Homecoming Server Update (April 5th): Nemesis Plots, Contests and Progression

[Peerless Girl]

15 minutes ago, Peacemoon said:

He means high level enhancements are scaled down to TO/DO percentages. Even if you are a full SO geared character your enhancements are not as powerful at low level.

 

if we are trying to stop people going to the shop, why not just stop enhancements expiring from leveling? Have a floor of effectiveness at -2. If you outlevel the enhancement more than that then just keep it as -2 rather than switching it off. 

 

That would put them too close to IOs, which already exist for that purpose. I'm for not removing as many of the original mechanics as is possible within the realm of streamlining (but not streamlining too much) as Indystruck just said, DfB was already dropping SOs at low levels, if they were intended to replace TOs entirely and DOs to an extent, Paragon never would've done it.

 

8 minutes ago, Peacemoon said:

Its not bloat removal. There are very good reasons we don’t have SOs at low level.

 

The whole idea is that characters are effective at that level with poor slotting. So that there isn’t a huge requirement to slot effectively. So people can learn their characters and the game.

 

TOs do hardly anything because at that level you’re learning about the concept of slotting, and mobs are balanced around no enhancements at all.

And for those that ‘want to skip 1-20’ then, as mentioned, they already can, and this change won’t really effect them anyway.

 

And you can just as easily learn on DO drops (and make more of that precious Inf everyone is moaning about being removed) as you use those that drop, and AS you can, upgrade to SOs, just like you used to use TOs and upgrade to DOs as you could, it just removes an (unnecessary) step from the chain (TOs). 

 

5 minutes ago, Redlynne said:

You already don't have to go to the vendor all the time ... IOs exist.

You already don't have to go to the vendor all the time ... only every 5 levels (and after every mission complete to sell to the vendors anyway).

 

Game is not balanced around IOs, nor should it be. Argument invalidated. And no you don't "Have to" but many of us did, to keep our enhancements "greened" and no you don't need to sell all the time now either, since we have MANY more (free) Enhancement trays than most of us did on live. That one's invalidated too, sorry. 

 

1 minute ago, ArchVileTerror said:

A mildly tangential thought occurs . . . 

If Training Origin Enhancements are meant to only be the training wheels which players use to learn how Enhancements work . . . 

 

Why not just make those entirely free?

Zero purchase cost.

Zero resale value.

(Zero drop rate, so they don't fill up the inventory.)

 

The bonuses they provide are minimal to the point of being laughable, but there are conceivably new players who just need to muck around with the Enhancement screen to see how it works.  That way they don't have to get removed from the game either.

Training wheels.

 

That might be fun for those who wish to use them. Six already said he'd stick them on a vendor out of the way somewhere for fun. I'd support this in combination with that probably.

 

[Peacemoon]

1 minute ago, ArchVileTerror said:

A mildly tangential thought occurs . . . 

If Training Origin Enhancements are meant to only be the training wheels which players use to learn how Enhancements work . . . 

 

Why not just make those entirely free?

Zero purchase cost.

Zero resale value.

(Zero drop rate, so they don't fill up the inventory.)

 

The bonuses they provide are minimal to the point of being laughable, but there are conceivably new players who just need to muck around with the Enhancement screen to see how it works.  That way they don't have to get removed from the game either.

Training wheels.

I definitely think there is room for some QoL changes like this. I think with IOs and attuned IOs we could easily make the game a much easier for new folk, whilst not impacting on the power level  of characters.

 

However I am against high % enhancements at levels Where they shouldn’t exist. That’s why regular IOs still give only 10% at level 10 and work upwards from there. 

Personally I would much rather TO, DO and SOs were automatically attuned so they keep their effectiveness, or at least never turn off completely, regardless of level.
 

 

[Number Six]

11 minutes ago, Peacemoon said:

Its not bloat removal. There are very good reasons we don’t have SOs at low level.

But we do have SOs at low level. DfB drops them (and has since it was introduced).

 

As far as the exemplar enhancement scaling, that's something that may be worth looking at, but I wouldn't expect big changes there. IIRC a big part of the scaling was to account for higher-level characters having many more slots available, not just enhancement values.

[Peacemoon]

Just now, Number Six said:

But we do have SOs at low level. DfB drops them (and has since it was introduced).

 

As far as the exemplar enhancement scaling, that's something that may be worth looking at, but I wouldn't expect big changes there. IIRC a big part of the scaling was to account for higher-level characters having many more slots available, not just enhancement values.

I’m sorry Number Six, there is a big difference between one SO dropping from the end of a whole trial, and all SOs being purchasable in vendors for every slot.
 

The scaling of enhancements were not to mimic more slots, that is completely inaccurate. More slots was an intended benefit of a higher level character exemplering. Enhancements scaled down to TO/DOs precisely because they didn’t want high level characters with SOs being too powerful. 
 

The changes you propose are going to do far more harm to this game than good.
 

Also, will low level 10-25 IOs be upscaled to SO stats, or will low level crafting be pointless? The low levels are going to become absolutely tragic if this goes in.

[ArchVileTerror]

er, Peacemoon?

 

"The functionality of Exemplaring can not take into account when you slotted powers, nor can we dictate which Enhancements to keep if we were to reduce the number of slots you have.

Because of this, we have implemented a system with Exemplaring that reduces the overall effectiveness of your Enhancements based on the level you Exemplared to. This is meant to loosely simulate the fact that you would have fewer Enhancements at any given level.

In addition, this reduction in power does not take into account the "power jumps" that occur for regular players when they hit 12 to 15 and 22 to 25 (as they move from TO to DO to SO Enhancements). Instead it is a smooth curve across the levels. This was done on purpose so that there wasn't "ideal Exemplar-to Levels". For example we didn't want people saying "Exemplaring to 22 is WAY better than exemplaring to 21!" Which would have been the case had we not put in the smooth curve.

Is it an exact science? No, and it was never meant to be. Exemplaring was an extension of the Sidekicking system (which does not increase Enhancement strengths by the way). We realized we would need to reduce Enhancements or else Exemplared characters would simply outshine their Aspirants because they would be better slotted.
—Positron, July 7, 2006"

[Abraxus]

4 minutes ago, Peacemoon said:

I’m sorry Number Six, there is a big difference between one SO dropping from the end of a whole trial, and all SOs being purchasable in vendors for every slot.
 

The scaling of enhancements were not to mimic more slots, that is completely inaccurate. More slots was an intended benefit of a higher level character exemplering. Enhancements scaled down to TO/DOs precisely because they didn’t want high level characters with SOs being too powerful. 
 

The changes you propose are going to do far more harm to this game than good.
 

Also, will low level 10-25 IOs be upscaled to SO stats, or will low level crafting be pointless? The low levels are going to become absolutely tragic if this goes in.

Really?  We have reached the point where we question the folks who look at this game from the code level?  All we as players can offer in these cases is our own perceptions, and anecdotal accounts of how things work.  These guys see it from the code level, and can tell you exactly what things mean from the database level.  And, when you clear away all the pretty pictures, this game is really a real-time updating database.  So, let's try to refrain from telling the folks who maintain, and alter this code on a daily basis (for free) how the mechanics work, and give them some credit for knowing something about what they do.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Abraxus

[Redlynne]

5 minutes ago, Number Six said:

But we do have SOs at low level. DfB drops them (and has since it was introduced).

ONE PER RUN ... not unlimited quantities from vendors for the asking.

Although Death from Below makes SOs available below Level 25, the design purpose and intent was to ensure that demand FAR outstripped supplies.  For one thing, if you left XP gain on for enough runs to get SOs for every slot you'd need them for, you'd have far more XP gained than you'd need to get to "normal" SO sales from vendors anyway.

 

What you're proposing is INFINITE SUPPLY ... rather than a necessarily constrained supply that (still, to this day) prevents SOs below Level 22 becoming the norm.  That's because SOs supplied by Death from Below runs are an "exception case" rather than the rule (even if it is now extremely common for Players to run Death from Below to skip past Levels 1-20).

[ArchVileTerror]

It's actually 5 per run.  One for each floor boss (and two bosses on the final floor).

Four runs, the (presumed) average, means 20 SOs.

GRANTED:  Those SOs typically expire instantly, given how fast levelling up happens.  That may have been part of the original design intention to bear in mind.

[Number Six]

2 minutes ago, Abraxus said:

We have reached the point where we question the folks who look at this game from the code level?

Questioning is healthy, that's why we put these things out for public comment.

[Peacemoon]

1 minute ago, ArchVileTerror said:

er, Peacemoon?

 

"The functionality of Exemplaring can not take into account when you slotted powers, nor can we dictate which Enhancements to keep if we were to reduce the number of slots you have.

Because of this, we have implemented a system with Exemplaring that reduces the overall effectiveness of your Enhancements based on the level you Exemplared to. This is meant to loosely simulate the fact that you would have fewer Enhancements at any given level.

In addition, this reduction in power does not take into account the "power jumps" that occur for regular players when they hit 12 to 15 and 22 to 25 (as they move from TO to DO to SO Enhancements). Instead it is a smooth curve across the levels. This was done on purpose so that there wasn't "ideal Exemplar-to Levels". For example we didn't want people saying "Exemplaring to 22 is WAY better than exemplaring to 21!" Which would have been the case had we not put in the smooth curve.

Is it an exact science? No, and it was never meant to be. Exemplaring was an extension of the Sidekicking system (which does not increase Enhancement strengths by the way). We realized we would need to reduce Enhancements or else Exemplared characters would simply outshine their Aspirants because they would be better slotted.
—Positron, July 7, 2006"

Thank you, because that’s exactly the quote I was looking for but could not remember when it was made. I remember this statement from Positron. 
 

 

[ArchVileTerror]

Another idea hits me, which would require more effort to implement, but might satisfy the intention behind this new feature AND address concerns being raised by players who are interested in holding on to the original design:

 

The mass Upgrade button ALSO reduces SOs to DOs, and DOs to TOs.

 

It's a measured choice by the player if they intend to use it.

 

Granted, to really make this worthwhile, the gap between SOs, DOs, and TOs would need to be lessened, I think.  Perhaps only a 17% effectiveness falloff between tiers, rather than the full 50%.

[Abraxus]

3 minutes ago, Number Six said:

Questioning is healthy, that's why we put these things out for public comment.

Yes, questions are fine.  But, that was more of an assertion.  I was trying to be nice. 😉

[Peacemoon]

1 minute ago, Number Six said:

Questioning is healthy, that's why we put these things out for public comment.

It goes without saying that I have complete and upmost respect for the HC devs, and if I disagree with them it’s only because of a shared love for this game. I wouldn’t be playing this game again if not for them and I never forget that fact. If my passion bubbles over and I cause offence then please accept my apologies. 
 

Now back to enhancement debating... !

[Redlynne]

7 minutes ago, ArchVileTerror said:

It's actually 5 per run.  One for each floor boss (and two bosses on the final floor).

Four runs, the (presumed) average, means 20 SOs.

GRANTED:  Those SOs typically expire instantly, given how fast levelling up happens.  That may have been part of the original design intention to bear in mind.

I stand corrected.

But the point still stands, that the rate of acquisition lags behind the rate at which those SOs "need" to be consumed.

The proposal to put SOs in vendor slots all the way down to Level 5 results in INFINITE SUPPLY ... a very different usage case.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Redlynne

[Peacemoon]

8 minutes ago, ArchVileTerror said:

It's actually 5 per run.  One for each floor boss (and two bosses on the final floor).

Four runs, the (presumed) average, means 20 SOs.

GRANTED:  Those SOs typically expire instantly, given how fast levelling up happens.  That may have been part of the original design intention to bear in mind.

Also trials always rewarded high level enhancements, and I guess relative to the normal game an SO was considered something very powerful to have at low levels for completion of a trial. 

[ArchVileTerror]

I mean, if anything, the SOs from DFB are kind of a trap.

And this change does look like it's meant to address that, which is nice.  

But as other players are bringing up, it does have far reaching consequences.  

 

Given the negative impact the recent feature removal has on some playstyles (my own included), I am glad to have this opportunity to theorycraft that impact.

 

So . . . not to bang on a Schrödinger's horse . . . but could we address the full depth of the intent and design plans behind the proposed change?  From the Homecoming Team directly, please.  The rest of us would just be speculating.

Is the intention to prevent the DFB SO Trap mentioned above?

Is the intention to "give a purpose" to SOs, DOs, and/or TOs given the current "meta" of the game?

Is there some kind of extended effort to lead to some other, as-of-yet unannounced design goal?

Where are we going, exactly, and are we in a handbasket?  (that last bit was meant entirely in jest!  But, seriously:  Where -are- we going?)

[Peerless Girl]

32 minutes ago, Abraxus said:

Really?  We have reached the point where we question the folks who look at this game from the code level?  All we as players can offer in these cases is our own perceptions, and anecdotal accounts of how things work.  These guys see it from the code level, and can tell you exactly what things mean from the database level.  And, when you clear away all the pretty pictures, this game is really a real-time updating database.  So, let's try to refrain from telling the folks who maintain, and alter this code on a daily basis (for free) how the mechanics work, and give them some credit for knowing something about what they do.

 

We reached that point on live, somewhere around the point the game was "gone to the Americans" I think. 😛 

 

25 minutes ago, Abraxus said:

Yes, questions are fine.  But, that was more of an assertion.  I was trying to be nice. 😉

 

Debate is fine, but it's ultimately the devs' call.

 

14 minutes ago, ArchVileTerror said:

I mean, if anything, the SOs from DFB are kind of a trap.

And this change does look like it's meant to address that, which is nice.  

But as other players are bringing up, it does have far reaching consequences.  

 

Given the negative impact the recent feature removal has on some playstyles (my own included), I am glad to have this opportunity to theorycraft that impact.

 

So . . . not to bang on a Schrödinger's horse . . . but could we address the full depth of the intent and design plans behind the proposed change?  From the Homecoming Team directly, please.  The rest of us would just be speculating.

Is the intention to prevent the DFB SO Trap mentioned above?

Is the intention to "give a purpose" to SOs, DOs, and/or TOs given the current "meta" of the game?

Is there some kind of extended effort to lead to some other, as-of-yet unannounced design goal?

Where are we going, exactly, and are we in a handbasket?  (that last bit was meant entirely in jest!  But, seriously:  Where -are- we going?)

 

I think you'll just have to take some of it on faith, rarely do dev teams outline the entirety of their thinking for the player base (especially when much of it is likely in development). This team is no different, I'd wager. 

[Doc_Scorpion]

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

I'd recommend that any kind of upgrade of TO, DO, SO be done differently, if you're going to do it at all, be done AT THE VENDOR.  Basically what you do is you add an option into the Vendor choices to simply upgrade all TO/DO/SO for all enhancements already slotted, giving you the price in a popup to confirm the choice for doing all of them simultaneously.  That way, you upgrade them all in parallel, rather than manually clicking through each and every single one on the Enhancements window one by one.

No offense, but you should go test on the Beta server - the system only automagically updates the levels, it does not upgrade the types.  (And it appears the Devs intend to leave it that way.)  To upgrade the type (DO->SO since TO's are going away) you have to do so manually the same as you do currently.  And leaving it that way makes sense, as slotting often changes with the jump in capability from DO to SO.  (2xACC often becomes 1xACC 1xDMG for example.)  And there's also the issue of additional code to determine the player's Origin and upgrade to the proper SO.  I don't know how complicated such a thing would be, but it's not really needed for any reason I can see.

[ArchVileTerror]

Generally, it has been my professional experience that what holds back a development team from sharing their thought process is more habit reinforced by publisher mandate.

I also think it's high time that habit gets quashed and we move in to an age where information moves more freely.  We've seen success in this regard with many of the crowdfunded games that have become hits.  I feel that the Homecoming Team is presently in a scenario which leaves them more prepared to function in one of these newer development paradigms, rather than being locked in to old ones.

 

Also, because of my professional background, I tend to have a perspective where . . . YES!  Sometimes we just threw things at the wall to see what would stick, but in a game THIS far along in development, we still had to choreograph those experiments.  A design document expressing our intention, extrapolating the theoretical success rate to our targeted goal, but also the predicted consequences and (sometimes optional, but more mandatory as time went on) the player-demographic impact.

I would like to believe that members of the Homecoming Development Team came from similar professional experiences, and that they see the value in this form of documentation.  I urge them to share this process with the community, because the increased flow of information has a measurable positive impact on design iteration.  

Yes, even when there are angry, vocal players who don't "get it."  But that's part of it:  The more clear and expressive these documents are, the better we can communicate to those who aren't seeing the same picture we are.

[Redlynne]

11 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

the system only automagically updates the levels, it does not upgrade the types.

I was thinking only in terms of within type.

TO > TO

DO > DO

SO > SO

The only things that would be changing is the respective levels of the enhancements.

[Peerless Girl]

4 minutes ago, ArchVileTerror said:

Generally, it has been my professional experience that what holds back a development team from sharing their thought process is more habit reinforced by publisher mandate.

I also think it's high time that habit gets quashed and we move in to an age where information moves more freely.  We've seen success in this regard with many of the crowdfunded games that have become hits.  I feel that the Homecoming Team is presently in a scenario which leaves them more prepared to function in one of these newer development paradigms, rather than being locked in to old ones.

 

Also, because of my professional background, I tend to have a perspective where . . . YES!  Sometimes we just threw things at the wall to see what would stick, but in a game THIS far along in development, we still had to choreograph those experiments.  A design document expressing our intention, extrapolating the theoretical success rate to our targeted goal, but also the predicted consequences and (sometimes optional, but more mandatory as time went on) the player-demographic impact.

I would like to believe that members of the Homecoming Development Team came from similar professional experiences, and that they see the value in this form of documentation.  I urge them to share this process with the community, because the increased flow of information has a measurable positive impact on design iteration.  

Yes, even when there are angry, vocal players who don't "get it."  But that's part of it:  The more clear and expressive these documents are, the better we can communicate to those who aren't seeing the same picture we are.

 

My assumption is why it's on Beta. Feel free to go test it, and provide that feedback to engage in discourse.

[Doc_Scorpion]

Just now, Redlynne said:

I was thinking only in terms of within type.

TO > TO

DO > DO

SO > SO

The only things that would be changing is the respective levels of the enhancements.

Other than their being no TO's, that's exactly how the system currently works - it only upgrades the levels within the type.  Which means you can have lvl 33 DO's...  Which is odd, but works withing what I understand to be the larger goal of the system.  (Which is to eliminate the largely pointless trips to the vendor simply to "green up".)

[netphenix]

While I like the base concept of the idea (because let's be honest, TOs and to a point DOs are obsolete in today's game) I dislike the idea of granting my character a 30+% boost to an aspect of a power at very low level. Beyond the idea of power creep, it simply removes a feeling of... progression, I guess, that I already feel things like IOs and power-leveling took away from CoH. Honestly, with the way things are right now, levelling almost never feels exciting on the spot, short of an HP/end refill and maybe an auto-raise if you were down, and with any gear that's not IOs, it actually feels bad, because any number boost the power gets is offset by the lowered efficiency of its enhancements (not that you'd feel much of a loss with the pitiful numbers on TOs... But I digress.) Yes, it drops the con color of mobs, and that's about the one thing that makes me feel good about it. Heck, if you level at the end of a fight, by the time you get to the next, half of your Big Insp Time is up, so even that isn't that much of a cherry. 

 

Rading your post, I hit a bit of a brain wave, and I'd like to propose it to the dev team. I fully realize that it would be much more work to implement it, but I truly think it would give back some of that feeling of actually powering up in the lower levels that is currently missing :

- TOs would be out of the game, period. Good riddance, you shan't be missed.

- SOs would drop from level one, BUT give only (11+character level)% boost, up to a max of 33% at level 22 (adjusted for the enhancement schedule, of course.)

- Actually getting better numbers on an SO after levelling up would require inf - you could do it on your own anywhere with a button AT INFLATED PRICES (self-training is sloppy) or visit the equivalent of old "vendors" at lower prices (getting tips from a pro for better results.) Until you pay, a given enhancement is stuck at its last unlocked value.

- SOs would never phase out, but exemplaring would set them at the number they would be at that level - Ouroboros down to 15 to get Spelunker, get "only" 26% on your SO instead of 33%. Oh the humanity.

- IOs would still be relevant because they'd be the way to go beyond that 33%, and that's not even getting into IO sets. On the other hand, it would make a lot of low-level IO sets obsolete, so those may need to be revamped and rebalanced into higher level versions, maybe ? I know I'd love to see some 3-pieces level-30-to-50 sets, and frankly, who even looks at the level 10-to-25 ones ? 

- Maybe DOs would still be at thing, but boost two aspects at half values, kinda like IOs - it would open more dynamic build paths (I know this would be the toughest part, but I kinda like that idea. Maybe in a phase 2 ? Anyhow, it's more a way to keep them in the game than anything, and it would seem in tune with the dual aspect - like on a magic/natural one, the magic bossts one thing, the natural training another... Ah well, may be too much of a pain.)

 

This would give us a system where getting geared up has an impact from level one (where 12% extra damage or accuracy  is still a thing, already over a +3 TO, and only going up from there) but still give us a sense of progression that would beat the tar out of "oh well I passed level 19, and now my ENTIRE GEAR is red and useless, yay for levelling up !". At level 22 we'd have the same SOs we know and love, and could transit to IOs without having to swap whole trays of enhancements at a time. Slot management and actually buying/finding the right SO to slot would keep power creep in check, along with this, and remove the need to buff every part of the game from level 5 to 25.

 

Any thoughts ? 

Edited April 6, 2020 by netphenix

[Riverdusk]

3 hours ago, Number Six said:

Questioning is healthy, that's why we put these things out for public comment.

Not surprised about some of the negative feedback, forum goers tend to be the most "hard-core" players, so would tend to see less of a need to streamline/reduce the slog of some of the early game.  Hopefully that is kept in mind.

 

I'm actually all for making the end game harder, where it is actually needed.  I see nothing wrong with making the "non-DFB" early game less of a slog and maybe get some more people out of constant DFB.  DFB being nuked is really what the "this will make the early game too easy" crowd should be arguing for.  That ship has long since sailed.  These changes will still be nothing compared to how fast and easy DFB is, but maybe it'll help a little.

 

Oh, and I'm all for keeping TO's and DO's available for those that want to use them in fear of the early game being made too easy.  Those that don't want to use the new system can simply not use it.  Same way those that don't want to use the P2W vendor double xp and other toys are free not to use those.

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Riverdusk

[Doc_Scorpion]

17 hours ago, Number Six said:

I don't know if it made it into this build or not, but one of the things we're planning to do is change the "vendor trash" drops from enemy defeats from TOs to DOs. Those sell for more and should hopefully help low-level characters afford DO "budget builds", while players who are into using the market and selling drops / taking advantage of merits can slot SOs or buy/craft IOs earlier. Though remember that generic IOs below level 30 don't expire but are less powerful than SOs.

It didn't make it into this build...  While Rick Davies (Tech contact) granted me a Yin Talisman, the Clockwork in the mission are still dropping TOs.