Roll your own combo IOs

[Greycat]

IOs give us a lot of flexibility in slotting. There are a lot of sets out there. But, there are some combinations that (as I recall) only exist in HOs, or don't exist at all. I'd propose creating a way to let players make them.

 

What drops:

"Frame" recipies. These give dual, triple or quad power categories for the player to fill out. (Similar to Acc/Dam, Acc/Dam/End, Acc/Dam/Rech/End.)

 

What happens:

A player crafts the frame. They then take whatever IOs they want and fill in what they're looking for. For instance, if they want a dmg/-tohit, they put one damage in and one tohit.

 

Details:

The frame controls the level. (Though I'm not set on this.) It controls the percentages of each "section," just like (say) an acc/dam has a certain percentage of accuracy and damage enhancement in one IO. I'm *thinking* the IO would have to be within 10 levels of whatever that "section" is... or above. For instance, a level 25 "two aspect" frame could use a level 15 IO and, if someone had one, a level 45. Yes, this means a quad aspect could use a lot of low level IOs (hey, reason to make those level 10s.)

 

Empty or partially filled frames are not slottable.

 

Why:

Why not? 🙂 Might be interesting to see what people come up with. On top of having some things that don't exist as IO sets (for instance, Taunt/DMG, looking at Taunt sets, or maybe a Taunt/Stun,) players could play with percentages - I don't see this as being limited to "Must have one different effect type in each" (past the dual frames, because dam/dam would just be damage.) For instance, you could take a triple and make it damage/damage/def debuff. Or acc/acc/end, giving more of an acc buff with a touch of end reduction - something IO sets don't do.

 

Some like that would probably have to be indicated differently, like "PIO (player IO) triple acc+/end" for someone doing an acc/acc/end.

 

Would these be able to be put on the market?

At the very least, the frames would, yes.  They'd be recipies. Probably crafted empty frames as well. I'm not sure how much of a mess the market would be with the variety of what people could create being put on it, but I'm not against it.  These would also be storeable and tradeable. 

 

Are these boostable/catalyzable?

Like regular (common) IOs, no.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Greycat

[Psyonico]

Interesting idea, not sure how easy it would be to implement, but you could certainly come up with some unique combinations.

[ShardWarrior]

I like this idea.  Star Trek Online has a similar system with re-engineering.  Not sure how feasible it is to do here, but definitely could lead to some interesting combinations.

[Cutter]

Seems like a neat idea! If I may add a couple of suggestions to your suggestion...

• Rarity (especially if they are AH-available)
  • Dual - uncommon
  • Triple and Quad - rare (with Quad being some amount "more rare" than Triples, without dipping into Super Rare territory)
• Levels
  • Set up, say, 3 overlapping level bands that the frames could fall into
    • 10-25
    • 20-40
    • 30-50
  • The player could use any IO that falls within the level band

The only part I'm not totally convinced on is the bit about allowing multiple of the same IO to be slotted into the frame. It sounds a little too micro-manage-y and would likely require an even higher level of system mastery which could be a barrier.

 

Question: you mention no boosting or catalyzing. What about attuning?

[Psyonico]

10 minutes ago, Cutter said:

Question: you mention no boosting or catalyzing. What about attuning?

It sounds like they'd act like regular common IOs, so attuning wouldn't be a thing.

[Snowdaze]

As long as they still obey ED and fall into a reasonable enhancement schedule (IE not over powered percentages) I dont dislike the idea. I am kind of opposed to having multiple of the same effect in a single enhancement. Also this sounds like a programming nightmare, and likely falls into the "not anytime soon" category. This also seems so potentially ridiculously powerful, I feel like they would have to be found as recipe drops alone, no vendor buying.

[Chance Jackson]

I like the idea 

[Greycat]

Responding to some comments:

1 hour ago, Psyonico said:

Interesting idea, not sure how easy it would be to implement, but you could certainly come up with some unique combinations.

I'm sure it'd be somewhat easier than completely reprogramming the game to use modern graphics, but slightly harder than fixing typos. I can't be more precise than that 🙂 

 

1 hour ago, Cutter said:

Seems like a neat idea! If I may add a couple of suggestions to your suggestion...

• Rarity (especially if they are AH-available)
  • Dual - uncommon
  • Triple and Quad - rare (with Quad being some amount "more rare" than Triples, without dipping into Super Rare territory)
• Levels
  • Set up, say, 3 overlapping level bands that the frames could fall into
    • 10-25
    • 20-40
    • 30-50
  • The player could use any IO that falls within the level band

The only part I'm not totally convinced on is the bit about allowing multiple of the same IO to be slotted into the frame. It sounds a little too micro-manage-y and would likely require an even higher level of system mastery which could be a barrier.

 

Question: you mention no boosting or catalyzing. What about attuning?

Yes, I had "rarity" in mind there, too, I forgot to mention it. And yes, multiples of the same adds complexity - but, ,honestly, to me it's like IOs anyway. You can just slap a set in, or pick something that matches what you want ("eh, I don't really want to slot heavily, half ACC half DMG from that set works fine,") or you can go crazy plotting set bonuses and the like.

 

And as someone else mentioned, I see these treated as regular commons as far as attuning. But I'm not the one you'd have to sell on the idea - the argument could, after all, be made that these have more of a "cost" to the user than a common IO (craft the frame, craft the IOs, eat the salvage and INF cost for all of that) so attuning "should" be allowed. I'm not set in stone either way.

 

47 minutes ago, Snowdaze said:

As long as they still obey ED and fall into a reasonable enhancement schedule (IE not over powered percentages) I dont dislike the idea. I am kind of opposed to having multiple of the same effect in a single enhancement. Also this sounds like a programming nightmare, and likely falls into the "not anytime soon" category. This also seems so potentially ridiculously powerful, I feel like they would have to be found as recipe drops alone, no vendor buying.

They absolutely would not skip ED. They are, at their heart, still "common" enhancements. Though, to me, it also gives a situation where someone doesn't want to "waste" part of a regular enhancement going over ED, so (with the regular split or the multiple of the same effect) they can go RIGHT up to the line, then add a little something else (say, a partial RECH IO.)

 

Oh, I should note, these wouldn't take sets, so no making a dual with common DEF +LOTG global, or 2/3 DMG 1/3  Proc. (Part of the power concern.) Other than that, the potential complexity is part of what I think some people would like.

 

By "No vendor buying," you're looking at merits? Or regular stores? We can't buy common IO recipies at regular stores as it is, and as far as merits... I have no idea what they would be priced at if they *were* there.  I think, power wise, these would walk the line between "standard" IOs and sets - other than experimental builds, I don't think someone would put them in (say) half their build, but would sprinkle them about to differentiate themselves a bit.

 

Oh! Yes, they also would not "add" effects. I don't think I mentioned that. For example, the Taunt/DMG I mentioned. THey'd act like HOs - the Taunt part would work but you wouldn't suddenly get DMG added. However, if you put it in (say) Fiery Aura on a tank or brute, both components would work.

[MTeague]

Would these have set bonuses?   (And how does that work?)  Or would these be closer a Build-Your-Own-Hami-O, no set bonuses but may have something like Acc/Dmg/Defense to be slotted into a Parry-type power?

[Cutter]

41 minutes ago, MTeague said:

Would these have set bonuses?   (And how does that work?)  Or would these be closer a Build-Your-Own-Hami-O, no set bonuses but may have something like Acc/Dmg/Defense to be slotted into a Parry-type power?

As I read it, the latter. Set bonii on player-determined IO groupings would be a nightmare.

[Greycat]

Yeah. Roll your own Hami-o. Adding bonuses would just... be too breakable. Not to mention dumping more spaghetti onto COH's codebase. 🙂

[MTeague]

16 minutes ago, Greycat said:

 Not to mention dumping more spaghetti onto COH's codebase. 🙂

They probably already have to worry about a Pasta and Antipasta reaction  🙂

[Cutter]

"Wait a minute, I didn't ask for shrimp!?!?"

[AerialAssault]

+1

 

I think it could be an interesting idea and add some more spice and variety to the IO system.

[Outrider_01]

IO bonuses included?  Or like standard IO without?

 

Cause the idea sounds exactly like grabbing any triple or quad stat from 6 of the same category  and popping it in, Franken slotting.  They already exist, why build it than?

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Outrider_01 said:

IO bonuses included?  Or like standard IO without?

 

Cause the idea sounds exactly like grabbing any triple or quad stat from 6 of the same category  and popping it in, Franken slotting.  They already exist, why build it than?

Without.

 

And as mentioned, there are some combinations that just don't exist, or only exist as hami-Os.

[Razor Cure]

Interesting idea.

Makes me think of Riven mods in Warframe..and how totally damn stupid they are. Getting a good one is a matter of luck, and getting a great one is even more luck, or a huge stack of rerolling (think something similar to enhancement converting). I can totally see custom IOs, converted a huge number of times to get the best stats, going for insane amounts on the MP.

[macskull]

I think I'd be on board with something like this as long as the enhancements obeyed the appropriate schedule values for the number of attributes they were enhancing and you couldn't enhance the same attribute more than once in a single enhancement.

[Troo]

While this does exist in many games, it is an interesting idea here.

 

Sadly this would be abused and exploited.

Example: Rather than frankenslotting a proc'd out power I could get exactly the enhancement %s and bonuses and procs I wanted.

 

(if there were safeguards for power creep and abuse I'd be for it)

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Troo

[Zepp]

I'm just thinking about the Star Wars Galaxies Reverse Engineering for Starship Parts system. That got quite ludicrous, and allowed me to make a Scyk that could outdamage and outmaneuver any other ship I came across while also being faster and more heavily armored, but still not coming close to the weight cap.

I'm just thinking about the idea of six-slotting quads... You could pack a lot stronger effects, damage, and recharge with lower endurance cost to any power across the board. Mind Link? Damage/Endurance/Recharge/ToHit x6? That would be a pretty big increase in impact.

[Blastit]

2 hours ago, Zepp said:

I'm just thinking about the Star Wars Galaxies Reverse Engineering for Starship Parts system. That got quite ludicrous, and allowed me to make a Scyk that could outdamage and outmaneuver any other ship I came across while also being faster and more heavily armored, but still not coming close to the weight cap.

I'm just thinking about the idea of six-slotting quads... You could pack a lot stronger effects, damage, and recharge with lower endurance cost to any power across the board. Mind Link? Damage/Endurance/Recharge/ToHit x6? That would be a pretty big increase in impact.

Wouldn't slotting four damage/accuracy/cost/recharge quad IOs be the same as slotting one damage, one accuracy, one cost and one recharge IO each? So why would effectively throwing in two quads be over the top? Mind Link is maybe unusual because it doesn't allow pure recharge but you can already put in def-based split IOs anyway.

 

I mean, sure, this system would allow for more granularity than current frankenslotting but it seems to me that it would only be relevant for rounding out those last slots in powers so you don't go over the ED cap while also getting another bonus. Never mind that set bonuses are sort of a kind of frankenslotting.

[Greycat]

8 hours ago, Razor Cure said:

Interesting idea.

Makes me think of Riven mods in Warframe..and how totally damn stupid they are. Getting a good one is a matter of luck, and getting a great one is even more luck, or a huge stack of rerolling (think something similar to enhancement converting). I can totally see custom IOs, converted a huge number of times to get the best stats, going for insane amounts on the MP.

First, they can't be converted. This is solely "You can create your own double, triple or quad value IO, with similar values to what a set IO would give but no set bonuses."

The only drop you "get" is what I'm calling the "frame" you combine with the common IOs you want aspects of in. There's really no reason to try to convert, so it sounds wholly different than what you're talking about - which, frankly, is already done here on the market. Converting's something I'd leave for set IOs.

 

8 hours ago, macskull said:

I think I'd be on board with something like this as long as the enhancements obeyed the appropriate schedule values for the number of attributes they were enhancing and you couldn't enhance the same attribute more than once in a single enhancement.

"Enhancing the same attribute more than once" is part of what I think the flexibility aspect of this would attract people with. How much *more* each would give would be up to the devs to adjust. For instance, putting two END reductions in a lvl 25 triple plus one "something else" shouldn't add up 16%+16% but perhaps 16%+8% for a 24% END reduction plus 16% whatever other aspect of the same schedule. (I'm perfectly open to the values being tweaked.)

23 minutes ago, Blastit said:

Wouldn't slotting four damage/accuracy/cost/recharge quad IOs be the same as slotting one damage, one accuracy, one cost and one recharge IO each?

No. You do not get the full value of each IO, as mentioned. You get what they would be in a similar IO.

 

For instance: Level 25 Endmod IO. Reduces END costs by 32% by itself.

Add it to a level 25 dual "frame" with, say, a recharge. You now have an IO that, similar to a 25 acc/something, enhances ACC and one other item on the same "schedule" by 20%. (I'll use Shield Breaker as a reference for values here, which has Acc/Def Debuff at 25 showing both values at 20%.)

Add it to a triple and it enhances by 16%, with two other aspects at 16%.

 

(I didn't see a quad at that level after checking several sets, probably from the percentages being too low.) So for the acc/dam/end/recharge in your example, at 50, you'd be getting values similar to the Devastation Acc/dam/end/rech with each aspect at 18.5%, but without the set bonuses - so you might, for instance, change the Acc out for a Taunt or Def Debuff or whatever the power you're looking at slotting it in takes that might not be expressed in a set.

[Zepp]

1 hour ago, Blastit said:

Wouldn't slotting four damage/accuracy/cost/recharge quad IOs be the same as slotting one damage, one accuracy, one cost and one recharge IO each? So why would effectively throwing in two quads be over the top? Mind Link is maybe unusual because it doesn't allow pure recharge but you can already put in def-based split IOs anyway.

 

I mean, sure, this system would allow for more granularity than current frankenslotting but it seems to me that it would only be relevant for rounding out those last slots in powers so you don't go over the ED cap while also getting another bonus. Never mind that set bonuses are sort of a kind of frankenslotting.

Let's look at Doctored Wounds using two single-factor level 50 enhancements:
Heal - 42.4%

Recharge - 42.4%

 

Now, Doctored Wounds if we could use two Heal/Recharge enhancements:

Heal - 26.5x2=53%
Recharge - 26.5x2=53%

Now, if we had go up to Heal/Recharge/Endurance it would be 42.4% each for single-factor and 63.6% each for triple-factor.

Moving up to quad-factor you would have 74.2% each compared to 42.4% each.
In other words, you could get 175% of the performance from four quad-factor enhancements as compared to 4 single-factor enhancements.

[Cutter]

2 hours ago, Zepp said:

Let's look at Doctored Wounds using two single-factor level 50 enhancements:
Heal - 42.4%

Recharge - 42.4%

 

Now, Doctored Wounds if we could use two Heal/Recharge enhancements:

Heal - 26.5x2=53%
Recharge - 26.5x2=53%

Now, if we had go up to Heal/Recharge/Endurance it would be 42.4% each for single-factor and 63.6% each for triple-factor.

Moving up to quad-factor you would have 74.2% each compared to 42.4% each.
In other words, you could get 175% of the performance from four quad-factor enhancements as compared to 4 single-factor enhancements.

Maybe there would need to be a "uniqueness" check on the frames? Say any given power can slot up to 3x doubles, 2x triples and 1x quad? This wouldn't be tied to the enhancements, just the type of frame itself.

[Greycat]

7 hours ago, Zepp said:

Let's look at Doctored Wounds using two single-factor level 50 enhancements:
Heal - 42.4%

Recharge - 42.4%

 

Now, Doctored Wounds if we could use two Heal/Recharge enhancements:

Heal - 26.5x2=53%
Recharge - 26.5x2=53%

Now, if we had go up to Heal/Recharge/Endurance it would be 42.4% each for single-factor and 63.6% each for triple-factor.

Moving up to quad-factor you would have 74.2% each compared to 42.4% each.
In other words, you could get 175% of the performance from four quad-factor enhancements as compared to 4 single-factor enhancements.

.... ok, but you can do the exact same thing now by frankenslotting from four sets? And I'm not sure you're factoring ED into this. (Or I might be reading this wrong. *shrug* Also possible.) (Edit: It is me reading it wrong, I see what had me wondering about ED- going from that 74% to 175%, talking about two different things.)

 

My counter-view to this is that by using one of *these,* you're sacrificing the abiility to get a six (or five or four, depending on how many you use) slot bonus from the set itself, so there is that cost involved, as well. Not to mention the literal cost in making the IO. Mako's Bite, a rare quad, costs 490k to craft plus salvage - one of which is a rare - though, honestly, I usually just use drops. A plain old 50 Acc *also* costs 454k to craft, ignoring salvage. I don't know that a frame would cost the same - a quad, likely. Then you're using three *more* common IOs - so we're looking at nearly 2.5 mill per level 50 player-created-quad. (Yes, I know, some people are rolling in it, that's not everyone.)

 

I don't personally think that people would load up on these (other than some experimental builds, perhaps) and sacrifice the set bonuses people use now. I think they'd throw a few in here and there for flavor (damage/taunt, as mentioned for an example, which doesn't exist elsewhere,) but otherwise would prefer sets for higher end builds or just plain IOs for those who don't really care at all.

 

If this did somehow get onto test and was found to be "too much," making each similar to a set - unique within the power - would be fine with me, as it would still accomplish the goal of letting players mix things up and try combinations that aren't otherwise available.

 

(Edit 2:) I do think this would also be a help when it comes to development getting really underway and looking at new sets. Face it, people will post builds and talk about combinations, so if something seems to be talked about a lot - I'm going to lean on that "dmg/taunt" again for example - it might just get a set with that in faster.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Greycat