issue 27 Focused Feedback: Attack Typing Adjustments

[Luminara]

26 minutes ago, Sovera said:

We have specific defenses against fire, cold, energy, negative, etc. This would not have not have grown into a problem if the old devs had stuck to making those attacks purely their element.

 

They couldn't.  It wasn't a code limitation, it was because of non-stacking buffs and toggle mutual exclusivity.  They'd already created power sets with typed Defense, and typed Defense only works when the relevant toggle or buff is active.  Because Emmert was adamant that players be kept in the dark about basic information, there was no way to know which toggle or buff was necessary.  And since it's an action MMORPG, it wasn't even possible to keep up with which toggle or buff was applicable within a specific combat situation, because there was no control over enemy actions.  At any given 0.125s increment, multiple different types of damage could be hitting the character.  Nor did the combat logs list damage types originally, only the name of the attack used.  Worse, the animations and graphics they expected to use to telegraph vital information to players were either glitchy (critters just standing there while attacks execute, no animation performed), or obscured by the graphical spam from player effects, or just ignored as players rampaged ahead (again, action MMORPG).

 

All of these problems together threatened to relegate typed Defense sets, such as Stone Armor and Force Fields, to the bottom tier, if they even made it to launch.  Exacerbating the situation was their spawn and critter design.  They made lieutenants and bosses not only stronger and more dangerous, but also use attacks with more exotic damage types (non-S/L), and appear in greater numbers in teams.  The consequence of that was that typed Defense was even less useful for team players, because running the "wrong" toggle or buff in a group wasn't just a greater risk of defeat, it was a guarantee of a team wipe.  Against an average spawn.  They knew no-one would want to play with sets which were "only good for trash mobs".  They had to find a solution.

 

They could've made typed Defense sets positional, but that would've watered down the "flavor", the uniqueness of every set, and they were counting on that uniqueness to draw in players.  They could've let players know more about enemy attacks, but that would've violated Emmert's zero information policy.  They could've made powers in the affected sets defend against all types, but that would've resulted in players rushing to the last power, or second to last, and ignoring all of the other powers.  Instead, they concluded that adding an extra damage type to most attacks, and making certain damage types ubiquitous, would make typed Defense viable, with the least development time.  That way, if you were running Rock Armor, or had a FF bubble, you were actually gaining a benefit.  Your typed Defense actually mattered in most combat situations, even if you were only using one toggle or buff.  That was key to making typed Defense sets playable.  And it worked.  When the game launched, sets like Stone Armor and FF were functional in the way they wanted, and unique enough to interest players.

TLDR: typed Defense wasn't viable without those extra tags when certain restrictions were still in place.  They were necessary at launch, to ensure that sets like Stone Armor and Force Fields had a place in the game.

 

Opinion: The extra tags should've been removed at the same time the restrictions that made them necessary (toggle mutual exclusivity and no buff stacking) were lifted.  Leaving them in resulted in GDN, a degree of homogenization ("Just focus on S/L Defense, that's all you need for 90% of the game") and limited content development.  Good riddance to them, I say.

[Marbing]

7 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

They couldn't.  It wasn't a code limitation, it was because of non-stacking buffs and toggle mutual exclusivity.  They'd already created power sets with typed Defense, and typed Defense only works when the relevant toggle or buff is active.  Because Emmert was adamant that players be kept in the dark about basic information, there was no way to know which toggle or buff was necessary.  And since it's an action MMORPG, it wasn't even possible to keep up with which toggle or buff was applicable within a specific combat situation, because there was no control over enemy actions.  At any given 0.125s increment, multiple different types of damage could be hitting the character.  Nor did the combat logs list damage types originally, only the name of the attack used.  Worse, the animations and graphics they expected to use to telegraph vital information to players were either glitchy (critters just standing there while attacks execute, no animation performed), or obscured by the graphical spam from player effects, or just ignored as players rampaged ahead (again, action MMORPG).

 

All of these problems together threatened to relegate typed Defense sets, such as Stone Armor and Force Fields, to the bottom tier, if they even made it to launch.  Exacerbating the situation was their spawn and critter design.  They made lieutenants and bosses not only stronger and more dangerous, but also use attacks with more exotic damage types (non-S/L), and appear in greater numbers in teams.  The consequence of that was that typed Defense was even less useful for team players, because running the "wrong" toggle or buff in a group wasn't just a greater risk of defeat, it was a guarantee of a team wipe.  Against an average spawn.  They knew no-one would want to play with sets which were "only good for trash mobs".  They had to find a solution.

 

They could've made typed Defense sets positional, but that would've watered down the "flavor", the uniqueness of every set, and they were counting on that uniqueness to draw in players.  They could've let players know more about enemy attacks, but that would've violated Emmert's zero information policy.  They could've made powers in the affected sets defend against all types, but that would've resulted in players rushing to the last power, or second to last, and ignoring all of the other powers.  Instead, they concluded that adding an extra damage type to most attacks, and making certain damage types ubiquitous, would make typed Defense viable, with the least development time.  That way, if you were running Rock Armor, or had a FF bubble, you were actually gaining a benefit.  Your typed Defense actually mattered in most combat situations, even if you were only using one toggle or buff.  That was key to making typed Defense sets playable.  And it worked.  When the game launched, sets like Stone Armor and FF were functional in the way they wanted, and unique enough to interest players.

TLDR: typed Defense wasn't viable without those extra tags when certain restrictions were still in place.  They were necessary at launch, to ensure that sets like Stone Armor and Force Fields had a place in the game.

 

Opinion: The extra tags should've been removed at the same time the restrictions that made them necessary (toggle mutual exclusivity and no buff stacking) were lifted.  Leaving them in resulted in GDN, a degree of homogenization ("Just focus on S/L Defense, that's all you need for 90% of the game") and limited content development.  Good riddance to them, I say.

Damn, Lumi droppin’ some knowledge!

 

Testify!

[Sovera]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

TLDR: typed Defense wasn't viable without those extra tags when certain restrictions were still in place.  They were necessary at launch, to ensure that sets like Stone Armor and Force Fields had a place in the game.

 

Opinion: The extra tags should've been removed at the same time the restrictions that made them necessary (toggle mutual exclusivity and no buff stacking) were lifted.  Leaving them in resulted in GDN, a degree of homogenization ("Just focus on S/L Defense, that's all you need for 90% of the game") and limited content development.  Good riddance to them, I say.

 

Yes, but that is what I meant about the evolution of the game. At some point those double tags ought to have been dropped. Now part of the the playerbase is ready to take up pitchforks if nerfed because 'it has always been so' (no, no it hasn't) without even stopping to consider if it's normal for a single player to solo content meant for eight.

 

Also yes, that sounds terrible. Even now in GW2 the devs take pride in not using obvious tells like WoW does (boss shouting something when using a certain skill) and rely instead of tells like the boss raising an arm (which is completely and utterly drowned in visual effects for a bunch of players spamming their skills).

[kingsmidgens]

Originally enemies had 75% ToHit so Defense had to work a little differently but for many, many issues, Defense had been worked out and the devs and playerbase were happy with it.  IOs came out.  I'm not sure why this change had to wait 3 years because I, and everyone I know, already had the memo on live.  It's too big of a change and not in the right direction.

Here's an example character, my new Nature Defender:
 

Positional defense so the Typed change has a minimal impact.

75% (106.83%) S/L and 40.03% Energy Resistances.

Example hit from Energy Melee of 100 damage, which I should point out is a good value because it's a nice and easy number to work with but a little bit low in terms of a "real" example hit.
 

Old:
60 Smashing, 40 Energy or:
15 Smashing, 24 Energy
39 damage

New:
40 Smashing, 60 Energy or:
10 Smashing, 36 Energy
46 damage
 

That's almost a 20% increase in damage taken, without even including the defense type changes which is the perceived goal: get people away from S/L stacking.  Non-armor set ATs are going to have the most extreme examples of taking increased damage simply because of the shift in damage types.

This also may be one of the least drastic practical examples, as Nature has +RES all but my char is even already capped on S/L without it - without Wild Growth, I'm at 75 (83%) S/L and 16.25% Energy which makes the difference even greater.
 

Not needed, do not want.

[TalonBlue]

  

On 8/3/2022 at 12:49 PM, Omega-202 said:

No "reasoning" will satisfy the people complaining about these changes.  By engaging the populace on "reasons", it shifts the conversation even further from testing the changes and even more towards arguing over something that they feel is needed for the health of the game.

 

But also, anyone with 2 brain cells can figure out the reasons.  Building almost exclusively for S/L defense had a disproportionate benefit over any other defensive strategy due to the fact that so many attacks are partially tagged as smashing or lethal.  This resulted in "squishy" ATs being overly durable with minimal investment.  It also stifled build creativity because the default APP/PPP recommendation on most builds ended up being a 1 power dip into Scorpion Shield.  

 

Now, if someone on the dev team came in and stated the above as the reasoning, would you accept that statement and move on to testing, or would you just move the goal posts and attack the reasoning?

 

I 100% disagree with that that first part. I would like to know what the intent is behind any proposed changes. I would like to know the context behind any changes in game. I used to play Magic: the Gathering back in the day, and when it came time for Wizards of the Coast to ban or restrict cards from a specific format, they at least explained why they had to do so. So, no I don't like changes made in a vacuum without some context.

 

But, if the intent is to make the "squishy" ATs less durable as you say, and which is also what I believe is case. Then why wasn't nerfing Scorpion Shield and other similar powers in ancillary and patron powers not an option? If that had been the case, personally I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in the first place. I can get my head around that change, because for me it is simple. Yes, others would most definitely still be upset, but you would have one less skeptic had that been the case.

 

As an aside, I would love to see all the epic powersets reworked and this would have been a perfect reason to do so.

 

I am testing on Brainstorm. I wanted to see if there is a difference on a tanky character first. I am using a Dark Melee/Dark Armor Brute, with IO's. I am running at +4/x8, basic paper missions as suggested. I am softcapped in S/L defense, and at around 43-44 % to E/NE defense. I don't have a lot of AoE damage outside my Death Shroud and Shadow Maul, so I kill groups slowly and exchanges with a full mob take a fair amount of time. I realize not everyone plays with IO's, but I do. I like to min/max in every game I play. That's the type of player I am.

 

I'm noticing more damage from fire and cold attacks particularly from the Circle of Thorns. The Council, I notice no difference. Carnies, I notice no difference... although I am now wondering when or if Mask of Weakness and Mask of Vitiation will get a attack type other than being just purely ranged. An amusing instance occurred were I got max stacks Soul Drain twice, only to be double stack debuffed by Mask of Weakness. Two, maybe three minutes went by where neither the crowd of enemies or I took any damage. Just the word MISS kept appearing over our heads. 🙂

 

IMO, Mask of Weakness and Mask of Vitiation are completely broken.

 

I haven't tested Malta yet, or Arachnos. I know I can't solo Arachnos even on the current patch, they just have so many different ways of debuffing you.

 

I'm planning on testing with a Blaster and a Defender soon.

 

6 hours ago, Sovera said:

 

Now part of the the playerbase is ready to take up pitchforks if nerfed because 'it has always been so' (no, no it hasn't) without even stopping to consider if it's normal for a single player to solo content meant for eight.

 

I do think it is normal. I think it is a common enough way to play the game for some, but not all.

 

Maybe not at +4/x8 per say. But, I do think people soloing x8 missions is common enough even going back from the days on live.

 

Now whether or not that is considered game breaking, well I don't. Others may disagree, but I don't know where to draw to a line. The argument to me goes to, "Well if Tankers, Brutes, Scrappers can solo at x8, then why can't a Defender? or Blaster? or etc?" And I think that's something that has to be discussed.

 

Anyway, I'll keep testing. 

[KaizenSoze]

9 hours ago, TalonBlue said:

 I'm noticing more damage from fire and cold attacks particularly from the Circle of Thorns. The Council, I notice no difference. Carnies, I notice no difference... although I am now wondering when or if Mask of Weakness and Mask of Vitiation will get a attack type other than being just purely ranged. An amusing instance occurred were I got max stacks Soul Drain twice, only to be double stack debuffed by Mask of Weakness. Two, maybe three minutes went by where neither the crowd of enemies or I took any damage. Just the word MISS kept appearing over our heads. 🙂

 

IMO, Mask of Weakness and Mask of Vitiation are completely broken.

 

Anyway, I'll keep testing. 

Yes, those two Carnie attacks are very annoying. I will sometimes have to retreat till they wear off.

 

But they have always been this way, attack type changes didn't alter them.

 

Mark of Vitiation, ranged, negative:

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=carnival.carnival_ring_mistress_inherent.mask_of_vitiation

 

 

Mask of Weakness, ranged, negative:

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=carnival.carnival_steel_strongman.mask_of_weakness&at=lt_grunt

[Marbing]

9 hours ago, TalonBlue said:

But, if the intent is to make the "squishy" ATs less durable as you say, and which is also what I believe is case. Then why wasn't nerfing Scorpion Shield and other similar powers in ancillary and patron powers not an option? If that had been the case, personally I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in the first place. I can get my head around that change, because for me it is simple. Yes, others would most definitely still be upset, but you would have one less skeptic had that been the case.

IMO I don't think the intent was to make "squishy" ATs less durable. That is just a (very minor, through my testing) side effect. The intent, as I understand it, was to make S/L defense as a whole not as dominant as it currently is. In the game's current state: Cold, Fire, Negative, etc (for example) defenses are less useful because most of those attacks also have a S/L component that nearly completely negates the exotic damage type when you have high S/L defense. This is the case even if the attack does 1 Lethal damage and 100000000 Cold damage. This makes S/L defense vastly overperform the other types to the point where there is no point in getting Cold Defense (for example) on a "squishy" AT. Not that these changes actually make it imperative that you have an exotic defense type either, because again... its a somewhat minor change overall.

 

I have tested these changes quite a bit, I posted my builds earlier in this thread I believe and noticed very little difference in my survival. I used a Blaster and a Controller, which are traditionally "squishy" AT's (though the Blaster AT lately is less so). I tested Radio missions on live vs on Brainstorm and noticed very little difference in survival. Yes, you have to be a little more careful, but this isn't the apocalypse its being made out to be. You can still do +4/x8 content on a build using Scorpion Shield (for example). Scorpion Shield, from what I can tell so far, is still going to be the best overall armor toggle for a "squishy" AT. It just wont be quite as strong as it used to be, and again not by much. Will there be some enemy groups that are significantly harder? Maybe, but I don't think that is a big deal. Some enemy groups are MEANT to be harder than others, that is fine with me. 

As another side affect, this will make exotic resistance a little more important too. If you are building for S/L defense it may now be a good idea to build up some Cold/Fire resistance (for example) since those attacks will slip through a little more often (making those purple/winter IO set bonuses, for example, a little more valuable overall). I actually usually do this already as a general rule. I try to cover as many holes as possible when building a toon, though I admit it isn't always possible on a "squishy" AT but it is what you get when you play one. 

 

This will also make positional defense (like Ranged) a little more important than before. It has been my experience that many people have been building for S/L OR Ranged with a few able to accomplish both. I think this change is positive in that it pushes towards thinking/planning out your build a little more than before. Especially on "squishy" ATs.

Anyways, that is my two cents. Take it or leave it. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Marbing

[TalonBlue]

37 minutes ago, KaizenSoze said:

Yes, those two Carnie attacks are very annoying. I will sometimes have to retreat till they wear off.

 

But they have always been this way, attack type changes didn't alter them.

 

Mark of Vitiation, ranged, negative:

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=carnival.carnival_ring_mistress_inherent.mask_of_vitiation

 

 

Mask of Weakness, ranged, negative:

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=carnival.carnival_steel_strongman.mask_of_weakness&at=lt_grunt

Ok. Wiki says ranged but not type. Fair enough.

 

Still feels broken to watch your defense go from positive 45% to negative 30%. To have 7 stacks of Soul Drain and not be able to hit anything. But I digress. 😉

[SwitchFade]

Also, I fully expect, after this goes live, that there will be a commensurate adjustment to typed exotic defenses in various ways that will be a small buff.

 

I would wager that io sets and defense powers that are exotic types to be increased in various ways, thereby increasing build diversity and allowing for balance.

 

Until a codebasher chimes in we cannot know, but this is my educated wildforkingguessing.

 

Weeeeeee. 🥧

Edited August 5, 2022 by SwitchFade

[ivanhedgehog]

3 hours ago, Marbing said:

IMO I don't think the intent was to make "squishy" ATs less durable. That is just a (very minor, through my testing) side effect. The intent, as I understand it, was to make S/L defense as a whole not as dominant as it currently is. In the game's current state: Cold, Fire, Negative, etc (for example) defenses are less useful because most of those attacks also have a S/L component that nearly completely negates the exotic damage type when you have high S/L defense. This is the case even if the attack does 1 Lethal damage and 100000000 Cold damage. This makes S/L defense vastly overperform the other types to the point where there is no point in getting Cold Defense (for example) on a "squishy" AT. Not that these changes actually make it imperative that you have an exotic defense type either, because again... its a somewhat minor change overall.

 

I have tested these changes quite a bit, I posted my builds earlier in this thread I believe and noticed very little difference in my survival. I used a Blaster and a Controller, which are traditionally "squishy" AT's (though the Blaster AT lately is less so). I tested Radio missions on live vs on Brainstorm and noticed very little difference in survival. Yes, you have to be a little more careful, but this isn't the apocalypse its being made out to be. You can still do +4/x8 content on a build using Scorpion Shield (for example). Scorpion Shield, from what I can tell so far, is still going to be the best overall armor toggle for a "squishy" AT. It just wont be quite as strong as it used to be, and again not by much. Will there be some enemy groups that are significantly harder? Maybe, but I don't think that is a big deal. Some enemy groups are MEANT to be harder than others, that is fine with me. 

As another side affect, this will make exotic resistance a little more important too. If you are building for S/L defense it may now be a good idea to build up some Cold/Fire resistance (for example) since those attacks will slip through a little more often (making those purple/winter IO set bonuses, for example, a little more valuable overall). I actually usually do this already as a general rule. I try to cover as many holes as possible when building a toon, though I admit it isn't always possible on a "squishy" AT but it is what you get when you play one. 

 

This will also make positional defense (like Ranged) a little more important than before. It has been my experience that many people have been building for S/L OR Ranged with a few able to accomplish both. I think this change is positive in that it pushes towards thinking/planning out your build a little more than before. Especially on "squishy" ATs.

Anyways, that is my two cents. Take it or leave it. 

So the devs made a change that you say is minor, but will cause a complete change the way we build and cause many respecs. It will be a much larger change to some of the squishier at's, but they have to just suck it up. whats the next "minor" change coming? who knows. will they apply the same changes to npcs to balance this? maybe, maybe not. why is there a separation between the first half of this and the second? try using a level 30 blaster with nothing but so's. the entire game is not just io'd builds.

[Wavicle]

3 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

So the devs made a change that you say is minor, but will cause a complete change the way we build and cause many respecs. It will be a much larger change to some of the squishier at's, but they have to just suck it up. whats the next "minor" change coming? who knows. will they apply the same changes to npcs to balance this? maybe, maybe not. why is there a separation between the first half of this and the second? try using a level 30 blaster with nothing but so's. the entire game is not just io'd builds.

it’s a very minor change as in many builds will not have to change at all. Try it out.

[InvaderStych]

Preface:

 

None of what is to follow is to be in any way construed as an invitation to debate; as per the rules of this forum section we are not here to debate each other.  We are here to post feedback for the Devs to read and do with what they will while also posting any and all bugs that we find along the way. A specific testing scenario was requested by a player and I have performed a short test under the requested conditions. I am posting my thoughts here solely for the purposes providing feedback to the Dev Team on Typing vector changes in the requested scenario.

 

To be clear: while I am about to quote the post in which the request was made I am in no way interested in engaging in extensive back and forth, "moved goal posts," or really any debate about my conclusions at all.  The Dev Team can do with my comments what they will. 🍻

 

On 8/5/2022 at 1:37 PM, ivanhedgehog said:

try using a level 30 blaster with nothing but so's.

 

 

 

 

Notes:

 

1. I have never used Seismic Blast before this toon, and used freebies menu to start off at 30.

 

2. Went straight to Night Ward and used Sir Lionel's missions to make sure there would be ample debuffs and mez thrown around.

 

3. No P2W visit, no Pocket D visit. Only used Inspirations that dropped.

 

4. When I level a toon for realzies I run them through a mix of solo/team mission arcs and TFs.  All my toons start on SOs only and most stay that way save for a handful of finished builds on my favorites. Those will also get IOs peppered in along the way journey to 50 as appropriate. TLDR: I am familiar with the "SO Only" game.

 

5. All missions were run Solo with Bosses On.

 

 

Tests:

 

Light street sweeping in NW: 1 death against double-spawn of 3lts each.  Got a pop-up about a tip and thought I died, then I actually did die.  As much user error as anything else.

 

+0x1 Mission against Drudges, Cave map: Complete cakewalk.  I was embarrassed for them.

 

+0x2 Mission against Apparitions, Resistance Underground map: This was mostly a breeze.  1 death in the hostage room when I pulled multiple groups of +1s before realizing there was a boss and hostage in the room.

 

Tangentially: As I suspected the big rooms with rail lines running through them and mobs spread out amongst very little cover are more difficult as a result of Aggro changes outside the scope of this thread.

 

+0x3 Mission against Talons of Vengeance, Resist Underground Map with the Swimming Pool bits in big rooms: This is just about my expected breaking point for a squishy toon running SOs soloing difficult groups.  ToV are no joke without significant defensive (in general, not Def the mechanic) resources.  On easier groups I'd expect maybe up to x4.  Took this mission slower, more pulling.  1 death in one of the dried up swimming pools, then I had to bail about halfway through due to time.

 

I could continue this by going to +1x1, etc, but I don't think there is any real reason to and I won't have time again until next weekend anyway. Ditto for team testing.

 

Conclusions:

 

I don't think the change to typed vector defense checks is even relevant for a mid-range blaster running just SOs. 

 

Let's take a closer look:

 

Any blaster in that level range who is running SOs only, if they have any defense at all, has a negligible amount of it that is of equal value to all vectors.

 

It doesn't matter if an incoming attack that used to check Ranged, Smashing, and Fire for the highest value now only checks Ranged and Fire if all values for Ranged, Smashing, and Fire were equal in the first place.

 

I haven't checked Hover, but even if said blaster were to cram Weave into the equation the only tag it is missing on Brainstorm is Toxic.  That should probably get fixed as I did notice it has a Psi def tag now.  But that's also outside the scope of this thread.

 

The point is that there are not a lot of sources for a Level 30 Blaster Only Running SOs to get +Def, and the ones that exist are near-as-makes-no-difference-to-almost-always +Def(All).  I'm sure there are a handful of outlier cases, but the overwhelming majority of L30BORSOs will have equivalent defense to all vectors, and not enough of it to really be of consequence.

 

So, unless I am completely missing something (possible, likely even!), this change has precisely zero impact on an L30BORSO.

 

🍻

[ivanhedgehog]

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

Preface:

 

None of what is to follow is to be in any way construed as an invitation to debate; as per the rules of this forum section we are not here to debate each other.  We are here to post feedback for the Devs to read and do with what they will while also posting any and all bugs that we find along the way. A specific testing scenario was requested by a player and I have performed a short test under the requested conditions. I am posting my thoughts here solely for the purposes providing feedback to the Dev Team on Typing vector changes in the requested scenario.

 

To be clear: while I am about to quote the post in which the request was made I am in no way interested in engaging in extensive back and forth, "moved goal posts," or really any debate about my conclusions at all.  The Dev Team can do with my comments what they will. 🍻

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

 

1. I have never used Seismic Blast before this toon, and used freebies menu to start off at 30.

 

2. Went straight to Night Ward and used Sir Lionel's missions to make sure there would be ample debuffs and mez thrown around.

 

3. No P2W visit, no Pocket D visit. Only used Inspirations that dropped.

 

4. When I level a toon for realzies I run them through a mix of solo/team mission arcs and TFs.  All my toons start on SOs only and most stay that way save for a handful of finished builds on my favorites. Those will also get IOs peppered in along the way journey to 50 as appropriate. TLDR: I am familiar with the "SO Only" game.

 

5. All missions were run Solo with Bosses On.

 

 

Tests:

 

Light street sweeping in NW: 1 death against double-spawn of 3lts each.  Got a pop-up about a tip and thought I died, then I actually did die.  As much user error as anything else.

 

+0x1 Mission against Drudges, Cave map: Complete cakewalk.  I was embarrassed for them.

 

+0x2 Mission against Apparitions, Resistance Underground map: This was mostly a breeze.  1 death in the hostage room when I pulled multiple groups of +1s before realizing there was a boss and hostage in the room.

 

Tangentially: As I suspected the big rooms with rail lines running through them and mobs spread out amongst very little cover are more difficult as a result of Aggro changes outside the scope of this thread.

 

+0x3 Mission against Talons of Vengeance, Resist Underground Map with the Swimming Pool bits in big rooms: This is just about my expected breaking point for a squishy toon running SOs soloing difficult groups.  ToV are no joke without significant defensive (in general, not Def the mechanic) resources.  On easier groups I'd expect maybe up to x4.  Took this mission slower, more pulling.  1 death in one of the dried up swimming pools, then I had to bail about halfway through due to time.

 

I could continue this by going to +1x1, etc, but I don't think there is any real reason to and I won't have time again until next weekend anyway. Ditto for team testing.

 

Conclusions:

 

I don't think the change to typed vector defense checks is even relevant for a mid-range blaster running just SOs. 

 

Let's take a closer look:

 

Any blaster in that level range who is running SOs only, if they have any defense at all, has a negligible amount of it that is of equal value to all vectors.

 

It doesn't matter if an incoming attack that used to check Ranged, Smashing, and Fire for the highest value now only checks Ranged and Fire if all values for Ranged, Smashing, and Fire were equal in the first place.

 

I haven't checked Hover, but even if said blaster were to cram Weave into the equation the only tag it is missing on Brainstorm is Toxic.  That should probably get fixed as I did notice it has a Psi def tag now.  But that's also outside the scope of this thread.

 

The point is that there are not a lot of sources for a Level 30 Blaster Only Running SOs to get +Def, and the ones that exist are near-as-makes-no-difference-to-almost-always +Def(All).  I'm sure there are a handful of outlier cases, but the overwhelming majority of L30BORSOs will have equivalent defense to all vectors, and not enough of it to really be of consequence.

 

So, unless I am completely missing something (possible, likely even!), this change has precisely zero impact on an L30BORSO.

 

🍻

ok, that matches up to what i saw last night.  My only thought now is, why are the devs making this change? why doesnt it effect the npcs the same? some of the most annoying things in the game are powers that were nerfed for the players but not npcs(paragon protectors MOG)

[Grouchybeast]

7 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

ok, that matches up to what i saw last night.  My only thought now is, why are the devs making this change? why doesnt it effect the npcs the same? some of the most annoying things in the game are powers that were nerfed for the players but not npcs(paragon protectors MOG)

 

 

Quote

 

Player Attack Type Adjustments

• All Player Attack powers now use two attack types. All attacks will have up to one Positional defense and one Damage Type defense it will check against.

 

[ivanhedgehog]

11 minutes ago, Grouchybeast said:

 

 

I know what it is. why is it? why are enemy attacks not the same?

[ForeverLaxx]

25 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

I know what it is. why is it? why are enemy attacks not the same?

What are you talking about? It's like, the third line in the original dev post of this thread. NPC attacks are now only Positional or Primary Damage Type. It's the same thing happening to Player attacks. Annoyances with MoG aside (an annoyance I share, personally), you seem to be confused.

[ivanhedgehog]

17 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

What are you talking about? It's like, the third line in the original dev post of this thread. NPC attacks are now only Positional or Primary Damage Type. It's the same thing happening to Player attacks. Annoyances with MoG aside (an annoyance I share, personally), you seem to be confused.

from the 1st post

•  
• Developer
• • 148
  • 1073

• Developer

Posted July 12

Attack Typing Adjustments

NPC Attack Type Adjustments

• These changes only apply to NPCs attacking players, not the reverse.
• The attack typing on all NPC attacks have been revamped to only utilize a total of two defense types: Positional & Primary Damage

 

 

 

 

 

the change does not effect play to nps attacks. we are weaker than they are. why?

a smashing/cold round hitting us will do more damage than one hitting them. from the same power

[Grouchybeast]

14 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

the change does not effect play to nps attacks. we are weaker than they are. why?

a smashing/cold round hitting us will do more damage than one hitting them. from the same power

They changed it in the second build, which is what I quoted.  It's in the current patch notes.

[ForeverLaxx]

1 hour ago, ivanhedgehog said:

the change does not effect play to nps attacks. we are weaker than they are. why?

...what? Player attacks are being changed to Positional + 1 Element for Defense calculation and NPC attacks are being changed to Positional + 1 Element for Defense calculation.

 

How is that not exactly the same? How does this somehow make players weaker? You're really off on this and I can't figure out why. The words are all right there, clear as day, and have been quoted to you by others and pointed out by me. What are you not understanding?

[ivanhedgehog]

9 hours ago, Grouchybeast said:

They changed it in the second build, which is what I quoted.  It's in the current patch notes.

Ok, I see now, I was reading the old dev comments.

 

[Sovera]

On 8/7/2022 at 6:07 PM, ivanhedgehog said:

ok, that matches up to what i saw last night.  My only thought now is, why are the devs making this change? why doesnt it effect the npcs the same? some of the most annoying things in the game are powers that were nerfed for the players but not npcs(paragon protectors MOG)

 

What difference would this make to you? Us players just bump accuracy which works against everything be it typed or positional. Most builds that are planned via Mids will have 95% accuracy against +3.

 

So what gain do you think there will be if your 95% accuracy goes against S/L, E/N, or Ranged, or Melee? 95% is 95%.

[Zeraphia]

On 8/3/2022 at 6:58 AM, TheZag said:

People have been soloing +4x8 for too long and its got them in the mindset that its normal.  1 person can literally carry a max difficulty team most of the time.  Its turned alot of teams into a few people teaming and the rest soloing with a team somewhere behind them.  There are 47 other lower difficulty settings without including bosses and AV off,  im fine with difficulty being tuned so that the upper half of them become difficult or impossible to solo.

 

I'll get downvoted for saying this, but I'll just say it. The reason that person is solo-carrying a task force is because they know how it should be ran, they're taking optimal pathings, and they're actively trying to get the objectives. Look, if you wanna join "kill all" task forces, that's totally fine and I have no problem with those. The problem arises when people complain about someone doing the right things. 

 

Perhaps... maybe... some people should just learn how to play the game? I'm not addressing you specifically, but some of these people are still running the same task forces barely breaking beyond the 20 minute mark on a Tin Mage. Or 20-30 on ITF. There's nothing wrong with playing at your own pace, but complaining about people who are way ahead of the curve carrying task forces is NOT about anything to do with the content of the game or any PvE aspect. It's about player knowledge and their mentality. That will always exist so long as there is a player gap in mechanical strength or game knowledge.

 

That said, and while I didn't connect this point earlier in my post, I don't think this change actually changes anything. The same people who will solo carry task forces are going to solo carry task forces. The same people who will +4/x8 like it's nothing will do it. You can run a fire/fire blaster just pop an occasional purple and take bonfire (kb->kd) and be able to +4/x8 most content. I don't think this raises any additional difficulty to the game. All I really believe this change does honestly is just force some players to change their build paths. This change genuinely brings more annoyance than anything else in my opinion. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Zeraphia

[Wavicle]

You’re not talking about the same phenomenon.

[ivanhedgehog]

On 8/13/2022 at 6:26 PM, Zeraphia said:

I'll get downvoted for saying this, but I'll just say it. The reason that person is solo-carrying a task force is because they know how it should be ran, they're taking optimal pathings, and they're actively trying to get the objectives. Look, if you wanna join "kill all" task forces, that's totally fine and I have no problem with those. The problem arises when people complain about someone doing the right things. 

 

Perhaps... maybe... some people should just learn how to play the game? I'm not addressing you specifically, but some of these people are still running the same task forces barely breaking beyond the 20 minute mark on a Tin Mage. Or 20-30 on ITF. There's nothing wrong with playing at your own pace, but complaining about people who are way ahead of the curve carrying task forces is NOT about anything to do with the content of the game or any PvE aspect. It's about player knowledge and their mentality. That will always exist so long as there is a player gap in mechanical strength or game knowledge.

 

That said, and while I didn't connect this point earlier in my post, I don't think this change actually changes anything. The same people who will solo carry task forces are going to solo carry task forces. The same people who will +4/x8 like it's nothing will do it. You can run a fire/fire blaster just pop an occasional purple and take bonfire (kb->kd) and be able to +4/x8 most content. I don't think this raises any additional difficulty to the game. All I really believe this change does honestly is just force some players to change their build paths. This change genuinely brings more annoyance than anything else in my opinion. 

A bigger problem is people afraid to form a tf. You see a dozen people waiting for someone to form a posi1 or the like. You dont need to force people to tem with you. step up and start a new tf and it will fill

[Marshal_General]

11 hours ago, ivanhedgehog said:

A bigger problem is people afraid to form a tf. You see a dozen people waiting for someone to form a posi1 or the like. You dont need to force people to tem with you. step up and start a new tf and it will fill

I think part if that is the stigma from other games where the leader is expected to know every nuance of the dungeon/TF. It is also what keeps people from being healers and tanks.