Weekly Discussion 80: More Hard Mode or New Zones & Missions?

[BurtHutt]

13 minutes ago, Darmian said:

In order for any of this to even get a shambling start the options in the AE need to start matching the available options in the game proper. At least then we can see what we can do when not hobbled by some of the tools' currently imposed limitations. Admittedly the current limits push you to think laterally so as to get around them, so in a sense that's good. 

No. Not in my opinion. Making any big changes to AE would mean some Dev work. My plan is for minimal Dev resource use. Hence why I noted radio/paper type missions. If the Devs can expand on that then great. However, the whole issue right now is a lack of resources. Waiting a year + for missions is a long time and I think it's been over a year since the last mission additions and the new ones just released.

[Snarky]

Honestly love the new content you guys added.  I would love to see more incarnate content.  I think if we have a long term goal it might focus a bit on developing the endless possibilities at Incarnate storylines and the end game experience.  The more of that the healthier I believe we will be. If you folks can write it with the same quality you put into Buzzsaw's new arc it will blow the doors off the old devs stuff

[cranebump]

2 hours ago, Darmian said:

Modestly leaving yourself out of the loop as usual! 

Momma taught me to be folksy and humble, Kemosabe.:-) 

 

But...I think I’ve got some decent work on that list in my sig. And the outstanding stuff I see from others really motivates me to do better (cause, you know...those damned typos—I still need some passes on the early stuff).

 

Anyhow, I’d be more than honored to help out with content creation. I would need more slots though! (Yes, I’m begging...again...).

Edited December 9, 2020 by cranebump

[Darmian]

2 hours ago, BurtHutt said:

No. Not in my opinion. Making any big changes to AE would mean some Dev work. My plan is for minimal Dev resource use. Hence why I noted radio/paper type missions. If the Devs can expand on that then great. However, the whole issue right now is a lack of resources. Waiting a year + for missions is a long time and I think it's been over a year since the last mission additions and the new ones just released.

Well, I'm not talking about power sets and so on, I'm just talking about dropping more maps and more NPCs that already exist.  I really should clarify what I'm talking about more often. And Faultline has said the following about maps:

 

"This is not difficult but it is very time consuming. Every enemy spawn, hostage and collection location has to be placed by hand. Older maps had generic spawns that translated easily to AE, newer maps are heavily scripted and don't have generic mission spawns. Slices of the city zones obviously have no mission spawns. It takes several hours to place and test the spawn points for a single map, and that's why you don't see a lot of them added to the AE. For the Arena you only need to drop a few player spawn points and call it a day, that's why eight maps could be added in a week."

 

Several have volunteered just to help add maps, never mind actually write anything for the AE as well!

 

So, some time consumed but hardly the work that Piecemeal has turned out!

 

Yeah, Holy Mittens' Vig/Rogue work was...September 2019? Maybe October.  So definitely a year.

 

And as a dedicated Goldsider, I WANT those maps.  How else am I going to provide tip missions for Praetoria? Since outside of following my other notion of porting Number Six's missions (via radio or static and moving a door) to Gold side, they're not seeing anything new for a while. (Will be delighted to be proved wrong on that!)

[Naraka]

Going to come at this with more of an impartial POV as I don't really have a preference to one thought over another but with more concrete ideas, one can see pros and cons to any idea.

 

Hard mode settings: someone mentioned scaling all mobs from lvl1-50 and to elaborate on that, one could devise faction coalitions, fusions or special units for the various factions to add depth and difficult and maybe a bit of randomness your fun. The positive is you can make new content or bolster old content with these new additions similar to the recent story arcs introduced...but for everything without always needing to write a new set of arcs.

 

The cons, imo, is that players would want heightened control of these add-ons which I could see as being a boon but also limit incentive, making it similarly rewarding to go after easier content as is hard content. Whether you do or don't, people will view things as a casual vs hardcore regardless of if the rewards are unnecessary. You can implement any amount of difficulty and complexity but if you allow it to be fully controlable and unrewarding, it's futile.

 

Overarching perspectives aside, I just think the foes are too dumb and the player has an answer for anything mobs have to throw at them. There's not enough wrenches to throw at a peak build or even just a solid team. Other games have mechanics that screw the player specifically because mobs are predictable. If you can't make the AI solidly good with enough tools to challenge a solid team, give them wrenches to discourage reckless play. Other games have insta-death debuffs/attacks (CoX has a few as well, but they are very good forgiving) or dispel abilities that remove your buffs or corrupting effects that turn those buffs into debuffs or attacks with much larger range/AoE to punish bad placement. Heck, CoX hardly has toggle drops for any type that relies on them.

 

To summarize my point, you really aren't going to get far improving difficulty by just increasing level and density of spawns. And if there is no incentive to taking on such upper difficulty, propping it on top of the current difficulty defeats the point of difficulty and is ignoring the options to lower difficulty if the new "hard" is too much.

[Troo]

22 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

A combined 61% erred on "easier" to different degrees.

To be clear, this is as intended.

 

Add the 61% with the 25% (just right folks) and it is close to a bullseye at 86%.

 

For those who feel it is far too easy, they are correct, and there is only a small portion of the content for them. Still, it is a good bit. Flashbacks open up much of the rest of the game for challenges.

 

Addressing power creep is one way to keep 'too easy' in check.

Adding new content is another.. but new content needs to be accessible for all, not just a small percentage.

Added difficulty should not have any substantial reward increase, it is just optional.

 

 

[Clave Dark 5]

No to the hard modes.  First, I don't like playing that way - it's always personal right? ha ha - but secondly, I remember back on live after the Incarnate stuff dropped and population was dwindling anyway.  I generally play at night so even fewer people were around, and I logged on one night to find only about fifty villains (I was red side back then) were logged on  and all but three and myself were non-50, the rest were all hanging in Pocket D for those grindy Incarnate missions.  Introduce something of the same here (for this harder-mode stuff will have bigger rewards right?) and I expect we'll see the same thing.

[ForeverLaxx]

15 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

In my examples, I offered up a time-attack setting for Oro missions where, like Mayhem Missions, you are on a strict clock and you can add time back to it via objectives. That would inherently be more difficult than a normal mission we see now. Or adding in unique side effects to Players and Enemies directly sort of like you can add on in Rogue-Likes. No need to get all Dark Souls-y.

 

Another example would be offering up more unique enemy types that cannot be traditionally "brute forced". I went into more details, but say there is an enemy that is really resilient unless you CC them.

Right, but that feeds directly into what I said in what you quoted in my post, which was:

 

16 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

To get harder content, you'll have to create harder content

 

I'm not against "harder content" on the face of it. What I have a problem with is trying to retroactively apply this "harder content" to the original base game using the systems already in place to push the scale. I've found that many of these "harder content" types want to change the entire game so they can be challenged at any point, finding the current +4/x8 system inadequate (we'll just ignore that they're likely going to PL to 50 in the AE anyway, whether or not the base game is somehow moved upwards in difficulty). Since I don't think it's really possible, or even desirable, to modify the base game, that just leaves the creation of new content.

 

That new content can be whatever difficulty the creators want it to be from the outset, before any team scaling modifiers are applied to it. Just like when Cimeroa was first added to the game and people were faceplanting to groups of minions, or when the Vanguard spawns could blow you up immediately, there is room to add foes that are inherently more dangerous but I don't think there's room to modify existing content. Plus, with the underlying design philosophy of "anything works (within reason)", I'd be wary of adding entire factions that require special steps to defeat without assistance. We've already got AVs and GMs on the list of group-required content, barring specialist builds of course, and I'd prefer that any new content being added could be tackled by a solo player using any "normal" character build (no, I don't expect my Petless MM to be able to do certain things).

 

Honestly, this may just be a pipedream anyway unless IO Set Bonuses and Incarnates are given a serious looking at. IO Sets allow essentially everyone to become a tankmage with enough money, and Incarnates just exacerbate that problem even further. Inserting content that only an "approved min/max build" will find adequate may end up alienating much of the playerbase, as it's essentially the devs telling people that they're expected to maximize their character numerically in precisely these X, Y, and Z areas or they aren't "playing correctly" and they aren't good enough for this content. I'm a PvPer in nearly every other game that allows it, and that's the kind of attitude you have to have if you're going to PvP seriously. Bringing that into the PvE game is not something I'd like to see in City of Heroes, personally.

[drbuzzard]

OK, I'll offer up a couple opinions.

 

Depending on the level of demand for it, adding in mechanics to increase difficulty for current content is the most work efficient path. You get lots of return from the given amount of effort since it would be reflected in all the content already present.

 

However, this depends on how much people actually want this. If there's a lot of people asking, then it's the way to go.

 

Personally I like new content, and the content I particularly like is task forces. There's been no new TFs since HC has come in, just a number of story arcs (not that I'm complaining about story arcs, the new ones in particular are quite good). I'd say perhaps a Carnies based TF might be a good idea. Maybe intervening in a civil war as the Carnival of Shadows deals with the incoming Carnival of Light. Heck, that might to a bit to solve the 'want harder stuff' problem since Carnies are generally seen as a fairly challenging group.

 

Now some minor suggestions and points:

 

I think adding a to hit buff (not accuracy) to units with increased perception would be a good idea. This would have a number of positive cascade effects. It would generally improve difficulty and make the near universal leveraging of defense since it is easy to do, not as quick a durability fix. Not every faction has units with increase perception, but on higher level groups, it might be a good idea to add them. This would require people to get a better understanding of aggro mechanics, and perhaps have those units capable of alerting other units in their spawn. That part would make the mindless tank and spank quite a bit trickier. It might also make AFK farming not so damned easy. perhaps this should be a difficulty increase option though (not that I'd mind killing afk farming).

 

Oh, and I do favor the idea of increasing difficulty options (yes to spawn sizes, though purple patch means making +5 an option seem more like an exercise in tedium than anything else). Again, larger spawns past the aggro cap would demand something above and beyond tank and spank (and I like playing tanks).

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by drbuzzard

[Giovanni Valia]

My vote goes to more hard mode content. It seems this would be much easier to implement than adding new zones/ missions. I also enjoy the challenge of pushing my fully IO'd chars to their limit in the more difficulty content.

[Darkneblade]

What I'm about to propose is little trickier. Likely not work on some AT's/Powerset's but they are OPTIONAL.

1: NO Defence

This is tricky to work with since defence is way to go for absolute protection. Instead we can work with movement buffs. So you are running since you are moving you get %7.5 defence bonus. (Double if you use super speed) You are sitting tight? %15 Res Bonus. Flying/Hovering? Again %10 Def bonus but no Res bonus when you don't move. Teleported? %10 Def bonus for 10 seconds. This applies to enemies as well making combat tricky to work with.

2: NO Resistance

Instead all resistance buffs convert into Absorb Shield that regenerates out of combat. That means enemies hit harder. Also some enemies can strip Absorb Shield from you (spoiler alert : Sappers) That means -Energy damage also damage your absorb shield. (I have to admit it I don't think this hard enough. Likely I edit it once I thought through.

3: No Regen (Nerf Regen)

No Regen from Health and Base values. Regen's passive/toggle/click powers still work. Making regen stand out among common folks. Enemies also don't have regen to speak of unless they are out of combat.

4: NO Cap for Resistance

You can technically reach %100 resistance or beyond. But all enemies have -%5 for 10 seconds resistance attack power.

5: Interrupts

Now damage has a chance to interrupt your casting but it also applies to enemies as well.

6: Reinforcements

Enemy calls for reinforcements from nearby units when unit ''dies too fast''.

7: Anti-Nuke

Enemy bosses gives aoe defence to nearby units but not to themselves.

8: We are pirates

Enemy has a chance to steal your inf when it hits hard enough. In return you get double inf when you defeat pirates.

9: Sneaky little snake

Enemy has hidden units. They will not be seen but they can move freely in map. And they can ambush you out of nowhere. Also they have auto hit assasin's strike.


 

[Doc_Scorpion]

2 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

Honestly, this may just be a pipedream anyway unless IO Set Bonuses and Incarnates are given a serious looking at. IO Sets allow essentially everyone to become a tankmage with enough money, and Incarnates just exacerbate that problem even further.

That's an interesting question...  How many of the folks asking for "M0AR HARD3R" are folks who've spent a ton of money beating current content with their wallets? (And/or many hours in Mid's.)

But yeah.  The problem isn't just lack of "hard content", it's also the supply of overpowered toons (whether by natural skill or purchased power).  Though it's not going to be popular, any workable solution is going to have to look carefully to sort out cause and effect and address both.

[chi1701]

18 minutes ago, Darkneblade said:

What I'm about to propose is little trickier. Likely not work on some AT's/Powerset's but they are OPTIONAL.

1: NO Defence

This is tricky to work with since defence is way to go for absolute protection. Instead we can work with movement buffs. So you are running since you are moving you get %7.5 defence bonus. (Double if you use super speed) You are sitting tight? %15 Res Bonus. Flying/Hovering? Again %10 Def bonus but no Res bonus when you don't move. Teleported? %10 Def bonus for 10 seconds. This applies to enemies as well making combat tricky to work with.

2: NO Resistance

Instead all resistance buffs convert into Absorb Shield that regenerates out of combat. That means enemies hit harder. Also some enemies can strip Absorb Shield from you (spoiler alert : Sappers) That means -Energy damage also damage your absorb shield. (I have to admit it I don't think this hard enough. Likely I edit it once I thought through.

3: No Regen (Nerf Regen)

No Regen from Health and Base values. Regen's passive/toggle/click powers still work. Making regen stand out among common folks. Enemies also don't have regen to speak of unless they are out of combat.

4: NO Cap for Resistance

You can technically reach %100 resistance or beyond. But all enemies have -%5 for 10 seconds resistance attack power.

5: Interrupts

Now damage has a chance to interrupt your casting but it also applies to enemies as well.

6: Reinforcements

Enemy calls for reinforcements from nearby units when unit ''dies too fast''.

7: Anti-Nuke

Enemy bosses gives aoe defence to nearby units but not to themselves.

8: We are pirates

Enemy has a chance to steal your inf when it hits hard enough. In return you get double inf when you defeat pirates.

9: Sneaky little snake

Enemy has hidden units. They will not be seen but they can move freely in map. And they can ambush you out of nowhere. Also they have auto hit assasin's strike.


 

No defence wouldnt work as all all attacks with animation require the person to stand, COH does not have a fluid movement and attack mechanic.

 

Resistances with no cap would mean that players with certain builds and teams could either way over cap or have their resistances depending on -res stacking have 0 resistances. Think absorb just wouldnt work and would need a major overhaul for resistance sets and those characters who rely on pure resistance and no defence.

 

Regen in combat is a form of defence as it allows archytypes that do not have access to heals not to be forced into medicine pool just to keep hp up. And if you notice, mobs dont regen after combat.

 

Not sure if enemies can or cannot be interrupted, not something I have l noticed, though interrupting enemies would be interesting.

 

Reinforcements would have to be balanced against agro caps.

 

All mobs have aoe defence just the same as players, just depends on your to-hit and accuracy but there will always be a 5% chance to miss.

 

Pirates, ability to steal influence would negatively effect those players who have chosen not to create farming brutes/tanks who use AE to amass vests quantities of influence. Plus, if they steal influence, then their defeat would also mean we get every back, which negates the whole purpose.

 

Assassins could be interesting.

Edited December 9, 2020 by chi1701

[DoctorDitko]

Nice ideas here.

I'd like to agree with leveraging the storytelling playerbase to create new content, free of the stigma of AE. This is a way to make the game more scaleable, without killing the Devs. No one should think the editor's job is trivial, however. This would still mean a time investment from the Dev team.

 

Kallisti Wharf needs livening up, perhaps promoted player-made missions could live there?

 

Also, it strikes me there are odd little corners of the game that would be very popular if more folks knew about them. As an example, I am sometimes surprised when I mention Mayhem Missions and no one on the team knows what I'm talking about. Mayhems, with their destructible environments, are a blast! Why not make something similar available to heroes?

 

I don't know how well difficulty scaling would work, but I have no objection to testing it out. I suspect +5 would play better than x12, but let's find out!

 

An Ouro-like option to handicap players, set limits, or buff enemies might be worth a good look, too. Again, I'd be glad to help test.

 

Thanks for listening, and thanks for all the hard work.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by DoctorDitko

[chi1701]

1 minute ago, DoctorDitko said:

Nice ideas here.

I'd like to agree with leveraging the storytelling playerbase to create new content, free of the stigma of AE.

 

Kallisti Wharf needs content, perhaps promoted player-made missions could live there?

 

Also, it strikes me there are odd little corners of the game that would be very popular if more folks knew about them. As an example, I am sometimes surprised when I mention Mayhem Missions and no one on the team knows what I'm talking about. Mayhems, with their destructible environments, are a blast!

 

I don't know how well difficulty scaling would work, but I have no objection to testing it out. I suspect +5 would play better than x12, but let's find out!

 

An Ouro-like option to handicap players, set limits, or buff enemies might be worth a good look, too.

Thanks for listening, and thanks for all the hard work.

 

Suggest you go into an ae map on x8 and try and agro 2 group. Outcome? you cant, mobs will simply ignore you even if you taunt them, this makes team work even more difficult for tank if they cannot keep agro away from squishie players. So im definitely against upping group sizes. Also, immagine a cave map with an even bigger group of mobs just gives me nightmares.

 

As for +5 would also negatively effect low damage players even more, controlers, dominators or other players with holds would also be negatively effected by having their hold duration reduced. Just need more mobs like sappers, stunners that require players to be more pro-active in terms of targeting rather than running into groups and hitting anything. 

 

World of Warcraft in one expansion looked into both player and mob hp, increasing it significantly but keeping healers numbers down thus making their decision on who to heal more important but also makes dps more accountable for their actions. Not sure how this could translate into COX though, but something on the lines of less burst healing/dps but more sustained approach. Think the game has far to much emphasis on aoe instead of single target damage.

[DoctorDitko]

5 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

a cave map with an even bigger group of mobs just gives me nightmares.

You said it!

That's one reason I think x12 wouldn't work. +5 might not either, but let's try it on a Beta shard and find out.

[chi1701]

6 minutes ago, DoctorDitko said:

You said it!

That's one reason I think x12 wouldn't work. +5 might not either, but let's try it on a Beta shard and find out.

Making content harder isnt the solution and it will simply come down to risk vs reward, running more +4 could still net you more than running +5. Also, just increases the level difference is akin to putting a plaster on gaping wound, yes the patient will live longer, but will still end up dieing. Need to fix the cause of the imbalance not the symptoms. I have a tank that can do AE +4 x8 with ease, the +5 might not change anything, but for other archytypes would be a massive change, so who is this +difficulty aimed at?

[DoctorDitko]

5 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

who is this +difficulty aimed at?

It was suggested uptopic as a way to challenge players who complain the whole game is too easy.

I usually play controllers and defenders, so I don't really see it, but I'm willing to let them give it a try.

[chi1701]

10 minutes ago, DoctorDitko said:

It was suggested uptopic as a way to challenge players who complain the whole game is too easy.

I usually play controllers and defenders, so I don't really see it, but I'm willing to let them give it a try.

Players in star trek online complained the game was to easy, they upped the difficulty of some missions which created a dps wall restricting those players who didnt have the pay to win builds to be bared from them. I can understand why some players want this, but it needs to be balanced to everyone has the opportunity to participate without the need of player created barriers eg damage, tanking etc

 

Atm the gap between those who can tank and or deal damage is high, adding extra level will only make it bigger.

 

Il give an example, 1 spine/fire brute can complete an ae mission on +4 x8, having team of 2 or more spine/brutes to a +5 x8 will still come to same conclusion, to easy

Edited December 9, 2020 by chi1701

[Doc_Scorpion]

21 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

Suggest you go into an ae map on x8 and try and agro 2 group. Outcome? you cant, mobs will simply ignore you even if you taunt them, this makes team work even more difficult for tank if they cannot keep agro away from squishie players.

 

21 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

As for +5 would also negatively effect low damage players even more, controlers, dominators or other players with holds would also be negatively effected by having their hold duration reduced.

Isn't that kinda the point?  Folks are asking for harder content...  and you say, "No!  Don't make things harder!".   Adding tactical puzzles (more mobs like Sappers) makes things more difficult but it doesn't make things harder.  (If that makes sense.)  Clear the tactical puzzle and it's right back to steamrolling...  That is, once a puzzle is solved, it stays solved for the remainder of the encounter.

Whether it's the tank getting screwed because he can't taunt the whole spawn...  Or the support characters getting screwed by having their support is less valuable...  Or the DPS character getting screwed because he can't kill fast enough... (preventing the balance from being tipped towards the players.)  Negatively impacting the players is an inescapable part of hard mode.  (At least as I interpret hard mode - increasing the risk.  Making the player work for it and feel like they've earned it.  Not being bored because they can simply steamroll without effort.)

The lack of incentives for tactical play is a problem...  But I'm not sure how much it overlaps with the "lack of a hard mode".

[Doc_Scorpion]

Sorry for the second post, but something occurred to me in writing my previous one that I think shouldn't get lost or buried under the issues I raised there...

There's something we're missing in the discussion of hard mode.  We keep talking about IO'ed and Incarnate toons...  But it seems to me that a workable hard mode (or modes) must scale.  Hard mode (or modes) must be available and workable from the steps of City Hall to the portals on Peregrine Island.  (And the Redside equivalents, which I'm much less familiar with.)  Why?  Two reasons.  First, power/XP creep starts in Atlas Park...  (It's not all about IO's and Incarnates.  They don't cause the problem, they just make it worse.)  Second, it helps avoid the "game begins at 50" syndrome.  (Down that path lies madness.)

[chi1701]

42 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Sorry for the second post, but something occurred to me in writing my previous one that I think shouldn't get lost or buried under the issues I raised there...

There's something we're missing in the discussion of hard mode.  We keep talking about IO'ed and Incarnate toons...  But it seems to me that a workable hard mode (or modes) must scale.  Hard mode (or modes) must be available and workable from the steps of City Hall to the portals on Peregrine Island.  (And the Redside equivalents, which I'm much less familiar with.)  Why?  Two reasons.  First, power/XP creep starts in Atlas Park...  (It's not all about IO's and Incarnates.  They don't cause the problem, they just make it worse.)  Second, it helps avoid the "game begins at 50" syndrome.  (Down that path lies madness.)

Also not including archytypes that are considered overpowered are we? If there is an increase in difficulty to +5, then atleast can mobs have additional abilities? defence, resistances, holds and debuffs etc?

 

One other thing, +5 would be +4 for players with incarnate shifts, so if people can already do +4 without the shift, making +5 irrelevant.

 

Perhaps a combination of both +5 and an incentive to self nerf (no incarnates, set bonuses etc) could blend better? and another discussion after this, what would players like as a reward for harder content?

Edited December 9, 2020 by chi1701

[Galaxy Brain]

32 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I'm not against "harder content" on the face of it. What I have a problem with is trying to retroactively apply this "harder content" to the original base game using the systems already in place to push the scale. I've found that many of these "harder content" types want to change the entire game so they can be challenged at any point, finding the current +4/x8 system inadequate (we'll just ignore that they're likely going to PL to 50 in the AE anyway, whether or not the base game is somehow moved upwards in difficulty). Since I don't think it's really possible, or even desirable, to modify the base game, that just leaves the creation of new content.

It should be possible to modify the base game by adding new enemies to existing factions at the least. For example, IIRC it should be possible to add Zoombies to vahz missions if they really wanted to. Something as simple as that can shake things up and spice up old content. Its not just the "moar harder" crowd either, I keep going back to the example of enemies where it'd be more efficient to use a mez on first to defeat them as something that would be harder to deal with as it requires a different line of thinking, but it also opens up opportunities for Control powers and AT's to shine brighter when they currently aren't.

 

A lot of people PL to 50 after having already gone through a ton of content on (multiple) characters and just want to play with all their tools available asap. Refurbishing the mountain of old, dusty, not as popular content would get people playing those again in some capacity IMO.

 

 

32 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

 

That new content can be whatever difficulty the creators want it to be from the outset, before any team scaling modifiers are applied to it. Just like when Cimeroa was first added to the game and people were faceplanting to groups of minions, or when the Vanguard spawns could blow you up immediately, there is room to add foes that are inherently more dangerous but I don't think there's room to modify existing content. Plus, with the underlying design philosophy of "anything works (within reason)", I'd be wary of adding entire factions that require special steps to defeat without assistance. We've already got AVs and GMs on the list of group-required content, barring specialist builds of course, and I'd prefer that any new content being added could be tackled by a solo player using any "normal" character build (no, I don't expect my Petless MM to be able to do certain things).

On this note, adding new mobs to existing groups already has precedence (Super Stunners!) and people were pretty quick to adapt. In my mind, spicing up older groups that have become too routine here and there (like Warriors getting Shield powers), and likewise possibly editing annoying groups a bit + making them a bit more worth it (Lets say Carnies get a bit less intangible.... or hell, make it turn off if you CC them or make it cost endurance for them + they give more Inf for defeats or something compared to [Council]) would help even things out a bit and encourage different content.

 

One of my goals is to join a pug and really do whatever, not have everyone look at carnies and just go "ugh no".

 

32 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

 

Honestly, this may just be a pipedream anyway unless IO Set Bonuses and Incarnates are given a serious looking at. IO Sets allow essentially everyone to become a tankmage with enough money, and Incarnates just exacerbate that problem even further. Inserting content that only an "approved min/max build" will find adequate may end up alienating much of the playerbase, as it's essentially the devs telling people that they're expected to maximize their character numerically in precisely these X, Y, and Z areas or they aren't "playing correctly" and they aren't good enough for this content. I'm a PvPer in nearly every other game that allows it, and that's the kind of attitude you have to have if you're going to PvP seriously. Bringing that into the PvE game is not something I'd like to see in City of Heroes, personally.

Again, part of the issue is looking at why simply being a tankmage is the best bet. That is because hitting hard and taking less hits/damage is the solution to 99.99% of problems CoH throws at you. If there were different problems with different solutions, you'd see a lot of different builds and strategies. By definition, that'd be more difficult though.

[BurtHutt]

3 hours ago, DoctorDitko said:

Nice ideas here.

I'd like to agree with leveraging the storytelling playerbase to create new content, free of the stigma of AE. This is a way to make the game more scaleable, without killing the Devs. No one should think the editor's job is trivial, however. This would still mean a time investment from the Dev team.

 

Kallisti Wharf needs livening up, perhaps promoted player-made missions could live there?

 

Also, it strikes me there are odd little corners of the game that would be very popular if more folks knew about them. As an example, I am sometimes surprised when I mention Mayhem Missions and no one on the team knows what I'm talking about. Mayhems, with their destructible environments, are a blast! Why not make something similar available to heroes?

 

I don't know how well difficulty scaling would work, but I have no objection to testing it out. I suspect +5 would play better than x12, but let's find out!

 

An Ouro-like option to handicap players, set limits, or buff enemies might be worth a good look, too. Again, I'd be glad to help test.

 

Thanks for listening, and thanks for all the hard work.

 

I don't know if making a harder switch would work that well either. I do feel players can make missions that involve tougher foes (power sets that could cause more problems than something like a group of Council). That could be one way to add.

 

Praetoria has tougher missions as well. Player created content could incorporate some of those elements (ambush waves etc).

 

I really do feel the incarnate system was not the best idea. It made a lot of the late content a cake walk. The Dev resources are too limited to add any significant hard content. I will, yet again, push for my AE idea,

[DoctorDitko]

1 hour ago, BurtHutt said:

power sets that could cause more problems than something like a group of Council

Good point!

I imagine there is a strong correlation between spending all day running Council radio missions and thinking the game is too easy.

Do professional Carnie or Malta hunters think the game is too easy?