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

[Galaxy Brain]

26 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

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.

I think this falls into the risk vs reward, and a bit of design. A lot of the tougher mobs have "BS" mechanics like stacked vengeance and phasing randomly that you can't stop. Stuff like even Malta I feel is more fair with specific mobs that do nasty stuff you can mitigate with strategies, or even stuff like the Ghouls with their aoe heal on death that mitigates steamrolling (tho they are not found later on). However, those mobs are not more valuable than (Council / insert easier mob here) so there is always the choice of Easy vs Hard/ANNOYING enemy for the same results, so guess which is often picked?

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[ScarySai]

2 hours ago, Doomguide2005 said:

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.

Going past +5 for incarnates really wouldn't be much of a test outside survival benchmarks. At that point, you're just so outscaled that no amount of IOs will really allow you to do anything impressive, after a point.

[chi1701]

1 hour ago, ScarySai said:

Going past +5 for incarnates really wouldn't be much of a test outside survival benchmarks. At that point, you're just so outscaled that no amount of IOs will really allow you to do anything impressive, after a point.

Find its interesting that people are looking at increasing the difficulty, but wont even consider power creep on each individual archytype. Take the damage potential of blaster and compare it to a defender, both with full sets and incarnates.

 

Im not suggesting the a defender should match a blaster, but with the games use of % based increments that gap only got bigger and bigger, this can also be applied to any ability/sets ingame. (includes my PB Dwarf and perma LF)

 

Atm, the way the game makes it harder is to simply increase the mobs level and to increase their numbers which to me isnt a good way to make it harder, but instead youl end up with what is called bullet sponges, and in certain groups, your team might face much of a threat, but might take even longer to complete missions or AVs simply cannot be taken down due to their resistances and health regen.

 

There are simply way to many power combos to effectively find a solution for game difficulty, do we cater for the strongest players and sets or do we cater for weakest? If the game is too hard its impossible, but to easy its not challenging. But at least not challenging doesnt provide content barrier.

[oedipus_tex]

Things partly don't scale past 54 for a somewhat hilarious reason. A lot of summon costumes don't scale that high. Yes, in the code you have to define a costume for every possible level of summon. Or at least a lot of old summons are created that way. There are 54 lines of code describing which costume an Ice Slick uses.

Edited February 14, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Replacement]

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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

Holds have:

• A PvP set, a Winter Set, and a Purple Set
• 3 other sets that can scale to 50
• 3 damage proc options, a +effect option (+2 mag), and a survival/utility proc (absorb).  Also a slow proc for kicks

Stuns have:

• a Purple set
• 2 other sets that can scale to 50
• No damage procs, 2 +effect procs (Immob, ToHit Debuff), and a +KB proc no one would seriously slot on purpose - making the set name incredibly on-point (Stupefy).

While Holds are probably less common than Stuns and tend to have longer recharges (and thus general usability), it's obvious this set advantage gives more opportunity to a set like Ice Blast - with access to 2 Holds - over something like Archery with a disorient.  Yes, this can be made up in-set with hard-wired benefits, but that doesn't really help with build diversity.

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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?

Snipping the rest, because Jesus.  You are doing this thing where you're taking Galaxy Brain's very general suggestions and claiming a very, obtusely hyper-literal interpretation of it.  I don't even know what you're trying to achieve, here.

 

Parity does not require equivalence.  You know this.  To put it another way: things don't have to be direct copy/pastes of each other to bring equal value to a party.  And you know this.  And you know Galaxy Brain isn't arguing anything to the contrary.

 

I don't have a horse in this race, since I'm immune to nerfs, I just don't think you want to make the argument I'm reading you as making.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Replacement

[Galaxy Brain]

39 minutes ago, oedipus_tex said:

Things partly don't scale past 54 for a somewhat hilarious reason. A lot of summon costumes don't scale that high. Yes, in the code you have to define a costume for every possible level of summon. Or at least a lot of old summons are created that way. There are 54 lines of code describing which costume an Ice Slick uses.

Side note, but do level shifts apply / make things weird? Like does a Lvl 54(+1) enemy just delete itself?

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

Define "unequal opportunity", in the context of Stun sets

Specifically their unique IO's are kind of odd. They get to use an immob proc (mag 2, so it only effects minions unless stacked and they get deleted anyways...tho a Stun+Immob does make for a funny psuedo-hold), Knockback (can of worms there), and a -7.5% ToHit debuff from the purple. The purple set at least will give you great Rech and Stun enhancement, and the sort of standard set bonuses you get from purples, but honestly the -Tohit is kind of weird in practice. It lasts about ~8 seconds when it fires, which about lines up with the lower end duration of your average stun power. Even an attack with the side-effect of a stun like Lancer Shot has nearly a 10s base stun duration, which means that the stun would outlast the -Tohit on most enemies... making the debuff worthless as they are not attacking you anyways once stunned! It's nice on bosses for sure, but if you manage to CC them shortly after, the stun applying -Tohit isn't that special.

 

Compare that to something like -Def sets which get both -Def and Accurate -Def, and the plethora of options between Damage, -Resist, and Self-Buffing which are more universally applicable and are not negated by their own effect outlasting the debuff and washing out what the debuff accomplishes.

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

The new End/Dam sets show that this is not an "intended" thing. Given there are number of damaging powers that can stun, opening up that avenue would be nice just as it was with End Mod.

 

Lancer Shot
Psychic Wail

Cosmic Burst

Taser

All energy melee variants

Thunder Strike

Eagle's Claw and other MA powers

Psychic Shockwave

Various powers in Kinetic Melee

Super Strength powers 

Etc

 

There are lots more examples, but you get the gist. Even going with Seismic Smash as I did earlier, that attack gets a ton more options because it has a Hold component instead of a Stun. it's not even going for a FotM build, but like I said above the unique stun IO's that are like the cherries on top of stun sets are just lackluster compared to other mez sets, or most other sets in general which makes them not as fun IMHO. 

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

Tbh that first part would be cool as hell, and was part of the original-original design docs if I recall. Something like where they wanted to make things like "This enhancement adds fire DoT to your attacks" was in the early planning stages but never made it in / was converted into powers like Fiery Embrace, until the IO system came to be.

 

Again though, its not the same exact *options* its the same amount of options, you dig? Lets say Holds get 5 really cool slotting options that are all viable, I would think it fair for Stuns (another major power group) to also have around 5 or so really cool options that are both effective and fun.

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

But there are a bunch of procs in game:

 

 

 

As well as requirements for X amount of critters to scale:

 

 

Those things have always been in CoH, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Anywho, if I do read it right what I meant by that was the downsides you mentioned earlier could be applied universally. Life drain always works on hit, but there is always a 1/20 chance it simply never hits. Same with a proc-bomb simply missing despite having tons of Acc and Rech / whatever from bonuses.

 

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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

 

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?

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

 

So this one is on me, but while I did show that purples are within reach, they are still rather costly compared to normal IO's and are significantly more powerful in each metric. Separating them I feel is fair for those reasons. When the fully purpled power in this context is only a bit better than the more conservatively procced one for like 5x the cost, I can see where it gets kind of shifty. The goal there was also just to highlight just how better procs made even a high-damage power on a high-damage AT.

 

That goes into the other point though, where Procs are indeed meant to push a power further than possible normally (both in raw strength and with bypassing modifiers and caps). However, a part of the whole discussion here is "how much should they give?". With certain powers, you get WAY more output by loading them with procs and "gaming" the PPM system with outside bonuses. Of course this is balanced by loss of set bonuses if you do it to many powers, but are even having a handful of bombs, or game-changer proc powers as @oedipus_tex mentioned (Bonfire, etc), acceptable?

 

 

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

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.

Of course there is more to the game than that, but for the purpose of this discussion with regard to the real meta and HUGE chunk of the game dedicated to the IO system, I feel it is a disservice that they do not even get the opportunity to play with it. Hell, I am able to use IO's to make concept characters in unique ways that don't 100% rely on the meta, but still have effectiveness and fun!

[ivanhedgehog]

12 hours 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.

taking responsibility for your own game experience isnt that big a deal. Is it too painful to change your own difficulty as it is? isnt setting your difficulty at -1 or +0 self gimping? should everyone be forced to +4/8 just to avoid anyone having to self gimp?

[Bill Z Bubba]

26 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

taking responsibility for your own game experience isnt that big a deal. Is it too painful to change your own difficulty as it is? isnt setting your difficulty at -1 or +0 self gimping? should everyone be forced to +4/8 just to avoid anyone having to self gimp?

Yes, you can self-gimp by running at max diff at level 12 with SOs. That sounds awful.

[Galaxy Brain]

I think a big part of it is that in general, Self-Gimping is less fun than tackling a challenge.

 

What is more rewarding? Beating something you know you could win with one hand tied behind your back, or taking down something that you know you had a good chance of failing at even when going all out?

Edited February 14, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[ivanhedgehog]

13 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Yes, you can self-gimp by running at max diff at level 12 with SOs. That sounds awful.

should my reward be higher if I just dont enhance? my risk is higher. at what point does it become absurd? I have no idea but maybe someone has ideas

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by ivanhedgehog

[ivanhedgehog]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think a big part of it is that in general, Self-Gimping is less fun than tackling a challenge.

 

What is more rewarding? Beating something you know you could win with one hand tied behind your back, or taking down something that you know you had a good chance of failing at even when going all out?

dont overenhance your character and there are more challenges like that. solo pylons under a time limit on an empath defender, that sounds difficult. balance on COH will always be difficult because of base difficulty between at's. we see brutes and scrappers soloing things easily. we see that a lot more than defenders doing it. I am sure that someone can pull out an end case to prove otherwise, but should the game be balanced around end cases? the original devs didnt think so.

[Galaxy Brain]

2 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

should my reward be higher if I just dont enhance? my risk is higher. at what point does it become absurd? I have no idea but maybe someone has ides

 

That specifically gets squirrely as it is rewarding purposefully bad play. The game does expect you to enhance yourself in some manner to where your powers are better than the base level.

 

What we see now though is you're able to go WAY past the base level and the game likewise has not caught up for the most part.

[Replacement]

2 hours ago, ivanhedgehog said:

dont overenhance your character and there are more challenges like that. solo pylons under a time limit on an empath defender, that sounds difficult. balance on COH will always be difficult because of base difficulty between at's. we see brutes and scrappers soloing things easily. we see that a lot more than defenders doing it. I am sure that someone can pull out an end case to prove otherwise, but should the game be balanced around end cases? the original devs didnt think so.

I think a lot of people would say "over enhancing" is part of going all out.

 

It's a more cognitive version of seeking a challenge.  It's one thing to tell me to hold back, but to tell me to hold back on my own ideas? Sounds quite shite.

 

---

Ok that part done, I absolutely agree - the game should never be designed around edge cases.  It's one of the reasons I avoid games with an eSports presence - I hate when interesting options are destroyed because of specific things pulled off by the top 25 players of a game. 

You know, this leads me to what is perhaps the more salient question of this thread (or at least a new phrasing for other folks to try on).

 

While the game shouldn't be balanced around what some broken combos can do, should it at least be balanced around how it's usually played?

 

This would mean building with your player metagame in mind, as opposed to how the developer thinks it should be played.

Frankly, it's amazing the answer for this game isn't an obvious "yes," when literally every other online game I've played has people complaining on their forums and subreddits that "these devs don't even play their game" - indicating anger at design decisions made without knowledge of how the game is played in reality.

 

Fwiw, my personal answer is actually more "no", and this is the only game where I feel that way.

It's an echo of the very first response on this thread: Sets and IO builds are this game's version of high end gear, but it's important that casual, roleplay, new, and self-found players are still capable of experiencing as much of the game's content as possible.

[tidge]

6 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think a big part of it is that in general, Self-Gimping is less fun than tackling a challenge.

 

What is more rewarding? Beating something you know you could win with one hand tied behind your back, or taking down something that you know you had a good chance of failing at even when going all out?

I think that castrating the damage slotting options of entire classes because the masculinity of damage dealing by other classes feels threatened is lot more radical and can only be viewed as rewarded by some peculiar sense of "but this should be better" logic.

 

I'm reading that players simultaneously don't want to occasionally run an arc without enhancement bonuses but instead want other players to have less access to enhancements.

[Galaxy Brain]

6 hours ago, Replacement said:

Ok that part done, I absolutely agree - the game should never be designed around edge cases.  It's one of the reasons I avoid games with an eSports presence - I hate when interesting options are destroyed because of specific things pulled off by the top 25 players of a game. 

Agreed! We should not be balancing around the tippity top, multi-hundred-million, fully t4 incarnate folks. Those in particular are fewer and far between to affect the overall gameplay experience (and maybe something like revamping the Shadow Shard could give them a playground).

 

6 hours ago, Replacement said:

While the game shouldn't be balanced around what some broken combos can do, should it at least be balanced around how it's usually played?

 

This would mean building with your player metagame in mind, as opposed to how the developer thinks it should be played.

Frankly, it's amazing the answer for this game isn't an obvious "yes," when literally every other online game I've played has people complaining on their forums and subreddits that "these devs don't even play their game" - indicating anger at design decisions made without knowledge of how the game is played in reality.

 

The highlight is what I was originally going at in the OP. It's one thing to consider the game when it was LIVE and you could argue that folks who really used the IO system were a very small minority overall given the large population of new players / much more casual players / the barriers to getting IO's being much harsher. 

 

For HC though, I would wager the vast majority of players are CoH veterans who know the game already when jumping in. For new players who get brought in, odds are they are told by a veteran and they have a mentor ready and available to show them the ropes. If not, they usually find out via Facebook, Reddit, or Discord. Casually glancing at the CoH FB pages (City of Heroes and Save City of Heroes being the biggest iirc), there is plenty of mention of build talk, power stats, etc between the memes. Even more so on reddit with threads about IO / Incarnates popping up daily, and don't even start on Discord 😛. So not only is there a very big portion of players in HC who know the game well, but for everyone else there are more resources than ever (including the forums!) to learn up on it outside the game, which is super commonplace in today's age.

 

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

 

6 hours ago, Replacement said:

Fwiw, my personal answer is actually more "no", and this is the only game where I feel that way.

It's an echo of the very first response on this thread: Sets and IO builds are this game's version of high end gear, but it's important that casual, roleplay, new, and self-found players are still capable of experiencing as much of the game's content as possible.

 

I think this is where we differ Rep, as I think that *some* IO's are for sure high-end gear (Purples/Winters for sure, maybe some of the "better" IO's), but with them dropping regularly through recipes the yellow sets / a good chunk of orange sets / ATO's even with merits as the "main" way to get them I'd argue are leaning much more towards "Standard Gear".

 

DO's / SO's / Even generic IO's = Basic Gear, especially with the recent changes where SO's kind of permeate ALL levels, these are the default gear in the game. Your standard Dagger of Rat killing equivalent in other games. Generic IO's you could even say are your special +1 Daggers of Rat killing as they are still just the "basics". Games are usually balanced to where you can get by with basic gear for sure, as long as it's your level, but there are certainly parts of the game where it may not be optimal. Games should certainly be beatable with the bare basic equipment, but you might have a frustrating time.

 

Yellow / Orange IO's / (Maybe even ATO's) = Standard Gear, the equivalent of your "Elegant Assassins' Dagger". In other games, you start finding better gear that usually has some sort of perk or the like that makes it more valuable than your basic equipment, most games sort of expect you to use this stuff throughout the game since it'll drop regularly and you equip it as you go. These daggers might have a higher crit chance, steal a little HP when you defeat an enemy, etc on some occasions. The games with gear like this are usually balanced to a degree around the player getting mostly or all this level of gear at some point since it gives it to you so often via drops / chests / stores / etc.

 

Purple/Winter/Superior IO's = Legendary Gear, the "Lightning Dagger of Zeus" equivalent where it is expected that this gear needs extreme effort or luck to obtain, and the game is likely NOT explicitly balanced around it. These are often end of a quest line special items, rare drops from a boss, need special collectibles turned in to achieve it, or even just Pay to Win DLC, but the common theme here is that these items are often far above what the intended challenge level is if you are to use them. They are their own reward for acquiring them and being able to roflstomp content, though there may be end game encounters where even they are expected to be the balancing point.

 

That tangent aside, in CoH I lean heavily on the vast majority of  IO's falling into "Standard Gear" as far and away they are NOT end game / high end stuff:

 

 

This is after like 3 missions on my lvl 16 mastermind solo. Granted, I can't use most of these but I got plenty of crafting material + 3 yellow / 1 orange recipes just by playing around. The only barrier here would be time and possibly a little money at this particular level, but if say Yellow IO's became actual drops.....?

 

The things that really stand out to me with all this is the above where you can start getting recipes and materials VERY early on just through normal gameplay, though with the caveat that you do need to make them which is a time sink. Later on this is not that big a deal as you get more income and can just buy them outright, and to your point of them being high-end you do not really feel their full effects until you get enough slots to get a lot of bonuses. The resources available for players of all levels are much more accessible and even promoted, with /AH being an active command on HC I would think there is an expectation it should be used and prices on it are more affordable than ever, even if you're just running a few radios each week.

 

In my view, its almost as if the only barrier is that you do not get (Yellow) IO's like normal drops in other games where you can just slot them immediately, but otherwise they are just about as accessible as that for anyone who is curious about them. That of course then branches into the Io to IO balance, what powersets can use what, and by a decent extension the content in the game on average where "Easy" encounters are just as if not more valuable than "Challenging" ones either through just raw kill speed/same rewards, or by some of the more  challenging mobs being challening through FRUSTRATION (aka BS mechanics) and not so much actually challenging you.

[Arbegla]

So I haven't read much of the past few pages, but I'm old enough to remember with the ITF was 'End game content' and people complained very loudly on the beta that it was impossible to complete with a full 8 man team, fully IO'ed with Bloody Bay nukes.

 

Then me (a bot/traps MM) and a grav/energy Dom duo'ed it, without using temp powers. Because we understood the mechanics and how to break them, and just rolled over everything. The ITF was never nerfed, and people just got better at completing it, and now we have speed teams doing the entire thing, without deaths, in less than 20 minutes.

 

The biggest issue with this game, isn't IOs, its the sheer fact its been around for literally 15 years. People who are passionate about the game have broken it, with just SOs. Because they understand how the AI works (or rather doesn't work to be fair) and can exploit that. This comes back to the newbie with an OP build argument. If you strip all of the IOs out of @Bill Z Bubba claws/sr and made him run with just SOs, he would still tear apart missions, that a brand new player, with a max IO build can't even dream of doing.

 

How you do balance around skill? And do we care that the very skilled players, are also the ones to have very powerful IO builds? It kinda comes with the knowledge of a playing a game for 15 years...

[DSorrow]

On 2/14/2021 at 8:09 AM, ivanhedgehog said:

taking responsibility for your own game experience isnt that big a deal. Is it too painful to change your own difficulty as it is? isnt setting your difficulty at -1 or +0 self gimping? should everyone be forced to +4/8 just to avoid anyone having to self gimp?

 

On 2/14/2021 at 8:51 AM, ivanhedgehog said:

dont overenhance your character and there are more challenges like that.

I think the issue with this is that for a lot of people the min/maxing specifically is a big part of the game experience. Asking to "not overenhance" is basically just saying "stop doing that thing you enjoy in order to make the game more enjoyable" which doesn't really make any sense. Another way of looking at that is telling someone who no longer feels challenged by a 5K run to stop training so much or run it in impractical equipment rather than encouraging them to find a nice 10K route.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 8:46 AM, ivanhedgehog said:

should my reward be higher if I just dont enhance? my risk is higher. at what point does it become absurd? I have no idea but maybe someone has ideas

 

Well, it was already noted that the game does expect one to use enhancements to an extent already, and I think analogously to pretty much any other environment, you usually don't get increased rewards by achieving the same thing others do without using the tools provided to you, but by achieving something greater than default by using the same tools. At least I wouldn't expect to be lined up for a raise if I started showing up to work with an abacus instead of my PC, even if I could perform at my current PC-aided level.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if tools are provided not using them is absurd, and conversely, expecting players to use tools that aren't readily available would also be absurd. The game does provide you with boat loads of generic and yellow IOs, and a good amount of oranges on top of those, so I think a common sense based semi random mix of those (i.e. damage powers slotted with damage sets, but no cohesive min/maxing of set bonuses) would be a good baseline for 50+ content.

Edited February 15, 2021 by DSorrow

[tidge]

Apropos of (almost) nothing: I spent some time recently helping a (new?) player complete Mender Ramiel's arc (to unlock the Alpha slot). Just to provide an idea of what I observed about the character in question:

• Fresh level 50
• Spines/Fire Brute
• Difficulty set to +1/x6
• No enhancement set bonuses

By itself, the primary reason the character was having problems was the difficulty setting... but the lack enhancement bonuses was certainly not helping. I don't play brutes, but I have observed with many other ATs that this arc is relatively easy with a kitted level 50... but much more of a struggle with less-optimized builds.

 

Without arguing about the specific ATs, or specific play-styles of players that face that arc... my opinion that the game should be 'rebalanced for IOs' remains NO, otherwise players like the one I was helping are going to end up even further behind the curve.

[Galaxy Brain]

@tidge, just curious due to the AT and powers... how did they get to 50?

[Arbegla]

54 minutes ago, tidge said:

• Difficulty set to +1/x6

There's the problem. He's running a mission solo, that's designed for a group of six. And based on your story, you were able to accomplish it, with just two people.

 

This game is honestly balanced around SOs, running solo at 0/x1. Anything above that, and you're playing outside the balanced equation of the game. If you're having issues soloing +4/x8 content, well, you're not supposed to be able to solo that content anyways. 

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

@tidge, just curious due to the AT and powers... how did they get to 50?

I didn't ask. I try not to be critical of any player's play style, power choices, costumes, etc. so I sincerely just took them on face value.

 

1 hour ago, Arbegla said:

There's the problem. He's running a mission solo, that's designed for a group of six. And based on your story, you were able to accomplish it, with just two people.

I don't want to reduce this little story to an ad hominem argument. I wanted to share only that I recently encountered a new (-ish?) player that was having an appropriate (IMHO, YMMV) level of frustration because of game content. I explained that the difficulty setting was almost certainly too high (just as I indicated in my post) but that is what he wanted to run with. The last several pages have had a whiff of 'the game is too easy' to them... but this player did not self-gimp, they simply didn't take full advantage of everything the game has to offer (as has been described by others, above). I don't think my PUGmate was a 'black swan'. I just wanted to share teh story of a player who would (likely) end up even further behind the curve if the game was 'rebalanced around IOs' (which I take to overlap significantly with 'made harder'... certainly not in all cases, but in a majority of them, I suspect)

 

I didn't tell the play that I've done that arc with a fresh level 50 at the same (or harder) settings, but the times I didn't do it by mistake (Unai Kemen can lull you into a false sense of security!) it was after my post-50 respec into... wait for it.... enhancement sets! I don't level up my characters without MOST of my final power/enhancement choices in place, but some of my fresh level 50s have had serious trouble solo-ing that particular arc even with (non-superior) Enhancement sets that I think most character builders would agree were 'efficient enough'.

[Galaxy Brain]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:57 PM, tidge said:

I didn't ask. I try not to be critical of any player's play style, power choices, costumes, etc. so I sincerely just took them on face value.

Very true! Its just that *particular* AT and power combo has lets say.... connotations lol

 

On 2/15/2021 at 1:57 PM, tidge said:

 

I don't want to reduce this little story to an ad hominem argument. I wanted to share only that I recently encountered a new (-ish?) player that was having an appropriate (IMHO, YMMV) level of frustration because of game content. I explained that the difficulty setting was almost certainly too high (just as I indicated in my post) but that is what he wanted to run with. The last several pages have had a whiff of 'the game is too easy' to them... but this player did not self-gimp, they simply didn't take full advantage of everything the game has to offer (as has been described by others, above). I don't think my PUGmate was a 'black swan'. I just wanted to share teh story of a player who would (likely) end up even further behind the curve if the game was 'rebalanced around IOs' (which I take to overlap significantly with 'made harder'... certainly not in all cases, but in a majority of them, I suspect)

It seems like they picked up on some things but not others, which is fine though a little odd that they knew about the difficulty settings at all for +1/x6, but not how to readjust? Anywho, I don't mean to pick on this guy through proxy but this goes to more just learning the game, which this person was clearly in the process of if they went with that particular build + was messing with Oro and their difficulty in the first place!

 

It seems like most of us are in agreement that post 50 content could use some more bite, and from some anecdotal evidence from other threads + testing by @Infinitum.... Incarnates probably have far more power than IO's do there but that is another can of worms. Heck, difficulty when it comes to content is a whole can of worms with the sort of "ecosystem" you deal with. We've beaten around ideas regarding risk vs rewards, why some enemies are more "frustrating" than difficult (carnies phasing is more just a time trial than difficult), and also how sometimes its a matter of even accessing the crunchy stuff (vanguard arcs, rularuu arcs, etc). On the whole though, I think we are all in agreement it should be more of an endgame thing anyways due to that being where you truly get power from being IO'd/etc when it comes to really meaty content.

 

As for the IO's themselves, I'm more curious on the IO System's balance between drops / creation / set-to-set balance / powerset balance with them in mind. The last bit especially when it comes to what can slot certain effects / how certain IO families are simply far worse than others.

 

 

[Luminara]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

Specifically their unique IO's are kind of odd.

 

Irrelevant.  Nothing is supposed to be equally useful to everyone.  The entire point of having varied sets and IOs in sets is to give players choices and options, just like having varied archetypes and power sets does, and you not pursuing an option doesn't make it bad or wrong.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

The new End/Dam sets show that this is not an "intended" thing.

 

The design of the Invention system was structured entirely on and within the existing categorization of enhancements.  Entirely.  What came before (standard enhancements) was what informed and guided the design process of what followed (IOs).  The intent of that system was to create a new avenue of growth and empowerment for players, within the established enhancement system.  Not to break new ground in enhancement categorization, nor to supplant that categorization, but to supplement and complement it within the framework already in the game and familiar to players.

 

The implementation of the Invention system revolved around creating and encouraging player choice - did the player want to focus on set bonuses, or on optimizing every aspect of a power?  The player could do one or the other with IO sets, but never both.  That was intentional.  Deliberate.  That was how the Invention system was laid out.  If making a power the best it could be mattered, you franken-slotted.  If you wanted set bonuses, you accepted a trade-off.

 

The original categorization of enhancements was carefully created, exhaustively tested and laboriously gone over until it was as perfectly balanced and fair as possible.  The IO system follows that categorization stringently, only diverging in four cases (Accurate Heal, Accurate Defense Debuff, Accurate ToHit Debuff, Recharge Intensive Pets), and in those cases, only because the design of multiple powers made them necessary.  Those sets address oversights, nothing more.

 

And your evidence to disprove all of this is a pair of IO sets added by the HC team and designed specifically to support and incite interest in a new EndMod power set that they released in the same update on a private server group.  Ignoring, of course, the third EndMod set they added, which offers 0% enhancement to Damage, and that one of the two End/Dam options only enhances Damage by 68.9%, and that the HC team didn't design the Invention system, therefore cannot be attributed any intent in said design.

 

Color me unconvinced.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

Given there are number of damaging powers that can stun, opening up that avenue would be nice just as it was with End Mod.

 

Uh, no, it would be an enormous step backward.  We had City of Statues.  We were nerfed so hard that controllers and dominators still feel it.  Adding Dam/Stun IO set options wouldn't be nice, it'd be an invitation to repeating that festival of shit and tedium.  You can slot Dam/Mez HOs like everyone else, or franken-slot, and be grateful that you still have that option.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

Again though, its not the same exact *options* its the same amount of options, you dig? Lets say Holds get 5 really cool slotting options that are all viable, I would think it fair for Stuns (another major power group) to also have around 5 or so really cool options that are both effective and fun.

 

"Effective".  "Fun".  "Viable".  "Fair".

Those are such loaded words.

 

I don't object to asking for more IO sets or options.  I do object to painting that request as a general public service when it's really just a reflection of your power selections, slotting preferences and play style.  You're not speaking as a fairly nominated and elected representative of all of us, you're speaking as a self-appointed authority.  Well, I don't recognize your authority to define those terms.  You are not the Fun Police.  You're no more qualified or entitled to decide what is or isn't fair or fun for all than you are to decide whether anyone's characters are dressed "appropriately".

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

Anywho, if I do read it right what I meant by that was the downsides you mentioned earlier could be applied universally. Life drain always works on hit, but there is always a 1/20 chance it simply never hits. Same with a proc-bomb simply missing despite having tons of Acc and Rech / whatever from bonuses.

 

The difference being, those procs still have an additional control mechanism to pass through.

 

Better example:  Tenebrous Tentacles.  My TA/Dark slotting for this power uses three damage procs.  I could slot the power to deal damage normally.  I could slot it with Ragnarok or Positron's Blast for set bonuses.  Instead, I accept that I'm risking dealing significantly less damage and skipping set bonuses in exchange for the potential to deal significantly more damage by slotting those three damage procs.  If the hit check succeeds, I still have to pass three other checks for those three procs to deal damage.  That proc damage is not guaranteed, even if the power hits.  The base damage is guaranteed if the power hits.  The Immob is guaranteed if the power hits.  But the proc damage isn't.

Yes, a proc bomb can miss, just like any other power.  But a proc bomb that hits still has to pass another check (per proc) for the effects of those procs to occur.  The minimum 5% chance for the power to miss isn't relevant, nearly every power in the game has to work within that limitation.  The minimum 10% chance for procs to fail to trigger, in concert with any additional reduction in probability due to recharge time and PPM, is relevant, because it's a limitation specifically designed to control abuse and overuse of procs.  It's a limitation that works.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

So this one is on me, but while I did show that purples are within reach, they are still rather costly compared to normal IO's and are significantly more powerful in each metric. Separating them I feel is fair for those reasons. When the fully purpled power in this context is only a bit better than the more conservatively procced one for like 5x the cost, I can see where it gets kind of shifty.

 

Six damage procs don't improve the hit chance of the power.  Or reduce the endurance usage.  Or allow it to cycle more frequently.  Or have set bonuses.  Limiting the comparison to only the damage stat is deliberately skewing it to display the power with six procs as being almost comparable.  It's not.  Use of a purple set does far more than simply nudge the damage up a bit.

 

If you really can't swing purples or are below 50, franken-slot.  The performance is still going to be slightly better than six-slotting with procs, and you won't have to justify spending the inf* on purples.  You can sew your inf* into a nice skirt, or use it to flavor your oatmeal, or whatever people do if they aren't spending their gross over-supply of currency.

 

On 2/14/2021 at 1:08 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

Of course there is more to the game than that, but for the purpose of this discussion with regard to the real meta and HUGE chunk of the game dedicated to the IO system, I feel it is a disservice that they do not even get the opportunity to play with it.

 

A build not having access to any proc or unique IO, or even any IO set, is a choice, not an inherent limitation.  The important choices aren't IOs, they're powers.  We make those choices.  We devise and abide by our own restrictions when we create our characters.  Between primary, secondary, *PP and pool options, there are no IO sets that anyone can't use on any character.  We might choose not to take the powers which would allow us to slot some IO sets, but that doesn't mean the game has to be restructured to change that, it means the game is respecting our choices and decisions.

 

The very thing against which you rail is what makes this game rewarding to many of us.  Having to make choices like this goads us into digging deeper, broadening our search, scratching away at the layers to find the missing pieces to make our builds as perfect as possible, and encourages us to find even more ways to work around the limitations we set for ourselves, expand our build concepts and discover unexpected things.  And redesigning IO sets so no-one has to make any choices of consequence... it destroys the magic and wonder of that discovery process.

 

If you're dissatisfied with your build's IO options, change your build, not the game.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

A very long reply

I don't want to keep doing giga-quotes so I'll just respond as such.

 

Nothing should be equally useful to everyone. This is very true, but when it comes to the options available to make cool / fun builds (not even meta ones!) there is a balancing act for how many options + the quality of those options. This ties to the comment about the Dam/End sets (as well as the new just regular End set, and before that the added TAoE sets!) and how the HC team doesn't "own" the IO system... which fair, its not their baby but they have custody of it now and have shown to make solid additions to it following basically the same structure you outlined. If by following the same conventions as the OG devs did to add new options or tweak existing ones to be better is somehow a bad thing... then I'm confused?

 

In my eyes, more options can only be good, something like the End/Dam sets was mentioned as it broke the mold with the addition of +Dam, even if its not a *lot* of it, it is still there and recognizes that certain categories can intermingle as many attacks carry that effect. If a theoretical Dam/Stun set or two emerges, that would mean attacks with Stun can now slot even more options alongside the existing choices to lead to more player diversity. The mention of City of Statues here is odd as.... well you can do that if you slot these attacks for Stun currently? I don't appreciate the call for me to be grateful for the options currently available when I'm tossing out ideas for improvement either, especially when you follow it up with "I'm not opposed to getting more IO's". Me pointing out that X family of sets are lacking is not me taking an authoritative stance demanding X be done, but raising awareness and getting group discussion going of the matter is something any of us could do. Do I need to be on the HC team specifically to say "it'd be nice if we had more options"?

 

 

Yes, a proc bomb can miss, just like any other power. True, and there is a 10% chance of failure minimum, per proc. But, you can optimize yourself through global bonuses to minimize those chances and have enough recharge to roll the dice often enough for it to on average get the results you planned for. The question though is if that is a good thing or not. This relates to the comment about the purples as well, yeah you can do better with them but then is that the expectation? Everything you said is 100% true, but it also doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you're slotting purples + purple procs, you're also getting purple bonuses that often give Acc and Recharge which help proc powers in a sort of feedback loop, as do things like Force Feedback, etc. Yes, they can fail, but all powers can by missing / etc, and with a 90% proc rate odds are high that you can rely on proc powers to work if you set yourself up for it most of the time to where it is often way better to use procs than other options, in the meta sense *limiting* player options if they want to be effective. When it comes to Inf and Purples/Etc, that ties into the availablity / player expectation point as well that was part of the OP.

 

 

A build not having access to any proc or unique IO, or even any IO set, is a choice, not an inherent limitation. This is sort of 50/50. My earlier example of Battle Axe vs Broadsword showed  that one has more slotting options than the other due to having -Def as a trait. These two sets predate IO's for sure, so there clearly was no intention of one having more opportunities than the other, but it's there. We have seen certain powers tweaked to allow/disallow certain set categories for slotting in HC patches, so it is something that is at least considered (Like EMP arrow getting +Res but specifically not allowing Res sets, or hell the mess about Combat Teleport not having +Def in it specifically). If you pick Battle Axe, or Energy Melee, etc, you'd know they inherently have less options than some other sets so yeah it is your choice, but then when we look into adding purples to the mix it opens the doors to slotting options.... at which point we gotta ask if lack of options *is* part of those set designs?

 

 

I'm curious though @Luminaraas most of your responses have been specifically aimed at me. What is your take on the subject as a whole? You say you'd be open to more IO sets, but at the same time seem set on them being the same as they are now in many way / opposed to changes to them. That seems a bit confusing to me in terms of what your stance is?

 

 

 

 

 

[Monos King]

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Irrelevant.  Nothing is supposed to be equally useful to everyone.  The entire point of having varied sets and IOs in sets is to give players choices and options, just like having varied archetypes and power sets does, and you not pursuing an option doesn't make it bad or wrong.

Ok, check time. I haven't been studying this thread so I haven't seen every point made, but even in a vacuum this would come off as inappropriate. You seem like you're just fight seeking because you're very clearly misconstruing both his point and overall purpose of starting this thread. The OP looks at the state of IOs and ponders whether or not it's plausible to make them more "balanced". I couldn't care less, but based on that alone there would obviously be discussion comparing the bread winning elements of some sets to others and seeing where what's overlooked could become improved so that it is not as much undervalued. You are being obtuse when you transform this proposition into "everyone will benefit the same from everything". It's unsuited of you.

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Six damage procs don't improve the hit chance of the power.  Or reduce the endurance usage.  Or allow it to cycle more frequently.  Or have set bonuses.  Limiting the comparison to only the damage stat is deliberately skewing it to display the power with six procs as being almost comparable.  It's not.  Use of a purple set does far more than simply nudge the damage up a bit.

I threw this out there earlier but I'll make it a point now. The game is not strictly solo. This thread us not a discussion of how a single person might play with or without proc-play, it's a discussion about the place of IOs in the game, how their used, why that might be, and currently, how other sets might be utterly overshadowed when they lack something like a proc or unique or bonuses the user would actually want. Yet you're now opining that the OP claims to be an authority because he would find it funner if it weren't like that?

 

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Effective".  "Fun".  "Viable".  "Fair".

Those are such loaded words.

 

I don't object to asking for more IO sets or options.  I do object to painting that request as a general public service when it's really just a reflection of your power selections, slotting preferences and play style.  You're not speaking as a fairly nominated and elected representative of all of us, you're speaking as a self-appointed authority.

What are you doing? You're painfully vociferous about this being some kind of attack. You mean to tell me you can't see that he's just speaking casually in the above? Someone has to dangle "this is my opinion pls like" on a clothesline for it to not come off as dogmatic for you? Surprise, I'm also a member of the community and I think he knows that. I think you need to sit down and review some opinions too.

 

This is an opinion

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

The original categorization of enhancements was carefully created, exhaustively tested and laboriously gone over until it was as perfectly balanced and fair as possible.

 

This is an opinion

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Having to make choices like this goads us into digging deeper, broadening our search, scratching away at the layers to find the missing pieces to make our builds as perfect as possible, and encourages us to find even more ways to work around the limitations we set for ourselves, expand our build concepts and discover unexpected things.  And redesigning IO sets so no-one has to make any choices of consequence... it destroys the magic and wonder of that discovery process.

This is subjective, and suggests changing a few IOs is "restructuring the game"

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

but that doesn't mean the game has to be restructured to change that, it means the game is respecting our choices and decisions

And this is just untrue.

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Between primary, secondary, *PP and pool options, there are no IO sets that anyone can't use on any character. 

And even if it weren't, the topic at hand is "but is what >I< CAN get comparable in value to what >others< can with different powers thus IO sets." No one's been attacking you as a "self-appointed authority". Chill. You are transforming this into something it is not because you have some attachment to the current IO system. No one is making any extreme claims but you. You want to say that what shortcomings of IOs are how it's supposed to be? Citation needed. You think it's better this way? Then make that point, preferably alone. From what I've seen the only person purporting to be an authority on anything is you. It's really unbecoming Luminara.