Game Balance & The Endgame

[BitCook]

1 hour ago, Coyotedancer said:

 

You really, really DON'T need to be soft-capped to participate in late-game/end-game content here, Bit... You seriously don't. No matter what the AT forum regulars might tell you, that's just never been necessary. Out in the game, it's not expected or by any means universal.

 

I'd go so far as to say that you don't even need an IO set-build to participate. Unless you're trying to solo at higher difficulty or joining high-challenge tasks like serious speed runs, a character will handle just fine with commons and a team of them will still make a reasonable mess of the game's content. 

That depends on what experience you want to have.

I've done Tinplex with newly minted 50s who have no IOs and just their Alpha slotted.  Since there are few tanks/brutes who are going to take aggro or can hold aggro, as a controller you toss out a control to help the team.  Within seconds you've attracted a few mobs and dead.  Rinse and repeat that several times.  Radio teams were better as usually they are total SteamRoller mode, but having a reasonable set of defenses is at least tangingentally related to enjoying late game content and feeling heroic.  ITFs are a mixed bag on underslotted squishies. 

Again, the team dynamic has broken community wide.  The expectation is breakneck speed mob to mob, leaving stragglers and teammates behind.  If you can't cope with this... then you tend to faceplant a lot.

Yes, you can do endgame content underslotted.  But if you want to enjoy it, you need to find one of those rare teams that wants to act like a team.  You need to hope that you have some builds that will shore up your shortcomings.  But I would agree it's possible.  Just the community doesn't, in a lot of cases, support not being able to take care of yourself.

[BitCook]

12 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That is a HUGE HUGE deal it's not even funny.  If Time could only buff ally def and only applied +rech to itself, how much of a difference do you think that would make to that Time/ or /Time build?

A ton.  That's a flaw with most support sets, not a knock against PB + Farsight.  I have never understood the decision to make most of the DEF/RES buffs from shield sets to be ally only.  I always thought that was the wrong decision.

But in terms of effects on the game?  Not as much as you'd think.

The FF/Sonic/Cold player can be giving those numbers early on in the leveling curve.  So the values given are not really the issue.  The game was designed around some powersets giving other players half of their journey to softcap.  

Yes, not being able to self buff is huge, but it only affects 1/8 potential teammates.  So the power ability of giving that is not really in question.  Then it becomes a debate on should Defenders be able to self buff.  Not,  "is two powers that come late in their build when most players will soon get an incarnate to cover the shortfall anyway" really that unbalanced?

Edited September 23, 2020 by BitCook

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

I mean, apparently there was data back on live that suggested something like 80% of characters had no IOs slotted. We don't have the metrics to make any truly informed decisions here but it would be really nice if we did. cough cough nudge nudge devs are you listening

 

That being said I think it's still very likely that most players don't get into the IO system that much.

It would be nice to see this data for here.  Back in the day I think most people were turned off by the absurd prices in the AH for IOs, so it stands to reason most did not use it.  Homecoming here is much different in that regard.  Again, just anecdotal to me personally - I see more characters with IO set bonuses listed in their info than not.  We have no way of knowing for certain without seeing the numbers. 

[Leogunner]

7 minutes ago, BitCook said:

A ton.  That's a flaw with most support sets, not a knock against PB + Farsight.  I have never understood the decision to make most of the DEF/RES buffs from shield sets to be ally only.  I always thought that was the wrong decision.

But in terms of effects on the game?  Not as much as you'd think.

The FF/Sonic/Cold player can be giving those numbers early on in the leveling curve.  So the values given are not really the issue.  The game was designed around some powersets giving other players half of their journey to softcap.  

Yes, not being able to self buff is huge, but it only affects 1/8 potential teammates.  So the power ability of giving that is not really in question.  Then it becomes a debate on should Defenders be able to self buff.  Not,  "is two powers that come late in their build when most players will soon get an incarnate to cover the shortfall anyway" really that unbalanced?

You indeed flipped the script.  In your perspective, the flaw is the "old" version of buffs and the new paradigm is the flashy updated new buff sets.  I can see that perspective but it upsets "a ton" that you've just decided to dismiss.

 

Could they just update all the buff sets to buff the user?  Of course.  But why should a defender/corruptor get 2/3 of a 9 power armor set from 3 powers?  They could technically have more armor than a Scrap/Stalker by dipping into the epics.  Not only that but powersets that are single target focused have to also be completely reworked and the already most effective combos (the buffers) would have an even stronger reign.

 

No, I feel the game was more designed around team combinations, not being a one-man show.  The support ATs pay a tax in that they multiply teams at the cost of themselves which is why team support can be as potent as it is.  IOs just shifted the meta which shouldn't be the targeted balancing level range.  Take IOs into account but don't chuck the whole game's balance off a cliff just because we've already got our toes hanging off the edge.

 

And it's far easier to balance "two powers that come late in their build when most players will soon get an incarnate to cover the shortfall anyway".  If it's so inconsequential, then it shouldn't be a problem to nerf to bring it in line.

[Ralathar44]

10 minutes ago, BitCook said:

A ton.  That's a flaw with most support sets, not a knock against PB + Farsight.  I have never understood the decision to make most of the DEF/RES buffs from shield sets to be ally only.  I always thought that was the wrong decision.

But in terms of effects on the game?  Not as much as you'd think.

The FF/Sonic/Cold player can be giving those numbers early on in the leveling curve.  So the values given are not really the issue.  The game was designed around some powersets giving other players half of their journey to softcap.  

Yes, not being able to self buff is huge, but it only affects 1/8 potential teammates.  So the power ability of giving that is not really in question.  Then it becomes a debate on should Defenders be able to self buff.  Not,  "is two powers that come late in their build when most players will soon get an incarnate to cover the shortfall anyway" really that unbalanced?

Not being able to self buff on those sets is because you can apply those skills with a short cooldown to allies at range and keep them up indefinitely.  PBAOE buffs constantly miss people in teams and often have fair sized cooldowns.  Also I think staying squishy as a defender/controller/corruptor is core to the AT identity.  If you could self buff several sets would basically be brute level survivability from low to mid levels.

Logically it makes no sense they cannot self buff, but from a gameplay perspective I believe it's a healthy decision not to be able to self buff.

[Coyotedancer]

19 minutes ago, BitCook said:

That depends on what experience you want to have.

I've done Tinplex with newly minted 50s who have no IOs and just their Alpha slotted.  Since there are few tanks/brutes who are going to take aggro or can hold aggro, as a controller you toss out a control to help the team.  Within seconds you've attracted a few mobs and dead.  Rinse and repeat that several times.  Radio teams were better as usually they are total SteamRoller mode, but having a reasonable set of defenses is at least tangingentally related to enjoying late game content and feeling heroic.  ITFs are a mixed bag on underslotted squishies. 

Again, the team dynamic has broken community wide.  The expectation is breakneck speed mob to mob, leaving stragglers and teammates behind.  If you can't cope with this... then you tend to faceplant a lot.

Yes, you can do endgame content underslotted.  But if you want to enjoy it, you need to find one of those rare teams that wants to act like a team.  You need to hope that you have some builds that will shore up your shortcomings.  But I would agree it's possible.  Just the community doesn't, in a lot of cases, support not being able to take care of yourself.

I'm just going to chalk this one up to different server cultures and different lived experiences.... Because I just haven't seen it being that huge of an issue.  Sure, some teams *do* run like smash-time wrecking balls and damn the torpedoes... and the squishies who'll get left behind. But, again, that's not universal. I can honestly say I've been on as many teams that DIDN'T run that way as team that have. It's a choice in either case, not a requirement.

[Coyotedancer]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

I mean, apparently there was data back on live that suggested something like 80% of characters had no IOs slotted. We don't have the metrics to make any truly informed decisions here but it would be really nice if we did. cough cough nudge nudge devs are you listening

 

That being said I think it's still very likely that most players don't get into the IO system that much.

I can only go by what I've seen among the people that I team with on Everlasting and, to a lesser extent, Excelsior... A pretty even blend of roleplayers, casuals and absolute speed-running maniacs between the two... and I'd give it a rough 50/50 between people who do extensive set-builds and people who don't. Among the "don't" types, many just run with commons and maybe a few procs or specials, even at 50. SO-only characters at 50 seem to be pretty unusual, but not unheard of. Below that? They're more common than you'd think, especially in the 30's from what I've seen.

[BitCook]

5 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

You indeed flipped the script.  In your perspective, the flaw is the "old" version of buffs and the new paradigm is the flashy updated new buff sets.  I can see that perspective but it upsets "a ton" that you've just decided to dismiss.

 

Could they just update all the buff sets to buff the user?  Of course.  But why should a defender/corruptor get 2/3 of a 9 power armor set from 3 powers?  They could technically have more armor than a Scrap/Stalker by dipping into the epics.  Not only that but powersets that are single target focused have to also be completely reworked and the already most effective combos (the buffers) would have an even stronger reign.

 

No, I feel the game was more designed around team combinations, not being a one-man show.  The support ATs pay a tax in that they multiply teams at the cost of themselves which is why team support can be as potent as it is.  IOs just shifted the meta which shouldn't be the targeted balancing level range.  Take IOs into account but don't chuck the whole game's balance off a cliff just because we've already got our toes hanging off the edge.

 

And it's far easier to balance "two powers that come late in their build when most players will soon get an incarnate to cover the shortfall anyway".  If it's so inconsequential, then it shouldn't be a problem to nerf to bring it in line.

So I would say two things.

(1) I believe this interaction has been around as long as Time has existed as a powerset.  So if design intent is the argument, then yes, this is working as designed.

(2) I actually agree that the game was designed as a team combination.  However, that design is as dead is Pre ED builds are.  That paradigm doesn't exist in this game any more.  IOs were the first nail in the coffin and the steady power creep was the last.  I would agree that there are too many self sufficient toons.

a) Tankers should not do damage by the original design.  HC has just fixed it so that they certainly do a lot more.
b) Blasters should not really have survivability, they were the glass cannons.  i24/25/HC has changed that by adding damage and sustainability along with the IOs to make them reasonably durable.
c) Nukes should not be an every mob thing, they should have repercussions.
d) Snipes should not be fast or in combat.
e) No one but Tanks and perhaps Brutes should be softcapping anything
I could go on with more, but we have so many things have changed in the game that they're too numerous to list.

Those are all massive game changes since Team interactions was important for AT identity.  Controllers are my favorite AT, but they are mostly worthless in today's game because of the massive changes that have happened.  Some by this team, some by the dev's in live.  That's the game we have now.  If you are going to pick powers and apply them to a design principle, I would think you have to design to the current environment, not the original intent.  The original intent doesn't exist anymore and if the argument is flipping the script is bad, then let's roll all the way back and I'll be way happier because my favorite AT will have purpose again.

[BitCook]

15 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

Not being able to self buff on those sets is because you can apply those skills with a short cooldown to allies at range and keep them up indefinitely.  PBAOE buffs constantly miss people in teams and often have fair sized cooldowns.  Also I think staying squishy as a defender/controller/corruptor is core to the AT identity.  If you could self buff several sets would basically be brute level survivability from low to mid levels.

Logically it makes no sense they cannot self buff, but from a gameplay perspective I believe it's a healthy decision not to be able to self buff.

I would agree it WAS core to their identity.  I replied in length above.  I don't think that design really applies any more.  If it does, then many of the recent changes don't make a lot of sense to me.

[BitCook]

12 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm just going to chalk this one up to different server cultures and different lived experiences.... Because I just haven't seen it being that huge of an issue.  Sure, some teams *do* run like smash-time wrecking balls and damn the torpedoes... and the squishies who'll get left behind. But, again, that's not universal. I can honestly say I've been on as many teams that DIDN'T run that way as team that have. It's a choice in either case, not a requirement.

That's fair.  Yes, certainly we are all speaking from personal lenses. 

Maybe I've just had bad luck, or maybe because I play squishies nearly 100% I see a lot more of that behavior.  When you're the tank... well all runs seem to go well, right? 🙂  Hey, I didn't die.  Good run people!

I can't say.  All I can speak to is the groups I've been with, which are mostly LFG groups.

I do love that in general if you wanted to play a slower style you can and try to find a static group.  I like that this game has room for lots of playstyles.  But yeah, *shrug* it's what I've seen of endgame content.  Usually if I'm not slotted well, I'm dead and some team leader is porting me to the next encounter, letting me wake up only to die again.  It's not... compelling gameplay at that point.

[golstat2003]

19 minutes ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm just going to chalk this one up to different server cultures and different lived experiences.... Because I just haven't seen it being that huge of an issue.  Sure, some teams *do* run like smash-time wrecking balls and damn the torpedoes... and the squishies who'll get left behind. But, again, that's not universal. I can honestly say I've been on as many teams that DIDN'T run that way as team that have. It's a choice in either case, not a requirement.

Also usually TF/iTrial teams ANNOUNCE in LFG when forming that it's a speed run. 

[golstat2003]

8 minutes ago, BitCook said:

That's fair.  Yes, certainly we are all speaking from personal lenses. 

Maybe I've just had bad luck, or maybe because I play squishies nearly 100% I see a lot more of that behavior.  When you're the tank... well all runs seem to go well, right? 🙂  Hey, I didn't die.  Good run people!

I can't say.  All I can speak to is the groups I've been with, which are mostly LFG groups.

I do love that in general if you wanted to play a slower style you can and try to find a static group.  I like that this game has room for lots of playstyles.  But yeah, *shrug* it's what I've seen of endgame content.  Usually if I'm not slotted well, I'm dead and some team leader is porting me to the next encounter, letting me wake up only to die again.  It's not... compelling gameplay at that point.

The thing is iTrials expect you to be at a certain level. Coming not well slotted to iTrials I don't think is the expectation that the original dev team (or HC) had for those. Also I seem to remember that can't do some of the later iTrials if you don't have alpha slotted. (Unless HC changed that, I haven't tried). And many teams in LFG announce that you need to have at least Alpha slotted before you can join their run of the later trials.

 

TFs are one thing. iTrials are Incarnate Content.

Edited September 23, 2020 by golstat2003

[golstat2003]

2 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Both of them are part of the issue.  IOs and incarnate alpha slot level shft + diminishing returns break (with icing of abilities) both give large power boosts that allow spines/fire to be the farming beast it is.  Sure, it could prolly functional with only incarnate or only IOs at reduced efficiency, but farmers are going to be using both and both together stack multiplicatively since the level boost + diminishing returns passive and the IOs compliment and strengthen the benefits of each other.

This has not been my experience at all. I've farmed plenty very easily without ANY incarnate powers and just extreme IO Builds. With the sorts of IO builds floating around you don't need them at all to farm. They are just icing on the cake. We can agree to disagree.

[macskull]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

This has not been my experience at all. I've farmed plenty very easily without ANY incarnate powers and just extreme IO Builds. With the sorts of IO builds floating around you don't need them at all to farm. They are just icing on the cake. We can agree to disagree.

Spines/Fire Scrappers were the FotM non-AE farmers pretty much the entire time from when Scrappers got Fiery Aura in I16 to when GR let you roll any AT on any side in I18.

[Leogunner]

5 minutes ago, BitCook said:

So I would say two things.

(1) I believe this interaction has been around as long as Time has existed as a powerset.  So if design intent is the argument, then yes, this is working as designed.

(2) I actually agree that the game was designed as a team combination.  However, that design is as dead is Pre ED builds are.  That paradigm doesn't exist in this game any more.  IOs were the first nail in the coffin and the steady power creep was the last.  I would agree that there are too many self sufficient toons.

a) Tankers should not do damage by the original design.  HC has just fixed it so that they certainly do a lot more.
b) Blasters should not really have survivability, they were the glass cannons.  i24/25/HC has changed that by adding damage and sustainability along with the IOs to make them reasonably durable.
c) Nukes should not be an every mob thing, they should have repercussions.
d) Snipes should not be fast or in combat.
e) No one but Tanks and perhaps Brutes should be softcapping anything
I could go on with more, but we have so many things have changed in the game that they're too numerous to list.

Those are all massive game changes since Team interactions was important for AT identity.  Controllers are my favorite AT, but they are mostly worthless in today's game because of the massive changes that have happened.  Some by this team, some by the dev's in live.  That's the game we have now.  If you are going to pick powers and apply them to a design principle, I would think you have to design to the current environment, not the original intent.  The original intent doesn't exist anymore and if the argument is flipping the script is bad, then let's roll all the way back and I'll be way happier because my favorite AT will have purpose again.

I don't dismiss any of your rebuttals but I will restate a common enough statement made in various threads about balance and IOs (even in this thread), but the majority of players that play aren't IO'ed out to the gills.

 

There are notable exceptions and it can even be considered an incentive to continue to build out a character and progress them as high as possible, but it is not the majority.  Posters on the forum skew perspectives since most that chat about the game likely can, will and do often min/max characters (I've done it a few times on live and HC) but people have made the argument of #NotAll.  If that is true or not can be up for debate, I just know people will use it when it's convenient for their argument and reverse it when its not.

 

I actually do have a problem with a lot of the changes you made note of as above.  Like for the Tanker changes: I don't take credit for the suggestion but I did suggest on live and these forums before the change to give Tankers an identity by increasing the range of their AoEs primarily because people just like seeing lots of orange numbers when they hit lots of foes...but I also advocated that those orange numbers shouldn't be that big.  When they buffed up Tanker melee mods, I was against that (also against them reducing the AoE size/caps from the initial iteration).  They should have been kept low(ish) damage but big range.  Big range/big caps = more debuffs/controls/taunt and that should = Tanker identity.

 

Regarding the Nukes, I think that was also a mistake done back on live if I'm not mistaken.  It took away the identity of Archery/Assault Rifle/Dual Pistols and made the nuke just a hallmark AoE.

 

I liked the aspects of the old Snipe/+ToHit as well and don't agree with that change.  They missed an opportunity to create a Snipe IO unique that just gave you fast snipe (bonus damage when out of combat or with enough +ToHit).  Similarly to how Stalkers are made quite good with some conveniently placed IO opportunities, it works as a build incentive and player goal to get these "gears" but it's still a choice.

 

Softcapping is an endgame thing.  It's not necessary and, to me, a waste of a player's time and effort.  Similarly, a perma-dom Dominator is pretty pointless when most things don't need 5+ mags of control outside of certain (Click it then!) situations.  It really only matters if you decide to min/max on paper or because you've got nothing better to do with the character.  A softcapped players is no more useful than a player with a bit of defense that keeps and pops some purples at opportune moments.

 

If you do it, you enjoy wasting your effort for minimal gains outside of superfluous circumstances and likely have nothing better to do.  There, I said it.

[Lockpick]

1 hour ago, parabola said:

I will say that in many ways the very fact that custom AE content has had to be created to challenge very high power builds/teams kind of proves the point that this challenge is lacking in the regular game.

 

I never said there was sufficient challenging content for people like you that want challenging content or incarnate levels of challenging content.  I agree to a certain extent.  If the game had stayed Live I am sure the Devs would have added challenging content for Incarnates.  They were doing so with the iTrials, so this seems a given.  Obviously, they didn't finish because the game shut down, so there are limitations.

 

What I have said is that there are mechanisms that exist in game today to fix the gap as a community without relying on the Devs to make wholesale changes to powers, ATs, procs, incarnate levels, etc.  It seems that if you really interested in hard mode content you would explore this side before calling for changes that will impact a lot of other players.  Have you run the 801 content?  Have you tried creating AE hard mode content?  You might be surprised if you tried it and you might find that things are not as bad as you think.

 

We have an incredibly powerful tool in AE and it is a shame it is just being used for farming and power leveling.

 

1 hour ago, parabola said:

Also I totally get the 'make your own challenge/gimp yourself if that's your idea of fun' argument. My counter would be if the game was rebalanced so that it was more challenging you would be just as capable of tailoring your experience by the far simpler lowering of the difficulty slider. There are plenty of settings below +4x8 to explore but sadly none above that.

 

As has been stated in this thread (and I agree with it) many of the forum readers are power gamers in the sense they create and optimize builds to make the content trivial.  I do this on many of my builds as well.  I also have basic IO builds to simulate natural heroes.  That is the beauty of this game.  You can have it all if you want to try different ideas and content.

 

I don't generally pick FotM builds and then complain the content is to easy. I look for ways to challenge myself.  In addition, I already use the existing functionality to scale the content to my character's wants/needs.  If I have a character that I want to run at 0/1 then I do it.  If I have a character I want to try at +4/8 then I do it.  If I have a godlike character I'll do challenges (take a look at @Werner or @nihilii for some of the crazy stuff they have done).  Challenges or lack of challenges are there for the taking.  If you want hard mode go do it.  No one is stopping you.

 

I can't quite grasp the idea of asking a volunteer Dev team to make wholesale changes to powers to try and rebalance the game for a few hard mode players especially when there are mechanisms in place to provide that hard mode content.  Frankly it smacks of being lazy and selfish.

 

[BitCook]

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

[Clipped reasoned argument to save screen space... it's like one reply up if you want the whole thing...]

 

If you do it, you enjoy wasting your effort for minimal gains outside of superfluous circumstances and likely have nothing better to do.  There, I said it.

I have a dichotomy issue when it comes to this.

On one side, I LOVE tinkering with builds.  I like the numbers, I like seeing what bonuses I can get, I like seeing if I can make ATs do things they really don't.  That's a mental challenge and a part of the game I deeply enjoy.  I also enjoy playing characters who are IOed out and exemping down to run the missions as a complete character.  For me, I don't have any pressures on what content I want to run, I just do things that I enjoy at that point.

On the other side, I really miss the early days where each AT had a role and team dynamics played a part in how missions resulted.  I liked that team wipes were not uncommon, it gave a challenge to the game.  I know that the place that the game is in now, doesn't really have room for support characters unless there are a lot of changes that are going to be made. 

I guess I don't see the second thing happening or think it's likely.  The team seems to have the philosophy of raising the tides for ATs which is fine.  It just means that you have to work to make the characters you might enjoy successful.

[Parabola]

4 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

I can't quite grasp the idea of asking a volunteer Dev team to make wholesale changes to powers to try and rebalance the game for a few hard mode players especially when there are mechanisms in place to provide that hard mode content.  Frankly it smacks of being lazy and selfish.

The volunteer dev team have said they are taking a look at powers and balance and I have merely stated that I approve of the approach. This is not because I am looking for personal challenge, it is because I feel that it will result in a better functioning teaming game which is the bedrock of an mmo.

 

I would like you to retract the insult.

[Galaxy Brain]

Another quick bit while I'm catching up on the thread:

 

So far, HC has not really "nerfed" any powers without compensation, such as Brutes getting a damage cap decrease but being able to generate fury much, MUCH, more effectively. So while certain things may see nerfs, I fully expect there to be adjustments to other areas to make it a smooth change rather than directly negative.

 

Also, balance changes could be in consideration for that future "hard content". If content is hard for a TW/Bio to clear, it'd be downright depressing for a KM/Regen

[FUBARczar]

20 hours ago, siolfir said:

But that was my point, you have to throw in filler because it's not sustainable, any more than constantly having Momentum is sustainable for Titan Weapons. That filler time is where Fire Blast loses ground in overall single-target chains, even though you gain ground every time you use Blaze.

 

As for the AoE burst to clear things, every Blaster primary can do the same; Ice takes longer than most because of Blizzard and Ice Storm taking so long to deal their damage, but the patch powers at least can violate the target cap and Ice can keep up with Fire in single target while doing it more safely (since its best single target chain includes -to-hit and a hold).

Blaster's get a worry-free sustain, and hiccup-free incarnate power activation.  If someone in playing TW/Bio, TW/Rad, TW anything but SR or Willpower their chains  get broken and momentum is sacrificed by activating defensive and all are impacted when activating incarnate powers.

[Leogunner]

3 minutes ago, BitCook said:

I have a dichotomy issue when it comes to this.

On one side, I LOVE tinkering with builds.  I like the numbers, I like seeing what bonuses I can get, I like seeing if I can make ATs do things they really don't.  That's a mental challenge and a part of the game I deeply enjoy.  I also enjoy playing characters who are IOed out and exemping down to run the missions as a complete character.  For me, I don't have any pressures on what content I want to run, I just do things that I enjoy at that point.
 

It was an intentionally charged remark mainly to drum up posters to respond.  Frankly, I am just over the aspect of the game revolving around IOing a build to a certain level.  I just don't care if people do it or not lol. 

 

IOs have been in the game for quite a while, even on live, the main difference between then and now being the speed at which one acquires such a build.  Of course, there are other reasons to IO a build (my main one is just having a certain vision of a character usually dictates if that character is a step above the rest of the roster of my characters, slightly below or in between) but frankly, I chalk that up to the "not having anything better to do" category.  Not a dismissive categorization, just not something pertinent to the game's balance or the discussion of rebalance unless the consideration of rebalancing IOs is on the table.

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

It was an intentionally charged remark mainly to drum up posters to respond.  Frankly, I am just over the aspect of the game revolving around IOing a build to a certain level.  I just don't care if people do it or not lol. 

 

IOs have been in the game for quite a while, even on live, the main difference between then and now being the speed at which one acquires such a build.  Of course, there are other reasons to IO a build (my main one is just having a certain vision of a character usually dictates if that character is a step above the rest of the roster of my characters, slightly below or in between) but frankly, I chalk that up to the "not having anything better to do" category.  Not a dismissive categorization, just not something pertinent to the game's balance or the discussion of rebalance unless the consideration of rebalancing IOs is on the table.

Yeah with the size of our dev team re-balancing IOs is probably VERY off the table. At least not until 2040 if they wanted to. LOL

[FUBARczar]

6 hours ago, macskull said:

I think adding content balanced around IOs is a bad idea because it means that the IO system is no longer optional for at least part of the game. Besides, how do you balance it around IOs? There are so many different potential ways to build characters that it'd be impossible to decide what to balance against.

Well it wouldn't have to be so specific, just a mixed bag of tricks.  Or maybe they all want to see more mid-TF/SF Reichsmans KO them all.

[Ukase]

19 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

 But classes needing other classes to do the hardest content?  That's a pretty reasonable ask IMO. 

When you say classes needing classes...what you're really saying is that players need other players. This is a fairly significant irritant for not a small number of players. A lot of us are working from home and have to routinely tab out and take a call or do some other work related activity. Or maybe they have kids, or maybe they want to do what they want to do when they want to do it. 

The BEST thing about HC's flavor of COH has been not requiring players to rely on other players to get things done for their characters. While technically it's "reasonable" to ask - for many the answer to that request is "No".  

I've led trials within a large SG. I've led them as a PUG. Regardless - they take a long while to gather the bodies necessary to start them off - and that's on Excelsior, arguably the most populated server. 
In many cases, it takes longer to form the league  than it does to actually do the content. For that reason alone, the reasonable ask becomes unreasonable. CoH is no longer an MMO, if it ever truly was. You'd need literally hundreds of players on a shard to cross into that distinction. HC isn't there. 

My post, to this point, is a major digression from the topic of this thread, I'm aware. I'm also aware that if a melee character is so kitted out that a buff or debuff character isn't needed, then it has to make us wonder what's the point of creating the non-fotm AT/Powerset? I get it. A player makes an emp defender, and wants so badly to be of value, they don't take any attacks until the game forces them, and even then, they take pool powers like TP Ally, Grant Invis and perhaps a few out of the Leadership pool. Then other players chime in that they need to be able to be good on their own before they can bring any substantive value to a team. They can't win! 

But, unless I read incorrectly, this is the kind of discrepency between various AT/Powersets  the HC devs are trying to address. It's a complex problem and I think we're being insincere if we don't acknowledge that some folks are going to be disappointed no matter what the HC devs do, even if they opt to do nothing. 

 

[aethereal]

9 minutes ago, Ukase said:

CoH is no longer an MMO, if it ever truly was. You'd need literally hundreds of players on a shard to cross into that distinction. HC isn't there. 

 

HC has literally hundreds of players on a shard.  This isn't to say that I disagree with your points, but I think you're underestimating the population of the shards.