"Meta" Tweaks

[Monos King]

53 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

People are quitting TFs that take too long as it is.  Why make them longer?

Well, the challenge as well as the rewards is one of the big reasons people do big team content, so if adding the EBs and boss modifications creates a sense of challenge, that would be one reason to make them longer. That depends on the already demonstrated subjectivity of challenge though.

 

But really, that impatience is born from the environment of damage domination and immense tactical ease that results. People are too used to blowing away enemies without any difficulty, that norm makes people quit when TFs were always meant to be at the very least moderately arduous, and thus lengthy, endeavors. People erroneously believe that the altercation should resolve in "speed run time" always.

[golstat2003]

I'm fine with these changes as OPTIONAL difficulty options.

[Omega-202]

22 minutes ago, Monos King said:

Well, the challenge as well as the rewards is one of the big reasons people do big team content, so if adding the EBs and boss modifications creates a sense of challenge, that would be one reason to make them longer. That depends on the already demonstrated subjectivity of challenge though.

 

But really, that impatience is born from the environment of damage domination and immense tactical ease that results. People are too used to blowing away enemies without any difficulty, that norm makes people quit when TFs were always meant to be at the very least moderately arduous, and thus lengthy, endeavors. People erroneously believe that the altercation should resolve in "speed run time" always.

Lets keep the preachiness to a minimum.  People play for different reasons and there's a lof of people who play to be Superman and speed through things.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Omega-202

[Monos King]

6 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Lets keep the preachiness to a minimum.  People play for different reasons and there's a lof of people who play to be Superman and speed through things.

I think you mistake my intentions; I did acknowledge that subjectivity was involved. But it is kind of a well known issue that has been discussed in numerous threads. It is a meta thread after all, mentality is bound to be brought up. I just thought I'd address it since it was mentioned.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Monos King

[golstat2003]

7 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Lets keep the preachiness to a minimum.  People play for different reasons and there's a lof of people who play to be Superman and speed through things.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Let's keep that while giving those who want more challenge some of these suggestions in again . . . OPTIONAL difficulty settings. Agreed.

Edited June 23, 2020 by golstat2003

[Yomo Kimyata]

A simple idea might be to add a foe hp multiplier.  So you could play something like +2/x5/*4.  That would help keep minions from getting wiped instantly.

[Bionic_Flea]

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

4 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Have a sniper boss that's immune to taunt but is exceptionally aggravated by buffs and debuffs. 

why would you want to neuter a tanker from being able to hold aggro?

 

just my 2 inf, the idea of just making everything bosses or EBs sounds incredibly boring.  People are quitting TFs that take too long as it is.  Why make them longer?

1)  Having ONE single mob that ignores a tanker's grunt is not "neutering" a tanker's role.  They can have all the other aggro.

2)  I, along with others in the thread, are spitballing ideas to add some variety or complexity beyond "everyone steamroll with AoEs"

3)  Maybe people are quitting TFs that are taking too long . . . because they're taking too long?  Another crazy idea, right?

[Galaxy Brain]

If they're taking too long and they feel like they arent making a difference is when people give up. If changes were made that still allowed AoE to rock and ST to rock, as well as Control to rock, then I dont see people throwing their hands up as suddenly different characters contribute more than before.

[golstat2003]

2 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

If they're taking too long and they feel like they arent making a difference is when people give up. If changes were made that still allowed AoE to rock and ST to rock, as well as Control to rock, then I dont see people throwing their hands up as suddenly different characters contribute more than before.

Plus this would be an optional difficulty settings. And TF formers would mention that when they announce they are forming a team. Just like folks announce badge runs, master of runs, +4/x8 etc. I see no issue as long as these new options are not forced on everyone.

[Troo]

3 hours ago, ZacKing said:

why would you want to neuter a tanker from being able to hold aggro?

 

just my 2 inf, the idea of just making everything bosses or EBs sounds incredibly boring.  People are quitting TFs that take too long as it is.  Why make them longer?

 

how to say... maybe a picture would be quicker

 

[aethereal]

I think that people are underestimating the additional difficulty that would be created by making specifically minions and lieutenants last longer.  Making just the boss last twice as long when the minions and lieutenants are gone would just be a pointless speedbump.  Letting another 10 mobs actually get off some attacks would increase the danger at least somewhat.  There would also be more chance that the tank missed a minion or two and the squishies drew some fire.

Edited June 24, 2020 by aethereal

[Troo]

Hey all ideas are on the table.

Maybe @aethereal has an idea there. Are you suggesting AoEs shouldn't be front loaded damage. one or two ticks of minor damage so the targets get a chance to react?

[ShardWarrior]

5 hours ago, Monos King said:

Well, the challenge as well as the rewards is one of the big reasons people do big team content, so if adding the EBs and boss modifications creates a sense of challenge, that would be one reason to make them longer. That depends on the already demonstrated subjectivity of challenge though.

Yes, it very much does depend on the subjectivity of challenge.  People are always going to take the path of least resistance.  Speaking from personal experience in the groups and channels I belong to, rewards that can be achieved in the same amount of time by doing less "challenging" content will always be the way to go.

 

I also see quite a lot of people quit group content when they take longer than anticipated.  I do not see bumping enemy NPC HP across the board to make things last longer alleviating that issue in particular.

[MTeague]

I still struggle with this. 

 

I enjoy my nice casual CoH.  I enjoy "Bring the player, not the character".   I enjoy knowing I can slap together a team of ... pretty much....anything... and not even always a full team. Very often 4-5 people and just roll.... and we can do.... the VAST majority of the game.  I like being able to solo on ANY character ANY powerset combination.  I like being able to march into a warehouse full of baddies alone and have NO DOUBT that I can wipe the floor with all of them as long as I know how to leverage my powers, when to use my inspirations, and even other things like how to Captain-Hit-and-Fade to thin a spawn if it's just too much to chew all at once. 

 

But I also miss when teams teams were PSYCHED when a Bubbler joined the team.  Or when the Blaster, Tank, and Scrapper would all make nice with the Empath, hoping they'd be one of the two people to receive Fortitude.  Or when having some mixture of Lockdown vs Support was a GIANT boost, and it wasn't all "Meh, everything dies in one AE volley, who need a Controller."   I definitely enjoy pre-incarnate content FAR MORE than incarnate content.  Yes. I want my shiny incarnate powers, because they are shiny, but I often question whether they were a good idea. 

 

But I recognize, I can't simultaneously have it both ways with an across-the-board change.

I do think OPTIONAL difficulty settings that kick it up several notches would help recover some of the feeling of "Better get your game face on, this TF is Oldschool baby!" when you DO choose to queue for a Hardcore TF.  

i do recognize, that, so long as it's optional, many would just NEVER use it. EVER. 

Even me personally, I would not use it every night. 

But I would be up for it at least half of the time, even if other nights I'd want my stompy facerolly steamrolly arcadey goodness.

 

Maybe only 1/6 of the population would use it at all, on an occasional basis, same way darn few go to the Night Ward.

But I really think it has to be a different "mode" of play.  I don't you can cover both arenas with the same set of rules.

[Apparition]

Many, and I'd dare say most, of the people that complain City of Heroes is too easy refuse to play red side and gold side.  So I don't think that they're looking for challenge when it's already readily available.  Not really.

[ShardWarrior]

4 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Maybe people are quitting TFs that are taking too long . . . because they're taking too long?  Another crazy idea, right?

Yes, they are quitting because they take too long and simply boosting enemy HP to make them last longer is only exacerbating this.

[Number Six]

30 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Many, and I'd dare say most, of the people that complain City of Heroes is too easy refuse to play red side and gold side.  So I don't think that they're looking for challenge when it's already readily available.  Not really.

Goldside is amazing on a team. All the XP comes right to you!

[Bionic_Flea]

2 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Yes, they are quitting because they take too long and simply boosting enemy HP to make them last longer is only exacerbating this.

I haven't suggested increased HP.  Others have though.  My ideas were to add optional new bosses with different abilities and AI.

[xl8]

9 hours ago, MTeague said:

Farmer Brutes / Tankers would be taking another serious hit after the Double Influence Changes, and pretty much guaranteed they would go THROUGH THE ROOF in rage.   You may still feel the change should be warranted, but go into it eyes open.  This kind of change would hit them SUPER HARD.

My first reaction was, "And?"
But even so, if the changes were selectable, there'd be no issue.
I'm for changes to the game that improve playability. As someone who farms a lot, I see no need to be appeased.
The inf nerf? I'll keep farming because everyone is the same boat.

[xl8]

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

This is not a new discussion topic and this subject was brought up not only here, but on live as well on many occasions.

Right, so if someone new joins the discussion, don't listen?
 

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I would look at improving the underlying AI that would allow NPCs to be more adaptive to your combat tactics. 

Yes, good idea. Perhaps long term. Meanwhile, while a skeleton crew works in their spare time, let them know any simple change is appreciated.

 

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Another idea would be to introduce some random events into encounters, such as traps or even collateral damage.

This shouldn't be difficult to implement and would be a welcome addition.

 

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

You could also have random named NPCs or signatures spawn. 

Yes to this! Especially the signature spawn.

7 hours ago, Redlynne said:

"Hard Mode" inverts the Minions and Bosses quantities.

Every Minion spawns as a Boss instead ... and every Boss spawns as a Minion instead.

Yes and no. There's no point in putting 2 minions in the pack for funsies, but why not simply change the numbers of ranks

spawned.

 

7 hours ago, ZacKing said:

9 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Have a sniper boss that's immune to taunt but is exceptionally aggravated by buffs and debuffs. 

why would you want to neuter a tanker from being able to hold aggro?

This could work if say, the tank had to apply multiple taunt uses to grab the boss.

7 hours ago, ZacKing said:

People are quitting TFs that take too long as it is.  Why make them longer?

This is because they haven't changed and include multiple repeat missions - Citadel, Synapse, we're looking at you.
Part of this is the mundanity A new challenge would negate this slightly, if only briefly.
Long term, more difficulty would allow the removal of repeat missions.

 

7 hours ago, MTeague said:

I want mobs that will RUN and GET HELP from other groups of foes, ambush me around corners, have trip mines setup in my path, maybe take a NPC hostage, like Sigil / Kadabra Kill in Heather Townsend's arc, etc.  I'm keeping expectations low.  But if you ask me what' the right way to increase difficulty, that's it.

Everyone would agree, but as you already said...

7 hours ago, MTeague said:

That will take years, esp with a volunteer dev team.

So let's baby step solutions.

Also, if people make a suggestion that isn't feasible or liked, by all means point out what's wrong, but bear in mind any suggestion is better than none and offering constructive feedback, "Hey, X won't work, but you could try Y", can stir creative thinking that benefits everyone.

Keep the suggestions coming, bad and good.

[Parabola]

It is very difficult to guess what would be easy changes to make but if I could create a wishlist including some 'possible quick wins' for game difficulty adjustments it would look like:

 

1) Remove the incarnate level shift in regular content. This would be the same as adding a +5 difficulty without having to rework any mobs. It's been discussed before and frankly I still cannot get my head around any objection to this. The level shift just makes zero sense to me.

 

2) Leverage existing mechanics within enemy groups that are underperforming. Council for example have a super stunner type trick where on defeat a regular dude can spawn a warwolf. If the odds for that could be upped considerably at the higher levels they would offer more resistance. CoT are another group that basically become pushovers. They lose access to some of their better debuffers at higher levels, perhaps this is an angle that could be looked at?

 

3) Increase rewards for harder content. This may not be a quick win as such but I think it would get to the heart of a couple of problems. The game has a ton of content in it that isn't used very much and at the same time people are complaining about the teaming dynamic during the content that is being run.

 

We are always going to be drawn towards the content that gives us the best rewards vs time. We optimise our builds and we optimise our playtime too. If something easy gives the same reward as something hard we have what we have now; endless PI radio/portal teams and night ward is a ghost town (in every sense).

 

Extra reward could take the form of bonus xp/drops for content judged to be more difficult. If it can't be done on a mob by mob basis then maybe some bonus things could be tacked on at mission completion? Maybe merit rewards could stand to be adjusted red and goldside to tempt folks over?

 

4) Make it easier to do a wider variety of content. The flashback system in theory gives access to loads of different and sometimes challenging things to do. In practice it's a soloing tool because of the task force limitation around not being able to add team members halfway through.

 

Make contacts approachable by any higher level character and have them offer their story arcs and general missions. Auto exemp the character to the appropriate level on acceptance of a mission with an option to revert back by calling the contact and dropping the mission. That way casual teams could run just about anything and not get stuck in the cycle of endless radios. As it wouldn't be under the task force setup everyone would likely have to accept not getting merit rewards but the flashback system is still there for that.

 

5) Migrate some or all of the challenge options from the flashback system to the regular difficulty set up and incentivise their use with rewards. Again this would be pointless if it didn't give better rewards but these options exist so lets exploit them. The enemies buffed setting in particular would seem to be perfect for use in regular play.

 

Overall I'm thinking of something of a carrot and stick approach. The stick is slightly upping the difficulty of the easiest bits of the game and the carrot is various changes to encourage people into running a wider variety of content.

[Zeraphia]

15 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Great minds huh? Honestly, looking at it this way it appears the issue is not that AoE shreds through minions/etc, and more that spawns are dis-proportionally minions/etc!  Lower the amount of Minions and add in another boss or two per spawn and things should spice up.

I think another avenue would be, as I've said numerous times, in addition to this suggestion, just more content. I've already done the badging, and I enjoy playing my builds to the fullest, but ITF/MLTF/LRSF/LGTF/KHTF/TinPex get boring after you've run them twice in one day, thrice the other. I'd love to see a roster of more end-game interesting potentially some being harder TF's to include in the lineup with suggestions like these, and the option to still "speed through" and do them as they are in their current variation to not take away the fun others have.

 

I also think that introducing a lineup of new task forces for different levels that are engaging, fun, and interesting should be considered as well, introducing new groups of harder enemies, unpopular opinion, but Citadel, Synapse, Positron are dated. I'd like to see more interesting and mechanically fun task forces for these level ranges. 

 

Further, we could introduce another new system that exemplars to the person who created the task force's level. Say for instance, I wanted to run a Synapse, but I was a level 50, the task force's enemy groups wouldn't restrict you to level 20, it would make them all come evenly as level 50 and you can use your powers as you'd like, which would make lower level content much more enjoyable and played more often.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Zeraphia

[DSorrow]

I think the biggest issues CoX faces when we talk about increasing difficulty are the following:

1. The power gap between a "pick conceptually nice powers and use SOs" and "PhD in Mids' fully optimized IO build" is enormous. We are basically talking about level 1 vs max level power gap in most other MMOs type of difference here. I'd wager the people (me included) who would like to see additional difficulty options represent a vanishingly small, although vocal, minority so any solutions that we come up with should be very effective when it comes to resource expenditure (developer time)
2. Pretty much nothing in CoX numbers game works linearly so finding a sweet spot in the numbers game is extremely difficult, especially given the condition of wildly varying player power. For example, give +5% ToHit to a class of enemies and suddenly they're doing double effective damage against everyone who is soft capped and only ~10% more against someone who is not. Add a small debuff to some stat in a couple of attacks and you end up with horror groups like the Vanguard who are manageable in smaller groups but absolutely decimate you in seconds in large numbers.
   So, in addition to being the most boring way to increase difficulty like some others already noted, I also don't think it is a very effective method in this game given how quickly things go from "survivable for a minute" to "survivable for two seconds" under exponential returns. With a steady baseline like in most FPS games where everyone has the same HP and damage output with little variance the +con difficulty is easier to manage, but it's still boring.

 

 

Under these constraints I guess the favorite solutions I've seen and/or thought of are the following:

• Introduce more specialist enemies to high-level enemy groups (think Sappers and the like)
• Increase the ranks of spawned enemies so that LTs and especially bosses become more common
• Face Incarnate characters with special Shadow Simulacrum type enemies, much like Kheldians get Quantums. These could be clones or just boss / EB level enemies with preset player and Incarnate power selections. Scale the number of these per mission according to the number of Incarnate teammates
• Enemies that summon helpers or have adjacent groups come in for help so that the first volley of AoEs doesn't solve everything

Edited June 24, 2020 by DSorrow

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, DSorrow said:

 

1. The power gap between a "pick conceptually nice powers and use SOs" and "PhD in Mids' fully optimized IO build" is enormous. We are basically talking about level 1 vs max level power gap in most other MMOs type of difference here. I'd wager the people (me included) who would like to see additional difficulty options represent a vanishingly small, although vocal, minority so any solutions that we come up with should be very effective when it comes to resource expenditure (developer time)

I know that some people are interested in getting a sense for how many people use SOs or common IOs versus set bonuses and "builds."  I'd like to offer one data point.  It's not by any means a comprehensive window.

 

On Everlasting, I often glance at people's power choices to see if they'd be good people to do some PvP with.  The overwhelming majority of level 50s in the RP spaces have fully set-IO'd builds.  Like, I've seen some who don't, certainly, but it's a small minority.  People who aren't 50 are more like maybe 50/50 having sets, maybe even 60/40 in favor of not having sets.  But, in RP spaces, it's pretty rare to not use sets once you're at level cap.  Now, maybe that just means the casual players don't go into RP spaces, but here's one data point for the idea that it's not some crazy exception to have a decked out character.

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

I think another avenue would be, as I've said numerous times, in addition to this suggestion, just more content. I've already done the badging, and I enjoy playing my builds to the fullest, but ITF/MLTF/LRSF/LGTF/KHTF/TinPex get boring after you've run them twice in one day, thrice the other. I'd love to see a roster of more end-game interesting potentially some being harder TF's to include in the lineup with suggestions like these, and the option to still "speed through" and do them as they are in their current variation to not take away the fun others have.

 

I also think that introducing a lineup of new task forces for different levels that are engaging, fun, and interesting should be considered as well, introducing new groups of harder enemies, unpopular opinion, but Citadel, Synapse, Positron are dated. I'd like to see more interesting and mechanically fun task forces for these level ranges. 

 

Further, we could introduce another new system that exemplars to the person who created the task force's level. Say for instance, I wanted to run a Synapse, but I was a level 50, the task force's enemy groups wouldn't restrict you to level 20, it would make them all come evenly as level 50 and you can use your powers as you'd like, which would make lower level content much more enjoyable and played more often.

The bolded would be . . . difficult. Some mobs when scaled would not scale very well at level 50 without significant work on each mob on a group by group basis. The tech could be made, however, you'd first have to do that mob pass. Not a bad suggestion, just don't expect it anytime before 2025.