BitCook

I find that I vastly enjoy the game from 1-45 far more than I enjoy 45+, despite there being some great arcs and signature missions in that range. The big reason is that with incarnates too many people have easy access to fully capped defenses and crashless nukes. Control, support, and tanking sets really loose their role when everyone has enough mitigation to wade through things. Stuff dies before you can do anything about it, or need too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play with incarnates and they have been in the game for a long time. The hard mode content was a nice way of addressing this. Allow people to choose how they want to experience the game and don't take away the toys from the people who love running around with all the stuff. Can you give us a toggle on teams that the leader can specify whether incarnates can be used or not? It could be a subset of the hard mode content and allow players to choose if they want to limit those (gamebreaking?) powers or not. Give some token bonus for teams that run content that way and perhaps even options like the one through four star options. Difficulty setting: (45+ content and teams) One star - Removal of Judgement & Destiny - 1.1x inf or xp. Two star - Removal of All but Alpha, max 1 level shift - 1.3x inf or xp. Three star - Alpha slot only, no level shifts - give 1 merit bonus per mission. 1.3x inf or 1.3x xp. Four star - Removal of all Incarnate powers/bonuses - give 2 merits bonus per mission. 1.5x inf or 1.5x xp. Since this would be an optional setting like hard mode content, it would allow the playerbase the choice to control how they want to experience their content. For those of us that like the AT roles a little more clear, we can choose to play the game harder (and likely slower) but get small rewards for doing so. No one has to join a team like that and no one is nerfed from their WTFPWNZER mode characters.

I mean that is very subjective. I don't mind easy content and like making ridiculous toons. Couldn't get much better for me. Which, the point is that not everyone wants what X person wants. Some people want harder. Some people don't. I've loved the changes I've seen... and yes, I have a Fire/Rad, who seems to work just about the same as they did before.

I have a couple of tanks and for the most part I can do laundry while people beat on me. But yes, I do agree they have some small level of risk assuming the are decently built. However, I would say that controllers also have risk built in. While I might control 90% of a mob... The remaining 10% can be deadly. Tougher enemies, however that gets achieved is good. It means that there is more reliance on mitigation. Controls and buffs/debuffs become valued again. Some form of non binary control would be great.

What annoys me to some degree is that there is little difference in whether a Tank collects aggro and takes all the damage, preventing it with insane defense and resists, or a controller turns them into a statue. The only mechanical difference is that if the Tank doesn't have enough aggro them someone can peel that off. Otherwise they are mechanically the same. Damage is prevented and people move on. Why one is considered good for the game and the other bad is beyond me. Probably because you can break aggro... Which leads us back to needing non binary holds. Anyway, just a grouse about the whole situation.

Thank you. I'm sure you have said it before, I just couldn't recall where. This at least let's me discuss your idea with you. I don't expect to change your mind, but I do think this kind of discussion helps the people working on the game maybe consider things they hadnt. I think the only two disagreements that I have is that I would say, "it makes the game harder for people who may already find the game difficult SOLO" and that I am not sure about the amount of challenging pre-50 content. For level appropriate characters, yeah, perhaps so. For any exemplared characters, no. Which is something they need to account for and figure out. I love the exemp system... but it causes problems in it's current state too with Attuned IOs. I have in general thought and think there was still consensus that any 8 level appropriate players will manage and probably wreck any content easily. I still believe that. We're in total agreement in designing new challenges around IOs would be good too.

I agree... but a couple of points. My large wall of text reference is not just people. That's from Arcana... IE of ArcanaTime fame who probably knows more about the mechanics than either of us put together. The other, only because I want to tease you... your second link is referring to COMPANY of Heroes, not City of Heroes. I've only opened this line of discussion again because of your assentation earlier that your opinions are facts. Look, you want something different with the game than I do. I'm cool with that. I do feel the need to keep replying when you say things as fact that are opinions without giving reasons for it. Even when I've provided examples of what I am talking about, I have tried (and maybe failed) to frame them that this is my opinion and give reasons why I think it. I've told you why I think Support is less valuable and have given you all kinds of things to debate in terms of numbers, kill speeds, and other things. Pick the ideas apart, and I'm happy to debate and talk about them. Just saying, "it's wrong" or, "I don't think so" doesn't help this thread and the people working on the game nearly as much to make it better. I'm still kind of waiting to see if you have specific reasons (and maybe you stated them before and I missed it) on why you think it would be bad (if you do) to make the game harder by default or put in higher difficulty settings or lower the amount of damage done by nearly everyone... basically reduce kill speed to help AT which can be struggling to find a role. If the answer is, I don't think they are struggling, then I'd love to hear why. Not just that you do. If that answer is just, "my experience and feeling" then okay, I can't argue that. I won't put as much stock in it, but I respect it. Otherwise we're just spitting in the wind at each other.

Okay, we're getting back to the admittance that we're ALL talking opinions on pretty much anything in this thread. That's a good start. While your recollection of the game is that way, there were plenty of people who thought otherwise... and who are not in this thread: https://cityoftitans.com/comment/129299#comment-129299 https://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php?topic=10039.40 (reply 47) http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Legion_of_Freedom (Halfway down) I could quote more, but that was with a singular search on Google. Perma Debt was a thing because Blasters certainly died a lot... they were not the only ATs either, just the AT that highlighted a problem. Team wipes were regular occurrences and likely kill speeds were significantly lower (although I am working on proof on that. Watching YouTube videos will probably provide more than just an opinion on that too. I can't say why you recall it differently, maybe you played classes that didn't dive into debt as much. Maybe you had a really good group that didn't wipe. I can think of lots of reasons why you think the way that you did. However, my recollection, and if you want more links, the recollections of lots of people in the community is pretty much polar opposite of that. Finally, if you want to talk about the history of the game, here is a great thread that talks about how and why CoX had the design it did particularly when it came to the "Trinity" from Arcana https://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php?topic=9675.19480 (reply #19481) It's a really good read about the thoughts of the devs and why things turned out the way they did. Some specific quotes for people not wanting to read a wall of text: On what blasters were from those days (IE Perma Debt) "Blasters were denied decent mitigation all the way up to I24 because, and I'm speaking from direct experience working with the devs on this, in part the stacking rules made it difficult to hand the blasters something that was good enough to help them and not so good it was easy to abuse by stacking." On the recognition that controllers are game breaking and there control sets being heavily reigned in and not being useful in high end content "one of the first complaints during testing was that Lambda and BAF heavily deemphasized controllers due to their hard controls being mooted for much of the time." On kill speed differences, can anyone imagining taking 15 minutes to kill a boss now? "Sure, initially they had low damage, so it could be slow and frustrating to solo a controller. I once spent fifteen minutes soloing a Jump bot because I ran out of endurance and the only way to keep him from killing me was to just keep Blinding him. This turned him into a statue unable to attack me while I didn't have enough endurance to do more than nick him occasionally because I needed enough end to keep blinding him. This was an end of mission boss, mind you."

Pretty much from Launch until about 5-6 issues after IOs, but I could say maybe from ED to 5-6 issues after IOs. Team wipes and perma-debt were seriously discussed on the game forums as real issues. Most people didn't take blaster nukes because of the crash. For someone speaking your opinion as "fact" you are neglecting a lot of the history of CoX. I'm assuming there are enough people around from early in the game to remember carnage in the Hollows too. Frostfire was quite a right of passage.

In your opinion of course. That's great! I have routinely said that any 8 characters can do anything, Add a couple maxed blasters/brutes and it might be a different story. Also... still anecdotal evidence. But I would agree if you find a team where you have fun, fantastic. When I am playing control or support characters, I find less and less of those teams, that's my return anecdotal evidence. That is about the only content that is not. EBs still go down stupid fast and the purple patch substantially reduces or removes the place that controls and to a lesser degree debuffs are useful. That is one of the balance complaints. On the content that control and or buff/debuffs could really make an impact, the purple patch makes them again not really relevant. I agree to that, but the difference is that, and I will admit this is somewhere I do not have numbers to prove it, (Although I can probably look up some old play videos...) but anyway, mobs lasted longer. As I mentioned in an earlier post. I played Rad a lot. I remember being able to get out most of the suite of powers on a mob before they died, commonly. Now, if I play with a team, I can get RI out and they are dead. Yes, a target can die if the team focuses fire. But when I say mob, I am talking about the */8 content. So 10-15 mobs which rarely last past a single buff or maybe two.

That's anecdotal and your opinion, but I won't make claims you're lying or trying to deceive people. I just think you like a certain game style that I don't believe in. So yeah, please give the same courtesy to the people who don't agree with you. No one is trying to be deceptive that I know of. Now, I've actually laid out why I think support sets and control sets have diminished in power. I've given numbers and other actual examples why I think that. It would be really nice if you did the same. How do you think that the entire spectrum of ATs are valuable when things tend to die within 1-2 rounds of casting? I am actually very curious as to why you think this, not just that you do. If support characters can barely get off more than 1-2 casts in most encounters, what is their value to a team? Why do you think they are as useful as prior times in the game where encounters lasted significantly longer?

No one is spreading misinformation although lots of people are giving their opinions without bothering to give anything more than "I say so". Please stick to arguing things that people actually ARE saying. I agree the game was not balanced between ATs even then, but I do believe that the roles for each AT were better defined and more useful than now. Each AT usually brought something needed and useful to a group and usually increased team killspeed, whether that was another Blaster, a Controller, or a Defender. Sure, it was in different proportions because there are a lot of variables but now, that is not necessarily the case. I should edit myself and say "Most people are not spreading misinformation" this has been a long thread and there have been some doozies.

I have played since around i3. If you have, then we will have to disagree in our assessment. I would agree that the game has never been "balanced" in that every AT brings the same amount of power. However, where the game was balanced was that you could play content with any 8 ATs and make it through. However, since the power creep was not where it is today, every AT brought something valuable to nearly every mission. I don't feel that is the case anymore. I have several posts where I talked about how the relative value of support goes down as kill speed increases. Controls are devalued by the same as well as the increase in player survivability. As individual power goes up, team related benefits, buff/debuff/aggro/controls become relatively less valuable as the threat and damage that mobs can put out has remained static. . With that said, that is something I think the game currently misses. Sure, no one's turning you away because you're a controller. Because the game is at the point where not only can any 8 characters do any content, but any eight characters will likely crush any content. There's a subtle distinction in being able to do anything and be able to steamroller anything. In the first case, all ATs have more relative value because the team kill speed requires more damage/debuffs/aggro/control/support/whatever. When the game gets to where 1-2 players can solo the hardest content, then nothing really matters beyond the 1-2 players who can do so. However, it disproportionately affects support players and those that rely on team mechanics as the core of their AT because they by nature do not have the kill speed of many of the overtuned ATs. So they are not contributing to the kill speed in a significant manner with their abilities, and the don't have the kill speed on their own to compensate. It's just bad design and bad balance. No, the game was not perfect in live. However, I do think that from IOs to about i22 the game enjoyed a rare spot that most MMOs don't. ATs weren't balanced, but they all had a needed and useful role.

Agreed, but because of a number of factors the average power of a PUG was FAR less than it is now. Some are direct changes. Some are the availability of IOs. Some are new powers/IOs. Powerset Proliferation... etc. I still think of all of the MMOs I played, live CoX had the best balance between Damage/Support/Tank/Control. I think all had space and time to shine on any team and you could do anything without any one particular AT. That's only an opinion, but I do think that's partially why it was so endeared to a lot of people. They just kind of got a lot right.

First of all I liked this post because I think there's some very interesting things that are probably true. The top part is the only part I'm not totally sure on. I think you could tweak some scales down pretty easily and perhaps change some of the survivability options down a little and globally tune the game. Would that be a good thing, I don't know... but I don't know if what you are saying is out of the realm of possibility. Some of the other servers have done some pretty extreme things in rebalancing and I'd expect this team could as well. This is probably very true. The only thing I would point out is that at the current level of the game it only takes 1/8 of the player base to have builds to potentially trivialize content for everyone else. That is something to consider. Perhaps the gap bottom to top is too wide? I might disagree on the minority, but have no numbers to support it either way. A poll would be good... although people who debate on forums are likely already heavily invested in the game and are probably the last people to ask 🙂

I am also on board with new challenging content balanced around IOs and all. Frankly I doubt anyone would be upset with that. However, there's a TON of content in CoX that runs the gamut of fun to boring. For me at least any solution that doesn't allow us to pick whatever content we want and have a reasonable expectation that our characters will be useful is a huge fail for a game that used to be perhaps one of best if not the best balanced in terms of how it handled ATs.

Perhaps I am being confusing, it would not be the first time. I should clarify. I can not think of any 8 level 50 toons that can not make a mockery out of the hardest content in the game, unless you specifically gimp those characters by say not slotting ACC, or just taking TOs or something equally silly. Thus making those same characters useless for anything other than your small dedicated team. I don't want to have to schedule "Raids" to get what I believe CoX had years ago. I don't think that's too extreme of a position either... I don't think it's unreasonable to log into the game, pick a chracter and expect that what that character does will be useful in game terms. CoX used to be one of the best games at this. It's not like it didn't exist before.

So to me this is two separate issues. I would be all over figuring out how to get content done by the community, vetted by Devs and into the game. I think that's a fantastic idea. I have zero issues with enhancing and improving AE and using the creative minds in the community. That said, I still see the need for some balance in the game.

But how? Again, there is only so much difficulty (deference to outlier AE arcs that were pointed out) in the normal game. I literally can not think of many scenarios where any random players will make a team that say doesn't make control feel pointless. I can't envision how you would even build a team to make support feel like it did in live, useful, impactful, but not required. Maybe build with TOs only? But if you do that, you can't play with anyone else. Even a team of 8 controllers ironically makes control mostly useless. Support has similar issues.

Same concept in some of the other threads that have been discussed, do you think it's reasonable to limit players to a few AE arcs then if they want anywhere from 2-4 ATs to be relevant? Doesn't that seem a little extreme? Wouldn't turning game difficulty up so that the average team or uber player plays on +0/8 be a more reasonable approach? In your suggestion people are very limited in what they play. In what some people are asking, people could play all content. You can still steamroller and feel powerful at your +0/8 and let us play the same breadth and depth of content at +4/8. To me, that seems far more reasonable to all players.

I get in theory what you are saying, but do you think it's reasonable for AT balance to ask seven people to undertune or not play certain ATs so that there is a balanced team? I have a hard time imagining that to ever really occur. Is it reasonable to stay away from PUGs? Again, I don't think that's really a good thing to ask. That's what I mean by saying what you are asking is akin to saying "don't team". I know that wasn't your intent, but I think that's how it would work out in practice. I run a SG and I doubt I could regularly get seven players on at the same time who all wanted to commit to something like that... and several of them share the opinions that I do that the game has gotten too easy and made certain ATs far less important. That kind of sounds like old school raiding which is something I'd really like to avoid. I like meeting people in CoH, most of them are awesome people so PUGs are one of those vectors to do so.

I'll take a crack at this. The difficulties in getting a team at all that can't destroy content at max difficulty in record speed is pretty hard. Especially if you are like what seems to be a majority of the player base and just PUG using the /LFG channel. The prevalence of toons that can solo max difficulty content is high enough that avoiding them is very difficult. Even moderately tuned (say decently IOed out) characters at this stage in the game make a mockery of most content at the highest settings. So finding a group where there is a balance of how the game used to be is not easy at all. We can't turn up the difficulty any more and the power level of the game is that there are many combinations and toons that handle the max difficulty without need of anyone else. That's not a really good team game. I get it, people want to solo and feel super and face smash. However, if the game were harder, power was tuned down, or whatever, then people like myself could join PUGs and feel like ALL of the ATs have a place and chances to contribute. For those that want a faceroll experience, they can turn down difficulty and the game will accommodate them as well. But when you can't turn it up... and even PUGs are ripping through everything then perhaps that's why some of us wouldn't mind seeing that. With that said. I'll again state it would probably kill the game to "level the playing field". So I get that what I want and what might be good for the game are two different things.

You may not mean it, but you are essentially saying don't play with teams. Even if you did have your seven friends who were always available whenever you wanted to play, you'd also be asking most of them to not play many of the most common ATs. I don't think that's a good solution. Instead, trying to find a way that support, and all ATs, work in a balance thread seems like a pretty good way to go about it. Now to be fair, I'm mostly happy since the conversation to nerf support sets using PB has faded, but yes, it would be lovely if the Dev team looked at AT balance across the board. It should not be AT dependent on whether or not PUGs are an avenue for you or not. Just like there should be no AT required to make a PUG. However, I do think that every AT should have an impactful contribution on most teams. Basic mechanics, because some ATs are overtuned, then several ATs like Controllers/Dominators and to a lesser degree Defenders and Corruptors are not (as?) useful unless you restricting some of the more overtuned classes from joining. So now, you're asking those of us that loved those ATs to find a regular group of seven other players who also don't want to play several of the ATs so our kill speed is low enough for the ATs we want to play to matter. That's a pretty tall order for anyone to swallow. I personally don't think it's too much to ask that the ATs in the game matter at all phases of the game. If they don't they either they need some major revision, removal from the game, or the game itself needs some balance. Asking people to not PUG because 2-4 ATs are either undertuned or useless depending on your point of view is not really a good solution nor should it be anything you advocate for if you care about a good game and the health of the community. That's true... until "you" are common enough that forming an 8 person team without "you" is difficult. Right now, if I ask 8 players to play end game content, odds are I will have 2 players who can clear the map solo. As people have mentioned IOs are far more common (a good thing in my book) and recent buffs to classes have made them far stronger than they ever were (sniper/nuke/tank/pick your buff). So finding eight players who can not clear a map is not quite as easy as you are saying. Plus, like probably most people, I love making builds as good as I can. I have plenty of builds that can solo +4/8 content. That does not mean that I think it's healthy for the game. I don't. Still, if the options are there, I like to make things as good as I can in the process. I am pretty sure that most people have a similar view. It would be nice if the game could accommodate people who wanted to make things as good as they can and still not have several ATs suffer/languish because of it. I don't disagree... but I don't think that has anything to do with AT balance and equity. Nor would I want everything homogenized. That would be a boring game. I don't know what the answer is but I do know that during live after the introduction of IOs and before say the last two issues, the game seemed to be in a state where teams could take any 8 characters. Some worked better together than others, but in general each AT brought something needed or at least helpful to the table. While there were a few OP combos, they were perhaps more rare due to the inflation of the market. That was a game that was pretty universally loved, enough so that people were still protesting years later. I don't understand the vehemence directed to people that would love to see that again. Blasters still did the most damage, Brutes were still wrecking balls, Support was welcomed with open arms as it had a noticeable but not required effect on a team, controllers had time to freeze mobs and usually could prevent a wipe at least in most teams once or twice a mission. To me, that's not a bad place to be.

Hey that's fine. I've explained why I think they have issues in the endgame and what I was looking for. I'm fine with people not agreeing and realize since I pretty much exclusively play support classes my viewpoint is likely biased. I try to lay out why I think why I do and certainly won't demand others think the same way. All I hope is that someone who is making the decisions sees this and at least thinks about it. Appreciate the bone.

I'll try to summarize the entire chain quickly. I have several characters who could offer up that +4 team and tell people to play cards, or doorsit, or whatever. I can usually clear a mob alone in about 10-15 seconds. If I'm doing that, I really don't get much benefit if you are buffing/debuffing or not. It might mean I have to use one more AOE than normal, but with a kill speed of 10-15 seconds there's not much room for improvement unless the debuff is MASSIVE and always up. Now, I am not the best player by far and people have better clear times than I do. So after getting a couple of them on a team, there is zero need for any support classes. They literally add nothing to any of the content I'll face. I love support classes. Why I care is that earlier in this thread there were several proposals to nerf some powers which benefitted them. My argument is that until you find a role for the support classes by solving some of the issues around the game, then nerfing them is just salt in the wound. That's the issue. For me at least. Others in this thread have many other viewpoints.

I'm fine with it too and will offer up unused slots to people as well. However, it does speak to the level of power being at a point that 1-2 players is often enough to manage +4 content without any help. I think this came up as an illustration of that. I'd have to go back and look where it first came up.