Only thing I'm worried about is that when I level new characters, I always use the Nemesis gear and Questionite set secondaries, so I won't have ANY cooldown reduction until I hit lvl 40 and regear my character. DUnno how painful the leveling will be after the nerf.
Not appreciably harder? I mean, you didn't have much cdr to start with, increasing an AD from 72s to 85s isn't going to cripple anyone.
OH I am sure I'LL MANAGE. I was just thinking about this when I leveled my character today who has BCR as a heal. the heal will run out before I can use it again. XD But again, I am SURE it will not make me quit the game.
OH I am sure I'LL MANAGE. I was just thinking about this when I leveled my character today who has BCR as a heal. the heal will run out before I can use it again.
It won't. Its base cooldown is less than its duration with no CDR at all.
OH I am sure I'LL MANAGE. I was just thinking about this when I leveled my character today who has BCR as a heal. the heal will run out before I can use it again. XD But again, I am SURE it will not make me quit the game.
You could just use empathic healing or something... Really underrated heal seeing as it's HPS is probably higher that convi now, it's just you have the maintain it.
Remember when the healing drones were really good and on most PvP builds? Or when regen was the best passive because it's healing was so nice in comparison to alternatives?
The playerbase is just the same now as I remember it was back then. Thing is that since then and until now we lost the last devs we really had, we got moved to C-north where the game was just kept up with lockbox stuff and the odd bit of content such as the rampage system which just ended up increasing the stupidity of power creep, oh and unbreakable being buffed to a MD level with a CD nerf in mind (which never happened until now because crush was moved to NW) caused the game to be left in a stupid state of having the two AD's on rotation being the absolute best thing.
You're seriously delusional if you think the average number of players is close to what it was even a year ago. I mean, maybe there are still the same number of active PvP players (less than a dozen?), but the game in general.. no chance.
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
The playerbase is just the same now as I remember it was back then. Thing is that since then and until now we lost the last devs we really had, we got moved to C-north where the game was just kept up with lockbox stuff and the odd bit of content such as the rampage system which just ended up increasing the stupidity of power creep, oh and unbreakable being buffed to a MD level with a CD nerf in mind (which never happened until now because crush was moved to NW) caused the game to be left in a stupid state of having the two AD's on rotation being the absolute best thing.
You're seriously delusional if you think the average number of players is close to what it was even a year ago. I mean, maybe there are still the same number of active PvP players (less than a dozen?), but the game in general.. no chance.
He mentioned the dodge nerf which was around 2 or so years ago? The size of the player base was the exact same and we were debating almost the exact same issues back then with some differences... <_< Did you even read what I was quoting?
He mentioned the dodge nerf which was around 2 or so years ago? The size of the player base was the exact same and we were debating almost the exact same issues back then with some differences... <_< Did you even read what I was quoting? </p>
I read what was written, and whether you're comparing 1 year or 2 years ago with now, you're delusional if you think the size of the active playerbase is "the exact same". If you're going to make such an unbelievable claim of fact, then how about sharing the evidence upon which you're basing it?
Post edited by quasimojo1 on
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
He mentioned the dodge nerf which was around 2 or so years ago? The size of the player base was the exact same and we were debating almost the exact same issues back then with some differences... <_< Did you even read what I was quoting? </p>
I read what was written, and whether you're comparing 1 year or 2 years ago with now, you're delusional if you think the size of the active playerbase is "the exact same". If you're going to make such an unbelievable claim of fact, then how about sharing the evidence upon which you're basing it?
I could go back and try to find similar forum posts about how small the player base is. From my observations we get just as many people in MC at one time than we did from what I had "observed" back 2 years ago. The game had been kept around the same 200-300 playerbase for years now... I honestly can't see how that is being delusional. Right now we are in a period where people have left the game due to either waiting for the nerf or left because of the nerf (from my personal observations) however it hasn't actually hit yet neither has the new update.
I honestly don't know the relevance of your comment to the OP, it seems like you took one part of one of my comments out of context and used it aggressively for no reason. Maybe there are actual stats somewhere (???) of how the playerbase is looking although I don't know of any true representation of the number of players at a time unless cryptic themselves put out numbers to the public. ARC numbers miss out steam uses and users that use neither like I and probably many others.
It's gradually decaying, but not especially fast, and not at a rate that needs any explanation other than "old game getting older".
You may not need or care about explanations, but that doesn't mean that such explanations don't exist. If you believe that the population is guaranteed to just steadily decay despite anything the developers do or don't do, then it surprises me that you'd be so active in arguing what actions you think they should take -- after all, it's not going to make any difference, right?
Time/shelf-life is a factor. But developer/publisher actions, including customer service, promotional activity, changes to content and gameplay, and yes widespread nerfs, are much more important factors.
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
You may not need or care about explanations, but that doesn't mean that such explanations don't exist.
There is nothing to explain. The population decay is adequately explained by "no content updates since Steel Crusade". There's basically no evidence that nerfs matter to MMO population; if anything, shaking up the meta gives people new things to do.
You may not need or care about explanations, but that doesn't mean that such explanations don't exist.
There is nothing to explain. The population decay is adequately explained by "no content updates since Steel Crusade". There's basically no evidence that nerfs matter to MMO population; if anything, shaking up the meta gives people new things to do.
In my opinion just shaking up the meta should not be a goal. And while CDR has been overperforming for certain powers and could use a diminishing return, I think this nerf has left more individual powers in need of some adjustments than before before the nerf.
I would have preferred a diminishing return to CDR somewhere between 50% and 75%, and adjustments to individual powers that are overperforming.
All none of it? Because I see a lot of no good done.
It got us one step towards the game being challenging, and slightly flattened the difference between good and bad builds. Still got a ways to go though.
You're seriously delusional if you think the average number of players is close to what it was even a year ago. I mean, maybe there are still the same number of active PvP players (less than a dozen?), but the game in general.. no chance.
Signature:
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
It was only an issue to PvPers, and again, Crowd Control bruised and sobbing on the floor where PvP-influenced changes left her.
WHile I agree its not a great thing, "baby with the bathwater" and "not worth the cost" come to mind.
If that's the case, then great, more balanced duels to be expected.
As for PVE? Doesn't change a thing. Oh wait, it changes not relying on AD rotation as a cop-out with no drawbacks to make up for inherent trade-offs in player choices to do with build design. Last I checked the game was perfectly playable and builds still have the potential to be viable and even potent without relying on AD rotation. I have never made a build with more than one AD. Never. Somehow I've still managed to make builds that could hold out on their own, be it defensive or offensive types. I don't consider myself a min-maxer nor a genius at build-making either.
If you opt to go with an offensive passive centered build then you're expected to accept the trade-off of being less durable than a defensive one and make certain build concessions to make up for being less durable, for the boost in damage output you're getting that a defensive build does not enjoy. When something obviously broken and cheap like AD rotation suddenly makes that offensive build comparable or even superior to a defensive one in terms of durability while completely nullifying said trade-off then that's obviously something that needs to be addressed.
ADs give instant significant buffs for no energy cost and have long cooldowns as trade-offs. You are expected to suffer a cooldown penalty as another trade-off if you want to use more than one AD. Players were never meant to cycle through them as easily as flicking multiple switches in succession. The design intent was obvious at first glance. That penalty was never meant to be overridden.
It matters because AD rotation entirely goes against how ADs were intended to be used, as panic buttons you use in a desperate situation only every once in a while? It matters because you're not supposed to rapidly cycle through them without spending energy that other powers require?
And just because a portion of the playerbase who have grown too comfortable choosing to utilize a design flaw with the game that yields unintended and powerful results that objectively break a certain aspect of game balance gets ticked off, doesn't mean that the nerf isn't necessary.
Eh this is dicey. From the standpoint of a potentially returning customer all of this gives me pause. Most people can make really good characters that will survive pve. Others do fail. Spent 5 years playing a rezzer till a certain device invalidated my build.
I've been playing my tertiary account just to see the lay of the land after a year but seriously nerfs and no commitment to content....maybe instead of stat tinkering they could reskin an old map and give us a new mission. Guinea pigs. All of us.
Don't use stats in a way that creates roles. We are NOT Coh.
We're lacking context here. The plan right now is for them to add new content. Onslaught and beyond.
If we're to give them the benefit of the doubt then it's likely that the devs were faced with several tough choices....all of which had consequences of their own. They chose to nerf CDR likely because it was the best option they had in anticipation of the new content.
I cannot see any reason for a broad nerf to a basic mechanic except for the addition of content. If that's what it takes to roll out the content and make it playable by more people then I'm all for it. Ultimately any sweeping nerf will suck in varying degrees for people and the effects that this has on ATs and some powers will need to be addressed....but this is more about setting a new baseline by going after the underlying issue and *then* fixing individual problems that arise.
You're seriously delusional if you think the average number of players is close to what it was even a year ago. I mean, maybe there are still the same number of active PvP players (less than a dozen?), but the game in general.. no chance.
Signature:
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
The irony.
Yes, my signature quote is excellent; thanks for noticing. Let me help you understand how it applies here:
1.) I wasn't the one that made the extraordinary claim being referenced that game population is the "exact same" as it was 2 years ago, so the burden was not on me to provide any data.
2.) If I make a claim of fact that is obvious to a reasonable person like, "The year is 2015", I probably wouldn't bother supporting it with evidence, even though evidence widely exists. People that want to argue about such things are often self-identifying as unreasonable and not worth the effort. "CO's active population has been declining" is in this same category of facts that should be obvious to a reasonable person.
3.) If you really can't see it, there are resources like SteamCharts that show trends of a significant sample of the playerbase. You can also corroborate it with things like the number of zone instances fighting Mechanon this year compared to last year.
Finally, unlike a lot of forumites, I understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I do, in fact, express a lot of opinions.
I hope this helps you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Post edited by quasimojo1 on
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
We're lacking context here. The plan right now is for them to add new content. Onslaught and beyond.
If we're to give them the benefit of the doubt then it's likely that the devs were faced with several tough choices....all of which had consequences of their own. They chose to nerf CDR likely because it was the best option they had in anticipation of the new content.
I cannot see any reason for a broad nerf to a basic mechanic except for the addition of content. If that's what it takes to roll out the content and make it playable by more people then I'm all for it. Ultimately any sweeping nerf will suck in varying degrees for people and the effects that this has on ATs and some powers will need to be addressed....but this is more about setting a new baseline by going after the underlying issue and *then* fixing individual problems that arise.
Hey Kamokami,
You're being reasonable and optimistic, and I can respect that. This was similar to my point of view several years ago, when I was in a similar position of defending Cryptic's decisions to broadly nerf devices, and later dodge mechanics. Personally, based upon their history, I can no longer give Cryptic the benefit of the doubt. I believe they implemented the CDR change the way they did because someone thought it was the easiest solution, not the best one. Perhaps this time is different, and they will quickly follow up with additional rebalancing efforts to bring underperforming mechanics up to the baseline (but I doubt it). They could certainly diminish a lot of nay-saying by being more open about their longer term plans, if they do in fact have some.
Kudos to you for keeping the faith though; the game and forums need more folks like you.
LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
This was similar to my point of view several years ago, when I was in a similar position of defending Cryptic's decisions to broadly nerf devices, and later dodge mechanics.
I think most people agreed the device nerfs were needed, the biggest problem with that one was that is was ignored so long.
At the same time they did the dodge nerfs, a few powers like LR and parry did get big buff. To the point that after the dodge changes it's far easier to get to 100% dodge chance for LR builds.
Yes, my signature quote is excellent; thanks for noticing. Let me help you understand how it applies here:
1.) I wasn't the one that made the extraordinary claim being referenced that game population is the "exact same" as it was 2 years ago, so the burden was not on me to provide any data.
Actually, since you chose to act all pompous and outright dismiss someone as "delusional", and you yourself have confidently and factually stated that there's "no chance" of it being possible, I'd like to see your data that supports your own "extraordinary" claim that validates you calling someone delusional.
2.) If I make a claim of fact that is obvious to a reasonable person like, "The year is 2015", I probably wouldn't bother supporting it with evidence, even though evidence widely exists. People that want to argue about such things are often self-identifying as unreasonable and not worth the effort. "CO's active population has been declining" is in this same category of facts that should be obvious to a reasonable person.
On the other hand, CO's active population might just be fluctuating with up and down spikes. Players stop playing all the time due to various reasons, new players take their place, and older ones who have previously taken a hiatus feel the desire for another run. That might be more plausible, because if the active population has been outright declining for the past one or two years, and since apparently CO's player pop isn't that stellar to begin with, maybe, just maybe, we would have seen absolutely zero players by now, which hasn't happened.
3.) If you really can't see it, there are resources like SteamCharts that show trends of a significant sample of the playerbase. You can also corroborate it with things like the number of zone instances fighting Mechanon this year compared to last year.
Not everyone uses Steam to run the game, therefore it's incomplete data to draw any sort of objective conclusion on pop numbers.
Zone instances don't count for players who are temporarily offline due to RL downtime. Not everyone is from the same timezone so active playtimes vary. It is nowhere near a reliable means of actually determining player activity unless every single active player logs in at the exact same time to play.
What's interesting is there are now a fair few threads that all are on the exact same topic, people end up blurring the OP's until all of them have become the exact same threads.
The CDR nerf will not remove AD/AO rotations, having 2 of each is still twice as effective as having 1.
Was the one that made me think this as it's kind of funny with the OP.
People still miss the point that with the nerfs other powers are stronger in comparison and due to diminishing returns AoAC and REC primary are both much stronger options now... There's some good.
The CDR nerf will not remove AD/AO rotations, having 2 of each is still twice as effective as having 1.
I don't expect rotations to disappear. If what they're doing makes it much harder to supercede the 30s global AD cooldown penalty then that's something.
All none of it? Because I see a lot of no good done.
Nothing's improved. At all. All it achieved was alienating swaths of the playerbase.
Well now you have one less button you press constantly. Your finger will hurt less at the end of the day. And since combat might last a little longer that means you'll get to see your character beat the baddies up more.
And if you're getting a little mad, just remember to clap. CLAP, so you don't SNAP!
AWWWW CHAMPIONS UNIVERSE! DON'T YOU DARE. BE SOUR. CLAP FOR YOUR NIGHTMARE AND FEEEEEEEEEEEL THE POWAAAAAAH!
I fear this is getting a little derailed... If you need me I'll be in my bucket.
Anyway, as I said the entire point in the OP is that AoAC and Rec primary is a lot more useful now as I said in my previous post. Although the OP was meant to just be a bit of fun. <_<
The OP and title are about some of the advantages of the CDR nerfs in particular in relation to AD’s. Posts about some disadvantages and alternatives seem completely on topic to me. But it would have probably been better if a controversial subject like this had been kept to one thread.
The OP and title are about some of the advantages of the CDR nerfs in particular in relation to AD’s. Posts about some disadvantages and alternatives seem completely on topic to me. But it would have probably been better if a controversial subject like this had been kept to one thread.
The title was a joke name for the video and the op generally just put a side note of "I think the nerf is amazing" although the main point was the video and how AoAC and REC primary are stronger. Some of the posts are more on topic than others though I would agree, I think I was mainly referring to people resulting in flaming at each other over each others opinions. Most of what everyone has said is just being repeated and repeated over and over, there's only so many of us on the CO forums so it really is just a matter of us waiting for the nerf to hit now and we'll see how it is. I personally would have totally preferred the nerf to come out weeks ago but I can see why they want to release it with the update.
Thanks! I hope you and the mudkipz are right. All of these wonderful abilities and powers, all the customization, this will always be my favorite game and community.
I will however still yell like a loon at the devs on a bi monthly basis re: playable content
It really depends, if they plan on doing more balance changes I would prefer they take all the time they need. If this is going to be all they do, I would rather get it over with and see how things play out.
And as long as it's on PTS I consider it a WIP for which they like more feedback. But if all that feedback is going to be ignored anyway, it will only make me feel worse about things.
You're being reasonable and optimistic, and I can respect that. This was similar to my point of view several years ago, when I was in a similar position of defending Cryptic's decisions to broadly nerf devices, and later dodge mechanics. Personally, based upon their history, I can no longer give Cryptic the benefit of the doubt. I believe they implemented the CDR change the way they did because someone thought it was the easiest solution, not the best one. Perhaps this time is different, and they will quickly follow up with additional rebalancing efforts to bring underperforming mechanics up to the baseline (but I doubt it). They could certainly diminish a lot of nay-saying by being more open about their longer term plans, if they do in fact have some.
Kudos to you for keeping the faith though; the game and forums need more folks like you.
Thanks! I've been in that boat too and might come back to it depending on what happens in the next few months. The game has seemingly changed a lot of hands though and that results in uncertainty on both the positives and negatives. I've chosen to be optimistic for now haha.
Longer fights for no reason but to appease the tryhards is tedium, however.
Why not just make it so villains are automatically defeated when you come without 100', and not bother with any of this 'fighting' stuff to start with? The way you make fights not tedious is to make it so you have to think while doing them, and that means a big buff to NPCs (particularly offense) and/or a big nerf to PCs (particularly survivability).
Boss fights, all well and good. Having to "stop and think" to fight trash mobs is just tedious.
You use cooldown powers on trash mobs? I just spam lead tempest or whatever; sure, I might get a marginal increase in dps from something else, but why bother?
Boss fights, all well and good. Having to "stop and think" to fight trash mobs is just tedious.
If you want to play inefficiently, there are ATs for that. Play those and quite trying to ruin freeform.
The game is not designed to support fancy tactics and maneuvers. The A.I. is, on average, dumb as a post, and the ones that aren't tend to be obnoxious. The efforts at "increasing challenge" - Graviturd's RNG BS, lockouts, etc. - have all been, to date, the epitome of fake difficulty, and have shown why trying to force 'hard' content into the game is completely wrongheaded.
Freeform isn't ruined by the nerf. Not by a long shot.
No one's being a tryhard by expecting some level of difficulty or challenge, or when they recognize something being glaringly broken and needs some adjustment to balance things out a little. Also I don't recall using freeform meaning being entitled to steamroll over everything by default, much less rampage alerts that expect 10-man teams to participate in them.
Comments
my deviantart: http://zemmax89.deviantart.com/
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
@zemmax89 in game, former @Pallih
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Remember when the healing drones were really good and on most PvP builds? Or when regen was the best passive because it's healing was so nice in comparison to alternatives?
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
I honestly don't know the relevance of your comment to the OP, it seems like you took one part of one of my comments out of context and used it aggressively for no reason. Maybe there are actual stats somewhere (???) of how the playerbase is looking although I don't know of any true representation of the number of players at a time unless cryptic themselves put out numbers to the public. ARC numbers miss out steam uses and users that use neither like I and probably many others.
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Time/shelf-life is a factor. But developer/publisher actions, including customer service, promotional activity, changes to content and gameplay, and yes widespread nerfs, are much more important factors.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
In my opinion just shaking up the meta should not be a goal. And while CDR has been overperforming for certain powers and could use a diminishing return, I think this nerf has left more individual powers in need of some adjustments than before before the nerf.
I would have preferred a diminishing return to CDR somewhere between 50% and 75%, and adjustments to individual powers that are overperforming.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
The irony. No more AD CDR rotation cheese = improvement.
As for the "swaths" of the playerbase being alienated, eh, slippery slope.
As for PVE? Doesn't change a thing. Oh wait, it changes not relying on AD rotation as a cop-out with no drawbacks to make up for inherent trade-offs in player choices to do with build design. Last I checked the game was perfectly playable and builds still have the potential to be viable and even potent without relying on AD rotation. I have never made a build with more than one AD. Never. Somehow I've still managed to make builds that could hold out on their own, be it defensive or offensive types. I don't consider myself a min-maxer nor a genius at build-making either.
If you opt to go with an offensive passive centered build then you're expected to accept the trade-off of being less durable than a defensive one and make certain build concessions to make up for being less durable, for the boost in damage output you're getting that a defensive build does not enjoy. When something obviously broken and cheap like AD rotation suddenly makes that offensive build comparable or even superior to a defensive one in terms of durability while completely nullifying said trade-off then that's obviously something that needs to be addressed.
ADs give instant significant buffs for no energy cost and have long cooldowns as trade-offs. You are expected to suffer a cooldown penalty as another trade-off if you want to use more than one AD. Players were never meant to cycle through them as easily as flicking multiple switches in succession. The design intent was obvious at first glance. That penalty was never meant to be overridden.
It had to be addressed and fixed eventually.
And just because a portion of the playerbase who have grown too comfortable choosing to utilize a design flaw with the game that yields unintended and powerful results that objectively break a certain aspect of game balance gets ticked off, doesn't mean that the nerf isn't necessary.
I've been playing my tertiary account just to see the lay of the land after a year but seriously nerfs and no commitment to content....maybe instead of stat tinkering they could reskin an old map and give us a new mission.
Guinea pigs. All of us.
Don't use stats in a way that creates roles. We are NOT Coh.
They are supposedly planning other things.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If we're to give them the benefit of the doubt then it's likely that the devs were faced with several tough choices....all of which had consequences of their own. They chose to nerf CDR likely because it was the best option they had in anticipation of the new content.
I cannot see any reason for a broad nerf to a basic mechanic except for the addition of content. If that's what it takes to roll out the content and make it playable by more people then I'm all for it. Ultimately any sweeping nerf will suck in varying degrees for people and the effects that this has on ATs and some powers will need to be addressed....but this is more about setting a new baseline by going after the underlying issue and *then* fixing individual problems that arise.
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE
1.) I wasn't the one that made the extraordinary claim being referenced that game population is the "exact same" as it was 2 years ago, so the burden was not on me to provide any data.
2.) If I make a claim of fact that is obvious to a reasonable person like, "The year is 2015", I probably wouldn't bother supporting it with evidence, even though evidence widely exists. People that want to argue about such things are often self-identifying as unreasonable and not worth the effort. "CO's active population has been declining" is in this same category of facts that should be obvious to a reasonable person.
3.) If you really can't see it, there are resources like SteamCharts that show trends of a significant sample of the playerbase. You can also corroborate it with things like the number of zone instances fighting Mechanon this year compared to last year.
Finally, unlike a lot of forumites, I understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I do, in fact, express a lot of opinions.
I hope this helps you. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
You're being reasonable and optimistic, and I can respect that. This was similar to my point of view several years ago, when I was in a similar position of defending Cryptic's decisions to broadly nerf devices, and later dodge mechanics. Personally, based upon their history, I can no longer give Cryptic the benefit of the doubt. I believe they implemented the CDR change the way they did because someone thought it was the easiest solution, not the best one. Perhaps this time is different, and they will quickly follow up with additional rebalancing efforts to bring underperforming mechanics up to the baseline (but I doubt it). They could certainly diminish a lot of nay-saying by being more open about their longer term plans, if they do in fact have some.
Kudos to you for keeping the faith though; the game and forums need more folks like you.
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
At the same time they did the dodge nerfs, a few powers like LR and parry did get big buff.
To the point that after the dodge changes it's far easier to get to 100% dodge chance for LR builds.
Zone instances don't count for players who are temporarily offline due to RL downtime. Not everyone is from the same timezone so active playtimes vary. It is nowhere near a reliable means of actually determining player activity unless every single active player logs in at the exact same time to play. Except when you voice your opinion as a fact without much to back it up. Yeah, okay.
People still miss the point that with the nerfs other powers are stronger in comparison and due to diminishing returns AoAC and REC primary are both much stronger options now... There's some good.
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
And if you're getting a little mad, just remember to clap. CLAP, so you don't SNAP!
Yeah please continue being a pompous -insert explicit of choice-. You have my congratulations too.
Anyway, as I said the entire point in the OP is that AoAC and Rec primary is a lot more useful now as I said in my previous post. Although the OP was meant to just be a bit of fun. <_<
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
A Playlist of my CO PvP video's (starting from post nerf PTS team duels)
Thanks! I hope you and the mudkipz are right. All of these wonderful abilities and powers, all the customization, this will always be my favorite game and community.
I will however still yell like a loon at the devs on a bi monthly basis re: playable content
And as long as it's on PTS I consider it a WIP for which they like more feedback. But if all that feedback is going to be ignored anyway, it will only make me feel worse about things.
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
No one's being a tryhard by expecting some level of difficulty or challenge, or when they recognize something being glaringly broken and needs some adjustment to balance things out a little. Also I don't recall using freeform meaning being entitled to steamroll over everything by default, much less rampage alerts that expect 10-man teams to participate in them.
ITT:
What it Should Be: