Are Player Defenses too high

[Troo]

It's not awful.

Maybe even a slope from 75% - 60% over a level range.

There's a lot of number crunching and testing to get the balance right but it may have the desired effect of slowing the steamroll without eliminating it.

[Doc_Scorpion]

5 hours ago, Haijinx said:

This is why I think a hard mode shard might work.

 

Sort of like the concept behind Siege Perilous in UO. 

Former UO player here...  Siege Perilous is an example of precisely why "hard mode" shards aren't a great idea.  They absorb developer time all out of proportion to their extremely small userbase.  Code tends to get released to them without full testing because there aren't enough dev and player resources to run a proper beta.  They develop odd bugs because the developers aren't as familiar with the unique code. (And new features don't always play well with the unique rules.)  Etc... etc...

And that's with a full blown, full time dev team - and a total playerbase orders of magnitude larger than HC has.  The base of hard(est) core players is (or at least was at it's peak) probably larger than HC currently is.

[ZeeHero]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I agree that the combat mechanics can be... archaic, but there is a line to be drawn where continual buffs no longer "work" as it gets kinda ridiculous. 

 

The Force Field example I feel is  a good one as the more people who slot for personal defenses, the less and less value that set has and there isn't much buffing you could do to the set to help out in that regard. 

Yet you can buff force field without harming the game by making it grant absorb to the group like that temporal toggle. We are not even close to the point where thats an issue on most things.

 

Bio armor is probably the most overpowered defense set in the game, if anything needs any nerf at all, bio is it, but even if it does, it needs a SMALL one. Rad armor should be the new standard for armor sets in effectiveness.

[macskull]

45 minutes ago, Replacement said:

B) What would happen if Elusivity was introduced to PvE? The "broad strokes" formula is, iirc, (ToHit-Defense)*(Accuracy-Elusivity).

• Would probably require offsets, which would look like nerfs.
• Could do stuff like weight defensive armor sets towards Defense and defensive Supports towards Elusivity, for example.

I dunno. Just stuff on my brain that I haven't thought hard enough about to post a /jranger thread about.

 

HitChance = Clamp( AccMods × (1 - TargetElusivity) × Clamp( BaseHitChance + ToHitMods – DefMods ) )

Elusivity is the counter to accuracy but it's not a direct one-for-one counter like defense and tohit are. Giving elusivity to NPCs is probably not helpful since NPC defense buffs are relatively uncommon. Giving elusivity to players would almost certainly have to be implemented in the way you described where only support characters are able to provide elusivity.

[Primantis]

The disconnect between the forum and the actual in-game players has always intrigued me..

 

On the forums : "This game is too easy, lets nerf stuff!"

In-game: "Why did you choose Carnies/Malta/Longbow and not Council for the radio mish? /quit"

 

People sit and talk about how easy the game is, but good luck getting a team of random people to run anything other than EZ-mode content. 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Primantis

[Crysis]

14 minutes ago, Primantis said:

The disconnect between the forum and the actual in-game players has always intrigued me..

 

On the forums : "This game is too easy, lets nerf stuff!"

In-game: "Why did you choose Carnies/Malta/Longbow and not Council for the radio mish? /quit"

 

People sit and talk about how easy the game is, but good luck getting a team of random people to run anything other than EZ-mode content. 

 

So much this.

 

I joined a PUG for Night Ward 50+2 today.  Eight on the team.  Took 10 mins for half the 40-somethings to FIND NW.  First mission multiple deaths.  2 players quit without a word.  Recruited again.  Another 10 mins waiting for new members to find the zone.  Second mission no deaths but three people quit at the end saying “this is too hard.”

 

Did I mention it was PLUS TWO?!?!?

 

People saying “too ez, nerf Hasten, nerf Defense, nerf anyone but Empaths and Bubblers” has a secret wish for a private server with exactly eleven souls playing empathy defenders with six slotted First Aid pool and single slotted secondary T1/T2 blasts.

 

Insanity.

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, Crysis said:

So much this.

 

I joined a PUG for Night Ward 50+2 today.  Eight on the team.  Took 10 mins for half the 40-somethings to FIND NW.  First mission multiple deaths.  2 players quit without a word.  Recruited again.  Another 10 mins waiting for new members to find the zone.  Second mission no deaths but three people quit at the end saying “this is too hard.”

 

Did I mention it was PLUS TWO?!?!?

 

People saying “too ez, nerf Hasten, nerf Defense, nerf anyone but Empaths and Bubblers” has a secret wish for a private server with exactly eleven souls playing empathy defenders with six slotted First Aid pool and single slotted secondary T1/T2 blasts.

 

Insanity.

This is true, i finish filling the teams with pugs sometimes and they often complain that I run mostly on +4 but even +2 sometimes, and a catch 22 some don't like it when we kill most and some don't like it when we soft speed run.

 

I've had people quit before even with me trying to hang back to help them through - and not listening to instruction on how to follow me through.

 

Majority of the player base is casual.  I try to recruit that often and help them keep the casual mindset - which I also have - but build to the 9s.

 

Because at the end of the day this is to unwind, let off steam and shouldn't feel like a second job.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Infinitum

[Coyote]

I'm not sure if everyone is connecting the dots...

 

YES, there ARE players who are 50 and have problems at +2. These characters ARE NOT A PROBLEM. These characters generally do not have soft-capped builds. These characters do not need nerfing.

 

There are ways to address soft-cap issues. Limit set bonuses to 3 or maybe 4 or a kind. Or maybe Defense only (if that's possible). Lower Defense set bonuses. These players are not going to be hurt because almost without fail, they don't have builds that are going to be affected.

 

It is POSSIBLE to target nerfs at min-maxed builds. It is also NECESSARY to target nerfs at min-maxed builds, because as we see from these anecdotes, there are casual players without top builds who could get hurt if a global defense nerf on all powers were to be implemented in order to try to do something about min-maxed capped Ranged (or S/L) Defense builds.

 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

I'm not sure if everyone is connecting the dots...

 

YES, there ARE players who are 50 and have problems at +2. These characters ARE NOT A PROBLEM. These characters generally do not have soft-capped builds. These characters do not need nerfing.

 

There are ways to address soft-cap issues. Limit set bonuses to 3 or maybe 4 or a kind. Or maybe Defense only (if that's possible). Lower Defense set bonuses. These players are not going to be hurt because almost without fail, they don't have builds that are going to be affected.

 

It is POSSIBLE to target nerfs at min-maxed builds. It is also NECESSARY to target nerfs at min-maxed builds, because as we see from these anecdotes, there are casual players without top builds who could get hurt if a global defense nerf on all powers were to be implemented in order to try to do something about min-maxed capped Ranged (or S/L) Defense builds.

 

oh just stop, you arent robin hood. 

 

Min max builds arent the problem, you dont have to use a min maxed build or play with anyone min maxed if you dont want to. 

 

Dont penalize those of us that min max everything because our OCD will not tolerate anything other than that. Thats the mini game within a game for me to see how OP i can make something.

 

I guarantee you though nerfing set bonuses will kill homecoming if you go that route because how do you think the reaction will be if all the sudden several hundred millions inf of enhancements suddenly stopped working in peoples builds just so people like you can feel better about yourself? 

 

At least now you have the option to min max and be super, instead of just average which is what a set bonus nerf would do for 100% of the options available to make a build Super powered.  If people are ok being average there is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with maxing out your defense, resistance, or whatever it takes so you dont have to worry about faceplanting.  Even with these Super powered builds you can still encounter issues, especially with enemies with defense debuffs, even with ageless this gets through sometimes and if you dont have a tank its going to be hard to stay afloat under these circumstances.

 

All you are suggesting is reinstall the grind to a game the majority does not want to grind with - when there are options currently available to achieve this grind in ORO, or limiting your build choice if you desire the grind that bad.

 

just stop with that.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Infinitum

[Heraclea]

12 hours ago, Crysis said:

They want easy gaming, fun experience and the ability to chat about the recent episode of Westworld while taking down foes and earning rewards.  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this.  It's what the game is, what is has become and what it likely will forever be.  You want difficulty, go look elsewhere.  You want a game built around a social interaction engine, play this one.  Trying to "fix" this is only going to destroy it further.

Back in the Paragon/Cryptic Studios days it always struck me that the people who created the game never really understood its brilliance, what they managed to invent despite themselves.  Treating it as a generic, combat oriented MMO, where one player character would struggle to take down 3 same-level minions, was a mistake.  What they gave us was a superhero construction set, where with some investment of time and effort you could build the costume you wanted - and create characters with godlike powers.  All the many good things about the game are 'construction set' things, the few bad things are 'generic MMO' things.   The chief reward for playing is to create yet mightier characters that triumph ever more easily over their enemies.  New content that tears down what we have built up is just going to be ignored while the classic content is still available. 

[MTeague]

If a blaster or non-defense-set character could only reach 35% defenses at max IO trick-out-ness.... 

 

I think in very short order people would pair up with someone who brought defensive buffs to the table.

But I do not think this would be a good thing. Hear me out. 

 

Would people seek out Empaths, FF Bubblers, and Cold Bubblers, more?  Perhaps.  I also think they'd start bitching at casual players and begrudging people who didn't take Manuevers, or who didn't take Barrier, etc.  Right now, because people can be entirely self sufficent, many people don't give a dam what someone else does with their build, what they add for fun or flavor.  I think that would start to go away if we made it impossible to hit softcap on your own.  I think people would start looking at other players like "Why didn't you make a team-optimized decision that benefits me?"   I think you'd see a lot of pissing contests on who "Deserves" a Fortitude buff if an empath can't hit the whole team with it.  I think people would start looking at casual players as "Dead Weight" and judging them by their set bonus list.

 

I think this would change the nature of player-to-player interactions.  And NOT for the better.

For this reason, I oppose this.

 

FF Bubblers are plenty useful.  Lots of people who softcap defenses do not have Defense Debuff Resistance. A bubbler or a squad of widows, or what have you, can spike their defense up high enough that it's hard for Defense Cascade Failure to even start.  Will people PERCEIVE the FF Bubbler as being useful?  Probably not.  If there's a string where we do not get hit AT ALL, we tend to attribute that to their own awesomeness, not to the person who is consistently and faithfully supplying us with buffs. 

 

But I would rather the bubblers remain unsung heroes, than have people start to demand that other players optimize their build for "max team performance", and get snippy when someone has a "I just wanted to try this out" build.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by MTeague
grammar correction

[Heraclea]

36 minutes ago, MTeague said:

Would people seek out Empaths, FF Bubblers, and Cold Bubblers, more?  Perhaps.  I also think they'd start bitching at casual players and begrudging people who didn't take Manuevers, or who didn't take Barrier, etc.  Right now, because people can be entirely self sufficent, many people don't give a dam what someone else does with their build, what they add for fun or flavor.  I think that would start to go away if we made it impossible to hit softcap on your own.  I think people would start looking at other players like "Why didn't you make a team-optimized decision that benefits me?"   I think you'd see a lot of pissing contests on who "Deserves" a Fortitude buff if an empath can't hit the whole team with it.  I think people would start looking at casual players as "Dead Weight" and judging them by their set bonus list.

 

I think this would change the nature of player-to-player interactions.  And NOT for the better.

For this reason, I oppose this.

Amen.  The last thing this game needs is the MMO Trinity. 

[Hardboiled Hero]

I can see now I probably should have added the line "Defenses are high, but I don't see how it could be fixed without causing more problems."

 

1 hour ago, Heraclea said:

Amen.  The last thing this game needs is the MMO Trinity. 

   Aren't we already too close to that?  I saw a LFG message two days ago "Looking for Blaster, Defender, Corruptor, Scrapper or Brute."  Clearly what these people meant was that they wanted more DPS..  Clearly they left out 2 primary DPS AT's.  With that said, I don't see messages like that often (thankfully).. but it just caught me as being very wrong.  Not only is this showing a preference for a certain playstyle (we only want DPS), but even some of the DPS AT's are being excluded (ins some cases anyway)

 

2 hours ago, MTeague said:

If a blaster or non-defense-set character could only reach 35% defenses at max IO trick-out-ness.... 

 

I think in very short order people would pair up with someone who brought defensive buffs to the table.

But I do not think this would be a good thing. Hear me out. 

 

Would people seek out Empaths, FF Bubblers, and Cold Bubblers, more?  Perhaps.  I also think they'd start bitching at casual players and begrudging people who didn't take Manuevers, or who didn't take Barrier, etc.  Right now, because people can be entirely self sufficent, many people don't give a dam what someone else does with their build, what they add for fun or flavor.  I think that would start to go away if we made it impossible to hit softcap on your own.  I think people would start looking at other players like "Why didn't you make a team-optimized decision that benefits me?"   I think you'd see a lot of pissing contests on who "Deserves" a Fortitude buff if an empath can't hit the whole team with it.  I think people would start looking at casual players as "Dead Weight" and judging them by their set bonus list.

 

I think this would change the nature of player-to-player interactions.  And NOT for the better.

For this reason, I oppose this.

  Good point.   In my opinion, when on a team, every single member of the team should feel like they're doing something of value.   I used a Force Field Defender as my example, but what we absolutely wouldn't want is for the Force Field character to become a "necessity" on a team, especially at the expense of other characters who are currently valued in teams.  Ideally, nobody should feel "lessened" by any possible changes. What I desire is to have literally any character be able to join a team and be seen as useful.

 

  Furthermore, a defense (stat) specific nerf would only "help" characters who are based around giving defense buffs..  As I mentioned, those aren't the only characters I'm looking at.  A Pain domination character, for example, could only really benefit from a broad defense nerf if two conditions are met.. the first being that the PD's target doesn't die so fast that the PD can't respond, and the second being that the PD doesn't die when they try to get in range to heal/rez.

 

 

2 hours ago, MTeague said:

FF Bubblers are plenty useful.  Lots of people who softcap defenses do not have Defense Debuff Resistance. A bubbler or a squad of widows, or what have you, can spike their defense up high enough that it's hard for Defense Cascade Failure to even start.  Will people PERCEIVE the FF Bubbler as being useful?  Probably not.  If there's a string where we do not get hit AT ALL, we tend to attribute that to their own awesomeness, not to the person who is consistently and faithfully supplying us with buffs. 

 

    When it comes to fun, perception is what matters.  Do you think there's a way to have the community start perceiving FF's as being more useful?  Perhaps some kind of message or alarm that says when someone else's power stopped the player's defense from being debuffed?

 

3 hours ago, MTeague said:

But I would rather the bubblers remain unsung heroes, than have people start to demand that other players optimize their build for "max team performance", and get snippy when someone has a "I just wanted to try this out" build.

 

  I agree.  I just wonder whether these are the only options.. and again I would say the same thing about Pain Domination and many other power sets.  Even though I love Sentinels, I would even rather leave that AT as they are instead of angering other reasonable players who are just trying to have fun.  People play the game as it is, so no change should be taken lightly.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Hardboiled Hero said:

When it comes to fun, perception is what matters.  Do you think there's a way to have the community start perceiving FF's as being more useful?  Perhaps some kind of message or alarm that says when someone else's power stopped the player's defense from being debuffed?

There's a difference between being needed and being useful.

 

I would never exclude you from my team because you were a FF based toon.

 

But on the same token myself included - there are no essentials on my teams other than being present and accounted for.

 

At that point it's up to the user to have fun.  But nothing is needed - everything is useful.

 

/\  that's why there is no Trinity here, and people that are seeking out certain classes are likely only doing so for speed runs or badge runs, but nothing to do with a FF being useful in the grand scheme of things. 

 

70% of my main most fun characters were not on that guys wish list btw, and thats ok.  I still had fun even though I didn't meet that guys prereq.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Infinitum

[Luminara]

7 hours ago, Coyote said:

Limit set bonuses to 3 or maybe 4 or a kind. Or maybe Defense only (if that's possible).

 

((B + (T+ - T-)) - (PS - P - AP - TP - (IP + IT + IA)) * A = H

B   = Base Critter Hit Chance
T+ = ToHit Buffs
T-   = ToHit Debuffs
PS = Powerset Defense Buffs
P   = Pool Defense Buffs
AP = Ancillary Pool Defense Buffs
TP = Temporary Defense Buffs

IP  = IO set Defense bonuses (Position)
IT  = IO set Defense bonuses (Type)
IA  = IO set Defense bonuses (All)
A   = Accuracy Modifier
H   = Final Critter Hit Chance

 

Reducing IO set Defense bonuses to half their current values without acknowledging T-, PS, P, AP and TP is pointless.  Players will still be capable of soft-capping, they'll simply alter the meta to focus on more pool powers which offer Defense, more powerset combinations with ToHit debuffs, more IO set mules which allow comparable accumulated totals.

 

Reducing I* variables by allowing fewer stacks will have no effect.  Players can and will reslot with more varied IO sets to achieve comparable (or higher) bonuses.  Players can and will drop infrequently used powers for set mules.  Players can and will slot sets which grant Defense bonuses at 3 slots, twice in a single power.  Players can and will substitute Hasten for previously accrued IO set Recharge bonuses, freeing up more slots to dedicate to IO set Defense bonuses.  Players can and will slot for more Recovery and take Defense buffing powers like Maneuvers and other pool and APP powers (which are affected by AT modifiers).

 

You can't change the game, end or otherwise, by altering the one third of the variables in a vacuum because the math doesn't work that way.  As long as the remaining variables can be altered, the equation can always be rebalanced in the players' favor, at little or no cost.

 

Nothing short of absolute dictatorial control of Defense and ToHit Debuff, every aspect of them which affects critter hit chances, will be effective.  You simply cannot prevent players from flooring critter hit chances any other way without changing how hit chance is calculated (flagging every source of +Def and -ToHit as Unique, or reducing all +Def and -ToHit via lower AT modifiers, or limiting all +Def and -ToHit to the highest single instance from a given source (Maneuvers, Tenebrous Tentacles, etc.)), and then you have to rebalance multiple powers AND powersets to compensate for the decreases in utility and/or survivability.

 

The good news is that you can download and modify the server code to do exactly that, be a dictator.  Let us know how it goes and what your population numbers are when you've had it up and running for a while.

[Crysis]

9 hours ago, Coyote said:

I'm not sure if everyone is connecting the dots...

 

YES, there ARE players who are 50 and have problems at +2. These characters ARE NOT A PROBLEM. These characters generally do not have soft-capped builds. These characters do not need nerfing.

 

There are ways to address soft-cap issues. Limit set bonuses to 3 or maybe 4 or a kind. Or maybe Defense only (if that's possible). Lower Defense set bonuses. These players are not going to be hurt because almost without fail, they don't have builds that are going to be affected.

 

It is POSSIBLE to target nerfs at min-maxed builds. It is also NECESSARY to target nerfs at min-maxed builds, because as we see from these anecdotes, there are casual players without top builds who could get hurt if a global defense nerf on all powers were to be implemented in order to try to do something about min-maxed capped Ranged (or S/L) Defense builds.

 

It’s also POSSIBLE to LEAVE IO’s and DEFENSE values THE FARK ALONE and get your brave butt out to a zone/mission that’s harder than the norm to up your own difficulty level and enjoyment of the game.

 

It’s also POSSIBLE to TARGET those who wish to punish players who enjoy the game AS-IS by claiming that they are somehow doing us all a grand favor by diminishing OUR enjoyment of the game for the benefit of....well, for nobody.  Nobody gains anything from this.  There’s a straw man argument that someone will gain something from this, but I’ve yet to see what the gain is other than to the person/people who simply want everyone else to define “enjoyment” and “casual” under their terms.

 

The only dots I need to connect are the ones that have existed for almost 12 years.  Some people really have an issue with how others define “fun.”  And since they can’t realistically change the definition of fun, they yell for nerfs.  Some of the nerfs of the past made sense when cast against a profit motive that was built around slowing leveling speed, improving longevity of subscriptions, paywall things like Invention licenses, etc.  These reasons, veiled as they were, no longer exist.  So just leave this alone and go find your difficulty that’s already built into the game.  

 

 

[Crysis]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

There's a difference between being needed and being useful.

 

I would never exclude you from my team because you were a FF based toon.

 

But on the same token myself included - there are no essentials on my teams other than being present and accounted for.

 

At that point it's up to the user to have fun.  But nothing is needed - everything is useful.

 

/\  that's why there is no Trinity here, and people that are seeking out certain classes are likely only doing so for speed runs or badge runs, but nothing to do with a FF being useful in the grand scheme of things. 

 

70% of my main most fun characters were not on that guys wish list btw, and thats ok.  I still had fun even though I didn't meet that guys prereq.

Speaking of upping difficulty....

 

One of the more enjoyable aspects of this game to me are all-X ‘themed’ teams.  There’s a player on Excelsior, EV-3000 or something can’t recall their name, that routinely sets up “dueling ITF speed runs” with themed teams.  Gadget teams (Traps/Trick Arrow/Tactical Arrow/Devices) vs. All Offender (Procc’d out Defender) teams.  Two teams compete for a speed run, no deaths, no inspirations.  I’ve run these dozens of times and it’s a fantastic example of using the EXISTING game development framework, content PVE and all, and coming up with a new game difficulty level.  

 

This is absolutely KEY to the game’s design principle.  Mix different AT’s with different abilities and you get different challenge levels.  No brute/tank?  Then don’t play the missions as if you have someone to soak the alpha while everyone else hangs back.  Or let the Controller lead with an AOE Hold shot.  Or let the Blaster/Corr/Defenders run in and drop nukes alternating between spawns.  The TEAM makeup creates DYNAMIC tactics for how to approach the game.  This is also what fuels Alt development.  We see different Alts operating under different team dynamics/mission variables and it inspires us to “I wanna try that!” In ways we wouldn’t have otherwise.    And these libraries of Alts we maintain become fuel for the missions as we realize “hang on a sec, lemme go get my Controller for this mission” based on the dynamic difficulty we are facing.

 

You start messing with these dynamics at your own peril and that of the player base in general.  Very few people on these forums are game designers.  Myself included.  Balance is a delicate matter and playing “Nerf that!” Is not only dangerous but outright destructive.  You destroy the very things you wish to improve.  Diversity of play style and difficulty abound in this game as-is.  Change your attitudes to diversity and not the game to get the desired outcomes.  Nerf your desire to change things to your liking, and adapt instead.

 

EDIT: I also think the overwhelming majority of posters on this forum, myself included, greatly overestimate the number of players who even UNDERSTAND things like IO set bonuses, how To-Hit vs Accuracy works in the world of buffs/debuffs or even the broadest definitions of damage mitigation.  They understand that Green = Heal and Bubbles = Shields.  What they can see visually is about the extent of their understanding of the die-roll mechanics of this game.  Heck, I played for a couple years on Live before I even took a look at the Combat Logs, let alone learned to decipher them.  So pushing for a 2nd Pass Global Defense Nerf means jack and squat to anyone OTHER than those who understand what the 1st Pass Global Defense Nerf did to this game.  Which means basically, you’ve got min/maxers trying to nerf other min/maxers, and that almost always boils down to simple control-oriented personalities trying to assert “I’m right!” Into the game mechanics.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Crysis

[Naraka]

9 hours ago, Infinitum said:

oh just stop, you arent robin hood. 

 

Min max builds arent the problem, you dont have to use a min maxed build or play with anyone min maxed if you dont want to. 

 

Dont penalize those of us that min max everything because our OCD will not tolerate anything other than that. Thats the mini game within a game for me to see how OP i can make something.

The thing is, those casual players that you're assuming to look out for want buffs too.  They see their lack of self-protection on their support ATs as lame or they see sets with weaker outputs as wrong.  You can buff those up but you just introduce more and more powercreep if you don't counterbalance it.  I wouldn't be particularly against just leaving "IO’s and DEFENSE values THE FARK ALONE" but those casuals playing their Cold Dom support thinking their personal defense on teams is crap and don't feel "super" want more juice too.  It's safer to just leave everything untouched but once you start moving stuff, leaving things the fark alone is off the table.

 

Do you just throw balance out the window and start creeping up that power scale? Do you introduce new mechanics that are then ignored because they aren't of any purpose?  Do you upgrade niche-utility to be more effective to compete?  The scales are moving now and those that min/max sign a contract that as they reach for those heights, the heights will change, your OCD be damned.  

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

You can't change the game, end or otherwise, by altering the one third of the variables in a vacuum because the math doesn't work that way.  As long as the remaining variables can be altered, the equation can always be rebalanced in the players' favor, at little or no cost.

 

Wait, what? Changing one third of the variables in an equation DOES change the math.

And, yes, the players can then add more Defense in other ways, but then that weakens other aspects of the build, making the capped-D builds significantly less effective in other ways. We already have that now, a bit, with Blasters generally having to pick a defense build or a proc build for more damage. If they get pushed to have to use sets with more Ranged D and less Recharge in order to cap... they can still cap, but at a higher cost.

And, as I've been saying, that's fine. It's not soft-capping that is the problem. It''s not even that soft-capping can be done on ATs originally balanced around not having much in the way of defenses. The problem is the relatively low build cost to do it.

The problem is that on a Blaster, we have:

Maneuvers is 2.28%, and the highest Defense bonus is 5%.

Tactics is 10%, and the highest Accuracy bonus is 15% (this is only included to be complete... I can't recall seeing too many builds caring about loading up on +Accuracy bonus from sets).

Assault is 10.5%, and the higest Damage bonus is 4%.

 

Clearly, the set bonuses for Defense were not balanced with the same balance in mind that were used for Defense powers. Even arguing that Defense set bonuses are limited and should be considered at only half their value still leaves them ahead of where they seem they should be if we look at Defense powers. BTW, the same argument could likely be made for Recharge bonuses, but that's a less relevant issue. So, then, why were set bonuses for Defense set so high? A mistake? A deliberate design choice? When I look at a game's design and I see something that's out of what looks like their normal balancing scheme, I generally expect to see a reason for it. If there isn't a reason, it's likely a mistake.

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, Crysis said:

It’s also POSSIBLE to LEAVE IO’s and DEFENSE values THE FARK ALONE and get your brave butt out to a zone/mission that’s harder than the norm to up your own difficulty level and enjoyment of the game.

 

You're foolishly making this too personal. I prefer the Night Ward specifically for its difficulty, so my brave butt is out there soloing the two AVs at the end of the story arc 😛

I just happen to have been a game designer, and I see something that looks to be an error... or else some deliberate design choice that has never been explained. So I'm arguing that, in general, errors should be fixed. Even where the playerbase has gotten used to their broken Smoke Grenade and cries when it gets lowered. Or their toggle Instant Healing.

It's not because I hate other players or have fun messing with them, it's because I see bad design as something to fix.

[Crysis]

1 minute ago, Coyote said:

 

You're foolishly making this too personal. I prefer the Night Ward specifically for its difficulty, so my brave butt is out there soloing the two AVs at the end of the story arc 😛

I just happen to have been a game designer, and I see something that looks to be an error... or else some deliberate design choice that has never been explained. So I'm arguing that, in general, errors should be fixed. Even where the playerbase has gotten used to their broken Smoke Grenade and cries when it gets lowered. Or their toggle Instant Healing.

It's not because I hate other players or have fun messing with them, it's because I see bad design as something to fix.

So download the server code, adjust it and test it.  Easy enough if you have design/coding experience here, and please report back your testing results along with allllll the unintended consequences from doing same.

 

The Global Defense Nerf and ED were introduced to pave the way for IO set bonuses.  They were balanced that way.  You could have a sturdy build but you’d have to make a trade off for them.  You may believe, minus any evidence to support your beliefs, that the trade off isn’t enough.  I believe it was and remains so today.  So go build your evidence and report back and then we can talk.

[Black Zot]

6 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

You're foolishly making this too personal.

 

You're trying to take away what makes this game fun.  After I worked to get my characters up to a point that I can enjoy rolling around with them, you want to take that from me.

 

Don't insult me further by trying to pretend that's not personal.

[Coyote]

4 minutes ago, Crysis said:

So go build your evidence and report back and then we can talk.

 

All of these kinds of arguments are a cop-out.

"I have enough evidence to convince myself and you should be convinced also. But if you want to persuade me, go and spend dozens of hours setting up a server, changing the code, balancing it, testing, and then report back. Then I'll be willing to listen."

Basically, introducing an impossible bar in an argument under the guise of "but if you have evidence, I'll be most happy to take a look".

The argument cuts both ways. Go ahead and create such a server, make the changes, spend all that time, and get back to me showing that the result would be a broken game, and then we can talk.

[Coyote]

1 minute ago, Black Zot said:

 

You're trying to take away what makes this game fun.  After I worked to get my characters up to a point that I can enjoy rolling around with them, you want to take that from me.

 

Don't insult me further by trying to pretend that's not personal.

 

🙄

If I cared enough to insult you, if I even were aware of you, be assured that I could manage it much more effectively than by arguing about game balance.

But, by all means, if it amuses you to pretend that someone who never had a thought about you somehow decided to make it personal against you, amuse yourself. You have my personal permission 😄

[Naraka]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

Reducing IO set Defense bonuses to half their current values without acknowledging T-, PS, P, AP and TP is pointless.  Players will still be capable of soft-capping, they'll simply alter the meta to focus on more pool powers which offer Defense, more powerset combinations with ToHit debuffs, more IO set mules which allow comparable accumulated totals.

 

Reducing I* variables by allowing fewer stacks will have no effect.  Players can and will reslot with more varied IO sets to achieve comparable (or higher) bonuses.  Players can and will drop infrequently used powers for set mules.  Players can and will slot sets which grant Defense bonuses at 3 slots, twice in a single power.  Players can and will substitute Hasten for previously accrued IO set Recharge bonuses, freeing up more slots to dedicate to IO set Defense bonuses.  Players can and will slot for more Recovery and take Defense buffing powers like Maneuvers and other pool and APP powers (which are affected by AT modifiers).

 

You can't change the game, end or otherwise, by altering the one third of the variables in a vacuum because the math doesn't work that way.  As long as the remaining variables can be altered, the equation can always be rebalanced in the players' favor, at little or no cost.

 

Nothing short of absolute dictatorial control of Defense and ToHit Debuff, every aspect of them which affects critter hit chances, will be effective.  You simply cannot prevent players from flooring critter hit chances any other way without changing how hit chance is calculated (flagging every source of +Def and -ToHit as Unique, or reducing all +Def and -ToHit via lower AT modifiers, or limiting all +Def and -ToHit to the highest single instance from a given source (Maneuvers, Tenebrous Tentacles, etc.)), and then you have to rebalance multiple powers AND powersets to compensate for the decreases in utility and/or survivability.

You're assuming this isn't the desired goal.  That is, shifting things so to get the same current output requires more limited power choices or tactical variance.  Getting soft cap, IMO, isn't the problem.  It's the ease and prevalence of it that is the issue.

 

Personally speaking, if I were reassessing IO bonuses, I'd have just limited defense bonuse categories to small, moderate and large.  On top of that, improve other aspects of the IO system, like the weak/pointless buffs to mez duration and add a moderate amount of mez resistance, give a bit better bonus to +dmg, regen and recovery, and add debuff resistances to other less useful attributes to make the IO system less about maximizing mostly def and rech.

 

Again, reaching soft cap isn't a problem, it's the prevalence of it.