Game Balance & The Endgame

[BurtHutt]

Just now, Lockpick said:

 

I would create a new category beyond Dev Choice (maybe call it Canon Content) and add rewards that are the same as the in game rewards (Badges, Reward Merits, Incarnate Components, etc.).  If you do that then I would bet you get more traction.  You would also need to add more tags and filtering options to find the content.

 

It would be no different than running Flashbacks, which I would guess a lot of people do.  I know I do a lot of flashbacks.  People can't complain about not having content when there is a ton of content available that provides the same canon experience and the same Live rewards.  Also, you could make the player created Task Force part of the WST to get more people to use it.  A ton of ways to get great content of varying levels of time commitment and difficulty.  It would just need to be planned out and tested properly.

 

 

Honestly, I think it can be made easier than that. Have a new contact that is connected to the AE. As in it is in the AE system but not located in-game anywhere near an AE building. This contact would not contain any of the AE content other than what is added by Devs. Anything added by Devs would be the best content submitted and then put into this contact and would be canon. Devs can review AE missions and then pick the best ones. Then have only those visible on this new contact. 

 

Maybe the contact could be called Pandora's box. It would sit outside of AE in some random location. Use it like you use papers and radios. Essentially, this contact is the AE but the only missions it shows/provides are the ones approved by the Devs. Would that save having to try and port AE missions into the game and regular contact? 

 

These would not be as robust as the regular game but would contain a ton of new content that is made by the players. All the Devs would have to do is approve it and drop it in the contact list. No other work needed. AE mission creators could then just make content, ensure it meets all of the criteria (laid out in advance by the Devs) - if it hits all of those marks then it can be reviewed by the Devs and considered for being added to the new contact/Pandora's Box.

 

I would suggest adding any original characters and content would ALSO require full write ups that would be placed in the Wiki. This may also allow players to team up and create the missions, the backgrounds, detailed Wiki additions and so on. 

[Mezmera]

2 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

 

AGAIN the original argument being made I responded to was: "This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played though.  Were this absolutely true, we would see nothing but tanks, brutes and scrappers and no one would team for anything.  Reality and posted metrics say otherwise. "

Yall just keep moving the goal posts but I'm going to keep moving them right back.  The metrics, without the cherry picked removal, show that this statement was pretty inaccurate.

 

Not to pile on but the GM's here made that other chart for a reason to show how it was with Firey Armor taken off, since they typically exclusively farm and thus shouldn't be considered team players. 

 

Across playing throughout the game the easier mechanic-ed characters seemed to still get the most play but it's a much lower sloping drop off suggesting teams have a pretty consistent variety.

[ABlueThingy]

11 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

This is spot on.  Here is a thing most people who cry for balance and nerfs seem to always neglect - the game could get balanced and homogenized to the point of every AT and power set doing the exact same damage numbers and there will still be players who are just better than you and will out-perform you every time.  I cannot agree more that content with varying levels of difficulty is simply the better option. 

 

 

I see this sentiment a lot and I just don't see people calling for homogenization.  Balancing power sets is not the same as making them all the same.  If Fire does more damage than Ice but Ice has bonus debuffs, that can be a balance.  If Fire does so much more damage then Ice that Ice's debuffs are pointless and there's a noticible drop in player usage of Ice then that's a problem.  That's unbalanced. 

 

The balance that should be maintained is in the differences and uniqueness of the sets and their places relative to one another. 

 

TW can be the high ST+AoE+Control with a cost of high end and chunky animations. 

EM can(should) be the high ST damage king. 

FM can be the high AoE+ST damage with no frills. 

 

All of those can be true and it still be balanced.  Maybe FM doesn't have as good AoE as TW or as good ST as EM.  But it's competitive(based on build and skill with the set) for second place on account of it's having better AoE than EM and no penalties like TW.  (That's all just an example mind you not saying that's how it should be)

 

I have not yet seen anything the Homecoming team say or do that implies they're going to make all the sets the same.  I've never seen anyone even argue in favor of that.

 

/em soapbox

Of course separate from all of the inter-set balance is the overall balance of the game.  Right now [i feel] there's a big problem with everyone's stats just sitting at the cap.  That's the real homogenization[in my opinion]; Incarnates level content and IOs.  If every team has so much -res that it doesn't matter what damage type you bring, if everyone's got so much +def it doesn't matter what armor set you bring, if everyone does so much damage it doesn't matter if you lock down foes.

 

When all the stats are at the cap it removes the nuance from all the sets.  Frankly I think we need some kind of stat crunch and an adjustment of how HP and damage scale relative to one another.  I'm not even saying a global nerf or anything.  As long as it's crunched on both ends there shouldn't be much of a difference for the player besides the fact that you can now surpass the previous caps.

 

You just run out of ways to make the game harder at the high end if everyone is sitting around the damage/resistance/def/acc/rech/HP caps. 

 

But that's like... CoH 2 stuff I guess.  And people would throw a fit bigger than ED.

 

 

 

 

[Ralathar44]

6 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

Not to pile on but the GM's here made that other chart for a reason to show how it was with Firey Armor taken off, since they typically exclusively farm and thus shouldn't be considered team players. 

 

Across playing throughout the game the easier mechanic-ed characters seemed to still get the most play but it's a much lower sloping drop off suggesting teams have a pretty consistent variety.

I agree there is value in having separated data sets, but that is a different argument from the one I responded to and thus is a moving of the goal posts.  Regardless of where they are being played and how they are being played, they are being created and played.  The original comment I responded to stated they were not as because  "Reality and posted metrics say otherwise".

If we really want to say AE vs non-AE then we need an AE vs non-AE list.  But we don't have that data.  We have leprechaun wishes and unicorn dreams.

Also the reason they excluded firey brutes did not mention AE, that's an incorrect attribution:   Because of the prevalence of Fiery Aura Brutes, we have included an additional graph for each category which excludes Brutes with Fiery Aura.


I'm not going to say whether they typically exclusively farm or not. It's a very popular farming set, but what % are farmers, what % are not, and what % do both I cannot say because I do not have the data.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Lockpick]

3 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

 

AGAIN the original argument being made I responded to was: "This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played though.  Were this absolutely true, we would see nothing but tanks, brutes and scrappers and no one would team for anything.  Reality and posted metrics say otherwise. "

Yall just keep moving the goal posts but I'm going to keep moving them right back using the original comment and original context.  The metrics, without the cherry picked removal, show that this statement was pretty inaccurate.

 

 

The key phrase is This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played though.  Were this absolutely true, we would see nothing but tanks, brutes and scrappers and no one would team for anything.  Reality and posted metrics say otherwise. "

 

I would guess that most of the Brutes with Fiery Aura as a secondary were not played through; i.e. they played non-AE content and leveled through story arcs, task forces, etc..  My guess is that the vast majority were played in AE in Fire farms.

 

I don't want to be rude, but your arguments are not very strong.  Fiery Aura Brutes are well known to be AE Fire farmers, so if you are trying to see what ATs / power sets are logically the most popular it is perfectly reasonable to restrict Fiery Aura.

 

Obviously the best way would be to have the entire data set, but we don't have that, so the option to remove Fiery Aura is reasonable.

 

[Ralathar44]

10 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

 

The key phrase is This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played though.  Were this absolutely true, we would see nothing but tanks, brutes and scrappers and no one would team for anything.  Reality and posted metrics say otherwise. "

 

I would guess that most of the Brutes with Fiery Aura as a secondary were not played through; i.e. they played non-AE content and leveled through story arcs, task forces, etc..  My guess is that the vast majority were played in AE in Fire farms.

 

I don't want to be rude, but your arguments are not very strong.  Fiery Aura Brutes are well known to be AE Fire farmers, so if you are trying to see what ATs / power sets are logically the most popular it is perfectly reasonable to restrict Fiery Aura.

 

Obviously the best way would be to have the entire data set, but we don't have that, so the option to remove Fiery Aura is reasonable.

 

You bolded and colored it and still misread it.  It doesn't say through, it says though.  Two different words with two different meanings.  Replacing that word for a synonym it reads:  This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played however.

Edit: and before the argument is made that quoted sentence was in response to a comment of mine and in context through does not make sense, it was not a typo.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ralathar44

[arcane]

I haven’t been following all this but it sure feels like you’re grasping at straws for some kind of win, Ral.

 

Acting like we don’t all know exactly why fiery aura brutes were excluded also feels like a real eye roller.

Edited September 22, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Lockpick]

12 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

You bolded and colored it and still misread it.  It doesn't say through, it says though.  Two different words with two different meanings.  Replacing that word for a synonym it reads:  This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played however.

Edit: and before the argument is made that quoted sentence was in response to a comment of mine and in context through does not make sense, it was not a typo.

You are right, my apologies.  That being said, I think the rest of the argument is legit.

[ScarySai]

What are we even debating, at this point? I feel like yelling at my wall would yield more productive results.

Edited September 22, 2020 by ScarySai

[Coyotedancer]

3 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Sentinel mediocrity, much like the debuff vs buff disparity, is backed by math and the game mechanics. Either a portion of certain debuffs needs to be unresistable for defenders/corrupters, or buffs need to have less impact vs higher level targets.

I have yet to see anyone say Sentinels are perfect as-is... What we tend to disagree on is the degree of change needed and what direction to take. 

[ShardWarrior]

32 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

 

AGAIN the original argument being made I responded to was: "This does not explain the variety of ATs and power sets being created and played though.  Were this absolutely true, we would see nothing but tanks, brutes and scrappers and no one would team for anything.  Reality and posted metrics say otherwise. "

Yall just keep moving the goal posts but I'm going to keep moving them right back using the original comment and original context.  The metrics, without the cherry picked removal, show that this statement was pretty inaccurate.

 

Posting this graph without the rest of the data and follow up discussion is disingenuous.  What I said was not inaccurate nor is it cherry picking or moving goalposts.  It is discussing the metrics and the whole picture accurately.  Or are you suggesting that every player is essentially playing nothing but Fire/Spines Brutes for all non-AE content? 

[Mezmera]

1 minute ago, Coyotedancer said:

I have yet to see anyone say Sentinels are perfect as-is... What we tend to disagree on is the degree of change needed and what direction to take. 

Play a blaster.  With all the added survive-abilty they've gotten plus the raw damage they produce quickly dispensing with aggro I think the Sentinel AT got subverted from the get go. 

[Ralathar44]

11 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I haven’t been following all this but it sure feels like you’re grasping at straws for some kind of win, Ral.

 

Acting like we don’t all know exactly why fiery aura brutes were excluded also feels like a real eye roller.

There is no win or lose, there is no argument, its just data and it doesn't show what I want either.  If its all AE farmers then that has certain connotations I don't like.  If it's not then that has certain connotations I don't like.  It's basically a lose/lose situation for me lol.  There is no win condition because either one tilts what the game is used for away from what benefits my own play style.  AE or not.

[Coyotedancer]

Just now, Mezmera said:

Play a blaster.  With all the added survive-abilty they've gotten plus the raw damage they produce quickly dispensing with aggro I think the Sentinel AT got subverted from the get go. 

You're assuming that I don't. 

 

I have blasters. I enjoy them. But... I *also* enjoy my Sentinels. They're slower, yes, but still fun in their own way. 

 

Having a fair bit of experience actually playing Sentinels, I'm in the camp that says they need some fairly limited tweaks. The primary sets all definitely need a damage pass. AR needs a more extensive rework. The inherent power would probably work just fine as a toggle rather than a click tied to specific attacks. I don't think they need anything more radical than that. 

[siolfir]

2 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

A simple 10% to-hit debuff becomes 6.5%/4.8%/3% debuff against +4/+5 and a single +1 level shift literally makes your debuff over 50% more effective.  So a level 45 sidekicked into a level 50 team is level 49 vs level 54s (+5).  A natural 50 is vs +4 and a level shifted incarnate is vs +3.  That same debuff would be 3% for the sidekicked character, 4.8% for the natty 50, and 6.5% for the shifted incarnate.  The incarnate literally has over 100% the debuff effectiveness compared to the sidekicked character.  Meanwhile buffs are 100% as effective for all 3 characters. (level wise)

Well then I guess it's a good thing that debuffs have larger values than buffs and use a different enhancement schedule to be boosted even more. It's almost like those things were already thought about and compensated for.

 

1 hour ago, Ralathar44 said:

If you believe a scrapper should be able to solo an 8 man group then we're going to have a clear disagreement in where the power ceiling should be.  Even soling a +3/4 mission is prolly a bit much since you're essentially saying +3/8 is a 3 person job when that's intended to be a full team difficulty setting.  I know that might seem weird to you due to where we are in power creep allowing end game melee/sent/blasters to solo excessive difficulty content, but that's how I look at it.

Jack, is that you?

 

1 hour ago, ScarySai said:

No problem there, you're on point - I just forget sometimes that people don't consider that. Fire's DPA is unquestionably insane, though I don't think I'd lean on a nerf to fire as the lesson to learn from that.

 

I think a lot of otherwise slow powers could use a bit of a speed boost, on that note.

Heck, an animation change on one power killed an entire melee powerset, taking it from a high performance single target monster to an ignored also-ran that gets middling performance on its former specialty and drags terribly in all other metrics. Animations are important.

[ScarySai]

3 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Heck, an animation change on one power killed an entire melee powerset, taking it from a high performance single target monster to an ignored also-ran that gets middling performance on its former specialty and drags terribly in all other metrics. Animations are important.

Here's hoping that set gets some overdue buffs.

 

Goes double for regen.

Edited September 22, 2020 by ScarySai

[BitCook]

4 hours ago, parabola said:

I think we all get that you are very attached to this particular combination. But don't you agree that being able to provide 32% defence, to absolutely everything, for everyone around you including yourself, is a bit much? Yes it takes two powers to do it but even tanks have to invest more power picks and many more slots to achieve defences with many more holes in them.

I find it strange that in the current state of the game, where Kills speeds are so over the top, that we're worried about ANY combination from Defenders/Corruptors/Controllers/Dominators.  There are a few niche builds that do pretty good using some interesting mechanics like this... or heavy procs.  However, they pale in comparison to your average damage dealer.

When I build one of the above mentioned ATs it takes stupid amounts of effort to make a character that doesn't get slapped around in the endgame and can contribute something positive to the team.  Builds for those ATs tend to be very complicated.  Turn around and take Tank/Brute/Scrapper/Blaster/Stalker.  I have found those builds nearly simple by comparison with a lot more in variety to make them decent.  

I would rather see more options to make those ATs more viable, not less.  Currently control sets have little purpose in any end game content.  Support sets are good, but again with the end game environment, most people already have the things that support sets historically gave, so their place is becoming superfluous as well.

[Ralathar44]

22 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

You are right, my apologies.  That being said, I think the rest of the argument is legit.

I mean I'm not gonna drag you for it lol.  My dumb self forgot that -res was not included in AV protections.  Some things floated away during my break after sunset I suppose.  I'm not exactly perfect.  I'm not opposed to what you're saying, which is why I kept bringing it back to the original context.  Yall are dragging me into an argument I have no stake in lol.  My concern is about a healthy mix of ATs being viable at all level ranges both AE and non-AE and whether things like the extreme power of some sets/ATs, leadership buffs, incarnates, etc squeezes other sets/ATs/players out.

If even 20% of the fiery aura brutes were playing non-AE that's a significant amount being cut out from the non-AE numbers.  Blaster has gotten a crazy amount of love since sunset so it's no surprise they are high up.  With the buffs they've gotten and being able to softcap to be fairly safe I'm honestly not sure if Blasters are also overtuned or not.  That's not an implication mind you, I literally don't know because I don't play enough blasters.  Controllers I get because controllers start out weak but become monsters late game.  For all the concern about fiery aura brutes we can see the old staple of fire/kin controller or illusion/kin is the most played of them so a fair amount of them are prolly farmers too.

I feel like folks are trying to force me to take a position that doesn't entirely suit how I actually feel.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ralathar44

[FUBARczar]

12 hours ago, RageusQuitus2 said:

Thats interesting that it so clearly outperforms but i dont see many in the wild.  What are the number of tw 50s.  Maybe it needs less a nerf and moar fun?  Maybe momentum isnt fun?  Ive never played it so ymmv.  But something is strange when a game of min/maxers dont play it...

momentum is fine and thematic and unique, I hope it's not messed with.  And it only outperforms on 1 AT, scrappers.  So please don't hurt Brutes and Tanks for something that is j no more OP than Nukes

[FUBARczar]

5 hours ago, siolfir said:

Psi Assault Doms became popular due to farming with Psychic Shockwave, which was nerfed severely while Mental Manipulation was being created. I forget the old numbers, but I think it both recharged faster than it does currently as well as hitting harder. Drain Psyche - the sustain - was the icing, not the cake.

Yes PSW was more powerful in the beginning, but Drain Psyche was the only Heal/Sustain type power available for Doms in it's Primary/Secondary sets.  W/O Drain Psyche no one would have been farming with Doms with or without a more powerful PSW.   And it was similar for Blasters at its debut. 

[arcane]

8 minutes ago, BitCook said:

I find it strange that in the current state of the game, where Kills speeds are so over the top, that we're worried about ANY combination from Defenders/Corruptors/Controllers/Dominators.  There are a few niche builds that do pretty good using some interesting mechanics like this... or heavy procs.  However, they pale in comparison to your average damage dealer.

When I build one of the above mentioned ATs it takes stupid amounts of effort to make a character that doesn't get slapped around in the endgame and can contribute something positive to the team.  Builds for those ATs tend to be very complicated.  Turn around and take Tank/Brute/Scrapper/Blaster/Stalker.  I have found those builds nearly simple by comparison with a lot more in variety to make them decent.  

I would rather see more options to make those ATs more viable, not less.  Currently control sets have little purpose in any end game content.  Support sets are good, but again with the end game environment, most people already have the things that support sets historically gave, so their place is becoming superfluous as well.

A slight tilt towards tanking/melee is pretty much the meta in every MMO I've ever played. Even the slightest squishiness tends to come with a slight learning curve, which the most casual players shy away from. Doesn't mean squishy/support/etc. characters aren't capable of being overpowered - just that the "average" player is not in it for a challenge. Not that there's much challenge left to PvE in this game.

Edited September 22, 2020 by arcaneholocaust

[Ralathar44]

11 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

A slight tilt towards tanking/melee is pretty much the meta in every MMO I've ever played. Even the slightest squishiness tends to come with a slight learning curve, which the most casual players shy away from. Doesn't mean squishy/support/etc. characters aren't capable of being overpowered - just that the "average" player is not in it for a challenge. Not that there's much challenge left to PvE in this game.

I don't think you can really do direct comparisons to the classes of other MMORPGs.  COH is a unique Beast.  For instance Tankers and Brutes in COH would be a tankmage in nearly any other game with the ability to not only have quite good damage but also top tier defenses that make them basically unkillable.  Melee in other game typically has to choose damage or surviability and when they have both they are almost universally considered to be overpowered.

In alot of MMORPGs it's actually pretty hard for tanks to solo.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Ralathar44

[BitCook]

5 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

A slight tilt towards tanking/melee is pretty much the meta in every MMO I've ever played. Even the slightest squishiness tends to come with a slight learning curve, which the most casual players shy away from. Doesn't mean squishy/support/etc. characters aren't capable of being overpowered - just that the "average" player is not in it for a challenge. Not that there's much challenge left to PvE in this game.

That is true, and it usually compensates for the pain in the tail of chasing mobs all over.  Also the increased time that mobs are in the engagement window for ranged toons is a balancing reason to do so.

However, at some point, when the ability to engage multiple targets and clear them gets too high/fast... then really playing anything other than a damage dealer is pointless.

The PBU + Farsight mechanic gives those toons the ability to underslot a lot of defensive powers that have become nearly defacto for anyone wanting to participate in the endgame content.  It gives those toons creative slotting opportunities to put Procs in places and feel like their damage output is almost relevant.  Yeah, giving 32% def with two powers is probably a little nuts.  However, those toons already have low damage output and have to work to come close to being relevant as it is.  

Until that balance is solved, correcting that interaction just removes viable builds from underperforming ATs.

If that balance is reigned in... either by making mobs harder, lowering damage from the damage dealers, or any other combination to reduce time to kill is taken across the board, then yeah... there should be less items and interactions like this in the game.  But I think this game is a long way from that point.

[Kanil]

54 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

What are we even debating, at this point? I feel like yelling at my wall would yield more productive results.

im "debating" that fire blast and tw are the same type of outlier but tw being an outlier is a meme while fire blast being an outlier is "definitely fake because all it has is damage"  regardless of how all numbers show how fire blast adversely affects power choices despite the former being the one getting dinged for that exact reason

 

still haven't seen anyone even attempt to prove me wrong, they just keep saying the equiv of "b-but assault rifle has -def!!" like that's a real point instead of fire blast basically being momentum-on TW DPA-wise permanently isn't the outlier aspect

 

also while im editing, i demand full auto be a toggle

Edited September 22, 2020 by Kanil

[Mezmera]

40 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

You're assuming that I don't. 

 

I have blasters. I enjoy them. But... I *also* enjoy my Sentinels. They're slower, yes, but still fun in their own way. 

 

Having a fair bit of experience actually playing Sentinels, I'm in the camp that says they need some fairly limited tweaks. The primary sets all definitely need a damage pass. AR needs a more extensive rework. The inherent power would probably work just fine as a toggle rather than a click tied to specific attacks. I don't think they need anything more radical than that. 

I think we all have blasters if at the very least to understand why our AT of choice might not measure up.  I've not played a Sentinel so sure tweak away!