"Meta" Tweaks

[DSorrow]

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

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.

Fair enough, I certainly don't have a comprehensive view into the average player base so anything I say on the topic is based off of a hunch. That said, I still think that the spectrum between SOs and optimized IO builds is so wide that an optimized IO build is still miles ahead of a build with set IOs* despite both being much better than SO/common IO only builds. Essentially, if the difficulty options allow us to go from -1/x1 to +4/x8 I'd say an average SO build performance cap is around +1/x3, a build with set IOs* at around +2/x6 and for a fully optimized build it's beyond +4/x8.

 

Note that I use the term "build with set IOs" to mean a character build that slots set IOs, but with little to no regard to an optimized performance goal. This could mean anything from slotting whatever uncommon sets fit into powers just for better enhancement values to a build that just slots "best" sets per power basis without maximizing efficiency in the big picture. Even within this category the performance gap between the low and top end is significant.

[ShardWarrior]

8 hours ago, xl8 said:

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

Well no, that is not what I said at all.

[aethereal]

4 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

 

Note that I use the term "build with set IOs" to mean a character build that slots set IOs, but with little to no regard to an optimized performance goal. This could mean anything from slotting whatever uncommon sets fit into powers just for better enhancement values to a build that just slots "best" sets per power basis without maximizing efficiency in the big picture. Even within this category the performance gap between the low and top end is significant.

Yeah, I obviously am not taking a lot of time to look at people's set bonuses and try to figure out backwards whether they've got a really optimized build or if they just threw whatever set looked convenient into whatever powers they have.  Just saying that, at least in RP spaces in Everlasting, on level 50s, sets are much more common than non-sets.

[golstat2003]

10 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

Fair enough, I certainly don't have a comprehensive view into the average player base so anything I say on the topic is based off of a hunch. That said, I still think that the spectrum between SOs and optimized IO builds is so wide that an optimized IO build is still miles ahead of a build with set IOs* despite both being much better than SO/common IO only builds. Essentially, if the difficulty options allow us to go from -1/x1 to +4/x8 I'd say an average SO build performance cap is around +1/x3, a build with set IOs* at around +2/x6 and for a fully optimized build it's beyond +4/x8.

 

Note that I use the term "build with set IOs" to mean a character build that slots set IOs, but with little to no regard to an optimized performance goal. This could mean anything from slotting whatever uncommon sets fit into powers just for better enhancement values to a build that just slots "best" sets per power basis without maximizing efficiency in the big picture. Even within this category the performance gap between the low and top end is significant.

All of the additional things we're discussing would be added into game play ONLY as OPTIONAL difficulty options that team leaders/formers would select. The base game would still be left as is, SO builds versus IO build I think is less relevant when the new difficulty options would be OPTIONAL.

 

If you were talking about tacking them onto the base game, then yeah the variation in IO builds, versus Set IO Builds, versus frankeslotted builds, versus SO builds would have to be brought up MORE strongly.

Edited June 24, 2020 by golstat2003

[ZacKing]

13 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

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?

Yeah that's what the agro cap is for.  mobs that ignore tankers are not necessary.  stuff like making mobs that ignore tanker aggro isn't adding complexity in my opinion.  it's just making that content less appealing to solo melee play.    And yeah people are quitting stuff that takes too long.  making mobs last 10 times longer isn't making things go faster. 

[DSorrow]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

All of the additional things we're discussing would be added into game play ONLY as OPTIONAL difficulty options that team leaders/formers would select. The base game would still be left as is, SO builds versus IO build I think is less relevant when the new difficulty options would be OPTIONAL.

I'm not opposing giving players increased options to add difficulty, what I'm saying is that any of these OPTIONAL things should

1. Consume very little development resources because those could also be used to service the larger player population instead.
2. Be generalist enough options that they increase difficulty equally to most builds which is something the numbers game in CoX can't realistically accomplish, and that is why the SO vs IO build or even Resistance vs Defense and Buffs vs Debuffs question is extremely relevant. We don't want to end up in a place where only a couple of powersets/builds can play at max settings because the difficulty is implemented in a certain way.

Even with these OPTIONAL things being OPTIONAL, it doesn't make sense to put a lot of resources into developing something that won't be used like the existing OPTIONAL difficulty settings we already have in Ouro, for example. Won't be an easy task, in my opinion.

[Bionic_Flea]

25 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

stuff like making mobs that ignore tanker aggro isn't adding complexity in my opinion.  it's just making that content less appealing to solo melee play

If you are solo, taunting is practically useless whether you're a tanker, brute, blaster, or anything else.  You'll have all the aggro.

 

And, as you pointed out, since there is an aggro cap, there may be critters that are ignoring the tank anyway.  My suggested anti-taunt critter would be one that the team would want to prioritize.

 

It's OK if you don't like my idea or have a different opinion.  But if you are going to give reasons the reasons should at least make sense.

[Zeraphia]

7 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

If you are solo, taunting is practically useless whether you're a tanker, brute, blaster, or anything else.  You'll have all the aggro.

 

And, as you pointed out, since there is an aggro cap, there may be critters that are ignoring the tank anyway.  My suggested anti-taunt critter would be one that the team would want to prioritize.

 

It's OK if you don't like my idea or have a different opinion.  But if you are going to give reasons the reasons should at least make sense.

I don't agree with this, if you're solo, taunting can be very useful for toons who would have to chase down enemies otherwise (especially melee) it's one of the reasons I deleted my Rad/FA Scrapper, no taunt, bad times due to enemies running away. 

[ZacKing]

9 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

If you are solo, taunting is practically useless whether you're a tanker, brute, blaster, or anything else.  You'll have all the aggro.

 

And, as you pointed out, since there is an aggro cap, there may be critters that are ignoring the tank anyway.  My suggested anti-taunt critter would be one that the team would want to prioritize.

 

It's OK if you don't like my idea or have a different opinion.  But if you are going to give reasons the reasons should at least make sense.

Wow no need to get nasty man.  it does make sense if you think about it.  So Yeah, taunt does have a role in playing solo melee.  it helps with runners or pulling.  And thanks you're making my point that a mob that ignores taunts isn't necessary because of the aggro cap.  the rest of the team can prioritize anything above the cap the tank doesn't have taunted.

[Bionic_Flea]

Taunt is auto-hit in PvE.  In addition to the aggro modifier, taunt has a -range component.  If you are the only target a taunt would cause the critter to come closer, even if he is ignoring the taunt component.  But If running is deemed to be problematic, make this critter like the Nemesis Snipers who almost never move.

 

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Wow no need to get nasty man. 

I didn't think that was particularly offensive.  But my apologies if I offended.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Bionic_Flea

[ShardWarrior]

15 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

Taunt is auto-hit in PvE.  In addition to the aggro modifier, taunt has a -range component.  If you are the only target a taunt would cause the critter to come closer, even if he is ignoring the taunt component.  But If running is deemed to be problematic, make this critter like the Nemesis Snipers who almost never move.

Personally, I do not see the need for NPCs that ignore taunt.  The existing aggro cap mechanics cover this. 

[golstat2003]

52 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

I'm not opposing giving players increased options to add difficulty, what I'm saying is that any of these OPTIONAL things should

1. Consume very little development resources because those could also be used to service the larger player population instead.
2. Be generalist enough options that they increase difficulty equally to most builds which is something the numbers game in CoX can't realistically accomplish, and that is why the SO vs IO build or even Resistance vs Defense and Buffs vs Debuffs question is extremely relevant. We don't want to end up in a place where only a couple of powersets/builds can play at max settings because the difficulty is implemented in a certain way.

Even with these OPTIONAL things being OPTIONAL, it doesn't make sense to put a lot of resources into developing something that won't be used like the existing OPTIONAL difficulty settings we already have in Ouro, for example. Won't be an easy task, in my opinion.

Oh it most certainly won't be an easy task. I don't think anything being discussed here (or in other difficulty options suggestions threads) will ever see the light of day until like 2025 or later, based on the amount of "dev" resources this game currently has. And definitely NOT before the talks are down with the copyright/trademark overlords.

 

Good points explaining.

[golstat2003]

4 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Personally, I do not see the need for NPCs that ignore taunt.  The existing aggro cap mechanics cover this. 

Agreed.

[Apparition]

1 hour ago, golstat2003 said:

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.

As I posted in another thread, the Thunderspy server already did it.  You can run the Frostfire mission in the Hollows at level 50, versus level 50 Outcasts.  For any enemy faction that didn’t have mobs that scaled all the way to level 50, they added some.

[golstat2003]

13 minutes ago, Apparition said:

As I posted in another thread, the Thunderspy server already did it.  You can run the Frostfire mission in the Hollows at level 50, versus level 50 Outcasts.  For any enemy faction that didn’t have mobs that scaled all the way to level 50, they added some.

Are those mobs effective at that level? Or are they incredibly easy mobs since they don't have all the necessary attacks? Or are you saying they just added random mobs from other groups to say the Outcasts and re-skinned them?

 

EDIT: NVM, read the other thread. However, I would say we would probably want this done here on HC BEFORE anything else in this thread being discussed is done, in terms of priority. By others may disagree.

Edited June 24, 2020 by golstat2003

[DSorrow]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

Yeah, I obviously am not taking a lot of time to look at people's set bonuses and try to figure out backwards whether they've got a really optimized build or if they just threw whatever set looked convenient into whatever powers they have.  Just saying that, at least in RP spaces in Everlasting, on level 50s, sets are much more common than non-sets.

This is a really interesting observation. I haven't spent much time browsing other people's builds while I play so it could very well be that my "knowledge" on this is outdated. Maybe the economy changes by the HC devs as well as the prevalence of veteran players from the end days have actually changed things and people using set IOs is the new normal.

[golstat2003]

4 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

This is a really interesting observation. I haven't spent much time browsing other people's builds while I play so it could very well be that my "knowledge" on this is outdated. Maybe the economy changes by the HC devs as well as the prevalence of veteran players from the end days have actually changed things and people using set IOs is the new normal.

One thing to maybe check is the level of the person. At 50, wouldn't surprise me if a lot more folks use set IOs. (and have full kitted out set IO builds)

 

At levels 25, 30, 35? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Troo]

12 hours ago, MTeague said:

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. 

It is tricky to come up with solutions that don't affect solo or casual players while also providing for high powered teams.

[Galaxy Brain]

5 hours ago, DSorrow said:

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.

I both love and hate this example whenever it is tossed around. I love it because, yes it's mathematically true, but hate it because you are still avoiding a TON of damage by the time you get to "I take 2 pts instead of 1!". Yes, you go from being hit 1/20 times to being hit 1/10 times, but you still gotta respect you are avoiding 9/10 attacks 😜 

 

Anyways, there's been great points made here especially regarding the use assets already in the game to get to the same effect.

 

@Zeraphia, I agree that new content would be best... it is also the furthest away since it takes the most work compared to recycling and tweaking existing content. If old TF's are out dated, then tweaking them to be up to date in various ways would be the ideal play IMO. A fresh coat of paint on the encounters to decrease monotony, a "Master Mode" where you can run lvl 50 versions of  prior TFs with slightly altered enemies, etc.

 

I think this line of thinking aligns well with what @parabola and @DSorrow brought up in terms of utilizing existing options and working with what we can in regards to resources and in-game number tweaking. 

 

One observation I've made playing through low level content again is that certain factions change rank drastically as you level. In particular, The Lost. AT low level, take the DFB for instance, you have lost minions who are more or less regular dudes, the LT's are bigger bulkier mutated dudes, and then the bosses are fully Rikti-tized for the most part. As you level, as some point the LT's become Minions and the Bosses become LT's, making way for new stronger lost Bosses. Following a similar line of thinking, it may be worth eyeballing certain factions to simply follow that same route but to where they start phasing out minions in favor of more Bosses and LT's. 

 

I can definitely see like, Freakshow having more Tanks in the higher levels, Council having more warwolf transformations, and so on as an optional difficulty under say... "Solo Bosses" > No / Yes / Additional Bosses.  That automatically carries risk/reward as bosses are worth a good chunk of inf/xp per defeat, and having more of them takes up "AoE real estate" as well as presents a much higher threat level for characters in general.

 

Probably speaking out of my ass here, but my exp modding other games has shown that Spawn Rates are usually a variable that can be tweaked. If something as simple as "more Bosses, less Minions" is an option I think that would be a big step. Maybe eyeballing the rate they spawn in groups normally like I did with x3 difficulty is in order....

 

As for player retention, I mentioned this int eh Shadow Cyst thread but I think adding in more "Elite Enemies" that could pop up and be worth a Merit for defeat would perk a lot of interest. Quantums, Signature NPCs, random Elite Boss-ranked normal bosses with a highlighted "golden battle-aura" could all be something to look forward to if when they popped up you had players know they'd be worth the fight. Honestly, having Elite Bosses appear in 6-8 man content in general would probably be fine.  "Solo AVs" > Elite Bosses / AV's / Spawn Elite Bosses.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Galaxy Brain

[golstat2003]

12 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:As for player retention, I mentioned this int eh Shadow Cyst thread but I think adding in more "Elite Enemies" that could pop up and be worth a Merit for defeat would perk a lot of interest. Quantums, Signature NPCs, random Elite Boss-ranked normal bosses with a highlighted "golden battle-aura" could all be something to look forward to if when they popped up you had players know they'd be worth the fight. Honestly, having Elite Bosses appear in 6-8 man content in general would probably be fine.  "Solo AVs" > Elite Bosses / AV's / Spawn Elite Bosses.

Yeah a merit reward would definitely be a good incentive.

[MTeague]

1 hour ago, Apparition said:

As I posted in another thread, the Thunderspy server already did it.  You can run the Frostfire mission in the Hollows at level 50, versus level 50 Outcasts.  For any enemy faction that didn’t have mobs that scaled all the way to level 50, they added some.

Honestly, if this happens at Homecoming, I can probably run around paragon city, take some screenshots for sake of screenshots, and hang it up again.

Or it will be a purely single-player game for me where other people also happen to be running around.

 

I do not enjoy teaming at lvl 50 on most characters.  The Incarnate powers are FAR too overpowering.  Already, for the 45-50 grind, I either solo that, OR, I join only task forces or lower level teams or flashbacks.  If you CAN run TF's at lvl 50, it won't be long before it becomes expected/demanded that it be lvl 50, and people will build their builds around it, only using IO sets that go all the way to 50, planning their builds around incarnate powers being available for EVERY mission they join, etc.

 

Now, is my personal objection to this enough to cancel the entire idea?  No.  I'm one player. I don't have veto power.  But I really do think we'd lose something if all content were scaled up, instead of having our characters scaled down to match the content.

[Apparition]

3 minutes ago, MTeague said:

Honestly, if this happens at Homecoming, I can probably run around paragon city, take some screenshots for sake of screenshots, and hang it up again.

Or it will be a purely single-player game for me where other people also happen to be running around.

 

I do not enjoy teaming at lvl 50 on most characters.  The Incarnate powers are FAR too overpowering.  Already, for the 45-50 grind, I either solo that, OR, I join only task forces or lower level teams or flashbacks.  If you CAN run TF's at lvl 50, it won't be long before it becomes expected/demanded that it be lvl 50, and people will build their builds around it, only using IO sets that go all the way to 50, planning their builds around incarnate powers being available for EVERY mission they join, etc.

 

Now, is my personal objection to this enough to cancel the entire idea?  No.  I'm one player. I don't have veto power.  But I really do think we'd lose something if all content were scaled up, instead of having our characters scaled down to match the content.

I like the idea of all content scaling up to level 50 because I don’t like running content via Flashback.  It just does not feel the same, and you miss stuff in the process.  Right now, I turn XP off every five levels.  9, 14, 19, 24, etc.  I have to watch my XP bar like a hawk, and have had to delete a couple of characters that accidentally dinged level 10 or 15 before I finished the content I wanted to do.  This would be a good way around that.

[Yomo Kimyata]

7 minutes ago, Apparition said:

I like the idea of all content scaling up to level 50 because I don’t like running content via Flashback.  It just does not feel the same, and you miss stuff in the process.  Right now, I turn XP off every five levels.  9, 14, 19, 24, etc.  I have to watch my XP bar like a hawk, and have had to delete a couple of characters that accidentally dinged level 10 or 15 before I finished the content I wanted to do.  This would be a good way around that.

A really good QoL would be something that would let you limit your xp gain.  Like “xp until lvl 14” or “Xp until just before lvl 15.”  That way you don’t have to watch it closely.  I’d be way down with that.

[ShardWarrior]

20 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Yeah a merit reward would definitely be a good incentive.

This depends on the level of effort required and the amount of time invested.  As I mentioned earlier, people will take the path of least resistance.  If a person can run 3 speed TFs and gain the same amount of merits they could by running one of these "new and improved with difficulty!" TFs with additional EBs that drop an extra merit or two, in my experience they will always do the former. 

 

14 minutes ago, Apparition said:

I like the idea of all content scaling up to level 50 because I don’t like running content via Flashback.

I like the idea of scaling all NPC factions because it opens up a whole lot more available options for content that was missed during leveling without having to give up your endgame investments in build.

[Yomo Kimyata]

Something I think about when reading this sub forum is that this game kept running on a closed server for seven years with a very limited population.  I’d be interested to hear from people who were advocating for change back then.

 

The meta a year ago was massive influx of former players from Live.  I feel like the current meta is mostly veteran players either A. Running certain team content for rewards, or B. Trying out lots and lots of alts.  I would love for the meta to become lots of brand new players.