Marbing
-
Posts
619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Marbing
-
-
2 hours ago, macskull said:
For the most part, PvP favors sets which provide high single-target burst damage, so naturally the sets which are useful are going to be limited. It's the same reason I wouldn't bring an FF/AR Defender as a fire farmer - sure, I could make it work but it isn't going to be good at it.
I think this is an apt analogy given the limited number of ATs are viable in fire farming. I dont think it will ever be possible to make all ATs/sets viable at PvP. But it is possible to make MORE ATs/sets viable, which is a very important distinction when we are talking about change. I would never want the goal out of the gates to make EVERYTHING viable at EVERYTHING. ATs have different strengths and there is always going to be give/take with that. Especially in a game with literally thousands of different combinations.
So, again, any change that would increase the number of viable ATs/sets in PvP would be a positive change IMO, but I am not naive, I know it isn’t possible to make every combination viable. When it comes to the conversation about powerset viability I think we need to keep these things in mind.
For example: What changes can be made (if any, and outside of crey pistol since it seems the devs are sold on that exploit being gone) to decrease the gap that exists between Melee and Ranged DPS in PvP?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, golstat2003 said:
i don’t really think you should focus on increasing the draw as I don’t think anything but a complete revamp will do that. I would suggest they keep focusing on improving it for those who do like and participate in pvp.Well I think increasing the participation is improving it for those who already like it. I’ve seen several PvPers leave or stop playing because of participation alone. So, if you can find a way to increase participation without ruining the gameplay then those who already like it will probably like it more. If you put more rewards into the system, you will increase the incentive and thus the participation. That’s the theory anyways.
-
1 hour ago, Greycat said:
Part of the question that comes up when someone wants ATs or builds in PVP to be "competitive" is - "what do you mean?" Should anyone be able to 1v1 anyone else?
No, I wouldn’t think it’s possible to ever reach anyone can 1v1 anyone and be on equal ground, there will always be a meta that gets abused. I was just pointing out any change that opens the door for more AT relevance would be a welcome one, not that such change would or could happen or that it would lead to everyone being on equal ground in 1v1.
1 hour ago, Greycat said:Incentive-wise... I don't know about arena, but zone varies zone by zone. BB I think is ... fine, really, with its main issue being the level range and what that can bring (a new level 15 vs someone exemped down to 25 with up to level 30 powers... that can be rough.) Same with RV, it's pretty good. Warburg's ... mostly hobbled by stupid AIs being unable to follow or path up ramps properly and their issues with stealth. The big outlier is, of course, Siren's - bounty doesn't persist, even if you go into zone missions, it takes too long to accumulate and what you can buy with it isn't worth it (woo, an SO at ... what, 6000?) The zone battles are slow and uninteresting and take too long to get started or ... really do anything. Of all the zones that need a look over for reward, and events (I'm "eh" on the jade spider, personally) Siren's needs it... even if we were looking at it from a strictly PVE POV.
I know there are current zone events and things to do. My idea around this was more to introduce something bigger. Something that is ACTUALLY a good reward for the PvP risk. I think that could go a long way. Simply participating in what’s there is, as multiple people have said now, very meh. So I am not talking about adding more meh, I would like to see something “wow”. Idk what that would look like but it would be cool and I think would increase the draw.
-
On 4/15/2022 at 12:11 AM, RikOz said:
Sometimes, there are repeating patterns of behavior amongst the Paragon City criminal element that make me go, "Hmmm..."
There are a couple of level 40+ Hero alignment missions that send the player up against the Devouring Earth. Perhaps coincidentally, when I run these missions on a character that does primarily Lethal damage (say, my DB scrapper), these maps spawn with 90%-100% rock monsters (aside from the Devoured monsters), who are particularly resistant to lethal damage. Meanwhile, when I run these missions on a character that deals primarily smashing damage (like my SS brute), these same maps spawn 90%-100% smashing-resistant plant monsters.
It's as if the DE knows in advance exactly which hero, with which powerset, is going to respond to their attack, and sends the appropriate "soldiers" on the mission.
Several months ago, I found myself quite surprised when an Arachnos Bane Spider Scout pacified one of my characters. I'd been back in the game for more than two years at that point, and this had literally never happened before. I figured out that it was because that particular character did not have Leadership: Assault, which provides resistance to Pacify. Having not previously even been aware that Scouts could do that, I started carefully watching these Scouts while fighting them, watching for that distinctive Pacify animation. And guess what? If my character has Assault, the Scouts don't even bother!
I find this odd, because I've always kinda assumed that "status" resistances, after their primary function of actively resisting something or other, would have a sort of passive, secondary benefit of effectively making the opponent waste an attack. That is, opponents will attempt one of their normal attacks, and if I can resist it, they've wasted that attack. But when it appears that they know in advance that I have the mental fortitude to resist pacification, they simply don't try and just shoot me instead.
Most recently, while doing a long Nemesis arc, on one mission I became annoyed with all the Toxic damage I was taking from snipers. So after finishing the mission, I went to my SG base and obtained a Resist Toxic buff from handy-dandy buff machine. Thereupon followed a half dozen missions in which not a single sniper appeared (granted, some, but not all of these six missions were entirely populated by automatons). And then, once the buff expired, the very next mission was again full of snipers.
As if they knew in advance.
Now, I've been playing MMOs long enough to understand RNG. But RNG that consistently rolls in exactly the same disadvantageous way over a span of years just starts feeling weird.
Anyway, just ranting a bit 😄
It’s a Nemesis plot.
-
13 hours ago, arcane said:
Who here hasn’t PvP’d much in 14 years? I can’t identify the culprit from quickly skimming the thread.
I agree the comment was unnecessary and presumptuous.
Regardless, it seems this thread is starting to go the same way all threads about PvP go (or any polarizing thread). So unless you have an actual idea to contribute or can offer any insight in a respectful manner, please keep it to yourself. I get that people have bad days and feathers get ruffled. If you find yourself about to be a douche, walk away and come back once you have calmed down. This goes for everyone, including me as I am not perfect.
It’s just a game, idk why people get so worked up about it. Everyone has different levels of experience and at one point every single one of us were noobs. If someone says something that is incorrect, simply correct them in a polite manner. The same thing you would expect! Let’s keep this civil and respect one another’s point of view without the insults.
That said, I get some of the points people are making. I don’t think it’s too difficult to find a middle ground for Mez. I suppose it could be a tad stronger on Controllers/Dominators, (i know not all mez is on the same lockout timer) but I understand that it’s a delicate balance. Because dominators used to… well dominate. They could lock you down and kill you quick. Controllers on the other hand definitely struggled to quickly take down a target they had mezzed. Dominators can still be good in PvP in their current state but controllers really only help in a support capacity for team PvP. (Not entirely useless) Which may be okay, they are a support class. But, if we make mez too much better then it will help Doms a hell of a lot more than controllers. Again, IMO.
Also, I still like the idea of PvP zone alerts (maybe using Jade Spider like I believe @Rudra suggested) with big rewards to pull people into the zones. Maybe I am in the minority in this regard, and that’s okay. I get that this is just theory crafting, but I think it’s fun to brainstorm these things.
The ultimate goal here is to inspire more involvement in PvP. Being toxic to one another is counter that goal. Please be civil.
-
On 4/14/2022 at 4:08 PM, bigfashizzel said:
I guess my main concern with almost all of the suggestions here is that they overlap with, and occasionally cannibalize, certain qualities of some of the support powersets.
I think that the Defender passive ability could increase their resistance to slow & maybe other debuffs like -acc, -speed, -def. That might be eating up some special quality of a set I'm not thinking of, and definitely overlaps with some enhancements or pool powers, but it still feels good to me.
I think adding those resistances as an inherent wouldn't damage the specific characteristics of any of their power choices and might be interesting. I'm sure that top tier builds might not notice the change very much, but it still feels responsible, characterful, and meaningful to newer players.
Kind of like…
Defenders. We know a thing or two because we’ve seen a thing or two.
We are Defenders, bum ba dum bum bum bum bum
…approach?
-
4 minutes ago, KaizenSoze said:
You know what I would like. A toxic judgement
There is plenty of that here on the forums…
😛
-
6
-
-
12 minutes ago, M3z said:
I mean if they didn't listen to the organized community it's hard for me to picture them listening to PVErs who are going to start every post with "I don't pvp" or "I hate pvp". And it's not like this is how I want things to be but that's how it be.
I agree. I think a big hurdle to convincing the Devs to do anything for PvP is convincing the majority of ALL players. With their limited staff and capability as such they are likely more willing to focus on things the majority wants or things they think will please that majority. (I could be wayyyyy off on that though, just my impression).
I think one thing that would start pushing the ball in that direction is some PvP Zone alerts or events that offer big rewards. It will entice the PvEers over to PvP zones to get those lucrative awards and thus possibly entice them to learn more about PvP so that they can get those rewards. That’s the idea anyway and I am fully aware that…
🎵You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will live as one…🎵
-
On 4/13/2022 at 8:59 AM, arcane said:
Mac, can't run mids, but can screenshot.
I also want to hedge and say this build is due for an update. I don't play it a lot right now, like my Grav/Sonic and Grav/Storm with Sorcery/Teleportation a lot more right now since the Singularity change, and if I were going to play it more again, I'd probably clean it up with at least a light respec.
But anyway logged in rq and here's what's on there atm. A few details make me wonder what I was thinking back then but oh well. Defenses and damage procs look right overall though.
Usually I would just solo +3x8 on it since Wormhole will still work on bosses that way. Give myself enough set up time to lay 3-4 Trip Mines and whatever else happens in that time frame. TP the mob on top of the whole apparatus = where'd the mob go. Not uncommon to see bosses drop from 100% to 0%.
Stop tickling my altitis!!! Damnit now I’ve created a gravity/traps… you did this to me!!!
🤣
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
I think the OP and everyone else need to be realistic when making suggestions.
I don’t know why you would assume I’m being unrealistic. I am simply asking what changes people would like to see, not expecting nor demanding them to be implemented. I have no expectations of delivery on any suggestions I make but it doesn’t change the fact that we are still allowed to inquire about possible changes. Who knows, maybe the Dev team will like our ideas? Maybe they will have time and/or prioritize it? That’s not for you nor me to say. It’s entirely up to them and I am fine either way because at the end of the day… I still get to play CoH.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, arcane said:
Oh and let’s please not forget VEAT’s still need power color customization
I wish I could give this 100 thumbs up.
-
1
-
-
Speaking of getting more people in zone, I had an idea in the following thread I think would go a long way towards that:
It is also open for additional feedback, trying to keep it civil as I know PvP is a polarizing topic. But that may ultimately be a futile thing lol. Either way, I’d love for more PvP voices to be heard in there. Whether you like my suggestion, or think it’s the worst idea since i13, or wanted to add any ideas of your own. 😃
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
Ehhhh, a discussion just means that: a discussion of ideas.
Doesn't mean there is a majority opinion.
On a side note, I don't honestly think anything is ever going to happen with Vigilence. But nice to have theorycraft discussions 🙂
Yes theory crafting is fun, but there is always the hope a suggestion gets some traction and attention from the Dev team.
Never said there was a majority opinion on either stance. Just that not everyone is going to always agree. So trying to find some common, most agreeable solution, and hope that the Devs see it and consider it.
10 minutes ago, Luminara said:No, and if it were retained, I don't believe it should remain in its current form because it incentivizes bad play. A reward for allowing teammates to be and/or remain injured isn't evocative of "defending", or the kind of behavior the game should be prompting. We tried to explain that to Cryptic when they initially added it to the game, but they ignored us. In their defense, they didn't have anything like +/-Special at that time, but anything would've been wiser than actively encouraging defenders to fuck their teammates over. If defenders are uniquely impacted negatively by endurance costs (which i don't believe to be true), then there should be a balance pass on defender powers to bring the costs down to a manageable state, not a tacked-on effect which they can only benefit from if they're incapable of defending or deliberately withholding buffs/debuffs.
We're not trying to build a power set here, the inherent doesn't need to be extraordinarily dense with options. Status Resistance and +/-Special interact with the primaries and secondaries well enough, interact with each other in a way which makes both worthwhile without taking the archetype into rare territory, and make the archetype better at what it does. That's enough for an inherent.
I agree, was just asking for clarification. I hate the current endurance mechanic on Vigilance, but wouldn’t mind a static end redux either, not that it is entirely necessary eaither.
-
9 minutes ago, The_Warpact said:
Forts are pretty end heavy and don't get me started on widows. I love my Fort shes a fvcking slayer and stacker of bodies.
This is why I think their inherent could be a little more potent.
-
2
-
-
@Luminara Would you say +status resistance and +special are enough? Would you keep the +endurance reduction for struggling teams?
-
10 hours ago, Luminara said:
Resistance would work. It might need to scale more at the low end of team size, as smaller teams would lean more heavily on a defender, but I wouldn't have any objection. There wouldn't be any need for a lockout or a check interval if it were Status Resistance.
I was going to say this but they beat me to it. I actually like the idea of +status resistance and +special that scales up as your team gets larger. It fits with the idea of vigilance (by definition, though I know we don’t always go with that) and leans into the defenders strengths without being inherently too OP (given the appropriate levels of bonus are tested and balanced). It is a fairly simply solution, that fits better than the current iteration of Vigilance.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, golstat2003 said:
That assumes everyone agree it's a problem. We don't.
Well not everyone is ever going to all agree. To each their own. The fact remains, many many many people do agree. Thus the discussion.
-
1 hour ago, Luminara said:
12.5% chance for a Break Free on the defender when afflicted by Holds, Stuns or Sleeps, increasing by 12.5% per living teammate; +/- ?% Special (Defense Strength, ToHit Strength, +Resistance (not -), Heal, Absorb, Regeneration, Endurance, Recovery, -Recharge (not +)), scaled by both defender HP and team HP (multiply one by the other to determine final effect).
No-one sleeping on the job can be considered vigilant. The purpose of the Break Free effect, though, is not simply to adhere to a word. Words can change. The name of the inherent can change. That's not what's important. What's important is that a defender who's doing nothing but watching is a defender who's not playing, not participating, not engaging, not contributing. We log in to play, not to count the seconds while watching a critter beat the green out of the green bar. There's nothing participatory or engaging about that. It's not even dramatic or fascinating to watch, the enemies don't suddenly go into incredible animations or stop to monologue as we crumble under their assault, like a movie, it's just frustrating. And we want our teammates to contribute, and we want to contribute when we're teamed. A mezzed defender contributes diddly squat, making more work for the rest of the team, not only forcing them to fight harder and longer to finish, but also to protect or resurrect the defender. The defender is there for a reason, that reason is not to freeload or put an extra burden on others.
Note that this is not true status protection, and it doesn't nudge the archetype out of balance. The Hold/Stun/Sleep has to occur before the Break Free effect applies, which means enemy-affecting toggles still drop, go into recharge and have to be restarted, and self- and ally-affecting toggles still suppress momentarily. It's also a very small chance when solo, so it's not like defenders will be emptying their inspiration trays of Break Frees, but it is still a chance, and because that chance scales with team size, it gives players a better encouragement to team than a shitty Endurance discount. It's not status protection, it's a chance to not have to sit out 5-10 seconds of mez, a chance to persevere despite having been mezzed, a chance to do something other than scramble for the Break Free key or Rune of Protection or... whatever. We might still have our large intestines removed and used as garlands, but at least we'll have a chance to go down fighting.
But that's not enough, because simply being capable of acting doesn't imply defending. I've advocated stuffing some +/- Special into Vigilance in the past, so there it is. It fits the thematic nature of defenders, but in this case, it's also beneficial in both solo and teamed environments. It should scale with both the defender's health and the team's health to make it work that way. That makes it at least somewhat useful solo, but gives it real impact on a team, and reflects what a defender is and does. The odds are against the team, the chips are down, things are starting to look grim, and the defender is stepping up with stronger powers and helping the team turn the tide. Making the Special affect both buffs and debuffs is critical, though. It has to be as good for that Force Fielder or Empathy defender as it is for the TA. As buffs and debuffs use whatever scales and modifiers are in effect at cast time (unless they're pseudo-pets), utilizing the bonus would require re-application of buffs/debuffs reactively, and that requirement provides the necessary restriction to prevent it from being unbalanced. But it also provides incentive to use the secondary sets. Blasting with /Dark would impose slightly stronger -ToHit, /Elecs would drain a bit more endurance or impose slightly greater -Recovery, sets with -Recharge would delay enemy attacks by another fraction of a second or longer, et cetera. +/- Special isn't perfect in the case of secondaries, as there are some with flaming bags of dog shit for a secondary effect (like Archery), but it would give every defender something, either in their primary or secondary, that benefits in some way. And, again, that's better than shaving a couple of points off of the cost of powers which defenders had no reason to use, or couldn't use because they were put in a time-out for existing. Essentially, everything a defender is doing should, in some way, reflect being a defender. This would take a big step toward accomplishing that.
Furthermore, since the defender's enemy-affecting toggles have dropped, even if they're on a full team, when they've been mezzed, that creates an advantage for the enemies and gives impetus to the defender's immediate action. Those debuff toggles aren't going to be recast instantly, but every defender has something else he/she can do, and this gives him/her both reason to do it and the expectation that it will make a difference. Fall back to plan B, whether that's using another toggle right away, or blasting and relying on increased debuff strength, or whipping out that Aid Other you've been denying you had in your build. Whatever the defender decides to do, it's going to have more weight, and it helps buy time until they can lay down the stronger effects.
I have no issue with Vigilance as it stands, though. I have no issue with defender damage being the lowest. I have no issue with toggles dropping. I have no issue with being mezzed for a week or carrying 20 Break Frees just to play a character. I have no issue with buffing defenders being restricted in a way debuffing defenders aren't. What I have an issue with is all of these things collectively applied to defenders and corruptors. By themselves, each individual restriction is reasonable. All of them together, they're repressive and detrimental to both archetypes, and to the players, and to the long-term health of the game. Making Vigilance more appropriately reflect the concept of defending, as it applies in Co*, could be sufficient to resolve most, if not all, of my complaints about the archetype as it exists in the current game, and that scaling +/-Special should go a long way toward improving the archetype for others in end-game content, where a lot of complaints have been seen. Taking defenders over the top has never been my goal, I just want the act of playing a defender to stop feeling like a punishment for selecting an archetype still saddled with restrictions designed for an entirely different game.
And if you want to shuffle off the 30% +Damage at that point, fine. I'm not going to grab my crossbow, chainsaw and meat grinder and start looking for people. I wouldn't have to, because even one fewer Break Free in my inspiration tray is one more Rage I can carry if I decide I need a little more damage. I can live with that.I really like this idea, way to think outside the box with the break free effect. I may lower the chance a tad, but it depends how often the check is… 10 seconds?
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:
Thinking about this, I come up with more questions and not answers. Needs are driven by objectives. What is the purpose these needs are addressing? Expanding the player base interest in PvP? To what end and what will that achieve?
If the objective was to expand interest in PvP and the method was by decreasing the player skill ceiling, well that was what happened in Issue 13.
For the first part of the quote:
The intent is to increase player involvement in a way organized PvP activities can’t. As vocal and organized as the PvP community can be they alone will never overcome the giant wall between PvP and PvE without Dev involvement and intention to make PvP more attractive. (Without alienating the current PvP population.)
For the second part of this quote: yes and no. The update had that intent, sure I can agree with that. But i13 made PvP less accessible, not more. It lowered the ceiling sure, but it raised the floor in a very real way by making it behave so entirely different from PvE in so many ways. A player can no longer “try out” PvP with their controller, because the second they launch a hold on their target that target is out of the hold before they can take full advantage of it and now can’t be held again for some time. That’s just one example.
I know you know this so I am sorry if that came across as patronizing or if it seemed like I made any assumptions in any way that you didn’t. That isn’t the intent. It’s more for everyone else reading to understand my point of view as to why I think PvP became less accessible to the general player base after i13.
I think any update to PvP that could be positive will find a way to lower the floor a bit, without lowering the ceiling. If an update can be done that both lowers the floor and raises the ceiling that would be even better. But, beggars can’t be choosers lol. So I am hoping to see suggestions that would accomplish this, as well as any other suggestions we think would increase player involvement in PvP.
-
1
-
-
I’d love to get back into PvP, I’d love for i13 to go away, but I also know how unrealistic that expectation is. So here we are but we are not without hope entirely. We have a dedicated and passionate PvP player base and I am certain a lot of people out there that are on the fence about PvP but just don’t think it’s worth their investment/time…
That said, I don’t know what changes NEED to happen, but whatever they are here are some of the things I’d like to see accomplished by those changes:
A) Open up more builds/ATs to being relatively competitive.
B) Give incentive enough to PvP that makes it worth the investment. Idc what the incentive is, more fun things to do, more merits, whatevs… just some examples and it doesn’t have to be those.
Now one change I can suggest to get things started here is:
Introduce worthwhile PvP events. I would love to see an alert for RV where heroes/villains are needed for xyz task. Much like the Nemesis events or Rikti Invasions. Something that will draw a crowd. Which means it will have to be worth it. And likely means opposing goals.
Example: Lord Recluse spawns in RV and is up to no good! Heroes try to defeat him while fighting off the Villain Players, Villains try to keep him alive while fighting off the Hero players. Just an example. But you get the gist. Again, it would have to be WORTH it. Merits to the winning team, something significant.
Any other ideas? And please, I know this is a polarizing topic, but we can communicate without name calling and respectfully agree to disagree at times.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, arcane said:
He’s stated before that Defenders are victims of discrimination so buckle up
Oh I know, I have read his stuff before. But I do really want to solve this problem so his input is welcome and given the topic likely inevitable anyways. So long as it doesn’t come with snark and comes with an open mind.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Luminara said:
I would really like your ideas for improving Vigilance. When you have a chance.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
The problem with Vigilance currently is that it always benefits all Defenders when soloing, but it does not benefit all Defenders when teaming.
This is the main problem I have with it right now. It basically encourages solo play because you lose your best benefit on a team. And on a team you only gain a benefit when you either a) aren’t doing your job well, or b) your entire team is trash against the content you are attempting.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AroneousMentor said:
Server Indombinable
Main AroneousMentor
I play there also, my global is @Marbing, I can help you out if you need! Have a super chill super group that is very welcoming to new players! 😃
Also, welcome home! 😁
-
1
-
PvP suggestions (Civil feedback only please)
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted · Edited by Marbing
Extra return removed
It was a sample question. Hence “For Example:” It was meant to be an example for what kind of discussion can be had. Not necessarily the only discussion that can be had. Yes, probably best to let the PvPers answer that question or any other questions about AT balance.
So… getting rid of DR could help close that gap? Seems a popular request, even among PvPers. Another suggestion could be, remove the inherent resistance that squishies get? Idk just spit balling here based on your objections to the sample question. I too would like to hear from someone with more experience in this area…