Aggro limit.

[ivanhedgehog]

2 hours ago, Andreah said:

I would be happy enough if all it did was defeat the one last mob on a map that I can't find. Non-mission-boss, ofc.

The guy that hid in the restroom with a book?

[Sanguinesun]

8 hours ago, Zep said:

Originally there was no limit for agro, aoe, etc.

 

This created play styles, like a Fire tank pulling a whole map into a dumpster/container, or flying defenders using an anchor to pull all the monkeys on monkeys island at the same time, that the live devs didnt feel were good for the game.

 

Doesn't mean things haven't changed again, though with tougher than ever characters I suspect those behaviors' would be back quickly.

 

Storm controllers used to herd all of the Perez park map for lowbies standing at the entrance from atlas park to mass group take down.  Fun times.... til the map crashed.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Sanguinesun

[BlackSpectre]

This is a complex issue, fundamentally I think:

1. The number of enemies that want to kill you should only be limited by distance, duration, and perception. 

2. The number of enemies whose attention can be HELD by some form of Taunt should remain at 16 max just like any other control power.

3. The greater number of enemies that attack should always increase the risk and danger. 

 

It's #3 that is the real problem. Tanks are more or less immune to enemies' attacks once the tank hits level 40 (and has a good build). And it's not just tanks, but most other ATs too. Even if lower level, normally powerless  enemies are attacking a superhero, when 300 of them attack en mass it should be dangerous. Instead, it's not.

 

If more attackers meant more danger, then the amount of enemies that could be engaged would naturally be limited to however many the player could handle before they are killed. No need for a cap.  This would be a big change in the game, and would require a lot of work to roll out. The Live devs didn't want to put the work and time in to rebalance the whole game, so instead they instituted the rather inelegant aggro cap. Slapped a band aid on it and said good enough.

 

The Homecoming devs did something interesting along these lines and added a small chance for fire-based AE critters to debuff defense. In small groups this debuff usually doesn't even take effect. None or very few of the mobs hit. But when you have 50 mobs attacking, that's 50 chances for that small chance debuff to hit, and that increases the chance of the debuff overall to the point where they're able to kill off the tank. Pretty novel way to make sure that more enemies means more danger. Unfortunately, it's not implemented game wide for every enemy at every level (and I'm not sure it could be), so the basic problem still exists. Until that is solved, I'm afraid we're stuck with an aggro cap.

Edited August 1, 2023 by BlackSpectre
typo

[Neiska]

1 hour ago, BlackSpectre said:

It's #3 that is the real problem. Tanks are more or less immune to enemies' attacks once the tank hits level 40 (and has a good build). And it's not just tanks, but most other ATs too. Even if lower level, normally powerless  enemies are attacking a superhero, when 300 of them attack en mass it should be dangerous. Instead, it's not.

 

The problem is that if you balance against one extreme (in this case, Tanks and their durability), then it can feel unfair to everyone else who is not in that extreme. Lets take your fire mobs with debuffs example - 50 mobs all attacking 1 player with a mix of melee and ranged attacks. Sure, a well built tank could survive even that. But could a Controller? A Defender? How about a Sentinel?

 

It's just my opinion, but I do think that ATs "should" excel at their particular role. It's their Niche. And for Tanks, that's surviving. But that is a build focused on surviving, not the typical or average. The game should be balanced on the average, not the Niche. Sure, if you balance against the average, then Tanks and some Brutes might be immortal. But that's kind of the point of those ATs - to be tough.

 

Just my two cents.

[BlackSpectre]

19 hours ago, Neiska said:

 

The problem is that if you balance against one extreme (in this case, Tanks and their durability), then it can feel unfair to everyone else who is not in that extreme. Lets take your fire mobs with debuffs example - 50 mobs all attacking 1 player with a mix of melee and ranged attacks. Sure, a well built tank could survive even that. But could a Controller? A Defender? How about a Sentinel?

Yes, the other ATs can deal with 15-25 easily. They take, on average, 20% more damage than brutes and tanks and have less HP, but otherwise are right up there with them in defense. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Neiska said:

 

It's just my opinion, but I do think that ATs "should" excel at their particular role. It's their Niche. And for Tanks, that's surviving. But that is a build focused on surviving, not the typical or average. The game should be balanced on the average, not the Niche. Sure, if you balance against the average, then Tanks and some Brutes might be immortal. But that's kind of the point of those ATs - to be tough.

 

Just my two cents.

Tough, yes. Immune, no. Challenge is one of the major things that makes the game, any game,  fun.

 

 What Homecoming did with the defense debuff in AE fire maps was absolutely targeted solely on brutes and tanks, and I see now you became focused on that... but that's not my proposal. I'm not even defending it. What it does, however, is show one mechanic that could be used to do what I'm proposing game-wide. What could others be? Using procs for Resistance debuffs, HP debuffs, Regen debuffs... and enemy damage buffs, to hit  buffs, defense buffs, etc.. Another mechanic that might be used is stacking, either by itself or with procs.    

 

I think the way the devs implemented the small defense debuff could be made to be a little slower... build up a little slower. There have been many times on the asteroid map (Real Big Dog)  that I've glanced at my defense hovering right around 45% and then 6 seconds later I'm at 10% defense. Doesn't give a lot of time to react, and by "react" I mean realize I've bitten off more than I can chew and disengage. Sometimes, especially on that map, I just can't tell how many will be attacking me at any given time when I jump into the middle of them. Anyway, that's if I wanted to use a similar defense debuff mechanic game-wide.

 

Anyway, I hope you understand that I'm not suggesting balancing the game based on tanks, but rather adding one additional factor... number of enemies. 

 

 

[Neiska]

1 hour ago, BlackSpectre said:

Yes, the other ATs can deal with 15-25 easily. They take, on average, 20% more damage than brutes and tanks and have less HP, but otherwise are right up there with them in defense. 

 

Defense yes, resists, number of targets (vs tanks), self-sustain and such, no. There is far more than just DEF in play. But it does make me wonder on the "balancing" between the different ATs. How much more damage they take vs how much more damage they do vs tankers/brutes. Call it a hunch but I bet most do far more than 20% more damage than the tankers/brutes. Given that they can have the same DEF, that just seems a bit lopsided to me.

 

1 hour ago, BlackSpectre said:

I think the way the devs implemented the small defense debuff could be made to be a little slower... build up a little slower. There have been many times on the asteroid map (Real Big Dog)  that I've glanced at my defense hovering right around 45% and then 6 seconds later I'm at 10% defense. Doesn't give a lot of time to react, and by "react" I mean realize I've bitten off more than I can chew and disengage. Sometimes, especially on that map, I just can't tell how many will be attacking me at any given time when I jump into the middle of them. Anyway, that's if I wanted to use a similar defense debuff mechanic game-wide.

 

I think you overlooked my point. A Tanker or Brute can survive even the -def debuffs, where other ATs cant. They have more hps, resists, even debuff resistance depending on the armor set. Now, I am not suggesting that a class cannon with 45% "should" be able to swoop into a pile of 50 mobs and PBAOE nuke them to oblivion. But what I am saying, is that they shouldn't just look at tanker/brute durability when balancing mobs damage and debuffs any more than they should look at blaster or corruptor DPS when balancing the mobs hitpoints/resists/defense.

 

Sure, a tanker/brute might be nearly immortal. But it also might take them 4-5 times longer to do the same thing it takes nearly dps focused AT to do.  And the entire situation leaves support focused ATs such as Defenders or Controllers in the dust. They would take even longer than the tanker, if they even could.

 

All I am saying is that if you focus on balancing for the "extremes" - A tankers sustain, a DPS ATs damage, etc, - it really penalizes those not in either of those extremes. Which is why I think there is such a gap between which ATs/Powersets can solo the hardest difficulty just fine, even on autopilot, and why some are just "functional" at 50. But I am not suggesting everyone should be able to do +4/8 with elite bosses/AVs on. Personally, I try to see +2/6 as a good "benchmark", and anything beyond that as a bonus/hardmode. At least when playing solo.

 

I was once a staff member for a similar sort of game for a number of years. And one thing I noticed is the more we made creatures for specific circumstances/builds/abilities, the more it hosed anyone else. And it got to the point where entirely optional things became compulsory or expected, which I would argue how many powers such as Maneuvers, Tough, Weave are now. It shouldn't necessarily be assumed everyone has those things, when balancing mobs, when it kind of feels right now that it is.

 

Just my musings on the matter.

[honoroit]

blaster/corruptor (enough support)

tanker / brute (tank range and cap)

scrapper (sort of) / stalker (sort of)

 

controller - aside from illu/dark for false tank, excludable

 

dominator - fun, but excludable

 

sentinel - wont even make one

 

veats - fortunata can be ok, excludable, can argue improved leaderships

 

heats - fun, excludable

 

so, were left with 6ish optimal AT.

 

in todays meta.

 

cc classes need more damage, it really is horrific.

 

can you fire/kin controller? 

yes, but you can fire/kin corruptor and be better.

 

can you xyz/dark affinity controller - its unique, but dmg is subpar. hence illu/dark.

 

defender?? if you insist. but aside from niche in storm summoning, where youve nerfed yourself compared to support rile sets, or the possible exception of poison... excludable.

 

i dont know how to fix that, but to me seems the meta right now.

[OverkillEngine]

Raise the aggro cap but give me Ninjitsu on Tanker in exchange. The version with Smoke Flash.

Why? Oh, no reason....