Are Player Defenses too high

[ForeverLaxx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

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

You're free to think what you want. I'm free to leave the conversation and this thread because it's clear you don't understand and aren't interested in understanding. I can control the difficulty for content that I do solo. That's it. If I want a team to function as a team, with everyone covering for each other's weaknesses and levering our strengths, half the team will quit because half the team doesn't need anyone else. Why you specifically have such an issue with seeing this only speaks to the fact that you only think of yourself and want to believe the rest of "us" are "nerfherders" trying to interrupt your fun.

 

If you have to ruin my TF to feel like you're having fun, then maybe you shouldn't team. That "play what suits your level of fun" blade cuts both ways.

 

But I'm through here. Anyone who doesn't crank their build up to 11 and overrun old content is always "doing it wrong", and people on the outside pointing out they aren't having any fun like they used to when grouping are just trying to nerf everything. I'm out.

[Haijinx]

7 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

But I'm through here. Anyone who doesn't crank their build up to 11 and overrun old content is always "doing it wrong", and people on the outside pointing out they aren't having any fun like they used to when grouping are just trying to nerf everything. I'm out.

This sort of feeling is why I suggested the more hard-mode Server shard, with new mechanics.  And to be honest, ignoring or shouting (spam posting) down people who feel that way does not improve the situation any.   

 

But, the way I imagine that is you would HAVE to use IOs to be at the level survive in the Hard Mode, that and/or use a lot of support/control/aggro management.  Or fight lower level stuff. 

 

Basically a game balanced around IOs.  One throwing out the entire idea that the Heroes should be more uberer than the bad guys by default. 

 

-however- 

If people just want a SO only game.  That's way easier to pull off. 

 

Not sure which, if they had their own shard, would be more popular.  I find SO only builds boring since they don't challenge me to think about ultimate performance the same way.  For SOs every build sort of looks the same.   

 

I expect the first type would attract those looking for a hard challenge, that prefer things on the edge.  Sort of those who like Requiem in Skyrim.    

 

While the Second type more casual / nostalgic types who don't like the fact that someone with a billion dollar IO build can eclipse an entire team of SO builds. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

This sort of feeling is why I suggested the more hard-mode Server shard, with new mechanics.  And to be honest, ignoring or shouting (spam posting) down people who feel that way does not improve the situation any.   

 

But, the way I imagine that is you would HAVE to use IOs to be at the level survive in the Hard Mode, that and/or use a lot of support/control/aggro management.  Or fight lower level stuff. 

 

Basically a game balanced around IOs.  One throwing out the entire idea that the Heroes should be more uberer than the bad guys by default. 

 

-however- 

If people just want a SO only game.  That's way easier to pull off. 

 

Not sure which, if they had their own shard, would be more popular.  I find SO only builds boring since they don't challenge me to think about ultimate performance the same way.  For SOs every build sort of looks the same.   

 

I expect the first type would attract those looking for a hard challenge, that prefer things on the edge.  Sort of those who like Requiem in Skyrim.    

 

While the Second type more casual / nostalgic types who don't like the fact that someone with a billion dollar IO build can eclipse an entire team of SO builds. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if there are any hard mode COH servers out there. Most of them seem to focusing on tweaking COH is some wild ways, with non I have seen so far focused on tweaking the difficulty (either up or down).

 

 

[Naraka]

13 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

You'd have to have some clear design intentions and direction to implement such a system within the current one like that.  Even if you did add the example mobs to the spawn plate in such a way, how well do you feel it would work accomplishing your goal?  If your goal is to just have more difficult mobs, who exactly are you challenging?  The standard competent PUG with a balanced team?  Or the more built up characters?

 

Beyond making foes harder, how do you even accomplish that?  Do you make them tougher to kill?  I feel it's going to be extremely tough to make foes that would change things up enough with the current balance unless we're giving mobs outright hax powers and even then, a lot of players just find that approach aggravating (see Illusionist in CoS faction).  Ultimately, you can't make a faction harder without giving them the time to survive long enough to pose a threat which is the other aspect of the game that has pushed balance to its limits.

[Haijinx]

31 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

I wonder if there are any hard mode COH servers out there. Most of them seem to focusing on tweaking COH is some wild ways, with non I have seen so far focused on tweaking the difficulty (either up or down).

 

 

Its a good question.  I'd rather it be attached to Homecoming though if something like this were possible. 

 

I remember UO had a harder mode server "Siege Perilous" for a time.  

 

The SO only idea seems it would be the easiest relatively to implement though.  Just get rid of all IO's, WW, Black Market, Salvage, Etc.  

 

 

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

You're free to think what you want. I'm free to leave the conversation and this thread because it's clear you don't understand and aren't interested in understanding. I can control the difficulty for content that I do solo. That's it. If I want a team to function as a team, with everyone covering for each other's weaknesses and levering our strengths, half the team will quit because half the team doesn't need anyone else. Why you specifically have such an issue with seeing this only speaks to the fact that you only think of yourself and want to believe the rest of "us" are "nerfherders" trying to interrupt your fun.

 

If you have to ruin my TF to feel like you're having fun, then maybe you shouldn't team. That "play what suits your level of fun" blade cuts both ways.

 

But I'm through here. Anyone who doesn't crank their build up to 11 and overrun old content is always "doing it wrong", and people on the outside pointing out they aren't having any fun like they used to when grouping are just trying to nerf everything. I'm out.

Nobody said you can't think anything you want, im just trying to figure out how to help you and you are shooting every idea we have down.

 

I think your problem is you are placing your definition of "FUN" into such a narrowly constrained set of guidelines im not sure at this point anything would make you happy with it.

 

You dont want harder content because we would adapt.

 

You dont want to be underpowered in a taskforce because you feel like dead weight

 

You dont want to be overpowered in a task force because it moves too swiftly.

 

We cant help it there isnt any new content, however we can choose to make what we have fun. For instance last night we had a SG league of 2 teams, it was our homecoming founding anniversary last night.  Each team competed for the fastest time, we ran 2 Hess 22 min and 17 min set at 0/1, 1 yin 14 min set at 0/1, and 1 lady gray 34 min set at +2/8.  Everyone had a blast most of us were on OP builds and were stealthing or overrunning the enemy. Even the ones on non maxed builds had fun because of the environment.  On the lady gray it was easy getting to the objective, but the objective zones with the dragon, hami, and warleader and honoree had what looked like 100 Rikti in it and none of them were quick clears. That's with a mixed bag of ATs and power levels.

 

The point is if you constrain how you view fun too much you definately won't have any, and if the only way you can have fun is to nerf min maxed builds to slow everyone down to a pace you think is acceptable is not far to anyone including yourself.

[Bastille Boy]

Paragon City is in danger. You put out a call for a team of superheroes to help you save the city. An actual demigod shows up. The mission goes quickly, and nobody dies. And you...complain that the demigod is too powerful, and argue that their powers should be reduced so that you and your pair of pistols have more work to do? That doesn't sound very heroic.

 

Are you secretly working for Arachnos? Or is this a Nemesis plot?

[Heraclea]

3 hours ago, Infinitum said:

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.

I don't really do 'mains', so on old live and on Homecoming, when playing through high level content, I have some leeway to choose a character that excels against the content.  I don't take tankers or tanking brutes to BAF at all; trying to do their chief function, monopolizing the attention of the AVs, just gets them sidelined.  Most aren't all that useful on the escape phase, although the WP/Mace tanker with Quicksand does better than the others.  Nor are there many I want to take Hamidon raiding; you have to counterintuitively build for that role.  Instead, as I've noted before, my main Hamidon character is an ice/plants blaster.  Three ranged holds that also do blaster scale damage work well in that encounter, despite my lack of twitchy skills.  Avoiding frustration is always my watchword: so to team content I always try to bring a character that will contribute to easy success. 

 

All this talk of harder mobs with more debuffs will only make me roll and level a character tuned to it.  Emphasizing debuffs and exotic damage also has another bad side effect: it makes that content team unfriendly.  This isn't the only thing that discourages teams in Praetoria, but it does.  It's also why Vanguard missions are solo only, as are Dark Astoria Tsoo, and why the only reason to go to Night Ward is to get access to Cimerora the easy way. 

 

This has been a concern of mine for some time, as this obsolete guide suggests:

 

https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/Which_tanker_should_I_bring_to_the_task_force%3F

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, Naraka said:

You'd have to have some clear design intentions and direction to implement such a system within the current one like that.  Even if you did add the example mobs to the spawn plate in such a way, how well do you feel it would work accomplishing your goal?  If your goal is to just have more difficult mobs, who exactly are you challenging?  The standard competent PUG with a balanced team?  Or the more built up characters?

 

Beyond making foes harder, how do you even accomplish that?  Do you make them tougher to kill?  I feel it's going to be extremely tough to make foes that would change things up enough with the current balance unless we're giving mobs outright hax powers and even then, a lot of players just find that approach aggravating (see Illusionist in CoS faction).  Ultimately, you can't make a faction harder without giving them the time to survive long enough to pose a threat which is the other aspect of the game that has pushed balance to its limits.

If you are in the "throw current mechanics out" mode this is easier. 

 

For less inspired ideas - 

For a start you could set the ceiling for chance to hit to 90% making most people miss 2x as often. 

You raise the floor for chance to hit from 5% to 10%.   This would make all those high defense builds get hit twice as often.  

You could lower ALL resist caps.   Say 75% for Brutes,Tankers and Dwarfs, 50% for everyone else.    

You nerf all status resistance/protection to be closer to what baddies get.   

You could take a chainsaw to Temp Powers. 

 

=====

But really.  You have a computer figuring stuff out.  Maybe a look at what is under the hood. Would opposed rolls be better?  I don't know. They have become more popular in tabletop but they require more rolling.  Something the computer is good at.   

 

[Naraka]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

If you are in the "throw current mechanics out" mode this is easier. 

 

For less inspired ideas - 

For a start you could set the ceiling for chance to hit to 90% making most people miss 2x as often. 

You raise the floor for chance to hit from 5% to 10%.   This would make all those high defense builds get hit twice as often.  

You could lower ALL resist caps.   Say 75% for Brutes,Tankers and Dwarfs, 50% for everyone else.    

You nerf all status resistance/protection to be closer to what baddies get.   

You could take a chainsaw to Temp Powers. 

 

=====

But really.  You have a computer figuring stuff out.  Maybe a look at what is under the hood. Would opposed rolls be better?  I don't know. They have become more popular in tabletop but they require more rolling.  Something the computer is good at.   

 

Well that's more nerfing characters which is what the quoted suggestion is trying to get away from.

 

Your suggestions could be another set of difficulty options ontop of what we have but then we're left with the incentive to use them.

 

Going back to my first post in the thread, if I could have rolled in changes on a new opening server, I'd try to implement a sliding scale of rewards for playing at harder difficulty and less rewards the more built out you make your character.  Along with more mobs and varied mobs and with maybe a roulette type system that randomizes what penalty you get for a reward bonus if you don't want to run with multiple penalties/reward multipliers.

[golstat2003]

24 minutes ago, Naraka said:

You'd have to have some clear design intentions and direction to implement such a system within the current one like that.  Even if you did add the example mobs to the spawn plate in such a way, how well do you feel it would work accomplishing your goal?  If your goal is to just have more difficult mobs, who exactly are you challenging?  The standard competent PUG with a balanced team?  Or the more built up characters?

 

Beyond making foes harder, how do you even accomplish that?  Do you make them tougher to kill?  I feel it's going to be extremely tough to make foes that would change things up enough with the current balance unless we're giving mobs outright hax powers and even then, a lot of players just find that approach aggravating (see Illusionist in CoS faction).  Ultimately, you can't make a faction harder without giving them the time to survive long enough to pose a threat which is the other aspect of the game that has pushed balance to its limits.

And thus why all these ides for "making the game harder" should be in an OPTIONAL difficulty setting that teams can CHOOSE to run. IF it's a choice, then it gives more leeway to the craziness you can add to these new difficulty settings while not damaging the game for the rest of the 80-90% of the current players who are fine with where we are on +4/x8 and below.

 

EDIT: Ofcourse that still leaves the question of what are the incentives for running on this new diffculty?

Edited May 20, 2020 by golstat2003

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, Naraka said:

Well that's more nerfing characters which is what the quoted suggestion is trying to get away from.

 

Your suggestions could be another set of difficulty options ontop of what we have but then we're left with the incentive to use them.

 

Going back to my first post in the thread, if I could have rolled in changes on a new opening server, I'd try to implement a sliding scale of rewards for playing at harder difficulty and less rewards the more built out you make your character.  Along with more mobs and varied mobs and with maybe a roulette type system that randomizes what penalty you get for a reward bonus if you don't want to run with multiple penalties/reward multipliers.

ah, ok.

 

Yeah.  I've given up on trying to change difficulty in the main game. 

 

Its literally impossible.  There is simply too much inertia.  

 

 

[golstat2003]

Just now, Haijinx said:

ah, ok.

 

Yeah.  I've given up on trying to change difficulty in the main game. 

 

Its literally impossible.  There is simply too much inertia.  

 

 

Yep. Too many folks are fine with the casual nature of the main game. Also, SOs. Until it's decided that you're doing away with SO-based balance once and for all . . . yeah it's going to have to be optional difficulty settings that are new that folks will actively need to choose.

[Haijinx]

8 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

EDIT: Of course that still leaves the question of what are the incentives for running on this new difficulty?

Make the incentive bragging rights.   

 

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

 

===

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

 

  

[MTeague]

3 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

You're free to think what you want. I'm free to leave the conversation and this thread because it's clear you don't understand and aren't interested in understanding. I can control the difficulty for content that I do solo. That's it. If I want a team to function as a team, with everyone covering for each other's weaknesses and levering our strengths, half the team will quit because half the team doesn't need anyone else. Why you specifically have such an issue with seeing this only speaks to the fact that you only think of yourself and want to believe the rest of "us" are "nerfherders" trying to interrupt your fun.

 

If you have to ruin my TF to feel like you're having fun, then maybe you shouldn't team. That "play what suits your level of fun" blade cuts both ways.

 

But I'm through here. Anyone who doesn't crank their build up to 11 and overrun old content is always "doing it wrong", and people on the outside pointing out they aren't having any fun like they used to when grouping are just trying to nerf everything. I'm out.

I kinda get where you're coming from, because I also LOATHE the feeling of being completely carried.

 

It's why I generally avoid teaming in any 45+ content from the moment I ding 45 until the moment I slot in some T4 incarnate powers. I know if I join a Maria arc team, or Peregrine Radio team, or a MSR, etc it will be half-full of T4 incarnated 50's feeling like overpowered gods and destroying everything.  And okay, that's fun for them, I get that, all power to them, go wild guys.  And, full disclosure, I also enjoy it when I am one of the T4 incarnated 50's.  Because then I'm not being carried.  I'd be at approximately the same power level and contributing again.

 

So I'll level up in First Ward, or Night Ward, or I'll join a Citadel, or I'll do a Flashback Extravaganza and get all of the Ouroborous Challenge Badges, and as I do that, amass up enough up to hit 46, 47, etc.  Or I'll solo some of the 45+ content.

 

However, I have nothing against becoming an overpowered god of a character myself, so that 45-50 is a temporary home stretch for me. 

 

By contrast....

• if you don't want to deck out a build using IO's for max effectiveness
• AND you don't want to feel carried by anyone else
• AND you don't want to solo

then the deck is very much stacked against you here. 

 

Your best bet would be to try to get like-minded people to be global friends and form a premade team with that as a goal.  Same way some people do "Tanker Tuesday", maybe you could try to organize an "SO Wednesday".  Just be aware that's going to be a really hard sell to a lot of players.  On the other hand, you only really NEED like 5-7 other players who would also enjoy "SO Wednesday".  Then it doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing. If you can find just one teams worth, you can roll at any difficulty level you want, supporting and coordinating each other the way it was before Inventions even existed. 

 

 I do not think you'll have much success just trying to wing it via LFG Chat from scratch on a random night.  It will take time and it will take effort to sift hrough the existing players to find those who want to do the same kind of thing you do.  But if most of the playerbase doesn't share your desire for the oldschool play, well... that's life. They have to be able to do what they think is fun too.

 

 

[skoryy]

4 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

That's it. If I want a team to function as a team, with everyone covering for each other's weaknesses and levering our strengths, half the team will quit because half the team doesn't need anyone else.

 

4 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

people on the outside pointing out they aren't having any fun like they used to when grouping

 

The thing is, City of Heroes hasn't been that game for a long long time.  I remember reading the forums back in live, and someone bragged about completing TFs with a team of all TA/A defenders.  Tanker Tuesdays have been a thing for years.  The game's charm since at least the introduction of IOs has been that you don't need a dedicated tank or healer or defined roles.  Play the character you want to play and the game won't hold you back.  I'm sorry that's not what you want, but that's what the game is.

[Luminara]

3 hours ago, Naraka said:

If your goal is to just have more difficult mobs, who exactly are you challenging?  The standard competent PUG with a balanced team?  Or the more built up characters?

 

Go back, note the comments to which I was responding, read those, refer back to my responses.

 

Questions answered.

 

Next!

[Camel]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:06 AM, Infinitum said:

I don't think any of those options describes the reality, but the first is closest.

 

1. Defense and resistances are fine.

 

2. Enemy accuracy is fine.

 

3. Some times you have the perfect synergy on a team and you steam roll.

 

4. Some times your synergy is off and you struggle but still succeed.

 

5. Tanks shouldn't due a lot under 99.9% of circumstances. It's easy to build the majority this way.

 

6. Scrappers, stalkers and especially brutes can mimic tank survivability and do increased damage - especially where scrappers and stalkers are concerned.

 

7. Blasters, defenders, controllers, corruptors, dominators, etc - squishies can be built more durable with set bonuses, Incarnates etc but realistically can't survive hard target encounters indefinitely like tanks/melee can without circus tricks.

 

8. Combine all the above with good synergy in any multiples of combinations and thats where you get your steamroller teams.

 

So the non problem above is very complex.

 

The actual issue is with content and options.

 

There should be more incarnate level content and also an elite mode that makes things a bit harder kinda like you would select options in oro.

 

Thats the state of the game right now from someone that plays each night with a variety of players and content.

 

It may seem too easy but thats an illusion because the playerbase are vets and just need more challenges and more options.

 

For your average new player it can still be quite difficult and I run across this often also.  And we help them along as best we can. 

 

Which is why its a great community.

One million times this. This game is a masterpiece and really, the only sure fire way to solve what we’re talking about here is having the option to make the game even harder. This would cater to everyone but brand new players, and the only fix for that is experience. 

[Infinitum]

15 minutes ago, Camel said:

One million times this. This game is a masterpiece and really, the only sure fire way to solve what we’re talking about here is having the option to make the game even harder. This would cater to everyone but brand new players, and the only fix for that is experience. 

Well with an option it wont affect new players at all.

[Naraka]

44 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Go back, note the comments to which I was responding, read those, refer back to my responses.

 

Questions answered.

 

Next!

Rude response aside (seriously, not necessary), I did go back and check your posts to see what I might have skimmed over.  This is the only thing close to relevant to the question you quoted:

 

20 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

Trimmed from the rest of the post (not taking this out of context, bust focusing on this particular part of the post), it still doesn't answer the question.  Are you implementing these mobs to challenge competent PUGs at +2 or twinked out builds beyond that?

 

Regardless, it still is roadblocked by my other inquiries: in this era of customized gameplay where Khelds [EDIT]don't want the option to keep the hunters off their backs, do we really want to just put more challenging foes in without the option to opt out?  I suppose if all these "extra" enemies added to each faction are categorized under a unique flag, you could link it to whatever setting is used for Khelds, but that probably does require some coding to make work.

 

The rest of the questions I wasn't expecting you to be able to answer because it's likely the reason why factions aren't just amended with stronger foes.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Naraka

[Camel]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Well with an option it wont affect new players at all.

That’s what I meant. New players wouldn’t notice a change, because nothing would have changed for them. 

[Luminara]

5 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Are you implementing these mobs to challenge competent PUGs at +2 or twinked out builds beyond that?

 

Thread.

 

Read.

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Rude response aside (seriously, not necessary), I did go back and check your posts to see what I might have skimmed over.  This is the only thing close to relevant to the question you quoted:

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

 

It's not their fault you missed it.

[Coyote]

7 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

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

 

It's not their fault you missed it.

Was.

Rude.

[Naraka]

2 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Thread.

 

Read.

I see.

 

Well implementing them through the +level or x team member notoriety option either gets you disgruntled players who don't want to have to deal with +65% of a spawn being Master Illusionist-type mobs OR if they are only enough to challenge competent PUG, they will likely still be pushovers for twinked out characters, probably requiring a couple extra AoEs to wipe out.  To reiterate, a lot of the issues with regards to balance aren't limited to just IOs or defense capacity of a build but also the speed at which foes can be dispatched.  A conversation could be had on how to better strike a balance or circumvent these issue and I'm willing to have that conversation with someone besides you, apparently.