Some T9 Armor Suggestions

[oedipus_tex]

If they wanted to keep the spirit of the "God mode"  concept they could have the T9 provide a level shift for the first 40 seconds of activation. You couldn't perma it but it would allow you to effectively exceed caps, which is what these powers are supposed to do.

 

 

[Super Atom]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

I see how you could think I'm making that kind of slippery slope argument, but I'm not.

 

My affirmative argument is:

 

1.  Crashing "god mode" T9s are currently not useful to anyone, SO or IOs.

2.  Non-crashing "god mode" T9s are marginally useful to SO builds and not very much at all to IO builds.

3.  We should change T9s to be marginally useful to all builds, which mostly means not god-modes (but perhaps a few god modes that will play well with IO builds, depending on the set).

4.  We should do this without making T9s huge amazing powers because armor sets are basically fine.

 

To which you and others have responded with black-and-white slogans like

 

"This game is all about accessibility"

"The game is balanced around SOs."

 

My comments that you're now responding to are negative arguments saying that we should dismiss a strict view of "only balance around SOs."  Those comments aren't the reason we should make these changes, they're just the reason we shouldn't automatically dismiss the changes.

 

I don't think that my suggestions are irrefutable.  They ignore the cottage rule, and I think the cottage rule is pretty valuable!  I'm just tired of people saying, "only balance around SOs" as though some comment made by someone not currently involved in the game 10+ years ago in a very different environment were an unalterable law of nature.

 

Fundamentally, i agree with you. Most T9's aren't good regardless of where the game is balanced. The only thing i don't agree with you on is the idea of moving balance away from SO's. It's not that some dev said something 10 years ago, that would be the cottage rule, It's that the game would need a dramatic overhaul something the current devs are unequipped to do, to re balance around IO sets. Not only stats but how you got IO's would need to be changed because even this private market that is partially seeded still is having a lot of IO's be 0 available or they're over priced due to converters. City of Heroes like i said, has always been an easy MMO and more importantly an accessible MMO. A large part of the player base wouldn't know how to min/max a build to reach the heights you're suggesting they rebalance to. Imagine a casual based mmo that for its entire existance was easy to get into it and easy to be helpful in suddenly needed a icy veins. You're not just asking for difficulty at this point, you're asking them to remake an MMO.

[Myrmidon]

27 minutes ago, Troo said:

Cottage Rule summary for those curious:

An existing power will not have its core functionality and purpose changed, though its strength may be altered and effects secondary to the power's true purpose may be added or removed.

Don’t leave out the part where this is also up to the discretion of the Devs. If we are going to bring up the Cottage Rule, use all of it.

[Troo]

That's fair. I was just sharing the concept for any unfamiliar (it was mentioned earlier in the thread). I should have provided a link.

 

The Cottage Rule is a rule of thumb for the developers, used when talking about altering an existing power. https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Cottage_Rule

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Troo

[Super Atom]

12 minutes ago, Troo said:

That's fair. I was just sharing the concept for any unfamiliar (it was mentioned earlier in the thread). I should have provided a link.

 

The Cottage Rule is a rule of thumb for the developers, used when talking about altering an existing power. https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Cottage_Rule

 

Cottage rule at its core is a giant exaggeration. What if build up summoned hamidon?! no duh that's a dumb idea. However over the years its been corrupted to mean "This power can't be changed to fit in modern coh because thats how it was in issue 01!11!!1!".

[Troo]

I disagree. It's simply a rule of thumb and something to keep in mind.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Troo

[oedipus_tex]

I think the phrase "balanced around SOs" is somewhat misleading. IMO powers are neither balanced around IOs or SOs, but on an abstract quality you might call "attractiveness." A power is attractive if a significant number of players agree that it is so. I realize this begs the question. But the point is that powers mainly need adjustment when they fail to be attractive, for whatever reason. It's up to the players to make the argument on whether the power is so unattractive that it needs adjustment.

 

Combat Jumping, for example, is a highly attractive power. It's not particularly balanced around either SOs or IOs. It's attractive because in the overall meta it provides a useful choice. Some of this derives from what the power does. Some of it derives from slotting options. Some of it from how it relates to other powers.

 

IMO the T9 powers are generally unattractive and that's a fair place to start. 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[Super Atom]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

@Super Atom I disagree. It's simply a rule of thumb or something to keep in mind.

 

'giant exaggeration' = 'its been corrupted to mean "This power can't be changed to fit in modern coh because thats how it was in issue 01!11!!1!"'

Except that's all people do on these forums. They bring up cottage rule anytime someone wants to fix shitty powers. Example, your initial post about cottage rule. Anytime someone thinks they're being personally attacked because a power they enjoy/like is up for debate they immediately and without fail bring up cottage rule and usually incorrectly so.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Super Atom

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, Troo said:

I'd hand you a paper bag if I could.

 

The powers are what they are. Their effectiveness and/or usefulness can change player to player as well as where a character is in the game.

Nope. T9's are bad(except meltdown/bio), even the paragon devs knew this and  planned a big overhaul of them because of it. Opinions are cool to have and often come into effect in terms of whats fun in this game and what isn't. For example, I don't find Titan Weapons to be fun. This is an opinion. Titan Weapons is over preforming. This is a fact. See the difference?

[Super Atom]

13 minutes ago, Troo said:

hypocrisy much? 

Tier 9's are bad. Get over yourself.

 

on a side note, powerhouse already addressed Tier 9's in the tank feedback threads.

 

I don't remember his exact quote but it was along the lines of "A discussion for another time". So to double down, the paragon devs knew it and the HC devs know it.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Super Atom

[aethereal]

My original suggestions are flagrant cottage rule violations, though.  Like, they aren't arguable.  It's not like, "Oh, well, it's a change, but they are pretty similar."  The powers for the most part wouldn't even be able to keep the same names.  And I do think the cottage rule has a lot of value.  People should not, in general, log onto the game and find that their character is no longer recognizable.

 

But the cottage rule has the least value for powers that really suck.  Between "the power irresolvably sucks" and "we have to break the cottage rule," we should break the cottage rule.  Between "we should homogenize the sets by making all T9s provide def/resist/absorb," and "we have to break the cottage rule," we should break the cottage rule.  I think it's really hard to save the god-mode T9s without either breaking the cottage rule or making them overpowered.  Maybe someone smarter than me can figure out a way, but this is my best attempt.

[Super Atom]

The cottage rule has its own out written into it. It's literally dev discretion and can be broken if the circumstances are right and in the case of Tier 9's they're more than right.

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, Super Atom said:

 

The only thing i don't agree with you on is the idea of moving balance away from SO's. It's not that some dev said something 10 years ago, that would be the cottage rule, It's that the game would need a dramatic overhaul something the current devs are unequipped to do, to re balance around IO sets. Not only stats but how you got IO's would need to be changed because even this private market that is partially seeded still is having a lot of IO's be 0 available or they're over priced due to converters.

I don't think we really disagree on this.  I'm absolutely not advocating for a wholesale shift of everything to balance around IOs.  I'm saying, we can bring up the reality that IOs exist and are used by some huge percentage of the userbase (my guess is it's the large majority of relatively active players, but that's just a guess).  We don't have to pretend that IOs are the exclusive province of the top 1% of the playerbase.

[Super Atom]

6 minutes ago, aethereal said:

I don't think we really disagree on this.  I'm absolutely not advocating for a wholesale shift of everything to balance around IOs.  I'm saying, we can bring up the reality that IOs exist and are used by some huge percentage of the userbase (my guess is it's the large majority of relatively active players, but that's just a guess).  We don't have to pretend that IOs are the exclusive province of the top 1% of the playerbase.

Certainly, but even so it's a kind of impossible task. What exactly do we do to reconize them? Balancing around specific choices is extremely difficult. Some people PvP slot even in PvE by over use of proc. Some people go for recharge, some for defense, some for resistance. etc etc. How do you choose which direction to balance for without forcing a more specific meta than there already is. Leadership/fighting/leaping etc. I think the easier solution is creating new content that is balanced around people having IO's than to readjust anything else.

 

To further on that, DA arcs were a good start. We can go further, incarnate malta where the sappers turn off your incarnate abilities for example. Theres a lot we can do with enemy groups without risking re balancing of stats. I think the battalion and the real rikti were going to be this content.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Super Atom

[Troo]

Favorite Powerhouse quote "That being said: remember, everything here is subject to change."

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Troo

[Super Atom]

3 minutes ago, Troo said:

Favorite Powerhouse quote "That being said: remember, everything here is subject to change."

Don't misquote people to get last word, it's petty and makes you look stupid.  Naturally, experimental changes would be subject to change. In specific, he was saying the tier 9's were an entire conversation on their own and not related to current changes.

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, Troo said:

who did I misquote?

You're misusing his words to push your own narrative. That Quote is used in reference to changes posted because they're experimental and not final. It has nothing to do with him acknowledging Tier 9's need to be discussed.

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

Don’t leave out the part where this is also up to the discretion of the Devs. If we are going to bring up the Cottage Rule, use all of it.

And I think that part is wildly taken out of context to just mean "If you try to bring up the so-called "Cottage Rule" we can just bring up this part and throw it all out".

 

The reason that it's at the discretion of the dev tends to hinge on the necessity to change at all.  Yes, they can choose to change something just because they want to but the likelihood of that happening will hinge on not just if it's a good idea, not just how much effort would be involved but also what effect it'd have on balancing the game.

 

Not saying it won't ever happen (that devs would attempt to violate that rule) but you're aiming for constellations aligning AND lining up in your favor.

[Super Atom]

9 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And I think that part is wildly taken out of context to just mean "If you try to bring up the so-called "Cottage Rule" we can just bring up this part and throw it all out".

 

The reason that it's at the discretion of the dev tends to hinge on the necessity to change at all.  Yes, they can choose to change something just because they want to but the likelihood of that happening will hinge on not just if it's a good idea, not just how much effort would be involved but also what effect it'd have on balancing the game.

 

Not saying it won't ever happen (that devs would attempt to violate that rule) but you're aiming for constellations aligning AND lining up in your favor.

It's also important to note, It's a rule of thumb and not a law. It isn't the end all be all of balance nor is it a fundamental principal of this game. It was a comment made by a developer and not even a lead developer.

[Cidri]

Get rid of all the crashes, or make them very minor. The more modern sets like Scrapper/Ice Armor doesn't have a crashing tier 9, so I think this is the way the game is going. I don't care so much about the details on how to develop the tier 9s - I trust our devs to do that right.

 

Right now, most armor t9s are traps for new players. They are not really needed anyway. If we remove the crashes, they would be good powers for poor players that can't afford to slot their other powers to gain t9 efficiency without the drawbacks. Rich, experienced players still wouldn't use them - not much anyway.