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

[golstat2003]

On 2/13/2021 at 2:44 PM, Doomguide2005 said:

     Balance I'd like you to meet your arch nemesis Perception.  

 

     As Luminara pointed out a while back basic IO's are largely already balanced by ED.  The values of ED don't care how they're reached whether it's IOs, SOs, TOs or some combination.

     The problem ("Oh!, Hi there Perception what's up?") is more about set bonuses and judging from the thread procs.

    Balance in a system this complex and variable strikes me as a worthy goal but essentially impossible and very subject to Perception (see Bill Z's response to Tidge above).  For one I don't think any of us expect (and that's probably not true, but they have a server doing that already I believe) a static game which is probably the only place and time any Dev team has even a remote chance of achieving anything considered balanced by anything close to a 100% of the playerbase.  What we want I'm thinking is to be close enough (whatever the hell that means), close enough to be considered fair and equitable.  But again Perception and as Troo put it Expectations poke their heads in and Consesus tends to start dancing between the exit door and a spot at the table.

 

My expectation is that the devs will continue doing targetted buffs and nerfs.

 

Wholesale changes to the IO system, AT system etc are out of the question. It's just not realistic to expect that (wholesale changes) AND still expect more Incarnate content, more pre-level 50 content, more and new costume pieces, new powersets, new ATs, etc., anytime before 2051.

 

Thankfully it doesn't seem anyone in this thread has been crazy enough to expect the underlined above.

 

This thread has been great theory crafting however.

Edited February 17, 2021 by golstat2003

[Frosticus]

I'd be all for sets like stun/dam, hold/dam, -tohit/dam, etc

 

I'd be far more likely to forgo some of the procs in my st hold on my troller for some decent set bonuses in a hold/dam set. I can already do that with dam/mez HO's, but at the cost of set bonuses. Procs (generally) provide a bit more value to me than a dam/mez HO, but I'd rethink that if set bonuses were involved.

[OldManMercy]

On 1/22/2021 at 7:15 AM, Hyperstrike said:

No.  No it is not.
A team running +4x8 is technically an anomaly.
Yes, we have lots of VERY hardcore, expert players HERE.  That doesn't mean the game is BALANCED around min-maxed-to-a-fare-thee-well builds are "the norm"

NOR SHOULD THEY BE.

 

You can still play through most of the game, perfectly fine, running nothing but SOs or generic IOs.

Some of the ultra-high-end and incarnate content will probably be a painful slog.  But the game is SUPPOSED TO BE a challenge.

I dunno. I remember back on live PLENTY of teams running around at max settings. Hell, I had a full SO only SS/WP brute I used to run the Nemesis farm redside with to grind prestige/inf and powerlevel people. At +4/x8. I could die if I mismanaged the mob, and it was plenty fun.

Personally, if you want to kill a game, balance content around the minmaxed high end characters. That's my two cents.

[Luminara]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

Nothing should be equally useful to everyone. This is very true, but when it comes to the options available to make cool / fun builds (not even meta ones!) there is a balancing act for how many options + the quality of those options.

 

It isn't possible to balance around a completely subjective concept, like fun.  Not any aspect.  Even attempting to do so only leads to strife.  KB is a prime example of this.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

The mention of City of Statues here is odd as.... well you can do that if you slot these attacks for Stun currently?

 

Within constraints.  For example, not having IO sets with Dam/Mez, thus not having set bonuses from that approach to slotting, is a constraint.  Not an oversight, not an accidental omission, a limitation.  Limitations of this nature are necessary in order to create a baseline for balancing the game.  You can't balance around players having Dam/Mez sets without making the content brutal for those who don't have them; and you can't balance around not having Dam/Mez sets without making the content trivial for those who do have them.

 

Cryptic threw away most of the balance mechanisms used in other games when they developed CoH.  Skill trees.  Limiting powers/skills/spells/attacks to fewer than 10.  Gear exclusive to each class, designed with carefully planned stat bonuses and only dropping from specific content.  The holy trinity.  Team content requiring said trinity.  But in doing so, they discovered that some limitations have to exist, or content becomes impossible to balance.  Thus ED, GDN, the purple patch, PToD, and the nerf to status effects which ended City of Statues.

 

Yes, you can still slot for both Damage and Mez.  But you can't maximize both and receive the top end set bonuses.  That constraint is necessary in order to provide at least some passing semblance of parity between those who have Dam/Mez and those who do not.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

Me pointing out that X family of sets are lacking

 

Objectively, I disagree.  I don't think they're lacking simply because they don't have more popular procs or unique IOs.  The player makes the procs, uniques or set bonuses useful, not the other way around.  Subjectively, I can agree that there's often little reason to use some sets when practically anything else is available, and as often as not, the powers into which these IOs can be slotted may not even be worth taking.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

is not me taking an authoritative stance

 

You just spent the last few posts arguing that Stun sets are bad.  You went into detail about how bad the procs, specifically, are, and why.  Not bad for your particular style, or bad for some of your builds, just bad.  Given the analysis, comparisons and implied conclusion that the horribadness of Stun sets impacts all players, it doesn't read like an opinion.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

But, you can optimize yourself through global bonuses to minimize those chances and have enough recharge to roll the dice often enough for it to on average get the results you planned for. The question though is if that is a good thing or not.

 

If the question is being asked with the presumption that there's a problem that must be rooted out and squashed, is it the right question?

 

Here's a question: where's the evidence that there is a problem?

 

Where are the performance metrics for what different procs do in regard to survivability and speed of progression?  Where are the analyses showing how use of procs creates any kind of problem?  If, as was previously posited by someone else, defenders using procs is a problem, why hasn't anyone posted run times and survivability comparisons for defenders with procs versus blasters?  If players can take unenhanced characters, team up and use their powers to rampage through the game at max difficulty, then how do procs cause problems for teams?  If a solo player's performance in missions is isolated and has no effect on other players, how does proc usage in that situation cause a problem?  If procs skew progression and/or survivability so notably and obviously, why hasn't anyone posted any proof?

 

If there's a performance gulf so vast, it should be incredibly easy to provide multiple examples.  The lack thereof is noteworthy.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

with a 90% proc rate odds are high that you can rely on proc powers to work if you set yourself up for it most of the time to where it is often way better to use procs than other options, in the meta sense *limiting* player options if they want to be effective.

 

 

Post the builds, run time comparisons, survivability breakdowns and other performance statistics.  If you have evidence supporting your assertion, I'd love to see it.  That's not a facetious remark, I'd actually love to see them.  Not pylon tests, though.  Pylons don't wander out of AoE radius at just the wrong moment.  Pylons don't spread out and have to be aggroed or snuck around to find an optimal clump for cone usage.  Pylons don't move, so they don't show the benefit of using a Slow or Immob.  Pylons aren't good test subjects for a lot of powers.  I'd like to see the results from your test map, not pylons.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

My earlier example of Battle Axe vs Broadsword showed  that one has more slotting options than the other due to having -Def as a trait.

 

An in-depth examination of the benefits of the KB IO sets versus -Def and Accurate -Def sets, and how they pertain specifically to Axe and Broadsword, aid in survivability, improve progression speed, etc., would go much further toward providing impetus for change and provoking thought than a comparison of how many crayons are in each box.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

I'm curious though @Luminaraas most of your responses have been specifically aimed at me.

 

You appear to enjoy a vigorous debate, and aren't so thin-skinned as to take umbrage at a blunt tone.

 

On 2/17/2021 at 1:10 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

What is your take on the subject as a whole?

 

Identify whether there is a problem, what and where it is if one exists, and why and how it's a problem.  Post comparisons in actual use to quantify and qualify any existing issue.

 

You want more IO sets, but you also want IO sets to be balanced against one another.  Have you analyzed the existing sets, compared their performance in the game and in use in different power sets?  How do you provide parity or balance without doing that, without knowing at what point parity or balance currently sit?  Have you considered any of the potential negative repercussions, such as how it will affect the use of converters, or market changes, or means of addressing them?

 

You say that procs are over-performing.  Have you performed tests, analyzed performance results, compared run times, collated incoming damage to determine survivability, examined total damage over time, anything?  You've got comparisons and analyses of different power set combinations all over the place, a special AE map for testing... and you don't have a single chart or spreadsheet showing how heavy proc builds perform in comparison to traditional builds?

 

You justify revising IO sets with comments about effectiveness and viability, but doesn't any use of IOs place us above the bar in both?  The bar is SOs, after all.  To what are you comparing in that determination of effectiveness and viability, then, and more importantly, where's the data to show that some IO set categories fail to offer sufficient improved effectiveness or viability when compared to other IO sets?  How do you determine that any IO set fails to be effective or viable without testing and documenting the results?

 

And if IO sets are causing some kind of problem, wouldn't adding more sets exacerbate that problem?  If procs are over-powered, does it make sense to add more procs to the game?  If set bonuses are straining the balance budget and causing player fatigue by making the game too easy, is it wise to increase the number of sets in each category?  Quantitatively, why would 5 or 6 or 10 be better than 4, if 4 does everything that needs to be done and then some?

 

Facts.  Information.  Tests.  Verifiable and repeatable results.  I want numbers, not rumors and guesses.  Facts, not fantasy.  Math, not maybes.  If something is over-performing, or under-performing, show that it is, and how it is, so the problem is clear and actionable.  I'm objective, I can adapt to anything and I'll support any change for the good of the game, but I want hard data that proves that something is necessary before I add my voice to the choir.  This is Co*.  That's how we do things.  That's how we've always done things.  A different forum address and development team doesn't change that.

 

That's my take.

[Replacement]

11 hours ago, Luminara said:

It isn't possible to balance around a completely subjective concept, like fun

"Balancing around the concept of fun" is, in fact, 

The definition of game design.

 

Also, stop ignoring simple comparisons while claiming you need to see the facts.

 

Enough has been given to show you why @Galaxy Brain's claims (such as "stun sets are weak") aren't just him asserting his opinion as fact. You are just ignoring anything you don't like while trying to claim moral authority.

 

it's exhausting.

[America's Angel]

PVE should balance around what the majority uses.

 

Majority uses SOs.

 

The game could use some insanely hard additional content for the min/max endgame, though.

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by America's Angel

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

Majority uses SOs.

Citation needed. Until we have it, this opinion is nothing but that. It may have been true back before the snap. I find it a ridiculous assumption now.

[SwitchFade]

43 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Citation needed. Until we have it, this opinion is nothing but that. It may have been true back before the snap. I find it a ridiculous assumption now.

I find crocs ridiculous.

 

And birkenstocks.

 

Also, people who pay for groceries with cheques. That's still a thing?

 

65 cents for an extra sauce at a restaurant, now that's ridiculous.

 

The fact that a shampoo pump bottle has yet to be designed that can get the last three pumps out of the bottom... Nope, gotta uncap and shake out that last bit...

 

I digress.

[Apparition]

49 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Citation needed. Until we have it, this opinion is nothing but that. It may have been true back before the snap. I find it a ridiculous assumption now.

 

Anecdote isn't data, but if you hang out in Ouroboros long enough, you'll see a lot of level 50+3s without an IO enhancement set to their name.  Also, yesterday I formed several level 40+ PUG TFs/SFs/Trials, and encountered several people without an IO enhancement set to their name either.

[Bill Z Bubba]

55 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Anecdote isn't data, but if you hang out in Ouroboros long enough, you'll see a lot of level 50+3s without an IO enhancement set to their name.  Also, yesterday I formed several level 40+ PUG TFs/SFs/Trials, and encountered several people without an IO enhancement set to their name either.

And I ran an ITF with my time/fire defender where we slaughtered everything because everyone on the team had IO set bonuses.

Like I said, I need data from the devs. Anything short of that ain't enough.

[Haijinx]

3 hours ago, America's Angel said:

PVE should balance around what the majority uses.

 

Majority uses SOs.

 

The game could use some insanely hard additional content for the min/max endgame, though.

 

Yeah.

 

Whenever they redesign this game's mechanics or for COH 2 or whatever,  This design for SO's crap needs to die in a fire, then a thunderous blast, then a shockwave followed by a rain of arrows. 

[Galaxy Brain]

As I mentioned in the OP, we really do not know the ratio of people using IOs straight-up. If I had to guess, like many other posts I've made here, I would wager that many more players (not necessarily characters, but individual players) use the IO system to where it can be seen as the HC norm.

 

@Luminara, I'll bite but we need some parameters. Luckily, I have a suite of Scrappers with basic SO builds as a baseline that happen to have a ton of results. They also happen to be an AT that deals great damage and has decent survival out the gate, so both aspects can be tested like in the OG test on SOS.

 

I figure we can try going full-procs on one build, and then going more for set bonuses on another and see what gives better results. For the sake of results though, it'd probably be better to pick only a few sets out of the nearly 20 scrapper sets as many would likely have the same slotting options. Some of the sets should have less options, some more, to show the impact of certain options available.

 

We could also probably isolate some things like Battle Axe on SO's but with a spread of Force Feedback procs. Or a run with just Gaussian's in build up vs not, etc.

[oedipus_tex]

The thing about this discussion is I'd give a different answer about IOs depending on whether we were talking about an established server or a new one that had not yet launched. I feel like there's a kind of "contract" developers have with their players. It may not be fair to snatch something out from under them. On the other hand, I do wish there were servers that reeled in some of the statistics.

 

For Homecoming, sticking to what's there might be best. I say "might be" because I trust this dev team and if they did decide to make changes I'd probably be ok with them.

 

New server? Totally different answer. I'd be taking a hard look at these IOs:

• Steadfast +3% and  Gladiator's +3% - Cut this bonus to 1%, which is still incredibly good for 1 slot. Maybe should even be +0.5% or changed to positional/specific elemental defense.
• The Winter's Gift sets: Lower set bonuses by a tier or so. Hard look at the -Recharge resistance this offers
• ATO sets: Probably would not launch the server with these live. Put in cold storage for a future possible update
• -KB procs: Reduce how reliable these are at providing completely immunity to knockdown powers

 

This would be accompanied by other changes, like turning Hasten into a +15% always on global recharge bonus, slashing recharges on some long recharge powers to compensate.  

These are all dreams of course of a game that is more like a City of Heroes 2 than what we currently have.

On the other hand, having picked through the code, I do think that is more feasible than a stream of new high level content. New content is very difficult to create, and new content that challenges players with the stats the current systems put them at is very hard to build without creating something that tickles Armored characters and vaporizes Squishies instantly. 

[America's Angel]

9 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Citation needed. Until we have it, this opinion is nothing but that. It may have been true back before the snap. I find it a ridiculous assumption now.

I remember the devs confirming this about a year ago. (Just went looking, but wasn't able to find the post)

 

My memory is a little fuzzy, but IIRC they did a bunch of datamining and found that not only do most players use SOs, but most of the players who use IOs just slot random stuff and hope for the best.

[Snarky]

31 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

I remember the devs confirming this about a year ago. (Just went looking, but wasn't able to find the post)

 

My memory is a little fuzzy, but IIRC they did a bunch of datamining and found that not only do most players use SOs, but most of the players who use IOs just slot random stuff and hope for the best.

I find this hard to believe,  Rarely do I get curious about a persons powers.  Usually a Brute or a Tank. I run Brutes and like to know what to expect from a teammate.  Or if I am on a squishy to know what type of Tank I am working with.

 

I literally cannot remember the last time I examined a character and saw no set bonuses.  Maybe I have forgot, and I do not do it all the time.  Still, my memory is not complete crap.  Most of the time I see set bonuses, generally a lot of them.

 

And NO.  No one should alter the game based on ANY of the wild haired ideas or assumptions in this thread.  Are you people bonkers?  We got our game back.  You want to re-configure the whole power balance?  Are you ignorant?  Seriously?  Or just plain stupid?  Rebalancing this old game would take a ton of work and we have no idea how it would affect play and community, teams, patterns, market, the list goes on.

 

If it is not broke, do not 'fix' it.  Wow, just bonkers from first page to here.  

 

*steps down off soapbox.

[oedipus_tex]

31 minutes ago, Snarky said:

Are you people bonkers?  We got our game back.  You want to re-configure the whole power balance?  Are you ignorant?  Seriously?  Or just plain stupid?  Rebalancing this old game would take a ton of work and we have no idea how it would affect play and community, teams, patterns, market, the list goes on.

 

Heh.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Troo]

On 2/14/2021 at 10:36 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

So in my opinion, its not so much catering to the tip-top edge of the meta, but looking at the real "average" meta. If tons of people are in fact using IO's, lets say the majority of PLAYERS (not just characters) do use the IO system, I think it would be worth looking into the balance of IO's when it comes to IO Set design / unique perks, how they drop, how they get crafted, and so on.

I am willing to be wrong, but I think you would find the the 'average meta' surprisingly lower than you are indicating.

 

As I said 30 pages ago, sure IOs could be used as the current balance point given power creep. (generic IOs not set bonuses or ATOs)

 

[Galaxy Brain]

So, did some fiddling with Broadsword as it's a pretty middle of the road set to test offense with both Damage Procs and Achilles' Heel.

 

 

With Broadsword on a generic SO build as a baseline, I took Slice (the cone), Whirling Sword (the PBAoE), and Disembowel (strongest ST attack) and added procs and frankenslotted a bit to get a measure for performance from the SO level + X. Each attack had the same damage enhancement value within 0.5% slotting, as well as roughly the same Acc/End/Rech as a single SO + the Achille's proc, 1-2 damage procs, or a combo of 1 dam / 1 Achilles. No set bonuses or other globals were used. Each test was run once with 65 enemies per run to mow through at +0/x3 difficulty, with the above being the results (more extensive results to come, this was more just to get bearings and see if anything major popped up right away). 

 

The biggest thing from SO's to added procs was the amount of attacks needed to complete the mission. Dropping from 180 to between 124-129 is a massive difference of over 50 clicks thanks to only 3 powers. The total damage on SO's is the greatest per this, but that is due to so many enemies having that *sliver* of HP left in the logs. If I swing for 100 each strike and enemies have 101 hp, it will track as dealing 200 damage. On the defense, dropping enemies much faster ended up with far less damage taken than on SO's as well. DPS didn't swing *too* wildly, but its interesting to see that only adding Achilles kept it roughly the same as on SO's despite all other metrics being better. Adding procs gave much better damage per attack than just Achilles as well, which makes sense given it's raw damage, tho I may have gotten lucky on the single proc run in some respects. Damage per Enemy being lower though is a good thing, as it points to less "overkill" swings being needed, and Seconds per Enemy is likewise self explanatory.

 

Slice = 165 dam, 71.75 damage proc = 44% boost

Whirling Sword = 170.7 dam (with DoT), proc = 42% boost

Disembowel = 262.9 dam, proc = 27% boost

 

With this in mind, it's easy to see where the power of damage procs lies. Achilles' would boost the output by 20%, but comparatively the procs all do better even vs the 95% enhanced damage of these Scrapper powers. With Achilles' active, you'd boost the %'s by 20%. With more procs, the potential boost is multiplied per proc + the odds of rolling *a* proc gets multiplicatively better.

 

Slice = 35% chance per 3.5ppm proc (58% chance of 1 of 2 procs hitting)

W Sword = 40% chance per 3.5ppm proc (64% chance of 1 of 2 procs hitting)

Disembowel = 54% chance per 3.5ppm proc (79% chance of 1 of 2 procs hitting)

 

Its easy to see how the combo of Achilles and 1 proc pulled ahead in time and dam/enemy though, with fairly solid odds per swing that either your target or multiple targets in the group will have either -Res or bonus damage applied to greatly increase output even with basic enhancements / values throughout.

 

[Haijinx]

7 hours ago, Snarky said:

 

And NO.  No one should alter the game based on ANY of the wild haired ideas or assumptions in this thread.  Are you people bonkers?  We got our game back.  You want to re-configure the whole power balance?  Are you ignorant?  Seriously?  Or just plain stupid?  Rebalancing this old game would take a ton of work and we have no idea how it would affect play and community, teams, patterns, market, the list goes on.

 

If it is not broke, do not 'fix' it.  Wow, just bonkers from first page to here.  

 

The entire game mechanics are what's bonkers.

 

Past a certain point, many high level teams live most of their time in a world where the Good Guys have a 95% chance to hit, and the bad guys have a 5% chance to hit.

 

Then beyond that many individual characters achieve the same results with NO TEAM.   And that's just where their build goals START.

 

That's no mechanics basically.   No Balance.  Eventually No Fun.   

 

Though, I agree there is no point in fixing it.  Not for the general population.  They lack the critical detachment to see it as a problem.  Thus I mentioned a new server or COH 2.  

 

[Haijinx]

5 hours ago, Troo said:

I am willing to be wrong, but I think you would find the the 'average meta' surprisingly lower than you are indicating.

 

As I said 30 pages ago, sure IOs could be used as the current balance point given power creep. (generic IOs not set bonuses or ATOs)

 

I think we have to consider that one reason many people do not bother with IOs till their character hits level 50 is that the game is so damn easy they just don't need to. 

[Haijinx]

I imagine if you just got rid of stacking for Players on Maneuvers and Tactics, I bet you would see a huge increase in the percentage of levelers using IOs before level 50 

 

It would also probably improve balance a lot.  

[Troo]

3 hours ago, Haijinx said:

I think we have to consider that one reason many people do not bother with IOs till their character hits level 50 is that the game is so damn easy they just don't need to. 

This may simply be a result of p2w exp boosts.

Yes, it's easy (as intended) but the leveling happens quickly enough that it discourages gearing up for some folks.

+acc and some end mitigation is definitely needed after 30.

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, Haijinx said:

The entire game mechanics are what's bonkers.

 

Past a certain point, many high level teams live most of their time in a world where the Good Guys have a 95% chance to hit, and the bad guys have a 5% chance to hit.

 

Then beyond that many individual characters achieve the same results with NO TEAM.   And that's just where their build goals START.

 

That's no mechanics basically.   No Balance.  Eventually No Fun.   

 

Though, I agree there is no point in fixing it.  Not for the general population.  They lack the critical detachment to see it as a problem.  Thus I mentioned a new server or COH 2.  

 

Many folks on these forums and in game have wildly different definitions of fun. It has nothing really to do with critical detachment and everything to do with WHY folks play this game to this day.

 

I'll just say this and leave it at that.

 

EDIT: With that said a lot of the choices made for COH probably would need to be different for COH2. I for one would like to see (in the mythical COH2) a system for building characters that's more akin to Champions Online, and not the AT system again.

Edited February 21, 2021 by golstat2003

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, Haijinx said:

I think we have to consider that one reason many people do not bother with IOs till their character hits level 50 is that the game is so damn easy they just don't need to. 

Or it's too annoying to deal with IOs in the lower levels. Or the IOs available post 50 are a magnitude better than anything you can get pre-50. Which they are.

[Troo]

18 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Or it's too annoying to deal with IOs in the lower levels. Or the IOs available post 50 are a magnitude better than anything you can get pre-50. Which they are.

Annoying to craft and/or use the market, is that what you mean? (I'm just wanting to understand better)

 

I'll definitely concede there is a wide range of fun to be had.

 

-----+------+-------

 

Game balance is a perpetual goal and an outcome. Trying to identify or quantify it with a mathematical equation is as futile as trying to capture the ocean in a glass. (you can get part of it but miss the whole)

 

The first "I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime; a triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being. Thus I redesigned it, based on your history, to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. " -the architect

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Troo