Weakness Mechanic - HOW?

[Herotu]

This has been brought up elsewhere, but I can't find it and wanted to see if there are fresh perspectives on the concept.

 

I know there are people out there who believe this should be a purely roleplay option, but then we could all be sitting at a desk pretending to play a video game. My point being that it's perfectly feasible to imagine anything, but realising it means that others (computer/humans) can react to it.

 

Am I jumping ahead? I'm jumping ahead.

 

The original notion is that players choose/create an OPTIOINAL (you don't have to have any weaknesses) weakness for their character. This seems shit when the computer just dumps some enemy on the map that can whack you - like Nemesis Galaxies vs Kheldians (warshade/peacebringer). 

 

So how can weaknesses be realised in a meaningful way that doesn't seem like you're being trumped? Let's brainstorm!

[Redlynne]

1 minute ago, Herotu said:

So how can weaknesses be realised in a meaningful way that doesn't seem like you're being trumped?

When you have a HUMAN Game Master judging what you're doing and who can foresee the problems with getting something for nothing.

A computer simply cannot keep up with the wily ways of min/max gamers who are incentivized to (literally) Game The System.

 

So you can do it with Pen 'n' Paper gaming ... but it just doesn't work out that well in computer games (like this one).

[Herotu]

Just now, Redlynne said:

When you have a HUMAN Game Master judging what you're doing and who can foresee the problems with getting something for nothing.

A computer simply cannot keep up with the wily ways of min/max gamers who are incentivized to (literally) Game The System.

 

So you can do it with Pen 'n' Paper gaming ... but it just doesn't work out that well in computer games (like this one).

Let's not be defeatist! Computers are getting smarter, let's give them some credit!

[Peacemoon]

Maybe if the computer could track your gameplay style via a complicated set of analytics, it could find out that you're prone to death by Malta Sappers, and so start dropping in that sort of mechanic to enemies you fight. (YES - that CoT Demon DID just pull out a Sapper gun from its backside!) 

[Yomo Kimyata]

Do Black Scorpion's patron arc solo on an Archery/Pain Corruptor.  Lethal v. Malta.  Ouchie.

[Coyote]

45 minutes ago, Herotu said:

So how can weaknesses be realised in a meaningful way that doesn't seem like you're being trumped? Let's brainstorm!

 

I don't know. There are sometimes problems presented to you, but I don't usually feel like they're trumping me. Sometimes (mostly AVs), it happens.

Example: my Plant/Savage Dominator ripped through mobs and missions like a lightsaber through hot butter... and really hit a speed bump with Nemesis and Rularuu, because they have large groups that resist Confusion. So I had to figure out some other methods of handling them, but eventually I did. But on the AV side, I had nothing I could figure out to handle Lanaruu the Mad and had to give up on completing that TF.

So... most of the problems that you see in the game that seem to attack your weakness ARE a problem, but are rarely a true trump card. More often they are just a problem.

[Without_Pause]

You can essentially name any build and it is going to have a weakness. Psy damage or a Sapper can make numerous builds pause.

[Luminara]

27 minutes ago, Herotu said:

So how can weaknesses be realised in a meaningful way that doesn't seem like you're being trumped? Let's brainstorm!

 

Presumably, this would only apply to players utilizing IOs, as the base difficulty is balanced around SOs and already tends to be sufficiently acceptable at imposing a sense of specified weaknesses at that level.

 

We would, therefore, be looking into a two-pronged approach.  First, redesigning IOs to include a negative value in addition to their existing values.  Increased defense to melee, for example, might decrease AoE damage (the player's damage, not defense to it).  Obviously, this could be manipulated.  Players could opt to use single-target attacks exclusively in order to sidestep an AoE damage output reduction.  This is where the second branch becomes meaningful and relevant.

 

This second part would entail revamping the critter selection and spawning system, to add a component which comparatively analyzes the player character's stats, determines the highest and lowest appropriate values and assigns critters capable of leveraging the player character's weakness to their advantage.  Thus, the same player who eschewed AoE attacks in order to "game the system" would find him/herself facing opponents in greater numbers, or foes with summoning powers, to continue the aforementioned example.

 

Even with the wide variety of enhanceable attributes available, the combination of these efforts would create a fairly balanced weakness system with little opportunity for outmaneuvering, while simultaneously retaining both the unique combat mechanics of the game and adding a sufficiently depth and complexity to make choices more interesting and relevant in regard to combat and roleplay.

 

The first part is relatively uncomplicated.  IO values are stored in tables, like practically every other variable, and those tables can be altered and/or modified to create composite strength/weakness IOs without significant work.

 

The second part, however, would be, at least, moderately difficult and time-consuming.  Code would have to be written (reading player character attribute values and passing it to the spawning system), code would have to be modified (taking read values and using those to redefine critter atrributes, spawn type, number of critters spawned, etc. dynamically) and all existing systems would require extensive testing (spaghetti bug squashing).  It may not even be possible, given the nature of current development work (volunteer, working on an undocumented proprietary engine with a decade of "spaghettification").

 

Barring that, I don't envision a working weakness system being implemented beyond what already exists via player selection (enhancement type, mission selection based on enemy group, etc).

[Herotu]

Well how about this as a notion?

 

The powers are arranged into a circle/wheel or whatever, and each power has an opposite. It's easy for some, not so easy for others. To do this it may be necessary to lump several into groups (like assault rifle might go into a group with dual pistols etc)... anyway, the notion is that you've got these opposites... here's the trick...

 

You're vulnerable to one power/group, but you are strong against your opposite.

 

This way you can have weakness but also strength. I am not sure I like this solution, but it's in it's formative stage - I mean it's obviously copied off a zillion prior concepts such as

Fire/Ice elemental opposites and,

Magic the Gathering.

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Herotu

[skoryy]

My dark armor brute is already weak to energy, my rad armor stalker is weak to cold, my blaster is weak to everything.  What more weaknesses do we need?

[Ironblade]

3 hours ago, Herotu said:

So how can weaknesses be realised in a meaningful way that doesn't seem like you're being trumped? Let's brainstorm!

Well, if you want to sort of model this after PnP gaming systems.

 

Each player could (as you noted - OPTIONALLY) elect to have a weakness to some type of damage.  I think a good way to make this more balanced and make more people interested in the system would be to have the weakness countered by a strength.  i.e.  The Human Inferno is very resistant to fire but very weak against cold.

 

A player could choose to have Slight, Moderate or High 'weakness' (minus damage resistance) to a type of damage and would therefore be more resistant to the 'matching' category.  I would group them just like the damage categories are grouped.  Doughman is resistant to smashing but weak to lethal.  Pulsar is resistant to energy but weak to negative.

 

This seems like something that would be relatively simple to code.  During character creation, the player has the option of taking an always on power that gives +resist to X and -resist to Y.

[FrauleinMental]

10 minutes ago, Ironblade said:

This seems like something that would be relatively simple to code.  During character creation, the player has the option of taking an always on power that gives +resist to X and -resist to Y.

A bunch of these could probably even be made available on the P2W Vendor.  Like a bunch of +RES to X powers (limit 1 to a character) that are grayed out until you buy one of the -RES to Y powers.  It would also allow people to ignore the system completely if they don't want to deal with it, or even add it later if they have second thoughts.

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Herotu said:

You're vulnerable to one power/group, but you are strong against your opposite.

 

Too superficially arbitrary for anything beyond classically thematic pairings.  What opposes Force Fields, for instance?  Archery might be selected, due to its inherent accuracy bonus, but then you have to define a valid chain of reasoning for that selection.  Why would arrows be "better" against Force Fields than bullets?  They're both high velocity projectiles, they should function equally in this case, but you've designated Force Fields as more effective against one set and less effective against another, based on a choice which boils down to, "We had to put something there, so we chose that."  Then you have to come up with more explanations for whatever Assault Rifle and Dual Pistols oppose, and why they don't oppose Force Fields, and why their opposites aren't also weak to similar powersets, and so on.  You also have to ensure that there are enough pairings of offensive and defensive sets, or double- or triple-up on some of them, leading to more head-scratching and arguing.

 

And because Defense and Resistance are both positional and typed, and almost every attack functions that way, too, you've got to either figure out how to fold all of that into the pairing system, or rewrite/remove position and typing entirely.

 

Then you have to address IOs, because they still side-step it in its entirety.  You could redesign IOs from the ground up to fit the new pairing system... which I'm struggling to see, as the only ones which function as powers are procs.  You can't pair the rest, the 2-, 3- and 4-attribute IOs, because they're just enhancements.  So you'd need to redesign all enhancements to work within the pairing system.

 

That's every power in the game, every enhancement, and presumably the origins as well (another layer of complexity and rewrites or removals).  You're looking at a very long haul before you can begin testing and squashing bugs.  Then you can start going through critter data and making those changes (some, potentially a large "some", don't use tables for their powers.  they're designed with "baked-in" abilities which have to be changed manually).  And keep in mind, "critter" means more than "enemies spawned", it also means pets, pseudo-pets and some environmental or terrain effects.  That's going to double your development period.  At least.

 

On the bright side, that's not quite a full redesign of the game from the ground up.  You've still got the combat and graphics systems in place.  The chat system should still work, and the server and network code bases.  So it shouldn't take too many years to complete.

[Luminara]

47 minutes ago, Ironblade said:

This seems like something that would be relatively simple to code.

 

Where's Philotic Knight?  We need a Standard Code Rant© applied.

 

48 minutes ago, Ironblade said:

During character creation, the player has the option of taking an always on power that gives +resist to X and -resist to Y.

 

And then bypass the weakness with IOs, net effect being an overall stronger character with no weakness.

[catsi563]

They have technically done weaknesses via Kheldians and their weakness to Quantum Guns 

the issue I think would be that you could have a polar opposite power set or a nemsis power so for Fire it would be Ice and vice versa where the nemesis set does slightly more damage so a low level ice blaster would have to worry about hellions while a fire blaster would have to watch Outcasts 

 

but the issue you get is that most villains don't have automatic across levels mobs outcasts don't land past 20 hellions are 1-10iish 

 

you do have groups like malt and council that have ice and fire bullets and flamethrowers and such but suddenly that group would need to be everywhere to provide the challenge

[MTeague]

I can say pretty decisively I would not use this.  I don't object to it being created so long as it is OPTIONAL. 

 

Oldschool unresistable Quantums and Void Hunters kept me from levelling a Kheld at all, because I rage-deleted the character four times before level 14 and then just never created another one until homecoming when I found out the damage coudl at LEAST be resisted now.   the nerdrage was very real, esp when they would show up in EVERY mission.  Not like, 1 mission in 5, or be a rare encounter. 

 

There was apparently a Quantum Cloning Facility just CRANKING out the quants for the express purpose of ganking MY character, and it didn't matter what foes I was fighting... Council, Vahz, anything... there was going to be Quantum around.  That crossed the line from "okay, I guess superman has his kyrptonite to watch out for" to "for the love of god, can I have ANY FUN at all on this character? Do I have to be two-shotted every time I turn around??".

 

I would strongly recommend that if something like this is implemented, it actually be a RARE thing, and not 4-6 mobs per mission at regular difficulty settings, and clouds more at higher noteriety.

[Herotu]

2 hours ago, MTeague said:

I can say pretty decisively I would not use this.  I don't object to it being created so long as it is OPTIONAL. 

Yep yep, I headed this one off at the pass - I covered all of it in the original post. 

 

It's also why I think it would be interesting to take a weakness some way to make yourself super-strong in another - this way there's a special reason to do it.

 

BUT what I'm trying to eke out of the community is a WAY to manifest the weakness. I don't want it to just be a weakness to a damage type or special NPC, those don't see satisfying. 

 

(are you thinking Nemesis System?).

Edited April 16, 2020 by Herotu

[Darkneblade]

Every player is weak to fall damage. Make a enemy that has teleport powers. It should be open map with lots of high buildings. When you get his health down to %75 he teleports you to highest possible height (unresistable) and gives debuff to -fly -jump -speed.  When you finally get down on ground, Swarm of enemies that looks like boss/eliteboss/av attack you and since you have low health anyway you will die. Rinse and repeat when he gets to %25 health (last phase) he teleports on ground and try to hide until he regens. Since ground targets still looks like boss/eliteboss/av you will have hard time trying to find him or even identify him unless you ''arrested'' all ground targets. Then when he finally defeated. Opps you have to do it again because it was clone all along!

[Twisted Toon]

22 hours ago, catsi563 said:

They have technically done weaknesses via Kheldians and their weakness to Quantum Guns 

the issue I think would be that you could have a polar opposite power set or a nemsis power so for Fire it would be Ice and vice versa where the nemesis set does slightly more damage so a low level ice blaster would have to worry about hellions while a fire blaster would have to watch Outcasts 

 

but the issue you get is that most villains don't have automatic across levels mobs outcasts don't land past 20 hellions are 1-10iish 

 

you do have groups like malt and council that have ice and fire bullets and flamethrowers and such but suddenly that group would need to be everywhere to provide the challenge

CoT have mobs that do every type of damage. with the possible exception of toxic.

[Ironblade]

On 4/16/2020 at 1:17 PM, Luminara said:

Where's Philotic Knight?  We need a Standard Code Rant© applied.

As a programmer and database admin, no, we don't.   🙂

[Twisted Toon]

1 minute ago, Ironblade said:

As a programmer and database admin, no, we don't.   🙂

Then, why did you use those words? 😁

[Ironblade]

2 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

Then, why did you use those words? 😁

(shrug)  I wasn't trying to impress anyone so I didn't bother.  Then someone gave a snarky response which was based on THEIR ASSUMPTION of my lack of relevant knowledge, so I corrected them.

[Twisted Toon]

12 hours ago, Ironblade said:

(shrug)  I wasn't trying to impress anyone so I didn't bother.  Then someone gave a snarky response which was based on THEIR ASSUMPTION of my lack of relevant knowledge, so I corrected them.

Generally, when someone says something along the lines of "this should be relatively easy" with regards to programming, the assumption that that person doesn't know much about programming is usually correct. So, having a background in programming, you should have known better. Especially with regards to the spaghetti code that is CoH.

[gameboy1234]

This is actually in a way already built into the game.  Invulnerability, for example, has a Psi hole.  You pick your weakness when you pick your sets.  Of course IO sets have removed this from the game to a great degree.

 

This has been de-emphasized in later sets in the game because players don't actually enjoy having a weakness.  Willpower for example basically doesn't have an weak points.  If you want no weaknesses pick that.

 

This all goes back to the original pencil and paper superhero game, Champions, which frankly Jack cribbed more than a little from when making CoH.  The game had characters with stats like Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc.  If you were super strong and had lots of physical defenses, you often didn't have the points to also increase your mental defenses.  Being invulnerable meant you had to let something else go.  That's just the way the game worked.

 

[Twisted Toon]

On 4/19/2020 at 11:56 AM, gameboy1234 said:

This all goes back to the original pencil and paper superhero game, Champions, which frankly Jack cribbed more than a little from when making CoH.

 

According to Jack, he didn't. (take that with a block of salt, though)