New Notoriety Option: No Enhancement Set Bonuses

[Blackfeather]

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

Given its contents, I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal if you're up for it, or any additions/modifications of your own! 🙂

[Coyotedancer]

9 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

Also going to ping @Coyotedancer on this topic - hello there! I've seen your posts around the forum, and was wondering if a proposal like this would be of any interest to you. Definitely would be happy to hear any thoughts you might have, if so! 😄

 

Pulling in anybody who's ever posted anything in a balance thread is one way to keep your proposal at the top of the thread list, I guess... 😆

 

For the record, I'm very much in the "More Options are Good"-camp, and I like quite a few that have been suggested.

... Just as long as they actually are *Options*, anyway, and don't become Standard Expectations or a defacto requirement.

 

What I don't want to see is low- and mid-range characters tossed out like the baby with the bathwater. (And yes, those kinds of characters absolutely do still exist. They're not even all that uncommon from what I've seen on Everlasting. I'm another habitual bio-reader, and there are still a fair number of characters out there with few-to-no set bonuses listed, even on higher-level teams. At most, those players are running Common IO builds with maybe a couple of the procs or specials that don't show up on the list, so nothing even close to the supposedly-ubiquitous UBERBuilds.)

 

Anyway, like I've said about a hundred times over the last couple of years, I think it's just way too easy to look around at the forum regulars, the MIDS Gurus and the TF speedsters and just assume that they're "everybody"... the joe-average CoH player. If those very skilled and very vocal power-builders are the people that you usually talk to and run with, it's only human to start thinking "Well, EVERYONE on Homecoming runs indestructible, soft-capped tank-mages who can solo Lusca on the regular these days. Let's build everything around that!" Which would not be a Good Thing for anyone who wasn't playing Captain PermaL33T or her side-kick Soft-Cap Lad.

 

So... Options. 

Options are the way to go here. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Coyotedancer

[Fayre]

6 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

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

Given its contents, I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal if you're up for it, or any additions/modifications of your own! 🙂

 

 

Hi @Blackfeather

Thanks for the ping. Interesting discussion in the thread. I hope I can add to it. Though there are certainly people that have more insight into CoH's inner workings, I've tried to provide feedback and my general thoughts.

Regarding No enhancement set bonuses

As general feedback: I like the idea, but I'm not sure if it will work as is. The thread already has some discussion so I'll add some points that I see:

Pro

• Set bonuses are one of the main problems in team balance. I think it's the correct item to address. 
• If the option were active I think I would enjoy team play more than in its current state.

Con

• It's a very specific option. The more specific an option the less likely it'll get used. As an example FF14 has (had?) an option to run dungeons with the min required level. The overall motivation was similar and while fun it was very difficult to find people for this mode. I fear this would be similar here as well.
• The modifier would apply only to some members of the team. This doesn't feel good in general and is more of a perception problem. Members with powerful characters would feel like they specifically get nerfed with this modifier. We've seen some of this in the thread and it is valid feedback.
• The option needs to provide fitting rewards. Without a fitting incentive the option will not be used. We should strive to design for all players not for a niche wherever possible. The option should be attractive to all players, if it's available, even if not all would go for it.
• I am also not sure how well it would work in endgame where characters are heavily built around set bonuses.

About difficulty
As additional food for thought the following has some points that I feel might be helpful for the difficulty discussion:

The main idea from my previous post is that there are actually multiple topics involved, when talking about difficulty. Often the discussions are hindered because people talk about different aspects of difficulty and how it applies to the game. Focusing on each one individually can provide some insights imho.

I think the difficulty question mainly consists of these four topics: 

• Team balance (often revolving around IO and set bonuses)
• Encounter difficulty
• High level content
• Rewards

Team balance

What do I mean by that: Avoiding spikes in character power inside a team both up and down. If a lvl 10 Blaster joins a high level team he should be able to BLAST, maybe not as powerful as a fully decked out lvl 50, but still close enough that he doesn't feel irrelevant. Similarly the high level char should be able to join a lvl 20 team that is level synced and still encounter a fun challenge, if they are going up against purples.
 

I think the best way to address the topic would be via the level sync feature. This is already part of the feature's original intent. Back in the SO times If you were at lvl 47 and examplar down to lvl 20 you were still more powerful but not to the extent we see today. One of the reasons being that the sync does not work as well for the newer systems (hence your idea for no set bonuses makes sense). The main idea behind the level sync feature is still valid though. This is why I think it still is the correct way to address this part of the problem.

Not that the sync feature is perfect mind you. Exemplaring down and losing access to your powers isn't fun. To some extent this could also be said for set bonuses as well. 

This question then becomes: Can you change the level sync feature to something that accounts for the new systems and potentially improves the process for high level players that exemplar down? I think you could, but the question is also about the involved efforts, which further complicates matters as we need to look for solutions that are feasible given the current dev team. Some thoughts for this:
 

The system should account for the current balance of the game and factor in set bonuses and other high level systems. Currently while exemplaring you lose whole powers, so set bonuses could be on the table as well. Ideally they would not be eliminated via scaling but toned down. Make it so that the differences in character power are within reasonable limits and still fit to the content. The main goal here is to address the major outliers from characters that have dozens of set bonuses.

WoW's current scaling is also worth a look. There the idea is different in that your character (and the world from your viewpoint) stays the same but the way you affect the world and other characters is scaled. A system like this has the benefit of not losing access to abilities and changing the way your character plays etc. but is harder to implement. Still I think this would be a good inspiration and is worth a look. 

Encounter difficulty
After addressing the team balance issue I'd like to see more options for encounter difficulty, i.e. how hard or challenging enemies are. As mentioned in my other post the current selection has mainly lost its meaning. With a restored team balance this might look a bit different already, but I would imagine we could still use some more options. 
 

The easiest way to start would be to increase available options for scaling. The content in City of Heroes shares a lot of similarity with content in ARPGs like Diablo and Path of Exile in the way it is generated, e.g. dynamically scaling levels and group sizes. We could look into these areas for inspiration. 
 

I would like to see additional scaling of enemies beyond the +4 with additional modifiers for increased difficulties thrown in. Important would be that it's still easy enough to select and communicate, i.e. something along the line of: "We're playing Synapse TF on Hard" or "We're playing Synapse TF on +6". We should avoid: "We're playing Synapse TF on +6/x13, lvl 30 enhancements, no sets, no alpha, fox only". 
 

There would also be enough room to experiment and add modifiers for specific groups or extra mobs for the encounters. I think it would be important to keep the system pretty simple though. But still thinking about this one. This is also its own discussion.

High level content
This one is similar to the encounter difficulty questions and I'm personally not sure if or how much CoH needs specific endgame content. The problem that usually arises in other MMORPGs is that the further you level your character the smaller the relevant world becomes. In WoW you can currently see this in its endgame structure. The only relevant content for progression is all instanced and nearly all of it only from this expansion: Mythic+, the one raid, arena and battlegrounds. The rest of the world with all its years of content has lost its relevance at least in terms of progression. 
 

For CoH on the other hand it always felt like that the world became larger when you leveled your character. I love this about the game. You have more options not less. Now CoH also has its endgame content (and the associated pros and cons), but the main idea is still that the game has the ability to make the whole available game world relevant, due to its flexible content design in a similar fashion to ARPGs. 
 

More concretely: I'd like to see some additional high level difficulty options that go beyond the normal options provided during leveling. Someone in the thread already brought up the Flashback mission system, which is in turn similar to WoW's Mythic+ system (or Diablo's Rifts) and its affixes. Modifiers, let's call them Hazards according to our comic theme, could further increase scaling of enemies, add more enemies, add time limits or environmental dangers. Those could cycle between seasons or be specific for certain areas of the game world. A benefit would be that the system would be fairly expandable meaning you could start with a few elements and add to it later on. And if certain content is still to easy or too hard you can turn it up or down a notch.
 

Elements that have proven themselves in endgame content might also become available for normal leveling later on as well. I'm currently leaning towards having a dedicated entry point for the system to make it feel more like endgame content (even though you could then try to run most content in the game with it). Maybe those missions can then only be started by max level characters or even stricter requirements (e.g. alpha slot).
 

The key points here are simplicity of the system and corresponding rewards. If the system is too complex the risk is to fragment the user base or just have unused options. I.e. a feature that requires four hours of searching for like minded players is probably not a good dev time investment. 

Again this is a longer discussion, so I'll cut it off for now.

Rewards:
Fitting rewards are important for each of the topics above. The notoriety system provides additional rewards when scaling up. I would expect this for all additional difficulty options as well, ideally according to their challenge level. The endgame system could then provide additional rewards according to the specific challenges. The discussion what forms those might take is again a bigger topic.
 

TLDR:

• When talking about difficulty we should try to separate the different subtopics for a better discussion.
• Team balance could be addressed via the sidekick/level sync system and is important to solve for the overall difficulty problem.
• Encounter difficulty could be adjusted by providing additional scaling options (and potential hazard modifiers).
• Endgame content could have further scaling options and strong use of hazard modifiers.
• Rewards should mirror the challenge levels.

    
All points imho of course and happy to discuss and exchange ideas.

[Blackfeather]

9 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

Pulling in anybody who's ever posted anything in a balance thread is one way to keep your proposal at the top of the thread list, I guess... 😆

 

For the record, I'm very much in the "More Options are Good"-camp, and I like quite a few that have been suggested.

... Just as long as they actually are *Options*, anyway, and don't become Standard Expectations or a defacto requirement.

 

What I don't want to see is low- and mid-range characters tossed out like the baby with the bathwater. (And yes, those kinds of characters absolutely do still exist. They're not even all that uncommon from what I've seen on Everlasting. I'm another habitual bio-reader, and there are still a fair number of characters out there with few-to-no set bonuses listed, even on higher-level teams. At most, those players are running Common IO builds with maybe a couple of the procs or specials that don't show up on the list, so nothing even close to the supposedly-ubiquitous UBERBuilds.)

 

Anyway, like I've said about a hundred times over the last couple of years, I think it's just way too easy to look around at the forum regulars, the MIDS Gurus and the TF speedsters and just assume that they're "everybody"... the joe-average CoH player. If those very skilled and very vocal power-builders are the people that you usually talk to and run with, it's only human to start thinking "Well, EVERYONE on Homecoming runs indestructible, soft-capped tank-mages who can solo Lusca on the regular these days. Let's build everything around that!" Which would not be a Good Thing for anyone who wasn't playing Captain PermaL33T or her side-kick Soft-Cap Lad.

 

So... Options. 

Options are the way to go here.

 

I can't rely on controversy and clickbait to do the work for me! Only radical proposals have that privilege. 😏

 

I do agree that the introduction of further options would be neat for sure, and that there's a ton of player variation in terms of slotting, skill levels, power choices, and so on. It's also true that the forums aren't always representative of the actual playerbase - the 1% rule applies here as it does in any internet community, after all.

 

I actually play on Everlasting myself, and I can definitely confirm your own experiences with my own. Thankfully, a Notoriety option like this one wouldn't really have an effect on players with common IOs/SOs - and procs would still apply under this as well. The game is, after all, balanced around SOs, and I don't think that's going to be changing any time soon (indeed, per one of my posts, the new story arcs have been purposefully tested using them).

 

The way I approached this Notoriety option was as a means to provide some further challenge for those PermaL33T Captains and Soft-Cap Sidekicks - for those asking for more challenging content...well, they've an entire game they can look to with the help of this. Plus having an easy way to test out story arcs to see if they're too easy/hard while using IO builds would be neat too.

 

Thank you for your response! 🙂

[Blackfeather]

Hey there, thanks for all of your viewpoints on this topic! I'll do my best to voice my own thoughts on them.

 

On 3/31/2021 at 8:15 AM, MsSmart said:

Game built on SOs. originally, but then the devs realized the game was broken and way to unbalanced, especially the support types had no way to survive and to them the die all the time, staus effect murdered all the time, got old and boring. As a result these classes began to experience less and less folks wanting to play them. Lets face it, we play this game, because we want to feel super, be the star! And not a wuss, who a minion can easily murder and is relegated to be a assistant to somebody else, and never a super in their own rights.

 

The devs so this, and acknowledged it, and even said so in posting of their own, but they were stuck in a fixed infrastructure. So what they did, the created the IO system, to begin leveling the playing field. And the IOs went a very long way towards accomplishing it. But it was not enough, so enter the incarnate system in a last ditch attempt to level the playing field, and to a great extent they did.

 

I think when making assertions - especially ones that go against conventional and established knowledge - it's important to support them with evidence confirming that said points are accurate ones to make. In summary (and do correct me if they're inaccurate!), your post appears to assert that:

• Game content is no longer balanced around SO enhancements
• Before IOs, support archetypes had practically no survivability (quote: "no way to survive"/"die all the time")
• The IO enhancement system was established to resolve this lack of survivability
• Therefore, IOs are necessary for non-melee archetypes to survive

The first assertion I've seen brought up in this thread before - but I've yet to see compelling evidence of this outside of citationless statements, unfortunately. Evidence that the game is indeed balanced around SOs however, is quite easily found; indeed, I cite a post saying so from one of the current devs, @Captain Powerhouse in my OP:

Additionally, even the newest HC story arcs have been tested using SOs, which I've mentioned over here - so it's certainly something that's still being upheld. There's also quite a number of compelling posts on the forum that explain in which ways the game is balanced around SO enhancements, such as from @Luminara over here. I think it's certainly very insightful, and worth looking into if you haven't already!

 

As for your following points, that is, relating to the suggestion that support archetypes are unable to survive without the benefit of IO sets, and that the invention system itself was designed to resolve this...I think that requires more evidence to reliably claim, ideally a citation from one of the devs at the time, especially since because I can think of a few examples that run counter to this. For instance, @Coyotedancer has stated before that plenty of characters run around without IOs, and function perfectly well, and I myself have seen a number of such players in teams who do so as well (and yes, some were support archetype characters). They certainly were not "dying all the time".

 

On 3/31/2021 at 8:15 AM, MsSmart said:

As the so many challenge oriented postings, I have come across, what is truly needed is to level the playing field with regards to what classes receive what challenge. Sadly most of the recommendations I keep seeing, continue to place a very, very  disproportionate effect on support while the melee suffers a minimal repercussion.

 

One point that I see being brought up fairly frequently across threads such as these ones is that for some players, the IO system makes their support archetype characters feel less significant - @MTeague has a good example of this over here. I think it's important to consider that given your own concern about such archetypes being disproportionately affected by different difficulty options, it might be worth considering the idea that IOs and the set bonuses they bring can have their drawbacks as well as benefits for some players, because each player gets something different out of the game.

 

Whew, this turned out a bit longer than I anticipated. But hope this all makes sense! 😄

[Coyotedancer]

For whatever it's worth, back in the Liberty days I used to level all of my characters on SOs and a couple of favorite specials and procs... None of them even used common IOs. They never got their "real" set-build until they hit 47. 

 

They played perfectly well that way. Now, I wasn't soloing team task forces at +4/x8 with them, granted... But for all of the regular game content I did play, either solo or teamed? They were fine. They certainly weren't dying left and right, like proverbial flies. I seriously doubt that's changed much over the last couple of years.

 

The only reason I stopped doing that and switched to using common IOs when I'm leveling someone here on Homecoming was purely economic. Starting over from scratch meant having to conserve resources, and the Commons I didn't have to replace every few levels were just more cost-effective.

[Blackfeather]

Heya @Gulbasaur! Saw this post of yours here:

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal, given its contents - would it be something you'd be interested in using, have thoughts of your own on what you'd add/modify, etc.? I'm all ears, as always. 😄

[Gulbasaur]

On 4/7/2021 at 9:51 AM, Blackfeather said:

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal, given its contents - would it be something you'd be interested in using, have thoughts of your own on what you'd add/modify, etc.? I'm all ears, as always. 😄

I'd definitely give it a go - I'm all for added ways to get the game more interesting!

 

What I'd really like is semi-random enemy buffs/player debuffs. I really like how GW2 uses instabilities in fractals - basically, there's a list of difficulty modifiers and 1-3 are added onto the instance.

 

They can be simple things like "Players are smaller and have 30% less health, but move 25% faster" or "Players will be pushed away from one another" but there are also horrible ones like "Enemies explode upon dying if not stunned. Stunned enemies apply protection and stability to nearby allies.".

Edited April 8, 2021 by Gulbasaur

[Blackfeather]

Hey there @Bill Z Bubba! I saw your post talking about game balance and difficulty and the like - would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this proposal, it sounds like you might like it. Thanks in advance if you do decide to do so! 😄

[Greycat]

On 4/3/2021 at 11:04 AM, Blackfeather said:

As for your following points, that is, relating to the suggestion that support archetypes are unable to survive without the benefit of IO sets, and that the invention system itself was designed to resolve this...I think that requires more evidence to reliably claim, ideally a citation from one of the devs at the time, especially since because I can think of a few examples that run counter to this. For instance, @Coyotedancer has stated before that plenty of characters run around without IOs, and function perfectly well, and I myself have seen a number of such players in teams who do so as well (and yes, some were support archetype characters). They certainly were not "dying all the time".

 

 

I'll be perfectly happy to say anyone that thinks support characters are or were "dying all the time" without IOs is full of it and either has no idea what they were talking about or knows no play style other than "run into the middle o fthe biggest mob and see what happens." 

[Bionic_Flea]

I read the first page and then skipped to the end, sorry for bypassing anyone.

 

I'm all for additional options. 

 

The problem is getting people to use these options.  Similar options exist right now in TFs and Ouro arcs and from my personal experience most people use the settings once to get the badge and then never again (Exception for EV on Excelsior who constantly runs hardcore Master of ITFs).  People play them them first time for the badges.  So unless you add some sort of reward to this "no set bonuses" setting I don't think that it will be used very much.  The rewards can be badges, extra inf/XP, or any of the other goodies that drop in game (other than an SO, that's just mean).

[Blackfeather]

8 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

I read the first page and then skipped to the end, sorry for bypassing anyone.

 

I'm all for additional options. 

 

The problem is getting people to use these options.  Similar options exist right now in TFs and Ouro arcs and from my personal experience most people use the settings once to get the badge and then never again (Exception for EV on Excelsior who constantly runs hardcore Master of ITFs).  People play them them first time for the badges.  So unless you add some sort of reward to this "no set bonuses" setting I don't think that it will be used very much.  The rewards can be badges, extra inf/XP, or any of the other goodies that drop in game (other than an SO, that's just mean).

 

Thanks for the read! On the one hand, I kind of agree that Task Force/Flashback difficulty options aren't used that much. On the other, I'd also imagine that their availability also hampers their usage a little bit too; opening it up as a notoriety setting would at least provide it for most content...and it'd certainly make challenge supergroups a little easier to run, such as the one you mentioned, I think!

 

Plus, I'd also argue that this is less a "hardcore mode" difficulty option compared to the Flashback difficulty settings, which seem to be out to actively restrict players; not having any enhancements at all on a player sounds painful, for instance. In comparison, an option to run without set bonuses will for the most part be similar to playing through with SOs, if not a little easier.

[Bionic_Flea]

If it reduces effectiveness at all, it seems to me that it will be regarded as painful.  Why should I nerf myself?  Nostalgia, challenge, or reward are the only three reasons I can think of.  And of those, reward seems to me to be the most universal and repeatable reason.

[Blackfeather]

3 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

If it reduces effectiveness at all, it seems to me that it will be regarded as painful.  Why should I nerf myself?  Nostalgia, challenge, or reward are the only three reasons I can think of.  And of those, reward seems to me to be the most universal and repeatable reason.

 

I totally agree that feeling less effective doesn't feel that good on a character - I imagine that's why a lot of squishier players aren't a fan of being mezzed and so on. That's why I'm of the view that an option like this would be ideal for people looking for more of a challenge: a large part of feeling effective is actually having your powers land; IO set bonuses for the most part just work to increase one's survivability.

 

A lot of the suggestions about more difficult content seem to suggest making enemies themselves stronger; more accuracy, defence/resistance debuffs, and so on. I'd argue that that's just another way of achieving the same thing: increasing the risk levels of players.

 

While I'm sure that this sort of thing will slowly be introduced in terms of new content and the like, an option like this would help to provide that level of difficulty - playing the game as balanced around SOs on the fly.

[Blackfeather]

Hey @th0ughtGun! Saw this post of yours here:

And thought this thread might be of interest to you! Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

[Marbing]

25 minutes ago, Blackfeather said:

Hey @th0ughtGun! Saw this post of yours here:

And thought this thread might be of interest to you! Would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Well hello there!

 

I read through some of the stuff and I have to say I side on the "mo options mo betta" team. I see no issue with adding this as an option to the game. Who cares if it won't be used much? I guarantee you it will still be used. There are tons of players out there that like to play the game as difficult as possible. This is just adding another way to do that. I suppose you could argue that if you want to play like that then don't get IO sets or have a build that has none. But that is tedious and tedium just isn't all that fun. So having the option to get all the IO sets you want and then just turn them off to make your experience more difficult is a great way to do this. I believe these options already exist in Arena play, right? So it wouldn't be all that hard to extend it to the notoriety menu. 

 

I would take this one step further also, why not add content (missions or story arcs) to the game that under certain circumstances your set bonus' are turned off. Something about the story of that mission that weakens you and your team, maybe it even disables your incarnate abilities! Then the toons that aren't affected would be ones that didn't have any incarnates or IO sets. Food for thought!

[FUBARczar]

On 7/8/2021 at 3:11 PM, Bionic_Flea said:

I read the first page and then skipped to the end, sorry for bypassing anyone.

 

I'm all for additional options. 

 

The problem is getting people to use these options.  Similar options exist right now in TFs and Ouro arcs and from my personal experience most people use the settings once to get the badge and then never again (Exception for EV on Excelsior who constantly runs hardcore Master of ITFs).  People play them them first time for the badges.  So unless you add some sort of reward to this "no set bonuses" setting I don't think that it will be used very much.  The rewards can be badges, extra inf/XP, or any of the other goodies that drop in game (other than an SO, that's just mean).

yeah it is totally cheesey to say Master of .... when people run the TF on +0 when they are 50+1.  There should be badges for Grandmaster of ..., where it is required to have Max Noteriety, No Deaths, No Temps, No Inspirations.  Then maybe Legendary Grandmaster for turning off enhancements.  or something like that.  so much more could be done in that area with very few resources. 

[CodeJunkie]

I haven't read all 5 pages of comments so maybe somebody already asked this, but why does it have to be a notoriety option?  Wouldn't this be more apt as a challenge option akin to no inspirations or enhancements have no effect?  Shouldn't it also only apply to group activities where the group decides on the challenge settings before they start whatever is they are about to do and only effective for the duration of that particular activity (ie: TF, Oro missions, etc, etc)? 

[FUBARczar]

and it would be cool if playing at +0 you only get like 20% of the rewards, +1 40%, +2 60%, +3 80%, +4 100% and then bonus for no inspirations, enemies, buffed, players debuffed, etc.

 

[Blackfeather]

20 hours ago, CodeJunkie said:

I haven't read all 5 pages of comments so maybe somebody already asked this, but why does it have to be a notoriety option?  Wouldn't this be more apt as a challenge option akin to no inspirations or enhancements have no effect?  Shouldn't it also only apply to group activities where the group decides on the challenge settings before they start whatever is they are about to do and only effective for the duration of that particular activity (ie: TF, Oro missions, etc, etc)? 

 

Hey there! That's a good question - I actually address it in my original post; take a gander at it. 🙂

[Riverdusk]

On 7/11/2021 at 7:40 PM, FUBARczar said:

and it would be cool if playing at +0 you only get like 20% of the rewards, +1 40%, +2 60%, +3 80%, +4 100% and then bonus for no inspirations, enemies, buffed, players debuffed, etc.

 

 

I don't know about you but I don't tend to up the difficulty much until much higher levels.  That would turn the lower level game into a complete slog for a lot of people.   Not sure actually encouraging even more people to farm/power level is a good idea.

 

That is assuming by rewards you also mean xp.  If you mean just inf/drops then it'd just encourage me to play the market more instead (and still probably encourage farming even more).

[Sancerre]

i'm not sure i see the point because we have 3 builds available per character.  My personal take is this -- if you cannot find a way to fit an SO build as one of your 3 options, then you dont truly deem the SO build as desirable... otherwise you would ASSUREDLY find a way for it to exist on your character.  as a compromise though, the easiest way to implement a solution, if all 3 builds are somehow absolutely deadlocked on some characters, would be to advocate for a 4th build slot and have a very good reason for demanding it.

 

the most challenging part of your suggestion to decipher is understanding exactly WHICH IOs that you deem 'essential to the character' or to be of 'negligible balance'.  this is where your entire argument falls, i believe.  you want to cite that +defense set bonuses and things like steadfast +3% defense are very powerful and i agree.  however, so is performance shifter that appears to be in 'negligible' category to you.  if you are playing empathy defender, for example, Recovery Aura is a MASSIVE benefit to an SO team (and indeed it was incredibly powerful back in the early days of CoH... the discovery of the fitness power pool becoming virtually 'necessary' was a big part of this to be fair).  conversely, if you are playing in today's modern CoX, recovery aura is virtually pointless because 90% of players are entirely self sufficient on end recovery already (or slamming ageless incarnate) outside of fighting sappers.  and i dont think i need to really dive into damage procs at all (its own can of worms) because there are constantly balance discussions around how they warp the power of various archetypes.

 

if the game is balanced around SOs, as your first point states, then NONE of the IOs should be considered 'essential' or 'negligible'.  they should ALL be outright banned (function-less) from this mode.  if we base the design of this notoriety option around that notion (function-less IOs period), then you run into the problem of min/maxing a build with filled up with damage procs or various other unique bonuses that would be literally function-less slots in this mode.  so why not just have a completely separate build that is SO only (again, you have 3 available).

 

i think this PROBABLY (speculation warning) comes down to the idea of ensuring/forcing the challenge onto pickup groups... and not wanting your group experience to be 'ruined' by folks that do not follow your rules.  to that i would just say find a group of friends willing to play by your rules and each of you need to dedicate that SO build for this team play.

 

as a final note i will spell out specifically (incase it isnt obvious and hopefully nobody would even attempt to argue this) that SOs are incredibly cheap (influence) so that should really not be a consideration here at all.

[FUBARczar]

12 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

 

I don't know about you but I don't tend to up the difficulty much until much higher levels.  That would turn the lower level game into a complete slog for a lot of people.   Not sure actually encouraging even more people to farm/power level is a good idea.

 

That is assuming by rewards you also mean xp.  If you mean just inf/drops then it'd just encourage me to play the market more instead (and still probably encourage farming even more).

XP already sifts by +x,  Which is wny people farm at +4/8 instead of +0/8.  I was meaning Merits.   And their should be a different badge for Max Notoriety as well, like a Grandmaster Badge > Master of X.  Or Lord of X Badge if it is run with no Inspirations and Enemies buffed.

 

And the only time I play +0, even when leveling, is if I am badging for accolades.  Or join a PUG and they have it set as such.

[MaximusPrime]

1 hour ago, FUBARczar said:

XP already sifts by +x,  Which is wny people farm at +4/8 instead of +0/8.  I was meaning Merits.   And their should be a different badge for Max Notoriety as well, like a Grandmaster Badge > Master of X.  Or Lord of X Badge if it is run with no Inspirations and Enemies buffed.

 

And the only time I play +0, even when leveling, is if I am badging for accolades.  Or join a PUG and they have it set as such.

This makes the most sense.  playing at +0 is almost like playing a different game than +4/8 especially if you remove things like Inspirations which are way too OP.

[Riverdusk]

15 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

XP already sifts by +x,  Which is wny people farm at +4/8 instead of +0/8.  I was meaning Merits.   And their should be a different badge for Max Notoriety as well, like a Grandmaster Badge > Master of X.  Or Lord of X Badge if it is run with no Inspirations and Enemies buffed.

 

And the only time I play +0, even when leveling, is if I am badging for accolades.  Or join a PUG and they have it set as such.

 

Not a big fan of the idea of doing that for merits either without some changes to some of the TF's out there.  Quite a few TF's it doesn't take a whole lot longer to do them at +4/x8 than it does to do them at +0 as you can stealth/speed through half or more of the missions.  I think It'd encourage speed/stealth runs even more than they exist already.  People would want to do everything at  +4/x8 (and even with a bunch of challenges for extra bonuses if that was also added) for maximum merits, but speed through for the least amount of actual fighting.  Everything would become a max difficulty speed run especially at the scaling you suggested which was pretty extreme.   

 

I'd actually be more for that idea if the TF's that have a lot of just "click glowie" or "defeat boss" were reworked to have more kill all missions (or just cut some of the speed missions and lower rewards accordingly), but people would probably kill me for those kind of suggestions.

 

Adding a few more badges I wouldn't really care about one way or another though.