"Meta" Tweaks

[marcussmythe]

I have of late been running very high difficulty, overly tuned, AE Missions focusing on debuffs, CC, CC Resistance, Exotic Damage Types, Endurance Drain, and the like.

 

I will say that these have, at least in their own universe, greatly changed the way I assess 'undervalued' tools.  AOE Sleep without aggro generation is a godsend for breaking up superpacks.  Multiple Elite Bosses at +4 will not be AOE'd down, and Id rather be single-target spiking them and picking off minions with incidental AOE than leave them standing.  Phase Shift becomes a valuable tool.  Endurance Drain becomes a welcome relief - not because it neuters the mob (nothing does!) but because it HELPS.

 

I think if the sort of stuff some players have been exploring in custom AE missions was made more general, it would help drive a playstyle other than the current rolling AOE deathball.  It would also likely not be much played, unless the rewards it granted were buffed - and given that we have a tradition in CoH of 'hard content' not equalling better rewards, I do not anticipate it could or should be.

 

But the challenge is there, if we want it, and missions and villain groups far more challenging could be implemented fairly easily - those some AE designers tell me the hard part is not making it hard, it is making it hard -but still doable-.

[Troo]

@marcussmythe do you have the AE mission name or number(s)?

[marcussmythe]

25 minutes ago, Troo said:

@marcussmythe do you have the AE mission name or number(s)?

Its @Linea (and, I think, others - but its Linea's mostly I think) 801 series.  801.0, .1. .2, etc.  So just search 801.1 or whatever in AE.  They are not story focused, just timed kill alls with groups of really awful baddies on a map.  .1 is harder than .0 ,and .2 beyond that. While it advertises itself as 'for an incarnate team', good play or a carefully tuned build or both will let you function in there solo, even at high diffculty - but for my own part, it was the -hardest- Ive had to play, since incarnates - multiple hospital trips and inspiration reloads, lots of running away and reingaging, lots of opening up all my powers and temp powers and thinking about how to engage before I engaged.

 

Do me a favor, though.  Go in the very first time at, say, 801.2 at 8/+4 and let me know how the first pull goes.

 

Its a blast - and if a player can do that with AE, I can only imagine what developers could do in that regard - or maybe on-board some of the players who focus on that sort of thing to help them make 'post-endgame' content, at least at the 'challenge incarnates' mission level.

Edited July 1, 2020 by marcussmythe

[Galaxy Brain]

45 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

So as I read, an additional difficulty option. Thanks for clarifying.

I think this may be the best bet going forward to be the least disruptive. It would affect existing content, but it would allow you to toggle on the "Master" settings which in my mind would give increased incentives:

 

• Toggle on the enemies with advanced defenses -> huge Inf/XP gain per choice when you defeat them
• Toggle on the EB booster / Special enemy powers -> gain 1 merit per defeat of these new bosses
• Etc

 

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think this may be the best bet going forward to be the least disruptive. It would affect existing content, but it would allow you to toggle on the "Master" settings which in my mind would give increased incentives:

 

• Toggle on the enemies with advanced defenses -> huge Inf/XP gain per choice when you defeat them
• Toggle on the EB booster / Special enemy powers -> gain 1 merit per defeat of these new bosses
• Etc

Why not lift the requirement of incarnate slots being unlocked and/or slotted in order to queue for Incarnate trials?

[Leo_G]

21 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I can only speak for myself here, but if people want to create their own exclusive groups to run all the content they like without using incarnate powers, more power to them.  I would not feel excluded at all.  There are people advertising for non-speed TFs all the time and people are joining them.  Why is it somehow more difficult to advertise no incarnate power teams? 

 

Long term I would agree more incarnate specific content is needed.  In the interim, people can form their own groups to run any content without incarnate powers with like minded players.

The exclusionary aspect isn't particularly affecting the ones you're excluding, it's more a comment about excluding people inherently shrinks your pool of potential players thus fewer and smaller teams and longer wait times for grouping. 

 

While offering available solutions can be useful, it's rather condescending to assume someone hasn't thought of this solution or doesn't actively use said solution. Suggesting improvements or speculation on other options is probably the point of the post. 

[marcussmythe]

RE:  Incarnate Content - Does a mechanism exist to fairly easily give enemy groups access to Incarnate Abilities?  Now, lore-wise, it would only be the rarest of foes that had such - but if we consider the Battalion story lines I've heard suggested (Battalion as inter-dimensional Well-Locusts, moving from world to world and dimension to dimension, consuming worlds and wells as they go), it would make sense for foes on that level to have at least low level access to incarnate abilities.  

 

Consider a group of baddies chain triggering a mix of destiny slots, or responding to aggro by all firing off a judgement as one.

 

It would get your attention.

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, Leo_G said:

The exclusionary aspect isn't particularly affecting the ones you're excluding, it's more a comment about excluding people inherently shrinks your pool of potential players thus fewer and smaller teams and longer wait times for grouping. 

How is this any different than advertising for either speed or non-speed TFs?  All specific AT TFs?  All specific AT mission teams?  Badge runs?

 

1 hour ago, Leo_G said:

While offering available solutions can be useful, it's rather condescending to assume someone hasn't thought of this solution or doesn't actively use said solution. Suggesting improvements or speculation on other options is probably the point of the post. 

Offering the suggestion of using available tools to find like minded players is a legitimate suggestion to improve the quality of play for someone.  Suggesting my response is condescending is condescending to me.

 

As for suggesting other options and ideas, I have done that in this post and others on the topic.

Edited July 1, 2020 by ShardWarrior

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, Leo_G said:

The exclusionary aspect isn't particularly affecting the ones you're excluding, it's more a comment about excluding people inherently shrinks your pool of potential players thus fewer and smaller teams and longer wait times for grouping. 

 

While offering available solutions can be useful, it's rather condescending to assume someone hasn't thought of this solution or doesn't actively use said solution. Suggesting improvements or speculation on other options is probably the point of the post. 

how's this any different than forming a group for a specific SF or TF?  not everyone wants to do the same thing at the same time. 

[Leo_G]

13 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

How is this any different than advertising for either speed or non-speed TFs?  All specific AT TFs?  All specific AT mission teams?  Badge runs?

It isn't. That's the point. You seem to be assuming this option is unknown or not utilized. 

 

13 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Offering the suggestion of using available tools to find like minded players is a legitimate suggestion to improve the quality of play for someone.  Suggesting my response is condescending is condescending to me.

 

As for suggesting other options and ideas, I have done that in this post and others on the topic.

No one said it isn't legitimate. You don't seem to be arguing about the assumption part so I'll just ask: do you think the person or persons you're suggesting that to are ignorant of said available tools? 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Leo_G

[ShardWarrior]

6 minutes ago, Leo_G said:

No one said it isn't legitimate. You don't seem to be arguing about the assumption part so I'll just ask: do you think the person or persons you're suggesting that to are ignorant of said available tools? 

No, I am not saying that at all.  You are assuming that.  I am simply offering an idea.  If they are using it already, great.  If not, perhaps they will give it a try. 

[Leo_G]

2 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

No, I am not saying that at all.  You are assuming that.  I am simply offering an idea.  If they are using it already, great.  If not, perhaps they will give it a try. 

So are you taking a detour of why someone would be making a suggestion on a suggestion forum? 

[ShardWarrior]

Just now, Leo_G said:

So are you taking a detour of why someone would be making a suggestion on a suggestion forum? 

Well no, I am offering a potential solution that works in the interim until something can be developed.  It is a suggestion on a suggestion forum. 

[ZacKing]

14 minutes ago, Leo_G said:

No one said it isn't legitimate. You don't seem to be arguing about the assumption part so I'll just ask: do you think the person or persons you're suggesting that to are ignorant of said available tools? 

Not everyone knows about all the various channels to form groups man.  People barely chat on teams as it is.

[Leo_G]

2 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Well no, I am offering a potential solution that works in the interim until something can be developed.  It is a suggestion on a suggestion forum. 

Are you sure? You seemed to be questioning the suggestion you are offering a solution for. It's be a different story if you acknowledged the reasons someone put forth to make a suggestion, and it's another to offer a solution that is already known and then pretend to be perplexed that someone would bother with concocting some off-the-wall fix that would involve something we don't already have. 

[ShardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, Leo_G said:

Are you sure? You seemed to be questioning the suggestion you are offering a solution for. It's be a different story if you acknowledged the reasons someone put forth to make a suggestion, and it's another to offer a solution that is already known and then pretend to be perplexed that someone would bother with concocting some off-the-wall fix that would involve something we don't already have. 

Perhaps if you took the time to actually read, things would make sense.

[Troo]

page 10-ish, seems right on time.. great job keeping it together this long GB

 

[Leo_G]

18 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Perhaps if you took the time to actually read, things would make sense.

I did. To be frank, you didn't add much to the conversation and you're reverting into a defensive demeanor which is mostly unnecessary since I was merely asking why you would suggest something that anyone with eyes would already know is an option. 

 

To prove I did read your posts, your reply amounts to not everyone being aware of such a possibility. I tried to appeal to your observation skills (peeps having this conversation are mostly aware of teaming qualifications on advertising if they got this far) but you withdrawing defensively might have diverted your attention from that goal. 

 

Let's just forget all that then, direct those who aren't aware of the option to your post, and move on with discussion of new options. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Leo_G

[golstat2003]

Even with the new options, you'd still need to advertise what type of team you're forming.

 

aka, "Master LRSF options team forming, looking for 7". In the short term after the release of the new features the team leader would have to explain what that means, including if it's a tf/sf that incarnate powers won't be allowed. Or if other more difficulty options are included.

 

In the long term folks would know to ask when they see that Master label included in the request for team mates, as to what settings the team/tf leader is setting.

 

With all that said, dev time on new difficulty options is something we probably won't see until 2025.

 

The theory crafting in this thread is fun though.

Edited July 1, 2020 by golstat2003

[ShardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, Leo_G said:

I did. To be frank, you didn't add much to the conversation and you're reverting into a defensive demeanor which is mostly unnecessary since I was merely asking why you would suggest something that anyone with eyes would already know is an option. 

And out of the blue accusing me of being condescending is contributing what exactly to the topic at hand?  If I am being defensive, it is due to being accused of being condescending to others simply by offering an alternative temporary solution as part of the discussion.

 

I have already said repeatedly I think more incarnate content is needed.  I have also suggested that removing the incarnate slot requirement to queue for incarnate trials might offer another level of difficulty and challenge.  Feel free to disagree if you like.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Leo_G]

3 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

And out of the blue accusing me of being condescending is contributing what exactly to the topic at hand?  

I'm not accusing you, I'm telling you how it feels to me or to people that already do what you're describing and are often fed this reply in many other like threads. 

 

 

[Greycat]

14 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 I have also suggested that removing the incarnate slot requirement to queue for incarnate trials might offer another level of difficulty and challenge.

You know, we have this in a *very* small (and modified) scale already in the Tin Mage / Apex requirements. (Granted, it makes things +8 to you as I recall, but still.)

 

Wonder if anyone's run that that way...

[Bionic_Flea]

8 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

So, to steer back on topic. 

* * *

I think all 3 could be addressed via altered content. For example, a "Master Mode" for TF's and Story Arcs that triggers Elite Boss spawns, spawns with incredible defenses unless they get CC'd, spawns that require specific positional attacks to hit since they have great def vs other positions, etc. Something that encourages players to use more of their toolkits than just the best damaging abilities. 

Sounds like you're requesting Hamidon Mitos photo bombs!  (Damn, now that I put it that way, I want it too!)

[ZacKing]

4 hours ago, Leo_G said:

I'm not accusing you, I'm telling you how it feels to me or to people that already do what you're describing and are often fed this reply in many other like threads. 

Yeah dude you're accusing others of being condescending.  that's on you. 

 

as for the topic, I think more incarnate level content will help.  instead of focusing on lower level stories, start making more end game stuff.  involve the community to help write it or whatever. then start stripping out incarnates from pre 50 content.

[golstat2003]

10 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Yeah dude you're accusing others of being condescending.  that's on you. 

 

as for the topic, I think more incarnate level content will help.  instead of focusing on lower level stories, start making more end game stuff.  involve the community to help write it or whatever. then start stripping out incarnates from pre 50 content.

Incarnates are in lvls 45-50. (Which is why I think them being "such a large problem" is extremely overblown).

 

They aren't in lower level content.

Edited July 2, 2020 by golstat2003