Focused Feedback: Role Diversity Bonus

[BZRKR]

I think this is a good thing, and should be included in the next expansion.

If it turns out to be bad, turn it off.

Possible alternate names (as a fun thought exercise, not because I don't like the proposed name):

Gestalt Bonus

Variety Pack

Powers Combined

Archetypes Assembled

 

Thank you and keep up the good work!

[ranagrande]

It all just seems so arbitrary and unnecessary.  None of these roles are required for general content in this game.  I've done teams of all defenders, all masterminds, all tankers.  They usually steamroll things, often working much better than a conventional team that would qualify for this diversity bonus.

 

The role assignments are also a big issue for me, like a mastermind being support while controllers and corruptors are not.  You said you wanted each AT to only count for one role, but why?  Why pigeonhole ATs that are clearly much more versatile?  That would work in a game like WoW  where class and spec clearly defines the abilities the character will have, but we have so much freedom in builds that by endgame, anyone can do anything if they really focus on it.

 

Anyway, I'm against it, and I think it should be scrapped.

[arcane]

2 minutes ago, ranagrande said:

It all just seems so arbitrary and unnecessary.  None of these roles are required for general content in this game.  I've done teams of all defenders, all masterminds, all tankers.  They usually steamroll things, often working much better than a conventional team that would qualify for this diversity bonus.

Nothing stops anyone from playing that way. 

[Crimsanotic]

Even in a game like FFXIV, where randomly queuing up for content requires certain roles to be filled before putting the players in the instance, people still do runs of both easy and difficult content with non-standard parties just for the fun of it.

A lot of the doomsaying in this thread hinges on a hypothetical alternate timeline. Most of the arguments against it are "the reward is not a big deal, but it COULD be to someone else!"

Also, people saying that some ATs fit multiple roles, which is true in some cases. But what about stalker? Can someone legitimately and seriously convince me stalker is anything other than melee damage? It seems unfair to list controller, for example, as ranged damage, support, and crowd control in that instance.

 

I think a lot of the people here are both overestimating CoH's complexity and underestimating the variety classes have in other MMOs.

[lemming]

31 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

My point was anytime there is a carrot on a stick, no matter the quality of the carrot, someone will go above and beyond to get it and go just as beyond if they dont get it.

I also do not know if this Class Checker thing still works if someone leaves/quits mid-TF

Different things.  It's similar to doing "Master of" and part way thru, someone runs off and gets themselves killed.

One is paying attention, the other is a possible gatekeeping action.   First one is just being a good team player.

 

I don't think it's as bad as predicted, but I can see the point.   There will be a few team leads being overly picky, though I suspect it will be the same people already being picky.

[Doomrider]

Ship it. Let the community decide what to do with it. My guess is speed runners will shrug their shoulders and carry on doing their thing given this reward isn't substantial enough to bend over backwards for and most teams will get the bonus by accident. But no one will really know for sure until it's out there.

Who knows maybe people will advertise runs as "RDB ITF" in which case, you know what you're getting into before you send your tell asking for an invite.

At the end of the day, it's the person forming the group who gets to decide how they want to build their team. That's how most MMOs work and COH is no exception.
If you want to ignore the bonus and form your own team on a first come first serve basis and not care about the bonus, that's entirely up to you but no amount of hypothesizing via forum posting will tell you how this will actually affect anything. 

[ranagrande]

15 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:

Even in a game like FFXIV, where randomly queuing up for content requires certain roles to be filled before putting the players in the instance, people still do runs of both easy and difficult content with non-standard parties just for the fun of it.

A lot of the doomsaying in this thread hinges on a hypothetical alternate timeline. Most of the arguments against it are "the reward is not a big deal, but it COULD be to someone else!"

Also, people saying that some ATs fit multiple roles, which is true in some cases. But what about stalker? Can someone legitimately and seriously convince me stalker is anything other than melee damage? It seems unfair to list controller, for example, as ranged damage, support, and crowd control in that instance.

 

I think a lot of the people here are both overestimating CoH's complexity and underestimating the variety classes have in other MMOs.

You could make a stalker to be control or support, but most people don't, so a generic classification probably shouldn't consider them as such.  But why would it be unfair?  The EATs are already counted as three things, so why not the controller, if the controller is as versatile.  Then again, they could choose to ignore their primary after level one, so why even force a generic classification of control?

 

As for the part about doomsaying... if the reward is no big deal, then we should forget this whole thing, because it's no big deal anyway.  On the contrary, if the reward is a big deal, than doomsaying is valid and we should forget this whole thing.

[Koopak]

28 minutes ago, Blackbird71 said:

 

No, I'm saying if the feature is put in, then if it is removed later that there will be those who cause a ruckus over it, as happens every other time that a feature is removed in a game.  Therefore, if there are doubts about the viability of a feature and the potential it could warrant removal in the future, then perhaps it would be best to revisit and revise it before releasing it live so as to avoid such issues.  It is much easier to withold and redesign than it is to give and then take away. 

This is game design 101 here, and shouldn't really be a surprise.

What I outlined was a requirement for a reward being dropped later on. NOT a feature being removed. If you see it that way anyways then that proves the validity of the concept in my opinion.

Doom already said my other point. A bunch of hypothesizing about what the other guy is gonna do with his team and his recruitment is just that, wild speculation. You cant 'revise it if there's any doubt' there will always be doubt, every update, every change, has had doubt and nay sayers. This, objectively, can only be proven one way or the other in live conditions.

Edited January 23 by Koopak

[Crimsanotic]

16 minutes ago, ranagrande said:

You could make a stalker to be control or support, but most people don't, so a generic classification probably shouldn't consider them as such.  But why would it be unfair?  The EATs are already counted as three things, so why not the controller, if the controller is as versatile.  Then again, they could choose to ignore their primary after level one, so why even force a generic classification of control?

 

As for the part about doomsaying... if the reward is no big deal, then we should forget this whole thing, because it's no big deal anyway.  On the contrary, if the reward is a big deal, than doomsaying is valid and we should forget this whole thing.

 

Please tell me how one makes a stalker good at being control or support.

EATs count as those things to further emphasize their role to be on teams and to encourage people to play them more often and to make it easier for them to "fill" a role missing in a team comp.

I'm not sure which part you're arguing for or against. If the reward isn't a big deal, then why forget it if it costs you nothing to earn it?

[Glacier Peak]

So the only thing a team leader has to do is invite other players to start a Task Force or Strike Force - they don't have to do anything else they wouldn't normally already do when forming their team - and this optional reward is automatically applied for those that want to incorporate the ATs stated?

 

What am I missing in this feedback?

 

As far as I can tell there is a handful of ways for players to receive Prismatic Aether rewards: the Auction House, randomly from mission completes, and from completing certain content at specified settings. The stated change will add one more way to receive them. Is there some testing done somewhere from the folks who are in disagreement with this change I'm missing? My understanding is a player either gets the reward or they don't, but it doesn't affect the outcome of the mission. 

[StarkWhite]

2 hours ago, Indystruck said:

It's not a real concern. Anytime I form a team, there's always that one guy with 3000 other characters falling over themselves to even out the team composition anyway.

It's me, I'm that guy.

[ranagrande]

6 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:

 

Please tell me how one makes a stalker good at being control or support.

EATs count as those things to further emphasize their role to be on teams and to encourage people to play them more often and to make it easier for them to "fill" a role missing in a team comp.

I'm not sure which part you're arguing for or against. If the reward isn't a big deal, then why forget it if it costs you nothing to earn it?

I said you could build a stalker to do it; I never said they'd be good at it.  As for how, power pools are the obvious go to, with Leadership and Medicine for support and Presence for control, along with various options from their primary, secondary, epic/patron pools, procs, and/or incarnate powers.  It may not sound like much, but depending on power selections there absolutely will be characters who do less from ATs that are considered control and support.

 

Many ATs are better at filling multiple roles than EATs are.  EATs are not special in this regard.

 

It's a conditional reward.  It introduces the possibility of FOMO.  It's a system that imposes extra labels and rules in a game that I feel is better off without them.

[Koopak]

As the proud owner of a Stalktroller.... do not.

[UltraAlt]

 

On 1/20/2024 at 1:48 PM, Uun said:

Corruptors and Controllers should be included in Support.

Brutes should be included in Melee Damage.

 

Why wouldn't "Controllers" be under the "Control" listing? 

This makes no sense to me.

 

I agree that Corruptors would make more sense to be listed under Support.

 

When you compare Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes, and Tanks, Brutes definitely fall more on the Tank side. I think Brute should be under the Tank listing.

 

As far as the Tanks listing, I would think that a Mastermind deserves to be there more than it does under the Support listing, and moving them would make room for Corruptors under the Support listing.

[UltraAlt]

On 11/22/2023 at 11:55 AM, The Curator said:

Role Diversity Bonus

New Challenge Option

 

Myself, I won't be going out of my way to get this bonus when recruiting. It seems like an anti-funneling mechanic for creating teams.

 

With this mechanic in place, I'll be likely to ask what kind of archetype is need for Task force team.

I used to ask, but we had pretty much come to the territory where it was generally known to be "Bring the character you want to play."

 

This is also likely to bring multiboxing into play to insure that missing roles are filled in order to get the reward.

 

From the point of providing new players with something that they can sell on the market to make some cash for SOs - I have no problem with that.

However, if it is felt like that is the route that needs to be taken in order for low level characters to purchase what they are expected to slot, then the prices of SO's should be looked at first before adding a way to get additional rewards that can be converted to inf in the /ah (some players really don't want to bother with marketing). 

[PancakeGnome]

I really dislike this.... I tank on my defender for groups (very effectively). But the game arbitrarily trying to put my character back into a little box or I don't get a reward??? ((effectively punishing me for playing how I want?)) No thanks.

Let people play what they want. Add extra rewards for additional challenge / difficulty , NOT randomly dictating how the players should approach challenges....

[Crimsanotic]

1 hour ago, ranagrande said:

I said you could build a stalker to do it; I never said they'd be good at it.  As for how, power pools are the obvious go to, with Leadership and Medicine for support and Presence for control, along with various options from their primary, secondary, epic/patron pools, procs, and/or incarnate powers.  It may not sound like much, but depending on power selections there absolutely will be characters who do less from ATs that are considered control and support.

 

Many ATs are better at filling multiple roles than EATs are.  EATs are not special in this regard.

 

It's a conditional reward.  It introduces the possibility of FOMO.  It's a system that imposes extra labels and rules in a game that I feel is better off without them.

 

Having a single CC power does not make one a CC AT. Again, you're overstating the variety of roles an AT can reasonably fill.

You and many others have argued on behalf of some illusionary player who may exclude players based on their roles. But not a single person in this thread had stated they will do that? Are they in the room with us right now? Who is this imaginary person you've made up and are protecting the game from?

[PancakeGnome]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:16 PM, ranagrande said:

You should ditch the role system entirely and give the bonus to any team with at least five different ATs.

Yea, this is a wayyyyy better solution. Asking people to team up with different ATs is a lot different than telling someone what role their character "should be". 

[Clam Leader]

9 hours ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

If the consensus here is that this change will be a negative for the game, we can simply remove the free bonus and drop this feature.

The sense I'm getting from reading feedback is that many feel like any attempts to influence the nature of team assembly is antithetical to the nature of City of Heroes.
 

Fwiw, I was iffy about certain aspects of this feature. After reading explanations I fully support this feature, and if this goes the way of beanbag (with the whiners getting what they want despite it being worse for the community over all) I will be sorely dissapointed.

[Indystruck]

23 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

It won't help new players at all unless the mouse over pop up says "Hey, you could sell this on the player auction house to get a bunch of money to purchase the Single Origin Enhancements that your character needs." And then they'll flood the chat channels and/or forums with tons of "Hey everyone, where's the auction house?", or "Hey everyone, what's a Single Origin Enhancement?"

 

Damn, sounds like it'll facilitate learning important mechanics then, that's a good reason to add it, fair point.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, UltraAlt said:

 

 

Why wouldn't "Controllers" be under the "Control" listing? 

This makes no sense to me.

 

I agree that Corruptors would make more sense to be listed under Support.

 

When you compare Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes, and Tanks, Brutes definitely fall more on the Tank side. I think Brute should be under the Tank listing.

 

As far as the Tanks listing, I would think that a Mastermind deserves to be there more than it does under the Support listing, and moving them would make room for Corruptors under the Support listing.

 

And this is actually one of my larger issues with this. I did not read that chart deep enough. I mean control is in the name of the AT lol

 

I think if multiple ATs could fill multiple roles just like the epic ATs it would solve ONE of the key objections.

[golstat2003]

10 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

 

Damn, sounds like it'll facilitate learning important mechanics then, that's a good reason to add it, fair point.

 

Yes adding the mouse over pop-up to teach new players about what the heck PAPs are would be a good thing. Cause right now it’s not clear at all for new players.

[GM Tock]

And another round of cleanup.  Homecoming GMs thank you kindly for staying on topic in Focused Feedback.  Have a good Monday evening!

[InfamousBrad]

16 hours ago, Cobalt Arachne said:

One role per AT for simplicity & fairness

 

The problem with this is two-fold:

 

* All five of the base CoV archetypes were designed to suck at any one role. Look at the primary/secondary modifiers: all five archetypes have worse primary stats than any COH AT's primary stats, but better secondary stats than any COH AT's secondary stats. They're all innately multi-role. And ...

* CoV was designed specifically to not have any fully-adequate tanks or supporters. None of them have survivability primary powers. None of them have support primary powers.

 

I remember arguing, the whole first year that Masterminds existed that they, not Brutes were the red-side tanks but I was wrong. They're way too squishy against AoEs. But Brutes aren't tanks, either. Their self-defense powerset operates at only 2/3rds of what a Tank's does, and their inherent buffs damage, not survivability.

 

There is literally only one archetype in the whole game that has survivability as their primary, and that's Tankers. There is literally only one archetype in the whole game that has support as their primary, and that's Defenders. Now that I see what you're getting at, you're dragging us back to the bad-old-days pre-issue-5, of people standing around the Hollows yelling "3 dps lf tank and healer."

 

The only way to even vaguely make this work is list every AT with survivability above a certain modifier under tank and every AT with damage above a certain modifier under DPS and every AT with support above a certain modifier under defender. And it's still going to be counter-productive in that it's going to make team formation all that much harder because the reward's too good to risk not getting.

Edited January 23 by InfamousBrad
added clarity to first bullet point

[jkwak]

On 1/21/2024 at 7:00 PM, Lazarillo said:

This is a good point.  Nobody wants to finish recruiting for a TF, have one person go "oops, we need a Controller, brb gonna switch" while 7 other people who really don't care either way about getting one extra Prism just have to sit around waiting.  But I could absolutely see it happening.

this already happens, i lead TF's a lot and i get really annoyed by this, i say "the team composition is great no need to switch" and someone at the last second would go"oh we are missing that role, we need that role" and switches.
i swear when this happens more often due to this update i will just start TFs without those people who decide to switch the moment i m about to start the TF