SwitchFade
-
Posts
2379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by SwitchFade
-
-
Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers.
Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof.
I’m not arguing but for a population in 50-90k range, 30 seems like too small a sample size
When I first began learning statistics, I felt the same. Mathematical evidence has shown that 30 or more is accurate, at around a 95% confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Ipsos and all other polls use the same mathematical standards proofed over the last 200 years or so.
Again, not trying to argue, just learn - most Ipsos polls and certain all of Gallup polls I've seen track around 1,000 responses - which is the confidence level and margin's you've expressed and covers a population larger than the planet earth has. For a population of 90K, with the same margin and confidence level, I'm calculating 988 responses needed.
Here's the tool I always used for marketing - https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm and what I used to derive the numbers above...
Again, I'm not trying argue, feel free to explain here or send me a PM. I'd love to learn more
Thread hijacking may be occuring when trying to delve into statistical mathematics. Simply, a sample size of 30 or greater is sufficient. Whether the sample is 30, 300 or 1000, the difference will continue to refine, but the results will largely be the same. Only when a a population is unknown is it necessary to calculate sample size. If it is unknown, the we use the afore mentioned formula.
I'm sorry, but this is really, really wrong.
A sample size of >30 is a totally unrelated concept. The rule of thumb is that when the sample is >30, you can use normal based confidence intervals because your sample size is large enough for the Central Limit Theorem to apply. You need large sample sizes so you can correctly sample everyone of interest in your population, and so you can add weights to your survey to account for low responses in certain groups.
Again, you are misunderstanding the text presented, which means it is not "really, really wrong."
To reiterate, a sample size of greater than 30 is VALID when a population is known. A sample of larger numbers of a population renders finer results, but the outcome is largely the same. Your proclamation that you need a large sample size to account for everyone of interest in a population is somewhat misleading, we are interested in the whole population, and must attempt to fairly represent them through sampling MEANS.
I do appreciate your insight. There are no incorrect statements, analogies, inferences, descriptors or concepts in my responses as you have mentioned.
-
The population can be considered known. The sample size is the participants in the thread.
The mistake you're making is that taking more samples fixes always fixes your inference. It does not. If you take a lot of sample but they don't represent the population, you get a wrong answer that is calculated very precisely.
You are making an assumption, whether you realize it or not. You have to assume your sample is representative of the population. You assumed the responses in this thread represent the responses of everyone playing the game. I have no idea if this is true or not, but I suspect it is not.
The population can be considered known. The sample size is the participants in the thread.
The argument that forum participants are not representative of the whole population can be accurate is the sample size is under 30. As sample size grows over 30, this is a non issue.
The sample size of 30 is a totally unrelated concept. It has nothing to do with how representative a sample is. People say it's safe to trust [linear] regression hypothesis tests (confidence intervals and p-values) with a sample > 30.
This goes beyond a simple poll of data, in a vacuum. Why? A set data poll within itself is a population, not a sample. A sample is used to model a population and must be run through statistical formulae.I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means. A poll is a sample of a population. It has uncertainty in it which you must account for.
In essence, the thread has enough data to accurately model the population with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of +/- 3%, supporting that the population in majority (51% or greater) is in favor of the change.This is just not true. Your sample is not random. It is not represented of the population. You may be able to get the desired margin of error, but the sample is incorrect. You need a truly random sample or you need to apply weights when you perform an analysis.
I am a statistician. I am happy to help you make your poll better or to improve your understanding. Respectfully, the analysis is not as insightful as you believe.
Much of your response was written in a fashion that is suspect, vis a vi, I am unable to place great confidence in several of your proclamations. While you do have a grasp of some statistical concepts, you are misunderstanding many of them. A sample size of larger than 30 is valid. Population is known. If you have no idea what I mean when I say a sample in a vacuum is a population, I apologize but I am unable to make the sentence any more plain; I suspect it may just require rereading the sentence several more times to grasp the meaning. While the sample may not be random, as most are not, without other means of conducting a "truly random sample," we must begin by analyzing the data presented. The thread represents such data. You suspect the thread does not represent the population, which is a valid observation, that would warrant further research, yet it is an assumption and is biased. The data in the thread is not and I merely analyzed the data.
It's all fine and we'll to assume that any of this data is wrong, and then pretend we should not bother analyzing it, but that would be another form of bias.
Should we have more accurate data? Sure. Is this data biased? Sure. Did I account for it? Yes.
-
Perhaps we can wrap this one up?
Perma rage is overpowered. There's no real way to debate that it isn't and multiple stacks of rage are even more so. Why? Perma buff with no penalty.
A 20% def reduction on crash for seconds.... Not a big deal. Just ask an invuln tank how they deal with the tier 9 crash: strategy. Period.
Lastly, as for the multiple stacks of debuff... NOT clicking the power is an option...
Super strength and it's damage output vs other sets is another topic.
Rage: 2 min buff, trade off 10 second debuff. Sounds fair. Try popping unstoppable, that debuff is a Whopper.
-
I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.
- All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Taunt_(Status_Effect)
Brutes literally can't lose aggro to any other AT except a Tank, unless the person playing one is an idiot. They also have the same resistance caps and only slightly lower max health than a Tank. So saying they're less survivable is just plain making shit up.
You're right about one thing, though. Brutes are not Tankers.
They're better than Tankers.
I would encourage you to please be less insulting. We are fortunate enough to have the privilege to play again, let's be mature.
In regards to your statement, have yo looked at taunt mag?
Can brutes hit the caps they have without outside help? An invuln can hit 90% resist, soft cap defense and a much larger hit point base, let alone a click hp increase power.
Again, brutes are great, but they were not, and are not, tanks. They weren't intended to be. Alone, they cannot compare to a tank, in terms of tanking. In a group?, All AT's can role transition. A blaster can scrap, a controller can render a tank largely useless ... Etc.
Also, I may be mistaken, but I do believe that the 75% ranged debuff is aoe on a tank, and single Target on brute. So, a brute can aoe taunt and single Target debuff, a tank does aoe both. I believe. Also, punchvoke mag is lower than tanks.
In essence, it is patently false to say that brutes are better.
- All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
-
Donation sent! $30, more than worth it!
-
All good, except brutes health swings wildly and faceplant far more rapidly than an invuln tank, not to even mention a stone tank. Also, tanks hold aggro far more effectively.
I'm not sure what kind of brutes you've been playing with but they aren't a good rep of what brutes can do. Brutes are the preferred tanks in most content. Stone tank is an entirely different problem all on its own that even these changes won't fix. Tanks also don't hold aggro any better than brutes can, taunt pretty much makes sure of that. Kheldians have a lower res cap than brutes/tanks so unless you're min/max'd to have perma light form you'll be worse off than a brute and do far less damage. The main point of this change is to set tanks apart from brutes more than just their HP and a little extra resistance. City of Heroes is balanced around SO and in the SO based content, brutes and tanks are interchangeable when it comes to tanking ability and it gets worse when you include IO sets. This was never a problem until you could have both on either side. This change would only add utility to the tank to make it feel like "The main tank" as opposed to a tank.
Also, soft cap def is soft cap def. You can't be better at only getting hit 5% of the time than another tank :P and in team play and end game content, neither of them die at all for the most part. So dying less than the other guy doesn't die is pointless. This is a utility change to make tanks have more tanking utility than their brute friend while still keeping brutes perfectly capable of tanking.
I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.Lowering the brute to the tank level is not the right decision. Fury does a solid job in setting it apart from the other classes and makes brutes really enjoyable and unique to play. Tanks just need some change to have the same feeling. Something that will set them apart from everything else and i feel this change would do that and make tanks untouchable when it comes to tanking utility as opposed to now where tanks preform the same as their villain counterpart but do less damage.
I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.
-
Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers.
Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof.
I’m not arguing but for a population in 50-90k range, 30 seems like too small a sample size
When I first began learning statistics, I felt the same. Mathematical evidence has shown that 30 or more is accurate, at around a 95% confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Ipsos and all other polls use the same mathematical standards proofed over the last 200 years or so.
Again, not trying to argue, just learn - most Ipsos polls and certain all of Gallup polls I've seen track around 1,000 responses - which is the confidence level and margin's you've expressed and covers a population larger than the planet earth has. For a population of 90K, with the same margin and confidence level, I'm calculating 988 responses needed.
Here's the tool I always used for marketing - https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm and what I used to derive the numbers above...
Again, I'm not trying argue, feel free to explain here or send me a PM. I'd love to learn more
Thread hijacking may be occuring when trying to delve into statistical mathematics. Simply, a sample size of 30 or greater is sufficient. Whether the sample is 30, 300 or 1000, the difference will continue to refine, but the results will largely be the same. Only when a a population is unknown is it necessary to calculate sample size. If it is unknown, the we use the afore mentioned formula.
-
Tanks for a long time now have kind of taken a back seat in a lot of content to brutes. A well built brute can tank as well as tanks and do more damage, so people usually prefer them over tanks at end game especially. My idea for a change would be to how tanks handle aggro.
1) Increase tank specific aggro cap to roughly an extra mob in size. This would allow for them to grab everything and anything else someone accidentally pulls.
2) Enemies taunted by the tank rush into melee regardless of their preferred range. You can already do this with pulling/Los but It'd give tanks a great utility over a brute in terms of tanking ability/mob positioning.
All good, except brutes health swings wildly and faceplant far more rapidly than an invuln tank, not to even mention a stone tank. Also, tanks hold aggro far more effectively.
I agree that it would be nice to have a way to hold aggro just an eency bit better as we level from 30 on up, but overall, I can pretty much aggro hoard in most teams, and rarely lose aggro to anyone on my tank. A brute cannot. I've never had an issue tanking, taking and holding aggro. In fact, when brutes get the beat down, I often have to step in with my dwarf form keldian to take over.
-
At the levels where this is an issue, Tankers are not significantly more survivable than other archetypes. This change would likely cause baby Tankers to face plant in groups with much greater efficiency.
Pretty much the sum.
Aggro at levels below 20 CURRENTLY cause infant tank death.
As tanks level, gauntlet becomes pretty much pervading. My inv/SS tank post lvl 25 rarely loses aggro to anything. Possibly the sole survivor or a blaster Nova, and then for only a second or two.
-
Also, I forgot to mention the two outcomes the analysis renders:
Did the change cause unhappy.
So...
Change=unhappy
Or
Change=absence of unhappy
Notice that absence of unhappy and happy are not the same, again, see null hypothesis
Edit: addition
If we were to run an analysis the other way before the change, the variables would be slightly different, becoming those harmed by the change, vs those not harmed. In this case we would see that the percentage supporting the change (here seen as 'not harmed') are still the majority.
This is because we are looking at a sample after the change, where the sample is the thread. Before the change there was no thread, there for, we would have to generate a sample. In such a sample we would then measure NOT who uses dfb, but who is made unhappy vs absence of unhappy. By gathering a new sample, and running an analysis, we would see responses that indicate "dooooooom" vs "eh + yaaaaay."
-
I have a question then to pose to both you and Saiko concerning this discussion
Hi, apologies, I snipped out most of the response quote to remove the growing thread response monster.
Without regurgitating an actual multi factor anova, with r square, p values, z value, standard error, upper and lower limits, mean squares and all that crap, I'll summarize as best I can, and refer you to excel and data sets to run a sample analysis...
The population can be considered known. The sample size is the participants in the thread.
The argument that forum participants are not representative of the whole population can be accurate is the sample size is under 30. As sample size grows over 30, this is a non issue.
Sample bias does exist, accounted for by confidence level and margin for error.
As confidence level rises, standard deviation changes and upper and lower limits widen.
Margin of error is calculated by 'critical value x S.E. of the statistic'
There aren't subsets of subsets, as a sample is a portion of a population, here represented by the thread. Why?
Because in the thread, data points are those against the change and everyone else, because the change has already been made. If it had not been made, it would be those in favor and everyone else. This is because of the postule of the "null hypothesis"
This all indicates an analysis with two variables, at most three. An analysis run with either shows how one or two variables affect another, independent and dependent.
This goes beyond a simple poll of data, in a vacuum. Why? A set data poll within itself is a population, not a sample. A sample is used to model a population and must be run through statistical formulae.
A regression analysis will model that data set, accounting for error and confidence level over a population size, or without, as we can leverage central limit, Cheb's theorem and the rule of large numbers.
In essence, the thread has enough data to accurately model the population with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of +/- 3%, supporting that the population in majority (51% or greater) is in favor of the change.
-
Saiko,
You are truly a gentleman, and we both are clearly very conversant with mathematical theory and application. Your expertise surely outshines mine.
I am humbled to be able to participate in the forums and the game with people such as yourself, and I truly believe this community needs you.
I hope we may team in game in the future, and I look forward to learning from your wisdom.
There is no fault in your posts, and no conversation exists from a single perspective, thus, if I have somehow caused distress I TOO am responsible, and apologize profusely.
Thank you for being part of our community and allowing me to learn from you.
-
Also,
Pie>cake.
Debate!
-
The changes to DFB/MSR we’re not improvements in the sight of all. Nor were they supported by the entire community as this thread alone has shown. Several people do indeed support the changes, and several people do not. The community is split on the issue. The devs just happened to agree that change was needed. However, it is wrong to say the community needs and supports it, as only part of the community sees it that way. There are always two sides.
A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts.
Thanks for all your hard work Dev's
There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others.
Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support.
Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it.
You clearly have a problem understanding representative statistical samples. This thread is not representative of the population and cannot be used to accurately gauge the community as a whole. It can however show that the community is at least split on this issue purely due to the fact that there is more than one opinion expressed. Even if all posts were positive or all posts were negative it still would not be an appropriate statistical sample. That’s why I didn’t say, the community is not in support of the DFB change. I said, part of the community doesn’t support it. That is a true statement. Saying the majority of the community supports it is false and is not backed up by real data.
Also, comparing a computer game to seatbelts is ridiculous. It’s just like in the open letter announcement someone comparing computer game opinions to gun safety. One is real world and one is a game. One has no influence on real world safety. One can result in real world death. That is not a good faith comparison in the slightest.
Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers.
Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof.
You were saying?
Still clearly do not understand representative statistical samples. You can perform any test you want on a certain sample, but if the sample is itself is not representative all of the outputs are not reliable. Before you can even begin to pull a representative sample you must first clearly define the population and then be sure that the population is complete. Before you can define the population and test for completeness you have to do a proper risk assessment to set the proper parameters of the test. Then you must set materiality based on various risk factors after a thorough analysis of the population. Once you have done a risk assessment, set materiality, set the parameters, defined the population, and tested it for completeness you can then pull your sample. Pulling the sample itself has various methods, but it must first be based on a complete population and have proper parameters set.
All that is to even have a populationto pull the sample. Sample size is directly related to risk. Then the sample itself must be tested for accuracy before it can be relied on.
Neither of us has all of the data points necessary from this thread to have a complete and accurate population, let alone a reliable sample to form a reasonable conclusion with any degree of accuracy. Using buzzwords does not change the fundamentals of statistical analysis. I highly doubt you are familiar with statistical analysis based on your few posts about it and if you were I would never hire you to fill my team. Your posts show you clearly lack a basic understanding of stastival analysis.
I appreciate your attempt to explain your assumptions. I don't appreciate, however, your rather rude comments about my understanding of statistics. I would ask that you please be more polite in the future and refrain from making unfounded assumptions of which you know naught.
Your statements about statistics are based in fact, but misinterpreted. I will demonstrate with a few examples.
Population is a set of all, in this case the players of the game.
Sample is a set within a population.
Population: N
Sample: n
Now, sample bias may be occuring, yes, which you sort of attempt to explain. To account for bias, a MARGIN FOR ERROR is considered, as I have mentioned.
Margin for error: +/-
If the sample size is >30, the sample is valid and statistically accurate.
If the r square value is greater than 80%, the regression CLEARLY shows that one variable affects another. In this case this condition is met.
If the value in the bell curve falls under 5%, the alpha, then the hypothesis has been "validated." Condition met.
Even then, a sample can be proven WITHOUT a known population, as the median of a sample is the median of the population, this is mathematically known and proven. Further, central limit and laws of large numbers are mathematically observed laws. Additionally, although we must calculate sample size when population is unknown, as I have, this condition is ALSO MET.
Population known. Sample size large enough. R square condition significant. Value under curve below alpha. Sampling error does occur, ACCOUNTED FOR.
Statistically, the community IN MAJORITY (51% or greater) supports the change. If you want to debate "majority," please feel free. I would encourage you to then seek appropriate venues, such as Miriam Webster or any other such official publication concerning the commonly accepted meanings of English words
If you want to debate statistics, there is no debate, simple mathematical rules, all established, and met in this case.
Please refrain from incendiary statements concerning intellectual capacity. I assume you are highly intelligent, I ask you do reciprocate.
Thank you for your respectful participation.
-
Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers.
Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof.
You were saying?
I’m not arguing but for a population in 50-90k range, 30 seems like too small a sample size
When I first began learning statistics, I felt the same. Mathematical evidence has shown that 30 or more is accurate, at around a 95% confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3%.
Ipsos and all other polls use the same mathematical standards proofed over the last 200 years or so.
-
I've been farming a mission (with my level 50), and I noticed that every time I get exactly the same amount of INF, depending only on the difficulty I have chosen. (+2, +3, etc)
What I can't tell easily, because of the random element, is if I am getting more or better (rarer) recipe and salvage drops at higher difficulty levels.
Does anyone know if drops are affected by the difficulty slider or not?
I have found that running at +2 and 8man, no boss, is generally the best compromise between reward per run and speed of run. You may find you like +3, but "arrest" time per mob increases, slowing the run. I believe on a fire/kin, an average time to run warrior farm at such settings is around 10-11 minutes.
-
The changes to DFB/MSR we’re not improvements in the sight of all. Nor were they supported by the entire community as this thread alone has shown. Several people do indeed support the changes, and several people do not. The community is split on the issue. The devs just happened to agree that change was needed. However, it is wrong to say the community needs and supports it, as only part of the community sees it that way. There are always two sides.
A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts.
Thanks for all your hard work Dev's
There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others.
Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support.
Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it.
You clearly have a problem understanding representative statistical samples. This thread is not representative of the population and cannot be used to accurately gauge the community as a whole. It can however show that the community is at least split on this issue purely due to the fact that there is more than one opinion expressed. Even if all posts were positive or all posts were negative it still would not be an appropriate statistical sample. That’s why I didn’t say, the community is not in support of the DFB change. I said, part of the community doesn’t support it. That is a true statement. Saying the majority of the community supports it is false and is not backed up by real data.
Also, comparing a computer game to seatbelts is ridiculous. It’s just like in the open letter announcement someone comparing computer game opinions to gun safety. One is real world and one is a game. One has no influence on real world safety. One can result in real world death. That is not a good faith comparison in the slightest.
Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers.
Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof.
You were saying?
-
I am totally ok with the DFB nerf, especially after last weekend.
My friends and I were going to do some lvl 50 missions and TFs (normal stuff). Seeing as how we were 5 players, we needed 3 more. We get a lvl 50 (i Think he was a controller?) and soon start to realize he's only using the 2 basic powers, no buffs/debuffs from him and he's acting like he's never played the game before. So we ask him what's up? We find out that he doesn't know how to level, how to slot, or what enhancements are. We ask "Well how did you get to 50 without knowing this stuff?" He says that he's been DFB-ing and thought that this was all there was to the game.... SIGH. Rather than just kicking the guy, we then go a head and start teaching him how to play the game. We have to inform him what Contacts are and how to get missions.
You act like this would be different if they PI door piked to 50. It wouldn't. But that's somehow okay, I guess, because reasons? Where's the calls to nerf that?
Please, let's avoid straw man arguments. He didn't say that.
-
I hope this helps, I'll make it quick and then direct you to the tank forums, and then brute forums.
1. Brutes are not tanks. If you try, your brute will suffer end issues. Why? They do tons more damage, so there's balance.
2. Leadership pool is horrendous pre level 35, and wholly unnecessary. If you believe you need it to be a tank... See point 1.
3. Brutes kill very fast.... So they won't die. Why? Please return to point 1
4. Playstule, like user error, is 90% of your problems, and your build is kinda (sorry) borked. Why? See point 1, and visit the brute and tank forums.
Oh also, I really love mids hero designer, and I highly recommend it.
-
You don't know me at all LOL. I have 9 level 50's already and roughly 1 billion liquid inf after completely IOing them. Never use AE. I don't have a brute farmer or a fire/kin. I do PL myself (and a few friends). Takes me a day (8 hours) to get to 50 with xp boosts. I am not new to CoX - played from launch until the last second it was Live without any break in between on my 2 paid accounts.
I just think the arguments FOR maintaining the DFB are completely hyperbolic. DFB does not teach you anything after the first few runs. People who run it to 32-50 do not know how to team or play any better than had they stopped at 10. They don't know anything about their powers better. They don't have a FEEL for the character since they are limited to powers up until level 10. What they have discovered is farming...and playing against enemies which frankly have very little chance of doing much damage - which is in no way indicative of the actual game I actually don't care about the DFB changes... I just think if you are going to make an argument against them changing it... they should be actual arguments and not hyperbolic, childish threats, or flat out untruths. I do think people are blowing this WAY out of proportion. I do think people are acting like petulant brats over something so minor. The purpose of DFB was never to get to 32 - it was to get you to DiB level which no one runs because it takes a modicum of actually knowing your character to do.
The "nerfs" in this last patch still have the rewards of both DFB and MSR being WAY above anything that was on live...but people will find anything to complain about and act like ungrateful 6 year olds.
So you're mad they took the "I win" aspect out of the game. You're upset because they made it still WAY more rewarding than Live ever was. You don't like playing with people who have strategies for playing together and want to do what you want to do when you want to do it regardless of how it affects others... got it. Well have fun on your private server. I have no desire to play in your sandbox seems like it's just an "I win" server which would get old real fast.
Actually, I said exactly what I meant. I’m highly disappointed. Mad would mean I’m a bit emotional over a game mechanic. Which I’m not.
I don’t like playing with anyone who attempts to force me to play “their way or the highway.” Which is basically what you just outlined here and in a few other posts in this thread. I have the highway model well within my grasp (as does everyone). And I get you don’t want an “I win” button, nor do you prefer to level quickly. That’s fine, I’ve no intention nor desire to prevent you from playing however you wish. I once leveled a blaster wayyyyyy back in like issue 5 days from 1-50 totally solo and via missions (not street sweeping) just to prove to myself I could when everyone was complaining that blasters were far too squishy to survive. It was darn annoying at times, and almost all of this was pre-IO, but I did it. Because I wanted to play my way....not teamed with controllers and defenders as most blasters were told to do. Your tone indicates a level of superior condemnation that I want to play that way, but its interesting to me how little I care how YOU prefer to play. In fact, I hope that your preferred play style remains fully available to you.
But regardless of your beliefs, I remain very disappointed in this change. Not the change itself, but in the precedent that it represents. Once again, years after being mothballed, the game is available to play. And once again, there’s a chorus of players who really insist that the game only be played however they believe it must be played. Forced teaming, forced soloing, I shouldn’t have to go into a PVP zone to earn a PVP badge/drops/whatever, Regen is too strong nerf them, Burn needs to be changed, put a timer on the wolf mission, etc etc etc. I’d really hoped this mentality was left in mothballs.
Judging by your post....it appears its alive and well. For what reasons I can’t fathom. Other than a deep seated need to impose one players’ will on that of the entire population in the name of balance of powers, time, effort or just egos.
Interesting lesson in psychology.
Bingo.
Or, guarantee that dfb, AE and pl spam is kept completely out of broadcast for people below lvl 20, and then maybe it won't harm new players.
The issue that people who argue for broken content is, they ignore the negative impact on new players and keep claiming that others are against their fun.
I can say with great certainty that no one cares if you powerlevel, it's the harm that it does to new players when it saturates communication, rendering the game a one trick pony for newbies. Work with us to find a way to guarantee it does not affect newbies, like banned from comm channels under lvl 23, and then you're addressing the REAL issue
-
The changes to DFB/MSR we’re not improvements in the sight of all. Nor were they supported by the entire community as this thread alone has shown. Several people do indeed support the changes, and several people do not. The community is split on the issue. The devs just happened to agree that change was needed. However, it is wrong to say the community needs and supports it, as only part of the community sees it that way. There are always two sides.
A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts.
Thanks for all your hard work Dev's
There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others.
Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support.
Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it.
-
I’m happy about DFB. God I hate running as a level 5 for 5-6 runs to get to 22 with every character with every other option just being inefficient in comparison...
The DFB nerf is foolish at best and highly counterproductive at worst.
*snip't*
It also sets a Dangerous precendent for other, long-running massively efficient XP/Inf farm TF's & trials like ITF. Especially since as far as i can find, this was a full-on stealth nerf to the Trial SPECIFICALLY to stop the "DFB to 20, -REDACTED- to 35. ITF 35-50" Loop a lot of us have been doing to power up alts.
of note, is that instead of changing merit drop rates, they tripled the amount needed for a conversion, this sets up the potential to stealth-nerf the droprates over time.
And now this with DFB. DFB was great because you could get to 22 (Low-level TF's SUCK and are absolutely horrible slogfests, and random radios are equally slow if you're just trying to level up) and it kept people from begging for PL's and crap from level 1.
P. soon you're gonna see all the good 25-45 content get nerfed to crap too, it's got nothing to do with "Player choice" or "time/effort to reward ratio" either, that whole line is BS.
1-20 List it with me: DFB, Posi 1&2(Long as fel, useless) Synapse, DIB, Yin....Or random radio/paper/whatever missions
AND OH YEAH, lets NOT FORGET VILLAINSIDE. which has EVEN WORSE OPTIONS IN THE 1-22 RANGE
Make the drop-off point for DFB 20 instead of 10 (Because skipping the 10-20 content as well is less BS, especially redside) and just stop trying to nerf speedlevelling. This is City of heroes, you'll break the freaking game completely long before you beat powerlevelling.
Also:
It just won't be the absolute, 100% most efficient method of gaining XP any more.It never was. AE PL's are still faster, PIPL's are still faster, but it was the combination of XP and TF Mechanics that made it great for leveling toons AND catching up friends or bringing friends into the game who've seen your upper-level gameplay and want to join in without being useless
Having them stand at the door in AE/PI Farms doesn't teach them anything, rolling a new toon and doing DFB with them a few times on even footing not only gave them the same super fast levels, but also taught them significantly more about actually PLAYING THE FREAKING GAME.
Lessening the rewards also hurts a solo player, i have a very specific loop i do on my alts, because i can literally hit 50 in a day without being farmed by anyone, all the DFB Nerf does is slow me down a bit. I'm trying to get numerous alts to 50 so i can help my friends that i keep running into by filling any role they need at the time
With the old merit rate, the comical influence and XP that some TF's give, and my loop, it took no time to get a decent L50 build going. Still doesn't, it's just 66% more obnoxious and slow.
All valid opinions, from your view, but none of us exist in a vacuum. We are a community, and we must not forget the negative impact exclusionary content has on NEW players. What got veterans hooked on this game wasn't powerleveling, it was the game content. Broken DFB type content robs new players of the experience we veterans take for granted.
-
I’m happy about DFB. God I hate running as a level 5 for 5-6 runs to get to 22 with every character with every other option just being inefficient in comparison...
The DFB nerf is foolish at best and highly counterproductive at worst.
Now it'll just be level 1s looking to get PL'd in PI/Grandville farms, in exchange for giving the mission owner any good drops (recpie/salvage). The XP rates available from that (remember double xp weekends on live servers where people would PL from 1 to 50? I do. So that's just your P2W +100% xp buff "anytime") are similar to way over DFB's depending on the relative "efficiency" of the two teams.
The advantages of DFB are huge and being overlooked compared to the other content:
* A group of low levels can do it, without begging/selling their soulsdrops.
* It actively encourages actual participation as opposed to piking at the door -- you help, the run is faster, your xp/min goes up.
* All ATs meaningfully contribute (mostly because when you're limited to level 10, everybody sucks equally).
* It teaches people to use some of the tools (building a team, queueing to lfg, etc) of the game.
* It lowers the cost of experimentation ("would I like this powerset/at combo? Let's get it to 22, do it up with SOs, and see!") and so players will be more willing to experiment. **
* Its relatively short content so you can drop in and drop out when you have 15 minutes as opposed to, "oh yep another 1.5 hour task force. That's excellent, but I have a family these days so I guess I'll just go play... something else."
* When high levels drop in because they only have 15, newbies can ask questions and learn something.
This x1000. All nerfing DFB is going to do is push new players into other PL situations where they will not actually have to engage the content and learn how the game works.
As for those saying "Yay, it's nerfed, now I don't have to run it anymore", guess what? No one was forcing you to run it at all. You always had the option to get to 22 by other means if you chose. Now no one has the option.
Ah, so you're assuming all new players only pl? In essence, you validated the reason for the improvements, because if all new players only hAve one option, powerleveling, then there's an issue
DFB wasn't meant to make all other content trivial, which it did now, it's fixed.
When you find a game bug, they don't Nerf bugs, the fix them. This was fixed
-
Thank you for all the hard work on the costumes, powers, etc.
On cutting the rewards down for both DFB and RWZ/MSR raid....all I can say is I'm very disappointed. Less than a month after re-releasing this game that I've missed for many years, you've now given me reason to stop playing it as much. I've been trying very hard to get my original characters rebuilt in the game. I managed to get two of them back to the builds they had before Live shut down. But now that you are removing the fast-pass rebuild features these two tracks represented, I've little reason to invest all the time I have been on trying to get back to parity.
I've no desire to play with others who wish to enforce their play style on me. "Don't fire until I herd the room." "Wait for the Blaster to drop his nuke." "Don't use your X power, its messing up with my preference to do Y." Which, really, makes up the bulk of the membership of these boards and in the game.
I'm thankful I have my own personal server to enjoy my old archived characters and those I've restored with my friends. I will no longer need to try and do that here.
I enjoyed all my fellow DFB/DiB'r teammates I've met, along with the multiple MSR raiders as well. Some have now come over to my private server. Which is cool. But we enjoyed playing in your sandbox while you allowed us to do so unmolested. I guess we can consider you a marketing channel to find others who wish a more open sandbox style of play.
Thanks for briefly playing with us. While the improvements to DFB and the OMG-raid may seem odd to you, the community needs and supports them.
After all, life is a journey, where death is a destination. Keeping the game alive is about the journey.
Make Contacts/Radio Available in All Zones At Level 50
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
I'm not so sure I would be in favor of level 50 radios in Atlas as it would result in even less use of zones. The progression, moving to New zones based on level and other factors would make me sway away from this.