Game Balance & The Endgame

[Gobbledigook]

The heroes have laid down their capes and donned straw hats...welcome to City of Farmers. 😆

 

Most content nowadays is just farmed. A speed run ITF anyone? Damage ATs only. Only takes minutes it is so easy.

 

IO sets are still being added to make the heroes even more powerful yet content remains the same. 

 

This is an old game now but any future content at least should take into account the IO system and be the most difficult content yet.

 

 

 

 

[Wavicle]

6 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

 

This is an old game now but any future content at least should take into account the IO system and be the most difficult content yet.

Agreed.
 

unless its not level 50 content. Then it doesn’t have to be the hardest ever

Edited October 1, 2020 by Wavicle

[Safehouse]

Overall, I don’t have anything new of substance that I can bring to this thread. Just wanted to state that I agree that it would be good to see harder level 50 content that’s balanced around IOs, maybe even some stuff around incarnates. I think Positron said in a post Mortem or one of his lore posts post-shutdown that the intent was to ultimate introduce Battalion midway thru incarnates (like issue 25), and they would basically stomp our collective incarnated-out butts. It would be cool to see that happen.

[CaptainLupis]

45 minutes ago, Safehouse said:

Overall, I don’t have anything new of substance that I can bring to this thread. Just wanted to state that I agree that it would be good to see harder level 50 content that’s balanced around IOs, maybe even some stuff around incarnates. I think Positron said in a post Mortem or one of his lore posts post-shutdown that the intent was to ultimate introduce Battalion midway thru incarnates (like issue 25), and they would basically stomp our collective incarnated-out butts. It would be cool to see that happen.

Yeah, I seem to recall from somewhere that the only hope for defeating them was to use Hamidon against them somehow (I'm guessing not willingly). It would have been interesting to see how an arc (or arcs) where things just keep getting worse and worse for the heroes would have panned out. I missed the original Rikti invasion stuff as the game didn't hit the EU until issue 3, so a new invasion would have been good to see.

[DSorrow]

2 hours ago, Grouchybeast said:

I thought that harder content for the sake of harder content was the entire point?  People are dissatisfied with the challenge, and want harder, more challenging content.  If they're actually fine with the current level of challenge, and would only want to play harder content for higher rewards, it seems like a waste of time.

I think the issue is that the subset of gamers who actually want challenge just for the sake of challenge is really quite small. Having done stuff like solo LRSF, I'm all for more challenge without the reward sometimes, but I honestly don't think CoH is a game that can support this kind of playstyle for long because so many other games do it so much better. So, in my opinion extra rewards for extra difficulty are necessary, but the implementation has to be smart and probably requires data collection from actual gameplay.

 

Personally, I'd like to avoid a situation where some optional difficulty settings become mandatory for reward efficiency while potentially shutting out less optimized characters and teams. As a rule of thumb, I guess it would be fair if a difficulty setting that increases average completion time by X%, the rewards increase by half that, e.g. buffed enemies on average extends a TF by 20% so now the participants are entitled to 10% extra XP/inf and merits. On average, reward efficiency decreases so there's no point in forcing these modifiers for a random team, but a highly optimized team could maybe achieve a similar reward/time ratio with or without the modifiers, but they'd get to play more challenging content should they want to do so. Something like this could work for close-knit power gamer groups without disturbing the core of CoX experience: casual teaming.

Edited October 1, 2020 by DSorrow

[macskull]

1 hour ago, Wavicle said:

Agreed.
 

unless its not level 50 content. Then it doesn’t have to be the hardest ever

How do you take the IO system into account without making the game incredibly difficult for characters who aren't IOd? Even at that point, what do you balance against?

[Wavicle]

4 minutes ago, macskull said:

How do you take the IO system into account without making the game incredibly difficult for characters who aren't IOd? Even at that point, what do you balance against?

I’m saying new content for sub-50 characters should still be balanced for SOs to the same extent that arcs like The Major or The New Praetorians or even Praetoria itself are balanced for SOs.

 

 New level 50 content should be balanced for IOs and Incarnates.

[macskull]

5 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I’m saying new content for sub-50 characters should still be balanced for SOs to the same extent that arcs like The Major or The New Praetorians or even Praetoria itself are balanced for SOs.

 

 New level 50 content should be balanced for IOs and Incarnates.

My question stands, whether you're talking 50+ or sub-50 content. The problem is once you begin to balance content around IOs the IO system is no longer optional for participation in that content and you're locking out players who would otherwise be interested in participating. At least with incarnate-based content you can grind that out and simply playing the game will eventually get you the resources you need to participate, but the same can't really be said for IOs. Besides, if you're making new content more difficult without increasing the rewards to compensate you're already ensuring that content won't be significantly utilized. Players will continue to gravitate toward the content that maximizes rewards for the time/effort which will continue to be existing content.

Edited October 1, 2020 by macskull

[Lockpick]

3 hours ago, Sovera said:

While there have been several suggestions about upping the difficulty (such as running with buffed enemies) and using the other choices to make it harder (only AT powers, etc), the truth is that none of these add to the rewards. It is harder content for the sake of harder content.

 

People do not progress from +0 through all the gamut until +4 for the sake of difficulty. They do it to increase their rewards. If +4 brought no benefits then the game would be played at +0 to finish faster in order to do more. 

 

 

 

This is why the extra difficulty is never used.

 

I think there are some good points in this post.  I do agree that higher more difficult content should have corresponding rewards.

 

What I found interesting was your point about extra difficulty not being used today.  I find this to be true.  Very rarely do I get on teams and the team wants to run +4.  We might start at +2 and if everyone agrees we might go to +3 and beyond if everyone agrees.  If we do start at +4 we often decrease it the next mission.  This is obviously anecdotal, but it has been my experience,

 

The key here is we currently have the capability to increase difficulty and it seems that is rarely used.  This seems to bolster my point that many people are fine with game difficulty as is.  Of course, my experience is anecdotal and subjective.  If I was the Devs I would do some data mining to find out how many players run +4/8.  I think we will find it to be relatively small portion of the player base.

 

As another anecdotal data point from my personal play style: I run default difficulty pretty much through the leveling process and beyond when solo.  I run whatever difficulty setting my team is using when teaming.  When I get to 50 I might run higher difficulty settings solo just to see if I can, but since my play time is more limited I like to run my missions quickly.  I don't want to spend 30 minutes clearing an Ephram Shah mission so I can get my 10 threads, so faster is better for me.

 

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, macskull said:

My question stands, whether you're talking 50+ or sub-50 content.

IMO the content I mentioned, the New Praetorian arcs, First Ward, Night Ward, DOES take IOs into account yet isn't so hard that it's out of reach for SO builds. DA is similar, as you build up your Incarnate powers, progression through DA is acceptable without IOs.

[Lines]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

IMO the content I mentioned, the New Praetorian arcs, First Ward, Night Ward, DOES take IOs into account yet isn't so hard that it's out of reach for SO builds.

This is the sweet spot, in my perspective.

[macskull]

3 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

IMO the content I mentioned, the New Praetorian arcs, First Ward, Night Ward, DOES take IOs into account yet isn't so hard that it's out of reach for SO builds. DA is similar, as you build up your Incarnate powers, progression through DA is acceptable without IOs.

I have not played goldside at all but based on what I've read both here and on the forums back on live it seems goldside content is significantly harder and there's a good deal of complaining about it. I think DA is a different thing altogether as incarnate level shifts apply there and once you've got all 3 level shifts pretty much all content there is trivial.

 

Like... yeah, you can make content that's more difficult for IO'd characters versus baseline content, but then that same content is that much more difficult for characters that aren't using IOs. Whether that's seen as a problem is a different story, however.

Edited October 1, 2020 by macskull

[Lockpick]

2 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

IMO the content I mentioned, the New Praetorian arcs, First Ward, Night Ward, DOES take IOs into account yet isn't so hard that it's out of reach for SO builds. DA is similar, as you build up your Incarnate powers, progression through DA is acceptable without IOs.

Another good data point to do some data mining against.  How many players actually play this content?  I avoid it like the plague and when I do go into First Ward and Night Ward I rarely see other players.  Of course, this is true of other zones as well like Croatoa, so could be just a game population thing.

 

 

[Wavicle]

3 minutes ago, macskull said:

I have not played goldside at all but based on what I've read both here and on the forums back on live it seems goldside content is significantly harder and there's a good deal of complaining about it. I think DA is a different thing altogether as incarnate level shifts apply there and once you've got all 3 level shifts pretty much all content there is trivial.

 

Like... yeah, you can make content that's more difficult for IO'd characters versus baseline content, but then that same content is that much more difficult for characters that aren't using IOs. Whether that's seen as a problem is a different story, however.

I've played goldside a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion that it is not AS MUCH harder as I used to think.

[Wavicle]

3 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

Another good data point to do some data mining against.  How many players actually play this content?  I avoid it like the plague and when I do go into First Ward and Night Ward I rarely see other players.  Of course, this is true of other zones as well like Croatoa, so could be just a game population thing.

 

 

It's true, people don't play it as much, but they don't not play it at all. It's an option that's there for those who want it. I think the fact the game has like a dozen different paths to 50 is great.

[macskull]

Just now, Wavicle said:

It's an option that's there for those who want it.

I think that's the key part. Making the game more difficult as a whole should be an optional decision, not one forced onto the playerbase in some ham-fisted way.

 

My two cents: if content is going to be made more difficult it should be optional and should come with increased rewards for the increased difficulty. As long as those rewards are meaningful it might convince more players to give it a shot.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, macskull said:

I think that's the key part. Making the game more difficult as a whole should be an optional decision, not one forced onto the playerbase in some ham-fisted way.

 

My two cents: if content is going to be made more difficult it should be optional and should come with increased rewards for the increased difficulty. As long as those rewards are meaningful it might convince more players to give it a shot.

Agreed, but the rewards can’t be increased by too much.

[CaptainLupis]

6 minutes ago, macskull said:

I have not played goldside at all but based on what I've read both here and on the forums back on live it seems goldside content is significantly harder and there's a good deal of complaining about it. I think DA is a different thing altogether as incarnate level shifts apply there and once you've got all 3 level shifts pretty much all content there is trivial.

 

Like... yeah, you can make content that's more difficult for IO'd characters versus baseline content, but then that same content is that much more difficult for characters that aren't using IOs. Whether that's seen as a problem is a different story, however.

I like gold side, but it is deserted. It would be good if there were an easy way to build a team from current red/blue side players of the appropriate level, to augment the population there. There may already be a way, that doesn't involve playing it through ouro, but if there is I don't think it is widely known.

 

I'd also be curious to see what the stats are for level 50 characters out there, that are being played and not just PLd to 50 and dropped, that are not using IO sets to some extent. I don't know how easy it would be to data mine that, but if the number is low then perhaps it really is time to start balancing new 50+ content against that? Yes it might negatively impact a few but there is plenty of game still there they can play, and if it encourages them to look at IOs again I don't think that's a bad thing. it's not like they would have to do it for every alt they have, just 1 they want to play that new content with.

[macskull]

Just now, CaptainLupis said:

I'd also be curious to see what the stats are for level 50 characters out there, that are being played and not just PLd to 50 and dropped, that are not using IO sets to some extent. I don't know how easy it would be to data mine that, but if the number is low then perhaps it really is time to start balancing new 50+ content against that? Yes it might negatively impact a few but there is plenty of game still there they can play, and if it encourages them to look at IOs again I don't think that's a bad thing. it's not like they would have to do it for every alt they have, just 1 they want to play that new content with.

IIRC back on live a dev posted datamining info revealing about 80% of characters didn't use IOs at all.

[Lockpick]

1 minute ago, macskull said:

IIRC back on live a dev posted datamining info revealing about 80% of characters didn't use IOs at all.

That is interesting; I would have expected it to be lower.  Here I expect the percentage using some IOs is higher because everything is cheaper, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that 50% doesn't significantly use IOs.

[Safehouse]

5 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

That is interesting; I would have expected it to be lower.  Here I expect the percentage using some IOs is higher because everything is cheaper, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that 50% doesn't significantly use IOs.

This is entirely anecdotal, so please take this with a grain of salt, but I didn't touch or even think of IOs when the game was live. Knew about them, but I think the most I ever did was SOs. I never kitted out, planned builds, or anything of the like. Now, in Homecoming, I have done a TON of IO building, in no small part because I've found IOs so easy to get, and I actually think I understand crafting and auction house better than I ever did during live. Again, can only speak to my personal experience, but I suspect there could be others like me out there who fell in the 80% on live but now plan builds and go out of the way to build them.

[CaptainLupis]

13 minutes ago, macskull said:

IIRC back on live a dev posted datamining info revealing about 80% of characters didn't use IOs at all.

That's not a surprise when you consider that it's likely a large percentage of characters are created but never make it to the point where IOs would be useful. I expect the number would be different for level 50 played characters.

[ShardWarrior]

29 minutes ago, macskull said:

IIRC back on live a dev posted datamining info revealing about 80% of characters didn't use IOs at all.

Keep in mind, this is when pricing for IOs was absurdly high and out of reach for most players on the AH.  The situation is much, much different here.

[DSorrow]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

The problem is once you begin to balance content around IOs the IO system is no longer optional for participation in that content and you're locking out players who would otherwise be interested in participating.

I don't think it would be outrageous to balance end game content so that the expectation is IO level of enhancement value. Just slotting any appropriate IO sets into powers and disregarding set bonuses completely still gives a character probably ~1.5x the enhancement value per slot an SO only character would get. Participating in content set to this level of balance wouldn't require a degree in setbonusology, but just utilizing whatever drops for you, which I think is a pretty reasonable expectation for player behavior in any game.

 

57 minutes ago, macskull said:

IIRC back on live a dev posted datamining info revealing about 80% of characters didn't use IOs at all.

I'd be willing to be this is significantly lower on HC. Back in retail CoX much more than half of my characters never got IOs because they were either long retired by the time IOs were even available, or if I still played them, didn't seem worthy of IOing in contrast to some other characters thanks to the quite prohibitive cost of good IO builds: I had two characters with ~10 billion builds each, which combined is more than I've spent on all of my characters on HC, there's a reason many of my retail characters never got funding... Here all of my characters start getting IOs as soon as possible thanks to catalyzed sets and all my 50s are IO'd to the gills with purples, winter IOs or whatever is the best set given the build's goals, not the best value for inf as cost is much less of a concern.

 

Obviously, this is completely anecdotal, but I'd still be surprised if the no-IOs at all population was anywhere near 80%.

Edited October 1, 2020 by DSorrow

[MunkiLord]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

My question stands, whether you're talking 50+ or sub-50 content. The problem is once you begin to balance content around IOs the IO system is no longer optional for participation in that content and you're locking out players who would otherwise be interested in participating. At least with incarnate-based content you can grind that out and simply playing the game will eventually get you the resources you need to participate, but the same can't really be said for IOs. Besides, if you're making new content more difficult without increasing the rewards to compensate you're already ensuring that content won't be significantly utilized. Players will continue to gravitate toward the content that maximizes rewards for the time/effort which will continue to be existing content.

I don't think all new level 50 content should be designed with IOs in mind, but I do feel a significant portion should, half or more with increased rewards to reflect the difficulty. Yes that means some people will never use that content, but that's ok in my opinion.