gabrilend

Yes exactly! A "passive league" is a decent way to think about it. Though for most neighborhoods it'd never grow larger than a team, as there's seldom more than 8 players in one area at a time. I'm not sure if we should prevent it from being farmable. I mean, farming is the entire point of grinding mobs! However, if there's a large amount of players in an area and they *are* placed in a league, the current mechanics of the game already reduces the EXP gained. Perhaps that would be sufficient, perhaps not, I don't know... If not, then we can come up with another solution ^_^

Rudra: You are misunderstanding, so let me attempt to clarify. Using just myself as an example because I can't speak for others, the reason why I would not join a street sweeping team on my street sweeping only characters is because I do not want anything other than my chosen targets. My Croatoa street sweeper for example, which no longer does so for having out-leveled the zone, would only take down Red Cap bosses. And that was the only mobs I wanted to be involved in my character's progression. No minions. No lieutenants. No Cabal. (Though I was hunting Tuatha and Firbolg until I was high enough level to go after the Red Caps.) Because of my character's focus, I did not want any xp or inf' coming from other sources. I did this on another character where I was explicitly hunting Family bosses in Independence Port. Or a red sider that only hunted Longbow in Nerva Archipelago. Don't want anything from other sources. Yes, this is extremely niche. However, it is just one example of why a street sweeping character could choose to not join a street sweeping team. Because now their theme is out the window as the other team members go after what they prefer, even if that preference is everything within render distance. I see. Well, the benefit to an opt-in system is that players who have needs like yours would be able to opt-out by not opting in. So all you'd have to do is refrain from selecting the "looking for patrol" option in the team finder and you would not be placed on these teams and you would not receive the distributed EXP gains. Rudra: Poor example. I get your point, but poor example, because in Gotham, the city is very much divided up into specific gang controlled territories. They just don't spend as much time visibly shaking down the citizenry as in CoX. Most of their crimes are hidden in the back alley shadows, boardrooms, and political offices. In comics, villains most often band together to be able to defeat the heroes they know are going to come after them during their heists, but only after the heroes have previously prevented those criminals from successfully completing their crimes multiple times. Or they share an ideology, other belief system, or shared trait; so they band together into a set villain group. They don't band together just because. And often, their encounters with each other, at least during their crimes, are violent as they view each other as a threat to their own goals. That's part of the problem. While a patrol works well from a heroic stand point, it all but fails under a villainous one. Ah my bad, sorry. I don't really read comics, they never really grabbed me. And the marvel and D/C movies weren't my jam either. I think the reason CoX appeals to me so much is because of the inherent collectivist spirit in it? It's essentially the only non-American superhero piece of media that I can think of, and while American culture is very individualistic and I like it for what it is, I don't much like the idea of individualist supers because it glorifies the concept of centralizing power within a few choice individuals. I mean, Batman is literally a billionaire, there can only be so many of him. CoX however is different. In this world, anyone who works hard enough can be a superhero (see the "Origin of Power" contact mission chain in Cap au Diable when playing a natural character) and not only that, but there are SO MANY of them! They all work together for the common good of protecting Paragon City, and the villains are given the interesting moral choice of working for or against Arachnos, which is so much more interesting to me than deciding to be "good" or "evil". My characters tend to lean more toward "Kickass" and less "spandex", but that's just a personal preference. Also lots of magic and robots, because robots can be built and magic can be learned. But I digress. My point was that I don't know enough about comics to be able to tell. Oh, you mean like... Arachnos? We are "Destined Ones", after all. 😉 But not every hero wants to work with Arachnos. I usually don't. However, I do often team up with other villains. What in-game explanation currently exists for that behavior? Whatever it is, it would apply equally to mission teams as to street sweeping, I believe. Rudra: Because the story is told in the instanced missions, and because instanced missions give better rewards for giving mission completion rewards whereas just moving around a zone smacking down down random mobs doesn't, if the devs want players to spend time out and about in the various zones, they need to include street sweep missions. Players are going to gravitate to rewards. That reward can be discovered lore about the game, it can be xp and inf', it can be whatever. I believe the reason why street sweeping is so unpopular is because it lacks a reward system. You can't just award bonus rewards if there isn't a trigger to award those bonus rewards. So instanced missions get mission completion rewards. (Which means street sweep missions should too, but they don't.) Delving through the missions and reading the clues, briefings, debriefings, and enemy chatter reveals a massive story behind the game, which is itself also a reward. Just moving around a zone and randomly smacking down various mobs can't do that, though at least we do have explores that also give game lore. Because of that, yes, players need to be told to go to King's Row and search the roof tops and back alleys because the CoT are sacrificing people. Because otherwise there is no real incentive to do so. The rewards are found in the instanced missions. Now from a lore/comic perspective? You're correct, supers should be out there patrolling their home turf for multiple reasons. PR being one. Home security being another. (Bear in mind though, that from a realism point of view, most of those criminals the patrolling hero is beating up to save the day? Are just down on their luck regular people trying to get something to live on. Not a concern in something Like CoX where everyone mugging someone is a gang member running wild, but if you were to get down to it, at least in comics, that's what your patrolling heroes have to confront. That not everyone committing a crime does so because they are evil.) I don't think they *need* to include street sweeping missions, they only need to include street sweeping *rewards*. And, as already suggested, the rewards could be a single reward merit after defeating an archvillain/hero that spawns every ~100 kills (per hero). I believe this would be enough of a reward for people to seek to engage with the content. It seems like your concern here is primarily about the lore that is unread when players don't do contact missions. Well, I think street sweeping has always attracted the kinds of players who value creating their own story over reading the story of others. I mean I'm clearly a huge advocate of street sweeping, and I don't even read comics! Part of what pulls me to City of Heroes is the idea that these criminals we're fighting actually *are* evil. I wouldn't really want to play a game set in a modern day city because yeah, you're right, most petty criminals are just people trying to get by. They don't deserve to be beaten into a paste by "superheroes". However, in CoX, the enemies you fight are overwhelmingly members of organized gangs that take over territory and oppress and harass the people who live there. They are violent and cruel and the closest thing to evil that a human can be, in this century. That's the only reason I can stomach fighting them. I like playing villains though because people live on the Rogue Isles too, and I'd never hurt them. If the territory was in my hands, they'd be safe from harm. At least, until I moved on of course, but what can you do, I'm playing a villain teehee >: ) Missions are chosen by the team leader and are active for all members of the team. When hunting Hellions in Hyperion Way, the player is on the "Hyperion Way" team. When they cross the street, they are removed from the Hyperion Way team and placed on the Promenade team, which has a different mission active. Therefore, they can no longer gain progress on the old mission which was attached to the team, not the player. Check out this comment for more discussion on the motivations behind the auto-generated team system.

My understanding is that the identity of a Brute mechanically is that of a hybrid class, placed between Scrappers and Tankers. They should deal less damage than a scrapper but have more survivability, and they should deal more damage than a tanker but have less survivability. If your health bar is never supposed to dip, then what's the point of having one at all? I view it as a resource, and if you aren't fully utilizing your resources then you aren't performing at your maximum potential. People don't like dying, but I think the issue they should fear is the death component, not the process of being harmed. Especially for a Brute, who revels in the slaughter (or perhaps is most attuned to it), being harmed would be a natural part of that experience. Also... what are PUGmates? Like, players you meet in a pick up group?

I agree with what you're saying here. The proposed design does offer a reason to do street sweeping, just as street sweeping contact missions would, so I believe that we can assume that people would use the team finder if it unlocked some new functionality for them. Specifically, the ability to join teams related to street sweeping, which it *technically* does now, but like you said nobody uses it so it *functionally* does not operate as intended. Rudra: Because those teams already form as evidenced by paper/radio mission teams and how quickly they tend to cycle through members for starters. And because street sweep missions tend to be skipped by most players I've met as being boring and tedious from the repetition, secondly. And because players that just want to get their street sweep out of the way and move back to instanced missions will not opt-in while being in competition with the street sweep team thirdly. (I just don't see players scrambling to join this if implemented. Even players that choose to just level by street sweeping. For instance, on my characters I'm leveling through just street sweeping? I'm hunting specific targets of specific tiers. Like just Red Cap bosses in Croatoa. And even though I'm out in zone street sweeping, I would have no intention of joining a street sweep team in zone because they won't limit themselves to my chosen targets. So even other players that are doing street sweeping by choice may choose to not opt-in for their own reasons.) So to rephrase what you're saying into an easily addressable format, you're saying: 1. paper/radio mission teams cycle through members quickly 2. street sweep missions are considered to be an unwanted diversion from missions by mission teams 3. mission teams doing street sweep missions will compete with dedicated street sweeper teams 4. street sweepers won't join these teams because they won't be able to fight the mobs they want to fight I believe I can address all four of these concerns. 1. It seems to me that rapid cycling of team members lends itself well to the proposed design of auto-generated teams. Since there's so little emphasis placed on who's joining your team, why not automate the friction away? And if there's no leader determining who joins which team and such, then they are by definition decentralized. Perhaps radio/paper mission teams could benefit from such a system, as well... 2. I believe that street sweeping missions were added to story arcs in order to break up the monotony of doing just missions over and over again. However in this enlightened era of 2024 we've seen that players actually *like* that kind of monotony, or at least the kinds of players that you're referring to do. So to me that sounds like an issue with the story arcs, not the proposed design idea. In addition, it makes sense to me that players who gravitate to missions would prefer to do missions. Is it so strange to believe that players who gravitate to street sweeping would prefer to do street sweeping? I understand that currently there aren't very many players who street sweep, but I believe that changes such as those proposed in this thread could "till the ground" as it were, for the planting of seeds that may one day blossom into more dedicated street sweeping patrollers. 3. This is true. I think it's okay to compete, though. If there's too much competition in an area, then the dedicated street sweeping team will move on, and it only takes a minute or three for mobs to respawn. So there wouldn't be much delay for the mission team, I believe. I also mentioned earlier how I think that the community will collectively learn that certain types of enemies should be avoided because they are in high demand for mission teams. 4. One of the primary purposes of distributing EXP across a neighborhood is precisely so that players *will* be able to fight the mobs they want to fight. If your street sweeping team isn't fighting Red Cap bosses, but you'd like to, then you are more than able to fight them yourself. The EXP earned by you will distribute to your team, and the EXP they earn will distribute to you. Thus improving both of your experience, as you feel like you're contributing to a team even if you aren't in the same area. And, should they wander across your path, they'll be able to help you, and you'll all gain *even more* experience, as the distributed portion of exp is less than the earned portion of exp. I hope those responses addressed your concerns. You're right, the friction isn't significant. I would like to point out though that the cities portrayed in comic books are significantly different than those in City of Heroes. In a comic, there are usually only a handful of named supers. In City of Heroes, there are *thousands*. To add onto that, the threats that we face, the gangs, the criminal organizations, the monsters, the ghosts and undead, even Arachnos... All of it is significantly more present than in the comics. For example, in Gotham, 99% of people who live there are regular average people just going about their day. Batman's fight takes place in the shadows, because he's one of like what, 5 superheroes at any one time? Very few are operational and wandering around beating up baddies. And the baddies do not control the streets, they are ever-present in alleyways and whatnot but they don't own turf to such a degree as they do in Paragon City. However, when you compare the ratio of baddies to citizens wandering the streets, you'll see that they're roughly equal. In lower level zones, there are more civilians, and in higher level zones it's common to see very few. And hazard zones have none at all! That is a stark departure from the cities depicted in comic books, and one of the truly unique things about CoX that should be highlighted, rather than lampshaded. Rudra: That is a serious stretch. You may find petty criminals doing that, but a named super? Not likely at all. That interferes with whatever plans they may have. Even if they lack any plans and just want to run around smashing everything they see. Rudra: Again, not likely for villains. Even in comics like with the Legion of Doom. It is usually a dominant personality gathering underlings without letting the others know that is all they are to the founder or activities by heroes are forcing villains to band together, but only as much as they have to. The exceptions are cults and other organizations like HYDRA or AIM, but even there the bulk of the villains are faceless nobodies, not named supers. Well, can you think of a better generic explanation for why a group of supervillains would team up together? Especially lower-level ones. "Big fishes in small ponds", as it were. Seriously, why would villains ever team up? Gold, glory, and bloodshed. Those are the three reasons that come to mind for me. A feeling of superiority, perhaps, or a chance to flex, but that falls under glory so yeah. Villains typically strive for power, and what better way to usurp power in a neighborhood than to team up with a bunch of others and clear out the area from all the lesser minions and lieutenants? Once you've beaten the snot out of enough of them, you can consider the area "beneath you", and move on, after installing your own minions and lieutenants of course. Who will then be defeated in turn by the lower leveled noobs coming up from below you. Sounds like a decent enough explanation to me... Rudra: And your suggestion would still be intentional, not random. There is no way to form a team to do anything that isn't intentional. That's why teams form, to intentionally do something. In this case, street sweeping/patrol. Regardless of whether it is a contact given mission or just the team moving around wiping out everything they come across. There is intention in doing so. Well, yes you're correct in-so-far as opting in to be placed on a team is intentional. And just as these teams would be formed randomly based on geographic proximity, so too are mission teams organized pseudo-randomly when the leader invites whoever messages them first. I'm not sure I see the issue here? Both forms of teams are intentional, both are random, however I was attempting to highlight a contrast between them to differentiate them for rhetoric. Rudra: Then you are missing a part of the street sweep and patrol missions the contacts give. Their purpose is specifically to expose the player to different parts of the city and the factions that can be found there. Rudra: Then again you are missing the point of several street sweep missions as given in the game. Most evidenced by the Atlas Park missions and King's Row missions. Also to an extent by the Perez Park missions. Where your character is specifically told to go take down Hellions in Atlas Park because they are robbing the people or have caused a fire around a building. Or your character is specifically told to check the roof tops of King's Row for Circle of Thorns who are sacrificing people. Or to go into the woods of Perez Park to stop the Circle of Thorns from sacrificing people. While those missions are very few, there are street sweep missions that specifically tell the player character that there are people in danger and sends the player character to street sweep for the problem and put an end to it. The player shouldn't need to be told to check roof tops in King's Row. They shouldn't need a motivation to hunt down the Circle of Thorns cultists who are sacrificing people in the woods. They are supers, they are drawn to the fight. Heroes will strive to protect the citizenry, and villains will strive for power and domination. At first I thought street sweeping missions as proposed would be a nice addition to the idea as presented in the OP, but the more I think about it the more I think they would conflict rather than work in tandem. I'll explain why: street sweeping missions are intended to draw players to a particular area. Let's assume that there's a mission in Atlas Park to defeat 100 Hellions in Hyperion Way, on the east side of town. If a player moves to the north and enters The Promenade, then they will no longer be able to get credit for fighting Hellions in Hyperion Way. But they just crossed the street, why should that matter...? So the solution would be to expand the scope of the mission to Atlas Park the zone, rather than a specific neighborhood in Atlas park. Or perhaps even removing the scope entirely and telling the player to "defeat 100 Hellions" which works against the goals as presented earlier in the post, specifically the goal to highlight the unique character of individual neighborhoods. Now, if both ideas were implemented in tandem, they would conflict. Say a player is in a group and crosses the threshold to another neighborhood - suddenly, their mission changes! If they had 5 Hellions left to go in Hyperion Way, but then crossed the street to The Promenade, not only would their mission change to "defeat 30 Clockwork in The Promenade" thus invalidating their progress, but if they walked back across the street and re-joined their old group, then there's a chance someone would have killed 5 hellions and completed the mission, depriving them of the mission reward. Not ideal. So, I don't believe they would work very well in tandem. I also think that street sweeping missions encourage players to hunt down specific types of mobs to the exclusion of all others, which is not ideal when the goal is to make the streets safer / more open to your own influence. While I appreciate the abstraction away from specific enemy types, I think this contributes the same value to the design as the summoned archvillains/heroes to fight - namely, a periodic burst reward that acts as both an inflection point of intensity, and a stopping point for players to switch to a different activity. And idk, I think fighting a super every once in a while is more interesting than turning in a mission every 10 minutes.

Rudra: That would be easier to achieve with a mission completion reward for repeatable street sweep missions from an appropriate zone contact. True. It would be easier to achieve with repeatable street sweep missions. Rudra: Which fails if the opt-in system you agreed to earlier is implemented. Forming radio teams in PI for instance is a very ad hoc team formation, but it works because players can choose to join and run missions with that team rather than be auto-joined just because they happen to be going after the same targets in zone. And auto-forcing players to join teams, especially if they are already on a team of their own, is not something I will ever agree with. Ad hoc team formation? Sure. Automatic team formation? No. Just to clarify, as mentioned earlier in the thread this should be an opt-in system, potentially by utilizing the "looking for patrol" option in the team finder, which currently is essentially unused. There would never be any auto-forced team joining, it would be completely consensual. Can you explain more about why you believe an opt-in system would fail to encourage ad-hoc and decentralized teams? To me, it seems like a clear and explicit result of the proposed auto-team mechanic. I mean... It forms teams, automatically, on the fly, without any centralized authority organizing it. Rudra: Can be done using a zone contact granting repeatable street sweep missions. No new mechanics need to be created. The contacts will already stop granting missions when the player/team out-levels the zone. And there are street sweep missions that can be copied from existing contacts to populate the new contact. And even if new missions are instead preferred, it is a set of repeatable street sweep missions, so no need for any time creating a story arc around the missions, or need to figure out what maps to use and what objectives to populate the missions with. Everything needed already exists or takes minimal time to add. True again. Street sweeping missions would accomplish this goal. Rudra: Which can be accomplished just as easily from the players' point of view and much more easily from the developers' point of view if a contact giving street sweep missions that actually awards mission completion rewards is added to the zones. I disagree, I don't think that street sweeping missions will bring the community together any more than the current mission system currently does. At the end of the day, they're both missions, and they both are engaged with by the players in similar fashions. The proposed system offers a radically new gameplay style that is an alternative to the current systems, however street-sweeping missions feel more like an extension of the current systems. And besides, if you need to manually form a street-sweeping team, then you are forced to introduce yourself to others. Which defeats the thematic purpose as well of wandering around a city populated by heroes who do battle with the thugs and goons who contest the civilians attempting to live their lives in peace. Or, alternatively, the thematic purpose of wandering the rogue isles, looking for weaklings to punish for the audacity of being slightly-less-evil than you, alongside other super-powered individuals who want to show off. Or maybe compete with you. Or perhaps who want to join up and be stronger. Whatever their motivations may be... Street sweeping missions do not accomplish this thematic goal because they are intentional, not random. They are focused, not dispersed. They do not bring attention to the neighborhoods of the city, thus highlighting the world design, but rather focus on zooming about as fast as possible hunting down specific types of mobs and ignoring everything else. I do not believe street sweeping missions will accomplish the desired thematic elements as proposed in the OP. Rudra: Which already happens on teams I've seen when street sweep missions come up in the story arcs. The team scatters across the zone to hunt down the target mobs more expeditiously. So the OP fails to create something new in this regard because it already happens. (Edit: The times the teams I've seen/been on stayed concentrated for street sweep missions was when the target mobs were required to be in a specific neighborhood of the zone or if they were most common in that neighborhood.) They may be dispersed, but their motivations are entirely personal. They want to hunt down specific mobs, and only those specific mobs. The contact giving the street sweeping mission couldn't care less about the citizens who are being terrorized, and they have no connection to the strokes of opportunistic fate that give a wandering villain a chance to strike at an unsuspecting foe. They are just throwing anyone who'll listen at a wall of baddies that is constantly respawning. There's no purpose in it, there's no honor or glory. It's just... "Greetings adventurer, please go kill 5 boars in the forest. I'll give you a new dagger or a pair of shiny boots as a reward, and maybe point you to my friend who has another task for you." I don't like it. It feels unauthentic and antithetical to CoX and the unique design that has sustained it through these past 20 years.

Rudra: makes no sense. Mechanically, that would mean that lower level villains/mobs would be spawning across the zone as the team/league wipes out the existing ones. Which would be counterproductive. You're right, it's a bit of a contrivance. However if you want to develop certain mechanics, then you need an explanation thematically for them. Similarly, if you want to develop a certain theme, then you utilize mechanics that affect that theme for the player to experience. It's quite rare that they are one and the same, and usually mechanics like that are a core part of the gameplay loop which means the entire game is probably built around them. So, yeah you're right. It's a bit of a stretch, but can you think of any other thematic justifications for the mechanics as presented? Or can you think of any mechanics that replace a proposed mechanic that would bring forth the theme more successfully? Hmmm, that's fair. Alright, how about this instead: I know the game is supposed to be set in 2004, so maybe this wouldn't work, but player characters have emotes where they use smartphones, so they exist in-universe. What if the civilians who may-or-may-not be present take pictures and videos and such and post them on the internet? Then, later, when your character is at their day job, they check out what people are saying about them, and get the experience then by observing the mistakes they made. Which, by the way, wouldn't conflict with the original idea I had where the heroes / villains were talking directly to one another. I'm open to suggestions for better ideas... This problem doesn't seem to be much of an issue for other MMOs, I'm thinking specifically of World of Warcraft. That game has regular expansions, and during the launch of an expansion the issue you're describing (overcrowded questing zones) is certainly present, and so they developed a lot of tech for ameliorating the problem through zoning, increased spawn rates, etc. However, it's only a problem for the first couple weeks of each expansion, after which the players are more evenly dispersed throughout the leveling zones, thus giving people easier access to the quest mobs they need to level up. Frankly I don't think it'd be a big problem in City of Heroes, where there's very very few missions like the ones you've described. And I have faith in the community of Homecoming, I believe that we'd quickly learn which mobs are important to avoid fighting excessively, especially when someone is trying to do a mission there. We're a kind group of people, and we wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes, so honestly I truly believe that we are too honorable to do something like that out of spite. At least, not on a massive scale. I'm sure it'll happen sometimes, especially before people learn. But we'd learn. And if it truly ends up being such a big problem, then perhaps the combined solutions presented earlier for: 1. increasing the spawn rates for critical mobs depending on the number of players in the zone 2. decreasing the minimum distance a player must be from a spawn point that is attempting to spawn, but can't because of player proximity (no closer than the aggro radius, of course, which can also be reduced with higher numbers of players) and 3. potentially granting kill credit for specific quests to people with those specific quests when those mobs are killed by non-team members in the immediate vicinity. I'm thinking no more than 50 yards away. Those three solutions I believe when applied to varying degrees (the third one is the least desirable, I believe) should address the concerns you have with open-world mobs. Do you have any ideas for other ways to address that issue? Can you find any flaws with these three solutions? I disagree, I believe I've adequately addressed all the concerns raised in this thread. And those that remain are significantly less harmful than the positive benefits brought from the implementation of such a system. I understand posts like this can be difficult to read through, especially when I write SO MUCH but I put the "essay" tag on this post for a reason... I need the words in order to express myself clearly, honestly, and diligently. The street sweep mission idea is nice, but like I said it's insufficient for the goals of this post. Specifically, the goals are: 1. to make patrolling the open world more desirable through increased street sweeping rewards 2. to encourage players to group up in an ad-hoc and decentralized way through the auto-team joining mechanic 3. to provide a massive increase in the amount of content for players to engage with through minimal systems development 4. to bring the community together by fostering a sense of mutual aid and contribution as players help one another, even if they don't know one another 5. to encourage a new style of gameplay that is unique and not present in the game -> namely, the dispersal of teammates throughout a zone, rather than their concentration I believe these 5 goals are valid, and I've offered methods of achieving them with comparatively minimal effort. Well, adjusting spaghetti is always monumental, but I do believe that most of the work can be building upon the spaghetti, like a garnish of parmesan or a meatball, rather than attempting to untangle it. There are no alterations proposed, rather only system additions, and I think that's probably easier.

Maybe an auto-power that drains more and more fury the longer you have it on while toggled, it applies a CC effect to nearby enemies in an increasing radius with increasing strength/duration the longer it's been on. Idk if that really fits with the fantasy of the Brute tho?

Yes exactly! Which is why the anti-afk mechanics proposed here: Luminara: You can set up macros (computer macros, not game macros) with any halfway decent keyboard or mouse software, and even low-end input devices come with that kind of software these days. It's bundled with the drivers. And for those with bottom shelf crap that's just doing basic input, there's freeware that does this. And the game can't distinguish between a person pressing a key/button and a computer sending keyboard/mouse input to the game via macros. It's impossible to create any anti-AFK measure that a simple macro program can't defeat because it's impossible for the game to distinguish between macro input and manual input. Gabrilend: The type of AFK detection I'm advocating for is pretty simple, basically if a player hasn't defeated a monster in the past minute then they don't get distributed EXP rewards. That's pretty much it. I'll explain how I'd implement the architecture: Whenever a player enters a zone, they get added to a list. When they leave, they are removed from that list. This list iterates through all the players in the zone one step per second (or other interval as determined by the capabilities of the server and the number of players in the zone). It checks the timestamp for when the player last defeated an enemy, and if it's greater than 1 minute then a boolean is flipped on their character's record in the list. This boolean is used to determine which heroes to distribute EXP rewards to. Next time they defeat a foe, the boolean flips back (or perhaps the next time the list iteration rolls past them). I believe this is a simple enough solution that should handle most AFK issues. Combined with the limitation that mobs cannot spawn at a certain spawn point while a player or their minions are within the aggro radius (both of the mob and the "aggressive" pet aggro distance) I think that AFKers should be mostly defeated. What do you think? Am I missing any situations that might apply? And just to clarify, this limitation only applies to the NEW source of exp distribution. The default means of acquiring EXP, perhaps from your friends fighting things nearby for you, should still be in effect. Albeit at a reduced rate, as 50% of their EXP is being distributed to the neighborhood... ... would address that concern. You wouldn't be able to just "walk through a parking lot and get EXP", you'd need to do at least a little fighting. And maybe that little bit that you did was enough for the other people who are doing more of the fighting to share some tips with you about how to fight this particular enemy - essentially, knowledge for free. Well, free because you were in the right place at the right time and you contributed a modicum of effort. I guess that's all you need. Besides, if everyone's sitting, then the farmers won't be helping them that much. If AFKers are as much of a concern as you expect, then there will be proportionally a much lower rate of experience awarded to them. Essentially, if you don't fight, then any other method of farming exp would be faster for you. And, if the opt-in mechanics as suggested here: Gabrilend: I see what you mean. Perhaps this would be an "opt-in" system, like the auto-generated groups I suggested which (as proposed) are only applied when the player marks themselves as "looking for patrol team" in the team finder interface. ... would allow you to disengage from this form of content if you believe that the AFKers are leeching and not actually contributing. Since the spirit of this suggestion is to facilitate coordination among wandering heroes, it makes sense that one of the justifications for the thematic implementation of the mechanical effects would be based on communication. So, to reiterate: EXP is shared because your fellow heroes are sharing tips with you about how to defeat this particular foe. Once you've learned all you can from them and outleveled the zone, there's nothing more you can do, so you move on individually. To a villain, perhaps fellow Destined Ones are sharing tips about how to survive in the Hellscape that Lord Recluse has created? Or if cooperation isn't in their nature, then perhaps the act of clearing a zone of enemies has made the new ones that wandered in proportionally weaker (as they do not possess as much experience as those who came before) and so you, the villain, feels more powerful (as reflected in the distributed experience) and thus can defeat them more easily.

That would be nice, but at the end of the day it's not really a fundamentally different playstyle. Which is what is being proposed - take an inert piece of content (the entire massive open world) and provide the structure to encourage engagement in a different way than what other types of content provide, while also providing rewards that make it enticing for players who care about that kind of thing. My vision is a city of heroes where you can wander where you please, fighting mobs as you see them, and playing with friends around you. There should be no compulsion to stick together like glue, you are wandering superheroes on patrol. You should spread out and cover the whole area. I believe the proposed mechanics create space for that fantasy, and I think the suggested structure is neat, easy to play, and easy to implement. The downsides suggested thus far seem to be either addressable, or just like... not that big of a deal. QFT My understanding is that players "won't use it" because they currently don't do street sweeping. And they don't currently do street sweeping because there's minimal rewards for it. However, by providing rewards, I believe players would be enticed to engage with this content. I do not believe their current lack of engagement with the open world is due to an inherent distaste for it, but rather simply an issue of rewards. And while a simpler solution could be implemented, most simple solutions do not offer anything compelling and new. I believe the proposed idea would offer compelling and new gameplay, and again I believe it would utilize existing assets and not require anything more than a few systems implemented in code.

In that case, your team would be one of several in that neighborhood. And the exp gains from that kill would be distributed to you according to the algorithm presented earlier, where 50% of the exp is granted to those present and 50% is divided amongst others in the zone. See my conversation with Luminara and McSpazz earlier in this thread: Gabrilend: I think this is absolutely a wonderful idea. Having an increased threat monster arise due to the presence of heroes, or maybe an archvillain shows up to stomp on all the lesser villains, something to that effect. Perhaps there's a hidden counter or meter that fills up as players fight monsters in the zone, and when a certain amount have been defeated a hero/archvillain is spawned that is thematically appropriate for that level range. That's a decent reward, but I believe it's a little similar to the Giant Monster mechanic. Perhaps an additional twist is necessary...! What if this archvillain/hero that spawns is of the opposite alignment to the zone. So, for example, if you're in Paragon City, an archvillain would spawn who was hostile to the players *and* the normal enemies present. So a neighborhood in Atlas Park for example which is mostly populated by Hellions would have an archvillain spawn who was drawn to the fighting for some reason and wanders around much like a player does fighting both heroes and Hellions. I believe that would encourage players to fight them, because not only would they be worth a lot of exp and infamy/influence, they also would be reducing the potential targets for their street sweeping patrol. There's currently already a large group of NPC costumes created for the bank heist missions. Perhaps after (100 * number of players in zone) enemy units are slain / arrested / beaten down, it spawns a hero/archvillain in a random neighborhood? Ideally, without any proclamation or explanation of their presence. That way players would have to hunt them down. Basically mirroring the players and using the same behavior they're using, but for the opposite side. Gabrilend: Perhaps when defeating these archvillains/heroes, you're given a reward merit? Would that be sufficient reward / motivation to engage with this kind of content, for the reward-oriented players in our midst?

Both of those are true, and both of them are reasons why the proposed idea should be considered. Giving street sweeping teams a generic purpose (rather than in pursuit of badges) would encourage their creation, and if they were made in an automatic way then there is significantly less friction when compared to the league solution. Since street sweeping does not grant rewards on par with missions, if they are to be considered a valid form of content then the rewards for street sweeping teams should be increased. Ideally, not to the same level as missions, as it's not good to upset the entire balance of the game. Doing as such is like messing with an ecosystem, and we all know what happens when you bring cats to Australia or whatever. Not a good plan. So, ideally, they should grant rewards that are about 80% as valuable as missions and raids and such - currently, I'd estimate they're much lower than that. I believe this percentage would allow people who like to engage with this kind of content to do so without feeling like they're wasting their time. In addition, an auto-team-up mechanic would prevent randos from stealing your exp.

The formatting on this post is gorgeous! ^_^ I'm confused about the range: 0 feet tho - how would that work? Can you elaborate? I thoughts this was an AoE centered on the player, and a range of 0 feet means... nothing would get affected, right?

What kind of different pet? Would it look the same, just have a higher strength fear to use against enemies?

Mass Levitate could use a similar graphic as the AoE shield bubble that forcefield support characters get. Ideally with an recolored effect. Call it a "selective anti-gravity field generator" or something like that I see you have slash and parry, but also quick strike - quick strike is a punch, right? While slash and parry use weapons. Would this powerset have a costume weapon included? If so, which kind? I'm also a fan of the tazer origin power that characters start with, that could be an option for a short-range ranged attack. Could fit with the melee theme if you make it short enough range, maybe recolor it to be yellow/blue by default instead of white?

I see. Well, perhaps their damage could be increased as well. Perhaps a reduction in their "base" damage, but an increase to the amount of damage gained from fury? Thus concentrating their damage potential in their unique mechanic. And if the reduction in base damage was, say, -15%, the bonus from fury could be proportionally larger, say, 30%, to provide an overall buff to their damage potential when in their element. I do believe such changes are possible with the introduction of the proposed mechanics. I remember reading in the linked thread that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the "Build Up" power, with many voices feeling that it was too similar to Scrappers and that it only affected their damage potential (which is not ideal for a hybrid class) - perhaps an alteration could be made to that power, in addition to the suggestions I made in the original post. How about this: In addition to the proposed changes, alter Build Up such that it is now a defensive toggle. When enabled, your abilities no longer cost endurance, but rather draw from your health bar. Essentially allowing the brute to fight through the exhaustion at the expense of their physical health. Not only would this give them the capacity to fight for longer than Scrappers, but it would also allow for their team to keep them going for as long as they can throw heals at them. In addition, it would provide a much-needed counter to endurance draining sets in PvP, which is a nice bonus. Perhaps throw in a damage buff or something as well, just to sweeten the deal and encourage them to use that power even when they aren't completely out of endurance. To make it even more interesting, perhaps when the Brute is in their 0-10% hp state, this Build Up replacement toggle power would periodically convert some of their endurance into health, thus giving them a way to ensure that they could survive a fight (should they have the resources necessary to actually overcome their foes). This would, in essence, give Brutes three health bars, which is kind of absurd, but, like, Brutes are wild, so maybe not such a bad thing. I think this would not only buff the damage output of Brutes, which seems to be the primary concern, but it would also interact in an interesting way to the additional proposed mechanics of their fury bar acting as a second health bar. Perhaps the Brute wouldn't feel so concerned about spending time in the lower regions of their health bar if they knew that they had a second chance should they dip below 0%. And to be clear, this new idea wouldn't give the Brutes more resources to use, but rather it would enable them to convert the resources into whatever they needed in the moment. I think this added flexibility would give the Brute a new identity that, apparently, they are sorely lacking.

RIP street sweeping, may you live again one day, perhaps due to the proposed system, perhaps in some other way. Alas, your reign was glorious, short as it may be, as the City of Heroes was safer in your presence. That sounds fun. Though I wonder if there'd be any reason to continue doing it after you got that accolade.

Hi, I just saw your edit. You're correct in saying Boromir fought with discipline, however I'd argue that he's still a brute. What is fury but a state of focused concentration and intention? In Boromir's final moments, his purpose was singular - he gave his life to protect the hobbits upon which the fate of the world rested. A fate which was suddenly precarious due to his very actions taken just a few moments prior, with Frodo. When defending Merry and Pippin, I believe his quality of character shone through the mistake he had just made due to the inherent weakness in the hearts of men, and his honor carried him forth to his final sleep on the river Anduin. (I say sleep because when he appeared to his brother in a dream wearing the golden belt of Lorien, he was described as if he was asleep) When I think of Brutes, I think of fighters who engage in that kind of flow state. Sure, many of them are angry, but you don't have to be mad to be furious. Take for example the Furyans in Chronicles of Riddick (the name gives it away hehe) -> they can enter a sort of "berserker rage" that gives them enhanced combat prowess, however it's more of a state of focused determination rather than explicit anger. I think they'd be brutes because of the build-up of concentration, and that, I think, is what defines fury, rather than a sense of rage or hatred. Consider, if you will, a furious maelstrom. Does the wind harbor hatred in it's heart? Does it act in pursuit of spiting those who it buffets? I think the wind is exultant, that is is a cacophonous burst of chaotic energy borne from the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Tokyo. So too do I believe that Brutes are exultant in their fury, and while that may manifest as anger for the majority of players, I don't believe that it is necessary or inherent to the concept of "fury".

Unfortunately this isn't a solution to the ideas as presented. I'll explain why in my response to Luminara's post. That should currently be possible with leagues. The minimum distance requirement (100 yards) to receive rewards is still there, but that's a sizeable area in which to pack characters, and there are a lot of places in the game where spawn locations are dense enough to permit everyone to fight without overlapping. The rewards are also better than what you've proposed (inf*, drops, higher XP). I don't believe Leagues are the solution. They provide a significant amount of friction that is one of the many reasons why people don't form street sweeping teams today, and in addition the EXP they distribute is not limited to the neighborhood, which is important because not only is a neighborhood much larger than 100 yards, meaning players could spread out significantly more, but also they are not automatic. Someone needs to take care of recruiting and organizing the team/league, and that's too much to ask for something that should be a natural state for player characters to find themselves in. Thematically, I mean. Say you're a hero named Shumkunkle wandering Paragon looking for trouble. You see another hero fighting, so you drop in and help them. You both learn from the experience, and you go your separate ways. With leagues being the solution to this problem, you'd have to invite them to a team or receive diminished rewards. And besides, if you're on one end of the neighborhood fighting Skulls and there's another hero on the other end doing the same, with leagues there's a significant chance that you would have no idea the other was there. Meaning you're less likely to team up, which is precisely the purpose of this suggestion. Thematically, doesn't it make sense for heroes to move on once they've "cleared" an area of foes? And thematically, doesn't it make sense that Shumkunkle and that other hero on the other side of the neighborhood would both be working toward the same goal of "clearing" the area of baddies? I think by sharing the experience they gain, thematically it could be said that they're both contributing toward their common goal - making the city safer for the people who live in it. And as such, once the area is sufficiently "safe" -> as in, the player has outleveled the area, then they should move on to the next place. With leagues, it creates an *explicit* contract between heroes / villains to fight alongside one another. With the EXP distribution per neighborhood idea, the contract is *implicit* and automatic. That reintroduces the problem of players who aren't participating in the activity having greater difficulty traversing the location. Larger spawns in their path between points A and B, spawns appropriate for hazard zones, popping in unexpectedly, not giving players time to maneuver around them. 2004 Hollows. The death run to the Icon in Steel Canyon. Debt Express. Not fun times. I never said the spawns should be larger. In fact I think they should be the same size, to facilitate spreading out and dispersing through the neighborhood without fear of dying. And if popping in unexpectedly is a concern, which I do believe it is, then make the minimum distance to spawn units be the same as the aggro distance. Or even reduce the aggro distance if there are a significant amount of players in the neighborhood. I actually liked 2004 Hollows, though I didn't start playing until 2006 if I remember correctly. Then there's no point to those missions. If all a player has to do is wait for passersby to do the work, there's no reason for the missions to exist at all. Those "Defeat X Carnies" missions have a purpose, are in the game to give players something to do. Those "Defeat X Council" missions in the middle of story arcs or TFs are there as part of the story. Change the system so anyone defeating those enemies counts for the mission or story arc or TF, and they're no longer relevant, and while some of them might be excessive (Numina, again), it would better to redesign the content than to implement a change which turns them into "go to Zone X, stand in Y for 10 seconds" missions. It would also be horrendously confusing for players who didn't understand that the reason one street sweep mission automatically completed was because someone else was street sweeping in the same neighborhood, but another mission is just sitting there, the counter not moving, because no-one else is out there. Yes, that's true, which is why I originally didn't suggest that. I personally think the current behavior for those missions is fine, but you seemed to have an issue with that so I offered a solution. It seems to me that you're correct in saying that this solution is not a good one, so I don't believe any changes should be necessary. To be clear: currently, if you have an open-world kill quest and you see someone else kill that type of monster, then you don't get credit. I believe this behavior should be unaltered. Your original concern was this: I believe that this issue would not end up being that big of a deal. Not only would you automatically be put into a group who could help you fight those mobs if you're solo, but also if the zone is "full enough to be troublesome" then the spawn rates would be increased to compensate. I think this would be an issue, but a relatively minor one, especially considering how rare those missions are. No. If you're not actively engaged with a nearby enemy, not teamed with someone who is, or not in a league with someone who is, the only thing you get is a notification in the chat window. No kill credit, no XP, no inf*, no drops, no badges, nothing. That's one of the fundamental design principles of this game. All rewards are dependent on participation, and simply being in the general area when other players are active isn't participation. That makes sense to me. However I would like to point out that farm sitters are a pretty explicit example of the kind of behavior you're arguing against here, and to be even more generic all you have to do is be on a team while someone else fights baddies around you and you'll get rewarded without participating. I see. Well, the proposed system only suggests an alteration to EXP distribution. As far as I can tell, the economy should remain relatively unaffected. Also, 5 million infamy for an hour playing is a massive amount of dosh, though I guess my perspective is a little warped because I've never gotten a character to 50 teehee You can set up macros (computer macros, not game macros) with any halfway decent keyboard or mouse software, and even low-end input devices come with that kind of software these days. It's bundled with the drivers. And for those with bottom shelf crap that's just doing basic input, there's freeware that does this. And the game can't distinguish between a person pressing a key/button and a computer sending keyboard/mouse input to the game via macros. It's impossible to create any anti-AFK measure that a simple macro program can't defeat because it's impossible for the game to distinguish between macro input and manual input. The type of AFK detection I'm advocating for is pretty simple, basically if a player hasn't defeated a monster in the past minute then they don't get distributed EXP rewards. That's pretty much it. I'll explain how I'd implement the architecture: Whenever a player enters a zone, they get added to a list. When they leave, they are removed from that list. This list iterates through all the players in the zone one step per second (or other interval as determined by the capabilities of the server and the number of players in the zone). It checks the timestamp for when the player last defeated an enemy, and if it's greater than 1 minute then a boolean is flipped on their character's record in the list. This boolean is used to determine which heroes to distribute EXP rewards to. Next time they defeat a foe, the boolean flips back (or perhaps the next time the list iteration rolls past them). I believe this is a simple enough solution that should handle most AFK issues. Combined with the limitation that mobs cannot spawn at a certain spawn point while a player or their minions are within the aggro radius (both of the mob and the "aggressive" pet aggro distance) I think that AFKers should be mostly defeated. What do you think? Am I missing any situations that might apply? And just to clarify, this limitation only applies to the NEW source of exp distribution. The default means of acquiring EXP, perhaps from your friends fighting things nearby for you, should still be in effect. Albeit at a reduced rate, as 50% of their EXP is being distributed to the neighborhood... Thanks for explaining the zone capped mechanics. I've seen that before so I'm familiar, I just didn't recognize that name for it. I never said they should be hazard zone sized spawns, but I already clarified that earlier in this comment. If this player is the only one in the neighborhood, then perhaps the EXP would be reduced compared the current implementation of street sweeping. But like you go on to say later, NO-ONE is street sweeping, so perhaps that's not such a bad thing, especially considering that this idea would provide structure for street-sweeping groups to actually organize through. I believe we can implement the kinds of rewards that would motivate players to engage with this kind of content, see for example this idea that I had when talking with @McSpazz: I think this is absolutely a wonderful idea. Having an increased threat monster arise due to the presence of heroes, or maybe an archvillain shows up to stomp on all the lesser villains, something to that effect. Perhaps there's a hidden counter or meter that fills up as players fight monsters in the zone, and when a certain amount have been defeated a hero/archvillain is spawned that is thematically appropriate for that level range. That's a decent reward, but I believe it's a little similar to the Giant Monster mechanic. Perhaps an additional twist is necessary...! What if this archvillain/hero that spawns is of the opposite alignment to the zone. So, for example, if you're in Paragon City, an archvillain would spawn who was hostile to the players *and* the normal enemies present. So a neighborhood in Atlas Park for example which is mostly populated by Hellions would have an archvillain spawn who was drawn to the fighting for some reason and wanders around much like a player does fighting both heroes and Hellions. I believe that would encourage players to fight them, because not only would they be worth a lot of exp and infamy/influence, they also would be reducing the potential targets for their street sweeping patrol. There's currently already a large group of NPC costumes created for the bank heist missions. Perhaps after (100 * number of players in zone) enemy units are slain / arrested / beaten down, it spawns a hero/archvillain in a random neighborhood? Ideally, without any proclamation or explanation of their presence. That way players would have to hunt them down. Basically mirroring the players and using the same behavior they're using, but for the opposite side. Perhaps when defeating these archvillains/heroes, you're given a reward merit? Would that be sufficient reward / motivation to engage with this kind of content, for the reward-oriented players in our midst? So, if "restricting the distribution system enough to ensure it was balanced would leave it below all other activities", and "no-one is forming these types of teams because of a lack of incentive", then... why not give reward merits for street sweeping? You say they can't, but... why not? Specifically, if a reward merit was given for defeating the archvillains / heroes that pop up. Not giant monster level threats, just one step above boss minions. Would that be an adequate reward? You go on to express some ideas for more unique rewards, but... I don't really like that kind of idea. It feels too separate from the activity itself, like offering cosmetic rewards for achievements or something. Ideally, this type of content would have the same type of rewards as other types of content, allowing it to be an alternative to running the same missions and tasks forces and such over and over and over again... And that brings me to the primary motivation behind implementing gameplay mechanics that encourage street sweeping. There's a massive amount of environments in the game that are just... inert, because there's no reason to engage with them. People say that it's difficult to add new powersets because developing assets is hard and that it's hard to create new costume pieces because making 3d models is hard, and when I hear that I can't help but think of the content that already exists in the game that could be utilized for a massive bump in content for players to engage with. All that it would need is some mechanical systems that organize players to engage with the open world. I believe that street sweeping (should it be adequately compensated and correctly designed to bring players together) is fundamentally a more engaging experience than running missions all day. Wouldn't you rather be out under the open sky than in a cramped warehouse or office building? Especially one that you've seen a hundred times... Wouldn't you rather there were no walls to bind you, save for the ethereal blue ones that appear when you stray too far from land? (engine limitations hehe) - I personally enjoy the feeling of deciding where I'd like to go in the moment. It's never the same place because there's always new places to go. And if you run out of places, then odds are you're about to level out of the area anyway. And if I were to join a street sweeping team like you suggest (I've organized them before) then not only would I be compelled to concentrate on the place where the rest of my team is located due to EXP not being distributed farther than a short distance, but also we'd easily clear the area of any white/yellow enemies, meaning we're compelled to move to areas with orange, red, and purple enemies. This solution does not create the type of behavior and playstyle that I believe the proposed idea would, specifically the ability to disperse throughout a neighborhood (as the EXP would be distributed to your allies) and to fight equal level enemies (because you never know when your friends are going to leave the area/team, meaning you're likely to be stranded in a difficult zone if you punch above your weight class) I believe that implementing this idea using a few new mechanical systems without any additional art assets would allow Homecoming to set itself apart from the other servers even more than it currently is, for minimal effort.

I didn't realize that. That's a shame.

1. Can you clarify what you mean by "meaningful capacity"? Are you looking for a mechanical change that alters the identity of the class itself? I believe that will be difficult to implement, because players have a lot invested in their characters and their nature. 2. I'm sorry, like I said I don't play Brutes. I was mostly pulling that idea from the thread I linked to. Can you tell me more about what your idea for the identity of the Brute is? Perhaps I can come up with an idea that appeals to your ideal while also fitting into the design advocated by others. I see your point. While the health gains from Willpower regeneration and Fiery Aura's Healing Flames should roughly equal out over time, the spiked healing of Healing Flames allows the Fire Aura brute to regenerate fury while the health regeneration of the Willpower brute does not. This would lead to an imbalance in favor of Fiery Aura. I'm not sure how to fix that. I'm not sure if this would work for every powerset that has an issue like this, but maybe when at 0hp Willpower's regeneration increases your fury bar instead of your health? And once you're at 100% fury, it starts healing you again. That fits thematically with the idea that Willpower Brutes can push themselves even further than other kinds of brutes, while keeping their survivability and damage output roughly equivalent to other characters. I'm not sure if the numbers would work out, but it's worth considering I think. So you're saying Blasters should get a buff to their melee damage - on this we agree 😉

@Luminara You raise some good points, and I'd like to address them one-by-one because I believe the issues you raise may be ameliorated with some strategic design decisions. I think this would be construed as a direct assault on farming unless the restriction were specific to open-world content. And if it was set up that way, it wouldn't act as encouragement to participate in open-world content, as it offers nothing to make it more desirable than, or even equally desirable to, TFs, Trials, raids, scanner/newspaper missions, tips, or even plain old story arcs. It isn't even comparably rewarding for people who just want to street sweep, since they can street sweep now and gain inf* in addition to XP. The intention is neither to assault farming nor to make street sweeping more desirable to (or even equally desirable to) TFs, trials, raids, radio/newspaper missions, tips, or contact missions. The purpose is to breathe life into a form of content that is functionally inert, but has quite a bit of development time spent on it by the original developers. Essentially adding a new way to play the game that already exists, without altering the *optimal* way to play. The goal, I believe, is to appeal to people who are more motivated by the "fun" or the "fantasy" of the game, without altering the playstyles of people who are interested in more optimal, profitable, or beneficial gameplay styles. In addition, I believe it would encourage people to spend time outside Atlas Park, as they'd be able to actively play the game in a social way without having to spend effort organizing a team. You're absolutely right, those numbers are absurd. I believe that the EXP should be *shared* equally amongst all players present in a neighborhood, not duplicated. So, as an example, let's take your 100 level 25 characters in Talos example. Everyone defeats one minion which gives 96 exp, and since there's 100 players in one neighborhood (where are they all going to stand, by the way? 100 is a massive amount of players, I've never seen more than like, 20 in an entire zone, much less a neighborhood) since there's 100 players receiving EXP, they each would get about 0.96 exp, as the 96 exp from the mob is distributed equally. If that doesn't feel rewarding to the player doing the fighting, then perhaps the EXP gained is split in two, with one portion given to the player doing the fighting and the other half being given to the rest of the neighborhood. This would encourage players to fight (as they'd get the largest portion of damage dealt) while also spreading the benefit to everyone else as well. However, this disadvantages support characters, but I believe the auto-team mechanic should fix that - support characters would be encouraged to hang out with the players in their team, and as such any EXP their teammates gain while nearby would be distributed to them as well. I drew a graphic to illustrate, see attached picture: They're not difficult to complete now. If players start taking over neighborhoods, and remember that enemies can't respawn until there's no-one near the spawn point (the only spawns that can are in the starter zones, like the Hellion Lieutenants around the lake in AP), there's nothing left for others unless all of the street sweepers pack up and leave. Yes, that the same code used in the starter zones can be applied universally. That would resolve that problem, but introduce the problem of players just parking in an optimal spawn point and putting an AoE/PBAoE on auto. And it would be even faster, since they wouldn't be wasting part of that 15 seconds moving on to another spawn to hit the 4 minions per minute quota. 10 minions served up every 60 seconds, courtesy of the server. Since they're being fed their minions, there'd be no incentive for players to roll on, so players trying to complete street sweeps for missions would find it even more difficult to locate un-owned spawns. I don't believe it would be a good idea to apply the starter zone spawning mechanics to everywhere. In fact I don't even like it in the starting zones, it makes the world feel less "real" However, those design decisions were implemented in order to counteract a specific undesired effect - namely, the early zones would be too crowded and there wouldn't be anyone to fight. Therefore, a possible solution might be to reduce the distance needed between a player and a spawn-point that is attempting to spawn units depending on how many players are in the neighborhood (or zone, if that's easier to implement). This would allow for a scaling increase to the spawn rate as the number of players present increased. I believe that would address this particular concern without allowing for players to simply park their Mastermind on-top of a spawn point and make a sandwich / walk the dog. In fact, now that I think of it, I believe this would be a necessary change in order to implement the proposed idea. Otherwise, when players fan out they'd stifle the spawning of enemies in the zone such that there'd be nobody to fight. That is undesired behavior, however the alteration to the spawning rates I suggested should compensate for that issue I believe. I see your point. Maybe the credit for those specific rare unit types could be shared amongst others who aren't on your team? I kinda figured that's how it functioned already, honestly. I think there are solutions to this issue. If it appears to be impossible to implement without being abused, I don't think it should be implemented. However, I think there are ways to curtail abuse without stifling the enjoyment of players who want to engage with the game in this way. First it should be ensured that players cannot AFK while mobs throw themselves at them. In addition AFK players should not receive distributed EXP - they should still get EXP from teammates that are fighting nearby, as they currently do, however they shouldn't be able to contribute nothing and still learn from the experience. You can't get stronger without doing pushups, after all. Can you explain this part a bit more? What do you mean by "zone capped", do you mean "at the high end of the level range for the zone"? And what do you mean about not earning any infamy/influence? The EXP may be distributed amongst players in the neighborhood, but the infamy gain is kept as-is. You should not be able to claim credit for something you didn't directly contribute to. Also, I'm not sure about the drops. I don't engage with that side of the game very much so I'm open to suggestions about how to address the concerns you have. Can you clarify your concerns about drops so that someone else might be able to think of a solution? Thank you for writing such a long post. I appreciate the conversation 🥰

that makes sense to me, thanks for clarifying the math. Sometimes that kind of thing is difficult for me. I think the effects you describe are within the intent of the design as suggested. The reason I say that is because the intent with this proposed change is to increase their survivability against spikes of damage, as they can just "shrug it off" and keep fighting through the pain, while Tankers would be able to handle sustained damage much easier because they are tough and built to take the wounds of the team upon themselves. I believe this would highlight the differences between the Brute and the Tanker by giving them different methods of tanking damage. Thus, they would be differentiated from Scrappers on the damage front (critical strike versus fury bar) and from the Tanker on the survivability front (greater overall defences versus larger risky health bar) without infringing on either of their design space.

Can't help but think that the SG base designer is how Architect Entertainment should have been implemented... If this suggestion is implemented, we could create bases that could act as forms of PvE content created for people to engage with. I think that would be awesome.

I would absolutely be in favor of this being an option for players to toggle in their UI settings. There's plenty of powers that do this, including but not limited to ice shields, and keeping the fantasy of my character while still being able to receive the buffs of my allies would be quite nice.

Their HP may be reduced by 25%, but the fury bar health effect would more than compensate. My vision is that 1% of health would equal 1% of fury, meaning it would essentially double their health bar and then reduce it by 50%, meaning Brutes get an overall increase of 50% to their survivability. Assuming my math there is correct, sometimes percentages trip me up... But percentages can be adjusted when balancing. The intention is to bring their unique mechanic (fury) into a position where it benefits both their survivability *and* their damage output, which should help them feel more aligned mechanically to their identity as a "middle-ground" between scrappers and tankers, while also enhancing their flavor as powerful thugs who fight based on their rage rather than their prowess (scrappers) or their power (tankers) Would increasing their damage solve the problem? My understanding was that they typically deal more damage than scrappers (not ideal) unless in a team with a kinetics support player who can cast Fulcrum Shift on them, which brings them up to the damage cap alongside the scrappers on their team. This has the effect that scrappers can suddenly deal significantly more damage than the Brute, but only on a team with buffs that bring the brute to their damage cap. Your suggestion is to increase the damage cap, correct? If so, then wouldn't they be unbalanced when NOT in a team that can buff them to the damage cap? A Brute with extra damage would be on par with a scrapper, at least according to the people in the thread I linked to. I do believe that is undesired behavior mechanically. Their overall survivability would increase by approximately 50%, unless my percentages are wrong. Their "second health bar" is already present as a damage buff that increases over time as they deal damage, my suggestion is to allow them to utilize it as an extra health bar when their primary one is depleted. In addition, I'm suggesting that their primary health bar continue to recover while between 0 and 5-10% hp, but their fury bar doesn't increase. Meaning they can't keep fighting forever, their body has limits, they need to rest / be healed before it's too late or else they'll perish. Rage doesn't keep the heart beating or the blood flowing through veins, though it may lend strength to the muscles. I want to clarify, damage taken wouldn't reduce fury unless the brute is between 0 and 5-10% hp. In addition, I don't want it to *only* impact survivability, I want it to have a dual role of being a damage buff as it currently is, and also acting as health reserves should the Brute start to die. If you've played D&D, I'm essentially suggesting that Brutes could continue fighting while they're making death saves. What other "possible interactions" did you have in mind? In addition, you say that they shouldn't compete with tankers, and yet that's originally what they were designed to do - when CoV launched they were the only tanks redside. So they were explicitely intended to compete with tankers, or rather to be the redside version of them. I don't understand that particular concern, can you clarify? Yes, that's intended behavior. If the player character is hurt enough that they *should* be dead, it makes sense that they'd start losing power as their strength fails them.