Poll on Big Picture Game Change and Development Priorities

[Solarverse]

Just now, Galaxy Brain said:

TW in general and top end PvE content, I can see it being bad in PvP.... but yeah 

Meh, like I said above, I just can't see it being a problem. I mean, if there were an insane amount of people playing TW and telling me how bad of a player I was for playing something different, then I could see nerfing it, but nobody hardly plays that set from what I can see. The set seems very slow and sluggish to me. I am assuming this is why the set does so much damage? IMO the set is insanely boring to play, which is why I never play mine, like ever. Extremely boring. It's just too damn slow. So to me, if somebody wants to dull their mind playing the set and they do more damage than me, then so be it...let them.

 

From what I can see in game, few players play the set. If you nerf the set, I think the set would end up becoming nonexistent...it would be the Trick Arrow of Brutes/Tanks/Scrappers.

 

I mean if you guys REALLY feel like it needs to be nerfed, then fine. I just think you'll do nothing than piss off the few players who actually plays the set. Is it really worth nerfing? Should we really care this much about it?

 

I digress though, because honestly I don't even have a dog in this fight. Bonfire on the other hand, nobody took that power until KB to KD came out, the power was crap. Changing it IMO is just silly because of two reasons.

 

A: Mobs die insanely fast...who gives a shit if it knocks bad guys down? It's not really helping the team IMO, but it sure gives the illusion that it does.

 

B: Nerfing it is going to cause people to spec out of it, and it will yet again become a power nobody places in their builds.

 

Leave it alone, with the state of the game now, nothing but OP players everywhere taking out mobs faster than a debuffer can land a solid anchor, who cares? Don't ruin the fun for everyone else. It's hardly game breaking. The overall DPS is what is game breaking, not some silly power with a KB to KD in it.

 

The game is so broken now because of DPS that honestly, it's gone too far to fix. It's just that damn stupid OP broken IMO. Leave it alone before it gets worse.

[Galaxy Brain]

To summarize my 36 page long TW thread from last year:

 

TW performs a good step ahead of even the next closest melee set on ATs that have it at base, and then has amazing synergies with certain secondaries. It has built in bonus damage per swing that breaks the basic damage formula for powers that was supposed to make up for how it is sluggish, but then with momentum you are fast relatively 80% of the time. It is supposedly end intensive, but most armor sets have an endurance tool... and lol IOs. It does tax the player in that you have to adapt to changes in momentum to play optimally, which makes it unpopular for farming which requires you to farm over and over and over, but in normal content and when pushed to peak performance we all see TW topping the charts.

 

The issue with buffing everything else to match TW is a little complex. On the cynical side, it's far easier to just nerf TW at the top end and call it a day than to buff everything else to close the gap. On the other end, if we do just boost everything to match an outlier than the game overall becomes that much more trivial, especially when a number of sets are considered "great" as is, but still a noticable step below the outlier. 

 

What keeps TW in check is that it is not an immediately easy set to use like some of the simpler sets, and it does require minimal endurance management by the player which makes not not super popular. Unless you look at the scrapper combos that is...

[SwitchFade]

Unfortunately, I have to regard this thread as distraction from actual game development.

 

Several of the options listed for people to make some selection of have severe bias. This could be the OP's personal discussion thread, but I have to consider this asynchronous with actual game development architecture.

 

Sorry.

[nzer]

37 minutes ago, Solarverse said:

nobody hardly plays that set from what I can see

It's the most popular Scrapper set at level 50 by a huge margin...

Edited March 12, 2020 by nzer

[Solarverse]

11 minutes ago, nzer said:

It's the most popular Scrapper set at level 50 by a huge margin...

I don't doubt that, I just personally hardly ever see anyone play it...at least on Excelsior.

[nzer]

Just now, Solarverse said:

I don't doubt that, I just personally hardly ever see anyone play it...at least on Excelsior.

Would you notice if someone was using it? It's not a particularly flashy set.

[Solarverse]

Just now, nzer said:

Would you notice if someone was using it? It's not a particularly flashy set.

I would surely noticed if they used their AoE Knock Down, it's a very distinct sound.

[nzer]

1 minute ago, Solarverse said:

I would surely noticed if they used their AoE Knock Down, it's a very distinct sound.

All I'm saying is that I don't find "I don't see it much" particularly compelling when the available data clearly demonstrates that it's tremendously popular.

[Dr Causality]

18 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

The issue with buffing everything else to match TW is a little complex. On the cynical side, it's far easier to just nerf TW at the top end and call it a day than to buff everything else to close the gap. On the other end, if we do just boost everything to match an outlier than the game overall becomes that much more trivial, especially when a number of sets are considered "great" as is, but still a noticable step below the outlier. 

I'm hoping no one would argue for buffing every set to match the overperforming outlier sets.   Would be a lot more reasonable to just buff underperforming sets up to where they are roughly on par with median sets. 

 

I'm biased and didn't try to hide it. Personally, I'll be annoyed if my PPM builds,  and my /Time, /Darkness Affinity and TW characters are all nerfed, but my Ninja/TA and Ninja/Storm characters still suck.    I'm hoping that with limited volunteer development resources we prioritize doing balancing buffs first instead of nerfs.  And I created this thread to see how other people feel. 

 

But it's also important to note the volunteer developer aspect. If developers happen to personally only interested in outlier nerf balance projects, well then honestly we have to be thankful for what they're willing to do. But if they're choosing development projects in part based on what the community would enjoy and prefer them I think this thread and others like it will be relevant (even if it shows I'm outlier and unlike me most players want the nerfs first and foremost...)

[Caulderone]

40 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

Unfortunately, I have to regard this thread as distraction from actual game development.

 

Several of the options listed for people to make some selection of have severe bias. This could be the OP's personal discussion thread, but I have to consider this asynchronous with actual game development architecture.

 

Sorry.

I concur.

[Solarverse]

10 minutes ago, nzer said:

All I'm saying is that I don't find "I don't see it much" particularly compelling when the available data clearly demonstrates that it's tremendously popular.

Like I said, man. I don't have a dog in that fight. So I digressed on that. Just wanted to pose the question, is it REALLY that important to nerf? Is it really that game breaking? Or is this more of a gripe that it is currently on top of the list of the best? If they nerfed it, but still left it the best, would you be happy with that, or do you feel it has had its time and it's time for something else to reign king?

My point, there is always a "best" and no matter how much we nerf stuff, it just brings the next best thing to the top, then people want that nerfed. Then something else makes it to the top and again, people want that nerfed. It seems to be a never ending loop of nerfs to each power set that ends up being top tier.

 

However, if you guys feel that it is just unbearably game breaking, then by all means, I'll step aside and let ya at it. I don't particularly care for the set anyway, wouldn't bother me a bit if the code for it suddenly got lost and was hit by a mac truck, vanishing from the game entirely, lol.

[Galaxy Brain]

I'd 100% be fine if TW was nerfed but still the top dog. It's more that it has a significant gap.

[Apparition]

IMO, the overperforming outliers (Titan Weapons, procs), need to be nerfed first.  That way you can have a proper look at ATs and power sets to see exactly what is underperforming and needs to be buffed.  In comparison to Titan Weapons as it is now, everything else is underperforming.  Then you can start buffing the underperforming ATs and power sets.

 

You can't just keep buffing everything.  People already keep complaining that City of Heroes is too easy.  Now you want to buff everything to catch up to Titan Weapons?

[Solarverse]

1 minute ago, Apparition said:

IMO, the overperforming outliers (Titan Weapons, procs), need to be nerfed first.  That way you can have a proper look at ATs and power sets to see exactly what is underperforming and needs to be buffed.  In comparison to Titan Weapons as it is now, everything else is underperforming.  Then you can start buffing the underperforming ATs and power sets.

 

You can't just keep buffing everything.  People already keep complaining that City of Heroes is too easy.  Now you want to buff everything to catch up to Titan Weapons?

The players are waaaaay OP. I agree. No buffing damage needed. Change animations, great, but buffing damage, hell no. Except Lightening...  😄

[Leo_G]

16 hours ago, Dr Causality said:

 

• For PVE I seriously, not understanding how it's a problem that needs to be a priority to fix?

 

How is the out of balance Powerboosted Def, insane mitigation from Bonfire's with Overwhelming KD, shear power of TW/Bio monsters, or PPM abusing Defender a bigger more important balance problem than the under performing sets that need to love?

 

Because teaming becomes boring. Players overall don't want to face challenge as evident when some deaths occur, maybe a wipe, the reaction is usually the same: "I've got to go suddenly", "let me hop on my incarnate max IOs farm character", "lets invite more people".

 

If the encounters are expected to be easy because that is what the meta allows, no one will put up with hardships. If progression is highly accelerated, normal progression is perceived as glacial. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Leo_G

[Replacement]

15 hours ago, Solarverse said:

This reminds me of one of those articles that so called "news" websites write, to which they say, "Why [enter subject here] is horrible!" I read that as, "even though nothing of what I say is popular opinion, I am going to title it as though it is, and you are wrong for not seeing it my way."

 

Instead, you posted votes as if what they are voting for is something everyone agrees upon. I don't have a TW character that I play (I have one, just never play him) and I don't agree that it is over powered, especially since on my server, it doesn't seem like they are played all that often. So telling me that it is over powered and that I should somehow accept this and vote on what I think should be done about it, is assuming way too much of the reader. You assume your readers find it over powered...I do not. And I especially have no issue with Bonfire.

 

I feel this thread is bait, and I won't ever be on the side of nerf herders. Nerf herders have ruined damn near every single game I have ever played online. I'm just glad nerf herders are powerless to change my single player games.

 

Sorry, I just can't support this thread....like at all.

This thread was nice and mellow until you had to go and be sensationalist about it. Now it's going down the same rabbit hole as always.

 

Look, you just really proved the point of OP's question #2. This question isn't about "things that are clearly OP." It's about how YOU will feel if they decide a combo you like needs brought in line. TW was the perfect set to reference here, since the "nerf TW" thread was so polarizing.  

 

And so I question: how WILL you react? If they show their math and prove it was making other options obsolete, or otherwise diminishing the rest of the game, are you even going to be capable of objective feedback such as "this diminishes the fun factor of the set?" Or are you going to ignore facts, and scream "nerfherders?"

[Replacement]

As an aside to this thread, I think it's important to point out that balance even exists in single player games. If you give your main character a stealth option, but it strongly reduces your character's xp gains, isn't applicable in boss fights, and is overall less effective than "front door" builds, then you've really only set up a silly challenge mode, as opposed to creating build diversity.

 

I mention this because it's just a fact about how most of us think. Even single player, we (most players) tend towards obviously good character build decisions. This means the very existence of overtuned sets diminish other sets.

[Coyotedancer]

I'm just a little weary of seeing the same pattern over and over and over again... 

 

"Oh, hey. Thing X works really well... Obviously, we need to nerf it."

[Apparition]

1 minute ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm just a little weary of seeing the same pattern over and over and over again... 

 

"Oh, hey. Thing X works really well... Obviously, we need to nerf it."

 

It depends on how well that things work.  If things are working so well that they overshadow everything else (Titan Weapons), or overshadow an entire AT (procs), then there are valid reasons to nerf them.  Buffing the things they overshadow to compensate just opens a Pandora's Box in that either the game becomes even easier, or that the game's difficulty needs to increase elsewhere which just makes the developers' job more difficult.

[Galaxy Brain]

Agreed @Leo_G, players tend to react that way when the "norm" is speeding to 50 then facerolling content.

 

 

[Replacement]

5 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm just a little weary of seeing the same pattern over and over and over again... 

 

"Oh, hey. Thing X works really well... Obviously, we need to nerf it."

A valid concern, but never the actual objective of even halfway-decent developers. I actually think early CoH developers did have some of these tendencies, but those days are long gone.

 

In an ideal world, with a healthy game, you would find your sets that are close to the top of the heap, that feel fun to play, sayyyy 2nd or 3rd best. Then you would bring up most sets to that point and assess if the set or sets above it are far enough out of line to get hemmed in. 

 

I guess this is ultimately why, despite being a "nerfherder," I still voted to bring up underperforming sets first. I'd rather get all the D+ sets up to a solid B rating than think about all the entitlement tears that will wash out even simple, minor numerical nerfs.

[Dr Causality]

2 hours ago, Apparition said:

IMO, the overperforming outliers (Titan Weapons, procs), need to be nerfed first.  That way you can have a proper look at ATs and power sets to see exactly what is underperforming and needs to be buffed.  In comparison to Titan Weapons as it is now, everything else is underperforming.  Then you can start buffing the underperforming ATs and power sets.

 

You can't just keep buffing everything.  People already keep complaining that City of Heroes is too easy.  Now you want to buff everything to catch up to Titan Weapons?

But this is exactly the question and you're not offering a justification for your preference of starting on balancing the over-performing outliers first, rather underperforming outliers.   The re-balancing process you describe should work just as well starting in reverse from the underperforming end of the outliers and bringing them closer into the median, then seeing how outpaced the overperforming sets are.     

 

But the end you start balancing first does have significant impacts on player enthusiasm and enjoyment.     So why start with Nerfs?  

[Apparition]

4 minutes ago, Dr Causality said:

But this is exactly the question and you're not offering a justification for your preference of starting on balancing the over-performing outliers first, rather underperforming outliers.   The re-balancing process you describe should work just as well starting in reverse from the underperforming end of the outliers and bringing them closer into the median, then seeing how outpaced the overperforming sets are.     

 

But the end you start balancing first does have significant impacts on player enthusiasm and enjoyment.     So why start with Nerfs?  

 

Because the longer you wait to nerf something, the more entitled the people playing them become.  "It's already been X number of years!  Why nerf it now?!"  You also need to nerf the overperforming outliers first so you can get a proper reading of just how underperforming some sets and ATs are in comparison to the other non-overperforming outliers.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Apparition

[Caulderone]

2 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

Because the longer you wait to nerf something, the more entitled the people playing them become.  "It's already been X number of years!  Why nerf it now?!"  You also need to nerf the overperforming outliers first so you can get a proper reading of just how underperforming some sets and ATs are in comparison to the other non-overperforming outliers.

This was exactly what I was just about to post.  The longer you wait, the more difficult it is for people using it to accept.

 

Remove the top end, egregious outliers first and get the pain over with.

[Dr Causality]

7 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

Because the longer you wait to nerf something, the more entitled the people playing them become.  "It's already been X number of years!  Why nerf it now?!"

A quick glance at the threads that prompted me to start this, shows that ship has clearly sailed. 

 

And to counter that idea entirely,  I'd say it would be much easier to make the case for nerfs, once all sets are pretty much at a median, except a few overperforming outliers.   Right now, it's more like "The game doesn't have balance, so why come for my X."  Whereas, it could be "Okay, the game is mostly balanced,  except for my X."  Which is much more likely to get a,  "Dang, oh well" kind of response. Instead of "Why pick on meh...."

Edited March 12, 2020 by Dr Causality