Some T9 Armor Suggestions

[aethereal]

23 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's exist. They have been in the game longer than they havent. Having powers that are only good if you use some scrub build may as well be based on using TO's at 50. 

 

Powers, particularly T9's, need to reflect the game as it is now, not how it was in Issue 3. The AT is fine because of overperforming sets. You can't honestly think Ice and SR are in the same league as other, modern sets. 

 

I agree with you more than I don't, but I do think you want to be careful.  Is SR as good as Energy Aura or Scrapper/Sentinel Ninjutsu or Shield?  No.  Is it awful?  No.  Even the worst armor sets don't need enormous buffs, and we don't want to make Bio the floor of armor set efficacy.

 

That said, we don't need entire powers for people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of IOs.  There was never anything engraved on a stone tablet that said, "Thou shallt provide a way for Scrappers using SOs to softcap their defenses," and people who only want to play at +0/x1 or on 8 man teams don't need to soft-cap their defenses.

[Super Atom]

1 hour ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's exist. They have been in the game longer than they havent. Having powers that are only good if you use some scrub build may as well be based on using TO's at 50. 

 

Powers, particularly T9's, need to reflect the game as it is now, not how it was in Issue 3. The AT is fine because of overperforming sets. You can't honestly think Ice and SR are in the same league as other, modern sets. 

That has nothing to do with IO's and a lot more to do with set design. Specifically in that a lot of modern sets were seemingly just better version of older sets meant for a modern coh and they didn't want to change the older ones so cottage nerds don't get pissy and cry.

 

Kin > energy melee

Savage > Claws

Titan weapons > everything

etc etc

 

Also, you can't really balance sets around IO's. Sure they're easier to get now but to expect everyone to fully IO every alt just to be helpful in a team situation is asking a lot, more so back on live where good builds costed in the billions not hundred millions like now.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Super Atom

[Bossk_Hogg]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

 

I agree with you more than I don't, but I do think you want to be careful.  Is SR as good as Energy Aura or Scrapper/Sentinel Ninjutsu or Shield?  No.  Is it awful?  No.  Even the worst armor sets don't need enormous buffs, and we don't want to make Bio the floor of armor set efficacy.

 

That said, we don't need entire powers for people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of IOs.  There was never anything engraved on a stone tablet that said, "Thou shallt provide a way for Scrappers using SOs to softcap their defenses," and people who only want to play at +0/x1 or on 8 man teams don't need to soft-cap their defenses.

Right, but there's a pretty big gap between SR and Bio, and I don't really think changing elude from a nigh useless power into one that, say, provides an absorb and heal over time (representing rolling with the punches) would unbalance the set. Or giving Tankers/Brutes Icy Bastion, which sentinels, scrappers, and stalkers already get in their Ice Armor. Fire honestly needs a bit of love to make it something other than a farm/chump content set, particularly since Burn didnt really get any love in the tanker damage pass.  Letting ROTP be used while alive and tossing some absorb in there would do the trick.

[Wavicle]

3 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's exist. They have been in the game longer than they havent. Having powers that are only good if you use some scrub build may as well be based on using TO's at 50. 

 

Powers, particularly T9's, need to reflect the game as it is now, not how it was in Issue 3. The AT is fine because of overperforming sets. You can't honestly think Ice and SR are in the same league as other, modern sets. 

Nevertheless, the game is still primarily balanced around SOs.

SR could use some love, sure, but Ice is a very strong armor set.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Wavicle

[Galaxy Brain]

2 hours ago, Super Atom said:

Savage < Claws

Fixed 

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Fixed 

It does look better animation wise.  But hard to compete with claws. 

 

 

[siolfir]

2 hours ago, Super Atom said:

they didn't want to change the older ones so cottage nerds don't get pissy and cry.

 

Kin > energy melee

Kinetic is better than Energy Melee because they changed the older one.

[aethereal]

3 hours ago, Super Atom said:

Also, you can't really balance sets around IO's. Sure they're easier to get now but to expect everyone to fully IO every alt just to be helpful in a team situation is asking a lot, more so back on live where good builds costed in the billions not hundred millions like now.

1.  Sure you can.  You can do anything you want to, including prioritize the needs of the broadly engaged players instead of the stubbornly unengaged ones.

 

2.  You can get plenty good slotting to soft-cap any defense set without using its T9, using maybe at most 100M in inf.  Will that build also perma-hasten and have every unique proc in the game?  No.  But there's a huge excluded middle between "no IOs at all" and the very tip-top builds.

 

3.  Also, why is it unreasonable to ask people to spend, I don't know, 30 minutes a week or so doing their money-making and slotting?  Should I get to demand that the game be balanced around literally no enhancements at all because I find it too mentally challenging to figure out how ED works and what it even means to slot a power for endurance modification, man, and also I don't make enough money to buy SOs, and also it takes too long to go to the store and buy SO's?  I mean, obviously not.  We get to demand that people put some work into their characters or else we balance past them.  Why is it this particular line?  Why SOs and not "a few sets"?  The fiction that the game isn't balanced around IOs is thin already, and it is in many ways cheaper and certainly less time investment to build with low-cost sets than it is to keep yourself in SOs.  And you don't broadly speaking even need to understand ED!

 

4.  Nobody really needs tip-top builds to be "helpful in a team situation."

[Wavicle]

Just now, aethereal said:

1.  Sure you can.  You can do anything you want to, including prioritize the needs of the broadly engaged players instead of the stubbornly unengaged ones.

 

This game is about accessibility and this attitude is unhelpful and unnecessary.

[aethereal]

Just now, Wavicle said:

 

This game is about accessibility and this attitude is unhelpful and unnecessary.

Then I assume that you're advocating for my "balance around people who simply are unable to wrap their heads around slotting at all?"  Or perhaps we can balance around exclusively slotting what drops to you, but never going to the store.

 

My 4.5 year old daughter wants to play this game.  She does not currently understand the state of a power being in cooldown and unable to be used -- she just mashes the buttons and hopes for the best.  Also, she can't read and definitely can't understand slotting.  There are changes we could make to make the game more accessible to her!  Should we?

 

Obviously not.  This is not because my daughter is not a wonderful human being who deserves fun and excitement -- it's that there are tradeoffs in this world, and by making the game accessible to illiterate, innumerate people who don't understand the screen iconography of powers, we make the game less fun for people who are literate, numerate, and able to understand and absorb the interface.

 

We have to pick a line, and what line we pick is somewhat arbitrary.  I argue that picking a line which recognizes the availability, popularity, and ease-of-use of sets (not multiple-hundred-millions builds, just the use of some sets) is:

 

1.  A game that is more interesting and appealing to the people who play it the most often and most avidly.

 

2.  Not actually particularly disenfranchising to the people who stubbornly insist on using SOs for whatever dumb reason -- they will not stop being able to run the game at low difficulty levels because T9s give a different benefit than a short-lived god-mode.

 

[Wavicle]

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Then I assume that you're advocating for my "balance around people who simply are unable to wrap their heads around slotting at all?"  Or perhaps we can balance around exclusively slotting what drops to you, but never going to the store.

 

My 4.5 year old daughter wants to play this game.  She does not currently understand the state of a power being in cooldown and unable to be used -- she just mashes the buttons and hopes for the best.  Also, she can't read and definitely can't understand slotting.  There are changes we could make to make the game more accessible to her!  Should we?

 

Obviously not.  This is not because my daughter is not a wonderful human being who deserves fun and excitement -- it's that there are tradeoffs in this world, and by making the game accessible to illiterate, innumerate people who don't understand the screen iconography of powers, we make the game less fun for people who are literate, numerate, and able to understand and absorb the interface.

 

We have to pick a line, and what line we pick is somewhat arbitrary.  I argue that picking a line which recognizes the availability, popularity, and ease-of-use of sets (not multiple-hundred-millions builds, just the use of some sets) is:

 

1.  A game that is more interesting and appealing to the people who play it the most often and most avidly.

 

2.  Not actually particularly disenfranchising to the people who stubbornly insist on using SOs for whatever dumb reason -- they will not stop being able to run the game at low difficulty levels because T9s give a different benefit than a short-lived god-mode.

 

 

You are missing the point and being an elitist jerk.

 

Read my suggestions for changing these powers on the previous page of this thread.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Wavicle

[aethereal]

30 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

 

You are missing the point and being an elitist jerk.

 

Read my suggestions for changing these powers on the previous page of this thread.

 

Genuinely:  consider that maybe I'm not missing the point.  I don't feel like you're actually engaging.

 

I did read your suggestions for changing the powers.  The conversation I'm trying to have is about why I think those are bad suggestions.

[Super Atom]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

 

Genuinely:  consider that maybe I'm not missing the point.  I don't feel like you're actually engaging.

 

I did read your suggestions for changing the powers.  The conversation I'm trying to have is about why I think those are bad suggestions.

 

I don't want to quote you a hundred times mainly because im lazy

 

So, you're kind of doing this whole slippery slope thing by saying "Well we might as well do x because of y" and just completely missing the point of why x was done in the first place. City of Heroes was never a hardcore game and likely never will be. They tried to offer us more challenge with +4/x8 but most people who invest in IO's can solo through it (Funny how progression works). I'm very opposed to changing the entire games balance just to factor in IOs. You should always keep IO's in mind when balancing stuff but it should never be the focus. Rather than nerfing everything to need IO's, under preforming sets should brought up to speed and other options for difficulty should be explored, see +5/6, see newer enemies entirely. Keeping city of heroes alt friendly and casual player friendly will benefit it far more than trying to appease those of us who have 0 challenge in the game, again not to say that shouldn't be addressed through other means.

 

also i don't really wanna do the whole "no u" back and forth thing and derail this thread too much, if you disagree cool everyone's got their own ideas man.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Super Atom

[Super Atom]

2 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Fixed 

 

no

[VileTerror]

I may have missed it in the thread if someone already suggested it, but what if Tier 9s with Crashes had two "modes?"

 

Press it once and get the weak version with no Crash.

Press it again during the first 1/2 of the duration time* and get the full benefits, but trigger the Crash mechanic at the tail end.

 

 

*window of opportunity subject to change, just throwing that out as a theoretical example

[Leogunner]

5 hours ago, aethereal said:

We have to pick a line, and what line we pick is somewhat arbitrary.  I argue that picking a line which recognizes the availability, popularity, and ease-of-use of sets (not multiple-hundred-millions builds, just the use of some sets) is:

 

1.  A game that is more interesting and appealing to the people who play it the most often and most avidly.

 

2.  Not actually particularly disenfranchising to the people who stubbornly insist on using SOs for whatever dumb reason -- they will not stop being able to run the game at low difficulty levels because T9s give a different benefit than a short-lived god-mode.

 

The problem is, the people who play the game most often and most avidly don't know what's good for them.  When you just have your cake and eat it too, you get unstable servers that delete everyones characters after an update.  Sometimes you need an adult who knows how to practice some restraint to put reason over hedonistic desire otherwise you just ruin everyone's play experience just because you wanted to be pandered to.

[Haijinx]

Without harder content this probably doesn't matter anyway.

 

If you have a mostly SO build all T9s are useful.  

 

If you have a Decent IO build most of them are redundant, but its not like you need them.  

 

 

[Myrmidon]

On 2/13/2020 at 11:56 AM, aethereal said:

 

Invulnerability

 

Auto-power.  When enemies attack you with a melee-tagged attack, they have a small chance (10%) to proc a knockdown on themselves as they literally bounce off you.  For Brutes only, the same proc gives you a mild bonus Fury amount (5ish?)

It’s like a souped-up Avalanche proc, so I would be all about this.

[Myrmidon]

16 hours ago, Super Atom said:

 

Also, you can't really balance sets around IO's. Sure they're easier to get now but to expect everyone to fully IO every alt just to be helpful in a team situation is asking a lot

No need to ask. All 30 of mine are fully IO’d (at either 50 or possessing their remaining complement in trays), including alternate builds on VEATs. Dollar store prices combined with all of the different ways to obtain IOs makes this ridiculously easy.

[Myrmidon]

8 hours ago, VileTerror said:

I may have missed it in the thread if someone already suggested it, but what if Tier 9s with Crashes had two "modes?"

 

Press it once and get the weak version with no Crash.

Press it again during the first 1/2 of the duration time* and get the full benefits, but trigger the Crash mechanic at the tail end.

 

 

*window of opportunity subject to change, just throwing that out as a theoretical example

@Captain Powerhouse, apply this concept to Rage immediately please.

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Without harder content this probably doesn't matter anyway.

 

If you have a mostly SO build all T9s are useful.  

 

If you have a Decent IO build most of them are redundant, but its not like you need them.  

 

 

Agreed. Even the Bio and Rad T9s are just gilding the lily once IOs come into play.

[Galaxy Brain]

12 hours ago, Super Atom said:

 

no

Yus

[Galaxy Brain]

As for a real response to this, there are hardly times where the classical T9s are useful compared to other, non IO options.

 

Armor sets gave a baseline that give you decent enough personal protection to get you through most content. Combined with how most melee sets have built in mitigation powers via stuns, knockdowns, or even parries, you can cruise though a ton of missions with just the bare necessities. 

 

I'd you're in trouble, there are already options you can click that last over a minute and provide useful defenses: Inspirations. An SR character on SOs is in trouble, 1 small purple and your pick of some orange or greens makes them right as rain for a while with 0 crash. Hell, purple insps in general are super good given they grant 12.5% def to all, making the "soft cap" effectively 32.5%.

 

On top of this, if you're teamed you have ally buffs on top of your armor that push the stats up higher. The more outside buffs and inspirations you have access to, the less value a traditional T9 honestly has as it gives less and less defenses to get to your respective caps.

 

This is why the T9s that give far less benefits for a set recharge, have a tiny uptime but very fast recharge, or do rather unique things like a rez nuke / increase hp, etc, are seen as far better since they do things that you cant generally get from just munching candy or passive ally buffs. MoG and Icy Bastion are good examples here.

 

I think the OPs suggestions are great given the ways to circumvent the need for most T9s without IOs. They add additional flavor to powers that imo are rarely taken and flavorful to the sets in a way that stacks with the rest of the set. Sorta like how RotP works honestly, it's not just another +res power but a game changing one that can alter your strategy. 

 

 

 

 

[aethereal]

3 hours ago, Super Atom said:

So, you're kind of doing this whole slippery slope thing by saying "Well we might as well do x because of y" and just completely missing the point of why x was done in the first place. City of Heroes was never a hardcore game and likely never will be. They tried to offer us more challenge with +4/x8 but most people who invest in IO's can solo through it (Funny how progression works). I'm very opposed to changing the entire games balance just to factor in IOs. You should always keep IO's in mind when balancing stuff but it should never be the focus. Rather than nerfing everything to need IO's, under preforming sets should brought up to speed and other options for difficulty should be explored, see +5/6, see newer enemies entirely. Keeping city of heroes alt friendly and casual player friendly will benefit it far more than trying to appease those of us who have 0 challenge in the game, again not to say that shouldn't be addressed through other means.

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.

[Troo]

 

4 hours ago, aethereal said:

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.

Note - I did not read the entire thread. Looking down on 'lesser', 'scrub', average players or those not playing multibillion incarnate builds is troubling.

 

@aethereal please don't speak for me.

I use some T9s mentioned as intended. Could some of them use a tweak, sure. @Vanden @MetaVileTerror @Haijinx and others had some interesting suggestions.

 

In my opinion - It is great that we can build out of the need for 'god-mode' powers. Intentional or accidental, this is part of the game, learning a character and adds to replay-ability. 

 

The mentions of overhauls or replacements would seem to benefit power gaming disproportionately at the cost of others. This should be heavily taken into consideration.

 

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.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Troo