DELETE Hasten, SLIGHTLY ALTER all enemies, SLIGHTY ALTER all player powers

[ShardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

I think to have any noticeable impact on people choosing Hasten on every build the inherent change would need to be larger, like 40-50% and Hasten moved to 20-30%. If that were the change, I think it would accomplish the goal of the OP. But that is also a significant boost to base stats, so then we run head on into the power creep issue. I think. I could be wrong as I'm just speculating on what the masses will do.

But even with this and following the logic offered for this change, Hasten is still "OP" in that people with it will still recharge faster and perform better than those who didn't take it.  It's still a single power offering a huge benefit.  Even 20-30% recharge is a big deal.  The majority take it now because the majority are looking for maximum recharge time.  Whether Hasten does 70% or 5%, if it will get them to the max recharge, the majority will still take it.

[Andrewvm]

If a power is chosen by the majority of the playerbase of a game  it's not always (generally not) because the power is overpowered, rather that it plugs a whole in an aspect of gameplay while being versatile enough to be used by any play style.

 

There are two answers to this: Nerf it so it isn't useful anymore, a mistake often made (I'm Looking at you M:tG PQ)  or in corporate it in the game in such a way that players don't -need- to choose it anymore, but allow for some diversity (for instance in slotting)

 

The OP's suggestion ticks the box of the second option. And while there may be better ways to implement it, I generally like her suggestion (and the second option) better.

 

oh and option three is just do nothing (of course) ,

[PaxArcana]

32 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

People are proposing what they think would be better for the game because they feel such changes would benefit them and their play experience.

[Citation Needed]

 

Because that's not a universal truth.

For example, I spent years running a PvP, forum-based game (using the tabletop 3.X edition rules for Dungeons and Dragons, and at extremely high levels, if it matters).  I, and the co-GMs I recruited, did a LOT of work tweaking and modifying our "House Rules" to bring the game into better balance.  Much of which did not benefit any of us, even as a group, at all.  Our eye was not on personal benefit, it was on the good of the game as a whole.  Even though, yes, we also all played in the game (though GM rulings were always handled by someone else on the team, not the one actually playing - ethics and all).

I take the same approach with things here.  For me, in fact, it's reflexive and automatic.  I'll even oppose ideas here that would greatly benefit me, personally ... because they would be bad for the game, overall.

[PaxArcana]

28 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

But even with this and following the logic offered for this change, Hasten is still "OP" in that people with it will still recharge faster and perform better than those who didn't take it.

That isn't necessarily a problem.  Invest a limited resource (Powers and Slots), get a benefit.

 

The problem, IMO, is that right now the benefit is so godawful huge that it's almost an intentional self-nerf to NOT take the power.

[subbacultchas]

Arrgggh, why you gotta do this to me Pax 🙂

You don't ask for citations for things that are effectively unable to even have a body of work devoted to them, that's bad faith man. It's fairly obvious that what he's making is a claim about what he perceives to be a motive, or a common facet of human nature. And that's okay, and outliers like yourself do not exactly break the mold.  You can argue that what he's saying is not true, and really sans any type of metric to measure this you're both on even footing of "Nuh uh, you're wrong!"

And ultimately, this didn't even need to be brought about in the first place, your initial assessment of his character should never had been made and posted to this forum. And then this particular line of argumentation wouldn't have even surfaced. 

So like, whatever is going on man, please take a breather and stop being quite so antagonistic. You are a very good person in this forum, and lately it's very hard to see what you usually bring here shine through.

Edited September 26, 2019 by subbacultchas

[TheAdjustor]

2 hours ago, DSorrow said:

But it wasn't ED alone that made the game more fun, it was ED as a stepping stone to IOs. I can't speak for anyone else, but without IOs I would've left the game a long time ago because with ED restricted SOs build variety is actually pretty limited if you want your build to be effective. I do agree with you on the target / aggro caps because the way they worked before promoted a pretty boring playstyle.

Bingo ED damn near killed the game. I believe Aggro and Target caps had more to do with server load/ griefing issues than anything else.

[ShardWarrior]

12 minutes ago, Andrewvm said:

If a power is chosen by the majority of the playerbase of a game  it's not always (generally not) because the power is overpowered, rather that it plugs a whole in an aspect of gameplay while being versatile enough to be used by any play style.

 

There are two answers to this: Nerf it so it isn't useful anymore, a mistake often made (I'm Looking at you M:tG PQ)  or in corporate it in the game in such a way that players don't -need- to choose it anymore, but allow for some diversity (for instance in slotting)

 

The OP's suggestion ticks the box of the second option. And while there may be better ways to implement it, I generally like her suggestion (and the second option) better.

 

oh and option three is just do nothing (of course) ,

Even in the current form Hasten isn't a hard requirement - your powers will work without it so in that respect it isn't "needed".  While the proposed change would help with those looking for some recharge boost, the min-maxers will still take Hasten regardless. 

[MunkiLord]

26 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

[Citation Needed]

 

Because that's not a universal truth.

For example, I spent years running a PvP, forum-based game (using the tabletop 3.X edition rules for Dungeons and Dragons, and at extremely high levels, if it matters).  I, and the co-GMs I recruited, did a LOT of work tweaking and modifying our "House Rules" to bring the game into better balance.  Much of which did not benefit any of us, even as a group, at all.  Our eye was not on personal benefit, it was on the good of the game as a whole.  Even though, yes, we also all played in the game (though GM rulings were always handled by someone else on the team, not the one actually playing - ethics and all).

I take the same approach with things here.  For me, in fact, it's reflexive and automatic.  I'll even oppose ideas here that would greatly benefit me, personally ... because they would be bad for the game, overall.

And most negative changes I happily and/or quietly roll with. But a change that would have a negative impact on literally every single character I have, is not something I feel I have a reason to support. Why would I want to support a change that would negatively impact my game experience every time I do anything more than marketing? Who wants to make a game less fun for themselves?

 

Also, if a more balanced game is something your example group desired, that is absolutely a benefit in a potential myriad of ways. What those benefits are will depend on what someone wants out of their experience since that's completely subjective. Some examples are more varied play sessions that allow more creativity, stronger bonds with the group, more players, etc. The good of the game as a whole is definitely a goal motivated by what one wants and desires.  Immediate fun isn't the only benefit people can get from changes. Some of the proposals are more long term, and that's fine. But they are made because it will ultimately benefit the person making the suggestion in some way at some point. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Finally, the ED to IO example simply doesn't fit here since the overall long term benefit of this suggestion has not be shown in any tangible way. Sure more balance and build variety are generally good things, but they are also extremely subjective and difficult to quantify. So if I am going to buy into changes that will negatively impact me for the sake of some future benefit, I need something concrete. 

 

In the end, we all play this game because we get something out of it(I assume that something is generally fun/enjoyment). If we didn't, then there isn't a good reason to play. Every idea, every suggestion, every change made is with an eye towards that goal. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by MunkiLord

[DR_Mechano]

That is my main problem and NOBODY has answers.

 

What is the long term benefit to the game by nerfing hasten and what are the predicted consequences of any of the imposed changes? How is it actually going to be healthy for the game beyond just saying 'balance'. Tell me exactly how this really does help, like, go into the gritty details.

[Herotu]

Hasten is good enough to be top tier, rather than a starter power ... just saying.

[ShardWarrior]

6 minutes ago, DR_Mechano said:

What is the long term benefit to the game by nerfing hasten and what are the predicted consequences of any of the imposed changes? How is it actually going to be healthy for the game beyond just saying 'balance'. Tell me exactly how this really does help, like, go into the gritty details.

If I am understanding the suggested change, it offers some flexibility to those who feel they need to take Hasten by shifting some of the recharge to swift while making Hasten itself "less OP".  Seems to me the majority are going to take it regardless, so I don't see the benefit.

[Steampunkette]

2 minutes ago, DR_Mechano said:

That is my main problem and NOBODY has answers.

 

What is the long term benefit to the game by nerfing hasten and what are the predicted consequences of any of the imposed changes? How is it actually going to be healthy for the game beyond just saying 'balance'. Tell me exactly how this really does help, like, go into the gritty details.

If we do the Delete Hasten and shift to 20% global recharge for everyone (Effectively giving everyone unslotted Hasten) the immediate result is the Recharge Meta goes out the window. Recharge will still be a strong mechanic, particularly among set bonuses, but it won't be the end-all-be-all of power.

 

Long term, this would encourage different builds. Different "Optimal Attack Chains" and overall increase the challenge of the game by stripping some of the extreme ends of power away.

 

If we do the "Shift things around" design, very little changes in the short term. In the long term, though, more people who are moving into choosing sets and final builds for characters will run into the 'Smaller gains' appearance, since "Permahasten" just takes you from +20 to +45. And might try something different...

 

It wouldn't be the Optimal Build, but it would at least be variety, which is the spice of life.

[TheAdjustor]

1 hour ago, MunkiLord said:

I think to have any noticeable impact on people choosing Hasten on every build the inherent change would need to be larger, like 40-50% and Hasten moved to 20-30%. If that were the change, I think it would accomplish the goal of the OP. But that is also a significant boost to base stats, so then we run head on into the power creep issue. I think. I could be wrong as I'm just speculating on what the masses will do.

People take hasten to achieve build goals not so much . Getting aim and build up into the low 30 second mid to high 20 second range, getting self heals available more often. You can see this in the builds people post even the very bad ones.

 

I don't know that it would be such an issue with power creep though. As things stand most people put no more than three slots into hasten (make no mistake putting up to 6 is a valid strategy and can be beneficial) and usually less (based on builds posted to the forums).  Freeing up the power pick would likely be a very small power creep as a result.

 

At a guess the result would be a good number of builds(especially not those using super speed) would take stealth for the extra defense and an extra luck of the gambler slotting. So the trade off would be ~2.5% defense and +7.5% recharge vs however much recharge the new hasten would provide. 

 

If you went with the incredibly silly "make it even more clicky"  proposal,  the shift would likely be even more pronounced as time spent casting hasten is time not spent doing other things and would tend to negate the benefits of the power.

[TheAdjustor]

4 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

If we do the Delete Hasten and shift to 20% global recharge for everyone (Effectively giving everyone unslotted Hasten) the immediate result is the Recharge Meta goes out the window. Recharge will still be a strong mechanic, particularly among set bonuses, but it won't be the end-all-be-all of power.

 

Long term, this would encourage different builds. Different "Optimal Attack Chains" and overall increase the challenge of the game by stripping some of the extreme ends of power away.

 

If we do the "Shift things around" design, very little changes in the short term. In the long term, though, more people who are moving into choosing sets and final builds for characters will run into the 'Smaller gains' appearance, since "Permahasten" just takes you from +20 to +45. And might try something different...

 

It wouldn't be the Optimal Build, but it would at least be variety, which is the spice of life.

I am sorry weren't you earlier arguing that people didn't know what their optimal attack chains were and couldn't care  ?

I don't even want to go into the power creep/OP power issue you have raised elsewhere, seeing as this is now literally arguing for power creep in the game. (not necessarily a bad thing just an incredibly inconsistent stance on the part of the poster)

[Shazbotacus]

I guess if you had to make Hasten inherent, uh, what if it were a toggle instead? Possibly with a high endurance cost? What effects on peoples’ builds and game play would this have if it still did +70% recharge speed like notmal? Was that mentioned before? 17 pages is quite a bit to search through on a phone.

 

”In times of great stress, heroes (or villains or anyone anywhere between) can push themselves harder to use their powers at a greater rate, but tax their bodies in doing so.”

 

Everyone pushes hard for “perma hasten” with their fancy IO set builds with mules and whatever anyhow.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Shazbotacus

[Steampunkette]

Just now, Shazbotacus said:

I guess if you had to make Hasten inherent, uh, what if it were a toggle instead? Possibly with a high endurance cost? What effect would this have if it still did +70% recharge speed like notmal? Was that mentioned before? 17 pages is quite a bit to search through on a phone.

 

”In times of great stress, heroes (or villains or anyone anywhere between) can push themselves harder to use their powers at a greater rate, but tax their bodies in doing so.”

 

Everyone pushes hard for “perma hasten” with their fancy IO set builds with mules and whatever anyhow.

The End cost would be closer to 2 than to .26... but it could be done. It just wouldn't mean a whole lot in the end.

[Megajoule]

10 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

I am sorry weren't you earlier arguing that people didn't know what their optimal attack chains were and couldn't care  ?

I don't even want to go into the power creep/OP power issue you have raised elsewhere, seeing as this is now literally arguing for power creep in the game. (not necessarily a bad thing just an incredibly inconsistent stance on the part of the poster)

I believe that this may be a case of "changing one's mind" and/or "bowing to the inevitable".

 

Power Creep is something to be avoided (IMO - others disagree, obvs), but the statistics quoted in the other thread (and at the start of this one) suggest that it's too late for that, or the question is moot - it's already done, almost everyone already takes Hasten, so let's go ahead and make it official (and truly universal) and simplify things a bit.

 

I wish it wasn't so, personally, but mine seems to be very much a minority viewpoint.  Statistically insignificant, in fact.  Whether I think it's right, whether I think it makes sense on an IC basis... it just is.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Megajoule

[Steampunkette]

Megajoule has -kinda- got an understanding of it:

 

It's pretty much impossible to completely remove hasten without doing -anything- to fill at least some of the hole. My initial intention was to do so with a smaller bonus, because the gaping hole it would leave behind requires -some- filling. But that wasn't sufficient, leading to the second suggestion.

[DR_Mechano]

21 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

If we do the Delete Hasten and shift to 20% global recharge for everyone (Effectively giving everyone unslotted Hasten) the immediate result is the Recharge Meta goes out the window. Recharge will still be a strong mechanic, particularly among set bonuses, but it won't be the end-all-be-all of power.

 

Long term, this would encourage different builds. Different "Optimal Attack Chains" and overall increase the challenge of the game by stripping some of the extreme ends of power away.

 

If we do the "Shift things around" design, very little changes in the short term. In the long term, though, more people who are moving into choosing sets and final builds for characters will run into the 'Smaller gains' appearance, since "Permahasten" just takes you from +20 to +45. And might try something different...

 

It wouldn't be the Optimal Build, but it would at least be variety, which is the spice of life.

All that will end up doing is people basically slotting MORE recharge out of their powers and IO bonuses. It doesn't actually do anything good, in fact it now limits build variety EVEN MORE since you're now everyone is going to be focusing on cramming as much recharge into their build as possible to replace the 50% lost by hasten.

 

Also this kills, completely, Perma-dom and Perma Phantom Army. Like I said Perma PA require waaaaayyy more recharge than perma Hasten (like a LOT more recharge) so then in order to still make this achievable you're not just removing hasten, you're also going to have to rebalance dominators and Illusion control so that they can, once again, get back up to the heights they once got to. So deleting hasten is adding even more balancing work.

[Shazbotacus]

13 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

The End cost would be closer to 2 than to .26... but it could be done. It just wouldn't mean a whole lot in the end.

That gets me thinking, if it’s something high for endurance cost, like 2/sec, maximizing endurance recovery and putting cost discounts on new Hasten to keep it up might become a new big goal for builds.

[Steampunkette]

3 minutes ago, DR_Mechano said:

All that will end up doing is people basically slotting MORE recharge out of their powers and IO bonuses. It doesn't actually do anything good, in fact it now limits build variety EVEN MORE since you're now everyone is going to be focusing on cramming as much recharge into their build as possible to replace the 50% lost by hasten.

 

Also this kills, completely, Perma-dom and Perma Phantom Army. Like I said Perma PA require waaaaayyy more recharge than perma Hasten (like a LOT more recharge) so then in order to still make this achievable you're not just removing hasten, you're also going to have to rebalance dominators and Illusion control so that they can, once again, get back up to the heights they once got to. So deleting hasten is adding even more balancing work.

1) Cramming more recharge is futile 'cause you'd be losing 50% recharge if we removed it. You could -try- to make up the loss, but you'd never be able to obtain the same level of optimization... If we removed it entirely.

 

2) Does kill Perma lots of stuff, yup. Unless there's a rebalance pass around the increased presence and lowered availability of +Recharge. It's something discussed on page 2, I think? Maybe 3...

 

3) Any change is going to require more balancing work when it involves a power that LITERALLY AFFECTS EVERY OTHER POWER IN THE ENTIRE GAME. Except the handful that are immune to recharge rates, obviousl. I think there are 3?

[Epsilon Assassin]

20 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

When something has synergy with the rest of a character's powers that is so good, that it is treated by nearly the entire playerbase as required-or-else-you-are-gimped ... then either it is too good, or the rest of the game isn't good enough.  Usually it is the former, and not the latter.

 

With regard to travel powers, first: they have no real synergy with anything except themselves.  Second: they were adjusted and nerfed back on Live ("combat suppression"), specifically to eliminate what little synergy they had with combat powers.

 

As for Fitness, the devs carefully datamined for months, examining why players were taking Fitness.  And the reason was, because everything else in the game was costing just that little bit too much Endurance to use; Stamina was seen by the players as needed, not because "or you're gimped", but because, "or you'll be using Rest all the time instead of actually playing, and that's no fun".  Picking up Health and either Swift or Hurdle was just a matter of "well since I've got to unlock the pool anyway, why not?"

 

Yes. In a balanced game that is true. City of Heroes is not a balanced game. Therefore nerfing things for balance concerns is a little different. The question is whether or not Hasten is making the game actively worse due to its existence. If the answer is not objectively no, then it's irrelevant. The reason is that, while yes, optimally, Hasten should exist in your build, the games difficulty is tuned to which point that you can perform far far worse then optimally and complete all content. 

 

Combat suppression wasn't a nerf exactly. People where whining about how hard it was to control travel powers in combat and that they didnt want to turn them off. Thus combat suppression was born. 

 

Your right about Fitness, but the significant difference between Hasten and Fitness is that fluent combat without Fitness was almost impossible. With hasten, the only advantage is a term of power, which as I mentioned before, is nearly if not completely irrelevant in the balance scheme of City of Heroes. 

 

21 hours ago, Rathulfr said:

Any one pool or power that becomes a universal requirement for most builds, like the original Fitness pool, probably indicates that it should be "elevated" to Inherent status, like the original Fitness pool.  By becoming a "must have" for a majority, it shows that there's a fundamental issue with game mechanics that needs to be addressed (such as it was with Stamina). 

 

Such "must have" powers also become a form of penalty or tax, in some regards, because they force players into taking a power that might not really fit their character's concept or theme, simply to maintain viability or maximum efficiency.  In many cases, Hasten is the only power picked from the Speed pool for many characters, which ties up one out of a maximum of four total power pools allowed.  There are builds where I'd prefer to take something out of other pools, but cannot, because of Hasten.

 

That is only a single part of the argument he is making. He is simultaneously arguing that this should occur (I could agree), and also that Hasten be levy to a significant nerf. (I could see a nerf being made, but it's a significant change and significant reasoning made to why this is necessary would also be needed)

 

22 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

 

Again, not nerfing it because it's good because I'm not suggesting a nerf. I'm suggesting it be removed from the game, -entirely- and that all characters, whether they took hasten or not, get a 20% global recharge buff.

And that is, effectively, a nerf. 

 

22 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

 

Fitness got the same treatment, in fact. It's no longer a power pool, and is instead a Global Grant at level 2, with everyone getting it. I'm suggesting the global setup because giving everyone a power as strong as hasten from level 1 onward seems a bit OP, so I averaged it's function over time.

 

But you failed to take into account that a big part of a large number of builds are about making Hasten perma. Therefore your suggestion is both a huge nerf to hasten, and a large nerf to a significant portion of the game as it exists now. Your logic for making this change has yet to be fully fleshed out. Actually the logic is closer to half baked then a fully reasonable argument. 

 

It should be also noted that it's possible to adjust the hasten inherent power to scale from 20% to 20%+(a percentage of recharge scaling up to 50% based on the total recharge outside this power). 

 

22 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

 

 

So how about the power we replace Hasten with is an Autopower called "Quick". Always on, no Endurance cost, +15% Recharge Rate. Taking that power would be roughly equivalent to having Hasten 2-slotted for Recharge Rate. And while it might still be -super- popular at high end, it wouldn't be more powerful than slotting 2 LotG powers, and most people wouldn't 'need' it for their builds because they're already getting the +20% baseline increase.

 

 

You have yet to justify why this is needed. Sure. It's doable, but what does it do and why should it be done. Making Hasten an inherent is a plausible argument, and you're making a decent argument for it, but past that, you also significantly nerf it. I agree to the point that it would be nice to have it as a "Passive" power, but you havent justified the large nerf you're also shoveling on it. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Epsilon Assassin

[MunkiLord]

Just now, Steampunkette said:

 

3) Any change is going to require more balancing work when it involves a power that LITERALLY AFFECTS EVERY OTHER POWER IN THE ENTIRE GAME. Except the handful that are immune to recharge rates, obviousl. I think there are 3?

I forgot about this when I made my WP Scrapper and it made me sad I couldn't perma my T9. That wasn't the reason I picked WP, so it wasn't a huge deal. More a head desk for forgetting something on a set I played a quite a bit back in the day.

[TheAdjustor]

8 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

I believe that this may be a case of "changing one's mind" and/or "bowing to the inevitable".

 

Power Creep is something to be avoided (IMO - others disagree, obvs), but the statistics quoted in the other thread (and at the start of this one) suggest that it's too late for that, or the question is moot - it's already done, almost everyone already takes Hasten, so let's go ahead and make it official (and truly universal) and simplify things a bit.

 

I wish it wasn't so, personally, but mine seems to be very much a minority viewpoint.  Statistically insignificant, in fact.

I can understand why people are against "power creep" even though it's not an opinion I share.  I feel there is an appropriate power level / play difficulty for any game and when changes are considered this needs to be taken into account.

 

Even so, that is at most only one factor and not even the most important.  Much more important is how people interact with the game.  How does the game feel. At low levels  without significant amounts of recharge slotted the game feels sluggish and unresponsive. You can certainly get things done, but it's painful.  It's hard to get a rhythm going you are playing a much more cautious kind of game, it's generally slower paced.  As you start to solve your endurance issues and get levels of recharge slotted, the game becomes much faster pace, and feels more natural to play.

 

Making a fully inherent hasten isn't a bad thing in this regard.

 

That said. This thread hasn't been about improving the game play. It's been about stirring people up

[DR_Mechano]

4 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

1) Cramming more recharge is futile 'cause you'd be losing 50% recharge if we removed it. You could -try- to make up the loss, but you'd never be able to obtain the same level of optimization... If we removed it entirely.

 

2) Does kill Perma lots of stuff, yup. Unless there's a rebalance pass around the increased presence and lowered availability of +Recharge. It's something discussed on page 2, I think? Maybe 3...

 

3) Any change is going to require more balancing work when it involves a power that LITERALLY AFFECTS EVERY OTHER POWER IN THE ENTIRE GAME. Except the handful that are immune to recharge rates, obviousl. I think there are 3?

So it's not just a case of 'nerf or delete hasten and all is better' it means having to do huge massive reworks to a lot of powers in the game, like, a massive chunk of them. That's a metric shit-ton of work for, honestly, what seems like very little gain.

 

OR you could not rebalance everything and just make hasten an inherent...which means everyone gets it anyway.