Recharge Realignment

[Zepp]

I was looking across powersets and thinking about areas where recharge could be reasonably adjusted.

The first area is AoE Holds for control powersets:
Currently 240s, 90s would be more appropriate.

The second area is armor powerset T⁹s.

Because these vary, there needs to be a some guidelines rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Revive powers are currently 300s, should be reduced to 240s.

Hibernate is a toggle currently at 120s, should be reduced to 60s.

Click powers should be changed to 3x duration. 120s -> 360s. Recharge restrictions removed. Moment of Glory duration doubled.

 

Next are pet summons.
Non-MM pet summons should be reduced to 180s recharge or 3x duration, whichever is lower.

MM pet summons should be reduced from 60・90・120 to 30・45・60.

 

From now, I am looking at ranged nukes and support sets to see what general rules or principles can be designed to make them more reasonable in terms of recharge.

[ArchVileTerror]

AoE Holds used to all be on 120 Second Recharges, and their Durations were all twice as long as they are now.

There was some debate a few months ago whether or not that change should be reversed.  Some people felt that AoE Holds should stay in their current "nuke" Recharge category, BUT should also be suitably POWERFUL to make up for it.  Up the Accuracy, the Duration, and the Magnitude.

 

I would be okay with either.

[XaoGarrent]

You can't go around just doubling durations and more than halfing recharges lol.

 

I agree this game has some serious issues involving recharge, but relative balance between sets wont improve unless you take a targeted approach. Regen needs some help, but Rad is fine and if you go buffing them both the same exactly way you've accomplished nothing. How much control sets are hampered by long CDs on AoE mezz also varies greatly, especially sets with multiple AoE control powers or ones on short cooldowns, I. E. Seeds of Confusion.

 

Also, don't compare damage dealing powers to buffs like that. They live in very different worlds in terms of how they interact with time. There's a reason why so few farming builds rely on big damage nukes and instead lean on buffs, auras and shorter cooldown, more moderate damage attacks.

Edited May 20, 2020 by XaoGarrent

[Zepp]

19 minutes ago, ArchVileTerror said:

AoE Holds used to all be on 120 Second Recharges, and their Durations were all twice as long as they are now.

There was some debate a few months ago whether or not that change should be reversed.  Some people felt that AoE Holds should stay in their current "nuke" Recharge category, BUT should also be suitably POWERFUL to make up for it.  Up the Accuracy, the Duration, and the Magnitude.

 

I would be okay with either.

A reversal to 120s and double current durations would be reasonable. Either way the accuracy probably needs to be increased. If you want to keep the current recharge, you are talking about tripling or quadrupling current duration and moving up to a mag 4-5? That seems more problematic - although more reasonable than how things currently are.

17 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

You can't go around just doubling durations and more than halfing recharges lol.

 

I agree this game has some serious issues involving recharge, but relative balance between sets wont improve unless you take a targeted approach. Regen needs some help, but Rad is fine and if you go buffing them both the same exactly way you've accomplished nothing. How much control sets are hampered by long CDs on AoE mezz also varies greatly, especially sets with multiple AoE control powers or ones on short cooldowns, I. E. Seeds of Confusion.

 

Also, don't compare damage dealing powers to buffs like that. They live in very different worlds in terms of how they interact with time. There's a reason why so few farming builds rely on big damage nukes and instead lean on buffs, auras and shorter cooldown, more moderate damage attacks.

Some recharge adjustments need to be made across all sets, others need to be more targeted (IH?). The AoE Hold in each set is comparable, which is why I started there. Specific sets need adjustments to other AoE control powers in addition to the current proposal.

Also, while I haven't addressed direct-damage powers yet, there are some types of direct-damage power that need to be systematically examined, while others can go relatively unchanged. In fact, outside of nukes, recharge in DpS sets is about right. It is mainly the nukes, armor T⁹s, and control/support sets that need to be adjusted. Those are systematic adjustments that can be made before fine-tuning occurs.

[XaoGarrent]

2 minutes ago, Zepp said:

Some recharge adjustments need to be made across all sets, others need to be more targeted (IH?). The AoE Hold in each set is comparable, which is why I started there. Specific sets need adjustments to other AoE control powers in addition to the current proposal.

Also, while I haven't addressed direct-damage powers yet, there are some types of direct-damage power that need to be systematically examined, while others can go relatively unchanged. In fact, outside of nukes, recharge in DpS sets is about right. It is mainly the nukes, armor T⁹s, and control/support sets that need to be adjusted. Those are systematic adjustments that can be made before fine-tuning occurs.

You are still suggesting balance changes that operate in too much of a vacuum, is what I'm saying.

 

And I have to heavily disagree with you on that second notion. Especially considering support sets in particular can have near 100% uptime on many, many debuffs. Not just that, support sets are probably the most all over the place in terms of uptime. Do note: I'm not saying imbalanced. What I am saying is that they're a demonstration of how comparable powers in less than comparable sets can't be balanced 1:1. That's even before getting into how not-comparable powers in the same tier can often be, which is a reality of T9s between many sets.

 

There's a place for broad, sweeping changes, and a proper way to do it, but this isn't it.

[Snowdaze]

Had to check the calendar to see if it was April fools day...

[Tad Cooper]

Once again I will point out that as soon as someone makes ANY suggestion that buffs support or control it's immediately regarded as overpowered. Same reaction for 15 years. Really don't get it, especially since melee is already easy mode in this game and any time any mention of making them weaker is made it's, "OH NOES, YOU'RE HERDING NERFS!"

 

3 hours ago, XaoGarrent said:

You are still suggesting balance changes that operate in too much of a vacuum, is what I'm saying.

 

And I have to heavily disagree with you on that second notion. Especially considering support sets in particular can have near 100% uptime on many, many debuffs. Not just that, support sets are probably the most all over the place in terms of uptime. Do note: I'm not saying imbalanced. What I am saying is that they're a demonstration of how comparable powers in less than comparable sets can't be balanced 1:1. That's even before getting into how not-comparable powers in the same tier can often be, which is a reality of T9s between many sets.

 

There's a place for broad, sweeping changes, and a proper way to do it, but this isn't it.

He's concerned with the dependence on hasten for non-melee builds. You may have noticed the 300 threads about it. Support sets can have 100% uptime on many debuffs because of global recharge. You shouldn't HAVE to depend on that to do your job, which shockingly is keeping those debuffs up all the time. What he's suggesting is some broad initial changes towards bringing those supposedly incomparable sets in line. Despite his horrible, horrible font choices I think for the most part Zepp has a pretty good head on his shoulders.

 

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think the place and way for talking about broad sweeping changes is?

 

3 hours ago, Snowdaze said:

Had to check the calendar to see if it was April fools day...

Constructive.

[Zepp]

3 hours ago, Tad Cooper said:

Despite his horrible, horrible font choices I think for the most part Zepp has a pretty good head on his shoulders.

Thanks for everything else... I will take a sans serif comment on font choices with a grain of salt though...

(Went with Georgia for this one. Is that more to your liking?)

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, Tad Cooper said:

Once again I will point out that as soon as someone makes ANY suggestion that buffs support or control it's immediately regarded as overpowered. Same reaction for 15 years. Really don't get it, especially since melee is already easy mode in this game and any time any mention of making them weaker is made it's, "OH NOES, YOU'RE HERDING NERFS!"

 

He's concerned with the dependence on hasten for non-melee builds. You may have noticed the 300 threads about it. Support sets can have 100% uptime on many debuffs because of global recharge. You shouldn't HAVE to depend on that to do your job, which shockingly is keeping those debuffs up all the time. What he's suggesting is some broad initial changes towards bringing those supposedly incomparable sets in line. Despite his horrible, horrible font choices I think for the most part Zepp has a pretty good head on his shoulders.

 

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think the place and way for talking about broad sweeping changes is?

 

Constructive.

A more targetted approach IS needed here. Broad sweeping changes NEVER end well in terms of feedback from this community. Check the beta forums for a recent example, that the devs had to immediately roll back after getting feedback. And that was just for one set.

 

This is talking about multiple sets, multiple powers.

Edited May 20, 2020 by golstat2003

[Snowdaze]

4 hours ago, Tad Cooper said:

Constructive.

I will admit I was aiming for witty and jovial, I guess it failed. Aww well...

 

How are any of these balance changes?

 

Your suggestion for AoE holds alone... Well ok So if you reduce the recharge people are STILL going to be taking hasten and all the things that will make them recharge proportionally as quick.

Now with said reduced recharge, AoE Holds are now in effect perma duration. I'm going to set aside the "average lifespan of a mob" as an argument purely because that could be used either way. Yes I get it mobs due quick and people want to use AoE holds more often. But flip side if you AoE hold every group, then it's not really a fight now is it. Also most stuns can be perma'd and have a lower recharge and are almost as effective as hold.

 

The armor T9's.... Well I rarely feel a need to use them.

 

And the Pet recharges, I have no strong feelings. But I generally manage as is.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Snowdaze

[Rathulfr]

19 minutes ago, Zepp said:

Thanks for everything else... I will take a sans serif comment on font choices with a grain of salt though...

(Went with Georgia for this one. Is that more to your liking?)

I gotta admit that I also love Zepp's commentary, but despise his choice of fonts with serifs, which makes reading them a bit of a chore sometimes.

 

As for the topic at hand: I agree that we need to look at recharge values across the board.  But if we do so with the powers, we'll also need to do so with IO sets, or else all of the Hasten + Global Recharge Bonuses builds will become OP.  Heck, the reason those builds exist/persist is because nobody's really looking at the inconsistent/punitive recharge values in the powers.  If we address the root of the problem in the powers, then the builds will become less appealing.  However, the min/max meta-gamers will take advantage of any powers reductions with those builds if we don't compensate the IO sets accordingly.

 

[Zepp]

6 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

A more targetted approach IS needed here. Broad sweeping changes NEVER end well in terms of feedback from this community. Check the beta forums for a recent example, that the devs had to immediately roll back after getting feedback. And that was just for one set.

 

This is talking about multiple sets, multiple powers.

In many situations a targeted approach is appropriate. However, the areas addressed in the OP are areas where there is a large degree of consistency.

The AoE Holds are very similar (240s, mag 3, similar durations), there needs to be a balance between them being consistently useful without being overpowered. 90s with current mag and duration would make them consistent, but not overpowered. 120s and double duration is inconsistent, but overpowered when you have access. The current situation they are extremely inconsistent and underpowered considering how inconsistent they are. That is why I came up with the initial proposal as it was. Consistency without being OP.

Pet summons are also mainly of the 240s/60s duration variety. However, I did formulate a rule to address issues with lower than 60s durations. I would make an exception to that rule for Epic Power Pools so that they are 3x duration and not 180s.

T9s are more complex, and they were addressed with a degree of complexity to match that.

5 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

I gotta admit that I also love Zepp's commentary, but despise his choice of fonts with serifs, which makes reading them a bit of a chore sometimes.

 

As for the topic at hand: I agree that we need to look at recharge values across the board.  But if we do so with the powers, we'll also need to do so with IO sets, or else all of the Hasten + Global Recharge Bonuses builds will become OP.  Heck, the reason those builds exist/persist is because nobody's really looking at the inconsistent/punitive recharge values in the powers.  If we address the root of the problem in the powers, then the builds will become less appealing.  However, the min/max meta-gamers will take advantage of any powers reductions with those builds if we don't compensate the IO sets accordingly.

 

Most of these recharge reductions (outside of T⁹s) would not affect min/maxers that much. The pet ones, in particular, make non-Hasten perma possible, but anything beyond perma has no benefit. For AoE Holds, a "Does not stack from same user" tag and possible reduction in durations for patch holds would prevent the city of statues concern. T⁹s are in need of a major overhaul, but the fact that most of them are redundant makes a recharge reduction unimportant for most toons unless they are playing Regen, which could use some love anyways.

 

The reason I delayed posting about support sets and nukes is because they are more complicated and I am looking for appropriate formulae for making them consistent yet not overpowered.

[SwitchFade]

The larger consideration here is...

 

AoE holds at any appreciably lower recharge become perma and we're back to city of statues.

 

Let's twink this discussion to view it from the perspective of the average player, lvl 15-40, with regular SOs and io's.

 

From this perspective control sets have a good toolkit and are powerful. Any change to any AoE hold should be done on a set by set basis, balanced against the other factors of the set, to get the desired utility and fun outcome.

 

On this one I would say, no blanket changes for recharge that are significant. This is one where some would stay 240 (earth or fire) and some maybe not (illusion).

 

That said,  a global change to AoE holds that slightly reduces recharge and adds potency in different ways per set is a wiser path to pursue.

 

Additionally, they should not be lvl 18, they should be later, like a nuke, with something utility and faster recharge swapped sooner.

Edited May 21, 2020 by SwitchFade

[MTeague]

11 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

Additionally, they should not be lvl 18, they should be later, like a nuke, with something utility and faster recharge swapped sooner.

I must disagree. Vehemently.

Besides, several have multiple AE powers.  Total Domination / Mass Confusion / Terrify / Telekneisis, etc.  You've only got 9 slots to put them in per tree. 

 

The game survived quite long enough with AE holds at 18, and the sky never fell. 

I see no reason of any kind to delay when they can be chosen now.

 

If you also want to delay Ranged Damage AE's and Melee AE's, then maybe.  For the record, I think that would be a bad idea too, but if you're going to screw up the Controllers and Doms, then at least be equal opportuntity about it.  

 

AE Holds are not nukes.  They hold things. For a short period of time. Then every one of them you haven't killed by then attacks. 

A blaster nuke kills things DEAD.  They don't get back up X second later.

[...]

20 hours ago, Zepp said:

The first area is AoE Holds for control powersets:
Currently 240s, 90s would be more appropriate.

Yes. 

20 hours ago, ArchVileTerror said:

Some people felt that AoE Holds should stay in their current "nuke" Recharge category, BUT should also be suitably POWERFUL to make up for it.  Up the Accuracy, the Duration, and the Magnitude.

No.

1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:

AoE holds at any appreciably lower recharge become perma and we're back to city of statues. 

The "city of statues" argument is dumb. Most of the time the mob is dead, or close enough, before the hold is over. The rest of the time, well, isn't that the point of playing a control class? To control things? It's a bit like saying tankers tank too well. Literally. The. Thing. They. Should. Do. 

[SwitchFade]

1 hour ago, MTeague said:

I must disagree. Vehemently.

Besides, several have multiple AE powers.  Total Domination / Mass Confusion / Terrify / Telekneisis, etc.  You've only got 9 slots to put them in per tree. 

 

The game survived quite long enough with AE holds at 18, and the sky never fell. 

I see no reason of any kind to delay when they can be chosen now.

 

If you also want to delay Ranged Damage AE's and Melee AE's, then maybe.  For the record, I think that would be a bad idea too, but if you're going to screw up the Controllers and Doms, then at least be equal opportuntity about it.  

 

AE Holds are not nukes.  They hold things. For a short period of time. Then every one of them you haven't killed by then attacks. 

A blaster nuke kills things DEAD.  They don't get back up X second later.

While I do not disagree that leaving them at 18 is fine, the suggestion was in the context of changes roposed. As they are now, yes, 18 is fine.

 

So, what I mean is, if these stay long recharge and become more potent as a change, it would follow set progression in some cases that they arrive later, as higher levels of recharge arrive later in a build, allowing more effective use of long recharge powers. Often, taking a 240 second recharge at level 18 makes that power largely a placeholder until much later, as it is rarely used, and not potent.

 

If a change intent is for these to be more potent, long recharge controller nuke type powers, then quicker recharging, higher utility powers that arrive at 26 should be at 18, for progression considerations. At lvl 18, there's little enhance recharge in slots or global, so shorter recharging powers are more useful there. At 26 or 28, a longer recharge power will benefit from a more mature build, helping it to be leveraged well.

Edited May 21, 2020 by SwitchFade

[SwitchFade]

6 minutes ago, Vooded said:

Yes. 

No.

The "city of statues" argument is dumb. Most of the time the mob is dead, or close enough, before the hold is over. The rest of the time, well, isn't that the point of playing a control class? To control things? It's a bit like saying tankers tank too well. Literally. The. Thing. They. Should. Do. 

I'm not so sure calling something dumb is a good way to debate it.

 

Between levels 15-40, things do not "arrest" instantly, this is a meta game occurence. Plenty of regular teams, with standard SO and reg io builds take time to bring down groups of MOBs and clear missions. Returning to the time when 1 team member can neuter the whole game, turning every foe in every spawn into a statue did occur, necessitating change.

Edited May 21, 2020 by SwitchFade

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, SwitchFade said:

While I do not disagree that leaving them at 18 is fine, the suggestion was in the context of changes roposed. As they are now, yes, 18 is fine.

 

So, what I mean is, if these stay long recharge and become more potent as a change, it would follow set progression in some cases that they arrive later......

That I can work with.  Sorry if I was a bit snippy. I thought you were talking about delaying them even as-is.

[Naraka]

23 hours ago, Zepp said:

I was looking across powersets and thinking about areas where recharge could be reasonably adjusted.

The first area is AoE Holds for control powersets:
Currently 240s, 90s would be more appropriate.

The second area is armor powerset T⁹s.

Because these vary, there needs to be a some guidelines rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Revive powers are currently 300s, should be reduced to 240s.

Hibernate is a toggle currently at 120s, should be reduced to 60s.

Click powers should be changed to 3x duration. 120s -> 360s. Recharge restrictions removed. Moment of Glory duration doubled.

 

Next are pet summons.
Non-MM pet summons should be reduced to 180s recharge or 3x duration, whichever is lower.

MM pet summons should be reduced from 60・90・120 to 30・45・60.

 

From now, I am looking at ranged nukes and support sets to see what general rules or principles can be designed to make them more reasonable in terms of recharge.

Are you quartering IO recharge bonuses and removing Hasten?

[Replacement]

23 hours ago, Zepp said:

I was looking across powersets and thinking about areas where recharge could be reasonably adjusted.

The first area is AoE Holds for control powersets:
Currently 240s, 90s would be more appropriate.

The second area is armor powerset T⁹s.

Because these vary, there needs to be a some guidelines rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Revive powers are currently 300s, should be reduced to 240s.

Hibernate is a toggle currently at 120s, should be reduced to 60s.

Click powers should be changed to 3x duration. 120s -> 360s. Recharge restrictions removed. Moment of Glory duration doubled.

 

Next are pet summons.
Non-MM pet summons should be reduced to 180s recharge or 3x duration, whichever is lower.

MM pet summons should be reduced from 60・90・120 to 30・45・60.

 

From now, I am looking at ranged nukes and support sets to see what general rules or principles can be designed to make them more reasonable in terms of recharge.

I don't think I'd go so drastic with these numbers, at least the aoe hold and hibernate recharges... not right away, anyway.  I'd rather see the AoE holds hit 150-180s with some other improvements.  Frequent enough that I won't ever feel like I wasted it, but not so often that I can count on it every fight. While the Accuracy penalty sucks, I'm coming to realize it helps justify additional slotting on them, so I'm starting to think I'd prefer additional mag on them.

 

6 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Are you quartering IO recharge bonuses and removing Hasten?

I think they're changing the landscape so those conversations are more palatable. 

[...]

10 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

I'm not so sure calling something dumb is a good way to debate it.

 

Between levels 15-40, things do not "arrest" instantly, this is a meta game occurence. Plenty of regular teams, with standard SO and reg io builds take time to bring down groups of MOBs and clear missions. Returning to the time when 1 team member can neuter the whole game, turning every foe in every spawn into a statue did occur, necessitating change.

Debate? Nah. My opinion.

 

Cashless nukes on a 145s timer are a much larger problem than aoe holds on a 90 or 120s timer. Especially when many of those nukes apply significant status effects. 

[SwitchFade]

33 minutes ago, Vooded said:

Debate? Nah. My opinion.

 

Cashless nukes on a 145s timer are a much larger problem than aoe holds on a 90 or 120s timer. Especially when many of those nukes apply significant status effects. 

Regardless, insulting a valid argument with derogatory remarks isn't polite.

[...]

13 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

Regardless, insulting a valid argument with derogatory remarks isn't polite. 

If you feel insulted when I stated that your argument was dumb, then I apologize.  

 

The "city-of-statues" argument is akin to all-too-frequent invocations of the cottage rule. These arguments amount to little more than "a dev said so once." This is frankly exasperating, hence the tone of my dismissal. The game has changed a great deal, and the situation is more complex and nuanced than at first glance. 

 

To explain a little further, the "city of statues" argument was pre-ED and pre-IO. Specifically at a time when Hasten could be made perma on 6 green SOs. There was no aggro cap, and no target cap. With hold duration that was twice as long at base, you can start to see why it was necessary to nerf AoE controls very, very hard. 

 

In the current meta? AoE holds are pretty skippable. A nice "oh shit" button. Rather, I'd like to see them have a more central role in the control arsenal. For me, their primary limitation is that they are up to infrequently to feel "worth it." This is, I suspect, one reason nukes went to a 145s recharge. 

 

In a game where a tanker can neuter a group by just standing in the middle of it, or a blaster can annihilate a group every 40-80 seconds, I think it is very reasonable to ask that control classes be able to shut down groups every 35-70 seconds.  

 

Note that, even with a 120 second recharge, AoE holds have a base 14.9 second duration on controllers. At IO slotting levels, the recharge will come down to approximately 35 seconds. Perma holding a group might be possible with incarnates,  +hold duration set bonuses, or a secondary that gives recharge. But at that level of play, AoE control becomes superfluous. At level 15-40 SO/early IO play, perma holds would not be the norm by a long shot. 

 

Dominators would have an easier time getting perma holds, assuming perma dom. But they would still be less valuable to group than a controller in many scenarios.

 

In summary, the "city of statues" argument/nerf made sense at the time. In the current meta, that change is an over-nerf. I believe that half of that nerf should be rolled back: return AoE controls to 120 second but leave the base (controller) duration at 14.9 seconds (location AoEs such as earth and dark may require more fine tuning). 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Vooded
Spelling