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

[Parabola]

My late to the party take on all this is that I don't think the game should be entirely balanced around IO's, but they shouldn't be ignored in the wider balance conversation. The fact that players can ignore the crafting and market side of this game entirely and still have a good play experience is a huge strength. However IO's (and incarnates but that's another discussion) do distort the playing field at the high end of the game. Solo this isn't a problem but on teams I feel it is.

 

I'd like to see some rebalancing for the late game in whatever form that takes. I don't see intentionally gimping myself or even worse being expected to ask others to gimp themselves as being the answer. The game should be capable of providing enough challenge to match the capabilities it provides the players (in particular to provide a satisfying teaming experience).

 

But I don't want to see SO only players left behind or feeling forced to play in a way they don't want to. So an idea I've mentioned before is that the balance changes could start with a buff to SO's. If the power gap between SO'd and IO'd characters was narrowed it might allow wider balance changes with less risk of leaving anyone behind. One thought I had was to allow SO's to ignore a little of the ED cap like the alpha slot does. That way SO's would be able to achieve higher raw enhancement values than IO's on a power by power basis which wouldn't overtake the advantage set bonuses give you but might close the gap a little. I'm sure there would be many other ways of doing this too.

[Ukase]

I have a thought about this and feel it's worth sharing. 

Let us assume (because we can) that HC had the resources to invest in the game and "balance" the game around IOs. What does that even look like? Does it assume everyone has IOs? Which IOs? 

It's common knowledge that there are multiple options for slotting most of the powers with various IO sets. Some franken-slot, taking 2 IOs of one set, 2-3 of another, etc. 
Some IOs are available at level 7, others not until 32 or even 50. 

So what does "balance" mean in this context? All players shall be able to handle 3 NPCs at +0 difficulty? 

I think some are forgetting the human part of this equation: Player skill level. 
Yes, we all know there's the guy who takes a blaster that's kitted out and solo's ITF at +4/8 in some reasonable time frame with no temp powers or inspirations. 

But have you thought about the guy who despite having the most optimum build he can get who can't get out of his own way? There are players who play this game so badly...it just boggles my mind how these folks are able to function in society - if they even do function. Maybe that's why they play this game, because if they go outside they might die from not looking both ways when they cross the road. Yes, and we also have players who may be quite smart, but lack the manual dexterity, the reaction time to mash their heal in a timely fashion. They lose the mouse cursor and can't execute the power fast enough. Some people use fingers on the number keys, others use a mouse. Boggles my mind how many options there are!

We could have the most balanced game in the world, across all levels, across all ATs - (because we'd all play Spines/fire brutes, with identical builds because nothing would drop again and all powers would be automatically slotted with the same thing in the same order.) 
Even if this happened and people kept playing for some reason, there would still be some players that could solo at +4/8 and others who would die at -1/1 in the same map and mission. 

Some play this game better than I do. I play this game better than others. 
How are you going to balance that? 
 

[Doc.G]

First ever post in the forums, sorry for my bad English, not a native speaker at all.

I am a retourning player, and after a month or so of struggle, this great community, the forums and mids helped me sorting out all the new info.

I like the fact that IOs builds exists and I love spending some time in mids trying to slot different sets etc etc, BUT IMHO balancing the end game only around a bunch of specific overpowered IOs/sets builds would be a terrible idea. In that way people would start playing only the same builds not choosing different powersets, just like in Diablo 3 seasons. But in COH the loot system is totally different, e.g. there is only a version of the LoTG set, while in D3 you can drop tons of different Leoric's Crowns with differents stats attributes. So the end game would be...useless. Once the best build pops out there would be no challenge and no fun since one wouldn't have any way to improve it.

I love the way COH is different, and I love the ability to mix and match powersets, pool powers and even incarnates powers creating strange heroes which should be allowed to play through the game and to try endgame content with SOs without feeling useless.

I hope somehow this makes sense 😄

See you around in Excelsior, my mains are Magnetom (grav/kin controller) and Cpt. Caesium (rad/rad tanker)

[Marshal_General]

If anything, it should be balanced around basic IOs. It a small difference from SOs, the unaltered difficulty should reflect this difference.

[Ukase]

Just now, Marshal_General said:

If anything, it should be balanced around basic IOs. It a small difference from SOs, the unaltered difficulty should reflect this difference.

Why? 

[Marshal_General]

18 minutes ago, Ukase said:

Why? 

Who really uses SOs anymore? 

I only use them up until IOs start having greater values.

[ForeverLaxx]

Just now, Marshal_General said:

Who really uses SOs anymore? 

I only use them up until IOs start having greater values.

You do know that "Basic IOs" have a strength based on their level, right? 25s are slightly weaker than SOs, 30s are basically just SOs, and 35s are slightly stronger SOs. Where do you plan on drawing the line, and why does a line even need to be drawn when the system is already fine the way it is?

[Neiska]

Here are my thoughts on it,

 

I think "balance" really depends on where the "finish line" is, in this case, that means game difficulty, as well as what activity you are doing. Personally I consider +2/8 difficulty to be my personal standard. Anything over that I try to view as a sort of hardmode, becuase not all builds/ats/powers can play on the highest difficulty. But also keep in mind activity matters too, such as Radio missions vs story arcs vs AEs, or Single target vs AoE, DPS vs CC, and so on. Balance can change depending on all of these variables.

 

Its this bad? No, I don't believe so. Different levels of activity for different kinds of builds and players is good for everyone.

 

Should we balance the game around IO's? No. I don't think we should assume everyone is building the best of everything down to the decimal point, but nor do I think should we balance things for theme/story/rp builds either. I think we are sitting well for different levels of activity for different kinds of characters and players.

 

There is also what I like to think of as "investment" to consider. This can be investment in time to become a better skilled or knowledgeable player, as well as time invested in such as time spent farming for money, or farming incarnates and buying enchancements. For context, I have several level 50s. Not all of them even have all of their incarnate slots unlocked, and only two of them have their full T4's. The funny thing is that my fully upgraded t4 characters, aren't even my strongest characters, but they are the one's that I enjoy playing the most, and spend the most time on.

 

So for context, some examples -

 

1. The game is rebalanced for the lower end of builds/skill/IOs. Well, that would make for terribly boring content for anyone who makes a stronger, better, or more expensive build.

 

2. The game is rebalanced for the higher end of builds/skill/IOs. Well, that would prove to be an unfair obstale for people who enjoy doing things for theme, fun, roleplay, or who are still learning (like myself) or who dont have the free time to invest in becomming better, or the free time to farm 600m inf for each character they want to play at endgame.

 

I would consider both extremes bad for the community.

 

The answer? For me it is the varied difficulty setting, which we already have. I would personally push for even making harder content, but 100% optional content, for those that enjoy it.

 

Just my musings on game balance.

[Hyperstrike]

9 hours ago, DrBasics said:

I think a couple of good ideas to balance (or bridge the gap) of bare-bones and top-end builds. Both would effect only radio/newspaper missions.

 

• Allow level of enemies to be increased to +6.
• Allow players the option to make the "named enemy" an Elite Boss or Arch Villain

And if you were able to do this for no increase in reward (inf/drops/etc)?

Good with that?

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

And if you were able to do this for no increase in reward (inf/drops/etc)?

Good with that?

Why shouldn't rewards match difficulty?

[Hyperstrike]

50 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Why shouldn't rewards match difficulty?

CoH: The Quest For More Money!

I just want it out there and honest what such a push is actually about.  Rewards.  Not actual challenge.

[Bill Z Bubba]

17 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

CoH: The Quest For More Money!

I just want it out there and honest what such a push is actually about.  Rewards.  Not actual challenge.

That's rather rude and wrong. Just so ya know.

 

If I want a challenge without rewards I can turn off enhancements. This is a game. With greater difficulty comes greater rewards. That rule wasn't changed when we went from the old diff settings to the current, why would it need to be changed if more diff levels were added?

Edited January 26, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, Hyperstrike said:

And if you were able to do this for no increase in reward (inf/drops/etc)?

Good with that?

I'm with you on this one.  If you are geared up enough to tackle +6 instead of +4, then you are pretty much post-reward.

 

Although I do think it would be fair to ask for EB quality xp/inf for defeating an EB rather than a boss.

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I'm with you on this one.  If you are geared up enough to tackle +6 instead of +4, then you are pretty much post-reward.

Why? What's the difference between being geared up to handle +0/x1 versus +2/x2? My rewards go up then, why shouldn't they for +6/x10? And how, exactly, do you stop the increased inf/xp gain and drop chances from having more enemies to defeat?

[DrBasics]

Just wanted to say that I put an idea out there and it was met with some pretty nasty jaded responses. Things like the fact that my idea somehow had secret hidden agendas of trying to milk more inf from things. I don't think this thread should be closed (because this is a good topic to discuss) but I do think that people need to take a breath and not jump into every post with their own jaded flavors for seasoning.

[Hyperstrike]

38 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

That's rather rude and wrong. Just so ya know.

 

If I want a challenge without rewards I can turn off enhancements. This is a game. With greater difficulty comes greater rewards. That rule wasn't changed when we went from the old diff settings to the current, why would it need to be changed if more diff levels were added?

Rude?  Your questioning of the concept basically proves that I'm NOT wrong.

"If i want challenge without reward..."

Precisely.  But the idea is being framed as "challenge", not "mo money mo money mo money".

[Hyperstrike]

5 minutes ago, DrBasics said:

Just wanted to say that I put an idea out there and it was met with some pretty nasty jaded responses. Things like the fact that my idea somehow had secret hidden agendas of trying to milk more inf from things. I don't think this thread should be closed (because this is a good topic to discuss) but I do think that people need to take a breath and not jump into every post with their own jaded flavors for seasoning.

Simply because you find the question inconvenient or insulting doesn't mean it's nasty.  It's a very straightforward line of reasoning.  And it NEEDS to be addressed as part of the entire process.

Jaded?  Yeah, I'll cop to that.  I've seen this sort of thing before.  Which is why I'm suitably skeptical about it.

[DrBasics]

1 minute ago, Hyperstrike said:

Simply because you find the question inconvenient or insulting doesn't mean it's nasty.  It's a very straightforward line of reasoning.  And it NEEDS to be addressed as part of the entire process.

Jaded?  Yeah, I'll cop to that.  I've seen this sort of thing before.  Which is why I'm suitably skeptical about it.

No, the question itself isn't nasty. The way it was asked was nasty, but you already admitted to being jaded. However, just because you feel a certain way about this topic doesn't mean you should assume everyone is out to get under your skin.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

Rude?  Your questioning of the concept basically proves that I'm NOT wrong.

"If i want challenge without reward..."

Precisely.  But the idea is being framed as "challenge", not "mo money mo money mo money".

Yes, rude. You incorrectly and malignantly state that those asking for more challenge are only doing so for more rewards. It's a false statement. An incorrect statement.

 

The truth is that I want higher diff settings because it will be both more challenging and more rewarding.

 

What I don't want is more challenge without corresponding rewards. That's why I don't run around with enemies buffed, player debuffed and no insps set all the time. If there were corresponding rewards for doing so beyond "can I do it," I would do it more often.

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, Hyperstrike said:

insulting doesn't mean it's nasty

Wrong again. Willfully being insulting is nasty. I should know since I've gotten a couple 3day bans for being willfully nasty.

[Neiska]

The money/experience thing I would consider a different matter entirely from game balance, and has been debated, discussed, and argued by much wiser heads than mine. Personally if it was my call, I would -

 

1. Equalize both money/inf/drops across all activities - farming, story arcs, radio missions, even oro things.

2. Increase rates of rewards with increased difficulty, but with dimishing returns, much like our enhancement system. Sure, you get more money from higher difficulties, but "farming" on the highest difficulty might not be the most expedient or effecient way to gain Inf. That way, its sort of a win-win for everyone. Those that like to push difficult content would see at least "some" bump in rewards, while the farmers would still have their methods that they do now.

 

But regardless, I don't think balancing game difficulty around money/exp rewards is a right call to make either.

[Hyperstrike]

37 minutes ago, DrBasics said:

No, the question itself isn't nasty. The way it was asked was nasty, but you already admitted to being jaded. However, just because you feel a certain way about this topic doesn't mean you should assume everyone is out to get under your skin.

I assumed no such thing.

[Hyperstrike]

36 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Yes, rude. You incorrectly and malignantly state that those asking for more challenge are only doing so for more rewards. It's a false statement. An incorrect statement.

Again, your own response to my question shows that supposition of "more rewards" is *NOT* incorrect.

 

36 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

The truth is that I want higher diff settings because it will be both more challenging and more rewarding.

 

"More challenging and more rewarding"

I rest my case.

 

[Hyperstrike]

38 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Wrong again. Willfully being insulting is nasty. I should know since I've gotten a couple 3day bans for being willfully nasty.

Bill, you're projecting.

I'm not trying to be nasty.
Nor am I trying to be insulting.

I'm making a very simple point, which seems to be drawing an outsized reaction.

[Hyperstrike]

23 minutes ago, Neiska said:

The money/experience thing I would consider a different matter entirely from game balance, and has been debated, discussed, and argued by much wiser heads than mine. Personally if it was my call, I would -

 

1. Equalize both money/inf/drops across all activities - farming, story arcs, radio missions, even oro things.

2. Increase rates of rewards with increased difficulty, but with dimishing returns, much like our enhancement system. Sure, you get more money from higher difficulties, but "farming" on the highest difficulty might not be the most expedient or effecient way to gain Inf. That way, its sort of a win-win for everyone. Those that like to push difficult content would see at least "some" bump in rewards, while the farmers would still have their methods that they do now.

 

But regardless, I don't think balancing game difficulty around money/exp rewards is a right call to make either.

More or less my outlook on this.