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

[Greycat]

30 minutes ago, parabola said:

You may not play those builds but you have clearly come across them and it seems to have affected your teaming experience as you have chosen to solo instead.

... no. Don't take the wrong conclusion from that.

 

There's no "instead" for me. I team when I feel like teaming. I solo when I don't. If I'm finding myself awake at 2 AM, I'll generally ignore teams and do my thing. If I feel like soloing, I'll solo. If a task force comes out that sounds interesting, I'll hop on.

 

There's not an instead or or there. I can and will gripe about some content being trivialized, yes - just look at my posting history. I think dropping the "rule of 5" down to a "rule of 3" for set bonuses (and throwing LOTG in with the rest of the recharge) would be a huge, yet unpopular, help for the game. But it won't *stop* me from teaming. The only thing that determines if I'm teaming or not at any particular time (since it's perfectly easy to post "level eleventyseven blastronker running missions, 7 spots" in LFG) is if I feel like doing so.

[golstat2003]

9 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

 

 

 

I would not advocate for getting rid of Council PI teams ever. They can be a blast of mindless fun and perfectly scratch that CoH itch if you're just hopping on for a bit! However, its a problem when it becomes the *dominant* content that a lot of teams fall into, taking away opportunities from those who would like to see more of the game. Any time when the gameplay "Stagnates" due to overly dominant, or overly... bad options shift player actions is when balance should be looked into. It's perfectly fine to have a spread of effectiveness, but it's not ok to have a TW and a KM, or a Council Radio and Rularuu Arc in the same spreads with imbalanced effort/reward ratios that end up with options left to the wayside.

 

 

 

You had me up until the bolded. If folks want to see other content they can form teams for tfs. Folks will come. There really is no tf or sf that has an issue forming. Especially strike targets. If that's the concern just increase the number of weekly tfs/sfs that are strike targets. Also I don't think it really lines up to compare something that gives merit rewards (sfs and tfs) versus something that doesn't (Newspaper/radio missions of any type).

[Luminara]

37 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

I also didn’t say anything about forcing people to team.

 

You suggested a global nerf to Defense to reduce solo players' ability to progress by themselves and proselytized about teaming throughout the post.

 

In other words, you posted an idea which would lead to forced teaming and tried to convince everyone that it would be beneficial.

 

I really don't like spin doctoring.  If you can't stand by what you say, don't say it.

[Brutal Justice]

7 hours ago, DSorrow said:

So how is it that you don't realize that nerfing Defense caps has the exact same disproportionate effect? With your change, any Tanker Defensive primary is, relative to Resistance sets, gutted against Incarnate enemies. Similarly, Def based primaries/secondaries get shafted against any enemy groups with heavy -Def (hint: most of them), unless you happen to be SR or Shield (lots of DDR) and fighting non-incarnate mobs. Whether you realized it or not, this is the result, or goal in your words, and it's a massive nerf to certain sets in certain circumstances leading to, e.g. Def based Tankers being worse than Resistance Scrappers against Incarnate mobs.

I do realize it would affect defensive powersets more heavily than resistant.  Possibly resistant power sets would over take the top spot for durability.  Somebody will always be at the top, it’s simply a matter of by how much.  I don’t think a defense tank would become worse than a resist scrapper.  

 

A tanker at 90% resistance still eats debuffs and mezes.  Certain mobs will still mez you even if your at 90% resistance.  You may resist the -resist debuffs but you still take them and they will get through eventually.  

 

A blaster at 45% defense has a 5% chance of getting hit by a debuff or mez.  5% is an extremely small chance when the blaster can defeat all the mobs in 10s or less.  Council can put out a decent amount of -def, but if they can’t apply that debuff, then they become the bug on a windshield they currently are.  

 

You can over slot def to negate any -def debuff that does manage to land.   Resistance resists -resistance but you can’t overslot resistance to completely avoid the debuff.  Defense is already disproportionately stronger.  

 

To try to compensate for this they have been giving mobs auto hit powers.  These already play unfairly with defense.  The resist toon was already going to be hit by it.  I don’t think there is an enemy faction without some form of debuff.  These mobs would become more difficult if they could just land some of them.  They wouldn’t require a ton of volunteer dev resources to rebalance them.  

 

Upon further thought.  I am fairly certain if you’re at 90% res and take some -res debuff, you could pop unstoppable or some similar “overcapping” power and push back up to 90.  Don’t quote me on that.  I believe the same could be done with a defense toon if they had a hard cap.  The hard cap keeps you from exceeding that level of performance but it doesn’t actually keep you from “artificially” acquiring more.  So in theory an ice scrapper with a hard cap of 40% def could take a -def debuff and pop energy absorption and get back up to 40% even with the debuff.  I have no idea if this is how it works it’s purely hypothetical.  I just have a foggy recollection of somebody explaining how having “more than” the hard cap of resistance actually comes into play once you’ve been hit with a debuff.  

[golstat2003]

33 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Still feel people are missing context or seem to forget that different players enjoy different ways of spending their time on the game. It's an MMO. Its not a "team focused" game. Its a game that has teaming content and features. And personally the moment I am penalized for playing solo on my own schedule doing for what I want to do, for playing how I want to play, is the day I uninstall. Because spoiler alert, some people play the game for their own enjoyment, which does not always include teaming with other people. If I "want" to, then I will. But I won't be bribed/cocered/browbeaten into doing it if I don't want to. 

 

And I would like to point out from where I sit, those people who are on the "we need to fix the teaming game" side of things, well why not just take 1 or 2 less people? Poof. Problem solved. And not all builds who can solo 4/8 are absurdly OP over 9000 damage type of builds either. Personally my favorite character is my robot/ea MM. She solos the hardest content just fine, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would accuse her of having too much dps or being too powerful. And teams have always felt all too happy to have endless END, +absorb, and status protection when I am around. 

 

If people were serious about balance, personally I would take a long hard look at buffs/debuffs/dps/cc values.

 

And personally I would love an indepth explination of how the solo people are a problem/difficulty for the team game. Just how precisely is my Robot/EA MM "dangerous" to your team interactions? My damage is only so-so, I have little CC to speak of (only bonfire), and sure, I "could" run off and probially solo an entire spawn if I wanted to, but it would take forever, and wouldn't be helpful to the team at all.

 

Honestly, this entire thread is turning into a "I want people to play MY way" discussion. We have everything from "soloists are too good" to "lets try to encourage people to team more" to "nerf defense" to "higher difficulty shouldnt give more money." How is any of this game balance? Since when "did only teams" matter?

For the bolded: Hence why my position is always make changes that soloists, teams, team leaders can OPT INTO via difficulty options. Leave the main game currently as is.

[Luminara]

53 minutes ago, parabola said:

If somebody brings a build that can solo at 4/8 to a team they are inevitably going to have a big impact on how that team feels for the other players.

 

Yeah, it would feel a lot more relaxed and enjoyable.  No pressure to do a job, no stress about having to meet expectations, no anxiety about having to fulfill role requirements, just cruise along and have fun.

 

One would almost suspect that someone in charge remembered that games are supposed to be fun, not 40 hour shifts at a labor camp.

[Galaxy Brain]

43 minutes ago, Luminara said:

Neither of those enemy groups are any more difficult than any other group, they're merely perceived as such by people who build in specific and limited ways, those who focus exclusively on what's considered "common" and ignore everything else.  There's more to the game than Lethal/Smashing Defense and burst DPS, and the challenge represented by any particular enemy group is not a universal constant, rather a character-dependent variable.  That was the purpose of using two different characters facing different enemy groups as an example.  Each experiences different challenge levels when facing different groups.

 

Trick Arrows characters struggle with Council, because Marksmen impose -Recharge, Warwolves completely ignore Slows and have Immob protection... and they spawn without the debuffs on their placeholder critters, forcing the TA to reapply his/her click debuffs mid-combat, and since debuffs have an animation time, the TA can take significant damage, or be defeated, before those debuffs are active.  This is an example of an enemy group presenting greater than average challenge, despite being considered "easy".

 

It all depends on us.  Not the groups, not even specific foes within groups, but us.  The choices we make, the characters we play, the builds we design and implement.  We create our own challenge level within the game.  For every group someone says is "hard", there are plenty of builds available that make them easy.  The obverse face of the coin is just as true, some of the "easy" groups are a pain in the ass for many builds.

I think we're looking at this in two different lights. 

 

Yes, it is 100% true that certain builds or sets have an easier or harder time vs certain groups. However, you gotta look at the grand scheme and not just the exceptions. Lets say 5% of characters struggle inherently vs Council as it is just a bad match-up, as you described with Trick Arrow. Likewise, lets say 20% of characters struggle against Carnies as they are a bad match-up the same way Council are vs Trick Arrow. That same TA character could for example have a field day vs Carnies that an Invuln character shudders at, while the reverse is true vs Council. This doesn't change that on average the Carnies are more dangerous to more characters in this example scenario. 

 

Lets take another example, where end game Banished Pantheon have a bunch of Cold Damage attacks + slow debuffs / other nasties. Does the fact that Ice Armor currently caps itself to Ice Res and Slow Res invalidate that endgame BP are much more difficult to tons of other sets? Circling back to Psychic damage:

 

 

5/12 armor sets, 6/14 when we include Regen and Ninjitsu (Regen's resist is smol + it actually greatly dislikes Psy damage because -Rech messes with clicks, so while it does resist it a little it still has a negative Matchup vs Psy I would argue, Bio has Psy Def which is not in the screenshot) equates to ~60% of melee characters specifically having a hole in their mitigation. On that alone, any enemy groups that feature Psychic damage on the whole are more dangerous than those without even if Dark Armor exists with it's massive Psy resist. 

 

Yes, exceptions exist and they always will but in the big picture there also exists groups that are definitely more difficult than others across multiple builds.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Neiska]

@golstat2003 Honestly? Some of the stuff being thrown around here in this thread makes me want to team even less. Not a huge fan of the "you will team and like it" or "i want teams to do anything but what they are already doing" points. At this point I am wondering how much of this is really about trying to get more people to team, and not about making someone who likes teaming to feel like the MVP anytime they feel like it, because I don't really see how any of this is "fostering community" and so on.

[Galaxy Brain]

16 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

You had me up until the bolded. If folks want to see other content they can form teams for tfs. Folks will come. There really is no tf or sf that has an issue forming. Especially strike targets. If that's the concern just increase the number of weekly tfs/sfs that are strike targets. Also I don't think it really lines up to compare something that gives merit rewards (sfs and tfs) versus something that doesn't (Newspaper/radio missions of any type).

They can certainly form teams for specific tasks, but when broadcasting which pulls more people?

[Brutal Justice]

44 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

Honestly, this entire thread is turning into a "I want people to play MY way" discussion. We have everything from "soloists are too good" to "lets try to encourage people to team more" to "nerf defense" to "higher difficulty shouldnt give more money." How is any of this game balance? Since when "did only teams" matter?

Your mm is an excellent example of balance.  It can do things just not over do things.  

 

Most of your fears and concerns have not been advocated for.  It’s just been people putting words into other people’s mouths.  Any “adjustment” to the game will affect solo players as well.  We are all playing the same game with the same rules.  

[Neiska]

@Brutal Justice - strong words from the person who posted "nerf defenses" and then said "soloists be fine". When my fears are not for myself, its for people who want to solo but are stuggling, because I assure you, they are out there. I have friends among them. 

 

Just saying, trying to force players to do things they dont want to do, wont suddenly find yourself knee deep in teams, but more occassional teamers such as myself or 100% pure soloists leave the game, leaving you with less people to play with.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

Who is this mythical "casual player" you keep mentioning?

Much like ROUS, I don't believe they really exist.

[ForeverLaxx]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

pointing out that your method of doing so would be detrimental in the long term

And I disagree. Certain builds are always going to have an "easier time" against certain enemy factions that are considered a pain, but remember that these factions are still considered a pain by the playerbase for a reason. Your example regarding Trick Arrow and Council applies to the Carnies just as much, if not more so. Sure, they aren't "immune" to slows but they do slam around -recharge, hard mez, soft mez, illusions, powerful debuffs, intangibility, endurance drain, etc. Compared to the Council, who really only annoy you with Marksman -recharge or have a single type of enemy that gets in your face despite immobs/slows, Carnies are a much more extensive and varied threat when compared to the Council.

 

Malta can be even worse. High duration holds from Gunslingers, slows/-recharge and endurance drain galore, robotic units that can combine into even tougher units if you don't defeat them fast enough and those machines come with dangerous levels of area mez and damage... clearly a more dangerous threat to more people than your basic Super Soldier using an M19 that might transform into a Warwolf if you're unlucky. Nemesis are relatively nonthreatening in my opinion, as long as you watch for the Snipers. If you "mess up" and they pop Vengeance because you downed the wrong guy too soon, it's a waiting game more than anything else. Just like Fake Nems, it's a "tax" on being indiscriminate. That doesn't make them harder to fight, though. It just makes you fight them longer. Kind of like a Paragon Protector popping MoG, you're not really in real danger of losing, but standing around is boring so people don't bother.

 

I'm not even going to touch on the Rularuu.

 

My point isn't "moot" just because you disagree with it and can find specific character cases that play directly into one enemy faction's comparatively minor strength. Bear in mind that I'm completely ignoring IO set bonuses here. The "baseline" character, even if a comparatively easy enemy faction has one or two problem enemy types, will have more overall issues with the "harder" enemy faction despite having tools better suited to fighting the harder faction that others. Looking at this from an IO Set Bonus angle, I feel, is wrong as that lets you craft the "perfect counter" to something to minimize their threat as much as possible. It's why fire farms exist and PI Council radios are in vogue. Because, even when you craft a build designed to fight Carnies or Malta better than anyone else, they're still going to be more difficult to fight and have no tangible reward increase to justify such a narrow focus when you can mow down Council or Sky Raiders worth the same per kill in less than half the time.

 

With characters running standard SO-level slotting, by and large, Council will be easier to handle than Carnies or Malta. Again, they're considered a pain for a reason, and one character having 35% Psi Res isn't going to make much headway against Illusionists and Carnie bosses tossing around Mask/Darkest Night debuffs while phasing in and out of existence, especially when that same character has 30+ resistance to smash/lethal and only has to worry about some minor -tohit debuff from Vampyri from time to time. If you take "full damage" from everything and have no way to fight off mez, it gets even more in the "I'd rather just fight Council" feeling's favor.

 

To me, any way you slice it, under standard SO/basic IO slotting, AT and Powerset differences become mostly irrelevant to what is easier or harder to fight. This is why I think the harder factions should be worth more.

[Brutal Justice]

50 minutes ago, Luminara said:

You suggested a global nerf to Defense to reduce solo players' ability to progress by themselves

Did I though?   I notice you didn’t quote anything to support this accusation.  

 

You yourself “check and mated” my supposed attempt to force people to team with several examples of how you wouldn’t be forced to team.  

 

You have provided me factual defense of such non factual accusations.  

 

Try providing a fact that would actually support your accusations of “forced teaming”.  

 

We can start fresh.  How would a 40% hard cap on defense result in forced teaming?  Lay out your facts in support of YOUR opinion that this would be a result and I’ll lay out MY facts in defense of this not being a result.  

[MoisesG]

Nerf Regen again and call it a day 🙂

[Bill Z Bubba]

15 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

How would a 40% hard cap on defense result in forced teaming?

It wouldn't. It would just be a completely useless nerf that grossly affects defense based sets. You do understand the difference between the soft cap and hard cap when it comes to defense, right? Are you aware that the actual current hard cap on defense is between 175% and 225% depending on AT? What would warrant such a nerf?

[Brutal Justice]

40 minutes ago, Neiska said:

@Brutal Justice - strong words from the person who posted "nerf defenses" and then said "soloists be fine". When my fears are not for myself, its for people who want to solo but are stuggling, because I assure you, they are out there. I have friends among them. 

 

Just saying, trying to force players to do things they dont want to do, wont suddenly find yourself knee deep in teams, but more occassional teamers such as myself or 100% pure soloists leave the game, leaving you with less people to play with.

I have never tried to force anybody to do anything they don’t want to do ie team.  Chances are if your friends are struggling to solo because of their build, and not for outside of game reasons, then they are not at the soft cap and wouldn’t be affected at all by placing a hard cap.  

 

These are actually the people I’m trying to protect with a defense hard cap.  Raising the difficulty of mobs, to meet us more advanced players desire for challenge, adversely affects these exact players.   Lowering the ceiling only affects those who can reach it.  Raising the floor affects all.  

 

40% defense hard cap doesn’t affect the base game.  It affects the top tier.  It also doesn’t make teaming mandatory.  

[DSorrow]

 

27 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

 How would a 40% hard cap on defense result in forced teaming?

How would it result in anything that is a net positive? You claim that it would be an improvement, so the burden of proof is on you. So far what I've seen is just an argument that lacks pretty much every essential part of a compelling proposal:

1. It starts from an unsubstantiated claim that Defense is the root cause of less teaming
2. It lacks the evidence supporting why altering the hard caps is the right solution
3. There's very little consideration of collateral damage or consequences in general because you dismiss the entire Def / ToHit mechanic you want to make a huge impact on

Basically, there's no what, why or and then. What there is a lot of, is avoidance of criticism and tunnel visioned pushing of a flawed suggestion with further arguments that amount to "it would be easy to work around" or "it wouldn't be that bad, just a minor nerf" which I basically interpret as you admitting it would be a pointless effort to implement in the first place. Why make a hugely controversial change that would, allegedly, be very minor or easy to work around. Then again, it could also be that you just can't let go of a bad idea or you want a minor nerf for the sake of it:

 

10 hours ago, Brutal Justice said:

That is the goal.  Minor nerf. 

 

So even if I'd agree with your idea in general, any sensible person would have to disagree on the particular suggestion just based on its poor composition.

[hastened]

What you are trying to go for is almost certainly a 40% soft cap, not 40% hard cap.  The Hard Cap constrains how much defense you can get.  The Soft Cap constrains how low the hit % chance can be after defense and to-hit adjustments are applied before accruacy.  Hard Capping Def to 40% screws over defense based sets (especially in cases where you need it to fight enemy To-Hit; Elude becomes completely redundant instead of a situational, mostly redundant power for example) but doesn't change durability for anyone applying any -ToHit debuffs at all. 

 

This mirrors the resist btw but not as strongly, in that 45% defense = 90% damage mitigation, 90% Res = 90% damage mitigation; Tankers cap at 90% resist/45% Def but squishies cap at 75% Res/45% Def, so locking the defense and res mitigation levels across archetype does make some kind of sense.  That would be equivalent to instituting a 37.5% Soft Cap on squishies, at which point capping Res mitigates equivalently to capping Def.

 

That being said, I get where this is coming from as I like things that are challenging, and there's somewhat limited design space to create challenging content when everyone is running up against the def caps and recharge caps.  Incarnates powers make this situation a lot worse when everyone can cap everything and become a demigod.

 

I'm not really sure this is a good fix though.  Generally, I like to see harder content introduced instead of nerfing people, but it can be hard if the math behind your system is too broken.

[Brutal Justice]

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

It wouldn't. It would just be a completely useless nerf that grossly affects defense based sets. You do understand the difference between the soft cap and hard cap when it comes to defense, right? Are you aware that the actual current hard cap on defense is between 175% and 225% depending on AT? What would warrant such a nerf?

I respect this.  I do know the difference between a hard cap and soft cap.  Right now the hard cap is meaningless in terms of mitigation and therefore we refer to the soft cap in relation to defense as opposed to the hard cap of resistance.  

 

The purpose of the nerf would be to combat power creep.  I related this nerf to my enjoyment of teaming for one reason.  Power creep of a soloist doesn’t really affect other people’s play experience.  Other than farming providing more resources for the economy, which I view as a positive effect of solo power creep.

 

As it has been mentioned by others, when one of these players capable of +4x8 solo joins a team, it now affects up to 7 other people.  It’s not actually the soloists ability to do this that is the most detrimental.  It’s the speed at which they can do it.  @Luminara could solo GMs in 2005.  I would wager they couldn’t do it anywhere close to as fast as a team could.  The issue isn’t really the ability, the issue is the speed.  

 

You’re a buzzsaw, a flurry of claws and brimstone and I image curse words.  You’re capable of clearing missions just as quick, if not quicker, than an average team.  Possibly even at a higher difficulty than that average team is capable of.  

 

You probably don’t join average teams very often, but if you did, you would leave nothing for that poor average controller or mastermind to do.  It’s simply to slow you down Bill.

 

There have been many avenues of power creep through the years. Inherent stamina, no prerequisite for travel powers are examples.  Removing inherent stamina wouldn’t overly nerf you, it would cause sacrifices in power selections which would slow you down a bit.  If you’re capped at 40 or 45% defense, maybe you will take darkest night for some -ToHit to “reach” your previous levels.  It’s a power choice that costs you a different choice.  It just slows you down.  It slows you down for the sake of balance.  It also has zero to little effect on people not at your level of play. Your level is the exception, not the norm.  

[Bill Z Bubba]

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

I respect this.  I do know the difference between a hard cap and soft cap.  Right now the hard cap is meaningless in terms of mitigation and therefore we refer to the soft cap in relation to defense as opposed to the hard cap of resistance.

Let's start here. Are you actually requesting a soft cap of 40% rather than 45% or are you asking for a hard cap of 40%? Lowering the soft cap would actually mean altering the tohit/defense equation. Making it a hard cap would grossly nerf defense based sets while barely touching sets based on healing or resistance. This is a ridiculous and unbalanced change with regards to the game's overall power creep, which, by the by, I absolutely agree has occurred over the years.

 

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

Power creep of a soloist doesn’t really affect other people’s play experience.

Untrue. Any power creep that affects any powerset affects ALL players that use said powerset, regardless of whether they are teamed or not.

 

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

The issue isn’t really the ability, the issue is the speed.

Speed of killing is determined by overall DPS. Nerfing our ability (again, overly nerfing defense based sets compared to healing/resist sets,) to mitigate damage won't slow down our ability to defeat enemies. I have to spend a half-second to click a respite? So what? I'm still slaughtering the masses by the thousands an hour. If your concern is solely based in kill speed, you should be requesting that the damage mitigation provided to enemy factions be buffed.

 

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

If you’re capped at 40 or 45% defense, maybe you will take darkest night for some -ToHit to “reach” your previous levels.  It’s a power choice that costs you a different choice.

Again, if you somehow cap defense at 40%, making it the new hard cap, you'll then be making all defense buffs completely useless for everyone that manages to hit that 40% without outside help. Force Field defenders ain't gonna like that one bit. If you really want everyone to lose 5% defense without affecting caps, just give all critters a +5% tohitbuff as they gave incarnate critters a +13% tohitbuff. This is why the defense soft cap against incarnate critters is 58%.

 

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

You’re a buzzsaw, a flurry of claws and brimstone and I image curse words.

Cussing is always involved.

 

35 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

You probably don’t join average teams very often, but if you did, you would leave nothing for that poor average controller or mastermind to do.  It’s simply to slow you down Bill.

Couple things here. Since Cyberpunk came out, when I get on CoH, it's to team with my SG and no, not a one of them I would consider a "casual gamer" as is described by so many, and I say that because they're all damn good on any character they choose to play, fully kitted out or not. We don't care if someone brings a lowbie to an max diff ITF because there's probably a couple of us that can keep the ball rolling and faceplants are just another badge. But before CP, I would hop on PUGs when the mood suited me (yes, a change since before the snap) and I saw the same thing there. Far more IOed up characters than not unless we were all running lowbie TFs and even then, there was usually a few exemplared and heavily IOed folks around.

 

My point to all of this is that you're looking in the wrong place if you want to readjust the game due to all the powercreep. Nerfing defense is a non-starter and that partially so because defense without DDR ain't shit in a lot of areas of the game where resist and healing always function. (Yea, yea, except against Hami.)

Edited January 27, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Brutal Justice]

29 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

 

How would it result in anything that is a net positive? You claim that it would be an improvement, so the burden of proof is on you. So far what I've seen is just an argument that lacks pretty much every essential part of a compelling proposal:

1. It starts from an unsubstantiated claim that Defense is the root cause of less teaming
2. It lacks the evidence supporting why altering the hard caps is the right solution
3. There's very little consideration of collateral damage or consequences in general because you dismiss the entire Def / ToHit mechanic you want to make a huge impact on

Basically, there's no what, why or and then. What there is a lot of, is avoidance of criticism and tunnel visioned pushing of a flawed suggestion with further arguments that amount to "it would be easy to work around" or "it wouldn't be that bad, just a minor nerf" which I basically interpret as you admitting it would be a pointless effort to implement in the first place. Why make a hugely controversial change that would, allegedly, be very minor or easy to work around. Then again, it could also be that you just can't let go of a bad idea or you want a minor nerf for the sake of it:

 

 

So even if I'd agree with your idea in general, any sensible person would have to disagree on the particular suggestion just based on its poor composition.

In response to your first paragraph.  The only way I could present a nerf in a manner that shows a net positive, would be to first convince you that there exists a problem.  As the many rebalancing threads have proven, there tends to be two camps, one that sees a problem and one that doesn’t.  It’s also shown to be neigh impossible to convince one of the other.  

 

Point 1.  I never said it’s the cause of LESS teaming.  People who like teaming do.  People who don’t, don’t.  I’ve also never advocated for “forcing” one to do the other.  

 

The ability of every person to achieve soft cap levels of defense is the result cause of the current power levels.  

 

Some evidence.  How did they make the incarnate content harder?  Overall they raised the effectual soft cap, which would indicate they saw an issue with the accessibility of such soft cap.  They did other things but this example is a global example thus more substantiated.  Most balance attempts of mobs has largely been to address defense, post softcap knowledge and accessibility.  Auto hit powers, large -def debuffs for example.  Again this points to an underlying understanding of the devs, that defense is a bit of an issue.

 

point 2.  Altering the hard cap wouldn’t diminish the value of IOs.  It wouldn’t lower their numbers.  It wouldn’t adversely affect those who do not achieve the current soft cap for whatever their reasons might be.  It wouldn’t reduce your power in an overly drastic way.  It would open more build variability all the way from pool power selections to incarnates.  Which would result in a minor amount of less power.  Minor is good.  Balance is very nuanced.  Adjustments to achieve such nuance should be of the same type. 

 

Point 3.  The consideration is shown in the minor ness of it.  

 

I haven't avoided criticism.  I have dismissed dismissive people.  I have spent much of my personal time trying to reply to all that have brought up criticism.  Avoiding would be ignoring.  Minor is not pointless minor is good.  How can it be minor if it’s hugely controversial?  How can it be hugely controversial if it’s minor?  

 

I am in the camp of its minor.  Others are in the camp of hugely.  If it was hugely and hugely then that would be an issue.  If it was minor and minor then it would be a waste of time.  Since it’s both hugely and minor then it leads me to believe it’s in the right direction.  

[Arbegla]

So I've been trying to read the overall 'point' of this thread, and I'm having a hard time understanding it. But I've seen a few things stated as facts, which aren't really based in reality.

 

Does a high powered (be it max Incarnates, IOs, or both) character make other people on a team feel inferior?

 

I would argue that its no. It doesn't matter what 'power level' your character is, pick any given 8 people, throw them on a team, and you'll have a good team to roll with. That is the beauty of City of Heroes, you don't have the holy trinity, you don't have AT requirements, you don't have gear requirements, heck, you really don't even have Incarnate requirements, except for iTrials, and even those can be done with T1 Incarnate powers.

I'm pretty sure if you stripped all the IOs out of @Bill Z Bubba characters, and forced him to play with just SOs, he would still 'out perform' a newbie. It has nothing to do with the power creep of the IO system, and everything to do with the fact that Bill is a good player that knows how the game works. I've witnessed this first hand, playing Lowbies with my new girlfriend. I'm an experienced player, and know how to take on multiple NPC groups at once, and not face plant. She can barely handle 2 equal level Minions, because she doesn't get the mechanics.

 

The flip side of that, is I could fully IO out her character, and she would still have difficulty playing it, because she is quite literally a newbie at the game.

How exactly do you balance play style differences like that?

[Arbegla]

8 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

Some evidence.  How did they make the incarnate content harder?  Overall they raised the effectual soft cap, which would indicate they saw an issue with the accessibility of such soft cap.  They did other things but this example is a global example thus more substantiated.  Most balance attempts of mobs has largely been to address defense, post softcap knowledge and accessibility.  Auto hit powers, large -def debuffs for example.  Again this points to an underlying understanding of the devs, that defense is a bit of an issue.

 

point 2.  Altering the hard cap wouldn’t diminish the value of IOs.  It wouldn’t lower their numbers.  It wouldn’t adversely affect those who do not achieve the current soft cap for whatever their reasons might be.  It wouldn’t reduce your power in an overly drastic way.  It would open more build variability all the way from pool power selections to incarnates.  Which would result in a minor amount of less power.  Minor is good.  Balance is very nuanced.  Adjustments to achieve such nuance should be of the same type. 

 

Point 3.  The consideration is shown in the minor ness of it. 

Point 1: They actually didn't raise the effectual softcap, they just made all of the Incarnate content against level 54s which following the normal difficulty scale (Purple patches, the def/tohit equation etc) affects ALL characters equally. Try fighting a +4 boss at level 1. Tell me how well that goes.

Point 2: Changing the 'soft-cap' Defense from 45% to 40% actually doubles your chances of being hit. You go from 5% to 10%. 1 out of every 20 hits, to 1 out of every 10 hits. Another thing to consider, is very few ATs have build in Defense Debuff Resistance. So even if you softcap a blaster, you run into cascading defense failure very often. a 5% overall decrease might sound 'minor' on paper, but in practice, it is a massive nerf for really no true gain. DDR is already the grand equalizer as it exists right now.

 

Point 3: They added T9 level defense/resistance buffs to Power Pools. Things like Rune of Protection, Unleash Potential, Unrelenting, etc. I would argue that having access to those powers, on any AT is a more damaging to balance than IOs.

[Neiska]

@Brutal Justice - Alright, I propose a thought experiment here.

 

Problem: Some builds are simply "too good" on teams that make you "personally" feel that your contributions arent impactful. Well, lets analyze and dive into that a little bit shall we?

 

1. Team types - You have ITFs, Radio Missions, PI missions, Farming missions, story arc missions.

 

1a. ITFs - I would argue this type is one where everyone has to be focused and on top of their game, at least in conception. Strong characters would be expected I should think.

 

1b. Radio Missions - Just an average group of random people running random missions in any given area. I would expect a strong build to be "hosting", as this is often a tool used to help random people find groups. (not always hosted by a fully slotted 50, but they often are.) For Radio/PI missions, I would think its on "you" to clarify what kind of team it is upon joining. If its a "powerlevel" team, or if its a "chill and have a good time" sort of team.

 

1c. Farming/Powerleveling missions - It shouldn't even bare mentioning, a 50 would be hosting this. Door sitters aren't always present but are there often.

 

1d. Story Missions - For this activity, I would say its up to the orginizer to decide to allow someone or not. So if thats you, you should say beforehand "Hey, were just average running."

 

2. Group makeup - This part could entail a full lengthy discussion in its own topic. But the TLDR here I think is that in a team of 8 with 14 different AT's, the standard expectation is going to vary, widely. Some teams will faceroll even if 5 members are fully AFK, others may struggle. Others might be completely out of left field, like a full team of 8 MMs or VEATS. But my main point here is it is stastically impossible to balance a game with so many variables with so many different possible group combinations, much less 14 different ATs with over 50 powersets, offering a dizzying amount of possible builds and combinations. And on top of that, you also have to take the "Activity/team" type into account. 

 

3. "What am I doing to contribute?" Well, that depends entirely on the AT in question.

3a. Tankers/Brutes - You hold threat. Your job isn't to do damage, but you can kill things yourself, if given time.

3b. Stalkers/Scrappers/Blasters/Corruptors - You bring the pain. Some of you are tough in a pinch, but you are no tanker.

3c. Masterminds/Sentinels/Defenders - You bring the support. That could mean super strong buffs, or debuffs. Healing, or helping CC. All kinds of benefits could be added here.

3d. Controllers/Dominators - You bring the CC and support, but its often "unfelt" support, sleeps, holds, and so on. But some controllers/dominators are near immortal.

3e. VEATs - Your mere presence can add huge bonuses to a teams defense, accuracy, and damage. Some VEATs are AOE and debuffer specalists, others are Single target DPS. Some have quasi-pets to help, others are die hard assisins.

3f. Warshades/Peacebringers - Really a mixed bag. You can change stances and perform a different function if a team requires it.

 

4. Which brings me to my next question, "Who feels as if they arent contributing?"

4a. Tankers/Brutes - Bummed you arent doing damage? Well, thats not your role or function. You are there to keep pressure off everyone else as much as possible, doing what damage you can in the process. More than one threat holder in the group? Well, maybe ask to split pull, as in each of you pull your own group and wrangle them for the rest of the team. It's sort of win-win for everyone.

4b. Stalkers/Scrappers/Blasters/Corruptors - Not doing enough damage? Someone else beating you to the punch? Well, your team might be super heavy with the DPS then. Are you dieing often? Well, you may need to stick closer to the tank or support, if they are present.

4c. Masterminds/Sentinels/Defenders - No one needs heals? Well, not everyone will, and I wouldnt expect everyone to. That depends on the team makeup and everyones builds, as well as the team, the activity, as well as the enemies. If you find yourself not needing to buff/debuff/heal/support, I would kick back, relax, and enjoy trying to DPS for a change. Maybe this team just doesn't need what you bring to the table right now. It happens. So mabye enjoy being able to do something else, or if it truely botheres you so much, mabye this specific team just doesnt need you, and you can leave to find another, or even make your own. Or suggest higher/different content or activites.

4d. Controllers/Dominators - Stuff dieing too fast to bother CCing, Debuffing, and so on? Well, it happens. Mabye you can try a different angle, pre-CCing before things get aggroed, or mabye helping the team by bringing enemies to the group? Scouting? Look for the glowie? You are still a "present" body able to help, even if the team doesnt need your specality in combat right now.

4e. VEATs - Things dieing fast? Feel like the weak link? I wouldn't worry. Your team buffs are among the best buffs in the game. You just being there is making "everyone" better, and many VEATs have built in debuffs in with their attacks. So your normal attack chain is helping, when other classes such as controllers or masterminds have to "focus" on debuffing, you do it normally with each suppression, each venom grendade, each psycic wail, and so on. 

4f. Warshades/Peacebringers - The team has a tank? Doesnt need your dwarf form? Or your powerups/debuffs? Well, more dps is usually a good thing, so you can always go space-squid form and pewpew away. Still not feeling important? Well, like the other support classes you are still a present body and an extra pair of eyes. You can bring spawns to the group, act as a scout, look for that glowie, or find that boss that needs bashed.

 

5. Combat values is not the only way to contribute to a team. 

5a. This could be just my way of thinking, but when I team with someone, I don't just see them as their class. They are another person. Either they can stick with me to help in combat, or we can split up to finish even faster if we are capable of it. Or they can look for that last annoying mission clicky we missed, or even help in other ways, such as if they played this mission/story/arc/ITF before, and I have not. If its a boss I havent fought before, I may rely on their experience. Or if we are trying for a badge, I may require their knowldge for any tips or tricks on getting it.

 

Players are more than whatever AT they happen to be logged in at the time.

 

5b. Along with that though, is I pay attention to how players conduct themselves. If someone is rude, unpleasant to play with, or for whatever reason I find them unlikeable to be around, then I won't want to team with them again. I don't care how massively OP their AT is, how much they spent, what their Vet level is, or what they have to say about the mission. If they are a butthead, then they are a butthead, and I will find the experience unpleasant, and wont wish to repeat it, no matter how much inf/exp I got, how many merits, and so on. (I hasten to add this is not normal in CoH, at least not for me. The vast majority, such as 99.5% of people, have been pleasent to play with. For me, it is "rare" to be teamed with someone being such a butthead I don't wish to team with them again. But it "does" happen.)

 

5c. But I have no objection to someone playing a weaker/new build, if they are pleasnt and fun to be around. Even if they don't even talk much, or are newer than me at the game. Both are totes fine.

 

I would rather team with a pleasent/nice/fun/new player with a weak/sub-optiomal build, then someone unpleasant with a super strong character. But that's just me.

 

But this is getting on longer than I intended. My point here is, @Brutal Justice, there is far greater and more group dynamics here at work, as well as personal playstyles/choices that affect how well or how bad a team performs. If you feel as if you arent contributing, I would argue that means everyone else is on top of their game. If that bothers you to such an extent, there are several actions that you yourself can do.

 

6. You can purporsefully make "weaker" teams, teams with no aggro-anchor, or no healer, or no DPS.

6a. You can take fewer people. Say to heck with the odds. We are gonna run that mission with only 4 people. No healer you say? Well that should make it interesting.

6b. You can leave the team if you dont feel like you are a part of it, and start your own. 

6c. Problems finding teams you say? Well, perhaps you could start your own supergroup, forum guild, discord channel. Find others who are like minded and get organized. You might be pleasently suprised.

6d. You could even make a minigame out of it. The team doesnt need you? You could say in party "Look I dont feel as if my actions matter, So I will now be using brawl, apprentice charm, kick, punch, and nemeisis staff as my attacks. I am now the dreaded "escort npc" of the mission." Or whatever you can think up. Have some fun with it!

 

In closing I can almost gurantee you that there will be situations not only in this game, but many, many others where you feel this way. And nothing the devs and programmers, will ever make it 100% kiss your elbow balanced/even/fair under every possible situation and dynamic in play.  

 

But I think I have rambled on enough. But I still stand by my previous statements that your suggestion of a 5% defense nerf to everyone but tanks and brutes would be conductive to your situation, and might likely do more harm than good, not to just players, soloists, teamers, but to multiple powersets across multiple ATs as well. They already have different hitpoints and resistances, I don't think setting a penalty to defense will be a solution to anything.

 

All comments are respectfully given, and are in no way meant to offend. I do hope this at least provokes some thoughtful musings.