Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/30/21 in all areas

  1. We understand that this change is not one that most people will like. The patch notes are, I am afraid, a bit misleading. The duration of the power was changed to 60s, something that matches the duration of other origin pool T5s, but this is not done to match those. Internally, the team has agreed Rune of Protection has been an over-performing power for as long as it's been around. It is one of those powers that made it out a bit unfinished due to the circumstances of the game shutdown (specifically, it never actually graduated to the live servers). All new Origin Pool T5s have been de
    9 points
  2. I feel I need to chip in here as well. Keep in mind these are just my personal views, not a sign of any plans we may have. I usually give Powerhouse a hard time when nerfing things and really do push him to ensure it’s justified - but there’s just no real ground to stand on here to oppose the nerf to RoP. There are some unrelated concerns which may certainly be valid but are not reasons to keep RoP in its current state: The rest of Sorcery is underwhelming: I agree with this. Perhaps it would’ve made more sense to adjust RoP at the same time Sorcery was looked at, but the
    9 points
  3. I have to agree with Scary (but not Scariest) Sai and Blackbird71. I think many of us understand and appreciate that overperforming things might eventually get tuned down and underperforming things might hopefully be tuned up. And players generally prefer the boosts and dislike the nerfs. But it would be helpful to know what is considered "overpowered"? How is that defined or measured? I have a handful of characters with Rune. Most of my guys don't have it because I prefer certain powers from other pools and I can only have so many. While I consider all of my chara
    8 points
  4. After resolving the <2mph discrepancy mentioned earlier in the thread, this a comparison between live and beta, with no other set bonuses or buffs (outside of unslotted Swift): Live Beta Fly (0 IO) 58.63 58.97 Fly (1 IO) 58.63 73.62 Fly (0 IO) + AB/EvMa (0 IO) 70.69 70.69 Fly (1 IO) + AB/EvMa (0 IO) 72.95 83.35 Fly (0 IO) + AB/EvMa (1 IO) 70.69 75.67
    8 points
  5. Factual Answer Warning: Because they asked for our feedback.
    7 points
  6. I still don't understand why you would ever think that. What was the methodology to test it, numbers, what scenarios does it overperform, and how is it any more game breaking than all the crazy garbage we can do with other powers? To me, and I consider myself one of the better character builders out there, it sounds like a disconnect from reality. It reminds me of when toxic dart took a hit because t1/t2s could be forgoed in favor of it, or how weaken resolve was just kind of randomly reduced. Just sort of arbitrary and not rooted in any meaningful gameplay
    7 points
  7. Seems like a lot of effort given to moderating this thread to keep it "focused". Wouldn't it be easier to just state the reasoning behind the change to RoP so that the community can indeed discuss the issue in a focused manner instead of randomly speculating? Keeping us in the dark seems to be fueling a lot (most?) of the rambling back and forth. And while better communication "going forwards" is wonderful, that doesn't necessarily preclude better communication right now about the issue at hand. :) Thanks again for Fold Space!!!
    7 points
  8. So is RoP off the table? Are we beating a dead horse here? There has been zero developer response on how they feel about feedback given or any additional insight on why this direction on pool power balance was taken. I think many of us, regardless of our personal stances, were just hoping for more communication between developer and playerbase. Especially for a change that could be setting precedent for future changes and balance decisions. We are stuck making assumptions on developer motives because of a lack of clarity on their thought process with this one. I think most will agr
    7 points
  9. When the HC devs constantly insist that we present numbers and testing in our feedback on game changes, it only stands to reason that we also insist on numbers and testing to justify those changes in the first place. What does it being a volunteer team have to do with requesting a consistency of standards in communication about changes to the game? Are we not also volunteering our time to test their changes and provide feedback? Should that not also receive consideration?
    6 points
  10. That's only one problem we, as players, are having here. The other is that it appears that even with feedback that has a directed focus, it doesn't matter what we say unless we agree with the change. RoP is turning into the same case that Energy Melee (I'm aware I was a minority there, admittedly), Nin's Speed Bonus, and Blaster Secondary range "normalization" is: a change that's happening no matter what anyone says about it. Telling us why nerfing a niche pick in a weak Pool, turning it into just another "who cares" power, particularly when compared to the popular, build-defining
    6 points
  11. People who are fine as-is rarely make threads complaining about how awful everything is.
    6 points
  12. It's a bit late, but, I agree if the dev team has their mind set they should come out and say it straight out rather than let things progress for pages and pages. I don't take RoP, never did. Saw I could alternate it etc etc, but didn't like the Sorcery pool. So I have no beef in this, no vested interested either way. But. Jimmy, I've said this in the other thread and I'll repeat it. All this constant effort achieves one thing and is add things to the pile that players never take other than on a lark. What is the point of saying we have 150 power pick
    5 points
  13. They can do whatever they want at the end of the day, but if you expect people to just lie down and go "oh ok, we're nerfing something that doesn't seem that OP for no reason, neat. I'll just ignore all the flaws with the reasoning provided!" without protest, you should know better. The lack of any baseline or information that lead up to guiding this decision makes it seem to an onlooker that the reasoning is incredibly arbitrary. Even in this post meant to clarify the issue, it is incredibly vague.
    5 points
  14. First, thank you for taking the time to explain the rationale behind nerfing RoP. At least we now understand the reasoning behind it. Second, there is perhaps a different perspective at work when evaluating RoP. On the one hand, selecting it means accepting hefty tradeoffs and it's finicky to use. But, with other origin power pool T5s (and armor T9s) being broadly less appealing than RoP, when looking one power at a time, it is (understandably, even predictably) challenging to avoid judging RoP without the "anchoring effect" affecting one's assessment. The significant
    5 points
  15. What I'm reading is "we have an official stance on the strength of pool powers, and that is that they cannot be that good." Am I getting that right? Because if that's how you guys feel, it'll surely guide a lot of conversations that take place on these forums. Nows a good time to clear that stance up. Side note, but I'll just go ahead and say the discussions between the 'value and strength of powers', and 'lack of challenge' in this game are two different conversations, and your conflating them needlessly here.
    5 points
  16. Considering the intense desire for commenting on the Rune of Protection change--and that it is overwhelming any feedback on the other changes--I suggest it be split into its own "Feedback" thread that can allow the community to express its support and/or frustration.
    5 points
  17. Straight from the back parking lot of Crey Industies: Crey’s Dumpster. (The gears and screws popping off of him are hard to see, but he also has the Clunker aura.)
    5 points
  18. My only complaint is moving so much of the speed from evma to fly means more of that speed surpresses after an attack. I think build 3 overcorrects and should probably go back to something closer to what the earlier builds were doing with evma, but if it stays this way for the purposes of pure travel, it's really no big deal. Rather not see such a cool power be relegated to garbage status like acrobatics.
    5 points
  19. Don't get me wrong, I can't support the idea put forward in the thread. But I do support their right to put it forward all the same.
    5 points
  20. I suspect minds were already made up on the Rune situation before it ever showed up in a patch note... The lack of any sort of commentary makes me think we might as well have been talking to a pile of rocks.
    5 points
  21. Okay think I have something I am happy with. I didn't pick a name yet but I'm thinking along the lines of The Junkyard Avenger, Urban Upcycler, or maybe Scrapheap Savior. EDIT: My thanks to @Icanav for an even better name suggestion than what I was working with, may I present "The Junk Yard Revenger!"
    5 points
  22. Counterargument: in reality, there is no such vacuum. People optimizing builds have set bonuses, Tough, and sometimes Epic/Patron armors. It should be reasonable to assume that players who are well educated enough to make a decision on the value of incorporating Rune into their build for survivability have to some degree increased their resistances somewhere from 10-30% from the aforementioned sources. My specific example: I have only one character with Rune, a Rad/Rad defender. When I pop Rune, I generally do it for the resists because I am taking a lot of damage, and
    5 points
  23. ... That moment when you realize that you really should *NOT* have given the Fire Controller's imps that package of Jiffy-Pop
    5 points
  24. But in the absence of any discussion related to it, RoP absolutely is the band-aid solution for that problem and it's inequitable to dismiss the underlying concerns because the one solution builders have right now is considered to be overperforming relative to its cousins. Compared side-by-side to certain things (armor t9s, most notably) it is remarkably powerful, but it's also worth noting that the t9 powers in armor sets are largely redundant in terms of the survivability they offer to those archetypes, just like RoP is redundant to them. RoP is an optional choice for squishy archetypes o
    4 points
  25. Hello devs, let's be honest, people LOVE badges (me included) and I had a few ideas for new badges and I was directed from discord to post them here, so, here it is: Defeats: First and foremost a "defeat" badge for defeating all the various AV's (or Hero's) in game. While I know there are many, it's still an achievement for your character to have taken part in defeating the AV/Hero. Can be associated with an already defined and not live badge in point #2 below. Associate the badges that were never implemented. I am sure there are more I don't know about, BUT, the ones I
    4 points
  26. It seems a bit silly to imply the devs should’ve put a glass case and caution tape around the RoP patch note just because a dozen forum users haven’t internalized that their feedback doesn’t equate to law.
    4 points
  27. Positive: The real reasons are revealed, so even this delayed update deserves a thank you from us all, for resolving confusion. Negative: Prior silence plus this note gives no indication that the slightest alteration to the plan will occur as a result of feedback. This feels like a fine way to demotivate qualitative testing and discussion. How am I to know which elements of an update are worthy of full feedback? Could save us this apparent hassle by marking non-negotiable changes, up front, so that "feedback" on them is renamed to "bug reports only". Or am I supposed to still hold out
    4 points
  28. Thank you for providing the actual reasoning behind the rune of protection nerf. I appreciate the answer even though I wholly disagree with the answer. I also want to echo the question: why even include this nerf in a testing/feedback phase? Based on your answers, it very much seems you had no intention on going back on the decision as you are of the opinion that rune was overpowered. It is completely fine to nerf something and have no intention of going back on the decision based on feedback. It’s your game. However, it would have just been better to include it separat
    4 points
  29. It's a conversation. And so far a respectful one. They said they are changing Rune because it's overpowered. We're asking why they think that. Is there a metric? It's a fair question.
    4 points
  30. Firstly, I don't think 'unrelated concerns' is the right wording here, but besides that - honestly, it just feels like you cherry picked the weakest arguments and ignored any relevant cases for power and value that were presented in the various channels we have. Detail would be appreciated, you're being incredibly vague with your back-up of PH's opinion, which leads me to believe there's no actually relevant information besides feelings at play, here. My squishy characters without rune will continue to destroy and never die without rune, my two characters with rune will probably dr
    4 points
  31. 1) Thank you Captain Powerhouse and Jimmy for posting this. 2) I think we all know that the entire binary mez system is this game sucks, but that's something the original developers should have fixed 17 years ago, not something that the current Homecoming developers can really address and still call this game City of Heroes. 3) It amuses me that so many people are so against these changes while so many other people are blowing up the suggestions forum with "This game is too easy!! Please nerf us!!" threads. This goes to show just how difficult dealing with a large numbe
    4 points
  32. I understand deleting/hiding posts that attack people. However, if you're not going to pay any attention to our opinions, if you're not going to tell us why you're nerfing a power, if the changes are going to just go live no matter how many people dislike it, then what's the point of even having a feedback thread at all? For me the change to RoP falls in the "whatever, doesn't matter to me" department. A LOT of others clearly feel differently. Why can't you give them a detailed explanation of why you're nerfing RoP? Why "going forward", why not now?
    4 points
  33. You're completely right. I went back a few more pages and there's definitely some posts which shouldn't have been hidden. It just gets a bit tough to sift through everything when there's constant back-and-forth, so some mistakes have been made with the moderation when people are in a hurry. Rest assured that we do actually read those posts even if they are hidden. I'll try to make sure there's less collateral going forwards. If you could see all the hidden posts you'd disagree 🙃
    4 points
  34. No the prior post to that one which was pointing out that the likely dead silence about the change to RoP was because it was getting changed no matter what was being stated by those who question the change to it. I wasn't personally attacking anyone and from what I can tell this topic has been pretty considerate considering how toxic it could get. I try to interject with levity so to keep things on a civil level. But sure if someone's taking a dig at me I'm grown I can handle it somewhat maturely. And sure anything blatantly off topic use your magic wand. You guys do a pretty
    4 points
  35. It honestly feels like EvMa is struggling to justify its existence after the reasons most people spent a power slot on Afterburner have been pruned away into the new bonus Afterburner power. What good is bonus defense that only works outside of combat? What good is flight control when Hover already provides it, especially since we can now toggle Fly and Hover simultaneously?
    4 points
  36. I assume it's been a while since you've onboarded a new friend to the game? That it's been a while (or never) since you've had that sad wince when your friend tells you they blew their meager cash on the biggest fly enhancements they could find and slotted them into Swift and Fly? Or maybe it's been a while since you looked at the travel sets and realized the catch-22: "these are seriously bad, but there's no room to improve them because all the stats they provide are worthless." And finally: there's the fact they felt like it. And that's always going to be enough cause
    4 points
  37. A lot of personal attacks have been posted (and hidden) recently and innocent posts definitely have been caught in the crossfire. From what I can tell your last post in this thread isn't hidden (I did go through and unhide a few this morning which were mistakenly hidden, though, so you may have missed it). We aren't just hiding people disagreeing with this change - just read through the thread and you'll see that 🙂 New feedback is not beating the dead horse; we are reading and absorbing all the feedback. Back-and-forth bickering with thinly veiled insults isn't doing
    4 points
  38. 4 points
  39. Well, it's back to jump packs to the rest of us who don't squander slots in travel powers. Just like with the new pools it's a lot of time, lots of code hours, lots of talking and testing, for, what? What net gain? Oh, if you're not carefully weighting whether to add another 0.20 EPS or a damage proc you can add that slot to Fly to reach a mission faster for the 5% of the time spent not fighting things. Lord, how can we go from one thumbs up patch to this? No, I get it, It's our turn to be a vocal minority. *water sprays Jimmy* No, bad patch, bad! Awa
    4 points
  40. The funny thing is that every single COH server allows you to softcap, even the ones where the easier changes like VET levels giving you emps and threads, don't exist. I'm yet to find even one where softcapping was removed. That tells me something about what what many COH players prefer. They like where COH is as a game. Call it broken or not but folks wouldn't be here playing this decade old game, if they didn't find it fun. You know fun . . . what a game is supposed to be? I think in all these argument threads, that's something that both sides
    4 points
  41. i feel this is a gross mischaracterization of the dominant argument. the argument as i was presenting and understood from others was not "it has to be amazing to offset what else you have to take", but "it's not amazing, and look at what else we're saddled with while we're taking it" i don't take rune of protection because it's 'overtuned'. i take it because it provides a utility i cannot otherwise get. it also provides a utility whose impact is not directly comparable to the other analogous powers, so its uptime isn't even remotely an apples to apples comparison.
    3 points
  42. This right here is very important. You're correct that this is the argument many opponents of this change are making. But this argument also requires that requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites. And that right there is the part we disagree with. It shouldn't be balanced around carrying three power picks. This is one of the first things I mentioned to Powerhouse after seeing this change, but I quickly realised the problem wasn't RoP being nerfed, it's the other powers which need to be buffed. A
    3 points
  43. You're right in a sense. Not necessarily about the entitlement part, that's your observation and that's fine. I don't agree with that but I digress... You are correct in the sense that we are at the mercy of the HC team's decisions for any changes/alterations made to the server. However, the team is asking for feedback. I would like to think that would include feedback of all kinds, be it criticism or praise, rigorous testing or just insight/ opinion. At the end of day, if the team decided to pack it in, that is their decision and we would all lose our ability to play on these servers and
    3 points
  44. Overperforming as compared to what? Other powers in the same tier that are so bad no one takes them at all except for theme or for a crazy idea? RoP is a very niche power that only specific builds were trying to leverage, and in those builds, RoP was always just part of a cycle of defensive cooldowns like MoG or Shadow Meld in order to maintain some kind of defensive barrier. On top of that, this "barrier" was full of holes and had large moments of time where nothing was up and you were vulnerable. That sounds like a good design to follow, not remove. Compared that to picking Haste
    3 points
  45. I can understand the justification for nerfing RoP based purely on its high value as a choice on squishy archetypes or even ones that just scaled phenomenally well with it (widows and SR tankers get a lot of bang for their buck here, in the absence of needing any actual mez protection). The problem is that squishy archetypes that absolutely would take RoP for the mez protection (every single defender, controller, and MM that I play) are going to feel gutted by this, because RoP has nothing even remotely like it to be compared to. Defense amps and break frees are fine, but annoying
    3 points
  46. Yeah. I was involved in the gaming industry in the 80s and 90s. I worked on quite a few books for Champions 3rd and 4th edition; and at Mayfair Games I was a contributor on Underground and DC Heroes and was line editor of Underground for a short time before the company discontinued the line.
    3 points
  47. Grav/Time controller The Interdimensional
    3 points
  48. In issue 27, the very first accolade I try to get on a hero is the exploration accolade for Atlas Park, which unlocks the long rage teleporter power. Once you have done it a couple times, you remember all the places you need to go: - statue by the supergroup registrar; - portal by Recluse Victory entrance; (both inside city hall), - in front of hero corps guy by SG portal; - somewhere inside the Vanguard foyer, just run around until it awards; - top of City Hall by the flag - top of Atlas's globe - ledge on a random building in the NE quadrant
    3 points
×
×
  • Create New...