Luminara

Nerfing proc damage means increasing the number of attacks the low damage archetypes are forced to use. And as low damage archetypes, they're already forced to spend more time attacking than higher damage archetypes, plus they have to spend time buffing/debuffing/controlling just to stay alive, since they can't one-shot anything, or ignore status effects, or even shrug off incoming damage. The whole point of using damage procs on low damage archetypes is to shorten the time spent defeating each spawn. Compensating by increasing the trigger rate is like offering alcohol wipes after stabbing them in the genitalia. Bad nerf.

That's not the first step. The first step is devising an inf* sink, or sinks, to replace everything involved. Recipe costs (crafting table and market), salvage costs, crafting costs, SO costs... no sinks, no economy. No economy, no game.

Never spent any merits on ATOs, but I do use ATOs on every character I create now. They haven't changed anything for me. The bonuses aren't significantly better than purple sets at 50, or rare sets below 50, and I tend to run out of appealing powers to put slots into before I run out of slots, so having the occasional option to pick up a 10% +Recharge bonus for 2 or 3 slots doesn't make much difference. It's nice to have something to pick up and have level with the character, but with the easy availability of attuned IOs, ultimately no different from regular IOs. If the economy were in a bad state, reflective of how it was on the original servers, then I'd say that having ATOs readily available would matter. With inf* oozing out of every crevice of the market, though, and converters allowing players to vacuum up that inf* so rapidly that they can have everything they desire as they level (as opposed to waiting until 50, then farming for months to pay for things), ATOs are just the sprinkles on the rosettes on the icing on the cake.

No, because the premise, reasoning and conclusion are all flawed. IO sets aren't a/the problem. They never have been, they never will be. The problem is that this game is old. Face it, boys and girls, we've had nearly 20 years to find ways to beat the game, and we've gotten ridiculously good at it. We were so good at it that we had to live through drastic nerfs like GDN and ED when we were just starting to settle into the game, and even those didn't do more than sort of, kind of slow us down slightly. And that little hiatus that we had to spend without the game didn't really slow us down either, it just gave us more time to imagine new ways to break shit. Nerfing Defense isn't a/the solution. Defense has already been so heavily and thoroughly nerfed that the last development team had to partially reverse the nerfing just to bring it into a good position as damage mitigation. Reducing either the hard or soft cap isn't going to fix anything. The workarounds for that are way too easy to pick up, and they don't actually force the player to make any hard choices about slotting or power selection. It accomplishes nothing, other than irritating people and wasting development resources. Furthermore, attacking Defense without addressing all of the other forms of damage mitigation is biased and unbalanced. It utterly ignores every other kind of mitigation, including the inverse of +Def, -ToHit, and adversely affects players using power sets which are entirely reliant on Defense while doing nothing to any other form of mitigation. Doubling a Defense-based character's chance to be hit equates to doubling the damage that character is going to take, yet there's no corresponding suggestion for doubling the incoming damage for characters using other forms of mitigation. If survivability is a problem, it's a problem across the board, not just a problem for a single type of mitigation, but this approach singles out one form of mitigation and gives everything else a pass. It's narrow-minded, poorly thought out and never should've been proposed in the first place. So dismiss away.

I did it in 2005.

They can. I tanked AVs and soloed GMs with a melee-only defender. The problem, for defenders, is the melee damage scalar. It's shit. We can play defenders who use melee attacks now, with powers like Air Superiority, Cross Punch and *PP melee attacks. With a 0.55 scalar, though, they're not impressive, even with piles of -Res. A melee defender is, essentially, a petless mastermind with slightly higher HP pool and better buffs/debuffs. That's why almost no-one bothers. TA. And with enough status effects of your own, you can get by without protection. Pairing Dark Pit with Oppressive Gloom, for example, makes for extremely safe play in melee range. So there are more options than just the few primaries.

If you have a bow, it's a heel to the crotch. And yes, it is ever so satisfying. For all of you sad little people who don't use bows, it's the same animation as Kick (Fighting pool).

Inf* sinks aren't there to directly control inflation by themselves. They're there to act in concert with other inflationary control measures to maintain a healthy economy. All of the measures working together - the salvage seeding and pooling on the market, the auto-attuning done by the market, converters, inf* sinks of all types - do the job. Remove one and you alter how the control functions, but more importantly, you affect different groups of people in different ways. Some people don't use the market well. Some people don't use converters at all. Some people only purchase crafted IOs, never craft them for themselves. Every part of the inflationary control system affects everyone, and in different ways, but the overall result is to keep inflation from affecting any one group significantly. Because we have multiple overlapping methods of controlling inflation, no-one is punished for "not doin' it right".

The economy is massively deflated in comparison to the original servers. @SwitchFade! Sic 'em!

They wouldn't make that choice. You're ignoring the history of Co*. How many missions were changed to use timers to prevent players from farming? How many critters have had their XP reduced because players abused the bonus they offered? Every glowie in the game had its XP removed specifically because players saw an opportunity to reap increased rewards with less risk, and they didn't just take that opportunity, they dosed it with roofies, bent it over and hammered it until the developers dragged them off of it. How many times have we been down this road, with anything offering a reward above and beyond the norm being taken out behind the wood shed and beaten into submission because players went to town on it? Do we really need another lesson? They would not choose not to farm the enemy groups with increased rewards. And that would, absolutely, lead to a lot of archetypes and power sets being completely sidelined because they didn't fit the new farming meta. People would line up for it, abuse the fuck out of it and, inevitably, come to the forums to complain about everyone playing a limited number of builds, builds being overpowered, teams being hard to find, the enemy group being boring, everything is too easy, et cetera. All of the drastic nerfage caused by players abusing everything which offered increased rewards occurred before IOs existed. IOs don't cause abuse/exploitation of reward structures, or enable it, nor does not having IOs mean players wouldn't abuse/exploit an increased reward from an enemy group. I'm looking at it from the perspective of having proven that anyone can build for anything, without relying on set bonuses, and neuter any enemy group if that's their intent; and the historical perspective of having personally witnessed just how readily players will exploit the tiniest reward advantage when it's available. It's all happened before, and if you tempt fate, it will happen again.

Your tanks date Hami? Ew...

Isn't that how the housing bubble happened? DID YOU JOIN CORPORATE AMERICA?! I can has interest-free no repayment necessary loan?

Too mundane. As I mentioned previously, Legionette stomps Carnies day in and day out. Nothing slows her down when she's fighting them. Does she deserve more XP/inf* for beating on Carnies? No, because she's not being challenged. Parthenia, on the other hand, is a different story. She doesn't have the piles of extra hit points, the massive amount of +Regeneration, the status protection (the new and improved EMP Arrow helps with that, when it's available), that Legionette sports. She has to work for her XP/inf*/drops, and Carnies are more work. One mezzer too many, or one Strongman not Immobilized (they resist Slows, so we have to open with the first attack, instead of debuffs, which is riskier), or a group a little too spread out (cones have arc limits), or a Master Illusionist phasing or summoning at the wrong moment... it can all go sideways in a hurry. She is challenged by Carnies, and she does deserve better rewards. Legionette would be excessively rewarded by a broad, general increase to the rewards for defeating Carnies. Parthenia might not be rewarded enough for the amount of extra work it takes. A simple reward structure may be superficially appealing, but it's ultimately unfair and far too easy to exploit. It wouldn't have to be terribly complex. Half a dozen to a dozen flags to account for the important variables should be sufficient. The biggest factors would be mitigation flags, which would calculate an average of the character's total damage mitigation potential at the beginning of combat (active or available buffs (including heals), available debuffs (note that "available" would indicate fully recharged and ready to go), max HP, status protection, etc.), and damage flags (primary damage type, number of damage procs slotted, single-target or AoE, currently recharged or not, etc.). A few flags to indicate the enemy spawn's special attributes, like specific damage Resistances, heavy use of mez, summons (things like Warwolf spawns in place of almost defeated foes would count as summons (because they are, technically)) would be necessary. But I'm not suggesting a redesign of the Co* engine with a learning algorithm to tailor the rewards as the player goes, or to let SHODAN out of the bottle. Just flags and comparisons that wouldn't even slow the servers down a jot. It could even be as simple as counting the number of flags of certain variables and adding/subtracting enemy spawn flags to create a reward modifier. With such a system, Legionette could go poke Carnies with her big stick and accumulate the typical rewards, never missing out on anything. Parthenia, since she'd be struggling more, would reap larger gains for her successes, commensurate with the reality of having to do more to accomplish the same result. The two characters would, over time, achieve the same general totals - Legionette through speed and safety, Parthenia through increased rewards for the increased difficulty she faces. Won't ever happen, though. It would be nice if it did, but it's just a thought exercise.

Dead monkey farts hurt.

That's the part I disagree with. Running with the Carnies example, if you bump up the rewards for that group, you're not, in fact, bumping up the rewards for Carnies, you're bumping up the rewards for power sets with status protection, for power sets with high positional Defense, for sets with large ToHit debuffs, and leaving all of the other people playing other sets twisting in the wind. You're encouraging players to avoid anything that doesn't help with Carnies, and only to fight Carnies because they'd be the most rewarding group. Yeah, you're getting people out of the Council maps and fire farms, but only so they can go farm Carnies. Nothing positive has been accomplished by the increase to Carnie rewards, but you will have damaged the diversity currently existing in the game (at least the people farming Council can do so with a lot of different characters, since L/S Defense is comparatively easy to acquire). No one group should be more rewarding than any other in and of itself, because the wide variety available in character creation leaves too many out in the cold. That, in turn, discourages diversity by encouraging players to avoid the sets, and even archetypes, which can't deal with the more rewarding groups as well as other sets or archetypes. Rewards can be increased, I do agree with that, but not arbitrarily or globally. The increases should be individual, tailored to every character, adaptive, as I outlined in the post which sparked this side discussion. A simple reward increase for any given enemy group, though, is just a change to the farm du jour.

I don't disagree that anything we do which is more difficult than we expect or prefer should be more rewarding, but I do disagree that arbitrary reward increases for certain groups is the solution. That's not going to make those groups more attractive to fight, it's going to make power sets which render those groups "easy mode" more attractive. It's an invitation to homogenize far more than letting people farm their Council missions with their soft-capped L/S Defense characters, because at least they're soft-capping a variety of builds, rather than sticking to a select few. The big picture is always at the forefront of my mind when I'm playing or posting. But so is human nature. Making any specific enemy group more rewarding than others is inviting more problems than solutions. An adaptive reward system is a better way to accomplish the goal. Let people fight what they want to fight and be rewarded appropriately for the difficulty they truly encounter.

Yeah, it would feel a lot more relaxed and enjoyable. No pressure to do a job, no stress about having to meet expectations, no anxiety about having to fulfill role requirements, just cruise along and have fun. One would almost suspect that someone in charge remembered that games are supposed to be fun, not 40 hour shifts at a labor camp.

You suggested a global nerf to Defense to reduce solo players' ability to progress by themselves and proselytized about teaming throughout the post. In other words, you posted an idea which would lead to forced teaming and tried to convince everyone that it would be beneficial. I really don't like spin doctoring. If you can't stand by what you say, don't say it.

Neither of those enemy groups are any more difficult than any other group, they're merely perceived as such by people who build in specific and limited ways, those who focus exclusively on what's considered "common" and ignore everything else. There's more to the game than Lethal/Smashing Defense and burst DPS, and the challenge represented by any particular enemy group is not a universal constant, rather a character-dependent variable. That was the purpose of using two different characters facing different enemy groups as an example. Each experiences different challenge levels when facing different groups. Trick Arrows characters struggle with Council, because Marksmen impose -Recharge, Warwolves completely ignore Slows and have Immob protection... and they spawn without the debuffs on their placeholder critters, forcing the TA to reapply his/her click debuffs mid-combat, and since debuffs have an animation time, the TA can take significant damage, or be defeated, before those debuffs are active. This is an example of an enemy group presenting greater than average challenge, despite being considered "easy". It all depends on us. Not the groups, not even specific foes within groups, but us. The choices we make, the characters we play, the builds we design and implement. We create our own challenge level within the game. For every group someone says is "hard", there are plenty of builds available that make them easy. The obverse face of the coin is just as true, some of the "easy" groups are a pain in the ass for many builds.

And your point is moot because, to use your example, Carnies don't represent the same obstacle for everyone. Legionette can run roughshod over Carnies. She can bounce from one spawn to the next, completely unconcerned about mez, incoming damage, endurance drain, ToHit debuffs, anything the enemy group has to throw at her. Parthenia can't do that, she has to approach every spawn cautiously, pre-emptively mez the mezzers, maintain a safe distance from everything, watch out for unexpected situations, and even though she can "win", it still takes her longer. On the other hand, Nemesis are hell for Legionette. She has to limit her PBAoE so she doesn't accidentally drop a lieutenant, she has to wait every time she brings a Fake Nem down to a certain health point... I have fighting Nemesis when I'm playing Legionette. Parthenia, on the other hand, has none of the same troubles. Nemesis Vengeance has a HUGE FREAKING HOLE in AoE Defense, so she doesn't even have to change up her attack chain (TT -> NF -> repeat) when she's kicking their butts. She doesn't have to avoid defeating the lieutenants. She can stack two Holds on Fakes and lock them down permanently before she even gets the party started, so she never has to wait out their PFFs. Should one of those enemy groups have an enhanced reward structure? Which one? Both represent a problem for one of the characters, but not the other. What justifies one of those groups being exceptionally rewarding, but not the other when they both present a significant challenge for different characters? This is the problem with just increasing the rewards for fighting one enemy group and not the other - you're not encouraging players to fight that enemy group, you're encouraging them not to play certain archetypes/builds. The reward increase has to be more granular and adaptive, or it's just a penalty for not playing the "right" character, or having the "right" build. Nor did I take your post to mean that, or respond to such. I'm discussing the potential for increasing rewards, exclusively, but pointing out that your method of doing so would be detrimental in the long term. I believe the idea has merit, but it would have to be something which addresses challenge on a per-character basis to be viable.

Yeah, no. Your goal was clearly stated, to promote teaming by forcing players to use each other to compensate for not being capable of hitting the Defense soft cap with IO sets. Here, I'll refresh your memory. You're not complaining about homogenization or a lack of diversity, you're directly and very clearly stating that you want nerfs which force players to team. That's your defined and stated goal. And no, when I point out how easy it would be to work around the limitations you'd impose, I'm not agreeing with you or providing unintended support. I'm telling you that you're on the wrong track and providing examples which emphasize the problems with your suggestion. Teaming is socialization. Socialization should be something desired, not something imposed. Any attempt made to force players to team will simply drive them away from that content, especially in this game, which has always treated teaming as a bonus, not a requirement. I was tackling GMs solo in 2005, long before the Invention system existed, with a defender using melee attacks. That shows how unnecessary teaming has always been here. Allow people to team up. Reward people for teaming up. Do not shove them into the cattle car and demand that they team up for the sake of your personal enjoyment or vision of what's "good for them".

There's no point moving the goal post if you're only moving it six inches to the left. And the existing reward structure is fine if the goal post isn't going anywhere.

Too easy to game for some archetypes or builds, and too little offered to other archetypes and builds. Any improvement to the reward system should be broadly applicable and uniformly attractive for all. I'd set specific flags on damage types, status effect resistance/protection currently active, buffs/debuffs available, and flag enemy groups to interact with various player flag combinations to create a challenge:reward structure that actively and fairly compensated players for the real difficulty that various foes present to specific characters. That would actually incentivize fighting things which are challenging, instead of simply selecting a "challenging" mission with "hard" critters that one's character can waltz over at +4/x8/Yes Bosses at breakneck speed. My Staff/Willpower brute, Legionette, has no reason not to fight Carnies, or Malta, or anything in the game. She's a juggernaut of OMGSOMUCHFUNI'MGOINGTOPEE against everything, and the more enemies, the better. My TA/Dark defender, Parthenia, on the other hand, has every conceivable reason to avoid certain enemy groups, since she lacks status protection, relies on click debuffs (which makes her an easy kill for ambushes), depends heavily on proper positioning (cone spammer, so maps which constrict spawns to smaller radii are "better"), etc. A fair reward system should be equally compelling for both, not just another bonus for the former and a reason not to play the latter.

A blaster with Diamagnetic Core Flawless Interface isn't even missing the 5% Defense. You're approaching this from the wrong side. Any nerf to Defense can be quickly and easily countered by anyone. One doesn't even need to be a specific archetype, use a specific power set, or even a specific power. -ToHit is available to everyone. If you're going to restrict the effectiveness of Defense, you have to do so from the other end, by buffing critter ToHit, or it's pointless. But buffing critter ToHit unnecessarily and unfairly penalizes entire primaries and secondaries built around the idea of Defense while ignoring primaries and secondaries built around Resistance, Regeneration or combinations of all three. And considering that it wouldn't accomplish the goal you intended, it's probably not a good change. You're not going to promote teaming by nerfing one type of damage mitigation and ignoring everything else that's going on. Take it back to the drawing board.

As entertaining as this thread has been to read, I'm going to rain on it now. We're not talking about balancing the game around IOs, because ED already ensures that IOs, common or set, are within the existing balance framework. That balance work was done almost twenty years ago, and it's still just as effective today. We're talking about rebalancing the game around set bonuses. And it's unnecessary. Yes, certain set bonuses allow some characters to become game-breakingly overpowered. The same set bonuses on far weaker characters only make those characters less frustrating to play. As long as that kind of spread exists, it's not possible to fairly balance the game around IO sets. And having such wildly varying disparities in power between characters is one of the high points of this game. We don't want, or need, the kind of homogenization that would be necessary for the game to be balanced around set bonuses. For every Superman or Hulk in the game, there's a Punisher or Question. That is what the game is balanced around, as it should be.