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

[Frosticus]

2 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

This particular one has a ~5s recharge without slotting for it in the power, doubles as huge damage + a hold that can Dominate, but it does cost a chunk of end to throw out. Luckily, other powers help with that such as Domination reliably filling endurance, recovery procs, and general set bonuses making up for the non-slotted stats.

 

Set bonuses come first, but they don't exist in a vacuum either. Set bonuses feed into the ability to proc.

I think the fact that you are able to get the recharge of a 20 sec power down to ~5 sec without slotting the power is much more worrisome than being able to squeeze a couple hundred extra damage out of it with procs. 

 

Yes set bonuses derived elsewhere in the build feed in to the ability to proc several powers in a build. I guess I don't see how that is any different than set bonuses feeding in to the ability to perma hasten (or any other long duration, high benefit power), or set bonuses feeding in to the ability to add incredible survivability via defense. 

 

The point is that it is very difficult to have your cake an eat it too. Very few builds can build for high rech, procs, defense, etc all at the same time. I'd say the build combinations  that can might have an issue that isn't coming from procs. 

2 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

All procs are not equal TBF, a -Res in an AoE that also benefits from the -Res (due to DoT, etc) or a +Crit proc are usually much better because  they impact multiple powers and not just the one it's slotted in.

 

To the first point though, its also not in a vacuum that the proc bombs exist. In my Earth Assault example I pair that with Elec Control in order to mitigate endurance woes and even safety to a degree, for Cold Domination the rest of the set is stellar, has spots to place LotG and Infrigidate benefits as a proc bomb from recharge much like the bigger AoE debuffs the set has, making it even more valuable as part of the package.

It is a bit of a tangent, but many of the high damage AT's can easily slot all 3 types of the -res powers. They are bonkers of some builds that already do heaps of raw damage. Comparatively they are a drop in the bucket on something like poison, cold, ta or storm and ultimately improve output much less (from a solo perspective).  A blaster/scrapper able to leverage the -res procs well doesn't NEED damage procs to do absurd damage. But they can still use them almost as well as most debuffers at that point. 

 

Elec is a good pairing for Earth assault for the exact reasons you highlight. That same synergy doesn't extend to all earth assault combinations. The endurance cost of proc'd out powers is a huge concern for many/most proc builds leading to large and tangible sacrifices elsewhere in the build.

 

My point for /cold domination is that those slots have to come form somewhere in the build. It is probably worth it, although proc'd out infrig is mostly a waste of time casting in most team scenarios. It is definitely better than many t1's that are a complete waste and are only picked because you are forced too. Under the old system  Sleet used to trigger Achilles  with ease hitting entire spawns with 50% -res.  Now we get a single target achilies. It is still very good though I agree. 

2 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Perhaps, but tbh I would prefer if Procs actually got buffed sideways. What I mean by that is like, say procs got way gnarlier in power much like how -Res or +Rech procs and the like can totally change your build, but you then had a limit of 2~3 per a single power.

Sure why not? there aren't that many powers that are worth jamming full of procs. Even seismic smash is generally best when enhanced for some internal recharge (ignoring end/acc concerns). It tends to be the highest dpa attack wherever it is found so many users may want to get it cycling as often as possible because your overall dps might drop using fillers waiting on the proc bomb seismic.  

 

I've made a lot of proc builds now across various AT's. That means I want at least 3-4 key powers to be proc'd out heavily. In doing so I always struggle with accuracy and endurance in those powers and have to build to accommodate that. I also struggle to hit def goals, usually forgoing softcap unless it is a def based combo, and struggle to hit extreme global rech.  I'm usually shoehorned into tactics and have to pick either cardiac or ageless to fuel the endurance burn of proc'd attacks. If I made a more conventional build and just slotted one attack for procs I'd probably feel differently.

[Yomo Kimyata]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

What exactly makes them optional?

Because they weren't in the original game.

 

There often is a non-obsolescence issue with things.  For decades, nothing in the telecommunications industry could work unless it was backwards fitted to work on twisted copper telephone lines.  When I used to work on that kind of thing, the rationale was that you could never make something a new standard unless "all the dumb old people can still use it too."  That was a direct quote from my MD.  

 

I don't know if that is still an industry standard, but I seriously doubt it.  Windows stops support for old systems, but I'm not sure about telecom.

[Haijinx]

13 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Something I saw mentioned by @Greycatin @Troos thread again, that was brought up here is the notion of "IOs are optional".

 

What exactly makes them optional? By that token, is it a stretch to call enhancements optional in general since the game doesn't force you to slot them?

What makes them optional is a lack of Power Creep on the bad guy side (not red side but the "E" in the PVE)

[Galaxy Brain]

1 minute ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

Because they weren't in the original game.

So this right here is something I pointed out many pages ago:

 

On 1/22/2021 at 1:12 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

I just think part of it is that Inventions came out in Issue 9 in 2007. The game ended at issue 23, coming into 24 in 2012. That's 5 years and 14 updates with Inventions being a thing vs 8 updates and 3 years with only SO's (with a chunk of that being before ED/ect so even that was a whole different ballgame). Add in HC and thats another 2-ish years with inventions, and the audience now is predominately veterans of CoH I'd imagine who are die-hard or at least familiar with the system when they returned.

 

They have been part of CoH far longer than they haven't, and I would bet that most of us playing HC are veterans who knew of it. Simply "ignoring" them seems odd.

 

THE MAJORITY OF THE LIVE GAME HAD IO'S! 

 

I get that they were not in issue 0, but to call them "new" is just disingenuous. IO's are older than:

 

(In roughly the correct order)

• The revamp of the RWZ
• Ouroboros 
• Weapon Customization
• Dual Blades
• Willpower
• The Midnight Squad / Cimerora 
• VEATs
• Hollows Revamp
• Revamp of the power trays 
• Multiple Builds
• Day Jobs
• Shield Defense
• Pain Domination
• Merit Rewards
• Architect Entertainment
• The 5th column returning (along with the Barracuda and Dr Kahn task forces)
• Dominators getting redesigned
• Footsteps changing sound depending on what you walk on
• Cosmetic Surgeons
• Character Creator revamp
• Customizable Powers
• Difficulty Options revamp
• Pets zoning with their owners
• Super Sidekicking
• Ultra Mode Graphics
• Going Rogue (and the Alignment System)
• Dual Pistols
• Demon Summoning
• Electric Control
• Kinetic Melee
• New Posi TF's
• Showing the last objective on the map
• Old contacts getting cell phones
• Vigilance granting you a damage buff
• Tip Missions
• Combat mode auras
• Trading and Emailing between alignments
• Villain AT's getting Epic Power Pools
• Merged Transit systems
• Hospitals being in all zones
• The Incarnate System
• The ability to log out to the character select screen
• Weekly Strike Targets
• Incarnate Trials
• Sutter/Mortimer Kal task Forces
• Leagues and the LFG tab, and the adjustment of tons of AoE buffs to hit tons of targets
• Team Teleporter
• First Ward
• Death from Below
• Circle of Thorns facelift
• Ancillary Power Pools unlocking at 35 instead of 41
• The ability to change your costume at trainers
• New Dark Astoria
• Drowning in Blood Trial
• Darkness Control
• Darkness Affinity
• Dark Assault
• Impact! On Gravity Control
• Night Ward
• Signature Story Arcs
• TUNNEL
• All the P2W (Temp) Powers
• Titan Weapons
• Water Blast
• Nature Affinity
• Beam Rifle
• Staff Fighting
• Street Justice
• Beast Mastery
• Time Manipulation
• Ninja/Beast Run
• About a jillion emotes and costume parts
• + many many more I missed!
• ++ every update included updates to IO's!

 

If IO's are "optional and not to be balanced around" because they were not in the OG game, then none of these are either.

 

This is not to call you out specifically @Yomo Kimyata, but the reality is that IO's have been a thing in CoH for far longer than they haven't, and to ignore them for not being in the "base game" I feel is just silly.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

There often is a non-obsolescence issue with things.  For decades, nothing in the telecommunications industry could work unless it was backwards fitted to work on twisted copper telephone lines.  When I used to work on that kind of thing, the rationale was that you could never make something a new standard unless "all the dumb old people can still use it too."  That was a direct quote from my MD.  

 

I don't know if that is still an industry standard, but I seriously doubt it.  Windows stops support for old systems, but I'm not sure about telecom.

Telecom is funky for sure, they usually just update the phones themselves but the infrastructure.... lol.

 

 

[Yomo Kimyata]

6 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

This is not to call you out specifically @Yomo Kimyata, but the reality is that IO's have been a thing in CoH for far longer than they haven't, and to ignore them for not being in the "base game" I feel is just silly.

 

 

You're not calling me out on anything.  I said that, not to defend that IOs are interlopers, but to point out that people fear change and that it's a silly justification.  If you've been keeping score, you'd see I think that IOs are the bomb and that anyone who doesn't use them is choosing to play chess with just pawns.

[Doomguide2005]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

So this right here is something I pointed out many pages ago:

 

 

THE MAJORITY OF THE LIVE GAME HAD IO'S! 

 

I get that they were not in issue 0, but to call them "new" is just disingenuous. IO's are older than:

 

(In roughly the correct order)

• The revamp of the RWZ
• Ouroboros 
• Weapon Customization
• Dual Blades
• Willpower
• The Midnight Squad / Cimerora 
• VEATs
• Hollows Revamp
• Revamp of the power trays 
• Multiple Builds
• Day Jobs
• Shield Defense
• Pain Domination
• Merit Rewards
• Architect Entertainment
• The 5th column returning (along with the Barracuda and Dr Kahn task forces)
• Dominators getting redesigned
• Footsteps changing sound depending on what you walk on
• Cosmetic Surgeons
• Character Creator revamp
• Customizable Powers
• Difficulty Options revamp
• Pets zoning with their owners
• Super Sidekicking
• Ultra Mode Graphics
• Going Rogue (and the Alignment System)
• Dual Pistols
• Demon Summoning
• Electric Control
• Kinetic Melee
• New Posi TF's
• Showing the last objective on the map
• Old contacts getting cell phones
• Vigilance granting you a damage buff
• Tip Missions
• Combat mode auras
• Trading and Emailing between alignments
• Villain AT's getting Epic Power Pools
• Merged Transit systems
• Hospitals being in all zones
• The Incarnate System
• The ability to log out to the character select screen
• Weekly Strike Targets
• Incarnate Trials
• Sutter/Mortimer Kal task Forces
• Leagues and the LFG tab, and the adjustment of tons of AoE buffs to hit tons of targets
• Team Teleporter
• First Ward
• Death from Below
• Circle of Thorns facelift
• Ancillary Power Pools unlocking at 35 instead of 41
• The ability to change your costume at trainers
• New Dark Astoria
• Drowning in Blood Trial
• Darkness Control
• Darkness Affinity
• Dark Assault
• Impact! On Gravity Control
• Night Ward
• Signature Story Arcs
• TUNNEL
• All the P2W (Temp) Powers
• Titan Weapons
• Water Blast
• Nature Affinity
• Beam Rifle
• Staff Fighting
• Street Justice
• Beast Mastery
• Time Manipulation
• Ninja/Beast Run
• About a jillion emotes and costume parts
• + many many more I missed!
• ++ every update included updates to IO's!

 

If IO's are "optional and not to be balanced around" because they were not in the OG game, then none of these are either.

 

This is not to call you out specifically @Yomo Kimyata, but the reality is that IO's have been a thing in CoH for far longer than they haven't, and to ignore them for not being in the "base game" I feel is just silly.

 

 

 

Telecom is funky for sure, they usually just update the phones themselves but the infrastructure.... lol.

 

 

Tangent

 

And well the systems such as Windows, phones, the internet are developing far, far faster than those old folks are dying off.

 

I'm (and I'm not the only one here), I'm old enough to have seen and used a rotary phone ... and there were still places where you literally went through an operator to connect your call.  A desk top was still in the future, cell phones then smart phones decades in the future, internet ditto.  And working in a pharmacy I see it as a problem as the folks, many in the most dire groups are the most "hampered" by having to use the internet and cell phones to get what they need right now --> access to vaccines/vaccinations for Covid-19.

 

/tangent

[Galaxy Brain]

1 minute ago, Doomguide2005 said:

Tangent

Haha I feel that all too well with my work! But in this instance, I would reckon that given IOs were around before even the RWZ or Ouroboros that any say of "oh theyre too new" flies right out the window given everyone can adapt to those and much more.

[ForeverLaxx]

As I said before, if you want to balance around IOs, which IOs are you talking about? Basic IOs that are boosted 50+5 for slot economy? The guy who just used as many +Damage set bonuses he could find? The guy going all out on +Def/Recharge? What about the guy that focused on +Regen to make what defenses/resistances he could muster last longer? Then there's the case of the bonuses that PvP players care about, like +HP, Knockback resistance, and +Range -- do you balance the mobs in PvP zones around those trends?

 

IO Sets allow so much variance within its own system that trying to warp the game around them is a fool's errand. The game's numbers and challenge are all based on the SO (or Basic IO equivalent) of a power's performance, with Inspirations shoring up any kind of deficiency in a single mission. If thing's get "too hard" for a player under those conditions, they're encouraged to ask for assistance rather than to gut their entire build and "just build this awesome endgame IO build and solo it instead." Even Incarnate-level content is designed around having level shifts and Incarnate powers, not necessarily having a perfectly min/max'd build to go along with it.

 

As far as player challenge is concerned, leave it alone. There are already ways to increase personal challenge if you so desire in order to leverage those builds you like building. All I'd want would be an adjustment of traditionally-viewed "tougher factions" to have their exp reward increased to justify fighting them for non-story/RP reasons; but the actual baseline balance of SOs/Basic IOs needs to be left alone. I do not want a CoH where now I must plan a build to leverage whatever it is the developers think I should.

[Greycat]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Something I saw mentioned by @Greycatin @Troos thread again, that was brought up here is the notion of "IOs are optional".

 

What exactly makes them optional? By that token, is it a stretch to call enhancements optional in general since the game doesn't force you to slot them?

You're not required to use IOs to complete any part of the game. And no, it's not necessarily a stretch, however the game is designed with the idea you'll slot *something,* and SOs drop ready to use just by playing.  Then again, as ... pretty much anyone doing the classic hero challenge will mention, you can go some time without slotting SOs (or DOs) because of the cost, running under our rules.

[Luminara]

9 hours ago, Grouchybeast said:

I didn't read much about what the devs said about their ongoing plans for the game after the shutdown, so I'm afraid didn't see where they posted their ideas for how the proc system would have ended up.

 

We're playing where it would have ended up.  Everything we've been talking about was in the I24 beta.  Planning for those changes began (at least) seven months prior to the game's closure.  There were three I24 beta patches to the test server before Paragon stopped working on things - the PPM changes were in the first and not a single change was made to it after that.  These changes weren't something they whipped up on the spur of the moment and dumped on the beta server as an afterthought or last minute addition.  Nor was left incomplete, or untested.  It was finished before it left the alpha stage.  If anything, Synapse likely expected to have to buff it, if there were too many complaints, but surprisingly, very few people who tested it (or understood the math) considered it to be anything other than a talking point.  Almost everyone either felt that it had little or no impact on them, or saw it as an improvement (moar damageses!).  The PPM system we're working with right now is exactly what Synapse envisioned, outlined, created, implemented and was satisfied with.

 

Since the HC servers opened, people have been running around, waving their hands in the air and screaming about proc nerfs looming on the horizon... but the changes to PPM and folding IO set procs into the PPM system in I24 was the nerf.  It's an example of nerfing done right.  It reined in the most extreme outliers at the top end without hurting anyone else, and it didn't even cost those outliers so much that they couldn't play without constantly worrying about being spanked (again), as evidenced by the constant fear expressed by people on these forums.

 

10 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Most powers are not able to do this, but there are a portion that can slot many exotic and powerful procs all at once, and I think *that* is the key difference in balance. 

No two sets are going to have the same slotting options.  Nor should they.  Nor will they, ever.  Perfect balance between power sets will never happen.  Calling for proc restrictions in order to impose your sense of equity between sets isn't balance, it's homogeny.  Not interested.

 

5 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

To throw my two cents in, one thing I think urgently needs to happen is powers in Tertiary pools need a nerfed chance to proc PPM. The same power in an APP pool shouldn't get better on another archetype just because its Recharge is increased. Increased Recharge is supposed to be a penalty. Instead the PPM should be sliced down by however much the increase in Recharge was.

 

It doesn't work that way.  The formula isn't applied to powers, it only checks the relevant aspects of the power to determine a proc's final maximum chance to trigger.  You'd have to rework the formula to create new checks and trigger modifiers, and come up with a way that didn't turn it from a neat, compact equation to a massive, bloated, processor-hanging nightmare.

[Doomguide2005]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Haha I feel that all too well with my work! But in this instance, I would reckon that given IOs were around before even the RWZ or Ouroboros that any say of "oh theyre too new" flies right out the window given everyone can adapt to those and much more.

Yep, SO's are pong and early desktops, IO sets are smart phones, Incarnates are solid state computing and AI systems.  Available to all but ...

[ForeverLaxx]

22 minutes ago, Luminara said:

If anything, Synapse likely expected to have to buff it, if there were too many complaints, but surprisingly, very few people who tested it (or understood the math) considered it to be anything other than a talking point.  Almost everyone either felt that it had little or no impact on them, or saw it as an improvement (moar damageses!).  The PPM system we're working with right now is exactly what Synapse envisioned, outlined, created, implemented and was satisfied with.

I'm well aware of the notion that what ends up on a public Beta server is likely the "end result" and only needs eyes/bodies to run it through trials to find any outlying errors or bugs with the system but you're speaking with a lot mights and maybes based entirely around the only aspect we were aware of as a player and not the entire picture. I know that when I'm working on a painting and putting in the details in the background, when I walk away from it to let it dry, I'm not intending that state to be the final product. If I never come back to that painting, that doesn't mean it's complete -- it means I never had the chance to get around to finishing it.

 

The fact of the matter is, we don't know what, if any, changes would have been done to the system had it had more time in beta because the game got canned before we could really get our hands on it. We don't know what further changes could have been done to the system had it made it to live servers and we don't know how the devs would have viewed the situation. It's pointless to talk about this nebulous "the old devs had a vision" when that vision was incomplete and they aren't here to touch it up.

 

We have new devs, with their own vision, and they feel procs are an issue they want to address at some point. What that means for us is anyone's guess but pretending everything is honkydory because Synapse "had a plan" when Synapse is no longer around to see it through is a waste of time.

 

The HC devs have made adjustments I like and adjustments I don't like. Who's to say if the "real devs" would have done the same.

Edited February 7, 2021 by ForeverLaxx

[oedipus_tex]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

It doesn't work that way.  The formula isn't applied to powers, it only checks the relevant aspects of the power to determine a proc's final maximum chance to trigger.  You'd have to rework the formula to create new checks and trigger modifiers, and come up with a way that didn't turn it from a neat, compact equation to a massive, bloated, processor-hanging nightmare.

 

I think it's a given that the formula is editable. That's what the discussion is about, editing the formula. 

EDIT: Hope that tautology doesn't sound rude. Not trying to be antagonistic, it's just that the discussion is about editing the formula. Rereading it, I can see how it might be read otherwise. My apologies if so. It is true that the formula isn't written proc for proc in most cases and is located in the core files. However, my understanding is the mechanism for editing that is available.

Edited February 7, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

No two sets are going to have the same slotting options.  Nor should they.  Nor will they, ever.  Perfect balance between power sets will never happen.  Calling for proc restrictions in order to impose your sense of equity between sets isn't balance, it's homogeny.  Not interested.

While this is true that now two sets will have the *SAME* slotting options, having similar opportunities per set would be very nice overall.

[Troo]

4 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

"IOs are optional".

What exactly makes them optional? By that token, is it a stretch to call enhancements optional in general since the game doesn't force you to slot them?

The use of standard Invention Origin enhancements is definitely optional. There are simply viable alternatives.

Single Origin enhancements are sufficient for many players / builds while being readily available and more intuitive.

The crafting system, the market system, and Architect Entertainment.. all optional.

 

Using IO sets is even more optional.

 

The game does fail to invest enough in showing players the benefits using IOs for how much players can gain. The single mini tutorial is tedious and easily missed.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Troo

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Troo said:

The single mini tutorial is tedious and easily missed.

There's a tutorial?

[ForeverLaxx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

There's a tutorial?

There's a very basic crafting Tutorial that has you running around the university with a tiny mission part-way through to recover Salvage. It really just introduces you to the concept of crafting, what the tables used look like, and lets you choose a basic IO (up to level 25) to craft for free (it gives you the materials to make it). There are no contacts that tell you this exists, though; you have to either go to a University and talk to the right person randomly out of curiosity for the building, or already know it's there by having prior knowledge or someone telling you about it.

 

I usually do it on every character once I hit 22 for that free 25 IO after I do a respec when I start slotting 25 IOs.

 

But yes, there's a tutorial. Of sorts.

[Murcielago]

How would you suggest the developers balance the game around IOs? Would content become more difficult or would IOs see some kind of diminishing return e.g. ED 2.0?

[Galaxy Brain]

2 hours ago, Murcielago said:

How would you suggest the developers balance the game around IOs? Would content become more difficult or would IOs see some kind of diminishing return e.g. ED 2.0?

Theres a few things:

 

1) Balance IOs against each other / balance sets to where they get equitable opportunities 

 

There are a number of IO sets that are simply bad to sub par that can be easily skipped in HC, and a number of "must have" IOs to boot. Not to mention certain bonuses just being way better than others (recovery, damage, etc vs rech/def). There is also a spread of IO types that just get way better IOs, like compare -Def to Stun for example. Then there are game-changer IOs like the -Res procs, Knockdown, Force Feedback, etc that only certain families of IOs have access to. Imagine if stun or fear got similar game changers?

 

Circling back to stats, I think that defense and recharge are incredibly powerful stats so its natural to chase those. That and most sets give you decent blocks of those stats + plenty of uniques grant them too! Where is the unique that grants +20% damage tho? What if certain "low tier" sets got revamped to where the final bonus was a lot of damage, or recovery, etc? What if +dam from IO bonuses affect proc damage? I think by naturally making other stats and uniques competitive with the current top dogs it will naturally increase diversity and viable builds.

 

 

 

2) Past a certain point, not even needing a billion dollar build, IOs do let you far exceed enemies through raw stats.

 

Partly due to the rech/def stats, but overall even a middle of the road IO build will often let you dunk on CoH content. This is due to most battles just being "who has better stats?" to win, with very few alternate win conditions. There are no enemies that are more beneficial to crowd control primarily over straight defeat, or enemies which have tons of accuracy but otherwise are not super dangerous alone but can open you up and thus need to be targeted first, enemies that mitigate AoEs, enemies that resist or are immune to taunt, etc. Things that break up combat and allow other strategies to shine (THEY WONT BE THE ONLY STRATEGY, RAW DAMAGE CAN WORK STILL BUT MAYBE NOT BE THE "BEST" METHOD) will naturally rebalance the game where certain abilities are suddenly more valuable where they aren't today.

 

These combined should help increase build diversity in a positive manner by buffing sets through content / options. Imagine a new "phase" IO group that suddenly gives options to several sets with phase or cage powers, they may go from annoyance/lower tier powers to highlights. 

 

 

 

Edit: Rularuu eyeballs fit the bill of the accurate enemies but they are super special in how you encounter them. Im more talking about how several groups have a "sniper" class that could be proliferated.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Luminara]

12 hours ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I'm well aware of the notion that what ends up on a public Beta server is likely the "end result" and only needs eyes/bodies to run it through trials to find any outlying errors or bugs with the system but you're speaking with a lot mights and maybes based entirely around the only aspect we were aware of as a player and not the entire picture.

Synapse posted his plan for the PPM revision on the original forums.  Everything he said he wanted to do with the changes, he did.  He did it the way he wanted to do it.  The end product matched what he stated to be his desire.  Are you implying that he changed the goal or decided to revise the system further?  Do you have any evidence of that?  Or are you just offering a lot of mights and maybes?

 

12 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

I think it's a given that the formula is editable.

 

Certainly.  The problem isn't in the formula, it's in the powers.  Most of them aren't archetype-specific, they're table entries which are later modified by the archetype scalars of the character.  So for the formula to adjust proc trigger probability on the fly for different powers, it not only needs additional math to create that adjusted probability, it also needs a way to identify powers accordingly.  It needs to be directly tied into the character-side scalar calculations which modify power entries on a per-character basis, or it needs that folded into the PPM formula.

 

Even if it were as simple as "If DefenderEpic=Yes, Then -20% Probability", we wouldn't use something that rudimentary because it would arbitrarily penalize every *PP power without making a distinction, when we're only trying to adjust for the powers with high recharge times.  So flag-based variations would require multiple lines, one for every power for which we desired an adjustment in a *PP, for every *PP.

 

It's not nearly as straight-forward as merely editing the formula.  

 

13 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

While this is true that now two sets will have the *SAME* slotting options, having similar opportunities per set would be very nice overall.

 

Yeah, and having a +Recharge buff in TA would be nice, too, so it has parity with Rad.  But it doesn't, and I neither ask for it nor expect it, because I don't want to play Rad-With-a-Bow, I want to play TA.

 

Different IO sets should do different things, just as different power sets do different things.  Constraining IO set bonuses to artificially impose parity between builds isn't a good thing, it's a kick in the genitalia for everyone who appreciates having options and building characters in their own way.  I don't have to open a poll or use the developers' tools to determine how popular +Movement Speed bonuses are, I already know they're not popular.  But I like them.  I use them.  I pursue them in my builds, even at the expense of +Recharge, +Defense, +Resistance, +HP or anything else that might be a "more useful" allocation of those slots.  If you homogenize IO sets, you either remove those +Movement Speed bonuses, or you restrict me to only using the sets with those bonuses, because you can't put every bonus in every set, and either way, I'm under the bus.

 

Diversity, freedom of choice, having options, those are some of the most fundamental strengths of Co*.  Homogenizing IO sets so we're all "equal" isn't promoting equality, it's quelling diversity, squashing freedom, taking away options.

 

No.  Fuck no.  Homogenize your milk, leave my set bonuses alone.

[oedipus_tex]

44 minutes ago, Luminara said:

Certainly.  The problem isn't in the formula, it's in the powers.  Most of them aren't archetype-specific, they're table entries which are later modified by the archetype scalars of the character. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. The APP powers are not shared assets from the archetype, they are their own unique power that originates as a copy-paste. They sometimes share a PFX file that defines them in the menu system for power customization, and usually share FX files and PART files that define the visual effects and emitters/particles the power uses. However the .powers file is usually unique and hand-coded per archetype. This is true both when a powerset is proliferated to a similar archetype (e.g. when a Defender set proliferated to Corruptors) and when a power is added to the APPs of a disimilar archetype. There may be cases where an APP power is shared among archetypes as an APP power, but they'd be sharing a version of the APP power, not a version of the base power.*

 

Pool powers are sometimes the exception, and are shared across archetypes. But that's fine, because a Pool power is always a Pool power, it's never a power borrowed from another archetype.

 

The procs themselves are actually powers. They are located in the Power definition folder and use the same AttribMods as powers, including the Requires field. There's a field for PPM that determines the proc rate. It's true that they aren't currently aware what power called them, but it's also true the Procs Per Minute field was added late in the game's development. There's no reason a power couldn't know that it is a APP power and adjust proc chances downward. The proc system is already "aware" of what the local Recharge slotting is.

*EDIT: Just for the sake of completeness, there are cases where parts of a power are shared. Mainly this is the case with powers that summon pseudo pets. Powers like Fire Rain and Ice Storm etc aren't usually recoded just for the APPs (though they sometimes are like when something like Containment or Scourge needs to be added). Powers like this could pose a bit of a headache, although there aren't a whole lot of them and it could be addressed by introducing an APP-specific version of the pet, as annoying as that is to code. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Galaxy Brain]

@Luminara, I'm not talking about people having the same milk. Rad can have chocolate milk and TA can have strawberry, different milk but they both get something special. 

 

Im talking more about how due to secondary effects, the slotting options just in general are not equitable. A set that can really only slot for stuns is stuck with crappy stun IOs for example. Either allow it more options or, or better AND, make the stun IOs not bad compared to other IOs in their own unique way.

 

Perfect example is the introduction of Power Transfer and Dam/End Mod IOs. Suddenly, a whole suite of powers have a cool slotting option they did not have before that is also nota copy/paste of other sets. I want more of that.

 

The synapse set is another example directly to your movement speed idea. More builds like that SHOULD be viable! Add in more options for the set bonuses that are sort of neglected, recognizing that rech and def are really strong so other stats should offer as much relatively. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Infinitum]

10 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

@Luminara, I'm not talking about people having the same milk. Rad can have chocolate milk and TA can have strawberry, different milk but they both get something special. 

 

Im talking more about how due to secondary effects, the slotting options just in general are not equitable. A set that can really only slot for stuns is stuck with crappy stun IOs for example. Either allow it more options or, or better AND, make the stun IOs not bad compared to other IOs in their own unique way.

 

Perfect example is the introduction of Power Transfer and Dam/End Mod IOs. Suddenly, a whole suite of powers have a cool slotting option they did not have before that is also nota copy/paste of other sets. I want more of that.

So basically instead just being amazing with resistance, defense, damage, and recharge - it should be opened up with healing/regen, stuns, holds, etc.

[SwitchFade]

Not that I advocate it, but solving PPM is fairly simple: make them mutually exclusive. Only 1 proc by type per power.

 

Immediately after that, nerf regen.

[Haijinx]

7 hours ago, Murcielago said:

How would you suggest the developers balance the game around IOs? Would content become more difficult or would IOs see some kind of diminishing return e.g. ED 2.0?

 

The Ship has Sailed