"The Game is not Balanced around IO's"..... should it be?

[Galaxy Brain]

Brute vs Tank is a little derailing, but tbh I think it's much healthier that there's even a debate now compared to "lol why make a Tank?"

 

I think this may call for a trip to the mission sim tho

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Brute vs Tank is a little derailing, but tbh I think it's much healthier that there's even a debate now compared to "lol why make a Tank?"

 

I think this may call for a trip to the mission sim tho

You know I'm happy to help. Point me at a target and I'll go killin.

 

I have at least one of every AT except stalkers and masterminds. Stalkers cuz I hate not seeing my costume and stalker-claws ain't got no spin and masterminds cuz... dude, they just suck. They suck really bad for this crap I like gettin into.

 

Gimme an AE mish to repeat ad nauseum to gather data and I'll hit it.

 

It was never "lol why make a tank" for me. Instead, it was "i didn't have a reason to crank a tank until Werner said "try it this way" and I had to do so." And in doing so, I was forced to see just how wrong things really are on that front.

[Galaxy Brain]

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

You know I'm happy to help. Point me at a target and I'll go killin.

 

I have at least one of every AT except stalkers and masterminds. Stalkers cuz I hate not seeing my costume and stalker-claws ain't got no spin and masterminds cuz... dude, they just suck. They suck really bad for this crap I like gettin into.

 

Gimme an AE mish to repeat ad nauseum to gather data and I'll hit it.

 

It was never "lol why make a tank" for me. Instead, it was "i didn't have a reason to crank a tank until Werner said "try it this way" and I had to do so." And in doing so, I was forced to see just how wrong things really are on that front.

 

My go-to is the Office Mission simulator on Beta. My plan here is to make an identical Fire/Rad Tank and Rad/Fire Brute and see if they can buzzsaw through that map on x8 at equal or greater speeds.

[arcane]

51 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

An effective solution wouldn't have involved tanks suddenly replacing brutes to the scrap pile for end game content.

It’s a fact that this is a highly disputed opinion. I’m coming around more and more to tankers myself, but I still find the “brutes are useless now” narrative to be a major stretch and know I’m not alone here.

[Erratic1]

41 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Brute vs Tank is a little derailing, but tbh I think it's much healthier that there's even a debate now compared to "lol why make a Tank?"

 

I think this may call for a trip to the mission sim tho

 

No, the debate is now:

 

[BelleSorciere]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

I just mean how its going to feel on most teams. 

 

You are right that in the comparison between the two the difference is important. 

 

Thank you for clarifying, and I agree with this. Right now my metric on teams is "Do I feel like my actions have an effect" and so far with everything I play, I do.

 

[twozerofoxtrot]

2 hours ago, BelleSorciere said:

The comparison in question is Brutes and Tankers.

I super regret even mentioning the whole "buffed tankers doesn't mean easier game for everyone" point now, because it's basically been like 5 pages of this.

 

And that wasn't the point.

[Galaxy Brain]

Back on topic though, lets pose a more specific question:

 

Task forces are usually run to grab lots of merits, to which my guess is often used on ATO's. How do we feel the game has changed with just those in play?

[twozerofoxtrot]

Generally I'd say superior ATOs are nice to have; like a 3rd option for a purple set (after Very Rares and Superior Winter sets). But certainly not a must-have, unless I'm playing a Scrapper or Stalker. Some builds get the ATOs chopped up just for their 2-slot bonuses.

 

At the same time, with a large enough budget you can really smooth out leveling pains by 6-slotting the basic ATO sets into powers at early as... level 7? I mean, if you've got the disposable income, that's going to be like 1 DFB and you're dropping in ATOs.

 

It's kinda like what I said about procs: I love them, but there's certainly a problem there with regards to just how drastically different the game feels when you're playing with those enhancements.

[akumamishima]

I dislike the IO set system more than any other item or equipment system I've played in any game.  To me it's: tedious, doesn't feel satisfying to pick up a single IO set piece or frankly even a set or two (you have to invest a lot to notice stat changes), doesn't allow me to leverage any new mechanics or abilities (I'm just a better "ball of stats" to slam against enemies), and it lead to the inevitable auction house that you have to partake hours in if you want to accumulate the large quantities of IO sets you'll need if you want to see substantial benefits.  I do however like procs and globals, slot one and it does what it says on the tin, no other researching, Auction House hours, etc. required to see it work.

 

I don't feel CoH was ever balanced around IOs, I don't feel it currently is, and I really hope Homecoming Devs don't make the decision to do so.

[Troo]

50 minutes ago, akumamishima said:

I dislike the IO set system more than any other item or equipment system I've played in any game.  To me it's: tedious, doesn't feel satisfying to pick up a single IO set piece or frankly even a set or two (you have to invest a lot to notice stat changes), doesn't allow me to leverage any new mechanics or abilities (I'm just a better "ball of stats" to slam against enemies), and it lead to the inevitable auction house that you have to partake hours in if you want to accumulate the large quantities of IO sets you'll need if you want to see substantial benefits.  I do however like procs and globals, slot one and it does what it says on the tin, no other researching, Auction House hours, etc. required to see it work.

 

I don't feel CoH was ever balanced around IOs, I don't feel it currently is, and I really hope Homecoming Devs don't make the decision to do so.

Luckily, using IO Sets is purely optional and not necessary.

 

The suggestion, I believe, is whether IOs (Invention Origin Enhancements) not IO Sets should be the point things are balanced around versus the current Single Origin Enhancements.

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Task forces are usually run to grab lots of merits, to which my guess is often used on ATO's. How do we feel the game has changed with just those in play?

 

Never spent any merits on ATOs, but I do use ATOs on every character I create now.  They haven't changed anything for me.  The bonuses aren't significantly better than purple sets at 50, or rare sets below 50, and I tend to run out of appealing powers to put slots into before I run out of slots, so having the occasional option to pick up a 10% +Recharge bonus for 2 or 3 slots doesn't make much difference.  It's nice to have something to pick up and have level with the character, but with the easy availability of attuned IOs, ultimately no different from regular IOs.

 

If the economy were in a bad state, reflective of how it was on the original servers, then I'd say that having ATOs readily available would matter.  With inf* oozing out of every crevice of the market, though, and converters allowing players to vacuum up that inf* so rapidly that they can have everything they desire as they level (as opposed to waiting until 50, then farming for months to pay for things), ATOs are just the sprinkles on the rosettes on the icing on the cake.

[Galaxy Brain]

3 minutes ago, Troo said:

Luckily, using IO Sets is purely optional and not necessary.

 

The suggestion, I believe, is whether IOs (Invention Origin Enhancements) not IO Sets should be the point things are balanced around versus the current Single Origin Enhancements.

Sort of, I think it's multi-faceted:

 

1) As you mentioned, should the game consider IO's when it comes to *overall* balance with the assumption that your average character is stronger than "Pure SO Level"? This one is super ambiguous as until we get actual data on "X% of the HC playerbase is for-sure using IO's" it's super tricky to discuss it like this. Either we need hard evidence that "yeah, everyone is doing it" or make it far more accessible to where it'd be expected to slot IOs like SO's.

 

2) Related to the last bit above, is the way you can attain IO's balanced? In HC in particular, as @Luminara stated you can get inf incredibly easily and the only thing in your way is the market (and sometimes crafting). Other games have unique loot drop of special sources, or as a reward from special missions. Is the random drops a sort of legacy of the past that encourages farming? If Story Arcs rewarded you with IO rolls / merits were more common for certain actions would the gameplay shift in both ways (access of IO's / content run?)

 

3) Are sets balanced around what IO's can be slotted? To a degree this exists a little bit when you look at things like say.... Fire Blast vs other blast sets. It blows the rest away at the base level, but it has no unique chances to slot fun IO's which can let others level the playing field. On the flip side, sets with -Def or Knockback get TONS of game-changing slotting options that others simply do not get which is intriguing to say the least. Let alone looking at ATO's and their vast differences in performance. You see this also pop up with +Defense powers for a particular IO and it's near universally good effect.

 

4) More insular, but are IO's balanced against each other? Are they interesting? As @akumamishima and @twozerofoxtrotput it, many just turn you into a ball of stats (and we all know the main ones everyone shoots for), but there are a few really fun ones which are unique. Tbqh, most of the "good" sets do get chopped up for certain perks and it seems to actually decrease diversity instead of increase as it was probably intended. Disregarding even the builds you always see that just have "slap purples in there and you're groovy", you very often see the same handfuls of sets appear over and over, making you really wonder what the point of sets like Bonesnap / Triage / Serendipity / Etc are when they are simply outclassed by better IOs or sets with uniques to them that can be very easily attained in HC? Would altering the least popular IO sets to have more unique options or stat boosts be a worthwhile endeavor? Bonesnap: Chance of double-hit (Unique), Triage: Chance of PBAoE Heal (Unique), Serendipity: provides huge boosts to sustain in it's set bonuses, etc.

 

 

These all weave into each other in various degrees, but I think this is more where the convo could be headed than just "should the ~game~ be balanced around it?"

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

My go-to is the Office Mission simulator on Beta. My plan here is to make an identical Fire/Rad Tank and Rad/Fire Brute and see if they can buzzsaw through that map on x8 at equal or greater speeds.

 

Yikes. This is gonna hurt. Going from tank to brute with identical builds (except for AT IOs) with shield and em, the brute loses 10% def across the board and about 20% damres. Don't even have melee softcapped. Edit: Oh, nevermind. These guys in your mish are pansies. 🙂

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Galaxy Brain]

25 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Yikes. This is gonna hurt. Going from tank to brute with identical builds (except for AT IOs) with shield and em, the brute loses 10% def across the board and about 20% damres. Don't even have melee softcapped. Edit: Oh, nevermind. These guys in your mish are pansies. 🙂

Lol pretty much thats why they're punching bags. They *can* kill you at basic levels and if you have little mitigation from attacks or whatnot, but as you build up its more of an offense test

 

Edit:

 

If you pull logs from a tab that only tracks "Damage received", it could be a good measure of mitigation between the two as well.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Troo]

Yes, I agree.

 

Typically I would be all about keeping balance at Single Origin levels.

This would be in the spirit of prioritizing levels 1-49 character balance over incarnates, min/maxers, & high performers (areas where things are really broken or missing corresponding content).

 

Realistically, as you said, adding just a couple unique global IO bonuses to a build has a big impact.

 

Training Original and Dual Origin have really lost a place in the current game so it make sense that the balance point has shifted up one tier. Especially with all the power creep that has been introduced.

 

Besides balance is a conceptual term.

[golstat2003]

13 hours ago, akumamishima said:

I dislike the IO set system more than any other item or equipment system I've played in any game.  To me it's: tedious, doesn't feel satisfying to pick up a single IO set piece or frankly even a set or two (you have to invest a lot to notice stat changes), doesn't allow me to leverage any new mechanics or abilities (I'm just a better "ball of stats" to slam against enemies), and it lead to the inevitable auction house that you have to partake hours in if you want to accumulate the large quantities of IO sets you'll need if you want to see substantial benefits.  I do however like procs and globals, slot one and it does what it says on the tin, no other researching, Auction House hours, etc. required to see it work.

 

I don't feel CoH was ever balanced around IOs, I don't feel it currently is, and I really hope Homecoming Devs don't make the decision to do so.

Funny enough I have the exact same opposite feeling about procs. I don't like RNG-based things in games. I  . . . just don't find procs fun.

 

I'd rather know that if I slot this, I do this much more damage every time. It's interesting how different people feel about different game mechanics.

 

Neither is wrong. 😃

[golstat2003]

9 hours ago, Troo said:

Yes, I agree.

 

Typically I would be all about keeping balance at Single Origin levels.

This would be in the spirit of prioritizing levels 1-49 character balance over incarnates, min/maxers, & high performers (areas where things are really broken or missing corresponding content).

 

Realistically, as you said, adding just a couple unique global IO bonuses to a build has a big impact.

 

Training Original and Dual Origin have really lost a place in the current game so it make sense that the balance point has shifted up one tier. Especially with all the power creep that has been introduced.

 

Besides balance is a conceptual term.

The only shift is now you can get SOs early.  @Galaxy Brainmetioned if common IOs were now as easily accessible as SOs are now, this would be a different discussion. (And I would be siding more with @Galaxy Brain). 

 

The original introduction of Inventions was that ALL parts of it would continue to be optional. (I include AH/Crafting/etc in that and suspect the original devs and SCORE devs aimed for that).

 

However this is a different age as others have pointed out.

 

Does that need to change? As I mentioned sure, IF fully crafted common IOs started dropping, sure.

 

As mentioned SetIOs should always be optional.

Edited February 3, 2021 by golstat2003

[Galaxy Brain]

13 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

The only shift is now you can get SOs early.  @Galaxy Brainmetioned if common IOs were now as easily accessible as SOs are now, this would be a different discussion. (And I would be siding more with @Galaxy Brain). 

 

The original introduction of Inventions was that ALL parts of it would continue to be optional. (I include AH/Crafting/etc in that and suspect the original devs and SCORE devs aimed for that).

 

However this is a different age as others have pointed out.

 

Does that need to change? As I mentioned sure, IF fully crafted common IOs started dropping, sure.

 

As mentioned SetIOs should always be optional.

I was actually referring to sets originally, but like "normie" ones. For example, you could defeat a Boss and there is a 25% chance that their enhancement drop might be Bonesnap: Dam/Acc

 

Specific IO's like Miracle: +Recovery may still be locked as recipe drops, but "common" ones or non-special IO's I feel could drop.

 

[golstat2003]

55 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I was actually referring to sets originally, but like "normie" ones. For example, you could defeat a Boss and there is a 25% chance that their enhancement drop might be Bonesnap: Dam/Acc

 

Specific IO's like Miracle: +Recovery may still be locked as recipe drops, but "common" ones or non-special IO's I feel could drop.

 

I think the first step would be to get Common IOs dropping first.  EDIT: This would get folks who hate or swore off ALL IOs (of which there are probably few admittedly) to get a sense of how much better they are than SOs. Of course they would only start dropping in their level range of 25+. I don't think it's worth the effort to have them drop from level 1 or even level 10, etc.

 

I think it would be a bit complicated (and might make future changes an issue) if you have identify which are normie and not normie (and have to keep that database maintained over time as you add more IOs--especially since some sets like the Miracle you mention have both "normie" and special specific Unique (and sometimes non-Unique) IOs)

 

As a future enhancement maybe. If the devs want to then be responsible for balancing against that/maintaining that.

 

I'd think though it would make more sense to start simple with Common IOs (fully crafted) dropping first then data mine what effect that has. Then in later Issues or Pages they can go with the more advanced combos of Enh that enahnce two or more aspects like Dam/Acc and Dam/Acc/Rech etc.

 

I'm all for anything that DOES NOT allow this to turn into yet another time/coding time suck of work for our small dev team.

Edited February 3, 2021 by golstat2003

[Luminara]

17 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

I think the first step would be to get Common IOs dropping first.

 

That's not the first step.  The first step is devising an inf* sink, or sinks, to replace everything involved.  Recipe costs (crafting table and market), salvage costs, crafting costs, SO costs... no sinks, no economy.  No economy, no game.

[Galaxy Brain]

12 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

That's not the first step.  The first step is devising an inf* sink, or sinks, to replace everything involved.  Recipe costs (crafting table and market), salvage costs, crafting costs, SO costs... no sinks, no economy.  No economy, no game.

True, but if the notion is "this is all optional" is true, then the current inf sinks aren't too enforced...

[Neiska]

I would just like to say that I have done this dance before in other games. And while many valid points are made, the one thing I would like to add to the conversation based on experience is this -

 

All too often, when you try to "nerf" the powerbuilds, or things that are only op in certain circumstances or setups, you might also make the weaker setups/builds, weaker. For an example, let us say the "fix" was changing damge procs. Certainly, that puts a dent into some build setups that use them as a sort of "icing on the cake", but what about builds that rely on damage procs to do any meaningful damage, such as some MM, Controller, or Dominator setups. Sure, nerfing the damage procs reduced the effective power of the powerbuild, but I would argue that such a fix impacted the other setups more, the ones who aren't over the top OP, and in fact, weaker. (note I only use this example for context. I am not suggesting this change etc.)

 

So if those in the Theorycrafting would do me a small favor and consider an actual changes effect not just on the "redline" top end 600m inf build, but also the super causal "training wheels" someones-first-50 sort of setup as well. Because some changes might have unforseen consiquences or impacts on those builds/setups/playstyles that many would consider need propping up, not to be made weaker.

 

I've seen it happen before in other games, both small and private ones as well as MMOs. And I do respect all viewpoints here, and the passion. It shows people actualy do care, which is wonderful to see. That said I would urge caution and do the actual math and theory-testing to any change across as many different types/builds/playstyles as possible, before labeling something as a "fix all" to balance issues.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Shield/EM tank vs EM/Shield Brute

5 runs each. Average clear all time for tank 502 seconds. Average clear all time for brute 462 seconds.

So the brute is what? A whopping 8% faster?

 

While the tank has:

21% more HP

24% more melee defense

26% more range and aoe defense

20% more SL DR

14% more FC DR

16% more EN DR

But hey... the brute gets an extra .5% base damage thanks to the AT IO difference. Edit: Oh yea... and a bunch less DDR when both doublestack AD.

 

21% more mitigation vs 8% higher kill speed for this particular combo. And this is parity? Balance? Ok with the rest of yall? Cuz I think it's crap.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Neiska said:

So if those in the Theorycrafting would do me a small favor and consider an actual changes effect not just on the "redline" top end 600m inf build, but also the super causal "training wheels" someones-first-50 sort of setup as well. Because some changes might have unforseen consiquences or impacts on those builds/setups/playstyles that many would consider need propping up, not to be made weaker.

 

True, but good nerf concepts take this into account.

I want damage procs "nerfed" by changing their PPM by +1, and lowering their per-activation damage so that the expected DPS over a minute is the same as it currently is. This wouldn't impact those ATs who use them in regular attacks because their baseline damage is low, but by having a lower damage on the longer-recharge powers that are at 90% activation time whether the PPM is 3.5 or 4.5, you lower the DPA of the top performing proc-bomb attacks (both single-target and AoE). But you don't lower the DPA of, say, Arcane Bolt, because that power cycles fast enough that it's below 90%... so the target is top-level proc-bombs, but it doesn't affect baseline attacks with recharges at like 14 seconds or less, or AoEs under 30-40 seconds depending on Recharge slotting, etc.

That's one example of how nerfs can be targeted... I'm not saying that they all are going to be like this, but a careful Dev team can generally manage.

 

Look at the TW nerf... it clearly lowered sustained DPS at the top level, but actually made the set play better at lower levels with lower base Recharge. Another example of how a nerf can be targeted to hit the outliers without hurting mid-level performers.