-4 to +4

[Yomo Kimyata]

Is there a mechanics reason why HC can’t expand the range of Notoriety below -1?  
 

Obviously you can’t go below level 1, and rewards would drop proportionally.

 

Thoughts?

[Bill Z Bubba]

Guess my only question is why? Is it possible to get faceplanted at -1?

[Yomo Kimyata]

29 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Guess my only question is why? Is it possible to get faceplanted at -1?

 

HC has consistently made things easier over the past two years, in ways that affect fundamental game play.  It's no secret I dislike that.  But that is me, and it is clear that there are many people who want things to be easier.

 

Maybe if there were a way for people to play at levels lower than -1 then there would be ways for players to access things they couldn't currently, and there wouldn't be the need to shrink the game board?  That way they could opt in to playing at -4 under an extrinsic constraint if they so chose.

 

I'm just spitballing here.

[Bill Z Bubba]

There's easier (stupid amplifiers and tanker buffs) and then there's "what's the point?" Honestly, if anyone needs a diff level lower than -1/x1 while they play... no, I don't care what the reason might be, there is NO reason possible in my mind that anyone would ever need a diff lower than that. I could get through that diff using 1 foot on my mouse.

 

With a defender using flurry.

Edited July 10, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Bill Z Bubba]

To your point, we both know that a ton of people out there are doing speed runs at +0 and I can absolutely see a correlation between that mindset and folks who join them thinking that everything is too easy.

 

As I said in another thread, difficulty must be ok, because I'm a pretty decent player/builder and I have yet to be able to solo a +4 MLTF. I know others have done it but I don't know what cheat codes they used or how many T3/T4 insps they had sitting in email.

 

For those reading this, if you've soloed an MLTF with no insps/temps/amps at +4, my hat's off to you and I'd love to hear what you did it with.

[Yomo Kimyata]

I was thinking more along the lines of people who want various things (ATs, power sets, etc.) buffed.  Maybe if there was a way to play, oh say, Regeneration at -3, people could get enjoyment out of the set as it is rather than want it to be buffed in a way that would affect everyone else?

 

I'm just kidding of course, ha ha.  Nerf Regen.

[huang3721]

2 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

it possible to get faceplanted at -1?

Yes. Praetorian ambushes can kill you at -1. I think you are more vulnerable at low level, due to small insp inventory and lack of available enhancement slot.

I tried to aggro multiple mobs as an unslotted blaster once. I think they become deadly after 3 mobs. Edit

My assumption is that below -1 the challenge would be non existent, so the devs didnt expand. Also, the exp and inf reward will be miniscule.

Edited July 10, 2021 by huang3721
Forget to add my thought

[MsSmart]

I don't get the need for the below -1, at least for the reason stated. If the game played by a somewhat experienced player, I truly can't see them not being able to complete a mission while being "solo" regardless of class.

 

Now that said, perhaps having a mission in stupid-easy mode, would be convenient for badge hunters, who truly could care less for the mission story, all they want is the badge...

 

Sue

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I was thinking more along the lines of people who want various things (ATs, power sets, etc.) buffed.  Maybe if there was a way to play, oh say, Regeneration at -3, people could get enjoyment out of the set as it is rather than want it to be buffed in a way that would affect everyone else?

 

I'm just kidding of course, ha ha.  Nerf Regen.

 

Only ATs I think need a buff are the poor Khels. Good gods below they suck so bad.

Widows and Soldiers are rock solid team players.

Scrappers are right where they should be. Weak enough on armor to die in the rough stuff but still dishing decent damage.

Brutes: See scrappers except that their caps should be nerfed.

Defenders: Meh, leave em be.

Cors: See defs.

Stalkers: Who cares? Stalker Claws suck butt with no spin. 🙂 In all seriousness, probably in a good place, too. There are other sets to choose from.

Masterminds: I got nuthin. I hate 'em. I have one because I need one of every AT fully built and T4ed.

Tanks: Nerf the shit out of 'em. Far as I'm concerned they are the pinnacle of absolute brokeness in CoH.

Blasters: Meh. I guess they're fine and the problems they do have are due to SetIO bonuses and not really AT based.

[Naraka]

I'd also postulate, why not give players max rewards on the lower difficulty too?  If farming is so accepted, why not let practically everyone have farming characters.

 

Some might ask what would be the point of running at higher difficulty and the answer is very simply "so you can say that you can".  It's basically the inverse of the argument people have for players that ask for more challenge.  If players like to trick out their characters to feel powerful, setting the difficulty low also accomplishes that so give those players the same reward as players running cruising builds with soft-capped def and oversaturated AoE.

[GraspingVileTerror]

I'd gladly run at -4.  Bypass as much of the tedium as possible to get the to good stuff, like content.

[SeraphimKensai]

'm wondering what would the point of minus 2 or more be. A lot of us have pretty solid builds and if I can solo a +4 tf on a support toon while drinking for speed tf? Would a -4 TF give the same merits as a even con TF?

 

 

For the record, I'm a big advocate of having the number of merits we get scale with difficulty level.

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, Naraka said:

I'd also postulate, why not give players max rewards on the lower difficulty too?  If farming is so accepted, why not let practically everyone have farming characters.

 

Some might ask what would be the point of running at higher difficulty and the answer is very simply "so you can say that you can".  It's basically the inverse of the argument people have for players that ask for more challenge.  If players like to trick out their characters to feel powerful, setting the difficulty low also accomplishes that so give those players the same reward as players running cruising builds with soft-capped def and oversaturated AoE.

 

I'm of two minds on rewards.

 

First, I firmly believe in the maxim of higher risk, higher reward.  Both in games, and in life.  And probably in a few other things.

 

Second, the risk/reward in this game is seriously out of whack.  I hopped on a double Hami run last night for, I don't even know, 160 merits?  Essentially zero risk.  Which is roughly 23 Eden trials.  I don't see those as equivalent.  I'd like to see some progress made on that front, to be honest.

[GM Impervium]

@Yomo Kimyata The Hamidon Raid rewards are based on the fact that it takes time to set up, and knowledge to attempt, and teamwork to execute. Sure, once you get down to it, it only takes a few minutes, but sometimes takes up to a half hour of giant monster hunting to get him to spawn... and if it doesn't, you might not have enough EoEs to survive the encounter. And sure, maybe someone can avoid the tedious part and join just after Hami spawns... but at that point, the Hive/Abyss might be full, so the run the risk of missing the raid.

Also, doing Hami "quick", or having just a few people not listen and mess up, comes with a risk that you'll encounter a triple bloom, which, if you mess up, can be VERY hard to recover from. However, experienced teams/leaders can often avoid this.

I won't posit my opinion on the idea in the OP, but just pointing out that -4 would deny a player inf and XP. so, maybe not a great idea, unless the player were informed of this when they select that difficulty.

[Yomo Kimyata]

Just now, GM Impervium said:

I won't posit my opinion on the idea in the OP, but just pointing out that -4 would deny a player inf and XP. so, maybe not a great idea, unless the player were informed of this when they select that difficulty.

 

I was only mentioning Hami raid as an example, not the *defining* example.  I'm sure you know that we all can come up with many many more examples where a reward table was created a long long time ago and is completely out of whack with the current or any future meta.  It's not a world breaking problem, but I personally think it's pretty up there.

 

I am interested in your opinion, because I feel that you personally are going to drive a lot of the direction going forward, and if it's a drop dead no go for you, then lock the thread and let it die.

 

I quoted this sentence because I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Are you saying you would have to put a warning that someone would get less inf and XP if they chose a lower level?  If so, why in the world isn't there one now, since obviously you get fewer rewards from -1 than +1.  Am I misunderstanding you?

[Glacier Peak]

Yes, yes to previous posters! Risk versus reward. Balance in all things. 

[TheZag]

People are focused on -1x1 is low enough but what about -1x3 or -1x4?  

 

I occasionally manage to get my kids to login and team with them and while my son is a gamer in training,  my daughter just likes kitties.  Playing on -1x3 is no problem for myself and my son but my daughter often feels she isnt being useful.  Then i try and focus on letting her battle more while i tank/buff/heal her.  A -2x3 would probably be a better fit for her skill level.

 

Im not saying change the game for my daughter who logs in like once a month,  but there is more to it then just saying that soloing -1x1 is enough.

Edited July 11, 2021 by TheZag

[Doomguide2005]

 

Quote

 

I quoted this sentence because I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Are you saying you would have to put a warning that someone would get less inf and XP if they chose a lower level?  If so, why in the world isn't there one now, since obviously you get fewer rewards from -1 than +1.  Am I misunderstanding you?

I think it might be more specifically at -3 and less, maybe (just thinking):

White con (even level) +0

Blue con at -1

Green con at -2

and those are minions.  At -2 an underling will con gray

 ... maybe

[Naraka]

3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

 

I'm of two minds on rewards.

 

First, I firmly believe in the maxim of higher risk, higher reward.  Both in games, and in life.  And probably in a few other things.

 

Second, the risk/reward in this game is seriously out of whack.  I hopped on a double Hami run last night for, I don't even know, 160 merits?  Essentially zero risk.  Which is roughly 23 Eden trials.  I don't see those as equivalent.  I'd like to see some progress made on that front, to be honest.

 

And I'd argue that the amount of risk when fully kitted out in IOs and incarnates is so small, people find rez powers useless let alone support or control in general.

 

How much risk does a full team ever face when not split up?  It can sometimes vary but it's rare the situation calls for team wipes or pull tactics or LoS controlling.

 

[EDIT] There aren't as many circumstances in game where failure is even possible.  If ever there is risk, that is likely where you'd look.  Even taking a team wipe really isn't risk.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Naraka

[Greycat]

You *can* play at below -1. People have outleveled missions that were causing them problems since issue 0.

 

You could also, technically, set mobs to -2 by setting it at -1 and taking an Ultimate inspiration for a level boost, I suppose. (Well, several, depending on how long the mission was.)

10 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

But that is me, and it is clear that there are many people who want things to be easier.

 

There's ... easier, and then there's "I want to feel more powerful," thus guides on capping defense, recharge, etc. The two are *not* the same.  I mean, take - say - an MMA fighter. He's put into a cage match with ten other guys, more or less equally skilled. If he defeats them, he feels powerful. Now drop him into a cage with a bunch of ten year olds. He'll still manage to defeat them, but probably (hopefully!) not feel as good about it.

 

(Fwiw, neither really apply to me personally. I don't tend to (intentionally) cap or perma things because I *want* more of an element of risk - winning through that way is satisfying to me in a way that "I'm untouchable and can nuke things every three seconds without ever being hit" isn't.)

[Gigajoule]

3 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I quoted this sentence because I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Are you saying you would have to put a warning that someone would get less inf and XP if they chose a lower level?  If so, why in the world isn't there one now, since obviously you get fewer rewards from -1 than +1.  Am I misunderstanding you?

 

At -4, most if not all of the enemies in the zone would con gray, awarding no exp/inf for defeating them. Even the Lieutenants would be gray, I think. There would need to be a big pop-up warning saying "If you set your notoriety to -4, you will receive little to no experience for most missions" or something to that effect. Without the warning -- and probably even with the warning -- many people will not know why they are doing mission after mission and gaining no exp.

[nihilii]

11 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

For those reading this, if you've soloed an MLTF with no insps/temps/amps at +4, my hat's off to you and I'd love to hear what you did it with.

I think I've done it with a stone/rad tanker but I don't recall for sure if it was no insps/amps. I'm confident it's possible, either way. /rad over /em, because you really want Irradiated Ground and Atom Smasher to clear the repairmen.

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

There's ... easier, and then there's "I want to feel more powerful," thus guides on capping defense, recharge, etc. The two are *not* the same.  I mean, take - say - an MMA fighter. He's put into a cage match with ten other guys, more or less equally skilled. If he defeats them, he feels powerful. Now drop him into a cage with a bunch of ten year olds. He'll still manage to defeat them, but probably (hopefully!) not feel as good about it.

 

Notoriety comes with zero visual differences.  It'd be more akin to an MMA fighter going into two fights with overall normal looking fighters and one fight being far easier than the other.

 

On the point of challenge, this is exactly what most suggest when adding difficulty settings: just mess around with the stats as an option with no mechanical difference.  That's what increasing the level does, it's what nerfing yourself does and what this particular suggestion does.

[GM Impervium]

9 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I quoted this sentence because I'm not sure what you mean by it.  Are you saying you would have to put a warning that someone would get less inf and XP if they chose a lower level?  If so, why in the world isn't there one now, since obviously you get fewer rewards from -1 than +1.  Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Well, there's a difference between "a little less XP" at -1, and "absolutely none at all"! And I feel like some of the people who would most want to take advantage of a -4 setting might be newer players who don't quite realize how the XP distribution curve works, and they'd feel put out. We've had a few support requests along that vein already (Incarnate stuff doesn't drop from level 49 foes), and I'd hate to see even more people feel screwed over because they didn't understand the consequence of their choice.

So maybe a warning system is already warranted? No promises, but, let's see if the Devs pick up on this 😃

[Yomo Kimyata]

16 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Only ATs I think need a buff are the poor Khels. Good gods below they suck so bad.

 

 

I got yer solution to that right here, bub.  3 points of knockback resistance, inherent.  Boom.