Are Player Defenses too high

[Coyote]

9 hours ago, Crysis said:

And please accept my apologies if I've offended you.

 

No worries. I thought the argument itself that I spoke against was a fallacy, but I never took it personally, and you rephrased it much better and I respect that you took the trouble to clarify it and to offer politeness.

 

Also, I know I didn't explain my point of view well... you see, I think that Defense bonuses should be lowered... but I am not really sure if actually doing it is the right thing. You see, I've been a game designer, even a very similar situation to this one: main admin for a UO shard. And I've seen how changes that are demonstrably better and more balanced, don't necessarily make the game better, because players are frustrated when too many things are changed. So I'm arguing for what would be a better system, but not necessarily that it SHOULD be implemented if the net gain is a 10% increase in balance... and 30% increase in player frustration. And that kind of discussion can't really be made theoretically.

 

There is a big difference between saying "defense is too high", and "change the game too much and frustrate everyone with all the changes and respecs that they have to done". One is theoretical, and one is practical, and if we were ever at a situation where this discussion was more than theoretical, I would be a lot less decisive in saying "Yeah, let's do it!". This started off as a theoretical "is defense too high" discussion, and that's how I'm treating it. It's nowhere near realistic, so I don't really have to worry too much about player opinion. Just about numbers and game balance. It's a lot simpler scenario in which to offer my opinion.

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

I'm not pushing you to anything, I'm just waiting and watching you right now.

 

So do you need me to stop replying to stop your rant?

 

Consider it done.

Lol why did you add that passive aggressive retort after the fact?  I was fine with you just leaving with the question and then pretending to be the bigger man.  I guess you have to keep appearances on the forums?

Edited May 19, 2020 by Naraka

[Primantis]

7 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think part of the issue (echoed again in the consolidated difficulty thread) is that there is no benefit to going after carnies over council.

 

Defeating 100 carnies is as valuable as defeating 100 council, which is as valuable as defeating 100 Lamplighters in  Night Ward, which is as valuable as defeating 100 IDF enemies, etc. Often times when given the option, people will definitely opt for the easier path if theres no reason not to. Combine that with how it is relatively easy to negate HUGE amounts of incoming threat with S/L defense and you have an environment where most "PUG" style encounters will opt for the easy route.

 

 

 

 

 

This is very true. The game offers little incentive (other than the desire for a challenge) to pursue the harder options. IIRC certain factions do get minor XP adjustments. Rikti give a small bonus I'm pretty sure, but they are one of the easier factions oddly enough. But XP is so bountiful now that no one really cares.

People like reward to go with their risk.

 

 

[Naraka]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

No worries. I thought the argument itself that I spoke against was a fallacy, but I never took it personally, and you rephrased it much better and I respect that you took the trouble to clarify it and to offer politeness.

 

Also, I know I didn't explain my point of view well... you see, I think that Defense bonuses should be lowered... but I am not really sure if actually doing it is the right thing. You see, I've been a game designer, even a very similar situation to this one: main admin for a UO shard. And I've seen how changes that are demonstrably better and more balanced, don't necessarily make the game better, because players are frustrated when too many things are changed. So I'm arguing for what would be a better system, but not necessarily that it SHOULD be implemented if the net gain is a 10% increase in balance... and 30% increase in player frustration. And that kind of discussion can't really be made theoretically.

 

There is a big difference between saying "defense is too high", and "change the game too much and frustrate everyone with all the changes and respecs that they have to done". One is theoretical, and one is practical, and if we were ever at a situation where this discussion was more than theoretical, I would be a lot less decisive in saying "Yeah, let's do it!". This started off as a theoretical "is defense too high" discussion, and that's how I'm treating it. It's nowhere near realistic, so I don't really have to worry too much about player opinion. Just about numbers and game balance. It's a lot simpler scenario in which to offer my opinion.

It's good to see other people in the chat that have a bit more perspective.  Not meaning that others lack perspective, but in the grand scheme of things, this is merely a discussion that's asking some questions, not a operation order to be enacted once the order is issued and the mission brief taken place.

 

scrolling back to @Luminara's points about being able to soft cap with certain builds, I feel that aspects of the game like a character with SR or a Dark Miasma or Dark Affinity, being able to 'not get hit' is a feature of that set/power combination and are wholly different from combinations that might be able to amass some def with pools/IO sets.  Maybe the message I'm trying to convey is suffering some noise in transmission but I personally don't think being able to cap your def with IOs is a particular problem (it has a purpose for character concepts), it's just how much of the content can be done with such a build and/or incentives actually push players to attain this standard which creates a cycle that ultimately marginalizes content, mechanics and certain builds.

[Galaxy Brain]

2 hours ago, Primantis said:

But XP is so bountiful now that no one really cares.

You know, this is another point. It's so easy to speed through the game anyways that it further incentivizes taking the fast lane 😕

[Infinitum]

Just to add more perspective, we ran Lady Gray tonight with 6 trollers, 1 scrapper and 1 defender.

 

it was probably the easiest Task force we have ever ran, and it wasnt because of defense soft cap, you could have had -1 defense and done the same thing because the enemies were either held, drained, debuffed, or flat out dead in a few seconds flat.

 

There is lots of ways to view power as trivializing other types, but thats not really what is happening there, its really just the game functioning as intended.

 

Why did we pick this team make up?  just because.  and thats what makes this game awesome.  you can literally roll any combination and make it work.  That by definition goes against exclusivity.

 

Why would you want it any other way?

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Naraka said:

Lol why did you add that passive aggressive retort after the fact?  I was fine with you just leaving with the question and then pretending to be the bigger man.  I guess you have to keep appearances on the forums?

Im really not seeing what you are seeing.  Im sorry that you are  lol

 

But... I am glad to see you didn't have a stroke or something, are you feeling better?  good  🙂

 

hope you have a blessed night partner.

[Naraka]

42 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Im really not seeing what you are seeing.  Im sorry that you are  lol

You edited your post and added "I'm not pushing you to anything, I'm just waiting and watching you right now. "  It didn't say that initially.

 

Or are you going to try to lie now?

[Naraka]

52 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

You know, this is another point. It's so easy to speed through the game anyways that it further incentivizes taking the fast lane 😕

Wasn't that always the case though?  I mean, besides the double XP on command, we still had PL runs through AE.

 

I do use double XP sometimes when solo as it helps me pace my xp (if I'm going too fast through arcs on in some groups, I will disable the XP) but I was always under the perspective that XP was always rather bountiful.

[Parabola]

6 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

No worries. I thought the argument itself that I spoke against was a fallacy, but I never took it personally, and you rephrased it much better and I respect that you took the trouble to clarify it and to offer politeness.

 

Also, I know I didn't explain my point of view well... you see, I think that Defense bonuses should be lowered... but I am not really sure if actually doing it is the right thing. You see, I've been a game designer, even a very similar situation to this one: main admin for a UO shard. And I've seen how changes that are demonstrably better and more balanced, don't necessarily make the game better, because players are frustrated when too many things are changed. So I'm arguing for what would be a better system, but not necessarily that it SHOULD be implemented if the net gain is a 10% increase in balance... and 30% increase in player frustration. And that kind of discussion can't really be made theoretically.

 

There is a big difference between saying "defense is too high", and "change the game too much and frustrate everyone with all the changes and respecs that they have to done". One is theoretical, and one is practical, and if we were ever at a situation where this discussion was more than theoretical, I would be a lot less decisive in saying "Yeah, let's do it!". This started off as a theoretical "is defense too high" discussion, and that's how I'm treating it. It's nowhere near realistic, so I don't really have to worry too much about player opinion. Just about numbers and game balance. It's a lot simpler scenario in which to offer my opinion.

This is very well put. I come at these discussions from the point of view of what I think is right for the system rather than what people want every time. That's what I do in my day job, I look after a system and do sometimes have to make changes that annoy users but it's for the benefit of the system and they have to happen, people adjust.

 

I am firmly of the opinion that there are balance problems at the high end of the game. From the system point of view my instinct is that these should be adressed. However this is a game not an ERP system and so the decision making has indeed to be slightly different. It is for the devs to decide what if anything is to be done but it is perfectly right that we continue the discussion.

[Peacemoon]

3 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Im really not seeing what you are seeing.  Im sorry that you are  lol

 

But... I am glad to see you didn't have a stroke or something, are you feeling better?  good  🙂

 

hope you have a blessed night partner.

 

2 hours ago, Naraka said:

You edited your post and added "I'm not pushing you to anything, I'm just waiting and watching you right now. "  It didn't say that initially.

 

Or are you going to try to lie now?

Maybe time to let this one go guys? Neither of you are going to agree and it’s not worth all this negative energy and back and forth. It’s time to both draw a line under this and walk away. Yoy both love City of Heroes or you wouldn’t be here, so try to focus on that! 

[Heraclea]

2 hours ago, parabola said:

This is very well put. I come at these discussions from the point of view of what I think is right for the system rather than what people want every time. That's what I do in my day job, I look after a system and do sometimes have to make changes that annoy users but it's for the benefit of the system and they have to happen, people adjust.

 

I am firmly of the opinion that there are balance problems at the high end of the game. From the system point of view my instinct is that these should be adressed. However this is a game not an ERP system and so the decision making has indeed to be slightly different. It is for the devs to decide what if anything is to be done but it is perfectly right that we continue the discussion.

I don't want defenses to be nerfed for the same reason I don't want base raids to return.  I don't want strangers to tear down what I have invested time and effort in building.  All of this nerf herding has an impact, then and now, on my willingness to keep playing.  It's the reason why, for example, I have been reluctant to spend time, effort, or resources on the Titan Weapons scrapper.  It was worse in the old,  costs-money game.  Issues 5 and 6 made me lose interest for a long time.  Trying to play the characters, and seeing them less than what they were, is very depressing,

 

City of Heroes is a creative tool, not a 'system'.   Stop talking about wrecking what people have spent time and effort at building. 

[Infinitum]

5 hours ago, Naraka said:

You edited your post and added "I'm not pushing you to anything, I'm just waiting and watching you right now. "  It didn't say that initially.

 

Or are you going to try to lie now?

No, I did, because the truth is important.  And I wanted you to understand I'm not pushing you - because I missed the part where you said that first.

 

That would be something silly to lie about on a message board.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Infinitum

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Peacemoon said:

Neither of you are going to agree and it’s not worth all this negative energy and back and forth

My Shield Dark tank gets that a lot, but for some reason he can't escape all that negative energy either. 😉

 

Agree 100% though.

[Parabola]

8 minutes ago, Heraclea said:

I don't want defenses to be nerfed for the same reason I don't want base raids to return.  I don't want strangers to tear down what I have invested time and effort in building.  All of this nerf herding has an impact, then and now, on my willingness to keep playing.  It's the reason why, for example, I have been reluctant to spend time, effort, or resources on the Titan Weapons scrapper.  It was worse in the old,  costs-money game.  Issues 5 and 6 made me lose interest for a long time.  Trying to play the characters, and seeing them less than what they were, is very depressing,

 

City of Heroes is a creative tool, not a 'system'.   Stop talking about wrecking what people have spent time and effort at building. 

I feel you missed the part where I said that there are indeed differences between how a game and business software should be handled. But also a couple of points:

 

You are advocating that we shut down discussion of ideas because you don't like them. That is dodgy ground and isn't healthy for the game or it's community.

 

Also this game is an MMO. Continuous development and change are part of the operating model. This is going to involve balance changes over time as understanding of previous changes and their impact on the wider system are better understood. Some of those changes are not going to be to your liking but that is what we sign up for playing this kind of game.

 

As for this game being a creative tool rather than a system, well it is of course both. If it was purely a creative tool it would just be the costume creator. But there is this game system that provides a context for our creations to interact with. That system is very complicated but built around the ability to progress and be challenged and enjoy working with each other to overcome those challenges.

 

You will note I didn't actually say anything specific about nerfing defences. I just alluded to balance problems that I beleive exist at the high end of the game. I've discussed these at length elsewhere and was deliberately being vague because I have recently been involved in one of these discussions and was feeling a bit burnt out.

 

However, I will just say for the record that, purely from a system point of view, and not calling for nerfs or the removal of anyone else's fun, it does seem odd that the defence softcap is the same for all AT's.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, parabola said:

I feel you missed the part where I said that there are indeed differences between how a game and business software should be handled. But also a couple of points:

 

You are advocating that we shut down discussion of ideas because you don't like them. That is dodgy ground and isn't healthy for the game or it's community.

 

Also this game is an MMO. Continuous development and change are part of the operating model. This is going to involve balance changes over time as understanding of previous changes and their impact on the wider system are better understood. Some of those changes are not going to be to your liking but that is what we sign up for playing this kind of game.

 

As for this game being a creative tool rather than a system, well it is of course both. If it was purely a creative tool it would just be the costume creator. But there is this game system that provides a context for our creations to interact with. That system is very complicated but built around the ability to progress and be challenged and enjoy working with each other to overcome those challenges.

 

You will note I didn't actually say anything specific about nerfing defences. I just alluded to balance problems that I beleive exist at the high end of the game. I've discussed these at length elsewhere and was deliberately being vague because I have recently been involved in one of these discussions and was feeling a bit burnt out.

 

However, I will just say for the record that, purely from a system point of view, and not calling for nerfs or the removal of anyone else's fun, it does seem odd that the defence softcap is the same for all AT's.

Except it's not an MMO. It's a free game that isn't really in continuous development.

I'd argue sweeping changes that affect many builds are NOT what we should be focused on. In fact I'd argue it's a waste of the limited resources this volunteer team has time to spend on. That's perfectly fine.

 

Trying to get perfect balance on a game that is over 10 years old, doesn't have a paid team, is a fools errand.

 

They have better time to focus their limited resources on.

 

And that's perfectly fine to say.

Edited May 19, 2020 by golstat2003

[Parabola]

2 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Except it's not an MMO. It's a free game that isn't really in continuous development.

I'd argue sweeping changes that affect many builds are NOT what we should be focused on. In fact I'd argue it's a waste of the limited resources this volunteer team has time to spend on. That's perfectly fine.

 

Trying to get perfect balance on a game that is over 10 years old, doesn't have a paid team, is a fools errand.

 

They have better time to focus their limited resources on.

 

And that's perfectly fine to say.

It's not a multiplayer online game? And it is in development, that is exactly what the homecoming team are doing. Granted they are working with limited resources but they have made their ambition to run the game 'as if live' clear.

 

This is important because in a multiplayer game everything we do impacts in some way other people. The most important part of this for me is teaming. I feel that teaming should be encouraged at all levels, not necessary, but encouraged. If certain dynamics are causing powersets or even entire AT's in some cases to not feel they are contributing at the highest level then those dynamics should be discussed. As I said before it is ultimately up to the devs to decide what they want to and are able to change.

 

Perfect balance is of course impossible in as complex a system as this. But that doesn't mean adjustments shouldn't be tried, or even discussed. Now, changing the to hit equation to allow different AT's to softcap at different defence values would indeed be a huge change and likely utterly impractical. That doesn't change the fact that the blanket 45% looks a little odd to me given AT's have different resistance caps.

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, parabola said:

That doesn't change the fact that the blanket 45% looks a little odd to me given AT's have different resistance caps.

Well thats because resistance is a set amount where as defense is based on an all or nothing chance.

 

You can still get mopped even if you are at the incarnate soft cap as a troller or squishy.

 

But a resistance based character has a wider curve to mitigate the incoming damage.

 

Thats why IMO theres nothing wrong with it as is, because if you play hard enough content - which does exist you will get floored eventually.

[Parabola]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Well thats because resistance is a set amount where as defense is based on an all or nothing chance.

 

You can still get mopped even if you are at the incarnate soft cap as a troller or squishy.

 

But a resistance based character has a wider curve to mitigate the incoming damage.

 

Thats why IMO theres nothing wrong with it as is, because if you play hard enough content - which does exist you will get floored eventually.

Well I don't know about you but I primarily build for defence not resistance on my squishies. With defence you have the added value of helping to avoid mez and debuff attached to attacks as well as being able to hit the softcap rather than an AT hardcap. On top of which with set bonuses laid out the way they are it is far easier to build for significant defence than resistance. Of course any suitably difficult content is going to kill you either way but I see an imbalance between defence and resistance even so.

 

Another thought I had which isn't going to be very popular is what if set bonuses were reworked to be affected by AT modifiers? So a tanker would get more out of a defence bonus but a blaster would get more out of a +damage bonus. Again not saying it should be so but just throwing it out there as a what if.

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, parabola said:

Well I don't know about you but I primarily build for defence not resistance on my squishies. With defence you have the added value of helping to avoid mez and debuff attached to attacks as well as being able to hit the softcap rather than an AT hardcap. On top of which with set bonuses laid out the way they are it is far easier to build for significant defence than resistance. Of course any suitably difficult content is going to kill you either way but I see an imbalance between defence and resistance even so.

 

Another thought I had which isn't going to be very popular is what if set bonuses were reworked to be affected by AT modifiers? So a tanker would get more out of a defence bonus but a blaster would get more out of a +damage bonus. Again not saying it should be so but just throwing it out there as a what if.

That first point is for a reason, resistances are far more reliable and predictable than defenses.

 

You are always rolling the dice with a pure defense build - especially one without DDR, so if resistance bonuses were higher you really would have a disparity of unkillable characters then that should not be.

 

As it is now - and is the reason why I'm not in favor of any negative changes to the set bonuses - you can still get floored even if you hit the soft cap and beyond.

 

Not if You are council stomping, or if you are stacking debuffs and damage with an all debuffer team.  Neither of those scenarios are applicable to defense though.

 

Now what I would love to see with set bonuses is new ones added to increase damage and other lesser avail features to give more options on builds.

[Doomguide2005]

My own overall impression is the Live devs were headed much more down the adjust things foe side not player side as a way to counter growing player strength.  They gave us foes who across the board who had their To Hit base buffed, which led to the I-cap.  They gave us foes who  spawned much more scattered (gold side), etc., etc.. Found it amusing to see arcs where the foes use Earth powers (defdebuff) and sonic attacks paired up (resistance debuffs).   I remember watching tanks and scrappers (rather brutes and others) a long time back getting shredded redside when they first encountered a new enemy ... wailers who debuffed the living %&$#@% out of their resistance based mitigation.   I'm guessing we have new foes with new 'stuff' coming our way ... not nerfs to player powers and abilities particularly across the board changes. 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Doomguide2005
Silly me using blueside AT's not the redside AT's

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

My own overall impression is the Live devs were headed much more down the adjust things foe side not player side as a way to counter growing player strength.  They gave us foes who across the board who had their To Hit base buffed, which led to the I-cap.  They gave us foes who  spawned much more scattered (gold side), etc., etc.. Found it amusing to see arcs where the foes use Earth powers (defdebuff) and sonic attacks paired up (resistance debuffs).   I remember watching tanks and scrappers a long time back getting shredded redside when they first encountered a new enemy ... wailers who debuffed the living %&$#@% out of their resistance based mitigation.   I'm guessing we had new foes with new 'stuff' coming our way ... not nerfs to player powers and abilities particularly across the board changes. 

That mission on the Maria jenkins arc where nightstar is in the resistance tunnels is very dicey even for maxed experienced tanks because of what you just described.  

 

You arent going to just wade into content like that with just anything solely because they are at the defense soft cap.

[Coyote]

13 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

I'm guessing we had new foes with new 'stuff' coming our way ... not nerfs to player powers and abilities particularly across the board changes. 

 

The problem is that many new factions ARE dangerous to soft-capped characters. Fight Awakened and you can die so fast you won't even know what happened. The Resistance have missions where every single mob has Targeting Drone (+18 ToHit... and I think maybe +Perception, too). They can shred defense-based characters.

 

But how do you balance older factions, then? Do we add Lts with Link Minds to the Carnies (probably not a bad idea)? I mean, IF the devs wanted to take this route, it would probably work as long as they are willing to go through almost all factions and balance them out. We cry about "underperforming sets", but I recall when Carnies were considered dangerous and got an XP boost to the rewards they gave out, because everyone avoided them. Now, with no +ToHit and no or almost no -Def attacks, they're considered easy meat. They, and everyone else probably starting in the 30s, would need a balance pass. And they deserve it, frankly... they're left further behind than Energy Melee.

[Infinitum]

9 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

The problem is that many new factions ARE dangerous to soft-capped characters. Fight Awakened and you can die so fast you won't even know what happened. The Resistance have missions where every single mob has Targeting Drone (+18 ToHit... and I think maybe +Perception, too). They can shred defense-based characters.

 

But how do you balance older factions, then? Do we add Lts with Link Minds to the Carnies (probably not a bad idea)? I mean, IF the devs wanted to take this route, it would probably work as long as they are willing to go through almost all factions and balance them out. We cry about "underperforming sets", but I recall when Carnies were considered dangerous and got an XP boost to the rewards they gave out, because everyone avoided them. Now, with no +ToHit and no or almost no -Def attacks, they're considered easy meat. They, and everyone else probably starting in the 30s, would need a balance pass. And they deserve it, frankly... they're left further behind than Energy Melee.

I dont think you do balance all factions, because this is primarily an endgame issue not a leveling issue.

 

I think you add more end game factions or similar enemies, and add an elite mode for the rest of the game so it can be opted into or out of and rewarded accordingly.

[Doomguide2005]

Well some of that is probably exactly what I said is coming ... arriving.  Remember your first encounters with Super Stunners?  Those were brand new critters,  introduced to a very old faction,  who had new powers.  So yes we might very well see new types of Council, Carnies, and others. Is this going to happen in one big change probably not, but it could happen as a series of changes over a series of issues over time.

 

Afterthought:  And again that's a foe change/buff not a player based response.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Doomguide2005
Afterthought