Are Player Defenses too high

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Was.

Rude.

No it really wasn't. There wasnt one rude syllable in it.  If indeed syllables can be rude.

[Naraka]

10 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

That wasn't rude, it was directing you in the correct spot for the answer you wanted.

 

It's not their fault you missed it.

You're still here?  I suppose I should be rechecking your posts to make sure you didn't go back and add to them after the fact.

 

Your reply is noted and I did take @Luminara's advice to reread their posts to see if a better answer to my question was buried but didn't find it.  If requesting a clarification is too much for @Luminara or their peanut gallery, then I will leave that line of discussion as unresolved.

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Naraka said:

You're still here?  I suppose I should be rechecking your posts to make sure you didn't go back and add to them after the fact.

You just may indeed, cause I'm Wiley like that.   Rawr

[Coyote]

5 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No it really wasn't. There wasnt one rude syllable in it.  If indeed syllables can be rude.

 

It's a copout to say that a statement cannot be rude if it doesn't include rude words. Or the rare rude syllables, heh.

A unnecessarily curt answer to a polite question is often rude. In this case, it certainly struck me as rude when I first read it.

Politeness is not merely not cursing.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Coyote said:

 

It's a copout to say that a statement cannot be rude if it doesn't include rude words. Or the rare rude syllables, heh.

A unnecessarily curt answer to a polite question is often rude. In this case, it certainly struck me as rude when I first read it.

Politeness is not merely not cursing.

No but that was a directed efficient response, no insults, no run around.

 

Here is your answer.

 

Thats not rude.

 

Again, forum tone translator may be on the fritz.

 

It's just a short answer take it at face value.

[Coyote]

9 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No but that was a directed efficient response, no insults, no run around.

 

Here is your answer.

 

Thats not rude.

 

Again, forum tone translator may be on the fritz.

 

It's just a short answer take it at face value.

 

I don't think so.

Luminara wrote a lot of posts. Someone didn't understand what she meant, and asked for clarification.

Instead of giving clarification or at least an exact pointer to a post saying "this says exactly what I meant", she said "go back and reread it, obviously you missed something". But since communication depends both on the person communicating and the person receiving the information, it is arrogant to assume that you clearly stated everything that you said, and that any time someone isn't sure that they understood what you meant, it is that other person's fault.

It is always polite to clarify when asked, and it is usually rude to say "reread it" unless someone has reached the point where they're being a pest with not making an effort to understand before repeatedly asking for clarifications. So, sometimes short answers are fine, and sometimes they're rude. "Go back and reread the thread" is usually one of the more rude options. It certainly wasn't "here is your answer", which would be fine.. it was "you missed the answer? go back and reread it".

[Infinitum]

17 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I don't think so.

Luminara wrote a lot of posts. Someone didn't understand what she meant, and asked for clarification.

Instead of giving clarification or at least an exact pointer to a post saying "this says exactly what I meant", she said "go back and reread it, obviously you missed something". But since communication depends both on the person communicating and the person receiving the information, it is arrogant to assume that you clearly stated everything that you said, and that any time someone isn't sure that they understood what you meant, it is that other person's fault.

It is always polite to clarify when asked, and it is usually rude to say "reread it" unless someone has reached the point where they're being a pest with not making an effort to understand before repeatedly asking for clarifications. So, sometimes short answers are fine, and sometimes they're rude. "Go back and reread the thread" is usually one of the more rude options. It certainly wasn't "here is your answer", which would be fine.. it was "you missed the answer? go back and reread it".

Difference of opinion then

 

I actually appreciate brevity and efficiency in a world that largely likes to bloviate and divert attention from what is relevant and needed from the task at hand.

 

I don't see it as rude.

[Luminara]

4 minutes ago, Coyote said:

A unnecessarily curt answer to a polite question is often rude.

 

Asking what happens when pick-up groups have to face more challenging enemies when they increase the difficulty scalar and they don't want to fight them really shouldn't need any response.

 

Asking for clarification of the purpose of isolating a means of adding more challenging critters to spawns when players jack up the difficulty scalar, in a thread focused on the perceived lack of challenge due to the abundance of +Defense which makes end game content comparatively easy, shouldn't require explanation either.

 

So yeah, I was rude.  My time is no less worthwhile than anyone else's, and if someone's rude enough to believe his/her time is too valuable to spend reading the thread so he/she understands what we're talking about, then I can be rude, too.

 

Now get this shit back on topic.  I resolved your problems with implementing tougher critters.  What's your plan to make them tougher?  More Buff and Debuff powers would be a good place to start.  If you make them bigger bags of hit points, you're fired.

[Naraka]

30 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Difference of opinion then

 

I actually appreciate brevity and efficiency in a world that largely likes to bloviate and divert attention from what is relevant and needed from the task at hand.

 

I don't see it as rude.

Like I've read many times on the internet: you don't get to decide what offends who.

 

In this case, you don't get to decide what is and isn't distasteful.  I found it rude, you didn't. No ground made.

 

It's what you do after that that determines intention.  I decided not to dwell on if it's rude or not (expressing my opinion is enough).  If someone wishes to disregard my perspective and continue to do actions I find rude despite me expressing said distaste, that's on them.  Like I said, I didn't dwell on it and replied regardless.  You diverting attention to said subject is more indicative of the circumstances than anything.  Luminara doesn't need you and your pompoms cheering on their choice of response.  Just continue leaving reaction emotes and spare us your cheerleading.

[Sovera]

5 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Make the incentive bragging rights.   

 

You have a level 50+3 on "Excelsior"?  Pffts.  Try playing on "OMGWTFBBQ"*  I've got a level 19 there and I can almost solo a level 20 Freakshow boss. 

 

===

*The name would obviously need to be something better than that.  And to fit within the naming scheme homecoming has come up with. 

 

  

This is something we have on Everlasting. There is a set of VERY infamous AE missions called the 801 which are bragged as tank killers. I played them together with a group and I can see how they would be if the team goes in even slightly imbalanced. We had chained Barrier, Mind-Link *and* shielders and even so people died here and there, including me once when I was not taking it seriously. Some extra duty debuffing going on as well as heavy duty sapping that almost got me a couple of times despite having a strong debuff resistance.

 

Even so we pulled it off without wipes on a +4x8 even just going as a 5 man group which shows even ultra hard content did not stop us. How can easy mode CoH even compare to those hellish missions?

[Naraka]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

 

Asking what happens when pick-up groups have to face more challenging enemies when they increase the difficulty scalar and they don't want to fight them really shouldn't need any response.

Then you're ignoring the context of the question.  PUGs can increase their difficulty *now* and not have to face these hypothetical mobs and are okay with that.  There are some who want more challenge, but as has been elaborated on several times by other posters, some of those players don't want extra challenge.  That was the whole point of the inquiry in the first place.  If those players don't want that kind of challenge then what happens?  "Then decrease your difficulty" is the likely response but this isn't a fine-tooth difficulty management system.  Shifting from +3 to +2 on a team could shift the play of that team from moderately engaged to can't keep eyes open difficulty.  That's why I questioned pushing this kind of difficulty scale into the current notoriety system with no consideration for what kind of challenge you're trying to implement.

 

And in the context of the rest of the question, I'm of the opinion if you want to introduce a good challenge for most PUGs that know what they're doing, you'll likely need some rather hax abilities on these new mobs.  Not just some rinky dink +def +ToHit buff to a spawn Link Minds, but rather a Lt that is nearly immune to CC, with some ability to phase through attacks and/or detonate minion levels for stacking debuff patches and an actually competent AoE confuse (not that timer based crap the pratorian seers use).  Real crazy stuff.  Even then, a good blaster or stalker can 1 shot such a mob and 2 shot another if more than 1 spawns and if 3 or more spawn, at least 2 are dead.

 

Maybe I didn't clarify but that's my position on this type of idea which is why I was asking.

12 minutes ago, Luminara said:

So yeah, I was rude. 

Welp, there you have it @Infinitum.  They indeed were rude.

[Infinitum]

39 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Like I've read many times on the internet: you don't get to decide what offends who.

 

In this case, you don't get to decide what is and isn't distasteful.  I found it rude, you didn't. No ground made.

 

It's what you do after that that determines intention.  I decided not to dwell on if it's rude or not (expressing my opinion is enough).  If someone wishes to disregard my perspective and continue to do actions I find rude despite me expressing said distaste, that's on them.  Like I said, I didn't dwell on it and replied regardless.  You diverting attention to said subject is more indicative of the circumstances than anything.  Luminara doesn't need you and your pompoms cheering on their choice of response.  Just continue leaving reaction emotes and spare us your cheerleading.

Yeah and none of that is rude either right?  lol. Sorry I triggered you again.

 

But not really but as in all things its the thought that counts.

[Infinitum]

30 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Welp, there you have it @Infinitum.  They indeed were rude.

I think you need to tweak your sarcasm detector also.  Perhaps just a tad.

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Naraka said:

Luminara doesn't need you and your pompoms cheering on their choice of response.  Just continue leaving reaction emotes and spare us your cheerleading.

Its funny you think this doesnt apply to you back on page 3 where you started this little dance between the two of us. 

 

I purposely didnt edit my last post and add this to it so as not to anger you btw.. Hope that helps.

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

What's your plan to make them tougher?  More Buff and Debuff powers would be a good place to start.  If you make them bigger bags of hit points, you're fired.

 

LOL.So sue..fire... uh, hire me. 😛

Well, my problem isn't with difficulty as much as with the imbalance between set bonuses... that people make builds for +Recharge and for +Defense, but almost never for +anything else, just what they pick up on the way (like +Accuracy). I see that as a design error, to make two kinds of bonuses that are desirable because of how high they are, and the others generally are not.

 

But, to go onto the track of "how to make more challenging enemies", we have several design constraints:

1: as the size of a player team increases, the strength increases better than linearly, because you get more HPs and more damage, but also more buffs. So the NPCs should similarly increase with more buffs and debuffs.

2: IMO, the debuffs given to mobs are overpowered because PCs lose debuff values to level difference while mobs gain them, because mobs are almost always higher level. Especially if we're talking about challenging difficulty levels. So, I'd rather put in a good amount of buffing NPCs, or auto-hit debuffs like Quicksand... but not at the same level of Quicksand. For example, a minion throwing out Freezing Rain is fine, but not like the Cloud of Ice from the Spells, who puts it out at PC levels. So, more debuffs, with bosses getting about the same level of debuffs as PCs or maybe 3/4, but LTs at 1/2 debuff level, and minions at about 1/3 or 1/4. Same for buffs.

3: Another interesting type of power are the non-targetable pet powers. The reason is that they can't be affected... a mob throws out Tornado, you can't mez it, you can't Taunt it, though you can use movement to get away from it. Powers like that, by avoiding being shut down either through mez damage or debuff, would be interesting to see. As long as they're not too common, as we don't want to marginalize debuff/control-oriented PCs.

 

In general, I think that almost all LTs should have some kind of Tactics or Maneuvers. I mean, that's their point of why they're a higher rank, they lead others in battle. So they help coordinate. In some cases, like Warwolves there isn't much coordination and they're more like bigger dudes, but in a lot of cases there are reasons why they would be helping to coordinate a spawn's fighting ability. Many of those who don't lead could have debuff abilities, especially if they're coupled with self-buffing of ToHit so they have a chance to hit high-Defense characters, or auto-hit. Again, like above, not at the crippling levels that PC debuffs are... nobody wants to see 2 LTs putting out Freezing Rain. Maybe Ice Cold Shower (hehe) with -10% values on debuffs.

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Well, my problem isn't with difficulty as much as with the imbalance between set bonuses... that people make builds for +Recharge and for +Defense, but almost never for +anything else, just what they pick up on the way (like +Accuracy). I see that as a design error, to make two kinds of bonuses that are desirable because of how high they are, and the others generally are not.

I agree with part of what you said there actually, but, I dont see it as an imbalance.

 

Here is why.

 

The game plays the way the game plays.

 

Recharge, and defense are probably 2 of the most important facets to the game.

 

So why shouldn't they be higher and in the most unique expensive sets that you can only realize their true benefit at level 50+?

 

That's how the game plays.

 

Now where I agree with you is I personally believe more +dmg bonuses could be added to begin utilizing +dmg as a mitigation tool.  I would love to see that and think it would liven builds up also encounters.  You vs the boss battle of dmg output.

 

The other thing would be to have bonuses that could replace clarion or indom will for trollers.  Cause you can't control if you are messed.

 

If nothing else it would lead to fork in the road decisions on build making.

[Haijinx]

I personally think this game is way too easy.

 

Its too easy at all levels.

 

Its *really* too easy at high levels once everyone fills out their IO builds.

 

Its even worse with incarnates.  Other than the Alpha slot they all are badly thought out and OP in my opinion. 

 

I'd love to fix it by buffing the hell out of Enemy groups and changing things so the worst offenders (95% of all attacks missing you, while you hit 95% of the time) are tamed.

 

While were at it, xp is way too easy to get and hitting 50 is too easy.

 

I read posts where people claim its not easy with a skeptical eye.  Wondering what their motivations are. 

 

But lets get real, tinkering with everyone's fun is too unpopular.     And popular is required to get teams.  And teaming is why I play MMOs.  

 

 

 

 

[Coyote]

33 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Recharge, and defense are probably 2 of the most important facets to the game.

 

So why shouldn't they be higher and in the most unique expensive sets that you can only realize their true benefit at level 50+?

 

That's exactly why they SHOULDN'T be higher... effects like Resistance should be higher because it only stops damage. Defense stops damage, debuffing, and mezzing from the same attack. Right now, though, the equivalent Defense bonuses are higher than the equivalent bonuses of Resistance.

Same for Damage... damage buffs from sets are very low compared to other benefits. That's partly because damage is considered very important, but still, it would be interesting if Defense were lowered and Damage were raised so that instead of seeing +30% damage on a build that has a good deal of damage bonuses, we'd see 40-50%. Right now, we see higher numbers than that for Accuracy, and it's also an important offensive stat.

It's strange that Recharge is so high, considering how many different things it affects. Almost every click power is boosted with more global recharge (some are so fast in Recharge that you won't really notice a change, but there are very few such powers that are really useful).

I sometimes look at the numbers of the set bonuses and just shake my head in bewilderment. A GOOD design would be one where there were a reasonable conversation about building for different types of bonuses... if you could build for significant Mez Resistance, and not so easily for Defense and Recharge, but more for Damage and Controls (like a general +4% to all Mezzes), or maybe +Special. If multiple build paths were competitive with each other.

 

That's why I've commented in this thread, not because I see the difficulty level as too low if you try to find difficulty. I do solo TFs and AVs, I run Night Ward, I can find places to die, lol. Heck, there's one mission in the Night Ward where I got rez-killed dozens of times. It's my designer experience that makes me twitch when I see these set imbalances, and how the fact that they're imbalanced makes min-maxing constraints upon builds, rather than opening up a variety of builds to be competitive.

[Infinitum]

18 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I read posts where people claim its not easy with a skeptical eye.  Wondering what their motivations are. 

depends on what you are running really, and it never plays the same way twice.

 

Kahn TF one night went for 30 min - next night same team same level +2 loaded with Incarnates it took 1 hour just to get reichtsman down.

 

Stuff happens and if you +4/8 enough, or magisterium, or MoM, or any of the incarnate arcs.  Even Pandora's Box. You are gonna get popped a few good times.

 

Its a dynamic environment.  I wouldn't call it too easy in any event.  It has the potential to be very easy but also the same potential to be a nightmare on occasion.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Coyote said:

That's exactly why they SHOULDN'T be higher... effects like Resistance should be higher because it only stops damage.

No because resistance is a more important mitigation tool IMO.  With defense if it hits it hits hard.  Resistance goes further to neutering the attack that defense can for that reason - thats one od the reasons rad armor and Elec armor are two of the most durable tank/brute armors thats out - lots hit doesn't hurt much.

2 minutes ago, Coyote said:

if you could build for significant Mez Resistance, and not so easily for Defense and Recharge, but more for Damage and Controls (like a general +4% to all Mezzes), or maybe +Special. If multiple build paths were competitive with each other.

No, you dont want to limit the defense bonuses - just compete with them.

3 minutes ago, Coyote said:

but still, it would be interesting if Defense were lowered and Damage were raised so that instead of seeing +30% damage on a build that has a good deal of damage bonuses, we'd see 40-50%. Right now, we see higher numbers than that for Accuracy, and it's also an important offensive stat.

Again, no otherwise you will have the reverse effect of how it currently is, not to mention turning everyones build into an upper decker.

 

Can you not admit that you dont have to nerf set bonuses to get what you want? Or is nerfing them the only avenue for you?

 

Because there have been many proposals that would accomplish what irks you without decimating what the majority in fact enjoys.

[Infinitum]

11 minutes ago, Coyote said:

It's my designer experience that makes me twitch when I see these set imbalances, and how the fact that they're imbalanced makes min-maxing constraints upon builds, rather than opening up a variety of builds to be competitive.

its not an imbalance if that's what makes the game work.

 

Just because You are a designer and this may not have flown on what you are familiar with, does not mean its not kosher here.  Ie its not your decision to make.

[Haijinx]

7 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

 

 

Its a dynamic environment.  I wouldn't call it too easy in any event.  It has the potential to be very easy but also the same potential to be a nightmare on occasion.

In older MMOs any single baddie of sufficient level to get decent xp from could easily kill any member of a team, even the tank.  You had to off-tank or CC adds so the team didn't wipe.  

 

Compared to that even archvillians are playskool easy. 

 

With a scrapper or stalker you can solo most even level archvillians without even a finished build.  

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

In older MMOs any single baddie of sufficient level to get decent xp from could easily kill any member of a team, even the tank.  You had to off-tank or CC adds so the team didn't wipe.  

 

Compared to that even archvillians are playskool easy. 

 

With a scrapper or stalker you can solo most even level archvillians without even a finished build.  

Well the only MMOs ive ever played is this and CO so... Theres that.  I have no other frame of reference.

 

Ive literally played this every day for a year minus possibly 10 days for vacation and even them I had my laptop at the beach playing on Mids.

 

Its easier than live for me but thats only because I know more now than I did then.  I didnt get too much into set bonuses back then only slightly so.

 

I do remember hating to have to not run stuff for a few hours because you HAD to have a rad or something like that to complete certain content.

 

Its way more inclusive and versatile now.  I like being able to take anyone on my teams without a second thought as to what they may or may not bring to the fight.

 

Removing anything that hurts that diversity is bad IMO.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Infinitum

[Coyote]

11 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

its not an imbalance if that's what makes the game work.

 

Just because You are a designer and this may not have flown on what you are familiar with, does not mean its not kosher here.  Ie its not your decision to make.

 

No.

It's an imbalance EVEN IF the game works. The fact that such a complicated game with so many choices and options works and plays fine despite imbalances... doesn't mean that there aren't imbalances, and doesn't mean that it wouldn't be improved if the bonuses were balanced. You're making an argument that "it works, therefore any change will be bad".

Also, I have never claimed nor will that it's my decision to make. But in exactly the same logic, it's not your decision to make that balance changes wouldn't fly here, or that it can't or shouldn't be done, and especially not that it can't be proposed and discussed.

Lastly... always be clear to yourself and analyze your arguments. I think you may be confusing "this works" and "this is fine" and "this game is great" with "and therefore any changes are going to make it worse". The game was great from early issues, and yet most issues have improved the game. Some mistakes were made, but in general... there is always room for improvement. You should never argue from the point of view that says "it's perfect, don't change a thing"... at least, not in such a complicated game. I'm certainly not arguing from the POV of saying "this game is broken" or "this must be fixed".

Short version: this game is fine. This game could also be improved. And discussing how to improve it, is not a bad thing.

[Coyote]

20 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Can you not admit that you dont have to nerf set bonuses to get what you want? Or is nerfing them the only avenue for you?

 

Do you even read what I write before arguing? I'm really only suggesting nerfing ONE set bonus (Defense), while suggesting buffing many others, or even adding some buffs (+Special as a general improvement is currently split amongst a lot of bonuses and combining them into one would be a great improvement). I'm suggesting far more buffs than nerfs.

 

Can you not admit that sometimes nerfs should be mixed in with buffs in order to balance things while avoiding power creep? Or is buffing everything the only avenue for you?