Game Balance & The Endgame

[Saikochoro]

19 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

Yeah that's literally farming. In fact some teams that bring along lowbies will tell them from the start that they expect them to participate. 

This is how I do my PI teams honestly. I have no problem bringing a level 1 onto the team. Although I know their contribution will basically be nothing, I expect them to at least follow the team around and whiff on enemies. 
 

Farming is a different story. I actually prefer if they stay at the door and do nothing. 

[Saikochoro]

8 hours ago, Sovera said:

Some simple things that would help would be an all boss (no more minion, lieutenant and bosses. Instead all become bosses, and bosses turned into EBs, mebbe?) difficulty setting that mimics the elites of WoW. Now suddenly everything hits hard and defenses, CC, buffs and debuffs matter. I can only speak for myself but I would be much more interested in running something on that difficulty and have everyone contributing to reap the extra XP and raw inf.

I would love to have an all boss/EB difficulty setting. That would be awesome. Especially if it was a notoriety setting that could be applied to any content. I hope the devs see this and get intrigued 😁

[Coyotedancer]

21 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

I would love to have an all boss/EB difficulty setting. That would be awesome. Especially if it was a notoriety setting that could be applied to any content. I hope the devs see this and get intrigued 😁

It could actually be a heck of a lot of fun as an optional mission setting, I think. I hope the idea gets some consideration.

[BitCook]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:06 AM, ShardWarrior said:

First, you can already let every AT and every power set feel valuable on as many teams as possible in the current game.  If you or anyone else does not feel useful, this is a self inflicted problem and there is a very simple solution - stop PUGing.  Either stop PUGing where you will not know for certain who you are teamed with or what their build is and such or accept the fact that you are going to get what you get with regard to the team.  PUG teams are a roll of the dice and we never know what we will get.  Nerf herding to a degree is trying to rig the dice in my opinion. 

You may not mean it, but you are essentially saying don't play with teams.  Even if you did have your seven friends who were always available whenever you wanted to play, you'd also be asking most of them to not play many of the most common ATs.  I don't think that's a good solution.

Instead, trying to find a way that support, and all ATs, work in a balance thread seems like a pretty good way to go about it.  Now to be fair, I'm mostly happy since the conversation to nerf support sets using PB has faded, but yes, it would be lovely if the Dev team looked at AT balance across the board.  It should not be AT dependent on whether or not PUGs are an avenue for you or not.  Just like there should be no AT required to make a PUG.  

However, I do think that every AT should have an impactful contribution on most teams.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 8:06 AM, ShardWarrior said:

Serious questions - what exactly is keeping you or anyone from staying on a team where they feel inadequate or not needed?  What is preventing you or anyone else from socializing, finding others who enjoy the game the same way, forming your own groups to team up and run content the way you like? 

Basic mechanics, because some ATs are overtuned, then several ATs like Controllers/Dominators and to a lesser degree Defenders and Corruptors are not (as?) useful unless you restricting some of the more overtuned classes from joining.

So now, you're asking those of us that loved those ATs to find a regular group of seven other players who also don't want to play several of the ATs so our kill speed is low enough for the ATs we want to play to matter.  That's a pretty tall order for anyone to swallow.  I personally don't think it's too much to ask that the ATs in the game matter at all phases of the game.  If they don't they either they need some major revision, removal from the game, or the game itself needs some balance.
 

Asking people to not PUG because 2-4 ATs are either undertuned or useless depending on your point of view is not really a good solution nor should it be anything you advocate for if you care about a good game and the health of the community.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 8:06 AM, ShardWarrior said:

If I am capable of destroying entire maps solo while we are on a team and it makes you feel bad, I am not the one keeping you there - you are.

That's true... until "you" are common enough that forming an 8 person team without "you" is difficult.  Right now, if I ask 8 players to play end game content, odds are I will have 2 players who can clear the map solo.  As people have mentioned IOs are far more common (a good thing in my book) and recent buffs to classes have made them far stronger than they ever were (sniper/nuke/tank/pick your buff).  So finding eight players who can not clear a map is not quite as easy as you are saying.

Plus, like probably most people, I love making builds as good as I can.  I have plenty of builds that can solo +4/8 content.  That does not mean that I think it's healthy for the game.  I don't.  Still, if the options are there, I like to make things as good as I can in the process.  I am pretty sure that most people have a similar view.  

It would be nice if the game could accommodate people who wanted to make things as good as they can and still not have several ATs suffer/languish because of it.

 

On 9/25/2020 at 8:06 AM, ShardWarrior said:

As I mentioned above, go right ahead and homogenize every AT and power set in the game to the point where everything is 100% mathematically equal.  Remove IOs or enhancements of every kinds so everyone is exactly 100% the same.  There are still going to be players who out perform others.  Feel free to disagree.

I don't disagree... but I don't think that has anything to do with AT balance and equity.  Nor would I want everything homogenized.  That would be a boring game.  I don't know what the answer is but I do know that during live after the introduction of IOs and before say the last two issues, the game seemed to be in a state where teams could take any 8 characters.  Some worked better together than others, but in general each AT brought something needed or at least helpful to the table.  While there were a few OP combos, they were perhaps more rare due to the inflation of the market.  

That was a game that was pretty universally loved, enough so that people were still protesting years later.

I don't understand the vehemence directed to people that would love to see that again.  Blasters still did the most damage, Brutes were still wrecking balls, Support was welcomed with open arms as it had a noticeable but not required effect on a team, controllers had time to freeze mobs and usually could prevent a wipe at least in most teams once or twice a mission.  To me, that's not a bad place to be.

[Lockpick]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Nah.  The war is over.  Has been over.  The Overpowered / Game is too damn easy side won.  

 

Its actually sort of funny to watch the "everything is fine" lobbyists try and hold the floor to fend off any nerfs to be honest, like there is anything for them to really worry about.  

 

Any adjustments to difficulty or reductions in sets like Titan Weapons will be tokens at best. 

 

But.   It shouldn't be that way.  So those who want the game to be harder speak up every now and again.  Its kind of like people who don't want the music that was popular when they were in high school to be called "Oldies" even if the stuff IS over 30 years old.   All those songs are OLDIES.  Deal with it.  Calling them "Classic" doesn't change that. 

 

If you want the game to be harder why not use the in game mechanics to make it harder?  I would have a lot more sympathy for the people saying the game is to easy if there weren't existing mechanics to make the game harder.  However, there are existing mechanics to make the game harder and the people that want to make the game harder are refusing to use them.  It's hard to feel sympathy for those people that want to make the game harder, which will also affect many players that do not believe the game is to easy or may believe it is easy, but like the game as is.

 

I am being serious. Please answer the question.  Why is it better to make the entire game harder as opposed to using the existing mechanics to make your play experience the hard mode you crave?

 

I generally respect your posts and builds, so I am genuinely interested in your response.

 

[ShardWarrior]

21 minutes ago, BitCook said:

You may not mean it, but you are essentially saying don't play with teams. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, ShardWarrior said:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pugs are explicitly where game balance is important.

[BitCook]

4 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

I am being serious. Please answer the question.  Why is it better to make the entire game harder as opposed to using the existing mechanics to make your play experience the hard mode you crave?

I'll take a crack at this.

 

The difficulties in getting a team at all that can't destroy content at max difficulty in record speed is pretty hard.  Especially if you are like what seems to be a majority of the player base and just PUG using the /LFG channel.  The prevalence of toons that can solo max difficulty content is high enough that avoiding them is very difficult.  Even moderately tuned (say decently IOed out) characters at this stage in the game make a mockery of most content at the highest settings.  So finding a group where there is a balance of how the game used to be is not easy at all.

We can't turn up the difficulty any more and the power level of the game is that there are many combinations and toons that handle the max difficulty without need of anyone else.  That's not a really good team game.  I get it, people want to solo and feel super and face smash. 

However, if the game were harder, power was tuned down, or whatever, then people like myself could join PUGs and feel like ALL of the ATs have a place and chances to contribute.  For those that want a faceroll experience, they can turn down difficulty and the game will accommodate them as well.  But when you can't turn it up... and even PUGs are ripping through everything then perhaps that's why some of us wouldn't mind seeing that.

With that said.  I'll again state it would probably kill the game to "level the playing field".  So I get that what I want and what might be good for the game are two different things.

[ShardWarrior]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

Pugs are explicitly where game balance is important.

Why?  Should ATs get nerfed because people can PUG 8 person blaster teams?

[BitCook]

3 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I get in theory what you are saying, but do you think it's reasonable for AT balance to ask seven people to undertune or not play certain ATs so that there is a balanced team?  I have a hard time imagining that to ever really occur.  Is it reasonable to stay away from PUGs?  Again, I don't think that's really a good thing to ask. 

That's what I mean by saying what you are asking is akin to saying "don't team".  I know that wasn't your intent, but I think that's how it would work out in practice.  

I run a SG and I doubt I could regularly get seven players on at the same time who all wanted to commit to something like that... and several of them share the opinions that I do that the game has gotten too easy and made certain ATs far less important.  That kind of sounds like old school raiding which is something I'd really like to avoid.  I like meeting people in CoH, most of them are awesome people so PUGs are one of those vectors to do so.

[Lockpick]

7 minutes ago, BitCook said:

We can't turn up the difficulty any more

Yes, you can.  AE 801 proves it.  People can turn up the difficulty, but they choose not to use the existing game mechanics to do it.

[Wavicle]

7 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Why?  Should ATs get nerfed because people can PUG 8 person blaster teams?

No, I didn’t say that. They should just buff the few lagging sets and then create new harder content, and leave the current content alone.

[ShardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, BitCook said:

I get in theory what you are saying, but do you think it's reasonable for AT balance to ask seven people to undertune or not play certain ATs so that there is a balanced team?  I have a hard time imagining that to ever really occur.  Is it reasonable to stay away from PUGs?  Again, I don't think that's really a good thing to ask. 

That's what I mean by saying what you are asking is akin to saying "don't team".  I know that wasn't your intent, but I think that's how it would work out in practice.  

I run a SG and I doubt I could regularly get seven players on at the same time who all wanted to commit to something like that... and several of them share the opinions that I do that the game has gotten too easy and made certain ATs far less important.  That kind of sounds like old school raiding which is something I'd really like to avoid.  I like meeting people in CoH, most of them are awesome people so PUGs are one of those vectors to do so.

I am not suggesting anyone avoid teaming or PUGs.  I simply suggest everyone find like minded players to enjoy the game in the way you all like together.

[Wavicle]

Just now, ShardWarrior said:

I am not suggesting anyone avoid teaming or PUGs.  I simply suggest everyone find like minded players to enjoy the game in the way you all like together.

That’s not a realistic solution with such a small population.

[BitCook]

1 minute ago, Lockpick said:

Yes, you can.  AE 801 proves it.  People can turn up the difficulty, but they choose not to use the existing game mechanics to do it.

Same concept in some of the other threads that have been discussed, do you think it's reasonable to limit players to a few AE arcs then if they want anywhere from 2-4 ATs to be relevant?  Doesn't that seem a little extreme?  Wouldn't turning game difficulty up so that the average team or uber player  plays on +0/8 be a more reasonable approach?

In your suggestion people are very limited in what they play.  In what some people are asking, people could play all content.  You can still steamroller and feel powerful at your +0/8 and let us play the same breadth and depth of content at +4/8.  To me, that seems far more reasonable to all players.

[Haijinx]

18 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

 

If you want the game to be harder why not use the in game mechanics to make it harder?  I would have a lot more sympathy for the people saying the game is to easy if there weren't existing mechanics to make the game harder.  However, there are existing mechanics to make the game harder and the people that want to make the game harder are refusing to use them.  It's hard to feel sympathy for those people that want to make the game harder, which will also affect many players that do not believe the game is to easy or may believe it is easy, but like the game as is.

 

I am being serious. Please answer the question.  Why is it better to make the entire game harder as opposed to using the existing mechanics to make your play experience the hard mode you crave?

 

I generally respect your posts and builds, so I am genuinely interested in your response.

 

A few things, probably not really an answer.  Because the main answer is that the status quo "Feels Wrong"  

And it feels wrong for lots of little reasons.    

 

First.  The Difficulty I really want isn't available.  Even as an option.  I want the bad guys not to be morons. 

 

Second.  I think a community dedicated to playing a game that is essentially at Console Command Cheat Code level easy should revaluate.  

 

Third.  Superman is boring.  So mind numbingly boring.  And Superman has more weaknesses than my Stalker does. 

 

Fourth.  Nostalgia.  I remember City of Heroes when it was on a par with other contemporary MMOs difficulty wise and the change is jarring. 

 

Fifth.  I already play at 54x8 most the time.  Do I really need to add further tweaks other than cranking the difficulty up to max?  Seems like a bad design. 

 

Also I could turn this all around on you. Lets say the game was hard.  The Baddies weren't so stupid.  Sunshine.  Rainbows.  Clowns.  Whatever.  Most everyone was cool with it.  But a few wanted the game to be much easier.  And msny just told you, "I don't care what you think go play the super easy stuff.  And good luck finding a team."  Seems a little. Eh.  Dismissive.  Tone wise.  Not saying that's what your post was per se.  But a feel of similar posts in general.  Since the same argument has been made tons of times.  

 

As I mentioned.  I don't think there will be any real changes to the difficulty.  But me thinking there should be is just as valid as the people trying to hide the fact that a TW/Bio Scrapper can do 700 dps ST and still do more AOE damage than any other scrapper set.  

 

 

 

 

[ShardWarrior]

7 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

That’s not a realistic solution with such a small population.

Why?  I have had zero problem finding like minded players simply by playing the game.  If I can do it, anyone can.  This is in no way a difficult thing to do.

[BitCook]

3 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I am not suggesting anyone avoid teaming or PUGs.  I simply suggest everyone find like minded players to enjoy the game in the way you all like together.

But how?  Again, there is only so much difficulty (deference to outlier AE arcs that were pointed out) in the normal game.

I literally can not think of many scenarios where any random players will make a team that say doesn't make control feel pointless.  I can't envision how you would even build a team to make support feel like it did in live, useful, impactful, but not required.  Maybe build with TOs only?  But if you do that, you can't play with anyone else.  Even a team of 8 controllers ironically makes control mostly useless.  Support has similar issues.

[Lockpick]

1 minute ago, BitCook said:

Same concept in some of the other threads that have been discussed, do you think it's reasonable to limit players to a few AE arcs then if they want anywhere from 2-4 ATs to be relevant?  Doesn't that seem a little extreme?  Wouldn't turning game difficulty up so that the average team or uber player  plays on +0/8 be a more reasonable approach?

In your suggestion people are very limited in what they play.  In what some people are asking, people could play all content.  You can still steamroller and feel powerful at your +0/8 and let us play the same breadth and depth of content at +4/8.  To me, that seems far more reasonable to all players.

 

Who is limiting them to 1 or 2 AE arcs?  You can create thousands of hard mode AE arcs as well as non-hard mode arcs.  There is zero limit.  Try to envision a future where you have all the existing task forces but then you have player created Task Forces that have been tested and approved by HC management and offer the same types of rewards.  You could double or triple the existing Task Force content in a year.  Envision these same player created TFs in the LFG queue along the other content.

 

Frankly I think the content might become better.  We have some very talented people playing this game.

 

I think people have an impression that AE content is just not very good.  Some is horrible, but some is great.  I envision the potential AE has to drive almost all new story / mission content in the game.  It is extremely powerful and we as a community are not leveraging it fully.  Other people have talked about being able to have contacts to get AE content and that would be great.  It would be great if you could create missions and get them out of the AE building and have the 5 part story arc go across zones.  We obviously can't do that today, but if I were allocating my resources I would be allocating them to making AE better, so player created content with HC management oversight becomes the source for the majority of new story / mission content.

 

 

[Haijinx]

There is also certain lack of elegance to a Game System where you spend your whole time on the rails of the possible outcomes. 

 

As a RPG Gamer since the early 80's it is somehow unsettling tbh.  

 

You may as well ask why we hated Munchkins and Monty Haul Campaigns after a few months playing D&D.   

 

 

[FoulVileTerror]

"If I can do it, anyone can" is a pretty massive fallacy.

[ShardWarrior]

7 minutes ago, BitCook said:

I literally can not think of many scenarios where any random players will make a team that say doesn't make control feel pointless. 

Stop making random teams then.  Socialize.  Find like minded players and form teams however you like.

[ShardWarrior]

Just now, FoulVileTerror said:

"If I can do it, anyone can" is a pretty massive fallacy.

How?  Am I somehow better than anyone else?  How did all the people in the various channels I belong to find like minded players?  I am absolutely not the only person who has done this. 

[BitCook]

2 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

 

Who is limiting them to 1 or 2 AE arcs?  You can create thousands of hard mode AE arcs as well as non-hard mode arcs.  There is zero limit.  Try to envision a future where you have all the existing task forces but then you have player created Task Forces that have been tested and approved by HC management and offer the same types of rewards.  You could double or triple the existing Task Force content in a year.  Envision these same player created TFs in the LFG queue along the other content.

 

Frankly I think the content might become better.  We have some very talented people playing this game.

 

I think people have an impression that AE content is just not very good.  Some is horrible, but some is great.  I envision the potential AE has to drive almost all new story / mission content in the game.  It is extremely powerful and we as a community are not leveraging it fully.  Other people have talked about being able to have contacts to get AE content and that would be great.  It would be great if you could create missions and get them out of the AE building and have the 5 part story arc go across zones.  We obviously can't do that today, but if I were allocating my resources I would be allocating them to making AE better, so player created content with HC management oversight becomes the source for the majority of new story / mission content.

 

 

So to me this is two separate issues.  I would be all over figuring out how to get content done by the community, vetted by Devs and into the game.  I think that's a fantastic idea.  I have zero issues with enhancing and improving AE and using the creative minds in the community.

That said, I still see the need for some balance in the game.

[BitCook]

1 minute ago, ShardWarrior said:

Stop making random teams then.  Socialize.  Find like minded players and form teams however you like.

Perhaps I am being confusing, it would not be the first time.

I should clarify.  I can not think of any 8 level 50 toons that can not make a mockery out of the hardest content in the game, unless you specifically gimp those characters by say not slotting ACC, or just taking TOs or something equally silly.  Thus making those same characters useless for anything other than your small dedicated team.

I don't want to have to schedule "Raids" to get what I believe CoX had years ago.  I don't think that's too extreme of a position either...

I don't think it's unreasonable to log into the game, pick a chracter and expect that what that character does will be useful in game terms.  CoX used to be one of the best games at this.  It's not like it didn't exist before.