UberGuy

To the best of our knowledge, the Homecoming team is still involved in negotiations around legitimizing having access to the game at all. It seems incredibly likely that the tooling described by Cipher requires intimate knowledge of CoH's code and database structures, which are (very) likely considered part of the content under negotiation. Thus, until they get the go-ahead, they likely cannot publicly release things so tightly coupled with CoH's engine code. We know there are NDAs involved. We can hope that, if they ever do get some sort of legal "blessing", it would come with the right to share such things, but sadly even that is not guaranteed.

There are actual mechanical issues with "levelless" mobs in CoH. The "level neutral" critters in the game have an actual level, usually level 30 for non-GMs, along with jiggery-pokery in the code that attempts to transform attacks from both level 1s and level 50s into something appropriate to a level 30, and vice-versa for its outgoing attacks back. Why level 30? Because combat effectiveness in CoH is complicated and very non-linear, and you can only scale it so perfectly in a performant way. The further apart the real and apparent levels involved, the worse the scaling matches expectations. As a result, level 30 "levelless" mobs are actually pretty easy for level 50s to take out (especially since level 50s tend to laugh at +0 mobs even at level 50) and level 1s have a horrible time fighting them. If you've noticed, invasions no longer happen in Atlas or Mercy. They used to, but were removed. The above is a major part of why. This doesn't even touch on some of the things others have mentioned. What powers characters have have, and how many different powers they can synergize, is a huge part of what makes high-level player characters (and critters) more dangerous. Even with perfect scaling of damage and other effects, a level 50 critter is likely to have combinations of powers (offensive and defensive) that you would never want to throw at someone level 10 or under. Critters of different levels have pretty hard-coded lists of abilities, and scaling their challenge by level is achieved by providing different critters at different levels. If you design a critter for level 50 content and present it with a level 10 player, it's going to unload on them with everything it has. Having the AI scale its offensive patterns based on the level of the target is not something the game currently supports. (And I say "currently" only with the context that anything is possible with time and effort spent writing code - I am aware of no plans that would change this.) So there are some real technical hurdles to making a zone that legitimately works right in terms of challenge across levels 1-50.

I remember seeing something about these two powers interacting poorly. Here we go. And it's referenced in the May 4 patch notes. So ... known issue except they thought it was fixed, so the fact that it's not is probably new info.

OK, with this I finally have (I think) a clear understanding of your point. I don't agree with it, but I at least think I understand where you're coming from. Just personally, I won't be unhappy about having a new option that is better than an old option I liked. Part of that is that I am very performance-minded - for me the thing that is more fun is likely to be the one that performs better, because it performs better. But even if I actually still liked the less performant way more, I just would never be upset by a new, more performant way being added. (If it was a direct replacement and the old, less performant way was gone, I might be salty about that.) But that part directly above is purely my opinion.

FWIW, I never played my OG Stalkers as AS-and-run away to rehide. I always played AS then scrap, with Placate+AS on another target as circumstances allowed. I still will position and slow AS on targets if I get the chance, but if the fur starts flying before I get into position, I just scrap instead and look for (slow) AS opportunities on the next spawn. Of course, the folks I team with tend to be the "everyone split up and solo your own thing", so there's that - I can often fight each spawn however I want, because I have it to myself.

Huh? I am not sure how I'm conveying that. I mean, I seriously am not sure I understand what you think I'm saying, but it's not that. This conversation started because I understood you to be in disagreement with the changes to the AT. I made a qualified, subjective statement about why I disagreed (strongly) that the changes were bad, backed by some statements I feel are objective about the difference in performance on teams in particular. Everything else is just us debating the facts behind our opinions, and in the case of what you're saying here, me trying to understand what your opinion actually is. This literally was in the context of comparison to other ATs, which mattered because other ATs can prioritize damage on targets too. Why are you're assuming I didn't prioritize targets? Of course I did! Why wouldn't I? And why would my prioritizing targets change that the team screwing with AS going off (first or second) mean that this took more effort and luck than if I was just playing a Scrapper instead. The point of a damage AT on a team is to kill things - the how only matters for personal playstyle preference ... and how it interacts with the team. If being blasted by a shotgun blast aimed at a Brute (who repositioned himself after I started my AS) stops or slows down my carefully planned attack, I haven't done my job. If I have to spend my placate+AS on something that failed because something like that, that's potentially a second prioritized target I could not take out. Maybe because people responding back to me on this topic keep posting in ways that feel very much like attacking me instead of the facts or their interpretation.

a) Never PvP'd here to speak of. I never liked MMO PVP, having been a team FPS player for years. So no, my perception of Stalker performance is not about how they did in PvP. b) Oh, please. Anticipation on this only went so far. Anticpation didn't stop the Brute from running in on you and pulling AoE splash on you while you AS'd. Any time you lost even one AS in a spawn (even if you got a 2nd through placate) that dropped your performance relative to a Scrapper, which was the point I was making when I talked about teams screwing up AS. Lets remember, this all started before IOs were a thing, and even softcapped defense gets hit, and the more stuff is flying, the more likely that is to happen.

I did. And I just re-read them, and I don't see any of the things you just mentioned in them making this something that has "consequences". I think the issue is that I don't understand considering using the thing you like better to have the "consequence" of missing out on something newer that is, depending on context, more effective. To me that's like complaining about no longer being one armed, because now you feel bad using your one arm when you have a bionic prosthetic that's stronger. Use the arm you want unless there's a damn good reason to use one over the other, and enjoy the fact that you have two arms.

I imagine that most of that old data is still correct, unless the sets have been mentioned in a patch note here. (I may have a copy filed away too - I mostly look at the old code). But if I can read recipe data out of the game files, I can get a view that's guaranteed to match whatever data files the devs used to build the bins. That's the only reason to go that route.

What "consequences"? Before on teams: "I often have no choice but to play in a way that doesn't leverage my AT's key features. Before solo: "My AT features work fine here" After on teams: "On teams, if they won't let me leverage my original AT features, I have new ones I can use that make me effective in this context" After solo: "My original AT features still work here, or I can use the new ones if I prefer" If the "consequences" are that using the old way isn't as rewarding per unit time, that says something about the issues with the original mechanics. Yes, they could have tried to buff the original mechanics instead of adding a combo system on top, but retaining the reliance on being Hidden and the interruptable wind-up limits the options. Such "improvements" would have potentially removed the ability to play the old way at all.

Yeah, OK. So we're going to switch from debating the facts to attacking the debaters. Classy. And please don't try to put lipstick on that pig. You're saying I don't get the issue because of a failing or weakness on my side. Otherwise, you would just explain what you think I'm missing. I was playing Stalkers from days after CoV release - 10/31/05 when it came out on 10/27/05. I still play Stalkers today. A Stalker was the second CoV character I created. I know what features they had, and how well (or not) they "scrapped". I also played (and still play) a number of Scrappers. I have a thing for melee DPS ATs, and play Scrappers more than the others, but Stalkers (and Brutes) both get their time. I have made Scrappers and Stalkers with the same powersets. I have a good feel for how the two ATs play in relation to one another, and a strong grasp of the power mechanics. And I disagree strongly that, in objective, measurable terms, a Stalker on a team - which is usually a fast moving affair, had anything like a Scrapper's performance. Teams often prevented AS from going off. Between killing stuff before you could hit it, to aggroing spanws while you were still animating, causing AoE retaliation that both interruped the AS and broke hide, a great deal of the time I had to just scrap the old fashioned way with no special benefit for doing so. That's not a way to match Scrapper performance, when they have a higher base damage scale and random critical hits. I get that liking how something plays is not objective, and performance does not imply enjoyment. But the ability to play Stalkers the original way is not much changed. Demoralize still exists, but was reduced in duration - a change that may have happened regardless of the other changes. I am not saying they didn't change. I am saying I don't see how the degree of change is so bad that the old way of playing, if someone prefers it, is somehow ruined.

You said: ... in response to Bopper talking about not liking combo mechanics. In context, that sounds like you were saying "If you think that was bad..." If not, my apologies for misunderstanding, but I hope you can see where it looked like that was your point.

Good news - it looks like the recipe data is in the client files. I think I know how to read it. However, creating code to do that is not something I'm likely to get to for a few weeks. I need to figure out if/how I would use this info on CoD. Even if I don't, I could still extract it for diagnostic purposes.

Let's remember - nothing actually changed about Placate or slow AS. They're still there. What changed was players were given an alternative to them. You can totally ignore Assassin's Focus if you want, and just occasionally get a critical hit you wouldn't have before. Anyone who enjoyed the old way was probably not getting a lot out of it on teams - Stalkers were basically weaker Scrappers with less AoE, features they paid for in abilities that a lot of teams would prevent them from using. Now, they can "scrap" and actually deal serious damage while playing with teams who don't wait around for them to sneak ahead and AS something. Solo, they can still be played the "old" way if their players want. So the woe here doesn't make much sense to me. The one thing I'll concede the new mechanics took away was the "controlled" bonus crits against mezzed foes. That's not something most Stalkers could leverage well solo, and IMO it was not really a noticeable contribution on teams, so I don't miss it, but maybe some do.

I think that's just the crafted and attuned versions.

In cases like Gaussian's and PShifter, it may be necessary to cross reference what levels the recipes for a set exist down to. Based on those patch notes, I'm guessing those two sets really exist down to level 20, but their boostset definition still says 21. There are three places that this level is defined, that I can think of. In the boostset definition - it includes the min and max existence range of the set In each boost (enhancement) - there is a minimum slotting level field In the form of what recipes actually exist. Unlike boosts, which are a kind of "class" with its level characteristics set as fields, there is a unique recipe per level of enhancement they can craft. Mismatches in these three places will naturally create surprises. If the lowest level recipe that exists is lower level than the boost's minimum level setting, you could craft an enhancement you then can't slot. If the recipe/enhancement exists below the level given in the boostset, then conversions may not work as expected, and the set bonuses will cut off at an unexpected level. I will have to go digging to see if I have access to recipe data in the client. If I do, it's not something CoD's tooling currently extracts.

Do you mean Stalkers? Because, if so, I could not possibly disagree more. Hide/Placate + Slow AS was completely out of step with other DPS ATs' performance and pretty incompatible with large team play. The Assassin's Focus mechanic made Stalkers playable for me.

Wow, what the blazes. So, first of all, deciding what level something should be sucks. Here are the rules I used: If it has "Superior" in its name or its boostset says its minimum level is 50, it's either a catalyzed ATO/WinterO or a purple, and it should only be slottable at 50. (None of these were wrong.) If it has "Attuned" in its name and the boostset says its minimum level is 0, it's a regular ATO/WinterO, and its minimum slot level is 10. I had to infer this one from convention. (None of these were wrong.) Otherwise, it should have a minimum slot level equal to its boostset's minimum level -3. So, so many of these are wrong. Not only are whole sets wrong, some of them vary within the set like Gladiator's Net, but worse. The vast majority of these let us slot them before we should be able to, so fixing this may be a nerf for some, though I bet very few people slot most of these sets at low level. Here's the whole list. I'm listing their internal names so they're easier for devs to find.

I don't think so. AI doesn't interact with things that aren't critters. (Things we interact with are almost always critters, even if they seem inanimate - like glowies.) But the fix to flying MM pets did involve some AI / critter physics changes. Maybe that's negatively affected Singy somehow? The fact that it flies seems like a bit too much of a coincidence.

I feel like the biggest thing stuff like this needs is automation. Like, by default, there should be a programmatic way to tell what everything's slottable sets are by default or by inspecting it. It should be possible to override defaults, but the override should be inspectable and testable. The fact that so much of this is manual and not self documenting (and was even more manual even in Paragon Studios' day) is the root of many evils.

Did he start this after the most recent patch? Or was he doing it right after Page 2 came out?

Confirmed. This seems specific to this enhancement. Not only does a quick spot check of the rest of the set look fine, the crafted version of the same thing looks fine. I'll see if I can't use the data I have for CoD to programatically scan for issues like this across all set enhancements.

So, here are all the player powers that take Accuracy and -toHit enhancements, but don't take Accurate To-Hit Debuff sets. Blaster Support.Devices.Smoke Grenade Controller Control.Fire Control.Smoke Controller Control.Illusion Control.Spectral Terror Dominator Control.Darkness Control.Haunt Dominator Control.Fire Control.Smoke Mastermind Pets.Jounin.Blinding Powder Mastermind Pets.Lich.Fearsome Stare Mastermind Pets.Lich.Life Drain Mastermind Pets.Lich.Tenebrous Tentacles Mastermind Pets.Protector.Seeker Drones Mastermind Pets.Skeleton Warrior.Gloom Mastermind Pets.Skeleton Warrior.Siphon Life Mastermind Pets.Spec Ops.Flash Bang Mastermind Pets.Zombie.Siphon Life Mastermind Summon.Necromancy.Grave Knight Mastermind Summon.Necromancy.Life Drain Here are the powers that take -toHit enhancements, but don't take ToHit Debuff sets. Dominator Assault.Savage Assault.Call Hawk Dominator Control.Darkness Control.Haunt Incarnate.Alpha Silent.ToHit DeBuff Rare Incarnate.Alpha Silent.ToHit DeBuff Very Rare Mastermind Pets.Alpha Wolf.Growl Mastermind Pets.Jounin.Blinding Powder Mastermind Pets.Lich.Fearsome Stare Mastermind Pets.Lich.Life Drain Mastermind Pets.Lich.Tenebrous Tentacles Mastermind Pets.Protector.Seeker Drones Mastermind Pets.Skeleton Warrior.Gloom Mastermind Pets.Skeleton Warrior.Siphon Life Mastermind Pets.Spec Ops.Flash Bang Mastermind Pets.Zombie.Siphon Life There is overlap in the two lists - some powers, like Haunt, have both things going on.

Seems like an oversight to me. That's not a place the devs would usually turn in order to give an edge between ATs. If they wanted to do such a thing, I think they would remove the actual -toHit from the Dominator version. (Which I think would be a weird thing to do and I'm not advocating for it, because -toHit is "Dark" sets' thing.) The fact that it has the -toHit and the -toHit is enhanceable on both ATs is what really suggests to me that it's just a miss.

While I agree that "impossible" needs to be used with care, I think we need to be careful not to assume that someone with access to the source code can't know how something works well enough to know that certain correlations cannot be causation. What we can present to devs is evidence, not proof. It's worth remembering that "veteran levels" were added by this team. They actually do know how that code works. If they didn't add a check against vet level to the pre-existing rewards code, it really is impossible that it's checking that. If we use our imaginations, we could perhaps envision a situation where there's an out of bounds memory access going on, and code that should be looking at something else is looking at the vet level integer. However, in such a situation, it's just as likely that the misbehaving code would look anywhere else, would be looking at that integer as if it were something else entirely and do really weird things as result (including crash). In a situation where statistics are involved, the best tests are ones that involve gathering lots of appropriate data. The lower the probability of a given thing (like a purple drop), the more samples you need. The player can do that in a farm or something. Or the dev can do it in a test environment, which gives them access to spawn rates and kill rates players can't achieve. (Having a 0.5s recharge fireball that does 40,000 unresisted damage isn't going to invalidate a drop rate test.) The request for character information is so that the devs can clone the character exactly. Same AT and powersets and badges and temp powers and you name it, and make sure it's not something specific to the character that's tripping up some obscure branch of code that causes an issue.