When will the game be rebalanced around IOs? Never, and here's why.

[Erratic1]

51 minutes ago, MTeague said:

There is enough existing content that is simple enough to do with only SO's, that I don't think it would be Beyond the Pale for the devs to experiment with a few story arcs that assumed you are kitted out with IO's and Incarnates, if they so choose. 

 

However, keep in mind, some people say "kitted out character" to mean "Blaster with softcapped defenses and massive +Recharge"

Also, what does "designed for that character" mean?

 

 "IO Balanced" design leans towards the notion of being a powerhouse but it is quite possible to kit out a character with IOs poorly and having something which falls far short of what is theoretically possible with IOs that it is only marginally better than what SOs would get you.

[Erratic1]

13 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

And I'll bet you money that if the devs proliferate the challenge modes across all of the content, or at least all of the level 50 content, people are still going to be creating new "game too easy, bruh" threads every week, like clockwork.

 

Are you suggesting that because some people do not bother to keep up with how the game is being developed it should not be further developed?

 

[Luminara]

4 hours ago, iBot said:

From a game design perspective I've always wondered why the TO->DO->SO system was abandoned for the IO system.  I've wondered why the original devs did not find some way to incorporate that original enh system into the new invention system.

 

If their attempts to bleed off the influence glut had succeeded, common IOs would very likely have replaced TOs, DOs and SOs entirely within the next few Issues.  That would've been critical to designing harder content, because it guaranteed that anyone who had reached maximum level would also be using enhancements with known values (not values scaled by level difference, not potentially out-leveled enhancements), thereby assuring the developers that all players would've had specific minimum enhancement values.  The new baseline would have been common IO values, and the post-50 content they created could then be made with the expectation that players were using level 50 common IOs, or would upgrade their existing common IOs to level 50.  Concurrently, sub-50 content would be created around lower level common IO slotting expectations, and be neither too hard nor too easy.

 

Even set bonuses wouldn't skew the curve much if they'd succeeded, because players typically slotted mid-level sets, rather than all 50.  We didn't have attunement in Issue 9, or for a long time after, so slotting set IOs at specific levels, to ensure that they were maximizing the powers in the ways most important to us while simultaneously assuring us that they'd be viable even if we exemplared down a few levels, was de rigueur.  And functionally, the difference between a build with level 25-30 set IOs and bonuses, and a build with level 50 common IOs and no bonuses isn't as great as the difference between a strictly SO build, and a build with level 25-30 set IOs plus set bonuses.  And that was the sticking point for the developers.  The bar had to stay where it was so the players who weren't marketeering, who weren't sitting on piles of inf*, who weren't using IOs, weren't driven completely out.

 

They could've simply forced everyone to switch to IOs, removed all other non-IO and non-HO enhancements from the game and pushed forward, but they already knew such an act would raise more Hell than they cared to consider.  Even common IOs have an associated cost, and like everything else, that cost was set with the existing influence situation in mind.  Compare a level 50 Damage SO, 60,000 inf*, with a level 50 Damage IO, 464,400 for the recipe plus 464,400 crafting fee plus the cost of salvage.  While a level 50 Damage IO does provide a larger bonus than a level 50 Damage SO, or even a level 53 Damage IO, the associated cost is still disproportional to the benefit if one is looking at having to replace every enhancement in a build.  The uproar that would've ensued if the developers had deleted TOs, DOs and SOs and told everyone to replace them with IOs would've made the GDN and ED threads look like pleasant tea-time conversations.  Even if they'd written a script to replace all TOs, DOs and SOs with comparable IOs, the future slotting of alts or respecs of characters requiring new IOs would have made it painful for a lot of players.

 

So they could never integrate IOs into the base enhancement system more than they did, and they could never mandate a global IO change-over, either.  The influence problem was just too profound and wide-spread.

[Luminara]

20 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

You say that, but evidence would indicate otherwise.

 

See the second paragraph of the post you quoted.

[PeregrineFalcon]

16 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Are you suggesting that because some people do not bother to keep up with how the game is being developed it should not be further developed?

No. I wasn't suggesting that at all.

[A Cat]

46 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Are you suggesting that because some people do not bother to keep up with how the game is being developed it should not be further developed?

 

At the end of the day, Mids and the forums are not actually part of the game though. Is it ok game design to have the main source of information and the main build editor be independent of the game? I don't actually know. It is extremely difficult at best to teach someone just through help channel or try and fix a build. Is there even an in game way to look at someone else's build? There's lots of stuff that is just not taught by the game. The defense soft cap was derived by smart fellows on the forums, there's nothing telling you about the rule of 5, nothing that tells you that purples should not be attuned since the bonuses work at all levels already, etc. 

[iBot]

My thought with the origin enh vs. invention enh was just that I would have thought that the devs would have used the origin enh as a step to craft the invention version.  Meaning in order to craft say a level 30 damage IO I need the crafting salvage + recipe + a level 30 origin SO.  So the transition to IOs in a build would be a natural progression at the time meaning I could at some point replace the out dated origin enh with the new invention version to gain some benefit such as the IO version never expires etc.

 

As for sets I think that was yet another blunder on their part.  Sets should have followed the same crafting idea that they are an extension to the common IOs rather than a replacement.  An example would be you get a specific set of bonuses if you slot into a power 1 acc IO, 2 dam IO, 2 rech IO, and 1 end redux IO you get the "set" bonus of +Y% to your to-hit.  Same could be done with other combinations.  This gives a much broader range to builds and doesn't require the complete respec of the character.

 

The reason I don't fully agree with the thought that the devs needed an effective inf sink is that the inf problem was there from day one.  This then requires the thought that they were severely short sighted (though not the first time devs have fallen into this trap) about what their economy would look like.  Printing money in a game is always a problem since it is created out of thin air as we play.  By the time they tried to do it the damage was already catastrophic.  The invention system, prestige system, and incarnate systems were all attempts to change that and each of them failed miserably because the underling problem was never addressed.  HC has done a better job of this but it is still a system with big holes.

[Erratic1]

12 minutes ago, A Cat said:

At the end of the day, Mids and the forums are not actually part of the game though. Is it ok game design to have the main source of information and the main build editor be independent of the game? I don't actually know. It is extremely difficult at best to teach someone just through help channel or try and fix a build. Is there even an in game way to look at someone else's build? There's lots of stuff that is just not taught by the game. The defense soft cap was derived by smart fellows on the forums, there's nothing telling you about the rule of 5, nothing that tells you that purples should not be attuned since the bonuses work at all levels already, etc. 

 

You may have missed my previous post: 

 

 

There are two issues this thread has gotten to: "Should the game be balanced based on IO sets?" and "Should there be development taking into account IO sets exist?" 

 

To clarify, I do not have a problem with some development aimed at the cutting edge crowd because as Luminara points out, the impediments to dealing with such content are mostly self-imposed as opposed to game imposed. I would be opposed to the notion the game should be balanced around IOs because what constitutes an IO build in most people's minds are powerhouse builds when in fact there is a lot of room to end up with subpar results. And that before we deal with questions like, "How many set bonuses does it take to qualify as an IO build?"

 

 

 

 

 

[Erratic1]

15 minutes ago, iBot said:

As for sets I think that was yet another blunder on their part.  Sets should have followed the same crafting idea that they are an extension to the common IOs rather than a replacement.  An example would be you get a specific set of bonuses if you slot into a power 1 acc IO, 2 dam IO, 2 rech IO, and 1 end redux IO you get the "set" bonus of +Y% to your to-hit.  Same could be done with other combinations.  This gives a much broader range to builds and doesn't require the complete respec of the character.

 

Dark Melee: Smite allows for the following enhancements: Accuracy, Damage, Recharge, Taunt, To-Hit Debuff, and Endurance Reduction. Thing is there are ways which are seriously poor ways to slot the power which most people simply are never going to do--all recharge, all taunt, some combination of endurance reduction and to-hit debuff, etc. If those bad combinations take up bonus you are forced to take a substandard collection of enhancements to get some given bonus. If only certain combinations get you bonuses then you're constraining the range of builds you were otherwise claiming would be a broadening. 

 

By spreading out commonly sought benefits as the currently used IO system does (there being a Acc/Dam/Rchg enhancer with lower than normal values but which will sum with other enhancer's like values) you give greater flexibility.

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

You say that, but evidence would indicate otherwise.

 

For example, even though the developers are in the process of proliferating a Challenge Mode specifically for IO'd out super characters, there's still a new thread every week where someone complains about how the game is too easy and the devs need to nerf everyone. And, when they are informed that the devs are in the process of doing that they are actually surprised.

 

Because it's clearly impossible for people to read patch notes, and the post right above yours is a perfect example of that.

 

And I'll bet you money that if the devs proliferate the challenge modes across all of the content, or at least all of the level 50 content, people are still going to be creating new "game too easy, bruh" threads every week, like clockwork.

 

Those points prove the statement. People don't know what's in the patch notes because they choose not to read them. People don't know how to craft IOs or build with Mids because they choose not to. Or they know exactly how to do it and still think it a waste of time. The information remains available to everyone.

[TraumaTrain]

What does it mean to "balance the game around IOs?"

 

And how would it be implemented?

[Bill Z Bubba]

23 minutes ago, TraumaTrain said:

What does it mean to "balance the game around IOs?"

 

And how would it be implemented?

 

Pretty sure those questions are precisely why it won't ever happen. The only option is to make everything hurt more. And the devs are already doing that with optional added difficulty. @Haijinxmentioned it in another thread. That's the only option available. (Along with buffing specifically badly performing power sets.)

[OmegaOne]

On 1/30/2022 at 4:27 PM, Solarverse said:

So my question is, where do we stand today? Are we finally at the point where we can start creating content that is strictly for players who have kitted out builds? Or do we continue with the idea that no content shall be made that doesn't include SO only builds? Personally I feel we are beyond ready, especially with all the farming going on in this game. It takes nothing to build yourself a farmer and support your own IO's. I buy IOs from the market with the cash my farmer makes, and then dump anything worth of value back in to the market so that players who enjoy crafting can use those Recipes to keep the market filled. Often if I delete a character that has been kitted out, I dump all of those IO's back in to the market at base price, pretty much, the highest bidder gets them regardless of what that high bid is, essentially selling something worth 2 million to somebody who only had to pay 750K to buy. I don't play the market, I do my part in keeping the market prices low by selling at first cheap. Having said all that, I would like to think that we are far ready for IO difficulty content post level 50.

I for one, can get behind some Incarnate Story Arcs and more Incarnate TFs like Tin Mage and Apex. For one, it's probably easier to design for up to 8 people max. Secondly, I welcome more story arc content added to the game - even end-game stuff. And thirdly, on a regular 8-max team your character can shine, and not be lost in the FX spam of a full league on a single AV.

[PeregrineFalcon]

40 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

People don't know what's in the patch notes because they choose not to read them.

Exactly my point. The claim was made that "information is easily shared" and "people are intelligent." My response was essentially "the evidence doesn't support those statements." Because people keep coming to the forums complaining about how easy the game is and how the devs should do something to up the difficulty and they have to be told (again and again and again) that the devs are in fact working on doing just that.

 

So information may be easily shared, but somehow information isn't making it to the players. And people may be smart, but somehow they continue to play a game where they don't know how things work and they refuse to try to learn. And then they come to the forums and post complaints that clearly demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about, but heaven forbid if you try to correct their blatantly wrong info.

 

I used to think that game developers for all games, not just CoH, should make more of an effort to get this kind of information into their game so that people wouldn't have to go digging around on the internet to find information that should be in the game. But based on what I've seen since then I don't think it would matter. I think the devs would spend a ton of time putting information into the game in a place where all players would be required to look at it and they'd just click through and ignore it. And then, years later, they'll be on the forums starting a thread entitled "Why did the Homecoming devs add Enhancement Diversification to the game?"

[Saikochoro]

Had a long winded post that I decided to delete and just give the TL;DR:

 

Making new content where base level difficulty “requires” some sort of IO build = Bad.

 

Making new content where base level difficulty is based on SOs, but include additional difficulty/challenge settings that quickly prompt investigation into getting set up on an IO build = Good. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Information is easily shared.  We have a community filled with intelligent, helpful players, many of whom are here as much for the opportunities to both learn and teach as they are to play the game.

 

37 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Exactly my point. The claim was made that "information is easily shared" and "people are intelligent."

 

I see the problem. Lumi's point was that the community has intelligent and helpful players. This should not be read as "all players are intelligent and/or helpful." So, no, the claim you think was made was not made.

[MTeague]

2 hours ago, TraumaTrain said:

What does it mean to "balance the game around IOs?"

 

And how would it be implemented?

 

That was what I tried to ask. 

 

There is what they have done for the Challenge Modes. 

However, I am not 100% certain I really see that as the answer to "what does it really mean to balance around IO's"?

Now, as a practical matter, Challenge Modes may be the only thing that's likely to be implemented in foreseeable years.

But philosophically, people are going to have different opinions of how, in an ideal world, you'd balance it out, whether it should involve tweaking some numbers or adding entirely new mechanics.

Edited February 1, 2022 by MTeague

[Solarverse]

Just now, MTeague said:

 

That was what I tried to ask. 

 

 

I actually answered that question earlier in the thread. It's not as specific as people think.

[Luminara]

18 hours ago, TraumaTrain said:

What does it mean to "balance the game around IOs?"

 

And how would it be implemented?

 

Content balanced around SOs has to be restricted to a narrow range of critter capability and strict limitation according to player slot availability.  This is why critter damage output ramps up very slowly, critters have comparatively few powers and they don't have many tricks up their sleeves.  SOs impose a high cost of slots, which created restrictive slotting models as the norm as players pursued valued effects and eschewed slotting for other effects.  SOs can also lose efficiency as players level up, and frequently need to be replaced, but due to the inf* cost, players rarely replaced (or combined) them at every level, which imposed a further limitation on design.

 

Common IOs permit a more varied approach to slotting without sacrificing overall capability.  As stronger IOs are acquired, fewer slots are necessary to reach the same result as what can be accomplished with SOs, and this would have allowed a design approach which didn't need to be quite as limited by slot availability.  In other words, they have a lower slot cost than SOs, which permits more powers to be better slotted across the board, and/or more emphasis on secondary effects in slotted powers.  IOs also never lose efficiency, they can't be "out-leveled", and their measurable improvement every five levels would have permitted a greater emphasis on critter and encounter variety across the entire range of the game, from levels 7 to 50.

 

If 90% of your players slot their attacks with 2 Accuracy SOs, 3 Damage SOs and one Endurance or Recharge Reduction SO, then you're limited in how you can design content to challenge them.  But if 90% of your players are slotting one Accuracy IO, two Damage IOs, one Endurance or Recharge Reduction IO and one or two other IOs to improve secondary effects, and have sufficient additional slots to improve other powers which would otherwise be left unslotted if they were using SOs... you can approach your content design from a much wider and more varied perspective.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Luminara

[Glacier Peak]

The solution is simple - remove enhancements from the game. 

 

But where's the fun in that?

[Placta]

On 1/30/2022 at 10:49 AM, Luminara said:

The end result of this was a complete disenfranchisement of new players.  Those who didn't have, couldn't have... ever.  Or, at least, not in what players considered a reasonable time frame.  Not less than six to twelve months of endless repetitive grinding after hitting 50, in a game coming from a development team which stated that their goal was to make a game in which players could log in, play for an hour and log out feeling like they'd made progress. The entire Invention set system was essentially walled off from new players by the mass of influence dumped onto the market in its first weeks.  The wall was expanded considerably when very rare (purple) sets were added, and it was firmly reinforced by players manipulating the market to build their own wealth (observation, not accusation, unbunch your knickers).  Coupled with low drop rates to counter farming, and even lower drop rates on the most desirable items, anyone who didn't start the game with several hundred million inf*, or discover an untapped niche in marketeering, was effectively restricted to SOs.

 

I started playing shortly after issue 9 and hit 50 for the first time around issue 12 release. It took me about a month after hitting 50 to have a full IO build. Nothing special, no purples, missing several pieces that nowadays I would smack myself for leaving out, but still, full IOs, sets wherever it made sense. Made most of the inf selling recipe rolls from task forces.

[Redletter]

4 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

The solution is simple - remove enhancements from the game. 

 

But where's the fun in that?

 

No no, that's a good point! Let's get rid of enhancements while we're at it!

 

And... ya know what? Level ups totally refreshing your health? That's dumb. Get that crap out of my game!

 

In fact! I mean, why stop there? SOOOOOOOOO many problems could be solved if we just removed super powers from the game. Like, really, I think that's one of the biggest balance breaking things nobody's brave enough to call out? But it's gotta be said. We gotta make a stand! Here and now! 

[Glacier Peak]

11 hours ago, Redletter said:

No no, that's a good point! Let's get rid of enhancements while we're at it!

 

And... ya know what? Level ups totally refreshing your health? That's dumb. Get that crap out of my game!

 

In fact! I mean, why stop there? SOOOOOOOOO many problems could be solved if we just removed super powers from the game. Like, really, I think that's one of the biggest balance breaking things nobody's brave enough to call out? But it's gotta be said. We gotta make a stand! Here and now! 

[arcane]

I think it’s pretty ludicrous to suggest that it’s unreasonable for the game to have a *small* (read: doesn’t have to affect you) amount of content with a *base* difficulty (read: not special settings) that requires a little bit of gear investment to comfortably complete. But you guys are ridiculously adamant so ofc these are merely thoughts and I have definitely given up on manifesting them into reality.

[Bill Z Bubba]

9 minutes ago, arcane said:

these are merely thoughts and I have definitely given up on manifesting them into reality.

 

Welcome to my views on game balance.