Focused Feedback: Role Diversity Bonus

[Wravis]

On 1/30/2024 at 3:11 PM, Cyclone Jack said:

So a short duration AoE Stun and a moderate duration Cone Stun with a single target Hold and Immobilize is enough for it to fill the Control slot?  While I will agree that it at least has some control, is a Warshade's Control so much better than a Corruptors ability for Support?  Or a Defenders ability for Ranged Damage?  Or an Ice/Ice/Ice Blaster's ability for Control?  Oh, but you say, we're talking about a broad overview of the AT, not individual powers, right?

 

Enter the Fortunata.  If we're talking about a broad overview of the AT, is it OK to give the Widow a Control Role, when only one powerset has any controls?  So if you bring a Night Widow onto the team, a character with literally zero control powers, magically the Control Role is fulfilled?  Literally every other AT has access to more controls than a Night Widow, including a Sentinel, but sure, ya lets call them a Controller, because they are Epic! Must fill 3 roles!!!

 

Heck, the fact that Soldiers and Widows fill the Support Role (and are even listed as Support in Character Creation) boggles my mind, because outside of a debuff or two, the only real support they have is a built in Leadership pool.  If that is what's considered Support, three toggles that are accessible by every character in the game, while Corruptors are not, then there's a fundamental problem with this design.

Widows also have Link Minds which is a group unenhanced 10% Defense, 5% Tohit, 30% Psi Resist Buff. And their Leadership power give nearly twice the Defense % of regular Leadership.

I agree with you on assigning them the control role being stupid. Night Widows don't have a single control power.

[Lines]

Reading a lot of the feedback here, I do find myself agreeing with concerns of how this might make people percieve and behave in the game.

 

Perhaps it might be easier not to try and split hairs and award the bonus for a team of 5 to 8 players with all different archetypes, but not get hung up on the roles.

 

I wonder if 'novel team bonus' might be a more apt name, and throw in a few more bonus combinations like:

- all the same archetype

- all of the classic hero ATs

- all of the classic villain ATs

- all epic archetypes

A few more categories could increase the chance of players walking into a qualifying team without planning it.

[Wavicle]

On 2/1/2024 at 11:17 PM, Lines said:

- all the same archetype

- all of the classic hero ATs

- all of the classic villain ATs

- all epic archetypes

 

Of these 4, only the first isn't already accounted for in the current setup.

The classic 5 combos already work, all epics can work (as long as you have a Soldier, a Widow or Warshade, and at least one Kheldian).

 

All of the same AT is kind of a gimmick that doesn't need to be rewarded by a system of this kind.

 

I still think renaming the last Role to "Support and Pets" might be a good idea.

Edited February 3 by Wavicle

[TheSpiritFox]

The chosen roles are just...bad. There are too many ways to break the mold with too many classes, too many ways to step out of your role into another. 

 

Make it a bonus that starts at 5 different archetypes within the group, and scales up to 8 different archetypes in the entire group. Good bonus at 5 great bonus at 8. Boom done, and instead of "Hey we need this role" itll be "hey we dont have x y and z classes any of those on wanna join?" which is perfect for creating inclusion within the structure of LFG interactions. The classes you need will always be the classes you dont have yet. 

[kenlon]

The suggestion for having the bonus kick in when you have five different ATs on the team has come up repeatedly, and I think it's a good one. 

Devs, is there a technical reason that this wouldn't work? If it's something that would be a giant pain to implement, then I'm not going to keep pushing for it, but otherwise it's really a better way to encourage team variety than requiring certain ATs based on very fuzzy "roles". 

[Wavicle]

4 hours ago, kenlon said:

The suggestion for having the bonus kick in when you have five different ATs on the team has come up repeatedly, and I think it's a good one. 

Devs, is there a technical reason that this wouldn't work? If it's something that would be a giant pain to implement, then I'm not going to keep pushing for it, but otherwise it's really a better way to encourage team variety than requiring certain ATs based on very fuzzy "roles". 

 

It's not a technical reason, the reason is it wouldn't accomplish the goal the devs have.

You could make a team with a Tanker, a Brute, a Stalker, a Sentinel, and a Blaster. That's five ATs but it's not anything like five roles. It's NOT a "balanced" team, which is what they are trying to encourage.

And the roles aren't fuzzy at all. They're very clear.

The ATs with Defense primary, as well as those with AoE Taunt and punchvoke, are Tanks.

 

The ATs with Melee damage primary, but without (or MOSTLY without) AoE Taunt, and without punchvoke, are Melee Damage.

 

The ATs with Ranged damage primary are Ranged damage.

 

The ATs with Control primary, as well as those EATs with specs that heavily feature control, are Control.

The ATs with Support primary, as well as those who support their pets doing most of their damage, are Support.

 

 

Sure, there are individual Power Sets that break these outlines, but generally they make sense. Standard ATs counting for their primary role, and EATs counting for all roles they CAN spec for makes sense. Not everyone likes it, but it makes sense.

As for the EATs: They can each spec one of Three main ways, with of course lots of flexibility for sort of mixing and matching. Arachnos share two roles and split the third, and Kheldians also share two roles but split the third.

 

Kheldians are both Tanks and Ranged damage, using Dwarf or Nova, but if you are a human focused PB you are basically a Blapper (Melee), and if you are a human focused Warshade you are kind of a Blastroller (Control).

 

Arachnos can both spec for Melee or Ranged, or can be focused on their Support powers. Well, a Soldier focused on Support summons pets and then uses their debuffs to help the pets do better damage. A Widow focused on Support is a Fortunata, and therefore goes in Control.

Of course none of this will satisfy those who are determined to hate this feature, but the arguments that the roles don't make sense are ridiculous.

Edited February 6 by Wavicle

[ranagrande]

1 hour ago, kenlon said:

The suggestion for having the bonus kick in when you have five different ATs on the team has come up repeatedly, and I think it's a good one. 

Devs, is there a technical reason that this wouldn't work? If it's something that would be a giant pain to implement, then I'm not going to keep pushing for it, but otherwise it's really a better way to encourage team variety than requiring certain ATs based on very fuzzy "roles". 

It would not be difficult to implement.

 

I would not be opposed the five different ATs idea (I may even have been the first to suggest it) even though I would prefer not to have discriminatory team-building mechanics in the game at all.  It would certainly be better than the proposed Role Diversity Bonus.

[arcane]

1 hour ago, kenlon said:

The suggestion for having the bonus kick in when you have five different ATs on the team has come up repeatedly, and I think it's a good one. 

Devs, is there a technical reason that this wouldn't work? If it's something that would be a giant pain to implement, then I'm not going to keep pushing for it, but otherwise it's really a better way to encourage team variety than requiring certain ATs based on very fuzzy "roles". 

Wavicle hit the nail on the head: a bonus for any 5 AT’s would not be accomplishing the same goal as this bonus. Apples and oranges.

[ranagrande]

Just now, arcane said:

Wavicle hit the nail on the head: a bonus for any 5 AT’s would not be accomplishing the same goal as this bonus. Apples and oranges.

This is true.

 

However, I believe that accomplishing the goal of this bonus would have a detrimental impact on the game.  So replacing it with something that does not achieve that same goal would be much preferred.

[Cyclone Jack]

6 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Of course none of this will satisfy those who are determined to hate this feature, but the arguments that the roles don't make sense are ridiculous.

Hopefully they can pair this with the New Player Experience and remove the ATs from the Playstyles that do not fit these roles.  For example, there's no reason a Defender should be listed under the Ranged Damage playstyle, nor the Brute and Tanker under the Melee Damage playstyle, nor should the Corruptor or Controller be listed under the Support playstyle.  That would just confuse new players.

[The Curator]

We appreciate all the feedback that everyone has provided!
 

The Role Diversity Bonus feature has been superseded as of Issue 27, Page 7, Build 4, please see the patch notes for details.
 

As such, this feedback thread will now be closed.
 

Thanks!