique" to them alone.

You mean how Dark Armor for Scrappers/Tankers/Brutes was pretty much the same for Stalkers, except Stalkers got complete invisibility while the others just got a Stealth?

Stalker secondary sets where not manipulation sets. Yes, Ninjitsu had a few manipulation aspects to it as part of it's defense, but Stalker sets weren't that much different than their original sets, with the difference usually being the replacement of one power for a toggle invisibility.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Brand X wrote:

o.O I don't recall Stalkers having any Manipulation powers. They had Melee/Defense. They then replaced Taunt in Offense with Placate and another power with a Big Hitter that wasn't made right until much later after release. Their Defense set had a stealth power that replaced, usually a passive or damage toggle.

Where was the manipulation for Stalkers?

Brand X wrote:

Oh, then Scrappers and Tankers had it as well. :)

You're sort of confusing the collective apples and oranges a bit here.

If you go back and check out the list of Stalker Secondaries on the Titan Network wiki you'll see that even though Stalkers technically used many of the same "defensive" powersets as Scrappers, Tankers and Brutes when you look deeper at each specific powerset page you'll see that the exact "mix" of powers available to Stalkers was always unique to them. This is why in terms of CoT Stalkers have been more correctly listed under the "Off/Mit" column because they technically don't (and never did) share the exact same "formulation" of powers that the other ATs did.

Effectively if nothing else their "Hide" powers were not strictly "mitigation" the same way the other ATs defined that concept. Like Blasters their secondaries were "weirdly unique" to them alone.

You mean how Dark Armor for Scrappers/Tankers/Brutes was pretty much the same for Stalkers, except Stalkers got complete invisibility while the others just got a Stealth?

Stalker secondary sets where not manipulation sets. Yes, Ninjitsu had a few manipulation aspects to it as part of it's defense, but Stalker sets weren't that much different than their original sets, with the difference usually being the replacement of one power for a toggle invisibility.

Ninjitsu was the template other sets shouldnhave followed as it was designed to work with the Stalker AT from the outside of the design. The other sets were not. Often the devs ended up having to add extra code “rules” to certain powers in other sets tonhave them work better around the stealth concept.

The result was, for the most part, sets being hampered by the stealth and assasin strike concepts rather than supporting them. Over time the stalker AT ended up requiring more ways to engage in combat outside of stealth to be effective.

Basically, since most sets were designed from other ATs who were meant to constantly engage in combat, the AT that was designed to not be that way ended up playing that way more often than not.

The basis for our design structure is Ninjitsu. Not exactly designed around stealth or a burst attack, but around the concept of a protection set leveraging controls and / or debuffs with the intention of making them work around a unique unifying mechanic.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
I don't know. I didn't feel

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

It wasn’t about “needing control powers to work” it was the fact that the stalker AT had only 1 Power Set designed from the ground up to work with the concept of the AT.

The other sets weren’t. The result was that over time, the devs had to make changes to certain powers in other sets for stalkers, and had to keep making changes to stalkers to make them more viable in general play (especially wit teams) that moved them away from the core, original concept of the AT.

Had all stalker secondaries been designed as a whole to work with the concept of the AT, all those changes may not have been as necessary as they had become. Instead the sets were shoe-horned with a stealth power and that was pretty much it.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
well we do need a better name

well we do need a better name for them other than "offensive manipulation/ defensive manipulation" likw the other set ypes are all one word, and those two sets aren't and don't really roll off the tongue that well. Maybe we could think of a better name for them?

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 55 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

It wasn’t about “needing control powers to work” it was the fact that the stalker AT had only 1 Power Set designed from the ground up to work with the concept of the AT.

The other sets weren’t. The result was that over time, the devs had to make changes to certain powers in other sets for stalkers, and had to keep making changes to stalkers to make them more viable in general play (especially wit teams) that moved them away from the core, original concept of the AT.

Had all stalker secondaries been designed as a whole to work with the concept of the AT, all those changes may not have been as necessary as they had become. Instead the sets were shoe-horned with a stealth power and that was pretty much it.

See, have to disagree. Ninja Stalkers were considered to be in just as bad of shape as any other Stalker.

It wasn't just secondary. They lacked DPS and the burst they did have, wasn't that great and easily interrupted when trying to use it after the initial attack. And if I recall, it was also a loss of DPS to even use Assassin Strike after a placate in all melee sets except one (think it was Energy Melee).

notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

It wasn’t about “needing control powers to work” it was the fact that the stalker AT had only 1 Power Set designed from the ground up to work with the concept of the AT.

The other sets weren’t. The result was that over time, the devs had to make changes to certain powers in other sets for stalkers, and had to keep making changes to stalkers to make them more viable in general play (especially wit teams) that moved them away from the core, original concept of the AT.

Had all stalker secondaries been designed as a whole to work with the concept of the AT, all those changes may not have been as necessary as they had become. Instead the sets were shoe-horned with a stealth power and that was pretty much it.

See, have to disagree. Ninja Stalkers were considered to be in just as bad of shape as any other Stalker.

It wasn't just secondary. They lacked DPS and the burst they did have, wasn't that great and easily interrupted when trying to use it after the initial attack. And if I recall, it was also a loss of DPS to even use Assassin Strike after a placate in all melee sets except one (think it was Energy Melee).

Well to be fair the Striker would be more like spiderman than anything close to a stalker since there isn't really a stalker like class in the game but rather a night widow build you can try to go for.

notears
notears's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 7 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/04/2013 - 17:24
Also I have an idea for the

Also I have an idea for the names for the manipulations sets if you're interested. Call the Defensive sets "Maneuvers" and offensive sets "Tactics"

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Online
Last seen: 39 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
notears wrote:
notears wrote:

Also I have an idea for the names for the manipulations sets if you're interested. Call the Defensive sets "Maneuvers" and offensive sets "Tactics"

But what if you prefer tactical defense and strategic offense?

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 30 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
notears wrote:
notears wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

It wasn’t about “needing control powers to work” it was the fact that the stalker AT had only 1 Power Set designed from the ground up to work with the concept of the AT.

The other sets weren’t. The result was that over time, the devs had to make changes to certain powers in other sets for stalkers, and had to keep making changes to stalkers to make them more viable in general play (especially wit teams) that moved them away from the core, original concept of the AT.

Had all stalker secondaries been designed as a whole to work with the concept of the AT, all those changes may not have been as necessary as they had become. Instead the sets were shoe-horned with a stealth power and that was pretty much it.

See, have to disagree. Ninja Stalkers were considered to be in just as bad of shape as any other Stalker.

It wasn't just secondary. They lacked DPS and the burst they did have, wasn't that great and easily interrupted when trying to use it after the initial attack. And if I recall, it was also a loss of DPS to even use Assassin Strike after a placate in all melee sets except one (think it was Energy Melee).

Well to be fair the Striker would be more like spiderman than anything close to a stalker since there isn't really a stalker like class in the game but rather a night widow build you can try to go for.

That's about how I felt about Stalkers, that they were be just generally worse in DPS performance than the Bane Spider VEAT, which isn't how I felt about the blueside ATs when compared to HEATs. I leveled a Claws/Elec Armor/Mu Stalker who was perfectly acceptable to play, I never felt that it was painful at all. But man, when I rolled a Bane, it was hard to say if I ever played another Stalker again. Despite my initial 'eh' about playing redside, I loved my Arbiter who was amazing at damage, even when not using the stealth mechanic.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Brand X wrote:

I don't know. I didn't feel any of the defense sets as lacking or needing control powers to work, as you could just avoid getting hit, which was needed to get back into Hide.

Willpower was still the best on Stalker imo. I wish my Scrapper could've had the Stalker version, that's how much better I considered it. :)

It wasn’t about “needing control powers to work” it was the fact that the stalker AT had only 1 Power Set designed from the ground up to work with the concept of the AT.

The other sets weren’t. The result was that over time, the devs had to make changes to certain powers in other sets for stalkers, and had to keep making changes to stalkers to make them more viable in general play (especially wit teams) that moved them away from the core, original concept of the AT.

Had all stalker secondaries been designed as a whole to work with the concept of the AT, all those changes may not have been as necessary as they had become. Instead the sets were shoe-horned with a stealth power and that was pretty much it.

See, have to disagree. Ninja Stalkers were considered to be in just as bad of shape as any other Stalker.

It wasn't just secondary. They lacked DPS and the burst they did have, wasn't that great and easily interrupted when trying to use it after the initial attack. And if I recall, it was also a loss of DPS to even use Assassin Strike after a placate in all melee sets except one (think it was Energy Melee).

Part of the reason was because you only had Ninjitsu. The entire rest of the secondaries were designed with more engaged combat ATs in mind and shoe horned with stealth. The majority of stalker designs were unintentionally lead to be played by remaining more engaged in combat rather than using the additional tools that were provided like Ninjitsu had.

This is why they changed Assassins Stike to build a charge for a fast cast and why they adjusted the inherent twice.

But that’s enough of looking backwards, looking forward we have a set design which can be simulated by some Support Sets. And that’s a problem.

We aren’t designing the Prot. manip. around stealth striking. Hence when we do design the sets thatnhave protections and untiliies we need to provide a cohesive mechanic that lends itself to a unique play style.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:
notears wrote:

Also I have an idea for the names for the manipulations sets if you're interested. Call the Defensive sets "Maneuvers" and offensive sets "Tactics"

But what if you prefer tactical defense and strategic offense?

We can’t usenthebterm defense to describe Protections sets because defense is a type of mechanic and we need to avoid confusion.

Neither of the two names lends themselves toward all thebplay styles possibly presented within then secondaries, some of which may have some of those names presented within the set name itself.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Foradain
Foradain's picture
Online
Last seen: 39 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Foradain wrote:
notears wrote:

Also I have an idea for the names for the manipulations sets if you're interested. Call the Defensive sets "Maneuvers" and offensive sets "Tactics"

But what if you prefer tactical defense and strategic offense?

We can’t usenthebterm defense to describe Protections sets because defense is a type of mechanic and we need to avoid confusion.

Neither of the two names lends themselves toward all thebplay styles possibly presented within then secondaries, some of which may have some of those names presented within the set name itself.

"Tactical defense, strategic offense" is a phrase I've read in various military-themed speculative fiction, including Sir Paarfi of Roundwood as translated by Steven Brust (in considerably less concise wording.) In our history, I think it goes back to Moltke, if not further. This is my problem with Notears' suggestion of calling offensive sets "tactics". ^_^

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 min 3 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I believe we will most likely

I believe we will most likely have Offensive Manipulation just be called Manipulation (no legal issues to worry about with that).

As of now, we are way off from worrying about power art name categories for those set types anyway.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 30 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Foradain wrote:
notears wrote:

Also I have an idea for the names for the manipulations sets if you're interested. Call the Defensive sets "Maneuvers" and offensive sets "Tactics"

But what if you prefer tactical defense and strategic offense?

We can’t usenthebterm defense to describe Protections sets because defense is a type of mechanic and we need to avoid confusion.

Neither of the two names lends themselves toward all thebplay styles possibly presented within then secondaries, some of which may have some of those names presented within the set name itself.

"Tactical defense, strategic offense" is a phrase I've read in various military-themed speculative fiction, including Sir Paarfi of Roundwood as translated by Steven Brust (in considerably less concise wording.) In our history, I think it goes back to Moltke, if not further. This is my problem with Notears' suggestion of calling offensive sets "tactics". ^_^

whoa Whoa WHOA, a Steven Brust reference! I thoroughly enjoyed all of his Vlad Taltos novels, and I even recall seeing the name Morrolan e'Drien as someone's name in Secret World Legends. Good shtuff!

DariusWolfe
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 52 min ago
Joined: 09/19/2018 - 06:22
Tactical and Strategic, in a

Tactical and Strategic, in a military context, is mostly about scale. Tactics is smaller scale whereas strategic is larger scale. Squads use tactics, battalions use strategy. You execute tactics right-the-hell-now, and you plan strategies weeks and months out. So "Tactical Defense, Strategic Offense" just means to consider defense on a smaller, more agile, individual-level scale, and consider offense on a broader, larger, longer-term scale.

~ DariusWolfe
Errant, TNT, Vibrant and Fluxion on Liberty

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 15 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
I love it when someone

I love it when someone articulates a feeling I've always had about words :p

Like how presumptions are based on less into than assumption

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 21 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
So, 'Strategic Offense' would

So, 'Strategic Offense' would be 'Pets', or maybe Traps? And 'Tactical Defense' would then be some sort of active Dodge mechanic? This discussion has gone in odd directions.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Pages