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

[Parabola]

34 minutes ago, BelleSorciere said:

They don't, though? Their primary is stronger than Corruptor secondaries meaning that slotting can have a different priority, meaning that Defenders can more easily slot enough procs to outdamage Corruptors while still buffing/debuffing at least as well and approaching Blaster damage. If Corruptors could leverage procs to the same extent that Defenders can, don't you think they would be?

It's also the higher modifiers defenders get on pool powers. Between that and higher mods on buffs and debuffs they need to spend far fewer slots on full sets for survival. Much the same thing is true in the tanks vs brutes comparison. Tanks and defenders are much more free to stuff their attacks with procs and it makes a big difference.

Edited February 3, 2021 by parabola

[Galaxy Brain]

 

 

Real talk tho @Bill Z Bubba and @Infinitum, we should make a separate thread for this as a comparison set to set could yield very interesting results. But, it is kind of side stepping the main point of the thread!

 

(However, the added survivability a Brute can get via IO's compared to a Tanker's  ability to add offense via procs/bonuses is something to consider...)

Edited February 3, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Luminara]

23 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

The role of the defender archetype is not in any way supposed to be on par with the highest damage outputting archetypes.

Defenders have to work for their supper.  Buffing/debuffing/controlling takes time, and with lower HP and lower damage scalars, defenders are required to spend that time if they wish to both achieve decent results and survive to move on to the next spawn, especially with increased difficulty settings or in Incarnate/* Ward content.  Like @Apparition, you're completely dismissing that and presenting this argument from the perspective of defenders waltzing into spawns and blowing them to bits like blasters do.  They can eventually deal appreciable damage, after they've enabled the conditions for that to happen, and when the RNG gives it to them.

 

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Damage procs make it easier for players to use archetypes in a way they weren't intended to fit their playstyle,

 

Damage procs only do one thing.  And all archetypes were designed to deal damage as part of their play style.  The earliest version of CoH, as a matter of fact, used a free-form power selection model, and it was scrapped because testing showed that it was possible for players to create characters which couldn't deal any damage.  Cryptic specifically steered the game away from that by implementing archetypes as a means of forcing all players to take at least one attack so they could deal damage.  The intended play style is to deal damage.  That's true for every archetype, every player.  That is one of the constants of this game.

 

But that's just pedantry.  You meant we're doing something "wrong" by playing defenders who deal more than minor damage.  Nope.  Defenders were never intended to deal minor damage, they were intended to deal appreciable damage after putting in the appropriate time and effort to make it possible.  Using the tools the developers gave them, deliberately and knowingly, to set up those conditional environments which amplified their damage output.  Tools like -Res at the highest scalar value, pseudo-pets like Lightning Storm and OSA which deal far more than minor amounts of damage, and the same blast sets that blasters had.

 

Procs don't alleviate the requirement to create those conditional environments.  We still have to use our tools to make those procs worthwhile, and to stay alive long enough to see them do something.  We're not shitting on blasters' lawns because we're not moving at blasters' speeds.

 

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

but it goes against the design of archetypes to begin with

 

All of the archetypes were designed to be flexible.  They had to be in order to avoid the tank/healer/damage dealer standardization that was occurring in the industry at the time.  And, again, all archetypes were designed to deal damage.

 

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

and severely diminishes the uniqueness of each archetype

 

Relying on archetypes to provide a sense of uniqueness is like relying on a Social Security number to provide a sense of identity.

 

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

and their role within a team.

 

Roles are for people who need to be told what to do and how to play.

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, BelleSorciere said:

They don't, though? Their primary is stronger than Corruptor secondaries meaning that slotting can have a different priority, meaning that Defenders can more easily slot enough procs to outdamage Corruptors while still buffing/debuffing at least as well and approaching Blaster damage. If Corruptors could leverage procs to the same extent that Defenders can, don't you think they would be?

 

Not going into another archetype versus archetype debate.  Start another thread, or dig up the last one that discussed it (in which i mentioned that Scourge is just as shitty as Vigilance... and neither really plays into procs, though at least Scourge can benefit from the lower HP of targets resulting from random procs triggering, as opposed to the zilch that Vigilance does in respect to procs (they neither use endurance nor benefit from +Damage)).

[BelleSorciere]

4 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Not going into another archetype versus archetype debate.  Start another thread, or dig up the last one that discussed it (in which i mentioned that Scourge is just as shitty as Vigilance... and neither really plays into procs, though at least Scourge can benefit from the lower HP of targets resulting from random procs triggering, as opposed to the zilch that Vigilance does in respect to procs (they neither use endurance nor benefit from +Damage)).

I'll just point back to this. 

1 hour ago, parabola said:

It's also the higher modifiers defenders get on pool powers. Between that and higher mods on buffs and debuffs they need to spend far fewer slots on full sets for survival. Much the same thing is true in the tanks vs brutes comparison. Tanks and defenders are much more free to stuff their attacks with procs and it makes a big difference.

 

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

Real talk tho @Bill Z Bubba and @Infinitum, we should make a separate thread for this as a comparison set to set could yield very interesting results. But, it is kind of side stepping the main point of the thread!

 

(However, the added survivability a Brute can get via IO's compared to a Tanker's  ability to add offense via procs/bonuses is something to consider...)

There’s a lot of good topics for a few new threads.  I started to respond to your question on ATOs but realized it was getting lost in the noise.

[Infinitum]

24 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

There’s a lot of good topics for a few new threads.  I started to respond to your question on ATOs but realized it was getting lost in the noise.

I am picturing GB with a sly grin on a roof somewhere with a 🎻  LoL

[Glacier Peak]

52 minutes ago, Luminara said:

defenders are required to.... spend that time if they wish to both achieve decent results and survive to move on to the next spawn, especially with increased difficulty settings or in Incarnate/* Ward content. 

This sentence is false. There is no requirement for any action in this game. Players consent to the terms of service/code of conduct and proceed to enjoy the game to the fullest extent of their imagination.

 

Quote

And all archetypes were designed to deal damage as part of their play style.  The earliest version of CoH, as a matter of fact, used a free-form power selection model, and it was scrapped because testing showed that it was possible for players to create characters which couldn't deal any damage.  Cryptic specifically steered the game away from that by implementing archetypes as a means of forcing all players to take at least one attack so they could deal damage.  The intended play style is to deal damage.  That's true for every archetype, every player.  That is one of the constants of this game.

Sounds like your personal playstyle. Cool.

 

Quote

But that's just pedantry.  You meant we're doing something "wrong" by playing defenders who deal more than minor damage.  Nope.  Defenders were never intended to deal minor damage, they were intended to deal appreciable damage after putting in the appropriate time and effort to make it possible.  Using the tools the developers gave them, deliberately and knowingly, to set up those conditional environments which amplified their damage output.  Tools like -Res at the highest scalar value, pseudo-pets like Lightning Storm and OSA which deal far more than minor amounts of damage, and the same blast sets that blasters had.

 

Procs don't alleviate the requirement to create those conditional environments.  We still have to use our tools to make those procs worthwhile, and to stay alive long enough to see them do something.  We're not shitting on blasters' lawns because we're not moving at blasters' speeds.

 

All of the archetypes were designed to be flexible.  They had to be in order to avoid the tank/healer/damage dealer standardization that was occurring in the industry at the time.  And, again, all archetypes were designed to deal damage.

I don't even know why you're responding to this if you're saying is pedantry - like that is the definition of the word, that you would break down my entire post to point out minor things you disagree with?

 

Quote

Relying on archetypes to provide a sense of uniqueness is like relying on a Social Security number to provide a sense of identity.

Is this humor? I didn't laugh.

 

Quote

Roles are for people who need to be told what to do and how to play.

Cool. And telling people what roles are for, are for people who need to tell people how to play. Look I can do it too.

 

 

To the topic of the thread - the game is not balanced around IOs or damage procs, or set bonuses for that matter. If you want to play a certain way, such as using everything you can muster in the game to your advantage, go for it. If you don't, then that is your choice too. Only thing players are required to do is agree to the rules of the game and log in, after that point it comes down to subjectivity.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Glacier Peak
switched out opinion for playstyle, sounded better

[TheZag]

its not really a quote if you edit the formatting and its really time to move the brute vs tanker somewhere else.  this thread is supposed to be about whether or not the game should get rebalanced for IO sets - not nerf/buff tankers and brutes

[BelleSorciere]

27 minutes ago, TheZag said:

its not really a quote if you edit the formatting and its really time to move the brute vs tanker somewhere else.  this thread is supposed to be about whether or not the game should get rebalanced for IO sets - not nerf/buff tankers and brutes

 It is quoting, and doing it that like that - separating it into sections and replying to each individually is called "fisking," or at least it used to be.

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

I am picturing GB with a sly grin on a roof somewhere with a 🎻  LoL

I don't know what any of that means, but you had me at pineapple.

 

I have a unfinished alt on Indomitable named Iced Pineapple, because I wanted to make a Spines/Ice scrapper and that was the best name I could come up with in the short term.  One evening, I had an hour long conversation in ten minutes with someone who told me repeatedly and passionately how much they loved my name.  Because they really liked really cold pineapple.  Win!

[TheZag]

I was reffering to making the text huge and red.  Text is already horribly inefficient at conveying emotion.  Such an edit takes 'normal speech' and conveys yelling or anger.  I wouldnt consider it a quote anymore.  

 

But for something more on topic, i dont think current content should be altered to accommodate IO sets.  If more endgame content is added i would like to see some harder options.  Or possibly adding a level shift for enemies under notoriety so they can be 54+4 or +6 or whatever it takes. 

[Erratic1]

Its less the formatting change then selective replying to portions of entire sentences, as if the phrase is not within a context.

 

As example...

 

Quote

defenders are required to....

 

Replied to in the following fashion:

Quote

This sentence is false. There is no requirement for any action in this game. Players consent to the terms of service/code of conduct and proceed to enjoy the game to the fullest extent of their imagination.

 

In fact the sentence is not false, but the formatting makes it appear what said was something about how defenders uniformly must play the game when what was said was that if a defender wants to get maximum damage they have to spend time setting it up all the blather about agreeing to terms of service in the game and being free to play the game your own way notwithstanding.

[golstat2003]

10 hours ago, Neiska said:

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.

Pretty much agreed. There is no "fix all" for the balance issues in COH. It's why I'm always for focused changes based on numbers, testing, datamining.

 

Thankfully seems like the HC devs are too.

[golstat2003]

8 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute sounds equitable?

 

What is your gain for making a Brute exactly?

 

 

But can you do so without hurting damage? Because if you end up with Tanker equivalent survivability and less damage on top of having a harder time maintaining aggro then you made a serious mistake in playing the Brute.

My gain is not expecting to be a taunt bot when I don't want to be. Teams are more accepting of Brutes not having taunt. I can't say the same for tanks without it.

[golstat2003]

8 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

Certainly. And before I would advocate any sort of change I would want a careful examination of Bubba's setup, examples from other powerset combos, and careful analysis of why the results are whatever they turn out to be. My pushback was with the notion that, "Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute" is equitable.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned they've spent enough time tweaking Tanks and Brutes. There was actually discussion and rounds for months on this on these forums during the last time they were tweaking tanks (with some tweaks for Brutes) .

 

They have better things to do. With other ATs needing help. Time to move on.

[golstat2003]

6 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

The opening of your paragraph should read:

"When a defender uses their time to carry out the inherent functions of their archetype...."

 

 ... and then anything else after the point that their functional role is fulfilled that the player wants to do is entirely up to the player/playstyle.

 

The role of the defender archetype is not in any way supposed to be on par with the highest damage outputting archetypes. Damage procs make it easier for players to use archetypes in a way they weren't intended to fit their playstyle, but it goes against the design of archetypes to begin with and severely diminishes the uniqueness of each archetype and their role within a team.

I guess the question is  . . . how many folks actually care about this anymore? Would be an interesting question to ask.

 

From what I've been seeing with how teams form on HC, I would bet not many.

[Glacier Peak]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

I guess the question is  . . . how many folks actually care about this anymore? Would be an interesting question to ask.

 

From what I've been seeing with how teams form on HC, I would bet not many.

I agree, fair question to pose. I would say I see archetype roles played more in the earlier levels. After about level 35 I don't really see it. 

[Glacier Peak]

1 hour ago, Erratic1 said:

Its less the formatting change then selective replying to portions of entire sentences, as if the phrase is not within a context.

 

As example...

 

 

Replied to in the following fashion:

 

In fact the sentence is not false, but the formatting makes it appear what said was something about how defenders uniformly must play the game when what was said was that if a defender wants to get maximum damage they have to spend time setting it up all the blather about agreeing to terms of service in the game and being free to play the game your own way notwithstanding.

Of course, notwithstanding. 

[Glacier Peak]

1 hour ago, TheZag said:

But for something more on topic

The bottom of my post was pretty clearly on topic. 

[golstat2003]

Just now, Glacier Peak said:

I agree, fair question to pose. I would say I see archetype roles played more in the earlier levels. After about level 35 I don't really see it. 

Yeah true. At level 35 and up I've seen less, "wait for the tank to aggro then go" (though there is admittedly WAY LESS of than on HC than on Live for obvious reasons LOL). At that point folks got their nukes and have gotten some end management, and it's teams rushing from spawn to spawn. Less waiting for the tank, less waiting for lockdown from the dom/controller, less waiting for debuffing from the defender, corrupter, etc.

 

Hell in most AV fights, some one just yells "I found the AV" and fight.

 

I suspect . . . thought that this started long before HC. I think the exact time when AT roles became less and less important was the issue they made it possible to switch sides, followed by the additional change to be able to make ANY AT on ANY side. After that role became less important when you have multiple ATs on either side that can fill a role. (Some, multiple roles at the same time LOL).

 

Now the question is . . . is that a bad thing. I'm  . . . not really sure. I'd argue with the history of COH and it's anti-trinity history, PROBABLY not.

 

Interesting side discussion.

[Glacier Peak]

20 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Pretty much agreed. There is no "fix all" for the balance issues in COH. It's why I'm always for focused changes based on numbers, testing, datamining.

 

Thankfully seems like the HC devs are too.

Totally agree here. 

[Galaxy Brain]

3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

There’s a lot of good topics for a few new threads.  I started to respond to your question on ATOs but realized it was getting lost in the noise.

I think ATO's may be a good starting point still for the general IO discussion, as I feel they have the strongest impact on some AT's (Scrappers/Stalkers) and not so much on others.

 

Would *more* ATO options possibly be good? 

[Glacier Peak]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

Yeah true. At level 35 and up I've seen less, "wait for the tank to aggro then go" (though there is admittedly WAY LESS of than on HC than on Live for obvious reasons LOL). At that point folks got their nukes and have gotten some end management, and it's teams rushing from spawn to spawn. Less waiting for the tank, less waiting for lockdown from the dom/controller, less waiting for debuffing from the defender, corrupter, etc.

 

Hell in most AV fights, some one just yells "I found the AV" and fight.

 

I suspect . . . thought that this started long before HC. I think the exact time when AT roles became less and less important was the issue they made it possible to switch sides, followed by the additional change to be able to make ANY AT on ANY side. After that role became less important when you have multiple ATs on either side that can fill a role. (Some, multiple roles at the same time LOL).

 

Now the question is . . . is that a bad thing. I'm  . . . not really sure. I'd argue with the history of COH and it's anti-trinity history, PROBABLY not.

 

Interesting side discussion.

Yeah, I have to keep agreeing with you.

 

More of an aside, the role of side switching on live and even more so on HC has had the effect of playing with different color playdoh then putting it all away in the same container. City of Heroes content (up until side switching debuted) wasn't designed to be played with a Brute or Mastermind. Players can run villain ATs with interesting affects.

 

Yeah, so I can't say it's a bad thing either. Just another way to play. 

[golstat2003]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think ATO's may be a good starting point still for the general IO discussion, as I feel they have the strongest impact on some AT's (Scrappers/Stalkers) and not so much on others.

 

Would *more* ATO options possibly be good? 

Yes, as THOSE actually seem more useful to me than procs. But I'm biased against RNG-based things in mmos, so ignore me on THAT front. 😛

 

But seriously, additional ATOs would be great. Not sure they could make any as game changing as the Stalker one was. But who knows. HC devs be crafty. LOL