High level enemy group revamps

[biostem]

There's also that possible future mission in Ouroboros where we get to play our full-powered Incarnate self...

[Eiko-chan]

9 minutes ago, Krimson said:

That's a fourth wall breaking exception steeped in acrimony. 

In Number Six's arc, the PC single-handedly saves Praetoria and beats back the forces of their insanely-powerful Hamidon. 

In the New Praetorians arc, the PC assaults Striga Island and takes down the entire Council. Again possibly single-handedly. 

 

I was one of the main proponents for solo play on the live servers, and a bunch of us fought like hell to get them to include solo paths for Incarnates. Dark Astoria was coming out when the shut down happened, and that has the PC single-handedly slay a god that was on the very cusp of eating the entire world. 

 

There is absolutely no sane way to argue that the PCs of City of Heroes/Villains are not peers of the Freedom Phalanx and that their power levels are not world-shaking. The stories in the game do not support that idea. 

Edited May 10 by Eiko-chan

[Rudra]

8 minutes ago, Eiko-chan said:

Paragon Studios literally killed off Statesman and then had the player take down the person that did it. Optionally without any assistance. 

Yes, but the person that killed Statesman had to use a ritual that was specifically designed to kill someone with Imperious'/Statesman's incarnate nature. And you don't actually take the person that killed Statesman down alone. You can choose to fight him without direct assistance, but you are getting help. If only from Penelope Yin at the final fight, against a person that has not fully assimilated the powers he was taking yet. And as that person states when you fight him at the ritual where he kills Statesman, he wishes he knew the ritual that killed your incarnate nature too. Because he knew you were going to be able to stop him before he could achieve his full transformation.

[golstat2003]

7 hours ago, tatmia said:

Reading this thread had me pondering about how different servers spawning gave us options.  If you’re not happy with one dev team’s vision, another server might suit you better.   I know people who play on all three just to mix it up.

 

Thunderspy’s philosophy leans heavily into making players want to play the pre-50 levels.

 

Rebirth leans into players earning achievements/unlocks and preventing power creep.  
 

Homecoming leans into trying to bring balance to powersets and NPCs.

 

(*note, these are my personal takes on each dev team’s goals and not based on anything official).

 

I think it’s amazing that we have options and I hope that no matter what server someone plays on, if they get frustrated with the dev decisions, they look for another server that might be a better fit rather than just walking away as has been mentioned by some in this thread.  

 

 

 

Cake / New Dawn is also another out there. What is that one like? Imagine if City of Heroes had gone the CO route to the extreme and then blew past the free form system over there.

 

Add in a mix of various classic ATs (classic as in archetypes of various famous comic book heroes/villans) and you have Cake. Be warned though that it is a very very population light server during the day time (with there often only being max 5-10 people on at a time).

 

Also it has various sandbox aspects. Imagine our test server on all the time

but turned to 11. lol

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

He is actually just a normal man that is quite insane. He has no powers. He's locked away in an institute where he and his fellow delusional patients are (not successfully) being treated.

 

Having not watched or read anything about that character, that sounds absolutely fascinating for a super hero. I will check out his stories now! lol

[golstat2003]

15 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Yes, but the person that killed Statesman had to use a ritual that was specifically designed to kill someone with Imperious'/Statesman's incarnate nature. And you don't actually take the person that killed Statesman down alone. You can choose to fight him without direct assistance, but you are getting help. If only from Penelope Yin at the final fight, against a person that has not fully assimilated the powers he was taking yet. And as that person states when you fight him at the ritual where he kills Statesman, he wishes he knew the ritual that killed your incarnate nature too. Because he knew you were going to be able to stop him before he could achieve his full transformation.

 

Off off off (lol) topic, but wasn’t the whole incarnate backstory something that pissed of a lot of players back in the day?

 

I seem to remember folks not liking the “all powers in the COH universe as somewhat having a mystical origin” background surrounding it.

 

Personally I think the incarnates story is fascinating. Especially in the one mission where we are fully over powered up and Oroborus is pretty much wrecked and Hami is running amoke. Makes one wonder what in the possible future is insane enough that leads to Paragon’s universe ending up like that and your character being that crazy overpowered.

 

Can’t just be Battalion. lol

[Eiko-chan]

2 minutes ago, Krimson said:

You can run those at -1/x1 slotted with Generic IOs.

That does not negate the story being told. 

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

He is actually just a normal man that is quite insane. He has no powers. He's locked away in an institute where he and his fellow delusional patients are (not successfully) being treated.

Isn't that also the same story behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

[tidge]

5 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Isn't that also the same story behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

 

Also Deep Space 9, IIRC.

[SeraphimKensai]

44 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

Also Deep Space 9, IIRC.

Also the film Sucker Punch.

[Ukase]

7 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

That's how resistant the Homecoming devs are to our "Feedback", which they ask for and then mostly ignore.

For the most part, I do believe the HC devs read our posts and take note of certain feedback that's brief and concise, and in some logical order. Which means they probably don't notice mine much. But in all seriousness, I know they have changed their minds about an issue or two I was vehemently against pre-page 4. It was only because I'd joined Cosmic and heard about the proposed changes that I even knew about it.  So, they will listen, and occasionally change course. 

I do think that whomever is influencing the direction of this "ship" is veering off-course. But, I don't know the bearings to get them back on course. Probably not the best analogy. 

My biggest concern with the HC devs is the ones that I'm aware of are not merely competent players. They play at a high level. They have a very solid grasp of game mechanics. 
It's like my experience with advanced lady grey tf. 
My first experience was a total nightmare. I would love to call the leader out, but it really wasn't his fault, because he'd recruited a pug for it. He could have spent more time explaining a few things, sure. 
My next experience was a bit better with a few folks who had done it before, and a few who had not. 
My last experience was the best with folks who normally did 4* and had zero issues carrying me through. Thankfully, I had a much better idea of what to expect and had respec'd specifically for it. 

So, it's my concern that these much better than average players test out these challenging things and don't realize that there's a lot of players who will never be able to figure this stuff out. I guess that's okay. No law says the content has to cater to the lower skill levels. 
I'm just against these upgrades permeating into the content where the folks who struggle with the content on "easy" mode wind up in AE just to have something they can do without getting stunned or smacked around with all of this Freem nonsense. 

It was funny the first time. Now it's annoying. But again, that's just me. I can adjust because I have a fairly good grasp of how to work with mids and builds. Problem is, not everyone has that ability. 

Occasionally, I make time during my longer rowing sessions to consider what might make content more interesting, where tactics and strategy might be implemented, without making things a pain in the butt for a leader to communicate to a league or a team precisely what should or shouldn't be done. It all comes down to lengthy cut scenes which I know nobody wants. 

Remember HC devs. If you're smarter than average, you kind of have to know the next guy you see is probably dumber than average. Try not to assume your players have a clue what mids is, what procs are and how they work, or even what toHit is, in contrast to accuracy. Or even defense debuff resistance. 

It would be great if we could survey every player in Atlas park on every shard right now and see if they know what that stuff is. 

[biostem]

1 hour ago, golstat2003 said:

I seem to remember folks not liking the “all powers in the COH universe as somewhat having a mystical origin” background surrounding it.

I suppose it's a matter of how you interpret the whole Well of the Furies/Pandora's Box thing;  One could interpret it as essentially acting as a muse to inspire those with genius to create their inventions, or maybe to introduce some sort of instability into the genetic codes of lifeforms to permit the kinds of mutations that could grant superpowers, etc...

Edited May 11 by biostem

[Americas Angel]

As someone who helped playtest these changes, I can safely say that testers against these changes were not ignored in closed beta, we were disagreed with. A lot of the concerns brought up in this thread were brought up in closed beta, and were discussed with the devs. That discussion couldn't have happened if we (testers) had been ignored. So it's not fair to accuse the devs of that.

 

I personally am not a fan of making old enemy groups harder. But I understand that's a "taste" thing on my end. CoH, to me, has always been an extremely easy game that granted me, and my roleplaying buddies, the illusion that we were better at it than we were. "Check it out! I can solo +4/8! I'm so OP!" we'd cry. It was a validating superhero power fantasy that played into our delusions. These new changes remove that delusion somewhat. As will future changes to the other level 50 groups, when they're buffed to be as tough as the new Council and CoT.

 

With that said, the new changes are mostly fine on my tanks. I can still roflstomp everything on +4/8. (Less broken ATs might struggle more now, though.) There are only two real areas I have issues:

 

#1 - Council taking longer to kill

This isn't harder, it's just tedious, and mostly just when soloing. I imagine it's here to stay, though as the dev team can use the intangible Fake Nems/Carnies, and self-rezzing Freakshow tanks as precedent for this design. I would counter this by saying that any mobs, new or old, who artificially lengthen fights, are built upon dated time-wasting MMO design principles and should be reworked, not emulated. Take it away from Fake Nems, Carnies, and Freaks. Don't add it to Council.

 

#2 - CoT Boss Nukes & Masterminds

A Mastermind can be "pretty much oneshot" (i.e. when at nearly full health) by the CoT boss nukes. This is just bad game design. I understand Masterminds are going to be looked at soon, and because of this it's considered a non-issue. I understand the devs don't want to limit CoT boss AoE options if future MM updates would make such limits unecessary. But it is nevertheless frustrating that my Mastermind has to avoid CoT until the MM rework.

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, Americas Angel said:

I would counter this by saying that any mobs, new or old, who artificially lengthen fights, are built upon dated time-wasting MMO design principles and should be reworked, not emulated. Take it away from Fake Nems, Carnies, and Freaks. Don't add it to Council.

I would not shed a single tear if they removed the rezzing and intangible/untouchable mobs.  With that in mind, who or what determines what is a "legit" tough enemy vs one that exists solely to waste time?  What your tank can roflstomp solo, my blaster may have a very tough time taking on.  What's the baseline?

[Rudra]

54 minutes ago, Americas Angel said:

#1 - Council taking longer to kill

This isn't harder, it's just tedious, and mostly just when soloing. I imagine it's here to stay, though as the dev team can use the intangible Fake Nems/Carnies, and self-rezzing Freakshow tanks as precedent for this design. I would counter this by saying that any mobs, new or old, who artificially lengthen fights, are built upon dated time-wasting MMO design principles and should be reworked, not emulated. Take it away from Fake Nems, Carnies, and Freaks. Don't add it to Council.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. Yes, Crey Juggernauts popping their force fields are annoying. Fake Nemesi popping their force fields are annoying. MIs and Illusionists going intangible every however many seconds it is is annoying. Freakshow self-rezzing because their chance to do so triggered is annoying. Super Stunners self-rezzing because any ally unit is within however many feet of them is annoying. Paragon Protectors popping old MoG and basically being untouchable until it crashes is annoying. The various AVs/Heroes with their own T9s to save them using them is annoying. However, it makes sense. Each faction has their quirks/abilities that players have to figure out and work around. It is annoying having to wait to be able to defeat an enemy or having to do so twice, or even thrice in the case of a specific Freak Tank who has both the standard Freakshow rez plus the Super Stunner rez, but I personally think that helps balance out the mobs against the players. Otherwise every faction is just a generic group with different names that can just be mowed down without so much as a second thought about what they can do, either to your character or for themselves. It gives the different factions a hook that compels players to figure out or overpower. So it takes a couple seconds longer to clear out spawns. Oh well. I've fought the new Council. Except for the Freem! surprise, they weren't anything different to me. Their explosions can actually do KB now? Okay. Their Galaxies can actually fight with more than one power as far as I could tell they had before? Good. And I'm still mowing down Council without seeing any of them get back up. They try to transform into War Wolves of any tier? They can't if they're dead. (Stopped several conversions by killing them off when they start their transformation animation.) I'm not seeing anything the improved Council do that are any significant problems. (Freem! notwithstanding so far.)

 

Edited May 11 by Rudra
Edited to correct "(" to "9" in "T9s".

[Neiska]

Quite a bit to mentally digest in this thread. And after some reflection, two thoughts to add -

 

1. The first, is that most voices here I believe have played if not this game for a long time, than many games for a long time. And perhaps with the passage of time, that we ourselves have changed just as much as those games have. It's okay to have changes in what you like, enjoy, or find interesting. Thats how we grow as people. Tastes change. It can be argued that not all change is good, but at the same time, more than 1 thing can change as well.

 

2. Regarding the brief point regarding feedback - given the past few years of changes, I steadfastly am convinced that not all voices are equal here. Either intentionally or unintentionally, the game seems to be heading a certain direction despite what we say. Farming gets reduced. Enemies change to be harder, more difficult. Combat mechanics change, to make it harder for certain setups while boosting and propping up others, and more. Now, if these changes are good or bad, that depends entirely on whom you ask and what you use as a measuring stick, so to speak. But one thing I have noticed is that where beta/testing/feedback is concerned, is that it does seem that the powers that be play "favorites" with feedback and changes. And even if it's to the contrary and untrue, it certainly appears otherwise. Taking myself as an example, I only ever took part in one testing period, and found it to be so toxic and unpleasant that I doubt I will ever do so again. It wasn't the change itself that I found so distasteful, rather the discussion that took place. If you were "against" the change, it got quite personal and even insulting in nature. So personal in fact, that a staff member also took part. But not here, but in the Discord. And which I have never received an apology for.

 

So to be blunt, I find the notion that all voices and critiques are considered equal, to be a little insulting. Because they most certainly are not. And for at least a portion of the community, it doesn't matter what we say, (for or against) any particular issue. I believe the majority of feedback is read, by someone, sure. But if it's the right someone or passed onto someone who can actually make a difference one way or another, or if it immediately goes into the trash, we shall never know. 

[biostem]

11 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I find the notion that all voices and critiques are considered equal, to be a little insulting.

You are correct in your estimation, but not for the reasons you think;  If, for instance, you come on the forums to report that "X change is bad", but couldn't be arsed to take part in the beta/testing process to have provided feedback when said change(s) were in the testing phase, then that's on you.  If you cannot/will not provide feedback in a clear and concise manner, backed up with evidence, then that, again, is a shortcoming on your part.  With an online game, change is all but inevitable, so if you, again, aren't willing or able to adapt to said change(s), then once again, that's on you.  Don't get me wrong - it is OK to not like a particular change, but to act like a change was rushed through or otherwise implemented for a malicious reason, is misguided at best, and downright damaging at worst...

[Chris24601]

All I know about difficulty is that I first learned this game back in issue 6 soloing a Blaster through all the Circle, BP, more Circle and then Carnie missions because I was magic origin and thought that’s what I should be trying to fight (and I memorized all the Oranbegan map hostage spawn points in the process). I learned how to solo the Envoy of Shadows with a pre-IO, pre-Defiance revamp (remember the pink bar as your health dropped?) Blaster.

 

The second toon I rolled up and soloed to 50 was an issue 6 era Peacebringer.

 

Everything has been easy mode since then. 😇

[Neiska]

21 minutes ago, biostem said:

You are correct in your estimation, but not for the reasons you think;  If, for instance, you come on the forums to report that "X change is bad", but couldn't be arsed to take part in the beta/testing process to have provided feedback when said change(s) were in the testing phase, then that's on you.  If you cannot/will not provide feedback in a clear and concise manner, backed up with evidence, then that, again, is a shortcoming on your part.  With an online game, change is all but inevitable, so if you, again, aren't willing or able to adapt to said change(s), then once again, that's on you.  Don't get me wrong - it is OK to not like a particular change, but to act like a change was rushed through or otherwise implemented for a malicious reason, is misguided at best, and downright damaging at worst...

 

I agree with the point that critiques and feedback should be clear, and should not only criticize, but also offer possible solutions. I am not against change, I am simply against change for the sake of change, or "favoritism change" - IE the changes that certain (or the same) groups of people want.

 

And I did not insinuate that a change was rushed, or even malicious. I only remarked on my single experience and found it so unprofessional and distasteful that I have yet to partake in another more than 2 years later. If it was up to me, there would be a signup process involved, or some control measure. So the developers would not keep hearing the same opinions from the same people each time there is a beta, but that's just me musing. I don't feel that the dev team is malicious at all, or even the change in question in my example was malicious at all. Only the tone and how the discussion/disagreement about that change itself went, was.

 

Hope that clears things a little.

Edited May 11 by Neiska

[Sanguinesun]

2 hours ago, biostem said:

You are correct in your estimation, but not for the reasons you think;  If, for instance, you come on the forums to report that "X change is bad", but couldn't be arsed to take part in the beta/testing process to have provided feedback when said change(s) were in the testing phase, then that's on you.  If you cannot/will not provide feedback in a clear and concise manner, backed up with evidence, then that, again, is a shortcoming on your part.  With an online game, change is all but inevitable, so if you, again, aren't willing or able to adapt to said change(s), then once again, that's on you.  Don't get me wrong - it is OK to not like a particular change, but to act like a change was rushed through or otherwise implemented for a malicious reason, is misguided at best, and downright damaging at worst...

 

 

Again, this notion that people not doing the beta testing but instead come after its gone live, notice what's transpired and then provide criticism etc are then invalid simply because they didnt beta test and misdirecting blame to them for what was implemented is just silly. 

 

Things can be changed once its gone live.   You know this but seem extremely adamant on shifting the blame to any who didnt beta test and offer feed back.  But lets also remember that even when people have beta tested, it didnt necessarily stop changes that were heavily criticized either.   

 

Again this "you didnt beta test so the changes are your fault" sort of sentiments are just common tactic used over and over again for years on HC to be dismissive and invalidate criticism post release and usually by supporters of those changes.

 

 

 

 

[biostem]

---

Edited May 11 by biostem

[Wobegone]

3 hours ago, Neiska said:

So to be blunt, I find the notion that all voices and critiques are considered equal, to be a little insulting. Because they most certainly are not. And for at least a portion of the community, it doesn't matter what we say, (for or against) any particular issue. I believe the majority of feedback is read, by someone, sure. But if it's the right someone or passed onto someone who can actually make a difference one way or another, or if it immediately goes into the trash, we shall never know. 

 

The open Beta Feedback threads show just the opposite.  The Devs not only listened, but frequently responded directly.  They listened.  Then decided.  Any decision will have some who are happy, some who are not.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Neiska said:

I am not against change, I am simply against change for the sake of change, or "favoritism change" - IE the changes that certain (or the same) groups of people want.

 

I think there is some truth to this with Hardmodes.  But what if the Devs already wanted Hardmode?  Easy decision.  As for the rest of the changes, they clearly have a vision for what they want their game to look like.  So far, I've been happy with most of the changes.  Hell, my only complaints are quibbles.  I'm sorry you don't like the direction the game is going.  

 

 

[golstat2003]

Whether during beta or after something goes live folks can give feedback and there are avenues for that.

 

It does not at all mean the devs have to change anything.

 

EDIT: There have been numerous changes made that I simply do not like (even more currencies, some of the changes made to original groups, some of the armor type changes and the changes to how Emps could be converted).

 

And there have been some I love: like getting some powers earlier.

 

Not every change, every player will like. And that was true on live also. That is fine. In an mmo it is not possible to please 100 % of the players 100 % of the time.

Edited May 11 by golstat2003

[Ghost]

Maybe I’m wrong - but I thought beta testing was supposed to be about finding issues before going live.

Not about offering opinions or pushback about the upcoming changes.

 

Just remember, we are playing in someone else’s sandbox.  They have a vision for the game, and have every right to implement that vision.

This isn’t a publicly traded company that has to appease shareholders, nor is it a for profit that has to do whatever they can to make the customers happy.

Like it or not, it is still just a private server that has allowed us all access to play along.

 

[Neiska]

6 hours ago, Ignatz the Insane said:

 

The open Beta Feedback threads show just the opposite.  The Devs not only listened, but frequently responded directly.  They listened.  Then decided.  Any decision will have some who are happy, some who are not.  

 

 

I respectfully disagree. They listened, "to some." And often, those "some" are the same people listened to, on other various changes.

 

I respect your opinion. I just disagree with it.