The great Vigilance idea thread!

[Luminara]

10 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

This seems to me like you're saying "There's no reason not to do it because the bonus won't be large enough to matter." If I'm reading that right then my response to that is "If the bonus isn't large enough to matter then why have it? If it's not big enough to help then why take the time to code it?"

 

The bonus shouldn't be significant enough to compensate for the time, effort and risk it takes to leverage it.  It should be significant enough to help a struggling defender.  With the right mechanical design, it's not as fine a line as it appears to be on the surface.

 

Combat Jumping has a small Defense bonus, right?  It's not enough to warrant six-slotting the power for +Def, and doing so doesn't really pay for the slot investment in the same way that more accessible and lower slot-cost set bonuses would, or the way putting the same slots into a stronger Defense power would.  You can six-slot Combat Jumping to maximize its Defense, but why bother?  There are better ways to get that Reactive Defenses 8.75% +Recharge bonus, better powers into which 5/6 Red Fortune can be slotted, better choices for boosting Def (All).

 

That's how the +/-Special should pan out.  Something beneficial, but not so much so that players deliberately build around it or try to leverage it.

 

11 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

My favorite Defender is Force Field/Beam Rifle. Is the +Special going to add Defense or DDR to my bubbles?

 

Your optimally slotted (3x +0 Defense Buff SOs) Deflection and Insulation Shields offer 23.4% Defense, and your Dispersion Bubble slotted the same way grants 15.6% Defense.  If we peg the +/-Special at 10%, that would mean your "My team is really in trouble and my inherent is at full strength" Shields would then buff Defense by 25.74% and the Bubble by 17.6%.  That's a total of 42.9% Defense you're giving your team, up from 39%, 17.6% of which scaled up on the fly because it's a toggle (you'd have to re-Shield your teammates to gain the benefit of the 10% increase on those powers).

If you take that same build and add Maneuvers, slotted in the same way as the other +Def powers, your teammates' Defense goes up to 44.46% right now, no new Vigilance, no +/-SpecialSauce.  10% would push that up to 48.91%, and I know that you're already hammering that quote button and typing in ALL CAPS that it's overpowered... but it isn't, because that would only be 48.91% versus +0 minions.  You and your team aren't fighting +0 minions, you're fighting a mix of minions and lieutenants and bosses and probably an AV at some point, and they're all going to be +2-+4 (or higher) to you.  In other words, you're only soft-capped if you're playing solo in "story mode" (default difficulty).  A +2 minion facing off against you with this +/-Special active would have an 11.09% chance to hit, not a 5% chance.  A +2 lieutenant, 18.59%, and a +2 boss, 26.09%.  The AV is going to have a minimum 36.09% hit chance.  Taking that same character against those foes without the +/-Special, the +2 enemy hit chances are 15.54%, 23.04%, 30.54% and 40.54%.

 

If the +/-Special capped at 15%, the same powers would grant 26.91% and 17.94% Defense, bringing the total up to 44.85% when you/your team are taking a lot of damage and the game "sees" that you need some help, a net increase of 5.85%.  Throwing in Maneuvers (6.28% at 15% increase when slotted in the same way described for other powers mentioned in this post) nets you a total of 51.13% Defense for your team, and drops those +2 enemy hit chances to 8.87%, 16.37%, 23.87% and 33.87%.  Again, that character without the +/-Special would be facing +2 enemies with the following hit chances: 15.54%, 23.04%, 30.54% and 40.54%.  Versus +2 foes, the +/-Special would cut minion hit chances by half, lieutenant hit chances by a third, boss hit chances by a fourth and AV hit chances by a fifth.  That's neither overpowered nor insignificant, despite being small.  It's exactly what I described in my first post in this thread, a chance to turn a bad situation around.  Not a guarantee of success, just a chance.  And in contrast to the -End, this actually does something, rather than exist for the sake of existing.  When you re-Shield your teammates with the +/-Special active, you're putting better Shields on them, not just refreshing the same buff with a lower cost and praying that a miracle occurs.

 

And that's why the +/-Special can be small.  It's not applied to one power, it's applied to all of your relevant powers, buffs and debuffs in your primary, debuffs in your secondary and pool buffs and debuffs.  It's a cumulative benefit, not a single burst to a single power.  It can be small and still be effective, and being both small and linked to team health keeps it from going into godmode territory.  It doesn't need to, and shouldn't, double the strength of a defender's buffs/debuffs, because that would be overpowered.

 

You can do the math for +3, +4 and higher spawns, and add Grant Invisibility if you want to know what kinds of totals you'd see with maximum buffs and the hardest foes.  The net result will still be the same, you will be buffing your team more with +/-Special than you would without it, and it won't be turning you and your team into gods who are soft-capped against everything all the time.

 

To more directly answer your question, yes, you would see an increase to the Defense provided by your FF/Beam character, just as I'd see an increase to the -ToHit provided by my TA/Dark, and Defender Dave/Diva would see an increase to his/her mitigatory capabilities.  That's the entire point of the +/-Special, to make defenders, all defenders, better at being defenders, but doing it without making them OP and accomplishing it in a way that doesn't give them an always-on benefit which they can game.  I would not add DDR to the +/-Special, that's something that needs to be controlled, not handed out freely, to keep a leash on creep.

[Mr Pierce]

Here's my simple proposal. It combines the two current passives into something that I feel is more useful. You make it so that defenders start with the 30% damage buff, and as their teammates health drops, they lose a percentage of that damage buff. It would work just like the endurance discount does now, but reduces the damage buff instead. You can scrap the endurance reduction. We don't need it. This simple change makes it so that a defender is incentivized to heal/protect their team so that they benefit from the damage buff. It rewards them playing properly. It also gives defenders who are on a strong team something extra to help the team out. They can buff/debuff and then go back to blasting away.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Mr Pierce

[Luminara]

26 minutes ago, Mr Pierce said:

Here's my simple proposal. It combines the two current passives into something that I feel is more useful. You make it so that defenders start with the 30% damage buff, and as their teammates health drops, they lose a percentage of that damage buff. It would work just like the endurance discount does now, but reduces the damage buff instead. You can scrap the endurance reduction. We don't need it. This simple change makes it so that a defender is incentivized to heal/protect their team so that they benefit from the damage buff. It rewards them playing properly. It also gives defenders who are on a strong team something extra to help the team out. They can buff/debuff and then go back to blasting away.

 

That sounds like a punishment for other peoples' behavior (melee characters running off in different directions, soloing spawns and taking damage; ranged characters pulling spawns to the team before the current fight is over; everyone rushing ahead and expecting the defender to buff/debuff later; difficulty cranked up to the max when the team isn't capable of handling it; etc).  Encouraging defenders to micro-manage other players actions, decisions and choices so they don't lose their Damage buff might not be the direction in which we want to go.

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, Mr Pierce said:

Here's my simple proposal. It combines the two current passives into something that I feel is more useful. You make it so that defenders start with the 30% damage buff, and as their teammates health drops, they lose a percentage of that damage buff. It would work just like the endurance discount does now, but reduces the damage buff instead. You can scrap the endurance reduction. We don't need it. This simple change makes it so that a defender is incentivized to heal/protect their team so that they benefit from the damage buff. It rewards them playing properly. It also gives defenders who are on a strong team something extra to help the team out. They can buff/debuff and then go back to blasting away.

Against this for 2 reasons. 1) As Luminara said, you are punishing the defender for what other players do. 2) The damage buff was only added to help the defender solo. Keep the team effect of vigilance focused on something the defender does for the team and keep the damage buff when solo so the defender can solo at a reasonable pace.

[Mr Pierce]

15 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

That sounds like a punishment for other peoples' behavior (melee characters running off in different directions, soloing spawns and taking damage; ranged characters pulling spawns to the team before the current fight is over; everyone rushing ahead and expecting the defender to buff/debuff later; difficulty cranked up to the max when the team isn't capable of handling it; etc).  Encouraging defenders to micro-manage other players actions, decisions and choices so they don't lose their Damage buff might not be the direction in which we want to go.

 

Sounds like you need to find a solid SG with capable teammates. I don't typically have this issue. Even with the occasional pug, you wouldn't be "punished" that badly. If the team is that split up, you have a lot bigger problems than the Defender's passive.

 

13 hours ago, Rudra said:

Against this for 2 reasons. 1) As Luminara said, you are punishing the defender for what other players do. 2) The damage buff was only added to help the defender solo. Keep the team effect of vigilance focused on something the defender does for the team and keep the damage buff when solo so the defender can solo at a reasonable pace.

 

Not necessarily. If you make it so that the player counts toward this new inherent, then even with no teammates, so long as you are healthy then you would be getting the buff. Solo is still viable with this change. Even then, I don't think leaning on the whole everyone needs to be able to solo in a Massive Multiplayer Online game is that great in 2022, but you do you.

[Rudra]

Massively Multiplayer does not mean Multiplayer Required. People still like to play solo. Like me. So people should still have the freedom to play solo. On whatever AT they want. And expect to enjoy playing.

 

Edit again: If the player counts to the team health, and the defender's damage buff is linked to said health, then when solo, the defender's damage is going to drop off as his/her health decreases. Not a good solo effect. Not a good team effect. So, no, I still say that is a bad idea.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Rudra
Edited to add "mean".

[Luminara]

3 hours ago, Mr Pierce said:

Sounds like you need to find a solid SG with capable teammates. I don't typically have this issue. Even with the occasional pug, you wouldn't be "punished" that badly. If the team is that split up, you have a lot bigger problems than the Defender's passive.

 

So, just be perfect, and only play with other perfect people, or quit every team/SG until you find one with perfect teammates, and it's a great inherent.

 

Yeah... now it's even less attractive to me than it was on initial review.

[arcane]

I solo'd for hours last night rotating between several of my various controllers, corruptors, and defenders (+4 ofc because this is CoH). Lumi is just notoriously bad at them, and melodramatic at describing his experience of being bad at them too. No one is being punished. No one. Full stop.

[Rudra]

Lumi's punishment comment to the best of my knowledge, just like mine, was about @Mr Pierce's suggestion 7 posts up. Not about how defenders currently work.

[Alapaki]

Pierce has a great idea with this. Currently vigil just sucks in general. 30% of squat is just slightly more squat, and while I can respect people who want to play solo, I kinda feel like there would be better avenues to solo content other than a defender. I would guess most people who play the def AT are looking to do team content. I'm all for rewarding the defenders who are on an effective team. Right now, it totally feels like I'm punished for teaming by basically nerfing my damage. His suggestion would still make me want to be effective with my support powers and healing by rewarding me for keeping my team topped off. It's a win/win. Lastly, maybe there's a happy medium of dmg buffs for the soloists and adopting something like Pierce's suggestion for team play.

[Rudra]

Except your damage is not being nerfed while on a team. It just isn't being boosted because the team can handle the damage output.

 

Edit: The problem with @Mr Pierce's suggestion is that instead of focusing on supporting the team as a defender, you are focusing on boosting your own damage. And if the point of the defender is to support the team, then the vigilance effect while on a team should do that. Instead, he is asking to keep a higher damage output while teamed, while also asking to lose it as the defender and team mates are injured. (Which makes no sense with its contradiction.) So for the reasons I have previously stated and with this in mind, my answer to his suggestion is a flat no. I am just one person though. So if the devs agree that changing the defender's inherent to make the defender a blaster or corruptor, except with wildly fluctuating damage, is a good idea; then congrats.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Rudra

[Mr Pierce]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Except your damage is not being nerfed while on a team. It just isn't being boosted because the team can handle the damage output.

 

Edit: The problem with @Mr Pierce's suggestion is that instead of focusing on supporting the team as a defender, you are focusing on boosting your own damage. And if the point of the defender is to support the team, then the vigilance effect while on a team should do that. Instead, he is asking to keep a higher damage output while teamed, while also asking to lose it as the defender and team mates are injured. (Which makes no sense with its contradiction.) So for the reasons I have previously stated and with this in mind, my answer to his suggestion is a flat no. I am just one person though. So if the devs agree that changing the defender's inherent to make the defender a blaster or corruptor, except with wildly fluctuating damage, is a good idea; then congrats.

 

Incorrect. If you had read the explanation, you'd see that it actually incentivizes the defender to do their job. If you are buffing and healing the team, and doing it well, you get a damage bonus. If you're dumb and just attacking, and the team is dying, you get punished. It works perfectly.

[Rudra]

Except:

1)Not all defender sets have heals. HP loss is inevitable. Especially if solo.

2)Some defender sets are more focused on team member only buffs. Though those are most likely to be avoided by soloists.

 

So I am still opposed to your suggestion. I am in favor of some of the other options provided in this thread though.

[arcane]

21 hours ago, Rudra said:

Lumi's punishment comment to the best of my knowledge, just like mine, was about @Mr Pierce's suggestion 7 posts up. Not about how defenders currently work.

I’m referring to every other time he’s used language about Defenders being punished for just existing. He’s also used the words discrimination and oppression. He has literally stopped only one or two steps away from comparing playing a Defender to being a victim of slavery. Not the best source on Defenders tbh.

[Naraka]

12 hours ago, Mr Pierce said:

 

Incorrect. If you had read the explanation, you'd see that it actually incentivizes the defender to do their job. If you are buffing and healing the team, and doing it well, you get a damage bonus. If you're dumb and just attacking, and the team is dying, you get punished. It works perfectly.

 

So what happens when the content is challenging your team to the point that it's not a cake walk? Since we're dramatizing everything, you're suggesting an inherent that incentivizes not pushing the bar and playing safe.  It also means, when faced with such situations, your inherent isn't going to help you because it'll be too busy punishing you.

 

To clarify, I'm not dogging on your suggestion, I'm pretty sure there are some that praise the idea but it's in no way particularly novel either. It's been suggested before.

[Luminara]

On 4/21/2022 at 3:31 PM, Luminara said:

Your optimally slotted (3x +0 Defense Buff SOs) Deflection and Insulation Shields offer 23.4% Defense, and your Dispersion Bubble slotted the same way grants 15.6% Defense.  If we peg the +/-Special at 10%, that would mean your "My team is really in trouble and my inherent is at full strength" Shields would then buff Defense by 25.74% and the Bubble by 17.6%.  That's a total of 42.9% Defense you're giving your team, up from 39%, 17.6% of which scaled up on the fly because it's a toggle (you'd have to re-Shield your teammates to gain the benefit of the 10% increase on those powers).

If you take that same build and add Maneuvers, slotted in the same way as the other +Def powers, your teammates' Defense goes up to 44.46% right now, no new Vigilance, no +/-SpecialSauce.  10% would push that up to 48.91%, and I know that you're already hammering that quote button and typing in ALL CAPS that it's overpowered... but it isn't, because that would only be 48.91% versus +0 minions.  You and your team aren't fighting +0 minions, you're fighting a mix of minions and lieutenants and bosses and probably an AV at some point, and they're all going to be +2-+4 (or higher) to you.  In other words, you're only soft-capped if you're playing solo in "story mode" (default difficulty).  A +2 minion facing off against you with this +/-Special active would have an 11.09% chance to hit, not a 5% chance.  A +2 lieutenant, 18.59%, and a +2 boss, 26.09%.  The AV is going to have a minimum 36.09% hit chance.  Taking that same character against those foes without the +/-Special, the +2 enemy hit chances are 15.54%, 23.04%, 30.54% and 40.54%.

 

I can't believe how badly I fucked up the math here.  I mean, woooooooow.  How did I miss that?  Why didn't any of you catch that?  Am I the only nerd in the room?

 

I just finished calculating the precise +Def/-ToHit numbers required to floor enemy hit chances for all minions through AVs, +0 through +4, in non-Incarnate, non-hard mode content.  These are presuming that AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters, which con as +5, aren't actually receiving 5 ranks of extra Accuracy mods or ToHit bonuses (haven't looked into that yet, will get around to it eventually).  And with -ToHit, bear in mind that the purple patch reduces their efficiency, so you'd need more -ToHit to compensate.  These are just the target numbers to floor enemy hit chances (5%).

 

• +0 minions - 45%
• +0 lieutenants - 45.65%
• +0 bosses - 46.15%
• +0 AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters - 46.67%

 

• +1 minions - 45.45%
• +1 lieutenants - 46.05%
• +1 bosses - 46.50%
• +1 AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters - 46.97%

 

• +2 minions - 45.83%
• +2 lieutenants - 46.38%
• +2 bosses - 46.80%
• +2 AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters - 47.22%

 

• +3 minions - 46.15%
• +3 lieutenants - 46.66%
• +3 bosses - 47.04%
• +3 AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters - 47.44%

 

• +4 minions - 46.43%
• +4 lieutenants - 46.89%
• +4 bosses - 47.25%
• +4 AVs/Heroes/GMs/Monsters - 47.62%

When I started doing the math, it was for an entirely different reason, personal curiosity (well, that, and because i just spent three days troubleshooting a problem with my bike, cleaning the carburetor, then replacing the carburetor, then going over all of the fuel and vacuum lines twice, replacing the spark plug, checking compression, adjusting the valves, taking apart and putting the damn thing over and over and over again and getting no results, and finally noticing fuel in the airbox drain and realizing it was misfiring, likely due to a failing CDI... and needed to do something to relax).  Everyone talks about 45% like it's a clamped number, but I know it isn't and I was interested in figuring out what the real numbers (plural, because, as can be seen above, it varies by rank and level) were.  In the process of calculating those numbers, I realized I'd horribly misrepresented the results I posted here.  @PeregrineFalcon, you were right.  You were absolutely right.  Your FF/Beam defender, presuming Maneuvers is in the mix, is already nearly soft-capping your entire team versus everything.  Even a 10% +/-Special would take you right over the hit cap versus +4s.

 

On the one hand, you can already do that if you also use Grant Invisibility, or if we presume that all of your teammates have at least one power granting a small amount of +Def, or a single Steadfast Protection Res/+Def (All) or Gladiator's Armor +Def (All), or even a very few easily acquired set bonuses.  Or, hell, a single character using any kind of -ToHit AoE.  My Dark/Martial dominator is almost soft-capped against +4 foes with one use of Fearsome Stare.  That's the game today, and a defender offering a few percent +Def probably wouldn't even be notable.

 

And on the other hand, it is overpowered.  It's power creep.  But the power creep/overpowering potential isn't what I see as the worst problem.  It's that you're already there anyway with a couple of pool powers and/or teammates with little more than CJ or Hover, so this doesn't improve the experience for you outside of end game content.  And it's just a single example with a single primary, a primary coupled with a secondary with no damage mitigation debuffs.

 

If it's like this, overpowered and, oddly, underwhelming at the same time, with FF/Beam, it's going to be just as bad with most, if not all, in one way or another.

 

I was wrong.  I didn't take the time to do the math in the first place, and I didn't double-check the math when I got around to doing the equations.  I was wrong and I apologize.

 

Having gone back and reviewed the correct numbers, +/-Special would not be an advisable addition to Vigilance.

 

[Luminara]

What about... a static debuff resistance applied to teammates?  X% non-scaling resistance to -Regeneration, -Endurance, -Recovery, -Rchg/Spd, -ToHit and -Perception for team members within 35', in concert with scaling Status Resistance applied to the defender him/herself.  Thematic, team-oriented, still useful solo, applicable at all levels and not creepy since it's not improving sets or powers.

[Naraka]

3 hours ago, Luminara said:

What about... a static debuff resistance applied to teammates?  X% non-scaling resistance to -Regeneration, -Endurance, -Recovery, -Rchg/Spd, -ToHit and -Perception for team members within 35', in concert with scaling Status Resistance applied to the defender him/herself.  Thematic, team-oriented, still useful solo, applicable at all levels and not creepy since it's not improving sets or powers.

 

All these suggestions are nice on paper, but I think ultimate, it's pointless. Primarily, it's because these changes are wholly passive and only noticable if you're pulling out a spreadsheet.

 

Where Defender is now is fine. If you're going to add something to it, why not something more tangible and mechanical to make it *play* differently than other similar ATs?

 

Look at other ATs who are differentiated from their sibling ATs by their inherent (Brutes and Tankers, Scrappers and Stalkers) and distill those types of inherents to the mechanical gameplay differences.

[Mr Pierce]

On 4/24/2022 at 3:10 PM, Naraka said:

 

So what happens when the content is challenging your team to the point that it's not a cake walk? Since we're dramatizing everything, you're suggesting an inherent that incentivizes not pushing the bar and playing safe.  It also means, when faced with such situations, your inherent isn't going to help you because it'll be too busy punishing you.

 

To clarify, I'm not dogging on your suggestion, I'm pretty sure there are some that praise the idea but it's in no way particularly novel either. It's been suggested before.

 

No, I get it. I appreciate the response. I don't think it pushes people to play safe. Some might, sure. I think it does have the same issue as the current passive, which is to say sometimes it's just useless. The -end, at least to me, just feels like an afterthought. Perhaps mine would end up being that way as well. It was an idea I had and wanted feedback. Now I know it needs work.