Jump to content

PirateCrew

Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by PirateCrew

  1. I've seen the same. In my case, the Storm Blast power Category Five seems to be the source of the buggy movement. Fortunately, Storm Cell wasn't causing any Singularity movement. My testing was done with these conditions and sequence of events: Controller with Gravity Control (L50, incarnated, ). Sentinel with Storm Blast (L50, no incarnate powers). The two characters don't have to be on the same team for the bug to occur. Cimerora zone, L54 Cimeroran Traitors (and many other situations and enemies, but those were on random teams and not a controlled experiment) Enemies are present. Singularity is teleported or otherwise moves into range and attacks them. Gravity controller uses no other powers. Enemies begin to cluster around Singularity. Sentinel casts Category Five, with Singularity and the enemies within the Category Five AoE. Sentinel uses no other powers. Singularity moves out of the Category Five AoE, probably well beyond the AoE's radius, but not as far as a "running" enemy would go. This dramatically reduces singularity's helpful effects, and even worse can cause another spawn group to aggro. If the gravity controller teleports Singularity back into the Category Five AoE, it flees again. Once Category Five disappears, Singularity's behavior returns to normal. When Enemies + Singularity + Category Five are in the same place, Singularity acts as if it's avoiding Category Five.
  2. The "stealth" name, based on its history in-game, implies to me that a second power/stack of the effect would be required to reach full invisibility to typical enemy vision, whether from a stealth IO, Superspeed, or mist/shadow power. Those powers containing the term "invisibility" - such as Superior/Grant Invisibility and old Invisibility - have provided that protection level in a single power, and the "new stealth" pool power now fits that pattern.
  3. The notes are comprehensive and properly convey the broad scope and justification for the changes. Hope I'm not the only one to think that removing the level scaling speed/caps is the hidden gem. I love exemplaring to join PUGs, but cringed while attaching the stone of shame... I support adjustments to Nova/Dwarf forms' travel despite not using them in any builds currently - having to apply multiple in-mission movement methods, in already awkward builds, was partly to blame for my decision to avoid the forms and these ATs generally. I'd want to ensure adequate flight control for Nova form, before I'd consider making new alts for the ATs.
  4. Solid explanation of the changes and reasoning. Based on that, Sorcery is meeting the objectives, in my judgment. I also think these were the right goals for this pool revamp, and worth re-using for any future origin adjustments. Arcane Bolt: a valuable power for those who don't have any other option, and a viable pick for those who have limited options (epics/temps) and want to chain ranged attacks. Thematic. Provides a satisfying impact when Arcane Power triggers the double damage. Spirit Ward: Thank you for applying two of the requested adjustments (EndRed and stronger reactive use). I'll have to try it in PUGs on Live to see if it really works as a life-saver, but as best I can tell, it does at least have a chance at filling this role much better than all prior versions. Still a bit more niche than I'd like, due to the lack of self-buffing, however, with the restoration of RoP to allow more proactive use, the pool as a whole is back to having a reasonable amount of self-protective power...so a SW self buff isn't absolutely necessary. Mystic Flight / Translocation: All good! While I'd also like the option to translocate (at full cost?) without first activating Mystic Flight, I can understand if that's stepping on Teleport Pool's territory too much. Enflame: The removal of the flee effect definitely increases my interest in this power. While I have no positive experiences with prior version of Enflame, this version feels aimed much better than before as an option for someone who wants RoP, but cannot benefit from one of the other prereqs to reach it. It's fitting a completely different bundle of use cases - and I think that's what a mid-tier power should offer. Rune of Protection: is now fairly balanced and back to being effective for more playstyles, especially casual. Concerns from my end are resolved, with the faster application of buffs during the casting and shift back toward some proactive uses. I hope that others' requests for minimal FX animation are addressed, though I personally like the flashy animation. While I'm normally not a fan of immunity to recharge, top-tier self protection powers are one of the few times I agree that it is necessary to keep the powers strong enough to appeal while also balanced for all users. Applying these goals to armor T9s could be well-received.
  5. I figured the controller damage was the limiter on what traditional balance could handle, as that's exactly the use case I had in mind. I am personally ok with Arcane Power, though I would want to keep gimmicks as a sparingly used balancing tactic. Here I feel it's thematic enough to work. The other Arcane Bolt use cases I'm planning (for non-controllers) are more situational, definitely not part of an attack chain. For those, it's Arcane Bolt versus a ranged attack they can get from another source, so the competition is close, and I lean toward the free (no build impact) Blackwand as an equally good thematic option. For those characters, and due to the origin pool lockout, I hesitate to pursue Arcane Bolt since the Sorcery Pool generally is not a good fit for them... Many of my armored chars, no matter how thematically magical, often need to avoid Fly/Hover movement due to only-cast-when-grounded powers and power graphics at foot-level that obscure enemies even after customization. They also gain only very situationally from RoP's anti-mez. All this is fine, since choice exists, but does push Bolt further into its niche. Breaking out of my feeling "Sorcery isn't meant for (most) armored characters" by doing something in-scope for this page would require something like an also-applies-to-self Spirit Ward, I think.
  6. The recent communication and guidance on Arcane Bolt's design goals in the current build, has been excellent. Thank you, Jimmy and Faultline. It has been stated simply, connected to shared goals ('powers being strong independent picks', references to T1/2 relative power), and boundaries have been set ('Damage formulas dictate base damage, bonus damage on powers has to be tied to gimmick mechanics', 'The Arcane Power mechanic exists to allow...'). I think I've been convinced that Arcane Bolt is ready to go, balance-wise. I'd be fine with mild alterations to make Arcane Power function less surprisingly (in exchange for lowered benefit, if required). It might still be a little more niche than I'd like (my prior input), but now I agree it can stand on its own or be skipped cleanly, based on the character's power gaps. Its niche-but-good-for-that-niche design properly supports the pool's overall level of power, and fills the need for a thematic Sorcery-y power that feels satisfying when the bonus damage is present. When I imagine applying this style of communication to RoP, the collaboration might have gotten boosts and focus with guidance like this: "On Live, RoP is roughly X% too powerful when combined with IOs and the full suite of powers/slots at high levels. [optional examples to illustrate]" "Fewer than 5% of characters take it, but this provides little help for tuning, since niche use is where the greatest imbalance occurs." "Combination with Hybrid Melee is of particular concern, since proactive use allows non-armored chars to circumvent mez for [Q minutes] which breaks [design goal]." "Input on the mez system as a whole is not up for discussion in this topic. We [are/aren't] planning to look at it [later time/page]." "However, we'll try to accelerate a Sorcery Pool revamp, the feedback volume was unexpected, please give us a few days." "We think the existing mez and res protection values are solid and are key aspects of RoP, and must remain intact." "We want RoP to be more useful at low levels and less stratifying with highly-IO'd (especially recharge) builds. Its 600s recharge clashes with that goal." "Another goal is to strengthen reactive use of RoP, while ensuring that the bulk of power reduction is to its long-duration proactive use cases." We've kinda been left to guess at many of these for days/weeks, and beg for them - which created a lot of extra posting in addition to whatever would be there from the nerf alone. The above examples are my own guesses from what's been explained or made available to test. That's why I'm probably wrong about a few. I hope the takeaway is that collaboration, or collaborative negotiation, is really tough without more of this, essentially, timely *dev* feedback. So yes, I/we love your feedback! Please also be assured that I and others with the same goals do not want to antagonistically negotiate with you or other players... I understand it can look that way, but we're trying to "negotiate" with the balance of the system, and push goals/options to become clear and shared.
  7. To avoid future distraction here & elsewhere, can / will there be an update to the Beta FAQ to mention this use of Discord for testing purposes? A few hints about what types of feedback are most likely to occur there, in contrast to the forums, would be useful - e.g. rapid prototyping of a short list of options & survey on which to try in next test build, versus the forum being better for bug reporting or long-form testing commentary, etc. Those parameters for RoP would be extremely helpful to know, as soon as they get formulated. Please aim our feedback by setting the bounds on what is negotiable. Should we consider 60s to be the max uptime possible per cast, regardless of the resistance and mez protection values? I also understand that RoP's boundaries might be dependent on the buffs elsewhere in the pool, so a given build for Sorcery may act as a package deal. But in hopes that the powers have been decoupled for simplicity of discussion: Is the previous build's 60s Uptime : 600s Rech still acceptably tuned, if combined with the changes elsewhere in the pool in the current build? If so, can the most preferred means of acceptable tuning (e.g. uptime % on SOs, or max duration) and its target value or range be mentioned, to guide us?
  8. An attempt to rebalance Sorcery has been made, worth a thank you to those involved in the effort. From the way it sounded at first, this effort was not going to happen, so I appreciate the flexibility and extra work done. I'll give the best thoughts I can spare: Spirit Ward - Seems to fit a rare use case / playstyle and feels like a rather steep end cost. I like the idea of providing something different, but think this is going to see very limited uptake and use, like before, but with a more interesting use case for small teams or special-flavor controller/MM builds. A toggle buff to a selected target which *also* buffs the caster, if feasible, would be at least a step closer to what I'd like to see for a revamped spirit ward. I think this would be even more interesting and more widely (5-10%) taken - and used, which is too often a hurdle for powers. With much of RoP's proactive protection stripped away, and recharge slots released back to other uses, I was hoping a modest and balanced portion of that power could be reallocated to Spirit Ward. Arcane Bolt - A fair decision to buff this without any downside attached, as the power was pretty weak. I think I have one char that took this attack, and since I don't even remember which one, please rely on current users' feedback on whether the new numbers feel satisfying powerful. A possible caution - while it's good to offer a ranged attack in the pool for thematic reasons, other than that it's not clear to me who benefits from building this in. Controller maybe, but I would think a fast-recharging ST hold and/or immob may offer better damage and utility for common gameplay situations involving a single target. A mastermind, maybe, but I wouldn't see the knockback as positive, due to potential undesired pet behavior and needing to prevent the bolt's KB in various situations, and I don't need more slots devoted to KB2KD IOs. Maybe rare cases where a meleer doesn't like their epic attack choice for pulling / runner handling, and the free Blackwand clashes with character concept? I could see a health drain effect or modest hold replacing the KB, as a way to broaden its appeal to more ATs. Thus I am not personally inspired to use Arcane Bolt simply from the buffs, but that's ok, as long as a decent number of players are. Mystic Flight / Translocation - End and cast time improvements were noticeable in magnitude, making this a good buff to a power that needed the help. Enflame - Since I've never tried this one, I'll keep my commentary brief; if others now start seeing solid value in it without the use of procs, then I'm happy for them and may consider it in the future. I wouldn't commit much of my time into taking this power unless confident that it was good without procs and thus future-proofed. RoP - well, these changes accomplish *a* goal, but nothing interesting or unique. Its current state could seem deserving of a name change, at least from the perspective of those who took the power on Live as more than an inspiration macro with a pretty icon.
  9. I agree. The first half of my prior answer was worded more as general advice to any reader facing the current limitations, but like you, I'd rather see the sets be adjusted to bring them up to this standard.
  10. The soaring IO set is loaded with endurance reduction at the expense of speed, so that's about what I'd expect to happen. This is one of those cases "Common IO + 2-slot Soaring" might be the best option, if the character's end consumption is manageable and there's no desire to pursue +speed set bonuses elsewhere. If the Soaring set is being considered, then I'm guessing set bonuses *are* on the table, and might approach the cap with just 2 slots of Soaring (3, if the pure EndRed one is also desired). Making extensive use of the travel sets is rather mismatched to the higher-cap Beta designs for SS, SJ, and the Flights, due to that heavy EndRed enhancement. As as anecdote, one of my characters on Live is getting >+6mph from set bonuses according to combat attributes. Heavily IO slotted, to be sure, but the speed bonuses are purely by accident; I didn't go looking for them. As for the devs' intentions, no real comment - except the usual time limitations and risk of tinkering with sets. If it were me, I'd probably have applied different scaling years ago for travel sets as we've seen done for winter sets and purples, added more secondary /special features, and added a 4th IO in each set for more variety, so that both Speed and EndRed could get into diminishing returns territory with four slots of one set. This provides max variety with the 1-3 slot Hami route, several 1-4 slot Set routes, 1-2 slot Commons route, and 1-3 slot SOs route...each having its pros and cons.
  11. The protection may have value, of course. Since I don't use regular Fly or variants in combat on Live (hover only), I couldn't say whether it's making a difference compared to Fly. However, I find that hover's is occasionally inadequate, in a number of cases where the enemy spawns don't seem to normally generate particularly heavy -Fly. So whenever the grounding happens, it's more of a surprise and something that doesn't clearly trace back to a tactical decision, and as already mentioned, I haven't identified a source of more protection as a build choice that I could improve. The effect also seems to persist longer than I would expect (being grounded). Whether Hover's built-in protection is simply being overcome by stacking -Fly, or something odd is happening like the "wobbly" combat attribute stacking, I couldn't say. Unfortunately, it's not a combat attribute I can monitor, so I am not prepared to test it the way I'd like. (And since I was too slow posting, in the best possible way...) That's very useful info, Bopper.
  12. Reason 1: I'm seeing the totality of the offer, not just its speed features. For me, Flight's (the pool) Beta potential includes not being grounded, among other things. And I could be mistaken, but the -Fly protection is unavailable elsewhere, and -Fly effects are more frequently autohit than immobilization. We have at least had options for dealing with Immob. A rare use case, to be sure. I just wish this protection wasn't as separated from hover, or could be more available to mystic flight and other fly-ish tactics. I'm also not suggesting any other posters should value this aspect of EvM any higher just because I do. What unlock's Speed Pool's potential, from this perspective? Combat Jumping or any Immob protection does, plus Slow Resist. A movement power that enemies can disable or neutralize feels way less potent to me, and I'd guess I'm not alone. Otherwise Knives of Artemis wouldn't bother throwing those caltrops...and we wouldn't bother with Winter's Gift +Slow Resist. Reason 2: Focusing on the movement speed angle, I think it's important to consider how many players/characters are only minimally slotting travel powers - and will continue to do so for reasons too complex to detail here; I trust you know these. Applying that logic to my characters, EvM supports Flight pool's speed potential without consuming often-constrained slots (~59 vs ~70 with both unslotted, from Jimmy's "newer build / 2mph fix" post). Since set bonuses vary by character, I'm not yet inclined to fully analyze each, but may place some value on EvM as a boost to reach or reach closer to the flight speed cap. This also counts as bringing forth Flight's potential, to me. So while it's right that sprint doesn't *fully* bring forth Speed pool's potential, it does support it, without requiring a power pick or slots beyond the free one. Swift/Hurdle too, are free and supportive of the full potential of speed/jumping/flight, to varying degrees. EvM fits in this supportive category for me, but requires a power pick of questionable value if used purely for the speed and global IO slot...Reason 1 might help justify it. Stretching even further to get EvM to support alternatives like Mystic Flight would be "flavor-driven", to put it mildly. Comparable build logic provides a pre-IO'ing SS speed value of ~84 from the "Illustrated" topic table (thanks!), without a second power pick.
  13. A portion of debate may involve EvM's presence. Sure, AB effects are partly added to Flight, with accompanying levels of (dis?)pleasure in the precise mechanics. But once again, a second power (EvM in Beta, AB is on Live) is still being offered to bring forth the Flight pool's max potential for certain uses. So that convolutes the question of whether Flight (the pool) is getting buffed appropriately or in balance with other travel pools' options for speedy travel (and combat, and buffs). It ends up as a pretty subjective answer based on what each player / character *was* dipping into these travel powers to accomplish, and what they might do differently in Page 2. I also get the impression we're in a holding pattern for some fixes/adjustments in the pipeline. Bopper's tables have come in extra-helpful for me during the sometimes unexpected shifts in this process.
  14. Yes, Fly alone is getting a large % cap boost, though it can be seen as an aspect of being as low as it was in the first place. It would be strange for me to oppose a boost from running at 10 to running at 50 based on its (seemingly) astonishing 500% gain, while accepting a flight boost of a comparatively "tiny" 50% from a raw 100 to 150. The comparison is more fairly served by noting the raw increases and percentages, and the awareness that bringing things into parity may require bigger buffs to the underperforming powers. The second point of difference is that it's not Fly (Live, alone) vs Fly (Beta, alone), it's Fly+AB (Live) vs Fly+AB+[maybe]EvM (Beta), when we're talking about people trying to improve open-zone travel speeds. For those who care about open zone travel, they very likely took AB on Live. So those players are comparing what they used to use on Live (Fly+AB) to their options on Beta. In this way, the Fly+AB users are losing ground (hah) relative to SS's cap. But whether any of us should care, only the individual can decide. And people who give any weight to feelings of fairness / human psychology in game design, possibly.
  15. While mine is a side note to the direct answer you requested, I'm confident it's a reference to SS deserving a somewhat higher speed and speed cap (or other benefits) as "consideration" for its still mildly inferior vertical capabilities compared to Flight and SJ, across the variety of open-zone travel scenarios that have been noted so far. To those of us whose experience/testing leads us to conclude that SS is being buffed (incorrectly) further than Flight, I think we mostly or entirely agree with the dev team that SS does need some speed advantage, and only question the amount of that advantage.
  16. Thanks, Zepp. The outcome once speed settings are used to highlight maneuvering difference is interesting. This testing matches my experience during regular gameplay, and some tests I did last year on Live, showing only a few similar zones / situations where flight's vertical control gained a noteworthy advantage over SS (and now gains less vs beta SS/momentum). In testing, I tried to focus on common routes involving endpoints like trams, Midnighter Club, badges, and distant mission doors (yes, Citadel, I mean you). If we knew what test cases contributed to the devs' valuing flight higher, maybe any mismatches could be cleared up. Once I added use of the free Jump Pack, I was able to bring SS's performance in Faultline, Boomtown, and all other flight-advantaged routes much closer to Flight, as these areas' jumping requirements were easier to anticipate by vision, in my testing. Didn't help as much in DA, Grandville or Skyway unless I was already familiar with the particular path, say from the old SG portal exit in Sky to the far NE badge or the Moonfire delivery mission contact. I'm not about to tackle the question of whether speeds should be balanced around newbie versus experienced zone travelers. I would tend to agree with your balancing input, though of course I'm in no position to implement them. As-is, > My melee chars that typically SS+CJ are going to feel even more speedy and excellent at maneuvering in the overwhelming majority of situations. > My typically flight-based ranged chars will improve moderately through IO set bonuses that can now apply past the old caps, and either >> some mild improvements via free part-time AB (on those who didn't have it), or >> occasional use of EvM where -Fly was a problem or on a character without other Immob protection. Hover provided (and still does) what combat speed/control I needed. > My Mystic Fliers will improve least of all, just gaining the lifted cap which lets more IO bonuses apply. Those that had SS for stealth may use it in more open zone travel cases. The higher range on the built-in teleport isn't much help for cross-zone travel due to the feeling of lag during activation and endurance consumption that stacks with the flight itself.
  17. Well, unless some hard numbers are provided on these other players supposedly confused, or the misinformation supposedly spread, why would we conclude that there's any problem? Pretty sure it's also been reiterated that without data, opinions and analysis like that aren't nearly as valuable - and possibly worthless. The data is what it is, not "theirs" or "mine", assuming the methodology was correct. It forms a foundation and posters are going to interpret, extend analysis, and give feedback on the basis of it. Analysis is not limited to those who gather a piece of data. Interpretation and analysis isn't automatically valid if it comes from the data-gatherer. My feedback on the travel power changes: With the corrections to flight to ensure unenhanced page 2 flight is always equal or faster than Live flight (as promised in the related topic), I'll call it good enough for me. Extensive personal beta testing or analysis of improvements hold little value to my circumstances, so I will save that for Live and thank the posters here for their efforts. However, I'm not convinced that superspeed deserves to retain/extend as much of its Live or Beta speed advantages over flight, given its now greater vertical usefulness and the ease of navigating most open zone terrain near ground level. SS's additional plus of built-in stealth, ease of combining with Jump Pack, and hasten's existence in that pool, are balanced only partly by Hover's value in my mind, and that's only for ranged characters. Since I tend to utilize a mix of travel powers (except superjump, not a fan of it) but predominantly SS+CJ and flight variants, I am not in a position to care quite as much about relative balance between the two, as long as non-nerfing is confirmed. I can understand why some posters are feeling that flight (or the flight pool generally) is still not getting fairly buffed.
  18. For any of the use cases for which this power was take on Live, and for any of the use cases that have been raised during this discussion of what RoP *could* be. Example use cases: Proactive resistance buff Decent on Live, subpar on Beta. Duration is adequate so as not to feel too clicky. Resistance numbers are fair and broad enough. But does require up to two undesired power picks, heavy internal slotting, and heavy global IO +Rech to work at a level considered worthwhile, when compared to alternatives (play an armored AT, stack defense via IOs, 100% uptime epic armors, P2Win 8hr temps, Eye of the Magus). It resistive nature often limits its usefulness for anyone worried about getting hit at all (squishies who are easily debuffed), anyone with low res cap (scraps/squishies already employing tough + res armors + res set bonuses), or already near a higher res cap (res-based tanks, certain brutes). Proactive anti-mez Decent on Live, subpar on Beta. Again, duration is the key. The resistance is a nice backup, but not critical to employing this strategy. Still has the downside of forced power picks, but internal slotting can be relaxed. Heavy global IO +Rech slotting required to make this feel worthwhile due to the long recharge, but at least the duration is fairly satisfying. Only alternative that works across a similar level range is a P2Win temp, though at least it's a superior option for continuous mez protection. Its pricing is rather steep, and too easily overcome in common situations, for those who agree that non-armored ATs deserve some form of basic mez protection (several alternatives mentioned in this thread), but free basic mez protection + either (breakfrees OR Live RoP OR a reactive RoP) would give all non-armored chars a reasonable path to 80% of the feeling of power/freemy-fun that armored ATs can get without reaching beyond their powersets. Reactive anti-mez, resistance less important Subpar on Live, somewhat subpar on beta. Duration of 60-90 seconds ok but not optimal, activation time too long. Recharge too long unless well slotted and IO'd for +Rech. Altered resist mechanics on Beta makes it more useful, but then it's not being used for res in this use case anyway - so more of a nice-to-have. However, in Live or Beta form, IF combined with P2Win temp, becomes an acceptable level of mez protection. However, once again, non-armor ATs are forced to pay through the nose (Sorcery power picks, IOs, Inf-per-hour) for merely adequate mez protection, leaving them to still be inferior in power/freemy-fun to armored ATs. Solvable through giving basic mez protection to non-armor ATs (see above). A 30-60s duration RoP can then function as a second, reactive layer of protection, or be tossed aside (likely supplanted by breakfrees for this use case) for anyone who doesn't want the resistance feature. Reactive resistance buff, anti-mez less important or unneeded Somewhat subpar on Live, subpar on beta. Once again suffers a bit from long activation/rooting; the Beta adjustment to resist-when-mezzed does nothing for this use case on an armored, unmezzed character...thus only helping a non-armored AT, who is far less likely to be following this use case in the first place. For those trying to meet this use case with RoP, there are often easier-to-obtain alternative powers within their main powersets, or the permanent (lower) IO set bonuses for resist. Team buffing also often removes the need to consider RoP at all, since with a low enough frequency of need for buffed res, those rare events are countered by inspirations and Eye of the Magus to easily provide superior or capped protection, without RoP's costs (power picks, internal slotting, losses to build from shifting away from Dmg+Def+Rech). All-around anti-mez + res boost for squishies (for a sorta-Sentinel mode) Decent on Live, subpar on Beta. RoP leaves immense time gaps in protection. Only viable when partly filled at L45+ with Hybrid Melee and heavy +Rech slotting. Requires fairly dramatic sacrifices (power picks, incarnate choices, IOing) that give up Damage and Defense to achieve some measure of parity with armored ATs, and deviate from the CoH Dmg+Def+Rech formula we've been trained to understand and prefer. **** Ultimately, because RoP is offering to serve too many use cases in a single power, either all use cases will be served in equally poor ways (and no one bothers to take RoP any more), or they're all served well and "somebody" decides that is "overtuned." To resolve: those "somebodies" change their mind about "overtuning", or RoP's use cases and effects must be spread to other powers (like a basic mez protection system for squishies, other powers in Sorcery, strong mez resist in all thematic powers...).
  19. Not really directed at you, AA. But as described, this sounds like the opposite direction of the bulk of feedback... The "concerns" mentioned aren't mine. Why would we want to make RoP into a near-clone of the functionality of small breakfrees (30s escape mez), or create more pre-fight hassle with something we must activate before - and get the benefits for - a single spawn? 90s sounds perfect for covering 2-3 spawns with a basic build and average team, or a special case such as an AV or multi-spawn aggro, with some of that "duration redundancy" (wasted time) in between spawns to provide balance. If overtuning is the concern, many have proposed reductions in the power's effects rather than duration. If duration is being reduced even further in closed beta, and its use cases altered even further from the live version, I foresee the uptake rate dropping like a lead balloon. If that 2-second activation/rooting time isn't cut to match the activation/rooting of a breakfree, might as well shoot that lead balloon out of a cannon pointed downward. And after the communication delays & troubles regarding the initial change - how does that improve while segregating a different, smaller set of people discussing further changes in a more limited discord / closed beta, instead of directly communicating a proposed change here in the beta forum? Is this the same process that failed to anticipate our feedback in the first place?
  20. A caution first - other "official" system designers, of various mixtures of code / mechanisms / human behavior, with their own vocational history, may be present. Yet that too is falsely exclusive. System design is a thing all humans do and experience the effects of, regularly. Everyone is aware of it, and good at it, to varying degrees. This is only true of a system that is constrained to a constant output. Seen in a simple mathematical form, it's like the formula A+B+C+...N = 1800. Of course an change to A forces a change to some combination of other variables. But CoH (and games as a whole) do not require a fixed output, unlike a factory layout that must fit within a building, or a coding project that must fit within a budget. And even these can be stretched, within a broader system...build a tent to temporarily gain workspace, draw funds from another source - with or without permission. While games *do* operate within a universe, and thus will consume more electrical energy to operate if made more internally complex, their internal rules are not constrained in the way you've described. E=mc^2, and so forth, *can* be broken - wildly. We have observed this repeatedly, and the devs are about to implement movement speed increases without making the zones larger. If they made Indy Port larger, the N<->S tram time doesn't actually increase. Improving the status effect resistance of controllers does not necessitate... well... anything else at all. CoH is represented better by A+B+C+...N = X. All variables. Still interconnected, but far less constrained.
  21. Yep, anything I post is built on all that came before it. Still, I see particular value in the ability to condense and refine, especially in a way that helps people understand what common ground exists. It also tends to send us back to the topic, which is occasionally* needed. Faultline's post did wonders for the discussion, sometimes these things also need a sort of explode -> condense -> repeat cycle to really get to the right end state. I would agree that the devs could now have what they need to take a next step.
  22. [edited, was replying to a deleted post...thank you, by the way] Unless advice is matched to the player, character, and situation, then its value is greatly reduced, in my experience. I'm not going to give a generic list of anti-mez, or a sentinel's perspective on mez, to a Level 25 rad/rad defender trying to help a tankless team in Moonfire's mission 2, and expect good results. I would assume everyone commenting here is highly familiar with the list of RoP alternatives - and hopefully all the pluses and minuses of them. Individuals here are also probably in the best position to discuss playstyles for most ATs in game - and even most powerset combinations, even if never played personally, as the mechanics often share key elements with what we do play regularly. And to Blackbird71's post, that is an excellent concise proposal. I can also see Coyote's note on #3 being a workable option, but would personally prefer if the mez resist buffs were added via the second (non-IO) route. A casual player I know would greatly benefit from something like this.
  23. If mez resist or breakfrees worked well enough as-is for the archetypes and situations noted by Luminara and many others, we wouldn't be here, talking for page after page about a 33% reduction in the usefulness of a power taken on a mere 5% of characters. "Helpful" suggestions about Mez resist from IO set bonuses and incarnate powers feel totally inadequate in a game where not everyone is expected to use sets, not everyone is fighting mild-mez Council at L50, major components of certain powersets detoggle with the briefest sleep, all powerset-granted protection vanishes with a chained hold from one ruin mage (etc), and not everyone gets to handpick teammates' powers and skill level. The problem isn't lack of awareness of a particular poster's favorite ways to deal with mez. The problem is lack of balance. Because what feels adequate, or even amazing in comparison, solving all those troubles in one fell swoop? Rip off that RoP anti-mez bandaid, switch ATs, play a Meleer/Dom/Fort... Yes, these downtrodden, recently-nerfed ATs that nobody wants to play. /s ...extreme /s There are reasons why players gravitate to ATs with full-time mez protection. There are reasons why permadom is a goal, and LotG:Def/+Rech costs what it does. There are reasons why players of certain powersets grit their teeth and pick Clarion...and then exemplar less than they might otherwise. Sure, RoP may be overtuned when looked at alone. But at least it felt like a decent way for a character, under their own power, to fight a mezzing horde. It didn't lean on external crutches like emailed/purchased breakfrees, or feel like P2Win vendor cheatery just to achieve partial parity with other ATs. I would take a RoP duration nerf in a second, if counterbalanced by some mez-related buffs / QoL upgrades to some of the least-played ATs in the game via something that doesn't require IOs or level 50.
  24. PvP-like, player-only mez protection/immunity after getting mezzed once AND/OR Easy access to way more mez resist (addition to epic armors? squishy inherent? IOs? additions to any remotely thematic powers like siphons / mists / fogs / farsight / fade / RA buffs?) PLUS Suppress offensive toggles instead of detoggling PLUS MAYBE No/less suppression of protective toggles, making them equal (rather than currently inferior) to IO-based protections I could definitely see a highly accepted solution emerge from these ideas. If it does, then rocking the RoP boat will accidentally be the best thing to happen in a while, for a huge segment of the archetype list. For now though, we appear stuck with the RoP band-aid getting ripped off partway, and no real indication that the rest of the sorcery pool is getting adequately buffed to compensate, much less a mez system revamp.
  25. Thank you, Faultine. The insight into the current process is appreciated, along with data on its uptake rate, and the care you're applying to comment on it. If I try to boil down my thoughts on this thread to one sentence, I would say: "The net nerf to RoP on beta may be too abrupt/severe in the context of the appeal and gameplay tradeoff cost of the rest of the origin pool(s), and the specific choice of how to nerf and buff it (-duration/+resist) may have missed important reasons for it use, in the broader context of CoH's Damage + Defense + Recharge build dominance." Why would I say "may be too severe?" The "Nerf Counterbalancing" a.k.a. mild buffing of the sorcery pool seems inadequate / incomplete / targeted at a single use case of RoP. 1) "Nerf Counterbalancing" to mystic flight (while nice) will not feel like compensation/balancing for a RoP nerf, when all other travel powers are buffed as well. ...As a real life example, should I feel good if my salary is reduced but I am given more time off? Maybe. What if my co-workers also get more time off, with no salary loss? No. Thus, mystic flight buffs are much more naturally perceived as connected strongly to travel power buffs, and not at all to RoP's net nerf or Sorcery Pool rebalancing. To achieve this perception, they'd need to go above and beyond other travel power buffs (e.g. mystic flight teleport cost eliminated, or a combat mode with lower end cost, +def, and tighter maneuvering like hover). 2) "Nerf Counterbalancing" by providing resist for reactive use (also a nice thought) as balancing the RoP duration reduction will only help those who used it reactively, and will only be noticed/desired to the degree (and in the situations) its resist buffs were central to their reason for taking RoP in the first place. ...Still using the example above, what if I already have sufficient time off from work, or if I would like more, but greatly prefer the salary as this area has a high cost of living? 3) I and others have suggestions that could rebalance the pool to any desired level of overall power, spread the power more evenly across the 5 powers, while also decoupling use cases like "more resist for a tough fight" or "my controller struggles against occasional mez and unlucky misses" or "I'd like to exemplar and absorb alpha strikes with a tough defender/corrupter build." But we'd need to know those suggestions are actually wanted. Unfortunately, "oh look, a nerf on beta" doesn't exactly say "let's talk about retuning, your input is valued." Why would I say "may be too abrupt" and "may have missed important reasons for its use?" Well, from a process standpoint, were I operating a server, I would tread extra lightly around adjusting powers and powersets that create nonstandard build options, even if seemingly overtuned, for three reasons: First, they are the key to build diversity, the longevity of gameplay, and player retention. Shall I build Meleer #50, using the tried and true Dmg+Def+Rech, to easily perform well across most content/situations, which has recently been rebalanced? Shall I drift away to another game that offers a new challenge? Or shall I seek that challenge by an experimental build here, like a toggle debuff defender? Will the game's design give me tools to make that creative experience motivating, or will it frequently highlight flaws? Second, they are likely to have passionate support with unusual or less understood "branching use cases" that I may not want to disturb yet. The rarity of the power(s) alone could indicate that their potential for creative use is still being explored by the playerbase, and if tuning is required, could be handled best by small adjustments to several stats rather than a large adjustment to a single stat. At a minimum I would desire feedback before proposing a single stat reduction, since this is highly likely to crush some use cases while leaving others untouched. Last, I'd want the players to be as happy as possible, within the limits of operating a stable game with wide appeal. I'd want to ensure nerfing is necessary given the state of the game as a whole, the context of powers that are competitors to the one under the microscope, a full consideration of what a player gives up to get the power in question, etc. Human psychology has its place here - cushioning the impact of nerfs with buffs (that address real concerns), sharing data that justifies said nerfs, and by never hitting a below-average-popularity playstyle, while other playstyles are untouched or buffed to a dominant position. For better or worse, unfairness and inconsistency are detectable by humans even at extremely low concentrations. Essay complete, thanks for thinking about these things. Obviously, a lot of us care a lot about them.
×
×
  • Create New...