Are Player Defenses too high

[Infinitum]

26 minutes ago, Naraka said:

But I'm not ranting.  I'm just saying what you're doing while you tell me you're not doing it.

 

I mean...yeah, that is how your previous post ended until you edited it.

Adding something to my post?  Is that illegal?

[Infinitum]

29 minutes ago, Naraka said:

I'm just saying what you're doing while you tell me you're not doing it.

I created a new post so as to not offend you by editing the other one, what am I telling you im not doing again?

[Ukase]

I looked at the poll....none of the options represent my thoughts. 


 

• Defenses are fine as they are.. my characters die plenty!    ------ This isn't at all true for any of my alts, regardless of squish. 
• Defenses are too low.. My characters die too much! --- This certainly isn't true for ANY of my characters. Not even my dominator which is the worst AT I've ever played. (some of you love 'em - I either build them wrong, or the playstyle just doesn't suit me. I'm glad you love 'em. They're good for holds with perma-dom, but damage is weak. Could've just been the one I made, though) 
• Defenses are too high.. they should be nerfed  ---- With only a few exceptions, most of my characters are at about 35-40% s/l defense OR 35-40% ranged or melee defense, depending on the character's AT. That's not too high, nor should they be nerfed. 
• Defenses are too high.. enemy accuracy should be improved  - I don't agree with this. 
• Mobs are too easily killed/controlled/debuffed for defense to really matter  --- I see this on some teams - but that is the whole point - to crush the npcs. But I also see the opposite. 
  
  
  PUGs, or Pick-up groups (random folks who haven't likely teamed up together before) can be uber, or they can be stinky. There are some players who only use Common IOs, because they don't understand the invention system. Some aren't even aware that monitoring defense and other combat  attributes is even a thing we can do! 
  
  So, if you were to be king for a day, nerf our defense - then THOSE people who already don't have any defense to speak of ...they are really going to be hurting. 
  
  Why can't we just leave well enough alone. If we really want to make this game harder - we stop allowing converters to be tradeable or sellable, and reduce the reward merit to converter ratio from 1:3 to 10:1. 
  
  If I recall, 10-1 was how it was in live. 1 converter for 10 reward merits. That'll make you really think about flipping IOs for profit, that's for sure, especially since you'll have to do a lot more weekly tfs to get a lot fewer converters. Then - the uber builds won't be so easily gotten, and it would level the playing field for most. Of course, you do that, a lot of people would rage quit and play on another server, I suspect. 

So, again, leave well enough alone. 

[Coyote]

9 minutes ago, Ukase said:

So, if you were to be king for a day, nerf our defense - then THOSE people who already don't have any defense to speak of ...they are really going to be hurting. 

 

Isn't this a bit self-contradictory? THOSE people who already don't have any defense to speak of... they aren't going to be affected, because they have no defenses to nerf.

Now, when you give mobs a buff, THEN those people are going to be hurting. But if we say "lower the Defense set bonuses from IO sets", then those players who don't even understand the invention system and couldn't put together a IO set build if it would save their characters lives... aren't going to be affected in the slightest bit.

[Ukase]

2 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Isn't this a bit self-contradictory? THOSE people who already don't have any defense to speak of... they aren't going to be affected, because they have no defenses to nerf.

Now, when you give mobs a buff, THEN those people are going to be hurting. But if we say "lower the Defense set bonuses from IO sets", then those players who don't even understand the invention system and couldn't put together a IO set build if it would save their characters lives... aren't going to be affected in the slightest bit.

Yes, I suppose it could be, it would depend on how they played out the nerf. An across the board -10% defense nerf would leave some of the non-IO folks at -10%. 

If they go at it and only nerf those with IO sets..then that's herding people away from the invention system. If they make the soft cap the hard cap for defense...then a lot of the end game content simply won't be possible for very many groups. It's a messy can of worms that needs to stay in a sealed container. 

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

When, instead, you do what people LIKE TO SEE, which is add more mobs to weak factions... like someone with Link Minds to Carnies (and, boy, is that ever so fitting)... well, you achieve your goal in making things more challenging for top-end capped Defense builds. You also make things harder for weak builds. Granted, not by as much... mobs going from 5% to 15% chance to hit is a lot bigger change than going from 30 to 35%. But you're still affecting the low and mid-level builds also.

 

Don't add them directly.  Add them via the built-in difficulty scalar.  They don't appear at default, low end builds aren't forced to encounter them.  Increasing the difficulty manually or by joining a team of <insert minimum here> allows them to spawn.  Pushing the difficulty higher allows numerically more, or challenge-wise more difficult, critters to spawn.

 

This mechanic already exists and is in use.  Bosses are replaced with lieutenants at the lowest difficulty level.  Link the tougher critters to the same code.  No-one adversely affected, no-one more challenged than they choose to be.

[golstat2003]

5 hours ago, Infinitum said:

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.

Pretty much this.

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

This mechanic already exists and is in use.  Bosses are replaced with lieutenants at the lowest difficulty level.  Link the tougher critters to the same code.  No-one adversely affected, no-one more challenged than they choose to be.

 

IF it is possible to code it so that certain types of mobs spawn only at +1, or +2, or some other type of setting, it would work. I don't know if you code it, though, that Sappers are only at +1 or higher. But if it's possible, it would work... and would be an incentive to raise the difficulty, to see mobs that otherwise you wouldn't see.

[ForeverLaxx]

My only issue with the "just add more difficulty settings" is that whatever the new hardest setting is will become the baseline setting much like +4/x8 is currently. When I'm leveling I'm almost never at this setting because I tend to afk a lot and don't want to spend my whole session slowly moving through a single mission, but when I get put on a team for a TF/Trial or whatever I'm at the mercy of whatever the leaders' setting is. Since many of these TFs are being ran at the maximum settings with people who are using min/maxed builds, I tend to feel like I'm being dragged along as a weight since I don't even come close to that power level. My being there does nothing to help because by the time I get a single power off the next three spawns are already defeated.

 

I don't play this game to have my eyes glaze over for 45 minutes and come back to reality with a badge in my hand. This is why I almost exclusively solo. From the perspective of a soloist, the "just add more difficulty" is perfectly valid. For team content though, I'd rather *the team* trivialize the content than just two members of that team. At that point, it's just 2 people doing a Task Force while 6 others watch, and that's boring.

[Luminara]

14 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

IF it is possible to code it so that certain types of mobs spawn only at +1, or +2, or some other type of setting, it would work. I don't know if you code it, though, that Sappers are only at +1 or higher. But if it's possible, it would work... and would be an incentive to raise the difficulty, to see mobs that otherwise you wouldn't see.

 

As I said, the mechanic is already active and in use.  Bosses aren't lieutenants with hit point increases and one or two additional attacks which deal more damage, they're entirely distinct critters.  Nor does the difficulty mechanic require specific individual names to substitute lieutenants, it's based on generic categorization.  In the cases involving named bosses, lieutenant versions were specifically created in order for the difficulty scalar to work on them.

 

Presuming proper scrutiny, there would be no issues with using the scalar to replace standard critters with more challenging ones.  Carnie Linkers, to extend your example, could be spawned in place of standard Carnie lieutenants when the difficulty scalar is set to +2 or higher.

 

I say presuming proper scrutiny because I still remember the Council Warwolves bug, which involved certain Council lieutenants self-defeating when their hit points reached a set limit and spawned bosses in their place.  The bug was an oversight in the implementation of the difficulty scalar which allowed those bosses to spawn even at the lowest setting.  Basically, the scalar couldn't replace those bosses because they didn't exist when the setting was applied (when the spawn was generated).  The lieutenants had to be specially flagged to spawn lieutenant versions of Warwolves when the scalar value was 1.

 

So as long as you're not creating Carnie Linkers who explode and spawn AVs, or you flag your exploding critters, they would work just fine with the scalar.  No new code, no other special caveats, just create your critters and give them appropriate scalar values (and flags where necessary).

[Chance Jackson]

No Nerfs please

 

As for adding additional challenge to those that demand it, design Mercenarial NPC groups with abusive power combinations. Make it so their members can crash any mission, in several ways to provide additional challenges; if they cause a team wipe their conditions for victory are met they collect their fee from the Client NPC & bounce *players must opt into fighting this group

 

They should be able to drop in on players without warning when players are already engaged with the main NPC group of the mission who I'll call the "Client NPCs". The formations & tactics they utilize can vary in a number of ways:

 

Main Threats

-The Anti-Team: up to 8 Bosses designed to complement each other, counter the Player Team's ATs & Boost Client NPCs

 

-Pompous Bastard/s: An AV or 3 with an Attack set & buff/debuff powersets  that complement each other & boost the Client NPCs they should come across as very haughty & dismissive & have the power to back that up

 

Secondary Threat/s

-The Apex Predator: An EB that attacks players who lag behind or break off from the main team to go Solo groups or Stealth the mission or whatever. If successful in taking out their target the retreat into the shadows waiting to strike the next target when the situation presents itself, should be untauntable, should prioritize squishes especially force multipliers if for some reason it is fighting the whole team (like if the attacked uses Assemble The Team)

 

 

 

I'm thinking players should only have to face one of these challenges on top of facing the Client NPCs per mission that they appear in.

 

The members of this group are soldiers of fortune they're not true believers, they're there to be paid well If members of this group are close to defeat(or defeated outright) they retreat saying "your bounty is not worth the trouble" & players gain rewards in step with the additional difficulty

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Chance Jackson

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, ForeverLaxx said:

when I get put on a team for a TF/Trial or whatever I'm at the mercy of whatever the leaders' setting is.

Yes, but you did agree to join, right?  Form your own task force pick whoever you want and trust.

1 hour ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I tend to feel like I'm being dragged along as a weight since I don't even come close to that power level. My being there does nothing to help because by the time I get a single power off the next three spawns are already defeated.

Ok, please dont take what i am about to say personal, but if you agree to join a team and whether its a pug or your sg or whatever and you feel this way, you can leave. Find others that are on your level - team with them.  That is one option.

 

The second option is to spend a little time, effort and inf to slot up even marginal IO sets  - dont have to be min maxed to be effective - and that will dramatically improve your experience so you can hang with teams like this.

 

But its not their fault because you havent chosen to be on their level and you joined their content.

1 hour ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I don't play this game to have my eyes glaze over for 45 minutes and come back to reality with a badge in my hand. This is why I almost exclusively solo. From the perspective of a soloist, the "just add more difficulty" is perfectly valid. For team content though, I'd rather *the team* trivialize the content than just two members of that team. At that point, it's just 2 people doing a Task Force while 6 others watch, and that's boring.

Some people are ok with this, and if you are not, again you have the option to leave that team and never play with them again and find more like minded people to team with.

 

Penalizing the ones that are min maxing for the above reasons just so it makes people who choose not to min max, well its just not right.

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

As I said, the mechanic is already active and in use. 

 

Well, if that's all the mechanism that is in place, I don't much like it, for the following reason:

 

I would like to see a way to flag some mobs of the same type as "only for difficulty level X or higher". But NOT depend on the standard Lt/Boss/Elite Boss/AV upgrade, because you have missions where you're fighting a Boss in some spawn in any case, because you have an end boss, or some objective guarded by the boss, etc. So now these missions either put in these nasty "tough love" Bosses... or are set to Lts only and have no difficulty. In addition, the point is to be able to put in "difficult LTs" and "difficult Bosses" as opposed to "standard LTs" and such, in order to upgrade some factions... but without having to block off Bosses completely from other characters.

 

In other words, someone may not want to face the new Boss-level Sky Raider who buffs the guys around him, because it's a hard-style mob. But if you drop your difficulty, then you don't even face the more normal Assault Bot Bosses, who are a reasonable difficulty level for someone not looking for high difficulty. So, if we add in these upgrade NPCs to factions in order to boost the weak ones... there should be a way to keep them out of "easy mode" missions without having to completely block even the easy-mode Bosses from the missions. And it also limits the problem mobs to being Bosses since you'll face LTs at any level, but doing that will limit how often they appear. No, if we have to depend on creating them as Bosses in order to have difficulty control over whether they appear or not, I don't think the difficulty level will be practical for sectioning them off into the "hard style" missions.

[golstat2003]

37 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Well, if that's all the mechanism that is in place, I don't much like it, for the following reason:

 

I would like to see a way to flag some mobs of the same type as "only for difficulty level X or higher". But NOT depend on the standard Lt/Boss/Elite Boss/AV upgrade, because you have missions where you're fighting a Boss in some spawn in any case, because you have an end boss, or some objective guarded by the boss, etc. So now these missions either put in these nasty "tough love" Bosses... or are set to Lts only and have no difficulty. In addition, the point is to be able to put in "difficult LTs" and "difficult Bosses" as opposed to "standard LTs" and such, in order to upgrade some factions... but without having to block off Bosses completely from other characters.

 

In other words, someone may not want to face the new Boss-level Sky Raider who buffs the guys around him, because it's a hard-style mob. But if you drop your difficulty, then you don't even face the more normal Assault Bot Bosses, who are a reasonable difficulty level for someone not looking for high difficulty. So, if we add in these upgrade NPCs to factions in order to boost the weak ones... there should be a way to keep them out of "easy mode" missions without having to completely block even the easy-mode Bosses from the missions. And it also limits the problem mobs to being Bosses since you'll face LTs at any level, but doing that will limit how often they appear. No, if we have to depend on creating them as Bosses in order to have difficulty control over whether they appear or not, I don't think the difficulty level will be practical for sectioning them off into the "hard style" missions.

Add other difficulty options that the team leader can set (or solo folks can set if they want) that buffs bosses in all the ways that are wanted (or whatever masochistic options anyone else wants). That avoids the potential issue you guys are debated and leaves the game alone for the rest of us who are fine with it is as is, as a casual game.

Edited May 20, 2020 by golstat2003

[Luminara]

34 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Well, if that's all the mechanism that is in place, I don't much like it, for the following reason:

 

I would like to see a way to flag some mobs of the same type as "only for difficulty level X or higher". But NOT depend on the standard Lt/Boss/Elite Boss/AV upgrade, because you have missions where you're fighting a Boss in some spawn in any case, because you have an end boss, or some objective guarded by the boss, etc. So now these missions either put in these nasty "tough love" Bosses... or are set to Lts only and have no difficulty. In addition, the point is to be able to put in "difficult LTs" and "difficult Bosses" as opposed to "standard LTs" and such, in order to upgrade some factions... but without having to block off Bosses completely from other characters.

 

In other words, someone may not want to face the new Boss-level Sky Raider who buffs the guys around him, because it's a hard-style mob. But if you drop your difficulty, then you don't even face the more normal Assault Bot Bosses, who are a reasonable difficulty level for someone not looking for high difficulty. So, if we add in these upgrade NPCs to factions in order to boost the weak ones... there should be a way to keep them out of "easy mode" missions without having to completely block even the easy-mode Bosses from the missions. And it also limits the problem mobs to being Bosses since you'll face LTs at any level, but doing that will limit how often they appear. No, if we have to depend on creating them as Bosses in order to have difficulty control over whether they appear or not, I don't think the difficulty level will be practical for sectioning them off into the "hard style" missions.

 

There are 40 increments on the difficulty scalar.

 

+0 foes/*1 team members

+0 foes/*2 team members

+0 foes/*3 team members

+0 foes/*4 team members

+0 foes/*5 team members

+0 foes/*6 team members

+0 foes/*7 team members

+0 foes/*8 team members

+1 foes/*1 team members

+1 foes/*2 team members

+1 foes/*3 team members

+1 foes/*4 team members

+1 foes/*5 team members

+1 foes/*6 team members

+1 foes/*7 team members

+1 foes/*8 team members

+2 foes/*1 team members

+2 foes/*2 team members

+2 foes/*3 team members

+2 foes/*4 team members

+2 foes/*5 team members

+2 foes/*6 team members

+2 foes/*7 team members

+2 foes/*8 team members

+3 foes/*1 team members

+3 foes/*2 team members

+3 foes/*3 team members

+3 foes/*4 team members

+3 foes/*5 team members

+3 foes/*6 team members

+3 foes/*7 team members

+3 foes/*8 team members

+4 foes/*1 team members

+4 foes/*2 team members

+4 foes/*3 team members

+4 foes/*4 team members

+4 foes/*5 team members

+4 foes/*6 team members

+4 foes/*7 team members

+4 foes/*8 team members

 

It's not binary.  40 increments.  40 possible variations of spawns, ranging from easy mode to ZOMGWHY.  You place your Sky Raider Impossiboss at the +4 range, let the Assault Bot Boss spawn at lower ranges.  Or flag the Impossiboss to spawn based on team size, with the Assboss spawning if the team has fewer than X members.

 

Third time saying it, the tool to do what you want is already there.  Fully functioning, highly adaptable and even almost entirely automated.  If a team runs at default difficulty, the engine automatically selects one of the +0 increments.  So teams can fight Assboss by running at normal, or they can choose to fight Impossiboss by cranking up the scalar.

 

Here's another tool you can use in conjunction with the difficulty scalar: the Kheldian flag which triggers Nictus replacements and/or additions in spawns.  It needs some work, to iron out that bug which causes some players to encounter Nictus after Kheldians leave the team, but it also exists, and it does what it was designed to do, spawns a unique enemy based on a flag, and respects team member count and scalar selection.  It would be less simplistic to use, as it would require adaptation (changing the flag from "Kheldian" to something else, such as a badge, then applying it to that something else), but it's there.

 

You'll have to start making critters.  They have to be modeled, textured, animated, given entries on specific tables, have power data entered, be scripted appropriately...  Some of that can be copied from existing critters.  But you still have to give your critters unique appearances, so they're identifiable.  You have to give them appropriate dialogue.  You have to test them thoroughly, in every type of map and every variation of team composition.  That's the real work, and the reason new or unique enemies were so rare on the original servers, but once you have your Impossiboss Posse built and working, actually making them spawn will be dead simple.

[ForeverLaxx]

2 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Yes, but you did agree to join, right?  Form your own task force pick whoever you want and trust.

Sure, I'll make my own TF and watch everyone quit because I pick the "wrong" difficulty settings.

 

This is why I solo.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

Sure, I'll make my own TF and watch everyone quit because I pick the "wrong" difficulty settings.

 

This is why I solo.

there is no Wrong setting, its all subjective to what you and your team can handle.  Is there a reason you cant determine that?

[Heraclea]

2 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

Sure, I'll make my own TF and watch everyone quit because I pick the "wrong" difficulty settings.

So long as you tell the people you recruit, there shouldn't be a problem. 

 

For old line TFs like the ITFs and even stuff like Citadel there are several options.  You can do a 'speed' run at +0, where it will be expected that stealth characters will be completing objectives or teleporting the team to them when possible.  You can do an XP/Money run at +4 for maxed out characters.  Or you can do a Leveller's run at somewhere around +2 where most of the players are not at max level for the TF; this can be raised or lowered depending on what it seems they can handle. 

[ForeverLaxx]

4 hours ago, Heraclea said:

So long as you tell the people you recruit, there shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, sure, no problem. I either run at "speed" tier or "max exp" tier or I don't run it at all. Funny thing is, "max exp" tier isn't much slower than "speed" tier with the power levels of the people joining so I'm still stuck being a 6th wheel to the 2-man party.

 

5 hours ago, Infinitum said:

there is no Wrong setting, its all subjective to what you and your team can handle.  Is there a reason you cant determine that?

See above.

 

I'm not advocating for change. I'm just bringing up that players like me exist since the rest of you seem to have forgotten about us from your towers.

[Sovera]

7 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

Sure, I'll make my own TF and watch everyone quit because I pick the "wrong" difficulty settings.

 

This is why I solo.

I have never seen people quit a team because it is set too low. This is not me quickly shutting you up with a glib answer. I have literally a hundred alts over two accounts and they are leveled through TFs. This scenario you worry about? Never happened. And if you are still worried about this you need only advertise honestly:

 

'Running ITF at +1 and looking for more'.

 

Whomever joins is someone who has decided that they like the cut of your jibe and will lend you a hand.

 

 

Me, I still only want a 'boss only' option. Boss sapper, boss carnie, boss everything. No minions. While my tank could handle it, because uber little maxed tank, my EA Stalker would fold like wet paper after a few 5% hits started piling in. 5% chance to get hit *is* hard enough for most builds (Blasters included) because while 45% defense to this or that can be achieved by squishies they do not get the resistances to go with it.

[Primantis]

I have also literally never seen anyone (within my recollection) quit because the TF difficulty was set too low..

 

I've seen teams collapse because it was too *high* however.

 

And of course you'll have your smart ass people shit-talk about how pathetically easy the TF may be at +0. I've yet to see them bail however.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Primantis

[ForeverLaxx]

16 minutes ago, Sovera said:

I have never seen people quit a team because it is set too low.

I guess I need to be more clear since it seems no one gets it. It doesn't matter what the difficulty is set at because they're all treated the same by min/max builds. I and 3-5 others sit back and do functionally nothing while 2-3 players blow everything away. Only the AV at the end survives long enough to grant the illusion of contribution. No one is going to join a TF advertised as "SO-Level only, I want to be a contributing member for once". I've tried.

 

Normally I'm a min/maxer myself, at least in other games where min/maxing is actually worth the effort. Having a build that can take on group content solo just makes the group you're in pointless and those players are going to feel pointless. You might feel amazing seeing that build you put so much money in stomp a crater in everything, but I know I don't log into this game to watch other people have fun at the expense of my own.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for change; just pointing this out. "More difficulties on the slider" isn't really ever going to be the answer unless the person running the TF is exceptionally restrictive and willing to bail on a group if someone is doing all the work themselves.

[Haijinx]

23 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I guess I need to be more clear since it seems no one gets it. It doesn't matter what the difficulty is set at because they're all treated the same by min/max builds. I and 3-5 others sit back and do functionally nothing while 2-3 players blow everything away. Only the AV at the end survives long enough to grant the illusion of contribution. No one is going to join a TF advertised as "SO-Level only, I want to be a contributing member for once". I've tried.

 

Normally I'm a min/maxer myself, at least in other games where min/maxing is actually worth the effort. Having a build that can take on group content solo just makes the group you're in pointless and those players are going to feel pointless. You might feel amazing seeing that build you put so much money in stomp a crater in everything, but I know I don't log into this game to watch other people have fun at the expense of my own.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for change; just pointing this out. "More difficulties on the slider" isn't really ever going to be the answer unless the person running the TF is exceptionally restrictive and willing to bail on a group if someone is doing all the work themselves.

This is pretty much true. 

 

And if you were to select something like "No Enhancements" there would be a lot of complaining. 

 

You can sometimes run at +2/3/4 depending on the team to make it less bad and more people are cool with that.  But this is more recent at least on Everlasting.  You do run the risk of turning the TF into a Debt farm for the couple of people using it for leveling purposes.  

[Sovera]

32 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I guess I need to be more clear since it seems no one gets it. It doesn't matter what the difficulty is set at because they're all treated the same by min/max builds. I and 3-5 others sit back and do functionally nothing while 2-3 players blow everything away. Only the AV at the end survives long enough to grant the illusion of contribution. No one is going to join a TF advertised as "SO-Level only, I want to be a contributing member for once". I've tried.

 

Normally I'm a min/maxer myself, at least in other games where min/maxing is actually worth the effort. Having a build that can take on group content solo just makes the group you're in pointless and those players are going to feel pointless. You might feel amazing seeing that build you put so much money in stomp a crater in everything, but I know I don't log into this game to watch other people have fun at the expense of my own.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for change; just pointing this out. "More difficulties on the slider" isn't really ever going to be the answer unless the person running the TF is exceptionally restrictive and willing to bail on a group if someone is doing all the work themselves.

My belief is that harder difficulty means fights take longer which means everyone gets a chance to to pitch in. Imagine a world where a whole pack is composed of bosses only. A Blaster nukes it. Instead of instantly killing 2/3 of a spawn they now have a full pack of pissed off bosses converging on them. Buffs from a shielder, a Tanker to take agro. these things suddenly matter where previously they did not matter much.

 

This happens due to minions. I duoed with a Plant Dom and saw I had little to do, and we were on +4x8. They Confused everything, immobilized everything, then dished AoE in a radius my Stalker could not compare, and by the time I had hit something a few times everything else had died. This just repeated itself until the mission was finished.

[Infinitum]

59 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I guess I need to be more clear since it seems no one gets it. It doesn't matter what the difficulty is set at because they're all treated the same by min/max builds. I and 3-5 others sit back and do functionally nothing while 2-3 players blow everything away. Only the AV at the end survives long enough to grant the illusion of contribution. No one is going to join a TF advertised as "SO-Level only, I want to be a contributing member for once". I've tried.

 

Normally I'm a min/maxer myself, at least in other games where min/maxing is actually worth the effort. Having a build that can take on group content solo just makes the group you're in pointless and those players are going to feel pointless. You might feel amazing seeing that build you put so much money in stomp a crater in everything, but I know I don't log into this game to watch other people have fun at the expense of my own.

 

Again, I'm not advocating for change; just pointing this out. "More difficulties on the slider" isn't really ever going to be the answer unless the person running the TF is exceptionally restrictive and willing to bail on a group if someone is doing all the work themselves.

I think you are over thinking or overcomplicating this by a county mile.

 

You have control over everything you do in this game.

 

Who you team with,

how you have fun,

what you like,

what you do,

how hard it is,

how easy it is,

how good your build is,

what your build is.

 

You have all that control, if you choose not to use that control, there isn't a thing anyone can do, there isn't any change anyone can make to help you have fun at this game.

 

There's plenty of content to challenge min max builds, the problem is with 30 level 50s you have to repeat it, and sometimes you don't want a grind.

 

Only you can choose what fun is and you have virtually unlimited options with this game to achieve it, but not if you dont take control and achieve it.