High level enemy group revamps

[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.

[tidge]

My thoughts keep coming back to:

• The Council, and before them Crey, were pretty unimaginative enemies that rarely provided a challenge.
• Neither the Council nor Crey used even a fraction of the sort of powers/game effects that they should have had access to given the game's Lore.
• Neither the Council nor Crey is particularly out of line with other groups that spawn in the level range 40+
• Neither the Council nor Crey are clones of any other groups that spawn

Every time an enemy shows up using tricks that players have been using to defeat critters, there is going to be some who feel twinges of "but that's not fair!"... but it doesn't mean it isn't fair. If anything those formerly mediocre groups now play like they ought to, given the Lore.

 

If anyone wasn't here for the Fire attacks having a -Def component added to them, and you feel like seeing how arguments about how somebody doesn't listen to me play out I recommend spending some time with the search bar. Spoilers: The game didn't end in a fiery cataclysm.

 

[Infinitum]

I can think of 2 instances where the devs made adjustments to a change - can't remember if it was open or closed beta honestly but they do listen. 

 

1. Tanker changes.  Tests that showed bruising on live actually led to better overall damage than the proposed beta change and they altered the modifier to adjust. 

 

2. The defense type changes - Tests with invul and EnA - that led to those and other armors getting psi and toxic added to various armors including invul and EnA.  It was really rough at first on armors like that - when my tanker was one involved that melted like ice cream on a hot day facing off arachnos - mainly because of toxic - others witness and confirmed and the concerns were voiced - CPH was gracious and added small avenues to resist those exotic damage types in short notice.  He really didn't have to though - but he did listen. 

 

I also altered my builds to incorporate as much toxic as I could squeeze in and started prioritizing those targets.   Which IMO - even though I hated the apparent weakness at first - have come to appreciate the feeling of threat and strategy to overcome it. 

[Eiko-chan]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

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

This has not been true since January 1st, when Homecoming got an official license for the game. They are not "just a private server". And telling people to go play on a different, non-licensed server is not a solution. 

[Ghost]

21 minutes ago, Eiko-chan said:

This has not been true since January 1st, when Homecoming got an official license for the game. They are not "just a private server". And telling people to go play on a different, non-licensed server is not a solution. 

I’m just not sure how true that actually is.

Yes they were given a license to operate a server - but it’s technically still a private server.

They did agree to some things, but still have absolute control over everything.

 

Now, I’m no expert on anything, and may be misinterpreting the whole agreement.

However, what I do know is that they are under no obligation to appease the players.

Companies such as Sony or Blizzard have to make the player base happy or they will lose money and eventually go out of business.

 

 

[Sanguinesun]

19 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I’m just not sure how true that actually is.

Yes they were given a license to operate a server - but it’s technically still a private server.

They did agree to some things, but still have absolute control over everything.

 

Now, I’m no expert on anything, and may be misinterpreting the whole agreement.

However, what I do know is that they are under no obligation to appease the players.

Companies such as Sony or Blizzard have to make the player base happy or they will lose money and eventually go out of business.

 

 

 

1. The current structure of HC relies on volunteer donations as they're only allowed to be a non profit per the conditions of their licensure.  Not saying people would abruptly and long term stop donating of course but it is a similar model of consideration for sustainability you're attempting to counter your "business" example of.

 

2. Licensure also is on certain terms and conditions on how the HC conduct themselves. Failure to do so could result in loss of that licensure as well as stringent cease and desist orders from NCSoft. 

 

 

Not saying again that any of these things would occur.  But making statements that HC is wholly unbeholden or accountable to anyone just isnt accurate.

Edited May 11 by Sanguinesun

[Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Sanguinesun said:

 

  But making statements that HC is wholly unbeholden or accountable to anyone just isnt accurate.

I could be thinking about this all wrong.

But let’s say HC came right out and said “screw all you babies.  Play our way or leave!”, causing everyone to leave.

Wouldn’t it just go back to what it was before?  A small server of a couple hundred players?

It wouldn’t cease to exist, and it’s not like a profitable business would be shutting down.

 

Im not advocating or defending the HC crew.  I’m just trying to understand why players think HC has a responsibility to the players - or maybe they do, and I’m just not understanding (which wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t understand something)

 

[Sanguinesun]

9 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I could be thinking about this all wrong.

But let’s say HC came right out and said “screw all you babies.  Play our way or leave!”, causing everyone to leave.

Wouldn’t it just go back to what it was before?  A small server of a couple hundred players?

It wouldn’t cease to exist, and it’s not like a profitable business would be shutting down.

 

Im not advocating or defending the HC crew.  I’m just trying to understand why players think HC has a responsibility to the players - or maybe they do, and I’m just not understanding (which wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t understand something)

 

 

If that was in part or whole against the agreement with NCSoft or worse that because the licensure ties NCSoft representatively with HC, then you can sure fire bet that NCSoft would have the rights to pull the licensure and as well because they own the IP, tell officially, once and for all HC to cease or face legal issues. Its even possible that the licensure now has liability clauses too. Obviously that's a worst case likely to not happen scenario but the point is again, The license is a contract with NCsoft and again, HC is beholden ultimately unto them. You're thinking the thousands(yes thousands as people play from all over) as being miniscule, but if something occurred that cause PR/optics to paint NCsoft in a bad light due to having given HC the license, I assure you, that license would be pulled immediately.

 

That'd of course probably not prevent them from going (again) underground like they did quietly for years either. 

Edited May 11 by Sanguinesun

[golstat2003]

3 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I could be thinking about this all wrong.

But let’s say HC came right out and said “screw all you babies.  Play our way or leave!”, causing everyone to leave.

Wouldn’t it just go back to what it was before?  A small server of a couple hundred players?

It wouldn’t cease to exist, and it’s not like a profitable business would be shutting down.

 

Im not advocating or defending the HC crew.  I’m just trying to understand why players think HC has a responsibility to the players - or maybe they do, and I’m just not understanding (which wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t understand something)

 

 

Homecoming has an obligation to a limited extent. They survive on donations, even before the license. In the extreme mid they didn’t get enough donations, (aka hypothetical players get angry and 75 to 80 percent of us leave) they might have to take two servers completely offline. Whatever lead to this might  probably lead to them losing the license, which would be insane to think they would want any such thing after spending two years + trying to get the license in the first place.

 

Also not saying anything of the sort would happen. I have not seen any major changes they have done that would lead to the hypothetical above. On the contrary, players seem to general like the direction this server is going. (See the servers being yellow and one red night after night after night). Unless we assume 75 to 80 percent of the player base like to hurt themselves, there must be a reason they keep logging in.

 

On a more philosophical level the HC devs are volunteers who do this because they love the game and the community. So they do indeed make changes when well thought out arguments are made. Some have pointed some out in this thread.

 

Folks just have to realize not every suggestion we make has to be implemented. If they implemented even half of the suggestions in the Suggestions and Feedback forum or that come up during the betas, this game would be a confusing inconsistent mess. Players often make contradicting suggestions at the same time. It’s up to a dev team (paid or not) to be able to discern which mesh with the vision of the game they are shooting for.

[Laucianna]

I mean with all due respect, if you are still levelling your toon and setting what equates to the difficulty (x8) it is going to get harder? The game I believe is intended to be played at +0/x1 as that is default, the option to raise both the team size number and level modifier is there for when the game feels too easy and you want a harder fight, either against tougher mobs (Level increase) or more mobs (Team size).

Sorry if I am reading this wrong but it sounds like you have the difficulty boosted to something you are both not enjoying and struggling with, the game is not meant to be played so easily at +4/x8 that has just sadly become the norm ❤️ 

[Eiko-chan]

1 hour ago, Laucianna said:

Sorry if I am reading this wrong but it sounds like you have the difficulty boosted to something you are both not enjoying and struggling with, the game is not meant to be played so easily at +4/x8 that has just sadly become the norm ❤️ 

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn. This isn't about x8 difficulty. This is about the Council specifically. It may not be easy to notice in spawns that are largely Darkwolves and Vampyri, though. It appears to be related to the Vortex and Galaxy updates.

[Laucianna]

30 minutes ago, Eiko-chan said:

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn. This isn't about x8 difficulty. This is about the Council specifically. It may not be easy to notice in spawns that are largely Darkwolves and Vampyri, though. It appears to be related to the Vortex and Galaxy updates.

I would understand if they were causing you issues at the default difficulty, but you are purposefully buffing them and then having trouble with them are you not?

[Triumphant]

30 minutes ago, Eiko-chan said:

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn. This isn't about x8 difficulty. This is about the Council specifically. It may not be easy to notice in spawns that are largely Darkwolves and Vampyri, though. It appears to be related to the Vortex and Galaxy updates.

Then here's my advice to you.  Learn to enjoy playing at x6, or x4, or adjust your level setting (or both) until play is challenging, but not frustrating for you.  The game has difficulty settings for a reason.  You aren't being forced to play at any particular difficulty level.   I change my # of foes and character level settings frequently, depending on the type of AT I'm running, how well-slotted it is, and the level I'm playing at.  You can too.

[Bionic_Flea]

32 minutes ago, Eiko-chan said:

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn.

 

Oh!  I had a thought.  Load up on some team inspirations and neutralize those Nazis with extreme prejudice!  Some mez resistance and defense and your pets will eat them up!

 

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Eiko-chan said:

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn. This isn't about x8 difficulty. This is about the Council specifically. It may not be easy to notice in spawns that are largely Darkwolves and Vampyri, though. It appears to be related to the Vortex and Galaxy updates.

 

Actually this sounds like an issue with MMs. They are more susceptible to hard and soft controls of all types. Hopefully the devs do something about this eventually. (thought I read something about an eventual MM revamp in the future).

Edited May 11 by golstat2003

[Sanguinesun]

2 hours ago, Eiko-chan said:

You are reading this wrong. I quite enjoy playing at x8. I do not enjoy the Council wiping out my pets with a barrage of AoEs in every spawn. This isn't about x8 difficulty. This is about the Council specifically. It may not be easy to notice in spawns that are largely Darkwolves and Vampyri, though. It appears to be related to the Vortex and Galaxy updates.

 

The Archons when killed will do a aoe damage rez that if you get multiple in the same vicinity rezing(and it does happen commonly, it can near or completely wipe toons.

 

For mm's pets its worse if they're on body guard, and as well if they're con'ing much lower that the mobs themselves as often is the case unfortunately due to mm's pets level down dealio.

Edited May 11 by Sanguinesun