Game Balance & The Endgame

[golstat2003]

32 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Again, it would hinge on if you're higher team number while solo. On normal, having a mob that counts as 5 targets while having 5 other targets still let's you nuke that spawn. It would only be a difference if there were 2 of 3 of said mob requiring a ST approach thus is likely more likely to occur on higher settings. 

 

But the overall point is to cause you to rethink your approach. Do you not see a means to change your tactics for that particular blaster? 

As long as soloing doesn't turn into a problem then I'm fine. Some folks are fine with the way COH currently plays as is. They are not incorrect for liking it that way.

[Ralathar44]

57 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

That's fine. Let's just not keeping tweaking balance to infinity. At some point I'd like more story content.

The two are not incompatible, which is why they are literally doing both at once right now too.

 

58 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

And I still say the harder groups should be in optional higher difficulty settings. Especially if we're talking about 50+ incarnate content.

Irrelevant in context of my comment, my comment was suggesting we could bring the underperfoming enemy groups up to the level of the others with some new mobs.  Ergo it would fit within the current balance of the game.  Higher difficulty settings would be it's own separate thing.

[golstat2003]

29 minutes ago, Ralathar44 said:

The two are not incompatible, which is why they are literally doing both at once right now too.

 

Irrelevant in context of my comment, my comment was suggesting we could bring the underperfoming enemy groups up to the level of the others with some new mobs.  Ergo it would fit within the current balance of the game.  Higher difficulty settings would be it's own separate thing.

I meant end game content. If we suddenly get new incarnate content in issue 6, then I'd say they are doing both. Nice to have some new lower level content, but I've been done with lower levels for a while. Glad for everyone else though. /shrug.

 

I was referring to the type of content we've been discussing they could make for higher level difficulties all thread long.

 

Making radio missions harder  . . . seems unnecessary, especially since folks will continue to skip the harder mobs.

Edited October 10, 2020 by golstat2003

[oedipus_tex]

I think the issue is bigger than radio missions or Task Forces. I'm currently on a Trick or Treat team with a couple of incarnates. My defense hasn't dropped below 75% for more than a few seconds. What role does a control or defensive support character play in that environment? The only thing the team needs is more damage. It wasn't always like this. I distinctly remember getting pasted by Trick or Treat mobs and hoping a support character would join.

 

Destiny is the major offending incarnate ability.

 

Part of the challenge of balancing Destiny is it was originally intended to be behind a paywall so the whole team can't use it. We can't reinstall the paywall. But there are ways to make it useful without breaking the game.

 

That's why I would like to see Destiny changed in the following way:

• The full buff of Destiny always affects caster and pets in any type of content
• The AoE portion of the Destiny buff is conditional
  • The AoE portion always triggers in incarnate trials (they are balanced around it)
  • Outside of iTrials, the AoE portion of the buff only triggers if the caster has the new "Unleashed" flag

 

"Unleashed" would be a new flag in the vein of Domination that ramps up the player's incarnate abilities to full strength even when they are outside an iTrial. The main way you get this flag is from a Support character's "extra special" T9. The idea is that the support character can empower one other team member to supply AoE Destiny buffs and greatly enhance the value of bringing the support character while still allowing them to operate by proxy, boosting someone other than themselves. I imegine the following powers would apply the "Unleashed" flag:

• Empathy: Adrenaline Boost
• Pain: Painbringer
• Electric Affinity: Amp Up

Edited October 10, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[Jazz Ripper]

We already have difficulty options. Why do some people feel entitled to being able to steamroll +4/8, not just on a team, but solo? And what reason is there to believe that those same people would not feel entitled to steamroll any newly introduced difficulty options?

 

Some players want challenges that cannot be steamrolled, no matter how well they build their characters. Other players insist that they must be able to steamroll everything. Both groups cannot be pleased simultaneously.

[Coyote]

12 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

That's fine. Let's just not keeping tweaking balance to infinity. At some point I'd like more story content.

 

And I still say the harder groups should be in optional higher difficulty settings. Especially if we're talking about 50+ incarnate content.

 

I personally see the problems as being due to too much +Def from IO sets, and that's not a problem that really exists in the 20s or earlier, you don't have enough slots and many sets are only available 27+. I don't think there's a need to rebalance mobs to provide more of a challenge at low-mid levels, only around 35+... or more likely, 41+.

[Naraka]

12 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

As long as soloing doesn't turn into a problem then I'm fine. Some folks are fine with the way COH currently plays as is. They are not incorrect for liking it that way.

Didn't say anything about being correct or incorrect. People were posting ideas about lending utility to CC by giving mobs toggle powers that will otherwise disrupt standards tactics if not dropped and I am merely doing the same but specifically targeting to disrupt AoE. 

 

Another interesting caveat to this idea is that KB could be an effective tool against such mobs since you can literally just yeet the target that would eat up the AoE out of range so that the volley of AoEs can hit the rest. But I betcha a good few people don't even have a nice KB ability that would push a target far enough to put them out of range. It would be a nice tactic/utility role to those whom enjoy using KB strategically. 

[Ralathar44]

34 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I personally see the problems as being due to too much +Def from IO sets, and that's not a problem that really exists in the 20s or earlier, you don't have enough slots and many sets are only available 27+. I don't think there's a need to rebalance mobs to provide more of a challenge at low-mid levels, only around 35+... or more likely, 41+.

Pretty much, this has been discussed extensively and Golstat was highly involved in and agreed in those discussions, though we all agreed rebalancing IOs is basically an impossibility at this point.  So trying to drag it back to level 23 is weird when the problem is a level 30+ one.  Not to mention the fact that Blasters have received so much love that blasters are perfectly capable of soloing at even lower levels.  It may not be +4/8 soloing at those levels, but it's miles ahead of defender soloing. 

Blasters currently have the sustain and the control to be able to handle smaller packs of difficult enemies.  Heck they solo better than controllers at those levels since Controllers don't have their pets yet and are very endurance intensive, struggling to achieve much lesser damage and are not any safer if the correct difficulties are chosen for each.  My PBAOE blapper actually ended up tanking for some groups throughout their leveling process.  So long as I had break frees or a buff to prevent mezz I was NOT fragile.  My TA/A Defender dreams of that level of solo ability but has neither the damage nor the safety to solo near as well.  That being said even my TA/A can solo appropriate difficulty levels...albeit slowly.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Tsuko]

On 9/20/2020 at 8:19 PM, The Curator said:

Hey all,

 

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

 

Since Homecoming launched there’s been a few questions and concerns about why we’re making certain balance changes, so with Page 6 just around the corner we thought it would make sense to explain our overarching goals in this area.

 

Expanding the end-game and creating more end-game content was an incredibly popular request in the A Question from The Homecoming Team thread, and is something that we are very interested in pursuing. However in order to be able to do that and for it actually work for everyone across the board, we need to clear up some of the existing balance issues in the game - both with specific powersets, whole ATs, and in more general areas.

 

 

The best way to describe the current state of balance in the endgame is probably unfinished. The game closed down mid-way through the Incarnate system being developed, and before it had been through any significant post-release balance passes. In addition, the impact it had on the rest of the game hadn’t yet been given much consideration.

 

Our overarching goal is to have every powerset / AT be viable and have a place in the game. Obviously, achieving this goal perfectly isn’t actually possible, so our true aim is to get as close to that bar as we are able to. In addition, we want your choices to matter. Currently there’s a large amount of homogenization at the endgame and many of the individual choices that you make for your character don’t have much of an impact, and for some decisions a few options are vastly stronger than anything else.

 

Powersets & ATs
This is where most of the balancing work has been done so far, and where a lot of work in the immediate future will also be happening. The primary goal with these changes is to ensure everything sits in a healthy medium, with every powerset being a valid pick and valuable in different circumstances. 

 

This means some sets will be buffed, and yes, some sets will be nerfed. However, we feel there are definitely more underperforming sets than there are overperforming ones - so expect to see more buffs than nerfs. There’s also a lot of sets to get through, so it may take a while for us to get to your favourite.

 

To date, we’ve looked at Tankers, Dominators, Snipe powers and a few individual powersets. In the near future we’re going to be rolling out improvements to Energy Melee, Trick Arrow and Blaster secondary sets, whilst also reworking Titan Weapons, one of the most overperforming sets.

 

 

Bringing these overperforming sets down to a healthy level is important in ensuring those key goals stated above are met. When one set is able to outdamage every other set in almost every circumstance, it causes those other sets to be less viable choices, and also makes it impractical for us to begin work on the end game - do we balance it around Titan Weapons or Trick Arrow?

 

The answer is neither, of course. We want to balance around that healthy medium, but we’re not quite there yet.

 

Procs & PPM
Something we’ve recently started looking at is procs. We’re only scratching the surface here, but our goals are similar to that with powersets: Bringing each option towards a happy medium. One big topic that needs looking at specifically is PPM. This system was still in beta when the game shut down, so it never really graduated properly to the live servers, and never received any follow-up balance passes.

 

There are numerous issues right now, such as the interaction it has with different types of recharge bonuses and AoEs, which causes the system to be unintuitive (slotting for recharge can make a power… less good!) in some areas and not well balanced in other areas (many procs are very strong in AoEs and very weak in single targets). 

 

Along with improving general game balance there’s a secondary benefit to cleaning up PPM and procs: it will allow us to continue building new enhancement sets with new and unique procs and set bonuses.

 

We’ve got no firm plans to discuss just yet, but it is a key area we will be looking at in the future.

 

Lastly...
We’re also looking at other areas long-term, such as the impact that Incarnate abilities have on non-Incarnate content, Incarnate crafting, how +special buffs interact with long duration +def powers, and improving the enhancement system below level 50. You'll hear more about these as we start exploring them in the future.

 

And that’s all for today. We hope the above has shed some light on why we’ve been making the changes that we’ve been making.

 

[FUBARczar]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:44 AM, ivanhedgehog said:

so your saying tanks should get more buffing. they did come in dead last

um nope, not even close, what I said was that actually the ATs seem be decently balanced, except for Doms and Sentinels coming in behind Tanks.

[FUBARczar]

18 hours ago, Coyote said:

 

I personally see the problems as being due to too much +Def from IO sets, and that's not a problem that really exists in the 20s or earlier, you don't have enough slots and many sets are only available 27+. I don't think there's a need to rebalance mobs to provide more of a challenge at low-mid levels, only around 35+... or more likely, 41+.

19 hours ago, Jazz Ripper said:

We already have difficulty options. Why do some people feel entitled to being able to steamroll +4/8, not just on a team, but solo? And what reason is there to believe that those same people would not feel entitled to steamroll any newly introduced difficulty options?

 

Some players want challenges that cannot be steamrolled, no matter how well they build their characters. Other players insist that they must be able to steamroll everything. Both groups cannot be pleased simultaneously.

 

yeah this week I've been running +4/8 TFs with the "AT Only Powers" setting.  I think it works well.  It requires more teamwork.  You are still super yet vulnerable.  If only they added a setting "No Incarnate Powers," or at the very least toned down Destiny and Judgement.  And more settings in general would be nice.

 

[oedipus_tex]

RE: giving mobs toggle powers to make mezz more useful, we should keep in mind that in the current proc system a Scrapper has a better chance to mezz a boss on the first attack than a Controller or Dominator out of Domination, because Lockdown: Chance for Mag 2 Hold has a 90% chance to activate on a long recharge Hold like the Scrapper or other melee archetype has in the APPs. The Hold will be more difficult to perma but it won't matter if the goal is just to detoggle.

 

And yes I'm a bit sour that non-Dominators have such easy access to mezzing bosses, because that was long supposed to be a Dominator thing. 🙂

Edited October 11, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[skoryy]

On 10/10/2020 at 7:58 AM, oedipus_tex said:

I think the issue is bigger than radio missions or Task Forces. I'm currently on a Trick or Treat team with a couple of incarnates. My defense hasn't dropped below 75% for more than a few seconds. What role does a control or defensive support character play in that environment? The only thing the team needs is more damage. It wasn't always like this. I distinctly remember getting pasted by Trick or Treat mobs and hoping a support character would join.

Given that Barrier Core Epiphany only gives insane defense for the first 30 seconds, then 7.5% defense for the next 30 seconds, and 5% defense for the last 60, I'm thinking there were either more incarnates around than just a couple or someone was bubbling.  And none of them were running Ageless?

 

Destiny already comes with a heavy decay rate, and you need certain T4s to make it perma.  Its fine as it is: An 'oh shi-' button and/or way to shore up build weaknesses.  Nobody takes it for team considerations aside from incan.

[oedipus_tex]

21 minutes ago, skoryy said:

Nobody takes it for team considerations aside from incan.

 

We mostly agree on this point. So hopefully no one would be too upset if Destiny became mostly 'self and pets' only outside of iTrials. I certainly wouldn't. I have a lot of praise for the original dev team, but Destiny is a power that has made the game less rather than more fun for me.

Edited October 11, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, skoryy said:

Given that Barrier Core Epiphany only gives insane defense for the first 30 seconds, then 7.5% defense for the next 30 seconds, and 5% defense for the last 60, I'm thinking there were either more incarnates around than just a couple or someone was bubbling.  And none of them were running Ageless?

 

Destiny already comes with a heavy decay rate, and you need certain T4s to make it perma.  Its fine as it is: An 'oh shi-' button and/or way to shore up build weaknesses.  Nobody takes it for team considerations aside from incan.

it's true, but for some reason I always thought that Barrier was kind of crazy with +Def and +Res in one, my first instinct is that those would have been separated.

[Tsuko]

23 hours ago, Jazz Ripper said:

We already have difficulty options. Why do some people feel entitled to being able to steamroll +4/8, not just on a team, but solo? And what reason is there to believe that those same people would not feel entitled to steamroll any newly introduced difficulty options?

 

Whatever limits the game can create, it will always have a way to be stronger : and we ll be there to enjoy it to break the rules.

 

Power is life, Moar power is sex.

 

23 hours ago, Jazz Ripper said:

Some players want challenges that cannot be steamrolled, no matter how well they build their characters. Other players insist that they must be able to steamroll everything. Both groups cannot be pleased simultaneously.

 

So just be like me, i just want people looking at me, cause i am the biggest bitch Diva in town baby !

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

We mostly agree on this point. So hopefully no one would be too upset if Destiny became mostly 'self and pets' only outside of iTrials. I certainly wouldn't. I have a lot of praise for the original dev team, but Destiny is a power that has made the game less rather than more fun for me.

While I do use barrier for all my crazy solo crap, I absolutely find that I always try to hit the whole team with it when I am teamed.

It probably would fix a lot of the game's issues if incarnate powers just turned themselves off in non-incarnate content but should such a thing happen, there will be a LOT of very ticked off players.

Just removing the level shifts from (both the +1 from regular and/or all of them completely) is an idea I've asked around about and lots of folks did not like it.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[golstat2003]

14 hours ago, FUBARczar said:

 

yeah this week I've been running +4/8 TFs with the "AT Only Powers" setting.  I think it works well.  It requires more teamwork.  You are still super yet vulnerable.  If only they added a setting "No Incarnate Powers," or at the very least toned down Destiny and Judgement.  And more settings in general would be nice.

 

A no incarnate powers setting would ONE of the difficulty options I would like to see them tackle. I'm fine with how Destiny and Judgement work.

[Lockpick]

9 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

While I do use barrier for all my crazy solo crap, I absolutely find that I always try to hit the whole team with it when I am teamed.

It probably would fix a lot of the game's issues if incarnate powers just turned themselves off in non-incarnate content but should such a thing happen, there will be a LOT of very ticked off players.

Just removing the level shifts from (both the +1 from regular and/or all of them completely) is an idea I've asked around about and lots of folks did not like it.

 

This weekend I was playing my latest character and doing a lot of teaming.  I asked many of the teams if they thought the game was to easy.  The opinions were divided with some saying:

• The game has always been easy and that's why they play it
• Some said IOs had made the game easier
• Some said incarnates made it to easy
• Some said they like the casual and easy nature of the game and if they wanted something harder they could play another game or use the in game mechanics to make the game harder

Despite all these different opinions they all had one thing in common and that is they did not want to see mass changes to the game and increased difficulty on the base game.  I mentioned this thread on the forums, but I didn't get the feeling any of them except maybe 1 was a forum regular.

 

I also asked a question about if the game was so easy why were so many characters being defeated in PI radio missions as we had a number of people being defeated.

 

I played a number of PI radios which I rarely do.  I was on one team that just steamrolled everything with no deaths and we were targeting Council.  Other team leaders were just picking anything and there was more difficulty in these missions with many players being defeated.

 

All this is anecdotal evidence, but it aligns with your message that you idea of removing level shifts was not well received.  It seems to me people are fine if you add options to missions like "no level shift" or "no incarnates", but I doubt people are going to be happy if it is mandated through change.  I'm in this camp myself.  Options are good, but making wholesale changes to a game people like as is will not be received well.

 

I did a Yin TF today and in the last mission everyone on my team except me was defeated.  I was the only one with set IOs and everyone else had basic builds as they were leveling up and I was ~40 and exemping.  I am sure the IOs helped me survive, but I was almost overwhelmed as well.  I was able to use the environment to help survive and kite the mobs while everyone else went to hospital. 

 

 

[Leogunner]

10 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

 

This weekend I was playing my latest character and doing a lot of teaming.  I asked many of the teams if they thought the game was to easy.  The opinions were divided with some saying:

• The game has always been easy and that's why they play it
• Some said IOs had made the game easier
• Some said incarnates made it to easy
• Some said they like the casual and easy nature of the game and if they wanted something harder they could play another game or use the in game mechanics to make the game harder

Despite all these different opinions they all had one thing in common and that is they did not want to see mass changes to the game and increased difficulty on the base game.  I mentioned this thread on the forums, but I didn't get the feeling any of them except maybe 1 was a forum regular.

 

I also asked a question about if the game was so easy why were so many characters being defeated in PI radio missions as we had a number of people being defeated.

 

I played a number of PI radios which I rarely do.  I was on one team that just steamrolled everything with no deaths and we were targeting Council.  Other team leaders were just picking anything and there was more difficulty in these missions with many players being defeated.

 

All this is anecdotal evidence, but it aligns with your message that you idea of removing level shifts was not well received.  It seems to me people are fine if you add options to missions like "no level shift" or "no incarnates", but I doubt people are going to be happy if it is mandated through change.  I'm in this camp myself.  Options are good, but making wholesale changes to a game people like as is will not be received well.

 

I did a Yin TF today and in the last mission everyone on my team except me was defeated.  I was the only one with set IOs and everyone else had basic builds as they were leveling up and I was ~40 and exemping.  I am sure the IOs helped me survive, but I was almost overwhelmed as well.  I was able to use the environment to help survive and kite the mobs while everyone else went to hospital. 

 

 

Did you ask "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier?"

 

[EDIT] A point of contention here: it's much easier to adjust difficulty to a point your team can manage it, basically lowering the difficulty to be beatable.  That is a concrete measuring point.  The opposite (adjusting difficulty to be harder) isn't as concrete, in fact I don't think anyone has put numbers to any of that side of the argument.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Leogunner

[summers]

I think it's safe to say that this community is intensely, almost hysterically, resistant to change. 

[Lockpick]

38 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Did you ask "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier?"

 

[EDIT] A point of contention here: it's much easier to adjust difficulty to a point your team can manage it, basically lowering the difficulty to be beatable.  That is a concrete measuring point.  The opposite (adjusting difficulty to be harder) isn't as concrete, in fact I don't think anyone has put numbers to any of that side of the argument.

Why would I ask a hypothetical question like "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier" as opposed to asking about the current state of the game that everyone is playing right now? 

 

You are basically asking would I make it easier if the game was made harder and I had the option to make it easier.  Yes, I probably would.  I like playing a casual friendly game and am not interested in playing a hard mode game.

 

I guess I would flip the question on you.  We currently have the option to make the existing game harder through various options like notoriety, non-IO builds, no incarnates, mission / TF settings, creating your own hard mode content via AE, and finding people to team with of a like mind.  Are you leveraging the existing mechanics to meet your play style?  If not, why not?  If so, why are the existing mechanics not meeting your need for harder content?

 

I don't understand your second point at all.  In the current version of the game it starts with a base difficulty and people can lower that difficulty or increase it.  It is much easier to leave the current game as is than it would be to do a bunch of balance changes that make the game harder and then give us options to make it easier. It seems logical and easier to provide options like "no level shift", "no incarnates", "no Judgement powers", or add +5 or +6 to the notoriety level to make the game harder than to change it current base state.

 

Anyway, just wanted to pop my head in and provide my experience this weekend.  I notice that it seems that the few people advocating to make the game harder are continuing this thread, so I will continue to pop in occasionally to represent the other side of the equation.

 

27 minutes ago, summers said:

I think it's safe to say that this community is intensely, almost hysterically, resistant to change. 

 

It depends on the change.  People have been quite receptive to new power sets, power pool additions, QoL changes, and bug fixes.  People seemed fine with the blaster and snipe changes and the Tanker changes (which I think were over tuned).  They were positive about the new story arcs that were delivered.  Seems like a lot of change has happened that have been received with positivity.

 

I would be ecstatic to see new power pools, more bug fixes, changes to the amount of pools we could take, new power sets, changes to AE and HC support for player made content, etc.

 

It seems unlikely that people that like this game and have played for years are going to be receptive to changes that massively disrupt the current game, but that is just my opinion.

 

[oedipus_tex]

I'm personally skeptical that players are entitled to an AoE buff on par with Destiny. I can see someone saying "Nerfs to Destiny will negatively affect the house of cards that is my build." For that reason buffs to the caster and his or her pets should probably not be changed too much. It's IMO a bigger stretch for someone to say "My build was damaged by my inability to buff the whole team." 

 

iTrials are balanced around Destiny so in that environment it can probably stay. The majority of Task Forces and missions were definitely not balanced around it. I'd encourage the devs to explore taming Destiny for the same reasons they recently started looking at Farsight. Numbers that far off the charts make designing challenges very difficult.

[Leogunner]

53 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

Why would I ask a hypothetical question like "If the game was made harder, would you use the tools available to make the difficulty easier" as opposed to asking about the current state of the game that everyone is playing right now? 

 

Okay, well did you at least ask what difficulty they DO run on?  Without some kind of basis, we have no idea if the people you're asking have AVs on, if they are at +4 or -1 or any relevant information pertaining to difficulty.

 

53 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

I guess I would flip the question on you.  We currently have the option to make the existing game harder through various options like notoriety, non-IO builds, no incarnates, mission / TF settings, creating your own hard mode content via AE, and finding people to team with of a like mind.  Are you leveraging the existing mechanics to meet your play style?  If not, why not?  If so, why are the existing mechanics not meeting your need for harder content?

 

I have a variety of characters with various IO builds in various states of completion.  While I do have a couple that are soft-capped at 45% to S/L, most of my complete builds only bothers to build up to about 32% def as that is the overall sweet spot to pop a purple if a situation calls for it.  For the most part, I vary the notoriety of the missions dependent on the character (Tankers run at higher team count, Stalkers at higher level and various settings in between) but I tend to hover around +3/x4 on average (again, I don't have that many Tankers but I do play more Stalkers and Defenders) and to further clarify, that's not pushing anything for challenge, that would be just casual missions.  +4 isn't beyond most of my builds but x5 on a build that doesn't have a loadup of AoEs can get annoying fast.  On teams, I avoid most things in the 40+ range because it's boring.  I only ever bother unlocking Alpha except on 2 characters whose concept particularly fits with Judgement and Interface.  I don't bother with fiddling with TF settings because I just join others' TF and coast.  It's rare that a TF will be "challenging", even for my mediocre concept-centric builds.

 

Now to counter your point, those aren't options to make the game harder that you're mentioning, that is content I'm willfully ignoring.  Not using incarnate powers most of the time, only teaming in certain level ranges, not filling out a complete IO build, intentionally aiming for lower values, using settings to decrease my potential, these are things I give up which is a completely different kind of challenge.

 

53 minutes ago, Lockpick said:

I don't understand your second point at all.  In the current version of the game it starts with a base difficulty and people can lower that difficulty or increase it.  It is much easier to leave the current game as is than it would be to do a bunch of balance changes that make the game harder and then give us options to make it easier. It seems logical and easier to provide options like "no level shift", "no incarnates", "no Judgement powers", or add +5 or +6 to the notoriety level to make the game harder than to change it current base state.

 

Anyway, just wanted to pop my head in and provide my experience this weekend.  I notice that it seems that the few people advocating to make the game harder are continuing this thread, so I will continue to pop in occasionally to represent the other side of the equation.

 

My perspective is, there is not "this or that", you need a blend of both.  You need both settings to a adjust your difficulty AND rebalancing so the upper ceiling poses a challenge.  For whatever reason, you feel I want to just nerf everything and leave the game at that.  No, I'd personally like to see +5 be an option (rebalance the purple patch a bit) and adjust things so that current +4 is around +2.  Add in -2 as well, then add on extra powers to the mobs to make them more dangerous in groups.  On top of that, add in "Promote Minion" and "Promote Lt" options among a variety of other stuff.

 

If you have ever played Pokemon, it is a notoriously easy game and players use many self-imposed limitations to challenge themselves: nuzlockes which limit fainted pokemon to being discarded can be fun...but there are also other things like mono-type teams, solo-mon runs, no level challenge, no hit challenge, etc.  I like nuzlockes as they still play normally and have some aspects of chance to keep things interesting but mono-type teams, solo runs, no hit runs, these are woefully NOT fun to most as a lot of those kind of runs require an ungodly amount of time grinding or precise calculations and research to manage.  Not everyone likes the same kinds of challenge which is why I'm putting forward the argument that setting AND balance should be a better solution, not simply one or the other.

 

Overall though, I'm curious how many run the game at the lowest difficulty setting or some adjusted version of it.  Maybe if it was shown that a good amount run the game at -1, no bosses, perhaps I'd change my opinion.  The upper and middle part of the difficulty spectrum is overcrowded while the lower difficulty is sparse and underused.  If you've got a formula to solo max difficulty widely known and available, that illustrates the problem pretty plainly.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Leogunner

[Haijinx]

On 10/10/2020 at 11:51 AM, Ralathar44 said:

 It may not be +4/8 soloing at those levels, but it's miles ahead of defender soloing. 
 

I wonder that no one sees the basic disconnect that ANYONE can solo at the highest available difficulty setting.  (Short of throwing on additional buffs and debuffs) 

 

You would think the highest difficulty setting for level and number of opponents should require a team. 

 

Like every other MMO I've ever played. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Haijinx
Clarity - due to confusion