Game Balance & The Endgame

[Captain Yesterday]

24 minutes ago, Ironblade said:

Absolutely a good point.
BUT, I think a goodly portion of their perspective and philosophy is ingrained and even subconscious and I think it would be difficult for anyone to articulate these things clearly.

Or do you mean hidden, ill meaning, and not up for debate while giving the ILLUSION of debate, player consideration and good will?

Cause that's what it seems like.

 

Are you one of them or do you read their minds? You are speaking for them rather well for someone who is - separate?

If you can speak so well for them - why not tell us the rest - or why not teach them to communicate as good as you?

Edited September 21, 2020 by Captain Yesterday

[Night]

Nerfs are bad, so don't do those. On the other hand, I wonder if Regeneration will finally get some buffs, since it's way weaker than all the other defensive sets and it's been getting nothing but nerfed since Issue 6 or so 😛

[XaoGarrent]

15 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

It's...in the S tier? am i missing something S tier is good

Ice being that high suggests something about his methodology is producing skewed results... But all the same, it's not by much. Ice is easily A tier, but I think it's getting placed too high on account of certain choices he made in the testing format. Most notably, only using one secondary, and even then only using it for Build Up. I know why he's doing it like that, but it skews the results severely because how well or badly a primary can synergize with one or more sets bumps its viability up or down.

 

There's some other questionable issues with the testing. +0/x3 is going to skew all sorts of things because different sets rotate in different ways, so you're going to get some really sus results that don't match real world performance, where TTK changes just enough to allow some minions or LTs to survive against a set that can't follow up with another AoE blast quickly.

 

It gets more murky when you factor in differences between Blasters, Sentinels and Corruptors/Defenders, too. Ice actually goes up on Sentinels due to Blizzard being up so often that it's dependable from spawn to spawn. Sonic, as is well known, is a bit better on defenders, since a lot of its flaws don't matter as much as a support.

 

It's not a bad test, but take it with a serious grain of salt. Interpret the data yourself and use critical thinking.

Edited September 21, 2020 by XaoGarrent

[Captain Yesterday]

27 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

jesus my dude, take a chill pill.

Stick to comments about my content, and do not attack me with orders of what to do.

[ScarySai]

29 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

 

 

Reality check out how the sets perform here: blaster primaries

Ice isn't as good as you are saying

 

It's worth noting that while Galaxy's tests are a decent benchmark for the standardized performance of all sets, that's what it's primarily for - the standardized performance of the sets.

 

He doesn't build each set to it's maximum potential, using notable procs, purples or any of that fun stuff, so it's safe to assume that something like ice or beam aren't going to be using their unique slotting advantages to the fullest.

 

Despite all this, ice still made it to S tier, and Beam made it to the top of A tier. So even while handicapped like crazy, ice performed very well. It performs even better with proc slotting and purples. Is it on fire's level? I wouldn't say so, but with procs and purples, it can be a beast, especially on corruptors.

 

TL:DR - You're wrong.

 

Quote

It's not a bad test, but take it with a serious grain of salt. Interpret the data yourself and use critical thinking.

Pretty much this, exactly.

Edited September 21, 2020 by ScarySai

[Super Atom]

3 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

Ice being that high suggests something about his methodology is producing skewed results... But all the same, it's not by much. Ice is easily A tier, but I think it's getting placed too high on account of certain choices he made in the testing format. Most notably, only using one secondary, and even then only using it for Build Up. I know why he's doing it like that, but it skews the results severely because how well or badly a primary can synergize with one or more sets bumps its viability up or down.

 

There's some other questionable issues with the testing. +0/x3 is going to skew all sorts of things because different sets rotate in different ways, so you're going to get some really sus results that don't match real world performance, where TTK changes just enough to allow some minions or LTs to survive against a set that can't follow up with another AoE blast quickly.

 

It gets more murky when you factor in differences between Blasters, Sentinels and Corruptors/Defenders, too. Ice actually goes up on Sentinels due to Blizzard being up so often that it's dependable from spawn to spawn. Sonic, as is well known, is a bit better on defenders, since a lot of its flaws don't matter as much as a support.

 

It's not a bad test, but take it with a serious grain of salt. Interpret the data yourself and use critical thinking.

Well as i said previously, My Blizzard has a recharge time of 33 seconds and can one shot entire +4/x8 groups aside from bosses, which are easily killed with the ST attacks. I think my only hang up on Ice Blast is probably Bitter Freeze Rays animation is a bit long. Which is good enough for me, not that im opposed to people thinking its underpowered and need buffs 😄 something i love getting buffs is cool with me man.

[zenblack]

1 minute ago, Super Atom said:

Well as i said previously, My Blizzard has a recharge time of 33 seconds and can one shot entire +4/x8 groups aside from bosses, which are easily killed with the ST attacks. I think my only hang up on Ice Blast is probably Bitter Freeze Rays animation is a bit long. Which is good enough for me, not that im opposed to people thinking its underpowered and need buffs 😄 something i love getting buffs is cool with me man.

I just want to say my Inferno is on a 30sec timer. Where Ice really lacks is it's consistant AOE and it can't make up for Fireball, no set really can. Fire is very much the TW of Blasters. I like Ice too, but it doesn't come close to Fire and that shouldn't be. Not Ice in particular, but there is no set that is coming close and until Damage is no longer as heavily weighted as it is, this won't change.

[Neiska]

Just me thinking aloud here but,

 

1. I do think its easier via coding and labor to nerf overperforming sets, rather than try to balance the other ones that are underperforming on one AT, much less the same powerset useable across multiple ATs. So there is that.

 

2. Personally, I am glad to see changes at all in a game this aged. Do I personally agree 100% with every change that comes about? No. But nor do I expect to. I mean, we are lucky that we get changes at all to be blunt. We aren't paying for this game. We are "guests" here. We don't get to make demands. Technically, we aren't even "customers". This is a labor of love, that has been shared with the rest of us. And for that I am grateful. The people putting the time here are doing it of their own free will, when they likely have jobs/lives/etc going on. They aren't getting "paid" to do this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them actually go out of pocket time to time to keep CoH afloat.

 

3. I have noticed a bit of a change over time in the community. When it first started, the community seemed more supportive and positive. But after reading some comments here, I can't say its gotten better. Only the Dev's and Moderators know for sure but where I'm sitting, its seemed to have grown more toxic. I do hope its just me seeing that, because if it is getting more toxic, then for me the game is loosing some of what made it stand out to begin with. The people. It wasn't like other games where the community was harsh, sometimes openly hostile to one another. But now, I'm not so sure. And how I see it, that has more to do with people leaving (if they are) than any updates/changes/fixes that have been done.

 

Lastly, I do want to thank everyone on the Homecoming team for their time and effort into keeping things running. 

 

Best wishes. 

[ScarySai]

It's not just fireball, rain of fire makes ice storm look like an absolute joke.

 

If ice storm hit as hard as rain of fire did, it'd be a lot closer of a race. The lack of decent filler AoE is what really hurts Ice, when Blizzard is up, there's no question about how strong it is.

[Super Atom]

Just now, ScarySai said:

It's not just fireball, rain of fire makes ice storm look like an absolute joke.

 

If ice storm hit as hard as rain of fire did, it'd be a lot closer of a race. The lack of decent filler AoE is what really hurts Ice, when Blizzard is up, there's no question about how strong it is.

I can see that, Ice Storm slows but it's not a great trade off for damage.

 

2 minutes ago, zenblack said:

I just want to say my Inferno is on a 30sec timer. Where Ice really lacks is it's consistant AOE and it can't make up for Fireball, no set really can. Fire is very much the TW of Blasters. I like Ice too, but it doesn't come close to Fire and that shouldn't be. Not Ice in particular, but there is no set that is coming close and until Damage is no longer as heavily weighted as it is, this won't change.

Oh hmm, i thought it was higher. I'm not a blaster guy, a bit of a melee bum. I just love my ice blaster specifically 😄

[Glacier Peak]

I am excited to see how everything turns out. Thank you for the updates and a thank you as well to all of our VOLUNTEERS and developers who keep this server running and playable. Change scares people, but I am looking forward to whatever gets tested and pushed to live. 

[ScarySai]

4 minutes ago, Neiska said:

1. I do think its easier via coding and labor to nerf overperforming sets, rather than try to balance the other ones that are underperforming on one AT, much less the same powerset useable across multiple ATs. So there is that.

You have to dive into the code either way, you can be lazy and just adjust values downward on the offending ability, or take the time to make a nuanced change that compensates for the loss. An easy change doesn't equal a good change.

 

5 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Personally, I am glad to see changes at all in a game this aged. Do I personally agree 100% with every change that comes about? No. But nor do I expect to. I mean, we are lucky that we get changes at all to be blunt. We aren't paying for this game. We are "guests" here. We don't get to make demands. Technically, we aren't even "customers". This is a labor of love, that has been shared with the rest of us. And for that I am grateful. The people putting the time here are doing it of their own free will, when they likely have jobs/lives/etc going on. They aren't getting "paid" to do this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them actually go out of pocket time to time to keep CoH afloat.

And I am very happy with the Homecoming team overall and they have my gratitude for bringing the game back. This does not however, mean that everything they do to alter the game we loved is worthy of praise. When people raise their concerns, upset or otherwise critical, they are absolutely within their right to go "Hey, this is bad, you shouldn't do this."

 

They can of course, ignore them and push forward, sure - but I dislike your framing of the issue - as if to say anyone critical of the power balancing decisions of HC is somehow just out there to piss on the people who brought the most successful private server to life.

8 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I have noticed a bit of a change over time in the community. When it first started, the community seemed more supportive and positive. But after reading some comments here, I can't say its gotten better. Only the Dev's and Moderators know for sure but where I'm sitting, its seemed to have grown more toxic.

If you think this is bad, you should see the WoW forums.

 

Despite a few factors that of course, lead to increased aggression, like I mention above - this community is by and large much more helpful than most other MMO ones you'll encounter without getting into pocketed segments.

 

For all intents and purposes, it comes from passion for the game, I don't like the term 'toxic', it's too much of a blanket term.

[JayboH]

5 hours ago, Noyjitat said:

Making the same mistakes paragon made all development wasted on balancing, nerfing and dictating how others play instead of making new content, new powers, proliferating more powers to use. You guys never will learn.

Great news:  you can develop your own version of CoH nowadays so you will never have to bother with this.

[Neiska]

@ScarySai -  Your first point - I don't think either way is lazy. If it is overperforming, then its overperforming. I guess the big question is how long it would take, no? There are heads wiser than mine for that sort of thing, but a nerf isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Second point - I agree, we can say "hey this is bad, don't do this". But its important on how its presented. I mean, think about it. If you spent 5 months of free time to fix something to be reacted to like some of the posts here? If it was me, I would think long and hard about doing more changes. I mean it says right on the first page, in bright letters up top - 

 

Before we continue, a caveat: Some of the changes and plans mentioned below are either very early in development or still purely conceptual. Some of them will likely not make the cut and either change greatly or be scrapped entirely.

 

Which to me means, "this is not set in stone." Open to further changes. But some people are acting like it's not. And how they are voicing that I find disconcerting. 

 

Your third point - I try to avoid mentioning other games in posts, but we were thinking of the same things. But that's my point. I don't want CoH to degrade into that. I don't want our Homecoming staff to get unmotivated so they stop doing changes, or even worse, pull the plug. And we do agree, that people are only passionate because they care. Which is a good thing. But I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to temper that passion when necessary either.

 

To summarize, We agree that we are both thankful for the staff, and their changes. We also agree that not every change is automatically a good thing. But I do think some are being rather passive aggressive or worse when voicing their dislike. And I suspect our Homecoming team isn't very large to begin with. Which makes me concerned. Speaking as someone who has been behind the curtain before, too much negativity does have an impact on morale and motivation. And you are right, "Toxic" was probably a bad way to put it, but I hope it doesn't get to that point here, which is why I made the post to begin with.

 

Best Wishes

 

[Troo]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

you can be lazy and just adjust values downward

Small incremental changes is a prudent methodology. Adjusting a value may be the best move and not lazy.

 

[ScarySai]

Just now, Troo said:

Small incremental changes is a prudent methodology. Adjusting a value may be the best move and not lazy.

 

You have to be nuanced, some easy changes are the best, but taking the easy approach solely because it's the easy approach would be a bad way to go about things.

[Captain Yesterday]

6 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Second point - I agree, we can say "hey this is bad, don't do this". But its important on how its presented. I mean, think about it. If you spent 5 months of free time to fix something to be reacted to like some of the posts here? If it was me, I would think long and hard about doing more changes.

To avoid all these "bad feelings" why not create a format where devs say -

"Hey we were thinking of doing this? How many for How many against? Any ideas to change or improve it?"

Then you refine that forum around and around (put the forum shills to good use for once) until you get a majority 80%, then you implement that change.

 

But that would be too close to allowing real fun and it would take away the ability to inflict arbitrary and artificial tyranny.

 

I do not give permission to use this post to harm me in any way.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Captain Yesterday

[Andreah]

I feel they've been doing a good job of asking for feedback and eliciting ideas and suggestions. 

[Widower]

16 minutes ago, Neiska said:

3. I have noticed a bit of a change over time in the community. When it first started, the community seemed more supportive and positive. But after reading some comments here, I can't say its gotten better. Only the Dev's and Moderators know for sure but where I'm sitting, its seemed to have grown more toxic. I do hope its just me seeing that, because if it is getting more toxic, then for me the game is loosing some of what made it stand out to begin with. The people. It wasn't like other games where the community was harsh, sometimes openly hostile to one another. But now, I'm not so sure. And how I see it, that has more to do with people leaving (if they are) than any updates/changes/fixes that have been done.

Eh, this isn't worse than when we tested Page 3 a year ago - go back and read those threads; you'll see there are a lot more fireworks than there are here. But I wouldn't particularly worry about this place turning into the WoW forums, if for no other reason than we actually bother moderating this place.

 

I might suggest, however, that if anyone should want their feedback to be taken seriously, it might be wise to avoid implying that we have some sort of dastardly plan to destroy the game. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[summers]

1 minute ago, Andreah said:

I feel they've been doing a good job of asking for feedback and eliciting ideas and suggestions. 

But the tyranny.

[Troo]

On 9/20/2020 at 1:21 PM, Noyjitat said:

Making the same mistakes paragon made all development wasted on balancing, nerfing and dictating how others play instead of making new content, new powers, proliferating more powers to use. You guys never will learn.

I gave you a like but disagree with "You guys will never learn"

 

Hopefully the team is mindful of these concerns. Yes, please focus on new content, new powers and proliferation. (just keep in mind these could be heavy lifts compared to tweaks)

Also, volunteers are likely to work on what they find interesting not what freemiums want.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Troo

[Vanden]

1 hour ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Can you elaborate on what you know?

Some powers are buffed, but some powers are nerfed.

[Monos King]

4 minutes ago, Captain Yesterday said:

To avoid all these "bad feelings" why not create a format where devs say -

"Hey we were thinking of doing this? How many for Hoe many against? Any ideas to change or improve it?"

Then you refine that forum around and around (put the forum shills to good use for once) until you get a majority 80%, then you implement that change.

 

But that would be too close to allowing real fun and it would take away the ability to inflict arbitrary and artificial tyranny.

Can you link to me a popular game or legacy server that does this? I think what your insinuating calls for investigation. Consider me intrigued.

[Neiska]

2 minutes ago, Captain Yesterday said:

To avoid all these "bad feelings" why not create a format where devs say -

"Hey we were thinking of doing this? How many for How many against? Any ideas to change or improve it?"

Then you refine that forum around and around (put the forum shills to good use for once) until you get a majority 80%, then you implement that change.

 

But that would be too close to allowing real fun and it would take away the ability to inflict arbitrary and artificial tyranny.

 

I do not give permission to use this post to harm me in any way.

You are missing the point. That's kind of sort of what they did. It even says "Hey this is what we are thinking about doing" on page 1. 

 

As far as allowing a sort of "player vote" on something, well, firstly I doubt people would agree on things. Secondly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if people tried to make multiple accounts or something to vote more than once etc. I don't think putting a game in the hands of a community would not go the way you might expect. Or there's personal bias, what "you" may want, "others" wouldnt. (thats fair to say about anyone though really.) And thus "you" would still be in the same place where you are right now. Lastly, the majority of players don't use the forums, its a minority. So you would have only 80% of a minority population deciding on game features.

 

That to me, would be "actual" arbitrary "tyranny". Not ongoing updates you happen to disagree with, which is not "tyrannical" in the slightest. It says right in the user agreement that you sign to login each time "things may change". So this shouldn't be any sort of shock to you.  

[Andreah]

Imagine the campaigns people would wage to try to get their way. There would be in game spam, people trying to get bots to the forums for voting, all of it. Ugh.