So...what's this I hear about changes to TW?

[Patti]

Is it right to conflate coding with math?   Isn't code practical application with math as the theory behind?   Balance is largely a question of the math right?  That means you don't need to know code to write spreadsheets to show balance.   But it might help to know both.

[Without_Pause]

2 hours ago, Patti said:

Is it right to conflate coding with math?   Isn't code practical application with math as the theory behind?   Balance is largely a question of the math right?  That means you don't need to know code to write spreadsheets to show balance.   But it might help to know both.

Depends. If you want a degree in Computer Science, absolutely. We are talking Calc 3 level of math. If you simply want to make websites, then no. Do note the emphasis on math is vastly due to proving how good you are with logic puzzles. Someone with e CS degree could just about never code as part of the curriculum as where a software engineer is going to do a lot of coding getting their degree. Even getting my Associates in CS, I had all of two classes where I turned on a computer and a number of math classes. If you want to code for websites, software engineer is a good lean. If you want to program rockets, lean CS.

[JnEricsonx]

3 hours ago, drbuzzard said:

It's even worse than that. Anyone SKed to a team fighitng +5s would be a damned good approximation of useless since they would be fighting +6s and that were the purple patch goes wild. You can see this one live fairly easily if you end up on a team below 50 fighting +4s since as is, you will encounter things which are the difficulty you set and +1 more than that value (so if you're on a 45+4 team, there will be 50s encountered). At +6 every drops off drastically (though it is pretty bad at +5 for that matter) to 1/2 of what you do at +5. 

That's actually something that annoys the hell out of me these days.  Some 50 takes a mix of levels and decides to run +4/8 content.  And then you're watching your damage be pathetic, because you're 35 and basically -6 to all the enemies, etc.  And within 5 minutes the team falls apart because you're getting slaughtered.  Yes...even to Council.

[drbuzzard]

1 minute ago, JnEricsonx said:

That's actually something that annoys the hell out of me these days.  Some 50 takes a mix of levels and decides to run +4/8 content.  And then you're watching your damage be pathetic, because you're 35 and basically -6 to all the enemies, etc.  And within 5 minutes the team falls apart because you're getting slaughtered.  Yes...even to Council.

Actually a 50 can't do that, as enemies are capped at 54 (outside of certain incarnate trials with enemy level shifts). A 49- however certainly can. 

[JnEricsonx]

Ok, -5 to the enemies, still, it's painful.

[Crysis]

8 hours ago, JnEricsonx said:

Ok, -5 to the enemies, still, it's painful.

I solo at +4/x8 pretty much everything.  But if I’m going to run a PUG I always drop it to +3 and advertise I’m running +3 radio or story missions.  That gives me greater assurance that people will feel challenged, still join up for the XP and not be totally useless.

 

What’s ironic is the overwhelming majority of players =ASK= me to bump it to +4 after first mission.  I oblige usually, depending on how badly other players were getting torn up.  

 

So while I agree, annoying to not be able to hit anything, it’s not the hive mind preference apparently to do anything less than +4.

[Industrious1]

That is my experience as well, even if the team is doing horribly there will always be someone who thinks maximizing efficiency is putting it at +4.   Sure it takes about 5 minutes to clear a mob in some cases and your clear rate is flooring your actual gains but that is what makes them happy.

[Coyotedancer]

There seems to be a certain perception among players that if you *aren't* running at +4/x8 at all times you're a wimpy diaper-baby loser... Even if you're on a character that doesn't really have the build to handle that difficulty well. 

 

That's sort of silly... but when so many of us are over here telling the world "the game is too easy!" and "It's all a cake-walk" and "OMG I can play by rolling my face on the keyboard", I guess it's understandable.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Coyotedancer

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, Coyotedancer said:

There seems to be a certain perception among players that if you *aren't* running at +4/x8 at all times you're a wimpy diaper-baby loser... Even if you're on a character that doesn't really have the build to handle that difficulty well. 

 

That's sort of silly... but when so many of us are over here telling the world "the game is too easy!" and "It's all a cake-walk" and "OMG I can play by rolling my face on the keyboard", I guess it's understandable.

 

 

While the point has been made multiple times, it's also worth re-iterating... 

The crowd saying "It's too easy!", are not people I often see running First Ward and Night Ward while exemplared down to the 30's still at higher difficulty levels.

[Coyotedancer]

1 minute ago, MTeague said:

While the point has been made multiple times, it's also worth re-iterating... 

The crowd saying "It's too easy!", are not people I often see running First Ward and Night Ward while exemplared down to the 30's still at higher difficulty levels.

 

My usual response is to point in the direction of the Shard when I see complaints about the game being too easy. 

Those Rularuu in large numbers? They'll beat you up and take your lunch money. XD

[Crysis]

19 hours ago, MTeague said:

While the point has been made multiple times, it's also worth re-iterating... 

The crowd saying "It's too easy!", are not people I often see running First Ward and Night Ward while exemplared down to the 30's still at higher difficulty levels.

Amen.  The most difficult mobs in the game are largely ignored because this game is about casual play, not challenge.

 

I have come to believe COH is really just a social chat client with some game elements built into it.  Which is fine for me.  I can go find some challenging content, and largely uncontested at that given the zones I’ll find it in are largely devoid of any other players, let alone teams.

[Coyote]

Heh. I'm doing Night Ward on a Blaster at +1/x6 (I think First Ward was the same). I'm waiting for the Defend the Mansion mission to teach me humility and to repeatedly rez-kill me like every other character of mine who soloed Night Ward. But the real test will be the last mission against the pair of AVs.
I find Night Ward especially, but also First Ward, an excellent test of "is this really a powerful character, or do they just beat up Council and DE for a living?"

[Coyotedancer]

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

Heh. I'm doing Night Ward on a Blaster at +1/x6 (I think First Ward was the same). I'm waiting for the Defend the Mansion mission to teach me humility and to repeatedly rez-kill me like every other character of mine who soloed Night Ward. 

Yeah...

That mission can do that... XD

 

The last time I was in there, a friend and I were flash-back duoing it with my Rad/Dark Defender and her Kin/Shield Brute. We did (eventually-) win, but... ouch. It was not what I would call a Glorious Victory, and neither of those characters are slouches.

[Galaxy Brain]

1) Nerfs hurt twice as much as buffs. In various studies, using a coin flip where Tails = Lose 10$, the consensus was that Heads would need to earn you 20$ in order to be seen as "Fair" to most people, even if all things equal it should be -/+ 10$. This showcases our general reaction to anything seen as negative/taking away when it comes to something that impacts us directly. 

 

We can see the HC devs taking this to heart already with the changes to Brutes during the Tanker updates. Brutes got a slap on the wrist in terms of damage caps and people lost their minds, when in reality they received a big net BUFF with how much easier it is to generate and maintain fury. The highlight was still the wrist slap and it took a big other buff to divert some of the ire.  Pretty much any change, even positive ones will be met with vitriol if there is a shred of something being changed for somebody.

 

 

2) Going back to that 10$ vs 20$ idea, sometimes it is more economic to go for a nerf depsite what backlash it may bring. Like others posted here, it may make sense to treat buffs and nerfs like a budget. Taking away can save more room in the budget to add later such as with ED making room for Inventions (despite the end results, imagine what it'd be like with no Diminished Returns on enhancement today?), or making sure content can be handled at a certain pace/difficulty without being ridiculous. If everything were to only be buffed you have to in turn buff other parts of the game to catch up and invariably still leave things in the dust... taking a ton of time and effort constantly chasing your tail and increasing the "cost" more and more. Likewise, only nerfing leads to frustration and homogenization which is not fun and feels shallow or "cheap". There must be a balance, which includes nerfs alongside your buffs in order to maintain equilibrium. If something is not in balance, a nerf may be in order to stabilize other parts of the game in ways that buffs would not be able to.

 

 

3) Despite being a PvE experience, balance does matter for Fun, in the general sense. Yes, it can be fun to thrash through mobs non stop and likewise it can be fun to have a difficult encounter with self-imposed limits, but what is tricky is when players are given the options for both freely. If you're on a team where your particular skills are being overshadowed it can ruin the experience if you're just trying to play catch up at best or not even able to contribute at worst, likewise if you are just steamrolling everything with no challenge it can get old fast. Bringing under performers up is incredibly important, but there needs to be a point to where they are brought to.  If over-performers are kept as is, the line of which to buff everything goes up and you lean towards the steamroll / ironically losing steam side, and depending on how things are buffed you can actually shoehorn certain tactics into the meta to further isolate certain playstyles by proxy. (For example, if under performing sets just get boosted damage to compete with high-octane sets, then as a whole there is more damage flung around and mobs die faster, which leads to issues with say Control sets or the like where they dont have as much time or presence to contribute).

 

In this regard, it becomes more sensible to nerf in order to shift power around and make multiple things more viable rather than making everything viable in one way. However just straight-up nerfs are still usually bad, and anything that is taken away should have a bit of compensation in a different direction unless there is something egregiously broken.

[Sovera]

On 6/10/2020 at 3:36 PM, Coyotedancer said:

There seems to be a certain perception among players that if you *aren't* running at +4/x8 at all times you're a wimpy diaper-baby loser... Even if you're on a character that doesn't really have the build to handle that difficulty well. 

 

That's sort of silly... but when so many of us are over here telling the world "the game is too easy!" and "It's all a cake-walk" and "OMG I can play by rolling my face on the keyboard", I guess it's understandable.

I confess this hasn't been my experience. Different servers, maybe, or different timezone people logging in at different hours? Who knows. But the general consensus has been: people finish assembling, we look at each others levels and vet levels, and we pipe in, for example, 'We only have two incarnates and the rest are underleveled. I suggest we +2 this'. Or 'We have five incarnates, we can easily +4 this', and as a rule the whole team agrees on these assessments.

 

That said 90% of the time I'm the leader. Someone more gun-ho might ignore all such things and just set themselves at +4 and force the team to go at it.

[ImpousVileTerror]

Interesting.  All three of us are on Everlasting.  I have yet to experience any pick-up groups that take the time to examine the team composition in terms of level spectrum before determining difficulty.

My experiences have been closer to Coyot's; where without fail at least one person in an eight-member team of random strangers will request the difficulty at x4/+8 (even when we're already a team of 8, mind you).  These individuals either drop the team immediately if that request isn't fulfilled, or drop out during or immediately following the first mission.

[marcussmythe]

As a TW user with an incarnate IOed murdergoddess at 50 and a struggling 30 making me question why I wanted to level this set again, just for a -second- lvl 50 murdergoddess who cant exemplar for anything...

Any change would IMHO smooth the set out.  If we can make 1-40 (I find TW starts to really sing around 40 and is pretty miserable before that) more playable, and 50 with all the toys less extreme, that would be ideal.  The set should probably still get some return on being so micro-intensive compared to other sets,  but ‘best by miles single target, pehnomenal AOE, -Res, -Def for proccing, +Def for survival, KD for survival and MORE procs’ is probably a bit too much ROI.

 

If total damage out comes down, DPE should improve, as well.  Some of the over-performance endgame and misery before comes from  ‘paying for’ incredible DPA with hideous DPE... and by endgame, we have the tools to make that cost trivial, while still reaping the rewards.

 

Side note - anyone tried TW on SOs, no Incarnates?  Im guessing its pretty in par with other sets there... limited RCHG and END would make the set a lot more interesting, choice wise.

 

Observation:  does it seem like many ‘late release’ sets are balanced around SO performance, and at the same time, carefully crafted to get really good returns from IOs?

 

[Neiska]

Here is my experience with Tw/bio, I have both a scrapper and brute version. (I suspect I am alone that i actually perfer the brute!) These are not presented as "facts", just my own thoughts, experiences, and opinions.

 

1.) I found that TW actually underperforms, until you get enough global/recharge reduction from Luck of the Gamblers and set bonuses.

 

2.) I had other ATs and powerset combinations actually perform better when leveling up, and even as a fresh 50 with only a few sets. TW/BIO didnt begin to feel "godlike" until I started getting all my high end enchancements and incarnates, namely "recharge". Once I hit that magical "recharge" point, it just went from 0-500 fast. Before then? It felt clunky, awkward, unwieldly. Sometimes there were attack chain gaps. Or there were issues with Accuracy. Missing with TW just makes me wince to see, considering the windup time.

 

3.) Tw/Bio is painful to exemplar down/run ouros with. Even if you have a full attuned set of IOs, that wont prevent "power loss" that makes the entire concept work. I rarely see tw/bio on weekly TF runs for example. Anytime i see a Tw/Bio, its usually in endgame content. Rarely do i see them elsewhere. 

 

4.) I would consider points 2 and 3 to be "powerset drawbacks". Endgame? Sure, you're Onepunchman. But any other sort of activity? It feels pretty "meh". Either your attacks are super slow, or they miss, and it feels like playing pool with a baseball bat. Even farming is a bit "meh". Sure, they "can", but I can actually farm and clear maps faster with my Mastermind than my TW/BIO, as odd as that sounds.

 

Thoughts on nerfing -

 

I do think the set is overtuned a bit. But perhaps not to the extent others make it out to be, at least not the powerset as a whole. It seems just fine on my Brute. And  my scrapper vs my widow,, my Widow can hit "almost" as hard. (She actually does more damage than my tw/bio brute). She has a solid single attack chain as well as pop Psi Wail for massive AOE damage. while she has more team buffs with improved maneuvers, assualt, mind link etc. And CC options such as Aura of Confuse. So from a team perspective, I acutally think my Widow is superior to my TW/BIO brute or scrapper. Sure, the TW gives more damage.. ...but thats it. I would argue my Widow contribues nearly as much damage, plus all the other stuff which not benifits just me, but the entire team. All this while being def and res capped.

 

So, changes may need to happen, bbuuutt I would urge not to "overtune" it such as other powersets have been in the past. Or perhaps a Change to the powerset on only X sort of ATs? I mean, if you nerf it too much then you will never see a Tanker or Brute take the set. As I hear its only the "scrapper" version that people seem to voice concerns over.

 

Example - What if TW powers could no longer Crit? I am no number cruncher or anything, but that one change alone might bring TW/BIO Scrappers back to where everyone else is, but leave Brutes and Tankers laregely untouched. (I have no math to support this, its just an idea or suggestion.)

 

I am just afraid of them nerfing TW too much, by using only the "Scrapper" version in mind, which would make the set even worse for brutes, and possibly unplayable on Tankers. I mean, I am one of the few brute TW/BIOs that I know about, and i nearly "never" see the power on tankers to begin with. Like, ever.

 

 

[marcussmythe]

TW Tanks exist (I have one!), and can be a great path to 'maximum damage while maintaining maximum survival at endgame'.  But the lowered Tank damage makes the already painful leveling for TW (compared to other melee sets) even MORE painful, and the long animation locks of TW detract from the tanker's need to adjust to situations, pull aggro off friends, hit the 'dont die' button because taking fire from everywhere, and keep things off of friends.  

Finally, you go TW to do all the damage at endgame.  You dont go tank to do all the damage.  And you can make a Brute, or even a Scrapper, 'tough enough' for +4/x8 anything, or to survival and survive soloing the hardest TFs in the game.  If your target is over performance (and you rolled TW, didntcha?) then you are probably clever enough to realize that any survival past 'it cant kill me before I kill it' is wasted (at least in solo content - on teams, the extra tanker survival and aggro control and now target caps gives other value), and so... you don't roll a tank with Titan Weapons.

 

On the previous comments about nerfs v. buffs, two thoughts:

1.)  If you have 10 sets, 1-2 supergood, 1-2 superbad, and the rest in the middle - it is a far more efficient use of resources (and resources are ALWAYS finite!) to bring 1-2 up, 1-2 down, and leave the rest as they are, than try to bring 8-9 up, likely miss the mark with a few, and have to start another round.

 

2.)  What does it matter if something is too good!  PvE game!  -  Certainly, players can play anything they want, and the existence of a TW/Bio Scrapper does not prevent an Energy Melee/Regen Brute from happening.  However, we are human, and when you run off on a team feeling utterly useless/second rate with NO WAY TO FIX THAT (other than a reroll!) simply because your chose the wrong powersets - well, that is not a good time.

 

In a way, 'too good' things are worse than 'too bad' things.   A set that is 'too bad' is a sad thing, but it only costs us one set as being as being a mathematically good choice (I ignore here aesthetically good choices - Pet-less MMs exist, because of aesthetics, not math).  A set that is 'too good' costs us, arguably, EVERY OTHER SET as a mathematically good choice.

 

We want cheese.  If there are 10 routes to the cheese, good.  If there are 2 routes that dont get to the cheese anytime soon, thats a little bad, you lose two routes.  If there is one route to the cheese that is far better than the others, you lose all the others, and thats even worse.

Edited June 12, 2020 by marcussmythe

[BZRKR]

10 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I mean, I am one of the few brute TW/BIOs that I know about, and i nearly "never" see the power on tankers to begin with. Like, ever.

That's because on a Tanker we roll Radiation Armor /Titan Weapon, which is also divine at 50, bumpy at exemplared levels.

 

In fact, I recently dropped Ground Zero (gasp!) in order to pick up Titan Sweep so that I would have more than 2 attacks when doing the Positrons with the altaholics I run with that always seem to have new characters that need to get their Task Force Commander sorted out.

[marcussmythe]

41 minutes ago, BZRKR said:

That's because on a Tanker we roll Radiation Armor /Titan Weapon, which is also divine at 50, bumpy at exemplared levels.

 

In fact, I recently dropped Ground Zero (gasp!) in order to pick up Titan Sweep so that I would have more than 2 attacks when doing the Positrons with the altaholics I run with that always seem to have new characters that need to get their Task Force Commander sorted out.

What he said.  Radiation gives slightly less damage out than Bio (and so is less of a target for maximizing output), but OTOH, Radiation is a solid contender for second toughest tank set in the game (barring Granite), while handing out damage, AOE, healing, Absorb, Endurance, Recharge, etc. like they are candy.  Radiation is at least as overtuned as Bioarmor, its just somewhat more subtle about it.  Further, as a resist set (I wont say pure, because of all the other candy), Radiation is partiularly attractive to a tank, or brute, and less so to a scrapper, due to the lower resist cap.

Edited June 12, 2020 by marcussmythe

[Coyotedancer]

3 hours ago, Sovera said:

I confess this hasn't been my experience. Different servers, maybe, or different timezone people logging in at different hours? Who knows. But the general consensus has been: people finish assembling, we look at each others levels and vet levels, and we pipe in, for example, 'We only have two incarnates and the rest are underleveled. I suggest we +2 this'. Or 'We have five incarnates, we can easily +4 this', and as a rule the whole team agrees on these assessments.

 

That said 90% of the time I'm the leader. Someone more gun-ho might ignore all such things and just set themselves at +4 and force the team to go at it.

 

Heh. I've literally never seen that level of discussion happen on regular PUG teams... At best, a leader will start at something like +2 to get a feel for how the team handles, and then they pretty much always kick it to +4 on the second mission. If they don't do that on their own, team members will almost always ask them to. 

 

Discussion happens a little more often on TF/SF runs, but not always even there. 

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, marcussmythe said:

In a way, 'too good' things are worse than 'too bad' things.   A set that is 'too bad' is a sad thing, but it only costs us one set as being as being a mathematically good choice (I ignore here aesthetically good choices - Pet-less MMs exist, because of aesthetics, not math).  A set that is 'too good' costs us, arguably, EVERY OTHER SET as a mathematically good choice.

 

The reasons for nerfing overpowered sets, perfectly stated.
OP sets don't literally lower the number of available choices, but do heavily restrict the number of desirable choices.

[marcussmythe]

Exactly.  I want to play melee without going, constantly 'yannow, this is great, but it would be so much better if I had just gone Bio/Rad/Titan/Whatever'.  Other things dont have to be exactly as good as... thats impossible.  But close enough that you can go 'well, X would be nice to have right now, but I chose Y, lets see how I can make Y work for me!'

[Neiska]

8 minutes ago, marcussmythe said:

Exactly.  I want to play melee without going, constantly 'yannow, this is great, but it would be so much better if I had just gone Bio/Rad/Titan/Whatever'.  Other things dont have to be exactly as good as... thats impossible.  But close enough that you can go 'well, X would be nice to have right now, but I chose Y, lets see how I can make Y work for me!'

Well, going by this logic then we need to have a look at pools such as leadership, combat jumping, and speed. Because those would fall under the exact same logic. Nearly every build takes those 3 pools, leaving the majority of other pools largely untouched. This isnt 100% the case, but I would bet an entire box of coco that this is the case. "ya know, this is fun. But i wish i had taken combat jump/leadership to get my defenses capped, or to be mule-spots for more luck of the gamblers." I mean, its kind of the same thing isnt it? Such a clear superior choice that 95% of people do it leaving no real "choice" right?