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

[ForeverLaxx]

14 hours ago, Luminara said:

Well, I guess that means I'm sleeping alone tonight.  Where's my sad face

There's that trademark deflection I've come to expect.

 

14 hours ago, Luminara said:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck, even if a bunch of fear-mongering panic monkeys are insisting that it's a kumquat

That's not what's happening here and you know it. You're just convinced that things would have remained "as they were on Beta" for the rest of the game's life based solely on your own desire and extremely limited information. Once again, deflecting the issue.

 

Know this: it doesn't matter what you, I, Galaxy Brain, or Synapse thinks -- the current devs feel there's an issue and the current devs have expressed interest in re-visiting procs at some future date. This fact is all that matters. I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, even Synapse doesn't have to like it. When the time comes and the current devs put changes into the system that you don't like, maybe then you can walk around with your carved stone, declaring that it be Synapse's Will things remain as they are. I don't suspect you'll get very far, but that's the time to play prophet. Amongst us rabble, you're just grasping at a set of different straws than the rest of us.

 

And with that, I've ended my debate with you on this topic. What you pass for "witty quips" I only see as blind arrogance and perceived authority on a subject you know nothing more about than the rest of us. I don't entertain those types for long and I've reached my limit at this juncture.

[Galaxy Brain]

One thing I'll say about the talks of Dev / Synapse intent: they were willing to radically change the chance of firing system once...

[oedipus_tex]

There are some good thoughts in the comments above.

IMO it's not possible to remain entirely neutral about IOs as long as development continues on the game. I think sometimes the conversation ends up focused on "balance" in terms of the sets that already exist. But the effects of IOs is a question that comes up frequently when a new powerset, power, IO, or inspiration is added to the game. Even players who prefer a mostly "expansion pack" approach to server development, where new powersets are added but fundamental rules aren't adjusted have to contend with how powers interact with the gear system.

Here are some examples of questions that come up:

 

• Can a new Control set get a clone of Jolting Chain? Jolting Chain is a mostly bad power except for the fact that you can proc it. Can I proliferate this power to other sets knowing the main reason a person would take it is for the procs and not because of what it does on its own? If I can't proliferate it, is it fair to Electric Control to be stuck with it?
• Can we create clones of Bonfire? Bonfire is not popular on its own. It only becomes popular when used in combo with a kb to kd proc. Are there any archetypes where this effect is overpowered? Is it fair to call it overpowered if it only tilts that way when the special IO is slotted?

 

TLDR, its not easy to escape the question of IO balance. It's something you need to think about even if the dev teams takes a mostly "expansion pack" approach.

Edited February 12, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[golstat2003]

21 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I still greatly disagree with this. Balance can be achieved without power creep and homogenization. It would just take hard work and a lotta time.

Something that the dev team we have doesn't have.

 

For a game this age with the state that it's in (read could very easily be shut down tomorrow for good) I don't think it's a good use of time.

[golstat2003]

8 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

There are some good thoughts in the comments above.

IMO it's not possible to remain entirely neutral about IOs as long as development continues on the game. I think sometimes the conversation ends up focused on "balance" in terms of the sets that already exist. But the effects of IOs is a question that comes up frequently when a new powerset, power, IO, or inspiration is added to the game. Even players who prefer a mostly "expansion pack" approach to server development, where new powersets are added but fundamental rules aren't adjusted have to contend with how powers interact with the gear system.

Here are some examples of questions that come up:

 

• Can a new Control set get a clone of Jolting Chain? Jolting Chain is a mostly bad power except for the fact that you can proc it. Can I proliferate this power to other sets knowing the main reason a person would take it is for the procs and not because of what it does on its own? If I can't proliferate it, is it fair to Electric Control to be stuck with it?
• Can we create clones of Bonfire? Bonfire is not popular on its own. It only becomes popular when used in combo with a kb to kd proc. Are there any archetypes where this effect is overpowered? Is it fair to call it overpowered if it only tilts that way when the special IO is slotted?

 

TLDR, its not easy to escape the question of IO balance. It's something you need to think about even if the dev teams takes a mostly "expansion pack" approach.

TBH I'm fine with certain sets having certain powers and other not having them for the exact reasons you alluded to in the questions above. That's kinda the point of COH. We don't have the system the Champions Online has where you can pick any power from any set (the one that was in alpha here) so the only thing that adds variety is different powersets being able to do (and slot) different things. I'm fine with that.

Edited February 12, 2021 by golstat2003

[Replacement]

On 2/8/2021 at 11:51 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

Indeed, which is a huge factor in why I wanted to bring up the thread too starting with the market. Like... what is the most expensive Enh atm....

 

 

Some of the most common are only between 3-5mill

 

 

 

 

 

 

The best IO's range between ~10 and ~20mill a pop, with the tippity top ones seemingly all at around 20m. 

 

Running a random PI radio mission on my lvl 50 at merely 0/5, I gained:

 

+445,526 raw Inf

7 rando salvage I sold for 1 each, making a profit of 2,285

attained 1 SO that I sold at a store for 15,600

attained 5 generic recipes that I sold at a store for 516,650

 

Adding it all up, a rather casual (even at x5) level 50 mission garnered $980,061. I would wager even just cranking it up to x8 would net double that per mission on average even at +0. 

 

Actually, having wiped that let me see what a random 8 man mission gets me...

 

+1,156,237 raw inf, but I only got 1 drop (rando yellow IO) with I sold on the AH for a profit of 23,117, totaling $1,179,354. Running another with the team of about the same size mission netted $1,067,377.  I got rather unlucky with drops, but that first one showed that even a handful of dropped loot can easily net another half a mill casually!

 

...Actually, lets try solo again but at 0/8:

 

Inf: 785,505

Enh: 0
Gen Recipes: 892,675 (seriously, just sell these at stores.... they add up mad fast)

Salvage: 955

Set Recipes: 19,812

Total: $1,698,947

 

Lets say you are just randomly running a few radios a night, say 5. If each one nets you around 1.5 mil each including just selling rando stuff you get, that is 7.5m a night if that's all you do. If you play 3 nights, that is 22.5 mil, which is enough to bid on the most expensive IO's on the market. That is *nutso* compared to live!!!

 

With this kind of "casual" income, you could reliably buy up basically any IO you want just by playing around at high level. I didn't even bother to do a whole TF or anything to see what that'd be like.... but this is something to chew on in terms of availability.

 

Sooooo what about those of us who are more interested in 5000 character slots than being level 50? 

 

You can't pay for this stuff when you're first at the level to obtain it, where your inf gains aren't good unless you're actively playing the market (let me temper this: converting merits to millions and leveling off of arcs is always enough to pay for the cheaper sets like Crushing Blow/ Thunder strike for some early accuracy).

 

So the issue with balancing around expected income is that you're ignoring how a lot of people play. You are telling them to not only have a high level character, but to continue to play it well after they consider it "done."

 

Maybe this thread has been about changing level 50 only content difficulty and I didn't notice? It's a very long thread.

 

Note - I don't really disagree with your assessments, but I did want to mention this devil's advocate perspective. 

 

[Galaxy Brain]

13 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

TBH I'm fine with certain sets having certain powers and other not having them for the exact reasons you alluded to in the questions above. That's kinda the point of COH. We don't have the system the Champions Online has where you can pick any power from any set (the one that was in alpha here) so the only thing that adds variety is different powersets being able to do (and slot) different things. I'm fine with that.

Right, but its not so much having "every set needs jolting chain" and more "well, my set can slot generic X type damage and Stuns.... guess I'll just slot general X damage types and nothing fun". Certain sets have powers that are essentially defined by being able to slot specific IO's into it, other sets get the luxury of being able to slot a bunch of different IO types for fun/power/variety of builds, but then others just... don't get it.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Replacement said:

Sooooo what about those of us who are more interested in 5000 character slots than being level 50? 

 

You can't pay for this stuff when you're first at the level to obtain it, where your inf gains aren't good unless you're actively playing the market (let me temper this: converting merits to millions and leveling off of arcs is always enough to pay for the cheaper sets like Crushing Blow/ Thunder strike for some early accuracy).

 

So the issue with balancing around expected income is that you're ignoring how a lot of people play. You are telling them to not only have a high level character, but to continue to play it well after they consider it "done."

 

Maybe this thread has been about changing level 50 only content difficulty and I didn't notice? It's a very long thread.

 

Note - I don't really disagree with your assessments, but I did want to mention this devil's advocate perspective. 

 

I would imagine the inf gain from level 45-50 is roughly similar, as the key in both instances was that generic IO recipes sell for 100k+ each at stores. So in that regard, playing the most basic of content at high level (not necessarily 50, hell even if you're Sidekicked on such a team you'll get these recipe drops to sell not to mention the orange salvage you can get at any time) can easily make you bank. The point being though, just *playing* can net you enough money to even buy purples in relatively short time without specifically gunning for max inf/hr. 

 

Its not telling them that "you need to keep playing once you hit 50", but there are HUGE amounts of people that play their 50's regularly, or even 40+, teaming with max/high levels, etc. With that in mind, the income is definitely there without needing to go ham. I would imagine those who make 3290847234 characters are not getting them all to 50, and most of them are not even going to see investment, making it sort of an odd factor.

 

The question though is if the barrier to IO's is so low now if one chooses to use them, is it expected?

[golstat2003]

38 minutes ago, Replacement said:

Sooooo what about those of us who are more interested in 5000 character slots than being level 50? 

 

You can't pay for this stuff when you're first at the level to obtain it, where your inf gains aren't good unless you're actively playing the market (let me temper this: converting merits to millions and leveling off of arcs is always enough to pay for the cheaper sets like Crushing Blow/ Thunder strike for some early accuracy).

 

So the issue with balancing around expected income is that you're ignoring how a lot of people play. You are telling them to not only have a high level character, but to continue to play it well after they consider it "done."

 

Maybe this thread has been about changing level 50 only content difficulty and I didn't notice? It's a very long thread.

 

Note - I don't really disagree with your assessments, but I did want to mention this devil's advocate perspective. 

 

This is why I keep bringing up crafting and the market during various points of this discussion.

 

IOs are just the recipes and actual things you slot. When discussing whether to move the expectation from "everyone has at least SOs" to "everyone has common IOs and more advanced IOs" that has to be considered.

 

The original caveat with the intro of Inventions all those years back was that it was completely optional. That includes crafting, and using the AH.

 

The inherent question here is "should it still be fine for players to completely ignore the Inventions system while playing?"

 

Or should there now be an expectation that AT SOME POINT during the life of your character that you HAVE to engage with the invtention system?

[DougGraves]

So if I understand this correctly:

 

You want the game balanced around IOs.  Which is a meaningless statement given the flexibility of IOs.  Presumably you mean you want the game balanced based around the best possible build using IOs.

 

Then, to make it fair, you want the prices of IOs lowered so that everyone has access to them and can make characters with the best possible IO builds.

 

Which means you want everyone to have the same builds with little effort.

 

The easy solution is to eliminate enhancements entirely.  Just give the powers the effects you want them to have with the IOs.  Then everyone has the best build at no effort.  Save all of the steps.

[Galaxy Brain]

5 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

The inherent question here is "should it still be fine for players to completely ignore the Inventions system while playing?"

 

Or should there now be an expectation that AT SOME POINT during the life of your character that you HAVE to engage with the invtention system?

I don't think it's a matter of "THEY HAVE TO", but more of "oh wow, literally 90% of players do it and it is incredibly easy to slot up if new people choose to". From a new player's perspective, you get all sorts of messages "You found your first salvage!" "Why is the "Recipe" tab red? What do these do" "What are these Wentworth Buildings / Colleges?" that sort of lead to towards inventions naturally, and without the context of "we used to only have SO's in my day" + it being the year 2021 and HC is on discord + reddit where people will be finding HC and by osmosis info on builds, I think its a lot less "taboo".

[golstat2003]

47 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Right, but its not so much having "every set needs jolting chain" and more "well, my set can slot generic X type damage and Stuns.... guess I'll just slot general X damage types and nothing fun". Certain sets have powers that are essentially defined by being able to slot specific IO's into it, other sets get the luxury of being able to slot a bunch of different IO types for fun/power/variety of builds, but then others just... don't get it.

 

 

 

I would imagine the inf gain from level 45-50 is roughly similar, as the key in both instances was that generic IO recipes sell for 100k+ each at stores. So in that regard, playing the most basic of content at high level (not necessarily 50, hell even if you're Sidekicked on such a team you'll get these recipe drops to sell not to mention the orange salvage you can get at any time) can easily make you bank. The point being though, just *playing* can net you enough money to even buy purples in relatively short time without specifically gunning for max inf/hr. 

 

Its not telling them that "you need to keep playing once you hit 50", but there are HUGE amounts of people that play their 50's regularly, or even 40+, teaming with max/high levels, etc. With that in mind, the income is definitely there without needing to go ham. I would imagine those who make 3290847234 characters are not getting them all to 50, and most of them are not even going to see investment, making it sort of an odd factor.

 

The question though is if the barrier to IO's is so low now if one chooses to use them, is it expected?

Errr to the bolded I'd argue there are many more folks who make multiple characters and DON'T get them to 50. I don't think that is that ODD.

 

With that said for this discussion, doesn't matter if those characters have IOs. Just thought it was funny with all us being City of Altholics. LOL

 

The barrirer to COMMON (not set IOs) IOs is so low so as to make those who choose to opt into them, easy for them to get into.

 

As I mentioned, I'd only agree to it being expected, if the acquisition of them changes to from having to craft them, to them dropping like SOs.

Edited February 12, 2021 by golstat2003

[golstat2003]

43 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I don't think it's a matter of "THEY HAVE TO", but more of "oh wow, literally 90% of players do it and it is incredibly easy to slot up if new people choose to". From a new player's perspective, you get all sorts of messages "You found your first salvage!" "Why is the "Recipe" tab red? What do these do" "What are these Wentworth Buildings / Colleges?" that sort of lead to towards inventions naturally, and without the context of "we used to only have SO's in my day" + it being the year 2021 and HC is on discord + reddit where people will be finding HC and by osmosis info on builds, I think its a lot less "taboo".

And even with all that I see plenty of people posting (and speaking in game) that the AH (especially with it's archaic bugs and UI) is terrible and NOT easy to get into.

 

The fact that so many farm and STILL to this day think it's easier to farm than simply use converters is another example where I'm not so sure I'd say most players think it's easy to get to or get into.

 

The recent changes the devs made in regards to the "influence at 50" setting and the shitstorm of a thread we had (with folks posting absolutely INCORRECT info about that AH and the market) shows that it may not be as easy or understandable as we think. Even for vets from live.

 

EDIT: Hell there was a recent post in general (I think it was one of the weekly discussion threads made by the GMs) where folks where talking about the market and how it works, where multiple people who do know how it works (and have posted multiple guides on Live AND again here on homecoming) having to correct folks.

 

I think we severely overestimate what players know about how to make inf in general and specifically about the inventions system, and more specifically about the AH and Market.

 

The tutorials in game (if you can even call them that) are SEVERLY lacking.

 

I think this thread makes some rather large assumptions about what players "know" about the inventions system. I'd like to see that aspect data mined a bit, before any decisions about "should IOs be required or the game balanced against them" be made. And I'd like the tutorials updated (or in the case of the AH actually created), and the AH UI revamped before we go there.

Edited February 12, 2021 by golstat2003

[oedipus_tex]

Instead of framing this discussion around what content is balanced around, I wonder if it would be helpful to reframe it as a discussion about the circumstances where IOs justify player abilities, (and also justify enemy abilities).

 

For example I will use iTrials. Most of the game's content is not iTrials. They are a small sliver of the possible challenges. Yet iTrials represent high stakes end game challenges. Because of their existence, a power or powerset that in "normal" content may not be considered useful can be justified by its usefulness in a trial.

 

Earlier I mentioned Jolting Chain. Perhaps it is not balanced around IOs at all. Instead it is justified by IOs. Players who want to IO their builds can take the power and those who do not can skip it. 

 

On the flip side of this, the fact that so many players have access to IOs may not mean we need to balance around them. However, it may mean that in order to justify IO builds, harder challenges need to be added. The nature of these challenges don't need to be linear changes in difficulty. They could be exotic challenges that justify IOs or non IOs in new ways.

To use an archetype example, Dominators are not balanced around permadom builds. But for many players, permadom justifies choosing a Dominator. Knowing that you can make a Dominator a permadom is part of the decision process and reason to go down that avenue.

Edited February 12, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, oedipus_tex said:

However, it may mean that in order to justify IO builds, harder challenges need to be added.

This appears to me to be the correct course ahead. For any character that I've spent the time to fully T4 and IO out, the vast majority of the content has become trivial. To correct this, I can either self-gimp, or make no effort to improve, or IOs and incarnates can be nerfed, or more content can be added that utilizes the engine to add difficulty.

 

The downside to this choice is that there WILL be, as we have seen in many a thread, those complaining that the new content is far too difficult to manage with SO only builds and thus goes against the age-old "game is balanced around SOs" mindset.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Troo]

If harder challenges is the same as new high level content.. yes absolutely (some already on the way)

[golstat2003]

4 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

This appears to me to be the correct course ahead. For any character that I've spent the time to fully T4 and IO out, the vast majority of the content has become trivial. To correct this, I can either self-gimp, or make no effort to improve, or IOs and incarnates can be nerfed, or more content can be added that utilizes the engine to add difficulty.

 

The downside to this choice is that there WILL be, as we have seen in many a thread, those complaining that the new content is far too difficult to manage with SO only builds and thus goes against the age-old "game is balanced around SOs" mindset.

As long as it's properly labeled as content meant for IO'd out or Incarnated toons then there will be no issue. Just like folks have no issue with some content requiring the Alpha slot.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, DougGraves said:

So if I understand this correctly:

 

You want the game balanced around IOs.  Which is a meaningless statement given the flexibility of IOs.  Presumably you mean you want the game balanced based around the best possible build using IOs.

 

Then, to make it fair, you want the prices of IOs lowered so that everyone has access to them and can make characters with the best possible IO builds.

 

Which means you want everyone to have the same builds with little effort.

 

The easy solution is to eliminate enhancements entirely.  Just give the powers the effects you want them to have with the IOs.  Then everyone has the best build at no effort.  Save all of the steps.

To clarify:

 

The thread here is more to discuss how IO's have impacted the game enough to where it should be addressed in some / certain manners. IO's are incredibly flexible, so balancing to a certain kind or build is a fool's errand, but recognizing that in general they push the envelope on what somebody brings to the table is beyond what was "intended" is something to look at.

 

This then raises the following questions regarding IO - Balance:

• How many people actually use them and how hard do they go?
  • On the latter part, where is the tipping point in strength for like "Mid Level" investment to where they become generally godlike?
• Are the barriers to entry on IO's a factor?
  • Whether by education, cost, drop rate / how they drop, etc
• Are IO's balanced against each other?
  • I keep bringing up this example, but look at -Def sets vs Stun sets. The unique perks of one is clearly superior here.
  • Sets are said to not be *explicitly* balanced with IO's in mind, but the sets they can take can make huge waves
• Are Procs/Proc Bombs / Certain powers that can radically change with IO's balanced?
  • Much more nuanced, but as mentioned are some powers like Jolting Chain / Bonfire sort of expected to be IO'd out?
  • Are sets that can accept game-changers like FF or -Res balanced around those perks, and likewise sets that cannot?

 

There's a lot that goes into each facet imo!

 

 

 

[tidge]

Don't most Ouroborous and SF/TF arcs allow the person starting the arc to allow missions to be played by characters without enhancement bonuses?

 

I don't see the need to 'rebalance' the entire game when players who want a different 'balance' that is identical to what is being suggested above already have that option.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 hours ago, tidge said:

Don't most Ouroborous and SF/TF arcs allow the person starting the arc to allow missions to be played by characters without enhancement bonuses?

Yes, but there's a huge difference between balancing a game and self-gimping in an attempt to correct for said lack of balance.

[Luminara]

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

Stop that, I have never once asked for IDENTICAL. Rather, I pointed out there is a factual disparity in who can slot what. Whether this is due to lacking options straight-up (can only slot melee damage for example), or lack of options for what they can slot (lol Stun IO's), there is unequal *opportunity* for many sets.

 

Define "unequal opportunity", in the context of Stun sets, because I don't see a lack of equivalency in the Stun set bonuses versus other mez set bonuses, or bonuses from other sets.  Recovery, +HP, Regen, a variety of +Def and +Res, +Recharge, +Accuracy... a +Movement Speed bonus.  There's even a purple Stun set.  You spend post after post insisting that there's an inequity and cap it off with "lol Stun IO's", after commenting on Power Transfer as an example of a step up in addressing that perceived inequity, but the bonuses in Power Transfer aren't unique or unusual.  They aren't even as good or as diverse as the bonuses in Stun sets.

 

So what, exactly, is the inequity you insist exists?  Lack of Dam/Stun sets?  Hey, shocker, there are no Dam/Hold sets, either.  Or Dam/Confuse.  Or Dam/Immob.  Or Dam/Sleep.  Or Dam/Fear.  We were never intended to be able to slot every power for every effect and receive every set bonus.  The design called for requiring the player to choose what he/she wanted to improve in a power, to provide balance by not allowing every power to be slotted in every way which would permit maximizing every aspect and effect and acquire every set bonus.

 

Is it that Stun sets don't have special IOs like the Panacea/LotG/Numina's uniques, or damage procs?  So what.  Where was it written that every set had to have the same special IO options that every other set offered?  How is it unfair?  Because the existing options don't match your preferences, or aren't popular slotting options?  Again, so what.  Why does every power in the game need to heal, or improve endurance management, or deal damage, or have "equal" options for slotting special IOs or procs?

 

Your claim of a lack of fair slotting opportunities appears to stem from your personal preferences, not from analysis of game balance or design philosophy.  There's no documentation stating that every power or power set has to be equally slottable for special IOs or procs, or that all set bonuses have to be available to all powers or power set combinations, or that every power needs an IO set which complements everything the power does.  None.  Nor does game balance require that level of parity.  A person can play with no IOs, or a perfectly optimized FotM build with maximal set bonuses and damage procs/special IOs out the wazoo, or a silly build packed with "lol Stun" sets and still have fun, progress at a reasonable pace and thrive.

 

Going one step further, I'm going to point out that they could've built set bonuses and procs into the powers themselves, if parity between power sets, slotting bonuses and special IOs was the goal.  They could've tagged every slot in a power to deliver a set bonus when it was filled, and set the sixth slot as a proc, and skipped making IO sets altogether, if they really wanted to make the system "fair" in the sense of everyone having the same options.  But they didn't.  They sat us all down at an all you can eat buffet... and you're saying that there's a problem because we don't all have plates the same shape and color.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

This is being obtuse, the same limitations occur for the power you're using the procs with.

 

There's no X% probability check for Life Drain to deal damage if the hit check succeeds.  There's no variable recharge mechanic built into Torrent, or requirement that Y number of critters be present to assure that it recharges in a set amount of time.  Those are limitations which exist within the proc system, not in the powers, and they're applicable even if you don't want to address them.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

As I showed earlier, even Casual McNewguy can earn enough to buy Purple IO's

 

If they're that accessible, there's no reason not to use them in a comparison.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

The example I used avoided purples for a reason, being that they are above and beyond the normal procs.

 

Isn't the point of proc-heavy powers... to go above and beyond what a power is supposed to do?  Is that not, in fact, the entire purpose of procs?

So, what, you're saying that we should be limiting the comparison to what's available while leveling?  If so, the proc-heavy performance is still lower than simply franken-slotting uncommon and rare set IOs and using two standard procs instead of six when looking at total cycle time for the damage dealt, based on what I'm seeing when I throw a build together and differentiate only that one power's slotting.  The damage per cycle time still comes out lower for the proc-heavy slotting than for the franken-slotted version.  So however you want to limit the comparison, six-slotting with procs just doesn't come out ahead, either with best in slot or for a leveling build.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

But, this also raises a question about it where a suite of a 5/6 purple set + another purple proc only slightly edged out a hodgepodge of random "rare" procs, should the expectation be that they spend a lot more on purples (even if they are comparatively affordable)? Yes, that does give you more options for set bonuses but if you get "good enough" elsewhere with a fraction of the cost/effort, why not use that one?

 

Because "good enough" requires a greater investment of effort for a lower return on that investment.  IO set bonuses allow us to work smarter, not harder.

 

On 2/11/2021 at 4:03 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

A Fire/Empathy corruptor for example is pretty dry when it comes to fun extra stuff they could slot that could be game changing (not even damage procs, but utilities) compared to other combinations of Pri/Sec for a Corruptor. Its not that the combo is "Bad", but the lack of opportunity could leave it missing out compared to other set combinations and that is no fault of it's own/anything the player did simply because it does not have the ability to use certain gamechangers.

 

Maybe the person playing that Fire/Empathy corruptor cares more about playing a Fire/Empathy corruptor than about set bonuses.  Maybe... it's just possible that... people who play this game care more about character concepts and having a good time with their characters than they do about being optimal, and recognize that, since the game's challenge is still rooted in SO-level builds, they can do that without the need for 3000 more IO sets or bonus homogenization to make them all "equal".

 

If all you see when you look at the game is set bonuses and procs, maybe it's time to take a step back and remember that there's more to it than that.

[tidge]

4 hours ago, tidge said:

Don't most Ouroborous and SF/TF arcs allow the person starting the arc to allow missions to be played by characters without enhancement bonuses?

 

I don't see the need to 'rebalance' the entire game when players who want a different 'balance' that is identical to what is being suggested above already have that option.

 

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Yes, but there's a huge difference between balancing a game and self-gimping in an attempt to correct for said lack of balance.

 

*IF* the perceived imbalance is coming from Enhancements (which is, I believe the stated point of this thread), then it should not be considered *self-gimping*  to have an option to play without the source of the perceived imbalance.

 

12 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

To clarify:

 

The thread here is more to discuss how IO's have impacted the game enough to where it should be addressed in some / certain manners. IO's are incredibly flexible, so balancing to a certain kind or build is a fool's errand, but recognizing that in general they push the envelope on what somebody brings to the table is beyond what was "intended" is something to look at.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

9 minutes ago, tidge said:

*IF* the perceived imbalance is coming from Enhancements (which is, I believe the stated point of this thread), then it should not be considered *self-gimping*  to have an option to play without the source of the perceived imbalance.

It's not self-gimping to have options. It's self-gimping to choose them, especially when there's no added reward to doing so other than "I did it." Just as not bothering with IOs at all is self-gimping.

I self-gimped to run the Werner rules ITF just to see if I could. There was no reward from doing it other than adding my name to a list.

Folks say this or that is "hard" but that's a lie. It's not hard. None of this is hard. It's a video game. Digging ditches in frozen tundra is hard.

Making massive inf to afford IOs isn't hard. Anyone can do it with a fire farmer or a single tricked out character farmin DA repeatables. We can all, of course, choose not to. We can choose not to PL alts or farm for inf or run with nothing but SOs at +0/x1 from 1 to 50 and only get incarnate loot from running I-trials. But that, too, is self-gimping.

It's all extremely easy to choose otherwise.

[Doomguide2005]

     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.

 

[ScarySai]

I'd be for future content being added being made more difficult, so as to force teaming if you don't bother IOing/optimizing your build. I'm a big fan of the Freaklok arc.

 

As for balancing around IOs? You pretty much can't. Even if we ignore procs, even if we ignore insane high-performers, it's just so wildly inconsistent what IOs actually give you. My 500 mil blaster build may not be as roided out by IOs as say, my 500 mil corruptor build. It all depends, so balancing around the IOs conceptually would be hard to actually do in practice.

 

I'm not against a new difficulty mode for some of the people to test their mettle on, but that's pretty much the most you could do there. There's not really much HC could do to the invention system without either adding to it, or making the game worse, either.

Edited February 13, 2021 by ScarySai

[Doomguide2005]

3 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

<stuff about balancing>

 

I'm not against a new difficulty mode for some of the people to test their mettle on, but that's pretty much the most you could do there. There's not really much HC could do to the invention system without either adding to it, or making the game worse, either.

I personally don't think you need to do all that much to the notoriety difficulties to test folks mettle.  Making mobs larger is not going to do much without other changes.  And I'm not convinced making the mobs +5, +6 or +7 really is the ticket either.  There are mobs out there now that are wickedly nasty.  Folks by and large avoid them.  I'd totally forgotten about Vanguard Sword until a recent thread, for example.  When folks start easily tackling these missions solo at +4/×8 let me know.