New Notoriety Option: No Enhancement Set Bonuses

[CFIndustries]

7 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

Hello @CFIndustries! I took a look at your post quite recently over here:

It was an interesting read for sure, and in light of it, I would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal, if you're happy to share them! 😄

 

Well, since you kindly invited me to give my 2¢ worth…I quickly skimmed (sorry, crushed for time and I try not to dive too deep on these sorts of things…) and I understand the gist to be the "no set bonuses" noteriety as an option?

 

I'd have no use for it. I have no idea how the math would work out. Since I assume my "kitted" builds are leaning on their bonuses as part of the equation, I assume such a noteriety setting would fundamentally change the playstyle. (NOTE: I don't make my own kitted builds…I try to use MIDS on my own and my brain melts…but I had a friend who made kitted builds custom-tailored to my playstyle back on Live and I still have those builds around.)

 

For example, I know a couple alts I have which would be gutted losing Recovery bonuses, others where the Recharge bonus loss would be terrible. This doesn't even include the +acc, +tohit, +def, +res, and other mechanics which truly spin my brain around with the math involved. This is a game, in the end, not work.

 

I'd have to re-learn how to play such an alt, and…what would be the point? Wouldn't be fun.

 

I don't have that problem with alts that I play from 0–50 on nothing but crafted generic IOs…nothing to relearn since I've been "gimped," as it were, from the get-go.

[Blackfeather]

5 minutes ago, CFIndustries said:

Well, since you kindly invited me to give my 2¢ worth…I quickly skimmed (sorry, crushed for time and I try not to dive too deep on these sorts of things…) and I understand the gist to be the "no set bonuses" noteriety as an option?

 

I'd have no use for it. I have no idea how the math would work out. Since I assume my "kitted" builds are leaning on their bonuses as part of the equation, I assume such a noteriety setting would fundamentally change the playstyle. (NOTE: I don't make my own kitted builds…I try to use MIDS on my own and my brain melts…but I had a friend who made kitted builds custom-tailored to my playstyle back on Live and I still have those builds around.)

 

For example, I know a couple alts I have which would be gutted losing Recovery bonuses, others where the Recharge bonus loss would be terrible. This doesn't even include the +acc, +tohit, +def, +res, and other mechanics which truly spin my brain around with the math involved. This is a game, in the end, not work.

 

I'd have to re-learn how to play such an alt, and…what would be the point? Wouldn't be fun.

 

I don't have that problem with alts that I play from 0–50 on nothing but crafted generic IOs…nothing to relearn since I've been "gimped," as it were, from the get-go.

 

Hey, no worries! Thanks for dropping by and sounding out your voice on this - plus, I think it gives a little bit of insight into the strong emotion behind @Voltak's different posts on this matter, in that they personally might feel similarly to you.

 

For some players, as @MTeague has said before, this just wouldn't be their jam, but I'd like to think that making this a Notoriety option will best accommodate people from across the entire game. So long as such a difficulty setting on a team is announced beforehand (like any Notoriety change), things are gravy.

 

In other words, for people with no interest in this, it will not affect them, which is ideal - I'd never want to propose something that'd make people downright object to it, or force a different playstyle onto others.

[RogueWolf]

Being able to switch off IO set bonuses for the team as a noteriety options sounds like an elegant solution to a problem. Those who don't think it's a problem can ignore it. Those of us who want everyone on a team to actually feel more involved instead of letting four OP builds plow through the whole thing by themselves can set it. They they have a simple tag their for their LFG callouts to attract like minded players. I think it would create a better environment for the whole community.

[Blackfeather]

Hello @AboveTheChemist! I read your post over here a little while back:

And it did make me wonder if you might be interested in something like this Notoriety option, if it did exist - would definitely be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter! 😄

[Leogunner]

3 hours ago, CFIndustries said:

 

Since I assume my "kitted" builds are leaning on their bonuses as part of the equation, I assume such a noteriety setting would fundamentally change the playstyle.

An interesting tidbit I noticed right here.

 

FYI, this comment isn't directed at you (the person I'm quoting) particularly but just RPG and tactical game players in general: isn't challenging content supposed to force you out of your comfort zone sometimes and/or use different tactics, playstyles and advantages to your benefit?  That's a strong premise when playing against other Chess masters, knowing their tendencies and then either changing yours to throw off your opponent or specifically adapting your style to directly counter them.  Or in the direct comparison of MMOs, the raid mechanics introduced sometimes shift the meta completely to keep players on their toes or subvert mainstays in group compositions and gear.

 

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is, why is fundamentally changing the playstyle considered negative?  In the quoted example of having a build that relies on +recovery being harmed, have players forgotten the methods of moderating their END usage?  Have we gotten so complacent that if put in a situation where our recovery is tanked, we fold up like wet paper bags?  All those missions in the low levels, we forgot how to just NOT use certain END hungry powers or rely on a teammates' buffs to keep us afloat?

 

Basically what I'm saying is, if your build having the bonuses temporarily stripped away would cause harm to your playstyle, that is literally the point.  Outside of adding options to change the enemies, forcing the player to adapt is the other side of the challenge that is lacking.  Heck, that could be an interesting mechanic there, giving enemies the power to suppress certain buffs/bonuses like a "sealing" effect that turns off those IO bonuses or an "anti-hero" status where any benevolent buffs you provide are lessened or an enemy type that can disable toggle effects.

 

None of these mechanics have to be wide-spread but perhaps optional meta-powers given to foes if you turn the notoriety to its maximum and only on some enemy groups. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Leogunner

[golstat2003]

2 hours ago, Leogunner said:

An interesting tidbit I noticed right here.

 

FYI, this comment isn't directed at you (the person I'm quoting) particularly but just RPG and tactical game players in general: isn't challenging content supposed to force you out of your comfort zone sometimes and/or use different tactics, playstyles and advantages to your benefit?  That's a strong premise when playing against other Chess masters, knowing their tendencies and then either changing yours to throw off your opponent or specifically adapting your style to directly counter them.  Or in the direct comparison of MMOs, the raid mechanics introduced sometimes shift the meta completely to keep players on their toes or subvert mainstays in group compositions and gear.

 

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is, why is fundamentally changing the playstyle considered negative?  In the quoted example of having a build that relies on +recovery being harmed, have players forgotten the methods of moderating their END usage?  Have we gotten so complacent that if put in a situation where our recovery is tanked, we fold up like wet paper bags?  All those missions in the low levels, we forgot how to just NOT use certain END hungry powers or rely on a teammates' buffs to keep us afloat?

 

Basically what I'm saying is, if your build having the bonuses temporarily stripped away would cause harm to your playstyle, that is literally the point.  Outside of adding options to change the enemies, forcing the player to adapt is the other side of the challenge that is lacking.  Heck, that could be an interesting mechanic there, giving enemies the power to suppress certain buffs/bonuses like a "sealing" effect that turns off those IO bonuses or an "anti-hero" status where any benevolent buffs you provide are lessened or an enemy type that can disable toggle effects.

 

None of these mechanics have to be wide-spread but perhaps optional meta-powers given to foes if you turn the notoriety to its maximum and only on some enemy groups. 

 

Sure if these are in the new notoriety options I'd be fine with that. I've always advocated that while keeping the base game traditionally where it is.

[Blackfeather]

Hey there @cranebump! I saw this post of yours here:

Given its content, I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts about this addition to the Notoriety system - think it'd be something you'd use? Have a different proposal? Or something else entirely? Thanks in advance, regardless of your stance, happy to hear one either way! 😄

[Blackfeather]

Hey there @RunoKnows, I saw you put down a like on that shared thread of mine here:

Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal! Any changes, modifications, additions, etc.? Would love to hear your thoughts. 😀

[RunoKnows]

10 minutes ago, Blackfeather said:

Hey there @RunoKnows, I saw you put down a like on that shared thread of mine here:

 

Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal! Any changes, modifications, additions, etc.? Would love to hear your thoughts. 😀

I just took a look at your proposal in the first post and I'm all for it -- if the notoriety system can be modified, that might indicate a very promising future for players who want to partake in a "Hard Mode" at say, 50+5x10, or what have you... or even to make missions and story arcs easier with-- I don't know, a 'Story Mode' notoriety setting or something, for those who simply want to experience the many stories across blue, red, and gold-side

 

There are several benefits to a difficulty/notoriety option that lets us toggle off IO set bonuses -- heck, maybe a separate additional option that lets us toggle off Incarnate powers, too. It could be fun to challenge our characters by running missions, task forces or AE content without the benefit of sets -- and the more ways there are to optionally add varying levels of challenges and trials to handel for those who want them, the better. That way the choice is there for people who want it, but it does not erase the hard work and time of players who might not

 

Ultimately I feel like the important takeaway here is that it would be an optional setting that players could toggle on or off as they please. We don't have to have it on if we don't want it on, but it would be an extremely useful utility for the reasons outlined in earlier posts; it can be hard to get an idea of how easy or how punishing an AE arc might be for those who want to play it before being level capped, or if they're missing IO sets/uniques/procs or have little to no Incarnate powers.

[Blackfeather]

14 hours ago, RogueWolf said:

Being able to switch off IO set bonuses for the team as a noteriety options sounds like an elegant solution to a problem. Those who don't think it's a problem can ignore it. Those of us who want everyone on a team to actually feel more involved instead of letting four OP builds plow through the whole thing by themselves can set it. They they have a simple tag their for their LFG callouts to attract like minded players. I think it would create a better environment for the whole community.

 

Glad to hear you like the sound of it! I wanted to look for something that was minimally disruptive and fairly easy for the devs to implement (as opposed to creating new content to continually scale to stronger and stronger characters) - the game content'll always be balanced around SOs, so those who want challenge should be able to access that sort of difficulty on the fly if they so wish, while also enjoying the things that set bonuses provide, at least in my opinion. 😄

[esotericist]

i rather like the "slider" suggestion, "rule of <x>" for set bonuses (since there's different grades of tolerance for this), along with the additional "no IO features" and "no enhancements whatsoever" steps

 

we already have some stuff kinda like this in the o-zone settings, so this stuff in notoriety makes a lot of sense to me.

[Blackfeather]

Hello there @PeregrineFalcon! I saw you liked my post that was linked over here:

As such, I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposed Notoriety option - any changes/modifications/improvements/suggestions? All gladly listened to. 😊

[MTeague]

2 hours ago, esotericist said:

i rather like the "slider" suggestion, "rule of <x>" for set bonuses (since there's different grades of tolerance for this), along with the additional "no IO features" and "no enhancements whatsoever" steps

 

we already have some stuff kinda like this in the o-zone settings, so this stuff in notoriety makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Plus, it could allow for more Ouro badges.  /twitch

[Blackfeather]

That feeling when your thread generates enough discussion that it inspires the creation of not one, but two threads. 😌

[golstat2003]

This really is one of the best suggestions amongst all the "difficulty options" threads. Bump from me kind sir/ma'am.

[Blackfeather]

11 hours ago, RunoKnows said:

I just took a look at your proposal in the first post and I'm all for it -- if the notoriety system can be modified, that might indicate a very promising future for players who want to partake in a "Hard Mode" at say, 50+5x10, or what have you... or even to make missions and story arcs easier with-- I don't know, a 'Story Mode' notoriety setting or something, for those who simply want to experience the many stories across blue, red, and gold-side

 

There are several benefits to a difficulty/notoriety option that lets us toggle off IO set bonuses -- heck, maybe a separate additional option that lets us toggle off Incarnate powers, too. It could be fun to challenge our characters by running missions, task forces or AE content without the benefit of sets -- and the more ways there are to optionally add varying levels of challenges and trials to handel for those who want them, the better. That way the choice is there for people who want it, but it does not erase the hard work and time of players who might not

 

Ultimately I feel like the important takeaway here is that it would be an optional setting that players could toggle on or off as they please. We don't have to have it on if we don't want it on, but it would be an extremely useful utility for the reasons outlined in earlier posts; it can be hard to get an idea of how easy or how punishing an AE arc might be for those who want to play it before being level capped, or if they're missing IO sets/uniques/procs or have little to no Incarnate powers.

 

Glad to hear you like the proposed implementation! I was definitely trying for a suggestion that was non-invasive as possible, and relatively easy in terms of implementation (at least I'd hope so) - having a Notoriety option that suppresses set bonuses felt like the best in my eyes, as opposed to introducing tougher enemies or, say, permanently adjusting a player's stats.

 

I do think a toggle providing options for suppressing different Incarnate powers might be interesting too - I believe @oedipus_tex for instance has mentioned his qualms with the Judgement powers a while back. So I can see some teams finding that sort of thing desirable as well.

 

That being said, I'm not sure if the game really can properly scale past +4/x8, at least without a lot of work behind the scenes, given how it's built. I think @macskull has touched on this here, as have I in my original post. It's why I thought that introducing something like this would provide some more challenge for the people that desire it, quickly and easily - game content will generally always be balanced around SO enhancements, go past that, and such players need to start actively seeking such content out (hey there Rularuu Soldiers, and 801).

 

Thanks again for taking your time to respond! 😊

[Doomguide2005]

19 hours ago, Leogunner said:

An interesting tidbit I noticed right here.

 

FYI, this comment isn't directed at you (the person I'm quoting) particularly but just RPG and tactical game players in general: isn't challenging content supposed to force you out of your comfort zone sometimes and/or use different tactics, playstyles and advantages to your benefit?  That's a strong premise when playing against other Chess masters, knowing their tendencies and then either changing yours to throw off your opponent or specifically adapting your style to directly counter them.  Or in the direct comparison of MMOs, the raid mechanics introduced sometimes shift the meta completely to keep players on their toes or subvert mainstays in group compositions and gear.

 

Ultimately, what I'm getting at is, why is fundamentally changing the playstyle considered negative?  In the quoted example of having a build that relies on +recovery being harmed, have players forgotten the methods of moderating their END usage?  Have we gotten so complacent that if put in a situation where our recovery is tanked, we fold up like wet paper bags?  All those missions in the low levels, we forgot how to just NOT use certain END hungry powers or rely on a teammates' buffs to keep us afloat?

 

Basically what I'm saying is, if your build having the bonuses temporarily stripped away would cause harm to your playstyle, that is literally the point.  Outside of adding options to change the enemies, forcing the player to adapt is the other side of the challenge that is lacking.  Heck, that could be an interesting mechanic there, giving enemies the power to suppress certain buffs/bonuses like a "sealing" effect that turns off those IO bonuses or an "anti-hero" status where any benevolent buffs you provide are lessened or an enemy type that can disable toggle effects.

 

None of these mechanics have to be wide-spread but perhaps optional meta-powers given to foes if you turn the notoriety to its maximum and only on some enemy groups. 

I think the Chess analogy is off.  Playing without set bonuses on a build tuned to having them is more like playing with a piece handicap.  A different style is more akin to playing a 'blapper' instead of staying at range on a blaster.  Or perhaps someone who plays nothing but Brutes and other melee taking on a defender build or other squishy.  Both stretch your capabilities and take you out of your comfort zone but in very different ways.  How different play is changed by losing set bonuses is going to vary, potentially a lot, from build to build even on the same power sets and AT.  

[PeregrineFalcon]

7 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

Hello there @PeregrineFalcon! I saw you liked my post that was linked over here: As such, I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposed Notoriety option - any changes/modifications/improvements/suggestions? All gladly listened to. 😊

I think that adding these Notoriety Options, in addition to the ones that we already have, is certainly something that the developers should consider.

1) No set IO bonuses.

2) No set IO bonuses and no procs/special bonuses.

3) No enhancements at all.

 

I wouldn't use any of these options, but the people who want to would be welcome to and it wouldn't affect me at all.

[Leogunner]

56 minutes ago, Doomguide2005 said:

I think the Chess analogy is off.  Playing without set bonuses on a build tuned to having them is more like playing with a piece handicap.  A different style is more akin to playing a 'blapper' instead of staying at range on a blaster.  Or perhaps someone who plays nothing but Brutes and other melee taking on a defender build or other squishy.  Both stretch your capabilities and take you out of your comfort zone but in very different ways.  How different play is changed by losing set bonuses is going to vary, potentially a lot, from build to build even on the same power sets and AT.  

You're too laser focused on the OP then and not my post.

 

I'm not only suggesting a notoriety setting that removes set bonuses but rather enemies who have the ability of sealing your set bonuses as an effect of their powers.  Such a unique debuff could be placeable *using* a notoriety setting for those that would rather avoid it.  In which case, that would be your opponent coming into a game with a different opening play or strategy that you then need to adapt.

[Doomguide2005]

28 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

You're too laser focused on the OP then and not my post.

 

I'm not only suggesting a notoriety setting that removes set bonuses but rather enemies who have the ability of sealing your set bonuses as an effect of their powers.  Such a unique debuff could be placeable *using* a notoriety setting for those that would rather avoid it.  In which case, that would be your opponent coming into a game with a different opening play or strategy that you then need to adapt.

My bad then.

[esotericist]

9 hours ago, MTeague said:

 

Plus, it could allow for more Ouro badges.  /twitch

 

i see the path to victory now.

 

get the badgers on board, and everything else slots into place.

[Voltak]

On 3/26/2021 at 6:22 PM, RogueWolf said:

Being able to switch off IO set bonuses for the team as a noteriety options sounds like an elegant solution to a problem. Those who don't think it's a problem can ignore it. Those of us who want everyone on a team to actually feel more involved instead of letting four OP builds plow through the whole thing by themselves can set it. They they have a simple tag their for their LFG callouts to attract like minded players. I think it would create a better environment for the whole community.

Just as I was suspecting

You want to NERF other players, NOT yourself. 

You want to play with a gimp build with no IO sets so you want to see others in your team play like YOU choose to play for yourself or play as your budget limitations allow

That's where I have a problem

If you want to play with ZERO IO sets, fine. Don't 

You don't get to deny others of teaming because they have IOs 

Granted, I recognize that you would have a warning before joining 

I do see that

But the issue here is that this is NOT about YOU wanting YOUR character to play with no IOs 

this is about you wanting others to play with NO IOs

The intent of this is what I have a problem with 

I began playing the game in 2004 

I have plenty of experience of what playing with no IOs is like 

But no matter how much time I have played , I will never support any motion to limit OTHERS in the way they play 

I play my way 

You play your way

Leave it at that

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Voltak

[Voltak]

3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

You're too laser focused on the OP then and not my post.

 

I'm not only suggesting a notoriety setting that removes set bonuses but rather enemies who have the ability of sealing your set bonuses as an effect of their powers.  Such a unique debuff could be placeable *using* a notoriety setting for those that would rather avoid it.  In which case, that would be your opponent coming into a game with a different opening play or strategy that you then need to adapt.

But it's so much easier that if you don't want to play with IOs , just dont

Don't play with any IOs in your build and you are done

You don't need any Dev to spend resources or time for this

You can build your toon the way you want

If you don't want IO sets, don't have them 

You need a Dev to do that for you 

LIke I said in the post above , the intent I see here is that some players want OTHERS to be in their team and not allow them to have IO bonuses because , they feel that if they play with others who do have IOs then they feel too gimp or they don't enjoy the game ... whatever

So they feel bad because of the performance of others. 

 

[Voltak]

On 3/25/2021 at 11:55 AM, Blackfeather said:

 

I'm very happy to hear that this idea interests you!

 

And I'm of similar mind - per @golstat2003's post, changes to the game's Notoriety should definitely be said beforehand in a team to let others know what they're getting into: that's indeed just common decency. I know I certainly wouldn't appreciate walking into a +4/x8 without being told that was the case.

 

I also think your post addresses a lot of @Voltak's questions about the why behind such a feature too, better than I could have expressed for sure, which is a double bonus. 😊

But I already addressed all of that in a previous post 

I said there are teams that can be formed

There are SGs. that. you can join 

There are networks even...

I can go on

Long before IOs came out, Repeat Offenders were making specialized teams

Kins, Empths, Bubbles, sonics , and so on and so on 

Teams that could buff you so much more than IOs can do and ever will be able to do 

If you want that, there is a place for that 

But again, if YOU cannot afford IOs, or you don't want IOs , that's on YOU 

you can play the game as such

But I see the intent is that this is not about you anymore

This is about OTHERS

This is about how you want others to play , especially in teams that you play in 

You don't like the awesome way others perform with IOs

I support the idea as long as the intent is not about others

ONce I see that this is more about you being concerned in how others have their builds... then I don't support it at all , not in the least 

I know we at Repeat Offenders have been playing with buffed toons long before IOs came out 

I am sure others can do the same 

IOs are not needed.  I know 

But driving a bit too much how others play ... that I have a problem with 

[Voltak]

Also, there is a lot of content in AE missions.... content so challenging that it would make IO builds feel gimp as well

The missions in those AE ones... they require good team composition 

Some players having all nice sets of IO bonuses... they would get pwned without a good team make up 

Just saying