General Feedback: Page 5 Build 5

[ScarySai]

8 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I'm in favor of letting the Devs try to balance the game as best as they can. A better balanced game will result in better gameplay

Balancing CoH is a fool's errand if this is how they intend to do it. Tar patch, again, is one of the oldest powers in the game, and existed during the Jack era. I would hope this is just a shortsighted "correction" and nothing more.

 

If you want to "balance" coh properly, you give oppressively good sets a love tap, slap the odd buff on under performers and otherwise leave it alone. The cat is out of the bag, you're not putting it back in without massive transformative changes, the IO and incarnate systems would also have to severely changed.

 

Nerfing everything serves nobody, and doesn't feel great. CoH's a weird game, it gets away with rampant power creep in a way no other MMO really could.

Edited March 16, 2020 by ScarySai

[Coyote]

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I see far more buffs than nerfs. I mean, the sets that are getting nerfed are STRONG sets (Dark, Storm, Cold) and can handle it.

Meanwhile, all nuke-based sets got a great buff from crashless nukes, and all snipe-based sets got a great buff from the snipe changes.

And most AoE Immobs became more useful with allowing knockdowns to work so that area knockdowns and area Immobs no longer conflict, AND they work better with AoE knockbacks by turning them into knockdowns.

 

I can go on, but really... go back through the changes made on the server, and I grant to you, there HAVE been some nerfs. But saying things like "Nerving everything serves nobody", when the evidence is that not only isn't everything being nerfed, but in fact there are far more powers getting buffs (and MUCH BIGGER buffs) than there are who are getting relatively minor nerfs.

 

As I said before, I'm not for nerfs for the sake of nerfing. But a better balanced game has a longer lifespan and better gameplay, and it's impossible to always balance by boosting underperforming sets. Look, the Devs are heavily boosting weak powers (nukes, snipes, AoE immobs all were hugely boosted), while lightly weakening (25% reduction in debuff values, on what is probably the strongest AoE debuff for secondaries still leaves it as one of the strongest debuffs around) a few very strong powers. If a game is going to have nerfs (and most should), this is the way to go about it: bigger boosts on more weak powers, and smaller nerfs on fewer strong powers. These Devs are not nerf-crazy, as far as I can tell.

[Mystic Fortune]

I know you didn't just associate the crash-less nukes change to the Homecoming devs... that change was part of the beta release for i24 that never made it to the live servers before the shutdown.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Mystic Fortune

[Seed22]

On 3/14/2020 at 9:11 AM, ScarySai said:

"Proper" my ass. It was already proper before this. Paragon left it alone for eight years, they had the opportunity to change the powers multiple times and didn't.

Now see...and hang with me on this here of a doozy...this isn't Paragon. Paragon, like HC, wasn't perfect. They would more than likely of changed things anyway. these are the new devs, would you have complained this much at Paragon if they made the changes?

[siolfir]

9 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

Now see...and hang with me on this here of a doozy...this isn't Paragon. Paragon, like HC, wasn't perfect. They would more than likely of changed things anyway. these are the new devs, would you have complained this much at Paragon if they made the changes?

I'm not happy with the changes to Tar Patch, but if the idea is to make things more manageable, then so be it. My concern was about the people calling for Sleet to get knocked down to 22.5% for non-Defenders "because it wasn't adjusted" when it was never a Defender set originally, and wasn't buffed to Defender numbers when it was ported. I think there was already a nerf to Heat Loss, I would have sworn that it was -30% for Corruptors before instead of -24%, but pseudopets weren't archived from City of Data so I can't check the date for when it was changed.

[ScarySai]

36 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

would you have complained this much at Paragon if they made the changes?

There's a few variables at play here, but for the sake of simplicity I'll answer: no, because Paragon A: Earned a massive amount of trust with it's community interaction over the years, especially after Jack left. B: Can claim something is intended or not with credibility as they actually made the game and the systems behind it, and C -  Would likely compensate for that elsewhere if they ended up doing it.

 

I'm only harsh on HC here because their power balancing hasn't been stellar thus far, for every other aspect of the game, I love them. So I hate having to be so negative here.

 

 

[Trickshooter]

1 hour ago, siolfir said:

I think there was already a nerf to Heat Loss, I would have sworn that it was -30% for Corruptors before instead of -24%, but pseudopets weren't archived from City of Data so I can't check the date for when it was changed.

It was -30%, I have it in a spreadsheet I was keeping with bugs (because if Corruptor was the base version, Defender version should've been -40%). I don't know when it was changed, though; it's possible it could have been done internally by Paragon. They had already gone through and fixed pseudopets in the Blast sets in Issue 24, so it's possible they were already in the process of correcting the Support set pets, too, when the sunset announcement was made and all development had to stop.

 

Edit: I literally don't know why I have those number corrections for the EndDrain on Heat Loss. Assuming Corruptor is base, Mastermind would be -30, Defender would be -37.5.

 

P.S. I hope, in addition to reviewing these pseudopet powers, some of the modifiers between Masterminds and Corruptors are reviewed as well. Almost all the melee tables for support effects for them seem to be reversed. Some ranged ones, as well. They aren't normally things that would come up, but might now if the pets will inherit modifiers from their caster soon.

 

Melee Buff_Def (might not be reversed, seems strange that Corruptors would be the worst with Self +Defense, though)
Melee Debuff_Dam
Melee Debuff_Def
Melee Debuff_ToHit
Melee EndDrain
Melee Fear
Melee Heal
Melee Immobilize
Melee Res_Dmg (might not be reversed, same as Melee Buff_Def)
Melee Sleep
Melee Stun
Ranged Stun

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Trickshooter

[Frosticus]

51 minutes ago, siolfir said:

I'm not happy with the changes to Tar Patch, but if the idea is to make things more manageable, then so be it. My concern was about the people calling for Sleet to get knocked down to 22.5% for non-Defenders "because it wasn't adjusted" when it was never a Defender set originally, and wasn't buffed to Defender numbers when it was ported. I think there was already a nerf to Heat Loss, I would have sworn that it was -30% for Corruptors before instead of -24%, but pseudopets weren't archived from City of Data so I can't check the date for when it was changed.

Yes HL was originally 30% -res for corrs .I had a 50 fire/cold corr that I pvp'd the hell out of long before /cold was available to anyone else.

Unless it was just listed as 30% but was actually 24% ingame. But I'd bet real money that it used to be 30%. 

 

I don't know when it was changed.

 

edit: posted same time as Trickshooter. There you have it :)

Edited March 16, 2020 by Frosticus

[ROBOKiTTY]

I'm reiterating my earlier appeal to be charitable and to refrain from unproductive tactics like strawmanning other people's positions, accusing them of hysteria, gloating, and so on. We're talking about adjustments to a 16-year-old game that only resurfaced after 7 years. A lot of people have very strong feelings one way or another and feel protective of something they had lost once already. Please don't blithely dismiss people's viewpoints or act exasperated, but put yourself in their shoes, Please also try to refrain from extrapolating a narrow slice of the experience to the entire game.

1 hour ago, siolfir said:

I'm not happy with the changes to Tar Patch, but if the idea is to make things more manageable, then so be it. My concern was about the people calling for Sleet to get knocked down to 22.5% for non-Defenders "because it wasn't adjusted" when it was never a Defender set originally, and wasn't buffed to Defender numbers when it was ported. I think there was already a nerf to Heat Loss, I would have sworn that it was -30% for Corruptors before instead of -24%, but pseudopets weren't archived from City of Data so I can't check the date for when it was changed.

I have notes that corroborates this.

Edited March 16, 2020 by ROBOKiTTY

[Jimmy]

38 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

I'm only harsh on HC here because their power balancing hasn't been stellar thus far, for every other aspect of the game, I love them. So I hate having to be so negative here.

And that’s a perfectly acceptable opinion to have, just keep in mind that it is possible to provide constructive feedback without the aggressive language on display in this thread. And I’m not just talking about you here.

 

We’ve got limited time to read through feedback and engage - generally that means we focus on level-headed posts, such as those by @Bopper, @oedipus_tex and @Galaxy Brain (and many others!) as that’s a significantly more effective use of our time. Even when they are being critical - which is frequent - they provide thoughtful feedback based on actual testing and analysis, instead is just emotional rhetoric.

 

TL;DR: Want your feedback to be considered? Be constructive. Don’t be rude.

[Not Horus]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I see far more buffs than nerfs. I mean, the sets that are getting nerfed are STRONG sets (Dark, Storm, Cold) and can handle it.

You need a better justification to nerf something other than "This can handle it".

[Mikewho]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ensure that powers respect the AT modifiers. That said, this change isn't made in a vacuum, and there are other factors at play which should be considered. For example, right now the proc behavior and the vigilance damage buff when solo/small team has caused defenders to be preferred over corruptors by many. Also there are many powersets where a defender is simply better in every way than the equivalent corruptor. A good example would be something like nature/sonic defender vs. sonic/nature corruptor. Because of the better buff/debuff values on the defender, you actually end up doing more damage on the defender, while also boosting the team by more, which shouldn't be the case. So while I support this AT modifier change in principal, I hope the dev team also gives attention to these factors so that corruptors will still be a solid choice when compared with defender counterparts.

[Seed22]

7 minutes ago, Not Horus said:

You need a better justification to nerf something other than "This can handle it".

That I can understand. It kinda reminds me of golden girl; mad about Bio armor because she made a sub par toon.

[Sovera]

10 minutes ago, Not Horus said:

You need a better justification to nerf something other than "This can handle it".

The justification has been given, you just decided to ignore it and all subsequent posts. You're not after an argument, you just want an echo chamber because your mind is set.

 

This thread is a waste of time, carry on without me.

[Bopper]

5 minutes ago, Mikewho said:

Because of the better buff/debuff values on the defender, you actually end up doing more damage on the defender,

I'm not disputing this, but I am curious if actual numbers have been calculated that supports this. Sonic is certainly an odd one as it provides a resistance debuff that helps itself and the team more, but give the ATOs and the inherent, I would still think a Corruptor wins out. But I'd love to see the numbers either way

[ScarySai]

I would like to imagine that at least some of my and other's critical responses had some value to them, but I disgress, no use dwelling on that now. Thanks for the reply, Jimmy.

2 minutes ago, Sovera said:

The justification has been given, you just decided to ignore it and all subsequent posts.

It wasn't ignored, it was challenged. Nobody is ignoring the justification, we're well aware of the reasoning that's been given to us now, I don't agree with it, and It seems others don't either. You shouldn't be so quick to discredit them for doing so.

 

2 minutes ago, Sovera said:

This thread is a waste of time, carry on without me.

We'll miss your contributions, truly.

Edited March 16, 2020 by ScarySai

[Sovera]

Just now, ScarySai said:

I would like to imagine that at least some of my and other's critical responses had some value to them, but I disgress, no use dwelling on that now. Thanks for the reply, Jimmy.

It wasn't ignored, it was challenged. Nobody is ignoring the justification, we're well aware of the reasoning that's been given to us now, we don't agree with it, however.

 

We'll miss your contributions, truly.

Of course you're involved in this fiasco. I am not surprised. Carry on challenging the 6% DPS loss, forum knight.

[Not Horus]

13 minutes ago, Sovera said:

The justification has been given, you just decided to ignore it and all subsequent posts. You're not after an argument, you just want an echo chamber because your mind is set.

 

This thread is a waste of time, carry on without me.

The justification has been "It's using defender numbers and I don't like that it is". 

Is there a sudden interaction that's making these sets overpowered after 10 years? No. They're not oppressive or even all that common so why even bother to devote the resources to it. There are sets that could use the same level of effort to be made usable instead of rotting in the gutter(forcefield)

Nevermind the fact that is's all done under the guise of bug fixing, which should be a concern.

[Coyote]

33 minutes ago, Not Horus said:

You need a better justification to nerf something other than "This can handle it".

 

Agreed. I haven't seen anyone arguing that a nerf should be done to a set because it can handle it.

The reason to say "this can handle it" is not to justify a nerf, but to counter-argue against the argument of "but this will cripple the set".

In other words... this is not an argument to nerf, but an argument for why a nerf may not have certain deleterious effects... but if the nerf isn't otherwise justified by game balance, or by balancing debuff values across ATs, then certainly just saying that the set is strong and can handle it, wouldn't be any kind of reason to actually support a nerf.

[Coyote]

1 minute ago, Not Horus said:

There are sets that could use the same level of effort to be made usable instead of rotting in the gutter(forcefield)

 

I don't think so.

I mean, I think that fixing AT modifiers is a good idea in general, but also that it's a lot easier than fixing Force Fields.

I agree with you that fixing FF should be important, but really, there have been discussions about how to fix FF for a while, and when you read several of them, you see that there are certain major and intractable problems involved in fixing FF... so it would require far more than the same level of effort to fix FF, as to fix these bugs.

I just read a couple of days ago some comments from, I think, Captain Powerhouse, suggesting that TA is getting looked at. I'm happy to see that the devs are also spending time and effort on buffs, but it's also true that in many cases, buffing sets isn't that simple. Look at the suggested changes to buff Dark Melee's AoE, look at how long it took to create and then balance test the Tanker changes, etc. You can see that they're spending time on buffing also, but it's rarely a simple solution or else it would have been low-hanging-fruit-picked long ago.

[ScarySai]

I think there's more to it, take Defender Sleet for example, I'm pretty sure it wasn't buffed up to 40% intentionally - the set was already insanely powerful with corruptor values, stacking 80% with just double sleet alone would be incredible. For the reverse reason, I suspect this is why Freezing Rain/Tar Patch were left alone, this very well could have been part of the original balancing for those sets.

 

Analyzing these powers on a spreadsheet you can argue they should follow AT scaling like most powers do, but I'm not so sure, I think it was left alone because it worked, didn't break anything and wasn't too over/underpowered.

Edited March 16, 2020 by ScarySai

[Inflated Donkey]

6 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I don't think so.

I mean, I think that fixing AT modifiers is a good idea in general, but also that it's a lot easier than fixing Force Fields.

I agree with you that fixing FF should be important, but really, there have been discussions about how to fix FF for a while, and when you read several of them, you see that there are certain major and intractable problems involved in fixing FF... so it would require far more than the same level of effort to fix FF, as to fix these bugs.

 

Honestly, just giving FF a little absorb in their shields would go a LONG way to helping it.  

[Coyote]

8 minutes ago, Inflated Donkey said:

Honestly, just giving FF a little absorb in their shields would go a LONG way to helping it.  

 

I'm kind of doubting all of these kinds of simple solutions. The real problem with FF can't be solved by giving it more defensive ability: it's already a fine set up to some level... say mid 30s, maybe 40 or so. It has solid defensive abilities. What it doesn't have is a way to contribute to City of AoE-Damage-Is-The-Best-Defense, which is the usual case in the 40s. It's a rare 40s team that really needs more defensive help, so giving it Absorb... would be useless in the situation where FF is useless, and quite helpful in the situation where FF is already helpful.

 

That's why I say it's complicated and there is a lot of discussion about what to do with FF. Because it's a defense-only set from a time when defense MATTERED, that is no longer relevant in today's "defense buffs need not apply" high-level game. Adding more defensive abilities to it wouldn't help, and giving it +Absorb with the idea that it can be used against unresistible damage... only matters in niche AV fights. It needs offense, but that doesn't fit. Or it needs the game to be changed for it. Which would of necessity involve huge nerfs to AoE damage, and I think we can imagine the outcry that this would cause. So... I'm talking a lot, but the short of it is that there is no short and simple "solution" to fix FF 😞

[Bopper]

12 minutes ago, Inflated Donkey said:

Honestly, just giving FF a little absorb in their shields would go a LONG way to helping it.  

I was gonna make the same suggestion, but was looking to see if it was already suggested in the Buff FF suggestion thread. My guess it has

[Frosticus]

58 minutes ago, Mikewho said:

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ensure that powers respect the AT modifiers. That said, this change isn't made in a vacuum, and there are other factors at play which should be considered. For example, right now the proc behavior and the vigilance damage buff when solo/small team has caused defenders to be preferred over corruptors by many. Also there are many powersets where a defender is simply better in every way than the equivalent corruptor. A good example would be something like nature/sonic defender vs. sonic/nature corruptor. Because of the better buff/debuff values on the defender, you actually end up doing more damage on the defender, while also boosting the team by more, which shouldn't be the case. So while I support this AT modifier change in principal, I hope the dev team also gives attention to these factors so that corruptors will still be a solid choice when compared with defender counterparts.

Except defs and corrs have almost the exact same number of characters in the march 2020 stats.

If you take out empathy (defs #1) and kinetics (corr #1) there are more corrs than defs being created. 

 

Neither emp or kin have anything to do with procs.

 

So either the player base hasn't gotten the memo that defs>corrs, or it isn't actually true outside of a very small number of scenarios.

 

Sonic blast might be an exception sometimes, but probably not all the time.