Bring Underperforming Sets Up to Par

[justicebeliever]

PVP CHANGES HAVE NO EFFECT ON PVE ANYMORE IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY SINCE ISSUE 13

 

Open the info on a power and there is a little button there that says "Show pvp effects" or something along those line. These are already rather different in most case in terms of damage and are adjusted without changing anything with the PvE effect. If changes are made assuming you don't look at the "PvP" section of the update you wouldn't even know without stepping into pvp.

 

On the note of "I don't like pvp so the devs shouldn't spend time on it" while I agree it should be on a lower priority due to less players, bringing this argument here is silly. It's like if I went into a thread asking for tank changes and saying "I don't play tank so the devs shouldn't spend time on them" that's just silly. Sure less people play pvp then people who play tanks but it does not really make the point valid.

 

I feel like alot of people just saw the words PvP after opening this thread and decided to use it as a place to vent their decade old gripes with pvp.

 

One time I was in a PVP zone and I got totally ganked by another player and I was so madz that I said a mean thing in the chatter box, and he was like, "No, you didn't", and then he ganked me again, so I hate all PvP and want all arenas burned to the ground.

 

But seriously, you are exactly right.  PvP has it's place in the game and it should get some love every once in a while.  I hear your frustration when people dump all over your ideas when aren't even impacted by them...I really love your attitude about it being a lower priority since it is a small population, but even small player populations should get a few improvements tossed their way as well.

 

+1 Inf...

[barrier]

Personally, I'd rather see the devs disable PVP altogether and repurpose the PVP zones into containing new story arcs and content for level 50 players.

 

Disadvantage: A minority who like to PVP no longer can.

 

Advantage: The majority who don't like to PVP get new content with the devs not needing to create entirely new zones, only new story arcs and mission interiors.

 

PVE'ers are such a-holes.

[barrier]

You are fighting the perception (true or false) among a segment of the player base that CoH suffered some painful balance changes (set wrecking, retire the character balance changes) due to the implementation of PvP.

 

These changes may not actually have been DUE to PvP (the developers of the era said they were not.  Ask a former Regen player about the candor, competence, and character of the developers of the era), but the impression, as a larger number of those balance changes rolled out around the time or soon after PvP hit, is and will remain that PvP balance was the cause.

 

I dare any of these people to come up with an example other than Hurricane early in like i4.

[Coyote]

Personally, I'd rather see the devs disable PVP altogether and repurpose the PVP zones into containing new story arcs and content for level 50 players.

 

Disadvantage: A minority who like to PVP no longer can.

 

Advantage: The majority who don't like to PVP get new content with the devs not needing to create entirely new zones, only new story arcs and mission interiors.

 

/jranger

[vinnie_]

Personally, I'd rather see the devs disable PVP altogether and repurpose the PVP zones into containing new story arcs and content for level 50 players.

 

Disadvantage: A minority who like to PVP no longer can.

 

Advantage: The majority who don't like to PVP get new content with the devs not needing to create entirely new zones, only new story arcs and mission interiors.

 

This is a very mean spirited suggestion.

[@Fiercefield]

PVE'ers are such a-holes.

/jranger

This is a very mean spirited suggestion.

 

This is a list of people who don't get the point of what I wrote.

 

I'll spell it out:

 

Scenario 1: Player A would like the volunteer devs to use their limited free time to cater new features towards their preferred playstyle, which happens to be PVE. - According to responses, this player is a mean-spirited a-hole.

 

Scenario 2: Player B would like the volunteer devs to use their limited free time to cater new features towards their preferred playstyle, which happens to be PVP. - This player is not a mean-spirited a-hole... because...

[justicebeliever]

I'll spell it out:

 

Scenario 1: Player A would like the volunteer devs to use their limited free time to cater new features towards their preferred playstyle, which happens to be PVE. - According to responses, this player is a mean-spirited a-hole.

 

Scenario 2: Player B would like the volunteer devs to use their limited free time to cater new features towards their preferred playstyle, which happens to be PVP. - This player is not a mean-spirited a-hole... because...

 

I'm confused...which player are you?

 

Personally, I'd rather see the devs disable PVP altogether and repurpose the PVP zones into containing new story arcs and content for level 50 players.

 

Disadvantage: A minority who like to PVP no longer can.

 

Advantage: The majority who don't like to PVP get new content with the devs not needing to create entirely new zones, only new story arcs and mission interiors.

 

Because it sounds like you are suggesting player C, who wants to volunteer dev's limited time to intentionally dismantle a system that other players are using?

 

I mean I get not want the Dev's to spend lots of time on PVP (and I think everyone on this thread get's that is the case), but to take time to break something other people are using?  It does sound mean-spirited...

 

 

[Coyote]

Because it sounds like you are suggesting player C, who wants to volunteer dev's limited time to intentionally dismantle a system that other players are using?

 

I mean I get not want the Dev's to spend lots of time on PVP (and I think everyone on this thread get's that is the case), but to take time to break something other people are using?  It does sound mean-spirited...

 

Exactly.

Saying that you're not on board with Devs using their limited time to support something that you don't use? A bit self-centered... after all, I don't play Scrappers, and I'd never think of suggesting that Scrapper improvements are a waste of Dev time. But, still, only self-centered.

 

However, suggesting that you would like Devs to use their limited time in order to REMOVE something that you don't use? Completely mean.

 

Suggesting that this is somehow comparable to someone wanting Devs to use their limited time on PvP? Completely blind.

 

Someone in this thread is not getting something, that's for certain.

[pattycake]

I’d like to see a rebalance for EM, MA, and AM; not just for pvp, but for both. EM not so much just a tad, but MA and AM are pretty underwhelming.

[SwitchFade]

You are fighting the perception (true or false) among a segment of the player base that CoH suffered some painful balance changes (set wrecking, retire the character balance changes) due to the implementation of PvP.

 

These changes may not actually have been DUE to PvP (the developers of the era said they were not.  Ask a former Regen player about the candor, competence, and character of the developers of the era), but the impression, as a larger number of those balance changes rolled out around the time or soon after PvP hit, is and will remain that PvP balance was the cause.

 

I dare any of these people to come up with an example other than Hurricane early in like i4.

 

Travel suppression. Regen. GDN. Diversification.

 

There's a few.

[barrier]

You are fighting the perception (true or false) among a segment of the player base that CoH suffered some painful balance changes (set wrecking, retire the character balance changes) due to the implementation of PvP.

 

These changes may not actually have been DUE to PvP (the developers of the era said they were not.  Ask a former Regen player about the candor, competence, and character of the developers of the era), but the impression, as a larger number of those balance changes rolled out around the time or soon after PvP hit, is and will remain that PvP balance was the cause.

 

I dare any of these people to come up with an example other than Hurricane early in like i4.

 

Travel suppression. Regen. GDN. Diversification.

 

There's a few.

 

Source your travel suppression comment. If it had anything to do with PVP, it would have been removed after i13.

Remember Regins in Hamidon? Yeah. Not a PVP thing. In fact, Instant Healing as a toggle with the old mez system probably was worse than when it became a click. So..

GDN? Source please. Because if it was a PVP Nerf, then it would have been reverted after DR in i13.

Diversification had nothing to do with PVP.

 

You're making things up.

[SwitchFade]

You are fighting the perception (true or false) among a segment of the player base that CoH suffered some painful balance changes (set wrecking, retire the character balance changes) due to the implementation of PvP.

 

These changes may not actually have been DUE to PvP (the developers of the era said they were not.  Ask a former Regen player about the candor, competence, and character of the developers of the era), but the impression, as a larger number of those balance changes rolled out around the time or soon after PvP hit, is and will remain that PvP balance was the cause.

 

I dare any of these people to come up with an example other than Hurricane early in like i4.

 

Travel suppression. Regen. GDN. Diversification.

 

There's a few.

 

Source your travel suppression comment. If it had anything to do with PVP, it would have been removed after i13.

Remember Regins in Hamidon? Yeah. Not a PVE thing. In fact, Instant Healing as a toggle with the old mez system probably was worse than when it become a click. So..

GDN? Source please. Because if it was a PVP Nerf, then it would have been reverted after DR in i13.

Diversification had nothing to do with PVP.

 

You're making things up.

 

I invite you to review the archives, where in the old Dev team discussed travel suppression, how arena highlighted the issues with kiting, and how they enacted travel suppression on ss, leap and flight.

 

They left a loophole, by accident, that you could 6 slot hover, and it would get very near the speed of flight, and circumvent suppression. They then instituted ED. Likewise, the GDN was balanced around PvP also, where defensive sets were extremely potent, as well as when they cut resistance based powers in half.

 

Please realize that these kinds of changes are in alpha and beta testing months to years before they even discuss them, and are connected to many things.

 

PvP absolutely was a very significant reason they instituted travel suppression Ed, the GDN and others.

 

PvP was in development long before issue 13, or even issue 6. PvP was always intended as part of the game. Regen was expressly broken in PvP, as they discussed, and they tried to balance it for that as well. Eventually, they made changes allowing pve and PvP to be drastically different, but in the beginning the "vision" was to change them closely together, because they did not want a player to encounter a dramatic change when moving from over to PvP, as it would be too disruptive. While they were slightly different, the devs were reluctant to make them dramatically different.

 

All there in the old Dev archives, if one can access them.

 

I recall the heated discussions each time a change was made, how players called for them to be completely separate, how Jack remained silent, and eventually was fired.

[marcussmythe]

Regen and Energy Melee are the ones that stick in my head the most - but Travel Power Suppression is also a good one to note.

 

Also note that the old 'Ported to Stalker' sets (notably EM, and I think there was one other from the day) got a 'no full crits from hide' proviso on their attacks.  Later Stalker sets (StJ!, BS) get full value of hide crits on their big hitters - making them rather popular on Stalkers, when the other sets are not going to often see the light of play.  Im sure its POSSIBLE that this wasnt done with PvP balance in mind.

 

That said, new days, new devs.  I dont PvP since forever, but if any sets are underperforming in PvP, and they can be altered only in PvP to make them more attractive to the PvP players, I'm all for it - everyone should get their fun.