Are Player Defenses too high

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

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.

In Ultima Online you could get pretty good at killing stuff that was sort of close to town, with a maxed out Character.  Much past the Bandit camp or the Orc village though and you could easily be instantly killed if you forgot what spawned where.  Any actual exploring required a group.  That could only really talk to each other in close proximity.  Giants?  Dragons?  haha, yeah right.  I only ever saw them killed on the game box.  Oh and when you died you lost all your stuff you had with you and had to wander as a ghost back to a healer to bring you back to life.  Hopefully you remembered where you died so you could try and get your stuff back .. 

 

Anarchy Online required you to kill deep red (their version of purple) stuff to level at any speed through the .. 200 levels (later 220).  And if you got killed you lost all experience you gained since you last saved/leveled.   So you could and would easily lose hours of progression.  They liked to seed roaming baddies 1.5x the level of the general spawns just to f with you.  So say you were camping some mutant spot for XP, a Lifebleeder (a floating Radioactive Horror) would spawn every 20 minutes and force the team to scatter or get wiped.   And that was the low level game.  Where stuff was "easy". 

 

Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, etc all had some similar aspects.     

 

City of Heroes even when it was "hard" was relatively casual.  A lot of games are causal and MMOs in general are much easier than they used to be.   Still, there is a point where stuff is too easy.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

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?

You are talking about nerfing one of the most important ones to a lot of people.

 

You didn't answer my question, if you can achieve your objection by not nerfing set bonuses such as defense, would you?

 

Or is that the only avenue for you?

[golstat2003]

10 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

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?

And has been pointed out multiple times in the thread is not needed to get what you want. Many folks have given many alternate, better suggestions.

[Infinitum]

19 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

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.

Well thats a whole lotta attributing stances to me I dont have...

 

In fact this whole cut section is so bad I'm not even going to bother with most of it.

 

Cept for this.

 

You bring up early levels of the game.

 

Do you remember how that was?  Absolutely unkillable tanks herding maps.  Scrappers that could not possibly be touched.

 

Do you remember that?

 

Now, can you imagine if the invention system was implemented on top of that age of COH?

 

No incentive for inventions right?

 

GDN and ED paved the way for inventions which in turn allowed a much wider cross section of the ATs to be powerful and survivable.  It is what allows for the game to be diverse and versatile like it is now.

 

You call that imbalanced, i call it balanced because literally anything works well together, for any content.

 

This doesnt and never has worked like a traditional MMO.

 

And You are talking about removing one of the main aspects that allows for the feeling of being super in most situations.

 

Theres a lot of people that would affect adversely imstead of positively, which in turn would hurt the game as a whole in how you build, how you team, and even what you can team with.

 

Again theres other avenues that would allow for even more diverse builds without nerfing any aspect of the sets.

 

So rather than decimate a good portion of peoples builds, if this could be resolved a more constructive way, would you be opposed to that?

Edited May 21, 2020 by Infinitum

[Naraka]

5 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

And has been pointed out multiple times in the thread is not needed to get what you want. Many folks have given many alternate, better suggestions.

"Better" is a subjective descriptor.

 

The overall feasibility is the point of contention, a point that several posters (I want to say @Coyote is one) have already concede wouldn't be popular thus not as feasible.  Popularity aside, a lot of healthy changes could be made if the entire system was balanced as a whole rather than added in pieces (later powersets/pools, IOs and incarnates).  At best, we're discussing bandaids that won't ever occur.

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Naraka said:

"Better" is a subjective descriptor.

 

The overall feasibility is the point of contention, a point that several posters (I want to say @Coyote is one) have already concede wouldn't be popular thus not as feasible.  Popularity aside, a lot of healthy changes could be made if the entire system was balanced as a whole rather than added in pieces (later powersets/pools, IOs and incarnates).  At best, we're discussing bandaids that won't ever occur.

it wouldnt be hard to add new sets that gave more diverse bonuses like damage and other features currently not as available. 

 

They just added new sets after all, it shouldnt be hard to give more options that would generate more of a reason to not build for defense or recharge rather than negating what we currently have - add to it to entice builds away from it.

[Luminara]

16 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.

 

Bear in mind that the same developers also pushed us to value +Recharge so highly.  They made it very effective.  They made powers we wanted to use as frequently as possible.  They gave us customizable attack chains, dependant on recharge times to achieve fluidity.  They gave us powers with long recharge times, and said, "Hey, don't sweat it!  Slap some +Recharge in this baby and she'll never let you down!".  They always had the option of changing the +Recharge formula, or moving Recharge enhancements to schedule B, or doing what they did near sunset, flagging powers as unenhanceable by +Recharge.  But they ran with it the way it was originally designed.

 

And, honestly, the game is so much better for it.  I do agree with you, it's egregiously abused, it's far too prolific in availability... but it's one of the biggest things that makes this game different from any other.  Not only MMOs, but any game.  We have so much freedom and flexibility in how we play because we have +Recharge.  That's a good thing.  That's the best of things.  For all of its flaws and overuse, I still wouldn't have the recharge mechanic changed in any way, because it's a cornerstone of what makes this game so good.

 

And Defense, again, you're right, it's been made abundantly available, probably too much so.  But Defense can be countered.  Resistance can't.  If they'd saturated IO set bonuses with Resistance instead, they'd have had far worse problems.  We also use status effects for damage mitigation, but they already knew what would happen if they gave us +Mag set bonuses (City of Statues).  Regeneration is tricky, too.  If you have "enough", you're practically immortal when you couple it with some Resistance and/or Defense, so that couldn't be a widely-distributed attribute.  With more difficult content and a higher-but-not-higher level cap (Incarnate) in the plans, they had to give players something to improve survivability.  So they gave us Defense, because it has a limit.  You always have a chance to take a hit, and they could control that.  They did, in the final content, increasing critter base hit chance, and that was the direction in which we were heading.  Improve survivability in general (because few people pay to have their asses kicked), then counter it in specific content so it felt rewarding to complete.

 

Massive quantities of Recharge and Defense do screw with the balance in older content, but let's be honest, it was never that difficult.  I soloed a Kin defender to 50 with melee attacks in I5.  I soloed a TA/A to 50 before I7.  Frankly, I believe the problem isn't that Defense makes the current end game too easy, or that it trivializes older content, it's that there's no new content.  If this were a Paragon Studios resurrection, we'd have had a couple of new Issues by now, and people would be hammering the forums with complaints about how hard the new TF/SF is and how this critter needs to be tweaked or that new mechanic is too unforgiving...  People have been playing the same end game content for... what, a year now?  You can faceroll anything when you've had a year to practice and build the perfect character.

 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

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.

 

Conversely, players can react.  Players are thinking, reasoning entities.  All that critters can do is follow a script.  Without something to give them an edge, like powerful debuffs, they're just punching bags.

 

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

In general, I think that almost all LTs should have some kind of Tactics or Maneuvers.

 

THAT should've been in the game from day 1.  In fact, it should be applied to more challenging critters in general.  The current (nearly two decades old) design has trained players to focus fire on the Big Bad and rely on AoE splash to deal with the lieutenants and minions.  Giving other critters, like lieutenants, small stacking buffs and debuffs would really go a long way toward improving the challenge.  Having to deal with the lesser foes while holding off the boss/EB/AV, because those smaller threats are piling buffs on the Big Bad and debuffs on the team would be a good starting point.  And it fits within the archetype non-discrimination policy of Co*.  A tank/brute/mastermind/Kheld could pull the Big Bad away from the little guys, or a controller/defender/corruptor/dominator could lock down Big Bad or the little guys, or stalkers/blasters could murder the little guys quickly, etc.  Just running in and swinging at whatever is closest, or launching AoEs, would be less effective.  Increased challenge achieved, tactical teamwork encouraged.

 

Tailored buffs and debuffs for lieutenants, pseudo-pet powers without targeting mechanics, and there are plenty of unused powerset combinations to experiment with.  A bit of tweaking to some powers, too, so we could have some critters using things like Radiation Infection as a PBAoE instead of targeted AoE.  That would shake things up.

[Haijinx]

If we can't even agree the game is too easy at present, it seems premature to discuss "solutions" to the "problem"  IMO. 

 

I wonder if it goes to expectations.  Does one AV giving some teams a hard time equal a reasonable challenge?    

 

That sort of thing isn't going to seem a challenge at all to people reared on Raids that required an entire team of healers just to keep the raid tank alive.  

 

[Naraka]

33 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

it wouldnt be hard to add new sets that gave more diverse bonuses like damage and other features currently not as available. 

 

They just added new sets after all, it shouldnt be hard to give more options that would generate more of a reason to not build for defense or recharge rather than negating what we currently have - add to it to entice builds away from it.

The post a proposition.  Or ask people in the thread, what IO bonuses/sets would entice you to not build for defense or recharge?

[Naraka]

Another funny aside: I keep reading talking points about how the live devs implemented IOs, how they encouraged +recharge, how they designed this or that...where is that when talking about armor tier 9s in the Suggestions forum?  I also hear a lot of flack about all the other mistakes the live devs made or how so and so had horrible ideas.  That seems to go out the window in this context though.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Naraka

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Another funny aside: I keep reading talking points about how the live devs implemented IOs, how they encouraged +recharge, how they designed this or that...where is that when talking about armor tier 9s in the Suggestions forum?  I also hear a lot of flack about all the other mistakes the live devs made or how so and so had horrible ideas.  That seems to go out the window in this context though.

Yes.  Somehow the old devs made a bunch of questionable decisions that somehow had no impact on the aggregate result.

 

Or something.

 

I guess.

 

 

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Another funny aside: I keep reading talking points about how the live devs implemented IOs, how they encouraged +recharge, how they designed this or that...where is that when talking about armor tier 9s in the Suggestions forum?  I also hear a lot of flack about all the other mistakes the live devs made or how so and so had horrible ideas.  That seems to go out the window in this context though.

An equal number of mistakes does not mean that there cant be an equal number of successes.

[THEDarkTyger]

Seems like a loaded poll. Why does whether or not defenses are fine have to be measured by how often I die?

[Neiska]

A pretty vague question. First off not all difficulties/ATs/activities are the same. Defense is only one small part of the overal entire aspect of the game. I would argue that CC at endgame/high level content is more impactful than having high defenses. My only complaint about defenses is it sort of pigeonholes a great number of builds into taking things like maneuvers/tough/weave just to survive. Not all mind you, just a goodly number of them.

 

Personally i think they are fine as it is. There is enough variance between cc/offense/defense/debuffs/buffs/other values that each AT really has its place. Some could use tuning certainly along with some powersets, but, you can hardly blame Defense alone for that.

[GM Tock]

Just went through and removed several posts.  Once more, please don't make or respond to personal attacks on the boards.

 

Carry on.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Naraka said:

"Better" is a subjective descriptor.

 

The overall feasibility is the point of contention, a point that several posters (I want to say @Coyote is one) have already concede wouldn't be popular thus not as feasible.  Popularity aside, a lot of healthy changes could be made if the entire system was balanced as a whole rather than added in pieces (later powersets/pools, IOs and incarnates).  At best, we're discussing bandaids that won't ever occur.

"Balance as a whole" isn't realistic with the size of the team in existence.  That was my early point that this isn't a real mmo. Not real as in having no paid staff that's keeping it running with timely updates.

 

People making these weekly repeated sweeping suggestions need to keep their expectations low.

 

They can make them, but they need to realize they won't occur. Glad you're at least realistic. 😀

 

EDIT: I won't touch the better comment. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Edited May 21, 2020 by golstat2003

[golstat2003]

56 minutes ago, Naraka said:

The post a proposition.  Or ask people in the thread, what IO bonuses/sets would entice you to not build for defense or recharge?

Damage would have to be VERY high for me to even consider it. So high that it's not even worth discussing.

[Infinitum]

6 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

"Balance as a whole" isn't realistic with the size of the team in existence.  That was my early point that this isn't a real mmo. Not real as in having no paid staff that's keeping it running with timely updates.

 

People making these weekly repeated sweeping suggestions need to keep their expectations low.

 

They can make them, but they need to realize they won't occur. Glad you're at least realistic. 😀

 

EDIT: I won't touch the better comment. We're all entitled to our opinions.

What baffles me is how often CoH is compared to how other MMOs funtion, no trinity "easier" paths etc

 

Which is probably true, i have no frame of reference on the matter cause all i have really ever played MMO wise is CoH.

 

Heres my take on that.

 

Its about super heroes right?

 

Frame it in the context of superman - he can curb stomp 99 percent of terrestrial bad guys and probably a good 70 % of extra terrestrial bad guys - likely more if he loses the boy scout demeanor.

 

Rarely does he stop a burglary or something like that and the poor sap carrying out the crime have the ability to face break Supes with his fist or weapon.

 

Now give that same bad guy some kryptonite and its a different ball game supes is going to get carpet burns getting drug around the museum.

 

 

Equate this to City of Heroes, most enemies are a cake walk because not all bad guys should be able to faceplant you. 

 

From a CoH AV perspective Some are equal level defense wise and its a stalemate unless you have team mates.

 

Some are stronger in numbers and have debuffs that can destroy you without help from teammates.

 

Some are flat out way above your level like Cole in Magisterium, Recluse in MLTF, Hamidon, Seed of Hamidon, etc  You need a team to do these usually.

 

It is a super hero game afterall - if it gets too hard, and everything dangerous and can take out any AT, build, or playstyle its not city of heroes anymore but city of can you please help me not die as i take on this scary machine gun wielding wanna be nazi instead. or just City of Nope at that point.

 

So basically CoH isnt like other MMOs and im kinda glad it isnt.  I dont play this to feel weak.

 

But on the same token, i dont step on other players just because they arent min maxed.  Im very sorry if thats happened out there.  Thats not how it should be and for the most part thats not how it is.

[Infinitum]

Ultimately all of the above is why i am advocating so hard for an elite mode, and new content of truly scary, Above incarnate bad guys - ive advocated for this for months actually - so we can stretch these builds out and have to use every build, AT, design option at our discretion to try to meet the new threats.

 

I think that more than anything would breathe fresh air into the game for new and old players alike.

[Haijinx]

6 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Heres my take on that.

 

Its about super heroes right?

 

Frame it in the context of superman - he can curb stomp 99 percent of terrestrial bad guys and probably a good 70 % of extra terrestrial bad guys - likely more if he loses the boy scout demeanor.

 

 

This idea is to the detriment of challenge though.  Hence if there was a hard mode it would be the first thing that would have to go.  No one gets to be Superman in a Superhero game that is difficult.  They are lucky if they get to be Hazardman . 

 

 

 

As to the trinity; this is really removed by the cool aspects of this game's Support and Control Set designs.  These are much more varied and versatile than most MMO games get.   The fact no one even needs Support or Control hardly at all anymore is part of the problem.  

 

 

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

This idea is to the detriment of challenge though.  Hence if there was a hard mode it would be the first thing that would have to go.  No one gets to be Superman in a Superhero game that is difficult.  They are lucky if they get to be Hazardman . 

But if its an option it wouldnt matter.  People wouldnt have to do it, but its there if they wanted to.  I dont see how this would be a bad thing?

 

7 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

As to the trinity; this is really removed by the cool aspects of this game's Support and Control Set designs.  These are much more varied and versatile than most MMO games get.   The fact no one even needs Support or Control hardly at all anymore is part of the problem.  

Thats completely not true, ever tried a lady gray without control?  and thats one example but i for one love debuffs and controls when i am tanking or leading a team with a AT i have set up to tank.

 

Nothing is needed anymore, doesnt have anything to do with support or control.  You can form a team of anything and roll with it.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Infinitum

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

But if its an option it wouldnt matter.  People wouldnt have to do it, but its there if they wanted to.  I dont see how this would be a bad thing?

 

Thats completely not true, ever tried a lady gray without control?  and thats one example but i for one love debuffs and controls when i am tanking or leading a team with a AT i have set up to tank.

 

Judging by how the options are used now.  Almost no one would chose them.  Therefore it would be a pointless waste of resources.  It would have to be mandatory to actually increase the game difficulty in any meaningful way.   Since this is so unpopular its basically Moot.  

 

You never really have to do Lady Gray though.  And its only that goofy Hami part where its really mandatory.  You can play almost all of the game's content without it being an issue.  Its not like some raid boss that drops some insane no-drop loot that you NEED but can only get from that TF.  So for almost all content you don't need any Support OR Control.  That's easy mode.  Just grab people at random and play.  Which is nice for making teams.  But if the content were challenging you'd need a little more planning than that.  

 

 

 

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

Judging by how the options are used now.  Almost no one would chose them.  Therefore it would be a pointless waste of resources.  It would have to be mandatory to actually increase the game difficulty in any meaningful way.   Since this is so unpopular its basically Moot.  

I dont think it is unpopular though, especially if elite mode had increased rewards or badges tied to it.

[Haijinx]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I dont think it is unpopular though, especially if elite mode had increased rewards or badges tied to it.

Badges are more a "do it once and get it over with" thing.  

 

I'm not sure what Rewards you would mean TBH.  Stuff you can't already get? There is no nodrop in this game.  And XP falls like water. 

 

By unpopular I was referring to the idea of making the main game harder, all the time.   Which if you ran the game without taking the player's opinions into consideration is what you would do.  The health of the actual game mechanics are poor.  Too many people spend too much time at the extremes for chance to hit, Defense, Resistance, DPS and so on.  

 

Basically I can run through entire Task Forces where I have a 95% chance to hit everything.  My ST DPS is 450+ probably.  Softcapped and Possessing Status Protection against everything I face.  I never need to stop to rest for Blue OR Green.   Before any Support at all.  Then throw in Everyone's leadership spam.  And my builds are hardly anything special.  A lot of people have better ones they post on here.      

 

 

[Major_Decoy]

3 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

THAT should've been in the game from day 1.  In fact, it should be applied to more challenging critters in general.  The current (nearly two decades old) design has trained players to focus fire on the Big Bad and rely on AoE splash to deal with the lieutenants and minions.  Giving other critters, like lieutenants, small stacking buffs and debuffs would really go a long way toward improving the challenge.  Having to deal with the lesser foes while holding off the boss/EB/AV, because those smaller threats are piling buffs on the Big Bad and debuffs on the team would be a good starting point.  And it fits within the archetype non-discrimination policy of Co*.  A tank/brute/mastermind/Kheld could pull the Big Bad away from the little guys, or a controller/defender/corruptor/dominator could lock down Big Bad or the little guys, or stalkers/blasters could murder the little guys quickly, etc.  Just running in and swinging at whatever is closest, or launching AoEs, would be less effective.  Increased challenge achieved, tactical teamwork encouraged.

 

Tailored buffs and debuffs for lieutenants, pseudo-pet powers without targeting mechanics, and there are plenty of unused powerset combinations to experiment with.  A bit of tweaking to some powers, too, so we could have some critters using things like Radiation Infection as a PBAoE instead of targeted AoE.  That would shake things up.

More importantly, bonuses that come from having a lot of enemies around at once can make the game harder without making it significantly harder for people playing at x1.