Jump to content

Focused Feedback: Attack Typing Adjustments


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, McSpazz said:

 

There's been a few people that have said things similar to this and I want to make an argument against it that doesn't simply rely on telling them to try the beta.

 

First, the fact that you could min/max by focusing on just two stats (smashing/lethal) was part of the problem. This isn't just a question of defense characters getting access to capped smashing/lethal defense, this applies to all player characters. A defender can get the survivability of a scrapper by focusing entirely on smashing/lethal because that's the defense that is currently checked the most. If you are really into end game +4/x8 content, you should REALLY consider this a problem because it means that any new end game hard mode content is going to be fundamentally flawed. They are going to be looking at the +4/x8 madlads, see how they are building, and be left with only two options: higher to-hit or higher debuffs. Either way, it's not an actual solution. You aren't fixing the actual problem. If the only way the devs can introduce a fun challenge to players is by nerfing defense via enemy effects, you are basically doing this but worse.

And I kind of find it amusing you'd say this makes squishy AT's useless because...well. The exact opposite is true!!!

The hard mode TF's ALONE gave powersets like Empathy more purpose because people were actually suddenly in need of heals and even revives. Defense and resistances OTHER than smashing/lethal becoming important actually gives all squishies more reason to exist. Forcefield defenders will actually have a reason to play in teams, additional resistance buffs from /sonic controllers now have a clear role to play. Hell, it gives tankers more reason to actually be tanks, scrappers a reason to focus their efforts on picking off random enemies that change their focus to squishies, brutes more reason to do both. Stalkers....well, they just do whatever they do. Stalkers be stalkers.

And all of this is under the presumption that the end effects of the change are having a HUGE impact on gameplay. Which, based on feedback, doesn't seem to be the case. It just means that you can't focus everything on smashing/lethal, makes squishies actually live up to their name, and gives support archetypes more reason to actually support.

The new meta, if this does force a new meta, is going to encourage people to diversify their roster and builds.

Plus. Let's be REALLY real right now. +4/x8 is intended for EIGHT people with enemies tailored to be FOUR levels higher than you. The fact that anyone can do better than +4x4 is impressive enough.

 

The comment wasn't about squishies being useless. The comment was about soloing as them.

 

But you have outlined another problem of this change, as mentioned by another previous post, even if it's not as dramatic as previously preceived. Forcing you to bring specific support by nerfing something else. Nerfing individual survivability just artificially makes support more valueable. It's a bandaid solution (not that I'm blaming the dev team for looking for easy outs) to the bigger problem of game difficulty.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TotalThunder said:

 

The comment wasn't about squishies being useless. The comment was about soloing as them.

 

But you have outlined another problem of this change, as mentioned by another previous post, even if it's not as dramatic as previously preceived. Forcing you to bring specific support by nerfing something else. Nerfing individual survivability just artificially makes support more valueable. It's a bandaid solution (not that I'm blaming the dev team for looking for easy outs) to the bigger problem of game difficulty.

For what it's worth, I think the effective nerf to defense here isn't drastic enough to make specific support types necessary. It just adds more value to there being one.

  • Thanks 2
  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will mention that it was stated that the change effected less then 10% of the enemy NPC powers in the whole game.  So, in a way, this more standardizes how powers are expected to go up against defense.

And, to what I recall, the current system was put in well before things like IOs where even a thing.  People had what defense they got through powers only.  These days, it's a whole different ball-game with set bonuses and Incarnate powers.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not noticing a dip in survivability on my high end solo only toons. Tested with Corrs, Brutes, Scrappers and Defs against Council, Cims, Malta and Arachnos.

 

The easy factions were still easy, the harder factions were still harder and the only way for it to be a challenge at all on a fully kitted out toon was to ignore the fact that inspirations exist and ignore priority targets. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, McSpazz said:

For what it's worth, I think the effective nerf to defense here isn't drastic enough to make specific support types necessary. It just adds more value to there being one.

Yes, it's not a big change. I had Fire/Rad corruptors soloing at 4x8 to test the Radiation Emission cast time change. Well built squishy will be just fine.

 

I personally tested Circle Of Thorns, Banished Parthenon, Talons of Vengeance, Council, Carnies, some others I forget. I was able to solo with at least 4 ATs at 4x8, just like before the changes. Only one build was a tank, an ice tank at that.

 

Someone else tested Arachnos and found that Lord Recluse had become rather nasty, so he was adjusted and some toxic and psi defense was added to multiple armor sets. Also, Arachnos Toxic spider bosses are now up to the level of the other Arachnos bosses.

 

Now, it's possible we volunteer testers missed an uncommon group that got massively buffed. Like, The Awakened, now that I think about it. If anyone stumbles across a group that is now hitting way harder. Post here, the devs will adjust if needed.

 

Testing is the solution to all concerns brought up in this topic.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here talk about +4x8 difficulty and that's important, especially for long term and endgame play, but how does this affect that already annoying stretch of levels where defense sets aren't at their full power? If I chose to level up an Energy Aura scrapper and haven't reached the IO level range, would I give up on that character or ask to be power leveled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Enamel_32 said:

People here talk about +4x8 difficulty and that's important, especially for long term and endgame play, but how does this affect that already annoying stretch of levels where defense sets aren't at their full power? If I chose to level up an Energy Aura scrapper and haven't reached the IO level range, would I give up on that character or ask to be power leveled?

 

The levelling and building experience is very much the same as it was already. Changing difficulty to get through enemy groups is still an option, as before. A small handful of enemies might need to be prioritised.

 

  • Thumbs Up 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Enamel_32 said:

People here talk about +4x8 difficulty and that's important, especially for long term and endgame play, but how does this affect that already annoying stretch of levels where defense sets aren't at their full power? If I chose to level up an Energy Aura scrapper and haven't reached the IO level range, would I give up on that character or ask to be power leveled?

I did test solo with my blaster the first mission of Yin at 0x8 I think. It was fine.

 

I tried to soloing Sutter, but fighting IDF even at 0 or 1 w/o clarion is painful even before the changes.

 

Below level 20 folks barely have any defense, unless they are getting buffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been preaching about having S/L/Range defense on squishies, with an emphasis on range defense, for a long time. A lot of people that post competent builds on blaster forums underestimate or totally ignore the value of movement, soft/hard controls, and using positioning to your advantage in their build analysis and breakdown (if they give one at all). These tools have a lot of value and apply to all builds, even melee centric ones.

 

This change will not impact builds that invested in S/L/Range def and use the aforementioned tools all that much. I have builds that run softcap range def + high but not softcap S/L that do just fine even when mixing it up in melee range. The people that strictly rely on S/L def and consider standing in one spot and trading blows like tanks the way to play squishies will have a tougher time adjusting though.

 

People that already eschew melee and build for range defense anyway won't be affected by this change and I can definitely see more people unwilling or unable to put a little more work into their playstyle (not judging, some playstyles can be pretty taxing) shifting to the pure range strategy. I'd like to think that the performance you get out of your builds 20% the build, 80% is directly proportional to the amount of effort you invest in playing it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 2

Liberty, Torchbearer, Excelsior, Everlasting

Jezebel Delias

Level 50 Fire/Elec/Mace Blaster

 

I am the Inner Circle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I applaud anything that rewards some level of tactical awareness.

 

Gently encouraging players to be familiar with their own weaknesses and recognize priority targets seems fair (while not requiring it outside the most difficult content).

 

We're all familiar with sappers. A smidge more of that, but not as effective, should be more engaging. This small change merely takes a small step in that direction.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Lazarillo said:

If it's not that big of a change, then isn't it still a waste to do it?

 

Sure, unless this cleans up some messiness AND can open up some interesting design options as enemy groups increase in level OR as players change difficulties.

Maybe a bit better than simply larger and larger bags of HP.

 

Edited by Troo
  • Thumbs Up 6
  • Thumbs Down 1

"Homecoming is not perfect but it is still better than the alternative.. at least so far" - Unknown  (Wise words Unknown!)

Si vis pacem, para bellum

bah, thumbs down lamo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Keen said:

Do all grenades have shrapnel? (Honest question)

No, but the overwhelming majority used in combat do.

There are concussion grenades, which kind of look like a spray can - i.e. a relatively flimsy casing.  But most grenades that the military (and presumably terrorists, villain groups, etc) use are fragmentation grenades.  These are characterized by a heavy metal casing designed to produce shrapnel.  The classic one that most people would recognize is the 'pineapple' grenade.  Here's a picture of the WW2 U.S. military Mk 2 that you've probably seen in a jillion war movies.

grenade.JPG

 

Edit:  Obviously I'm ignoring specialized grenades like smoke, flashbangs, etc which do little or no damage.

Edited by Ironblade
  • Thumbs Up 4

Originally on Infinity.  I have Ironblade on every shard.  -  My only AE arc:  The Origin of Mark IV  (ID 48002)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also completely unnecessary, and honestly just kind of a smack in the face for those which it applies to. The game has ALWAYS applied defense typing for all that an attack is categorized as, and should be as well still. This is just dumb, and a complete waste of time on the devs part, sorry. This is a major downvote, and wish the time was spent on better things that are actually asked for and help make the game more fun, not worse.

  • Thumbs Up 3
  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really bad change that fundamentally impacts the basic design of the game.  Defense was intentionally designed this way and fiddled with through the years in various ways.  Initially, sure, we didn't have all the tools now that we did then to protect our character by focusing on S/L defense, but people had been building for it since the beginning of the IO system and the original devs never touched it.

The only justification I could see would be overly complicating things by allowing you to selectively defend against certain damage types within the same power but that's not happening any time soon and doesn't really make sense in all contexts, either.  For instance an Electric Punch - you ignore the smashing completely, but the electricity still zaps you.  Ice Blast - You're impervious to cold, but the smashing still hits.  Resistance basically already does this anyway, for the damage you do take.

Additionally, changing damage to favor the more unusual damage type - like the example of 40/60 Energy/Smash becoming 60/40 Energy/Smash from enemy Energy Melee and changing the defense type to be singularly Energy inadvertently shifts what's expected of characters even in regards to Resistance, which already underperforms compared to Defense.  This will impact non-armor chars, which will be more likely to have Smash/Lethal resist via Tough rather than Energy resist, which in a high value would also come with generally higher S/L like Charged Armor from Electricity Mastery.  Not even diving deep into the changes of Defense calculations, this will typically increase overall damage every character takes.

If you need to make adjustments or add more difficulty to the game I really feel like they should be new additions which leave the existing game untouched.  "Incarnate ToHit" is a good example.  They gave us new tools and a new challenge to overcome.  In that content, enemies had more ToHit, so we needed more Defense.  It was not a very large increase, but enough that people skirting the softcap and NOT getting additional outside help were taking around 4x more damage than they were just by figuring the increased rate at which they were getting hit alone.  This was content you signed up for and your character was just as good as it was before during existing content - much, much stronger, when you got the Incarnate goodies, even.  This was the intention behind the design - adding more challenges to the game, ways to overcome those challenges, with the idea that you could go back and crush older content to see how far you've grown.  Essentially - give us reasons to change our builds that are not nerfs, but ways to overcome the challenges of these advanced difficulty modes.

Speaking of advanced difficulty modes - There exists Ouro and TF challenges where your characters are under constant debuff.  It's probably too late to incorporate something like that into challenge modes, if that's the intent behind changing typed defense, but I think that would be a good solution for reigning in player power creep in select situations.  Start at a lower level but retain the same caps and buffs.



I'm reading a lot of "This isn't really that big of a deal" in defense of.. the defense nerf... so, I counter with: Why change it then?



Re: Empathy

Going off-topic but since people are bringing it up I'll say Empathy is just, simply put, one of the worst options and it always has been, outside of extremely niche scenarios.  Fundamentally it is a bit one-trick and what it offers outside of the multiple heals doesn't really pair well with having extra heals.  Honestly I feel like it's due for a buff but I know the set still retains a lot of fans and probably won't be seeing one.  Importantly I don't think it should be used as a benchmark for "support" sets as a whole and how they fit into the overall meta of the game.  You can play a "Healer" like Nature Affinity which has HoTs, Absorb, +RES effects (which reliably slow down incoming damage for you to, you know, heal..) and debuffs to boot.  The -RES you provide, at a certain point, acts like a force multiplier for all of the other damage on the team and still has a place if you're pushing the limits of, say, getting things done ASAP.  Basically they're not "needed" but still have a use, which I think is the way the game has been designed for ages and has stood the test of time.

  • Thumbs Up 7
  • Thumbs Down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarknessEternal said:

This change is fine, but do not make it until it applies to all attacks regardless of who is the attacker or defender, ie, wait until it works against NPCS from players.

 

Don't make the game asynchronous, it's confusing.


This.  The change isn't something anyone asked for (afaik) but if you're going through the trouble to do it, it needs to be the same logic applying both ways, otherwise it's going to confuse anyone trying to understand the system that didn't read these specific patch notes (and still might confuse some who do).  There's no reason to only do half of the change because it's such a sweeping system change that there's no way they'd *undo* it, therefore you should just *do it both ways* so it's at least consistent.

But I will echo the other sentiment that this had no reason to be prioritized, worked on and done when all it does is lessen the effectiveness of a common build type (toward S/L Def and to a lesser extent Res) without any actual systemic changes to better enable people to adapt to the change you're making, by making IO set bonuses that afford non-S/L Def in more sets, and/or at better values, to better build for the diversity you're enforcing them to branch out to by devaluing the S/L Def type.  You're strictly making people feel worse with this change without any actual gameplay or build options changed to allow them to adapt, so everyone will just feel weaker (Even if, by some accounts, it is 'not very noticeable'). 

But what's done is done.  My question now is: Why did you make this change and not add easier/better access to non-S/L def types to enable adaptation to the changes? And, if it was explicitly meant as a nerf (as these two things combined amount to), why didn't you just say that clearly and own up to it?  Honesty is necessary, even if it's not what someone wants to hear, and if a nerf is needed for whatever game design plans/ideas/thinking the devs have, they should communicate that clearly to the players.

I disagree more with the way this change was handled moreso than the change itself.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the comments above yet and I'm currently unable to do any testing myself. I just hope that not all of the testing currently been done is at max level using super maxed-out IO builds. Hopefully some players/GMs are testing toons on various levels with both standard and maxed IO builds.

Edited by Logansan
spelling
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going for "realism" and consistency with other elements of the game, I'd recommend for hand/m30 grenades to swap them back to Lethal/Smashing, and I will explain why.

 

Most common hand explosives do not kill via the heat they produce, while they do produce some heat and sometimes can even set fires, that's only a minor side effect from the explosion and not the cause of most of the damage these weapons can inflict.

 

Explosives do damage to people via two primary mechanisms:

  • A high pressure blast wave which causes internal injury. (Smashing)
  • High velocity shrapnel that can cause injury and bleeding. (Lethal)

If you are close to the explosive, you'll catch both but the blast wave will inflict a lethal injury milliseconds before the shrapnel gets you. Further out, you catch mostly shrapnel. However, in COH most grenade powers are applied directly to the face of the target.

M30 having knockback is another indicator that this attack deals smashing damage.

 

As to why this change back would be consistent with other elements of the game?

 

I present the Incendiary Grenade power with the tags (Ranged) Targeted Area of Effect, Fire, Damage over Time, Fire.

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=v_paragonpolice.grenade_launcher.incendiary_grenade

This power is used by a couple npcs and is also available as a temporary power.

 

I posit that the original design was correct for the M30 and other similar grenade powers, and changing them to have a fire element does not appropriately represent the powers being changed due to the game having an incendiary grenade already.

  • Like 4
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Crimsanotic said:

Essentially, what I'm saying would add actual difficulty would be to make AVs/Heroes, GMs, and to some extent EBs, a lot more difficult and interesting. Though I doubt that will ever happen.


You mean, something like Hardmode content? I wonder if we will ever get something like that. Oh, wait…

Playing CoX is it’s own reward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KaizenSoze said:

Someone else tested Arachnos and found that Lord Recluse had become rather nasty, so he was adjusted and some toxic and psi defense was added to multiple armor sets. Also, Arachnos Toxic spider bosses are now up to the level of the other Arachnos bosses.


I remember that testing, when both Invulnerability and Energy Aura melted like ice cream on a hot summer day while Proc Monster Willpower just laughed. Those mean ole Arachnos.😂

 

And that player even adapted both of those builds to compensate even before they received the Psi/Toxic buffs, so I really don’t think the sky is falling just yet.😉

Playing CoX is it’s own reward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Logansan said:

I haven't read all the comments above yet and I'm currently unable to do any testing myself. I just hope that not all of the testing currently been done is at max level using super maxed-out IO builds. Hopefully some players/GMs are testing toons on various levels with both standard and maxed IO builds.


Because the game is balanced around SOs, they were more the priority along with how the lower levels might be impacted by this change. I tested that and there was no difference.

 

 

As far as the high-end builds go, there’s always that pesky inspiration tray that everyone except @America's Angelforgets about.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Playing CoX is it’s own reward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good example of the game being designed with multiple types intentionally:  Ice Armor.

It does not have Cold defense, just Resistance.  It has no S/L Resistance.

Cryo Rounds are a notable low-level example of an unusually-typed attack, which is currently Lethal and Cold, a cold bullet essentially.  Ice Armor can defend against this because it's a bullet, potentially preventing both the Lethal and Cold damage and the debuff it inflicts.  Changing it to purely be Cold is now allowing Lethal damage which was not intended to get through as often to get through.

Pure cold, like Frost Breath, will bypass defense and hit only Cold Resistance, which Cold is capable of reducing unlike Lethal.

Low-level Stone Armor, which is where you'll be seeing Cryo Rounds, is in a similar but less extreme position.

This is going to result in some powersets, which may generally not even be regarded as very good, suffering for no discernible reason and should really not be changed and further left alone because it's going to open an entire can of worms.

Please leave these sorts of things for high-end, Incarnate and Challenge content and don't nullify age-old builds for general content in the game.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wavicle said:

This restores proper difficulty to the 35+ game. Good change.

That sounds good to me. (Stretch goal: get rid of the incarnate level shift so +4 is +4 not +3 or +1. Not joking.)

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Thumbs Down 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kingsmidgens said:

Good example of the game being designed with multiple types intentionally:  Ice Armor.

It does not have Cold defense, just Resistance.  It has no S/L Resistance.

Cryo Rounds are a notable low-level example of an unusually-typed attack, which is currently Lethal and Cold, a cold bullet essentially.  Ice Armor can defend against this because it's a bullet, potentially preventing both the Lethal and Cold damage and the debuff it inflicts.  Changing it to purely be Cold is now allowing Lethal damage which was not intended to get through as often to get through.

Pure cold, like Frost Breath, will bypass defense and hit only Cold Resistance, which Cold is capable of reducing unlike Lethal.

Low-level Stone Armor, which is where you'll be seeing Cryo Rounds, is in a similar but less extreme position.

This is going to result in some powersets, which may generally not even be regarded as very good, suffering for no discernible reason and should really not be changed and further left alone because it's going to open an entire can of worms.

Please leave these sorts of things for high-end, Incarnate and Challenge content and don't nullify age-old builds for general content in the game.

So, I started a Yin TF. Skipped to the third mission which is full of Council and watched the combat log.

 

At most two mobs out of each spawn were firing Cryo and Incendiary Rounds. It is a particular mob type that has both powers.

https://cod.uberguy.net./html/powerset.html?pset=council.counciladvrifle

 

Then I ran the same test with my Ice/Ice tanker at 2x8 on Yin. Stood in the middle of two groups.

 

It was fine, my hp was slowly dropping, I figure they would have killed me in 2-3 mins if I did nothing.

 

You should copy over your Ice tanker and test. I think you'll find the aggro changes more impactful than attack type.

 

By all means, bring up specific attacks you are worried about. They can be tested.

Edited by KaizenSoze
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...