Are Player Defenses too high

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, macskull said:

This is the crux of the issue right here: there are already plenty of options out there for players to raise their own difficulty. I can use the difficulty options, I can run task forces and flashback arcs with things disabled, enemies buffed, players debuffed, things like that... but most players don't use those options because there are no extra rewards for the greater challenge. The existing options to make the game more difficult are rarely used and maybe, just maybe, it's because most players don't actually want the game to be harder. I'd much rather have the option exist to make the game harder if I want to than be forced to play a more difficult game. Oh, and if there were actual rewards other than lolbadges for running content at higher difficulty I'm sure we'd see those options utilized more often.

I think there exists a minority of players that want the game to be challenging even with bleeding edge IO builds.  

 

But its basically impossible to design the main game around this.  

 

But no real challenge setting affects top end IO builds without removing the enhancements.  

 

No Inspirations? PFFTs don't make me laugh.  On a top end build you forget they are even there half the time.  

 

[KelvinKole]

5 hours ago, Infinitum said:

If you are talking about ATO and Winter set bonuses it REQUIRES you to 5 or 6 slot them to attain.  And you can only use that particular bonus once.

 

You are talking at minimum of 180 million on purple winter sets if purchased outright in the AH, or 600 merits +6 enhancement catalysts.

 

Thats a sizeable investment in time and influence for just one bonus.  Its much more easy to pick a power than slot this, especially for newest players.

 

Now if you could slot more than one type of the same set I would agree with you, but you can't, they are unique.

 

Different vectors of attacks have different set trees though so that isnt unfair to duplicate at that point with another 180 mil or 600merit +6catalyst set.

Several atos offer the bonus at just three slots, which enables people to split the set and get it twice. Then, as you said, even though sets offering that 5% bonus are unique you can still receive the bonus from multiple types of sets. A 5% bonus shouldn't even exist, but if it does it should be a unique bonus, like a unique IO, staking it is just too much. 

 

Your point about the influence cost is noted. Significant though it is, we do gain influence just for playing the game. I don't see it as a limited resource like a power selection or enhancement slot. 

[Luminara]

10 minutes ago, Coyote said:

In the end, lowering the +Defense set bonuses would pretty much solve the issue, IMO... so some sets can cap Defenses on SOs? That's fine, they're balanced that way.

 

Okay, but what about the previous 49 levels?  What about the sets with no Defense or Resistance, being played with moderate set bonuses to provide just enough mitigation?  What about the ToHit and Damage debuffs that players at 50 are now using to compensate for the lack of buffs?  And what about all of the other sources of Defense buffs, like the Concealment pool, Hover, Combat Jumping, etc.?  You'll have to address those as well, because any reduction to Defense in set bonuses which doesn't equate to "nuke from orbit" will still be capable of accumulating to soft-cap levels when used in conjunction with those other sources.

 

Buff the level 50 and Incarnate content, either directly, with increased hit chances, or creatively, with a wider spread of powers used and more intelligent scripting.  Leave the rest of the game alone.

 

28 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Do you see ANY builds around that are considered very strong... because someone built up +Damage bonuses from IO sets? Absolutely not, because the IO set bonuses for Damage, compared to powers that give +Damage, are quite low. But when you look at IO set bonuses for +Defense, many of them are higher (albeit usually not to all attack types) than many actual Defense powers. If Defense (and Resist, but not as much) set bonuses were balanced around being comparatively as strong versus Acc,Dam, and Recharge set bonuses as Defense powers are, we wouldn't be seeing most of the problems.

 

The reason Damage buffs from IO sets are less valued is because of the way they're calculated.  All Damage buffs are additive.  Build Up, a damage SO, a 4% IO set bonus, it's all the same thing.  It all goes into the same pile.  Moreover, the cap for Damage is much higher than the caps for Defense or Resistance, the enhancements are on a different schedule (33% versus 20%), and by the time one can accumulate a 40% Damage bonus from IO sets, one is likely to have already slotted for Damage and potentially have extra Damage from other sources (Assault, Build Up or Aim, Rage, etc.), so that 40% is reduced in both value and real effectiveness (a 40% increase to base Damage is only a 20.4% net increase in damage output if you've slotted Damage to 96%).  And that's not taking into account the fact that some characters can cap their Damage without IO set bonuses.  Or that a single damage proc can provide a better increase in output than IO set Damage bonuses.

 

Defense set bonuses could, theoretically, do with a minor reduction, as they do exhibit a greater return on investment than practically any other bonus, but realistically, it wouldn't make any difference because there are too many other Defense buff sources available.  You would have to gut IO set bonuses, or reduce Defense in every non-primary/secondary source simultaneously (GDN 2.0).  Alternatively, redefine all of them as typed Defense, removing position, so they're of much more limited utility, in concert with some rejiggering of critter attack types.  That could work, without much disruption in the rest of the game, but it would be a hard sell.

[Luminara]

September 5, 2017, I packed or disposed of the last of my possessions and moved into a tent.  I lived in that tent for three months, while I built my cabin.  I chose to do this.  I spent ten years planning for it, saving to purchase the land and building materials.  I knew my life would be more difficult, less comfortable, and require more physical effort than living in a house in a large metropolitan area, but I made the choice and stuck by it.

 

In the same vein, players make choices about their builds, and many choose to accumulate appreciable Defense totals.  Some difficulty is good.  It gives people a sense of accomplishment when they prevail, or a goal to pursue if they have to try again.  But, in truth, most people prefer the easy path.  Why?  Because they don't want their game experience to be comparable to living in an unchinked, unplumbed 12'x16' cabin without 120v electricity.  They don't want to struggle.  They don't want to have to try again.

 

Some people want the game to be more difficult.  I understand that.  But that's a choice each person can make, and it shouldn't be an imposition on everyone else.  You can challenge yourselves without forcing others to go through the same ordeals.  Play "weak" powersets.  Try less than ideal builds.  Skip key IOs.  Run Oro content with challenge settings.

 

Build your cabin and live in it, without insisting that everyone else has to do it, too.

[Yomo Kimyata]

Defense is a strange and surprisingly easy mechanism.  You can be a controller that is soft-capped and you can be a tanker that is soft-capped, and your enemies have the exact same chance to hit you.  That doesn't sit right with me.  At least damage resistance has caps based on AT.

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

September 5, 2017, I packed or disposed of the last of my possessions and moved into a tent.  I lived in that tent for three months, while I built my cabin.  I chose to do this.  I spent ten years planning for it, saving to purchase the land and building materials.  I knew my life would be more difficult, less comfortable, and require more physical effort than living in a house in a large metropolitan area, but I made the choice and stuck by it.

 

In the same vein, players make choices about their builds, and many choose to accumulate appreciable Defense totals.  Some difficulty is good.  It gives people a sense of accomplishment when they prevail, or a goal to pursue if they have to try again.  But, in truth, most people prefer the easy path.  Why?  Because they don't want their game experience to be comparable to living in an unchinked, unplumbed 12'x16' cabin without 120v electricity.  They don't want to struggle.  They don't want to have to try again.

 

Some people want the game to be more difficult.  I understand that.  But that's a choice each person can make, and it shouldn't be an imposition on everyone else.  You can challenge yourselves without forcing others to go through the same ordeals.  Play "weak" powersets.  Try less than ideal builds.  Skip key IOs.  Run Oro content with challenge settings.

 

Build your cabin and live in it, without insisting that everyone else has to do it, too.

I would also add some folks may enjoy VISITING said cabin, or roughing it for a week.  But not for 50 weeks of the year.

If I saw someone putting together some challenge run teams, I'd at least consider it.  Would I make a regular ongoing commitment to it?  No.  Would I join for a week or two?  ya, probably. 

[Naraka]

Polls rarely have enough options or explanations needed for every answer.

 

My personal response to the question would be, for the given purposes of IO defense/resist bonuses, I don't think they are particularly too high.  The problem comes when you're trying to balance content and rewards however those two factors are thrown completely out the window here.

 

The purpose of the set bonuses are for bolstering up a character to near unstoppable magnitudes and that's possible with IO set bonuses and incarnate powers.  That's supposed to be the ending point where you're established and powerful in the realm of super heroics/villainy.  Tasks for such characters are cake walks and that's the goal.  Getting there should take a bit but that's not the focus of my response.  As you bolster your characters and make the tasks easier for your build, the return on rewards for the content you complete should be severely stunted.  Getting more inf and recipes and incarnate salvage should have been on a sliding scale so that the higher you get on the scale, the harder it is to advance.  The more set bonuses you obtain, the less frequent rare recipes/salvage is.

 

One might ask what would be the purpose of advancing a character to that point and that purpose is plain as day: to feel powerful.  That's it.

 

To incentivize harder settings and limitations is to improve rewards.  To get really rare drops should have required very difficult settings and made easier by teaming but it would still allow players to create an omega-powerful being capable of plowing through stuff solo.  So all the farming should have been nipped in the bud.  But on the other hand, if they made really tough to get badges that needed top-tier builds and lots of trial and error, that would be the incentive for the opposite spectrum of using said builds to tackle standard challenges that obviously wouldn't be feasible if you're also trying to get good drops by limiting IO bonuses/incarnates/debuffing yourselves/buffing foes, etc.

 

But right now, we have a completely broken system where the reward for challenging yourself is the challenge itself therefore no one ever bothers and setting up their alts with farm bolstered builds to trivialize most content and settings.

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

Okay, but what about the previous 49 levels?  What about the sets with no Defense or Resistance, being played with moderate set bonuses to provide just enough mitigation?  What about the ToHit and Damage debuffs that players at 50 are now using to compensate for the lack of buffs?  And what about all of the other sources of Defense buffs, like the Concealment pool, Hover, Combat Jumping, etc.?  You'll have to address those as well, because any reduction to Defense in set bonuses which doesn't equate to "nuke from orbit" will still be capable of accumulating to soft-cap levels when used in conjunction with those other sources.

 

You don't lose too much by lowering set bonuses for the first 30 levels or so... it's hard to achieve significant Defense values from set bonuses by then, due to having fewer slots and most bonuses coming in the 5 and 6 slots. So it's not really 49 levels that are affected.

 

I don't know that non-set sources of Defense need to be nuked. As I said, sets that can reach good Defense values usually do so because that's their trick. The problem is when Bio Armor which isn't a great +Defense set, caps Defenses. Or a Dominator or Blaster, who don't have any Defense powers from their primary/secondary... can also cap. And these aren't happening without the large set bonuses. You might be able to squeeze out a capped Defense build if set and IO defense values were halved, but it would be a really tight build, and sacrifice a lot for it.

 

And I'd probably say that's fine. I don't think that Defense in general needs to be crippled, or that Defense powers from Primary or Secondary sets are overpowered. The pool powers are already very weak... usually under 3%, whereas you can get 3.75% Ranged Defense from several sources, and 5% from some sets. I don't really think that pool powers are the problem when they're weaker than set bonuses (granted, they affect more attack types)... nerf the set bonuses to about half, and it's possible that the problem is solved enough. You'll still have builds with capped defenses, but they'll really have to sacrifice in other ways.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, KelvinKole said:

Several atos offer the bonus at just three slots, which enables people to split the set and get it twice. Then, as you said, even though sets offering that 5% bonus are unique you can still receive the bonus from multiple types of sets. A 5% bonus shouldn't even exist, but if it does it should be a unique bonus, like a unique IO, staking it is just too much. 

 

Your point about the influence cost is noted. Significant though it is, we do gain influence just for playing the game. I don't see it as a limited resource like a power selection or enhancement slot. 

Shouldnt exist? Thats your opinion, and not really based on anything but your preference.  It only exists at lvl 50+ its not like you can attain it from level 1-50 because it has to be catalyzed to Superior to even get that high.  And again at that point you are still investing time to level up to 50, influence of either 180 million and still 600 merits +6 catalysts to get the 10 % that you can only use post 50.

 

Scrappers and Brutes?  yeah why on earth would you want to gimp the set and miss out on the full bonus just for another 5%, thats insane in my opinion so again, yeah there is a cost to do that, and if someone wanted to do that it isnt free by any standard.

 

Superior Avalanche

15% Slow Res

6% Fire/Cold Res 10% Mez Res

4% Recovery

5% Melee Def 2.5% Lethal/Smash Def

5% Fire/Cold Def 2.5% AoE Def

 

 

 

Superior Blistering Cold

15% Slow Res

4% Recovery

6% Fire/Cold Res 10% Mez Res

5% Lethal/Smash Def 2.5% Melee Def

5% Fire/Cold Def 2.5% AoE Def

 

Superior Winter's Bite

6% Fire/Cold Res 10% Mez Res

15% Slow Res

4% Recovery

5% Pos/Neg Def 2.5% Ranged Def

5% Fire/Cold Def 2.5% AoE Def

 

Superior Frozen Blast

15% Slow Res

6% Fire/Cold Res 10% Mez Res

4% Recovery

5% AoE Def 2.5% Fire/Cold Def

5% Fire/Cold Def 2.5% AoE Def

 

Superior Brute's Fury

3% Health

5% Smash/Lethal Def 2.5% Melee Def

4% Damage

10% Recharge Time

6% Smash/Lethal Res 10 Mez Res

 

Superior Unrelenting Fury

4% Damage

16% Regeneration

4% Recovery

5% Melee Def 2.5% Smash/Lethal Def

6% Smash/Lethal/Pos/Neg/Fire/Cold Res 30% Mez Res

 

 

Superior Critical Strikes

4% Recovery

15% Accuracy

5% AoE Def 2.5% Fire/Cold Def

4% Damage

10% Recharge Time

 

Superior Scrapper's Strike

3% Health

5% Smash/Lethal Def 2.5% Melee Def

4% Damage

10% Recharge Time

6% Smash/Lethal Res 10% Mez Res

 

 

I didnt post them all just a small variety, but as you can see theres not enough overlap to be critical of them being overused or not unique. 

 

At most you can have both ATO sets and Maybe 3 WInter sets if you are shrewd on your slotting and power selection, but usually on my builds I have 2 ATOs and 2 Winters and thats hardly abusing 4 5% bonuses, not to mention the ones that matter most are the vectored defense bonuses and some of them are only 2.5 % which in my opinion if you look at it objectively is pretty good design because giving a larger bonus to typed vs vectored isnt overpowering any one type.

 

The only types that are consistent across all winter sets are fire and cold defense at 5%, which big whoop cold is the least common damage type in the game, and fire so what, unless you are demon or fire farming.

 

again, you cant use any of these until level 50+ anyway and they cost a small fortune to slot out like this even just for 2 winters and 2 ATO sets thats pushing a 300 mil build to 800 million at least.

[Infinitum]

51 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Defense is a strange and surprisingly easy mechanism.  You can be a controller that is soft-capped and you can be a tanker that is soft-capped, and your enemies have the exact same chance to hit you.  That doesn't sit right with me.  At least damage resistance has caps based on AT.

Yeah not completely the same though, if its a defense based tank or even a hybrid like shield, that troller will not hold up mob for mob like the tank will due to the tank having DDR more HP, regen, resistance, etc.

 

Its just not the same.  Controller has to work to survive and can do it well where the tank can just sit there and do nothing.  A controller can just sit in the middle of a mob of Incarnate level enemies and just survive without spamming and layering its controls - eventually the enemy will break through where on the tank it probably never would if the tank is built like a tank should be built.

[TinyBolt]

I think part of the problem with this particular discussion is it's encompassing two very different styles of game play. I'm not a min-max'er, I don't IO out most of my characters. I find most endgame content dull as dirt. I'm an okay player who occasionally runs with a whole bunch of munchkins. I don't mind that their characters can wipe the floor with my corpse since I can't keep up with them. I enjoy the journey from 1-50 so that's where my focus is--working on the part of the game I enjoy.

 

I'd never want to nerf the munchkins who enjoy figuring out how to eke out those last percentage points to finish whatever build they dreamt up. That's what they think is fun. We can still play missions together. If it's +4/x8 I just provide occasional vengebait, is all. If you play the game "as intended" (basic IOs or SOs, mission arcs, etc), it's still plenty challenging. The defense and resistance caps aren't the problem. The content and lack of variety in content could use some polish, though.

[ZeeHero]

Nerfing almost anything in a game with awful combat mechanics and no way to fix that is a moronic idea.

 

COH is not the game for those of you who want to be truly challenged. Go play something else COH will never satisfy that.

 

COH is for the creative people who want to relax and RP. Go home tryhards, or find another game to get that challenge. I can even reccomend a couple.

[Luminara]

5 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

You don't lose too much by lowering set bonuses for the first 30 levels or so... it's hard to achieve significant Defense values from set bonuses by then, due to having fewer slots and most bonuses coming in the 5 and 6 slots. So it's not really 49 levels that are affected.

 

I don't know that non-set sources of Defense need to be nuked. As I said, sets that can reach good Defense values usually do so because that's their trick. The problem is when Bio Armor which isn't a great +Defense set, caps Defenses. Or a Dominator or Blaster, who don't have any Defense powers from their primary/secondary... can also cap. And these aren't happening without the large set bonuses. You might be able to squeeze out a capped Defense build if set and IO defense values were halved, but it would be a really tight build, and sacrifice a lot for it.

 

And I'd probably say that's fine. I don't think that Defense in general needs to be crippled, or that Defense powers from Primary or Secondary sets are overpowered. The pool powers are already very weak... usually under 3%, whereas you can get 3.75% Ranged Defense from several sources, and 5% from some sets. I don't really think that pool powers are the problem when they're weaker than set bonuses (granted, they affect more attack types)... nerf the set bonuses to about half, and it's possible that the problem is solved enough. You'll still have builds with capped defenses, but they'll really have to sacrifice in other ways.

 

And still, there are key points which aren't addressed in this proposal.

 

For instance, only a few of the Defense bonuses in sets are Defense (All), and those are unique.  They can be obtained once, and they're small.  All of the rest are Defense (Type) or Defense (Position).  Consequently, the high Defense some players can accumulate is, ultimately, situational.  Soft-capped Defense for two positions or types can, with some juggling, be achieved, but that still leaves numerous gaps.  You're slashing Defense bonuses wholesale, at all levels, for the sake of preventing a blaster from soft-capping Ranged Defense, or a Dominator's soft-capped Smashing/Lethal Defense, at level 50.  

 

And to attain those high Defense totals, the player has already sacrificed in potentially critical areas.  That was one of the original design parameters of IO set bonuses, you could select what you wanted to improve your character, rather than follow a predefined path, but it meant giving up other options.  You can't build for massive global Recharge and soft-capped Defense.  You can't have 200% Recovery and soft-capped Defense.  You can't do a lot with set bonuses without giving up other set bonuses.  Pursuit of specific set bonuses to achieve maximal potential also means you have to sacrifice efficient slotting, too.  Your powers aren't going to have the best slotted attributes.  You have to decide what's best for you, high Defense versus optimal slotting versus Recharge bonuses versus etc.

 

Plus, when you've finished reducing all Defense bonuses, you haven't actually prevented most of the players from soft-capping, you've just forced them to change their approach.  They'll change their set mules, they'll drop a couple of infrequently used powers to add mules, they'll switch to Defense-based or ToHit debuff-based powersets, they'll pick up those more expensive IOs they previously skipped, they'll squeeze in more pool powers which offer Defense (All), they'll keep rolling along... except, now, they're soft-capping to more positions and types, exacerbating the issue.

 

The "nerf everything" approach has been tried, numerous times, and it's never been effective.  Haven't we learned anything from the original development team's mistakes?  Is it really wise to do to IO set bonuses what was done to Trick Arrows, for the same basic reason (too good in extreme outlier situations), when more elegant and appropriate solutions can and should be applied?  How many times are we going to go down this road?

 

The problem lies in the content, not in the approach to playing it.  Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, ZeeHero said:

Nerfing almost anything in a game with awful combat mechanics and no way to fix that is a moronic idea.

 

COH is not the game for those of you who want to be truly challenged. Go play something else COH will never satisfy that.

 

COH is for the creative people who want to relax and RP. Go home tryhards, or find another game to get that challenge. I can even reccomend a couple.

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

 

Sort of like the concept behind Siege Perilous in UO.  Or the Requiem mod in Skyrim.  Or Frost in Fallout 4. 

 

This lets almost everyone have their normal COH, but the tryhards you mention can have the other experience.

 

Ideally you could also eventually add in some story type changes to make everything darker, bleaker, etc.

 

[cranebump]

There are options to make things harder. For example, when running a TF you could select enemies being buffed, then set to +4/x8.  Or a player could opt not to slot everything with set bonuses and IO’s. One can challenge oneself, in other words. I’m doing that by playing “grinder mode.” No P2W, SO enhances only, and so on. The game has a decent default diff mode. Custom enemies in AE can add challenges, if you’re looking for something besides a farm with a maxed out toon. Repeating what others have said, but there are options players can take that don’t require messing with the game itself. And you never know when you can hit a wall. Everything is going great, then, all of a sudden, team wipe, due to various factors. A bit of that is a good reminder. A lot of it leads to player frustration.

Edited May 17, 2020 by cranebump

[Hardboiled Hero]

6 hours ago, TinyBolt said:

I think part of the problem with this particular discussion is it's encompassing two very different styles of game play. I'm not a min-max'er, I don't IO out most of my characters. I find most endgame content dull as dirt. I'm an okay player who occasionally runs with a whole bunch of munchkins. I don't mind that their characters can wipe the floor with my corpse since I can't keep up with them. I enjoy the journey from 1-50 so that's where my focus is--working on the part of the game I enjoy.

 

I'd never want to nerf the munchkins who enjoy figuring out how to eke out those last percentage points to finish whatever build they dreamt up. That's what they think is fun. We can still play missions together. If it's +4/x8 I just provide occasional vengebait, is all. If you play the game "as intended" (basic IOs or SOs, mission arcs, etc), it's still plenty challenging. The defense and resistance caps aren't the problem. The content and lack of variety in content could use some polish, though.

  First I'd like to thank everyone for all of the great responses so far. I'm loving them. please keep them coming.

 

  On the first point, I consider having different points of view.. not just on the "yes or no axis", but also from the perspective of different playstyles to be more of a "feature" than a problem. I think it's important to get as many different perspectives as possible.  After all, any potential change would effect everyone.. for that matter, the lack of change would effect everyone as well.

 

  I also want to say that the difficulty of the game isn't really my primary concern..  it's certainly something that shouldn't be ignored and I know it's important to many different players of various types.  Primarily though,  I'm looking at possibly making some AT's and powersets "more fun".. like my example with the Force Field defender..  part of the fun, for me at least. is helping my team. If my team doesn't need defense, my bubbler isn't fun.  Of course there might be other ways to "fix" this, by making it so that Force Fields are more versatile or something, but this doesn't only seem to be a problem for the FF powerset.  Pain domination is another support power that just seems not to be of much use.. or.. for that matter, the entire Sentinel AT.  Who cares if you have an AT that can possibly tank mobs that break off for the squishies, when nobody in the game is really "squishy"?

 

  So that's really where I'm coming from.. to me it's not so much a question of how difficult the game is, but rather it's a matter of trying assist supportive playstyles/concepts.

 

Really though, I also think the question is very different depending on whether the character is in a group or not.  A dominator in a group probably won't die as much as a dominator on their own, assuming they're trying to move at generally the same speed.

 

  

Edited May 17, 2020 by Hardboiled Hero

[Galaxy Brain]

6 hours ago, ZeeHero said:

Nerfing almost anything in a game with awful combat mechanics and no way to fix that is a moronic idea.

 

COH is not the game for those of you who want to be truly challenged. Go play something else COH will never satisfy that.

 

COH is for the creative people who want to relax and RP. Go home tryhards, or find another game to get that challenge. I can even reccomend a couple.

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. 

[Crysis]

Until I see zones like DA and Night Ward so full of teams that they spawn a second instance, and Arachnos, Longbow, Rularuu and Carnie AE farming the norm, I’d say the overwhelming majority of players do NOT want additional challenge in this game.

 

Additional challenge exists aplenty in this game for those that want it.  Almost nobody does.  So using this as a means of trying to minimize every other AT just to make a bubbler or “pure healer” feel loved and needed is an asinine argument.  

Edited May 17, 2020 by Crysis

[Troo]

3 hours ago, Hardboiled Hero said:

I'm looking at possibly making some AT's and powersets "more fun".. like my example with the Force Field defender..

Well that's different than "Are Player Defenses too high".

 

A small adjustment or two likely might help.

I prefer ideas adding an effect to the existing powers, at the appropriate levels, recycling existing in game mechanics, while being mindful of power creep.

 

Tweak Examples:

• Deflection Shield - How much Toxic damage do teams encounter at higher levels? Maybe adding Psi makes them more relevant late game.
• Force Bubble - A slow effect or something for targets able to penetrate might help. Or simply some -def or -res.

Power Creep examples:

• The dream for Force Fields would be damage from knockback distance
• Incarnates adding damage to Force Bubble or Repulsion Field
• Detention field being able to slot Hold procs

 

Lastly, let's acknowledge, many of Force Fields powers are simply contrary to current popular in game tactics.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Troo

[Zergor]

The questions are worded pretty subjectively. 

I voted 1. however defenses are fine, if you properly slot your character and care about defenses. You have to pay attention and care about it. As most of the players are veterans who played before, they care, and slot their characters to have defenses.  There is content that I can roll, there is content that I get destroyed on. It varies greatly. All of my characters have a weakness like any good super hero/villian.

 

[Shred Monkey]

I don't want to see nerfs to players or buffs to current enemies, but I do think we have a problem of power creep on the survivability side.  I think the solution is to make new enemies instead.  Ones that make the game harder but are optional for those who don't want the game to change.   

 

My suggestion is create elite bosses for endgame enemy groups that spawn in missions set for levels 53+.  Give them powers and stats that cause them to be difficult enough that you can't ignore them and just steamroll over them like every other enemy.  Added accuracy or defense debuff powers can be among the tools some of them possess... along with energy drains, heals, accuracy debuffs, etc.... anything that gives us a reason to control them and take them out of a fight ASAP.  Added HP like an elite boss so the fight has some duration to it, but not giant bags oh HP like AVs.

 

 

[Seed22]

11 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Defense is a strange and surprisingly easy mechanism.  You can be a controller that is soft-capped and you can be a tanker that is soft-capped, and your enemies have the exact same chance to hit you.  That doesn't sit right with me.  At least damage resistance has caps based on AT.

It should. This is CoH not CO or WoW. You can truly build anything to be well...anything.

[Seed22]

57 minutes 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. 

Revamp it. I shouldn't be punished to make a certain set feel better. Make it keep up with the times through a revamp. Cold does the same thing with +Def but it still has uses through Sleet, Benumb, Heat Loss. Give FF the Cold treatment ish or make it +absorb heavy and boom it's got a niche and no builds need nerfing 😄

[Crysis]

Just now, Shred Monkey said:

I don't want to see nerfs to players or buffs to current enemies, but I do think we have a problem of power creep on the survivability side.  I think the solution is to make new enemies instead.  Ones that make the game harder but are optional for those who don't want the game to change.   

See my comment above.

 

Rularuu, Carnies, the entire Night Ward and DA Zones.  Redside has some tough foes as well, although that entire side of the game is devoid of more than a handful of players most of the time.  But the game is filled to the brim with tougher critters.  Almost ENTIRELY devoid of organized, active teams.  Adding more "tough foes" to this game will NOT matter.  People will gravitate to the easier-to-feel-super/heroic/powerful missions and foes because that is the total essence of this game.  You wanna feel like you can take on +4/x8....and you CAN with the right teams or even the right solo builds.  But there are very, very few who go out and solo the Miss Liberty TF.  It's entirely do-able, but takes some dedicated effort, strong builds and the right strategies and tactics.  But almost nobody wants that.  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.

 

 

[Replacement]

2 things I've been considering for quite some time, that I'm unsure of the overall impact of:

 

A) Enemy base hit chance is 50% but player base hit chance is 75%. It seems like if enemy base was set to 60% (or some other number)...

• Survival would go down a linear amount. Can always universally increase HP or something to compensate.
• Builds at 45% defense would still get the same absolute gain in survival (relative to new-normal), but the soft cap itself would go up. This would incidentally increase viability of a lot of stuff, like having a defense-based tank in a party with a defense-based Support.

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.