High level enemy group revamps

[tidge]

Perhaps what dear @Shin Magmus is trying to say is more like this:

 

"Because of various combat effects, including player RNG rolls resulting in MISS with a single-target attack/control that would have otherwise kept a specific Carnie from phasing, fights with large Carnie spawns feel peculiarly random in ways that fights with other similarly sized spawns do not."

 

Maybe It was in reference to whether or not the enemy Illusionists phase before the player fires off an AoE against their spawn? Both are more annoying than any trick played by nuCouncil.

 

We've all experience an RNG-cursed miss after a Build-Up/Assassin's Strike... but I think all the times I've missed with any attack/control against a phasing Carnie that if it had hit would have either face-planted them or held them, and I don't feel at all bad about those missed AS.

[Warboss]

I don't care for the changes, but you can mitigate them by building with certain sets. What I don't understand is "why"? If you can offset the issue with a base buff or change your build (which I don't like because it limits build options), and I doubt this slows teams down that were running Council only mission, was the change worth it? I mean, did anyone really brag about having an amped out build that could defeat Council? If so, did anyone really take that seriously? The change just makes the group a pain, and didn't really move the game forward. I would have rathered the dev time being spent on something else, new content, new costume pieces, new groups, pretty much anything... So, did it really solve the problem? If the rez'd boss/Lts (or whoever can rez) grant additional xp and inf... then, ummm... did it work?

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, Warboss said:

I don't care for the changes, but you can mitigate them by building with certain sets. What I don't understand is "why"? If you can offset the issue with a base buff or change your build (which I don't like because it limits build options), and I doubt this slows teams down that were running Council only mission, was the change worth it? I mean, did anyone really brag about having an amped out build that could defeat Council? If so, did anyone really take that seriously? The change just makes the group a pain, and didn't really move the game forward. I would have rathered the dev time being spent on something else, new content, new costume pieces, new groups, pretty much anything... So, did it really solve the problem? If the rez'd boss/Lts (or whoever can rez) grant additional xp and inf... then, ummm... did it work?

The Council are now more in line with the other factions, making them less a pushover group, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes, it worked". Because now players are considering base buffs and actually employing strategy even if only to prioritize targets or maintain sufficient distance from downed mobs.

 

(Edit: Yes, soon the Council will become routine again to everyone and players will resume just steamrolling them without a care outside of the random FREEM!, but at least for now, players are being a little more observant or careful or tactical or making teams for them or otherwise at least not just laughing at the high level mobs that are still fighting them like they are low to mid level heroes/villains.)

 

Edit again: And yes, the rezzed Council give their xp/inf' rewards upon their defeat again just like every other rezzed enemy.

 

Edited June 30 by Rudra

[Warboss]

46 minutes ago, Rudra said:

The Council are now more in line with the other factions, making them less a pushover group, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes, it worked". Because now players are considering base buffs and actually employing strategy even if only to prioritize targets or maintain sufficient distance from downed mobs.

 

(Edit: Yes, soon the Council will become routine again to everyone and players will resume just steamrolling them without a care outside of the random FREEM!, but at least for now, players are being a little more observant or careful or tactical or making teams for them or otherwise at least not just laughing at the high level mobs that are still fighting them like they are low to mid level heroes/villains.)

 

Edit again: And yes, the rezzed Council give their xp/inf' rewards upon their defeat again just like every other rezzed enemy.

 

 

I'll take your word for it, but based on what little testing I've done (I don't have a lot of free time these days), I don't think the change/bad will was worth the cost of a developer's time. As you state, they will become routine again. Base on other aspects of the game that are "farmable", I have a hard time understanding why these changes were needed. One other thing I forgot to mention is that these changes disproportionately affect Resistance sets vs Defensive sets (for armors, I would image it's the same for other power sets as well). With Dark Armor and Fire Armor taking the major hit as they have no to little KB protection to start (FA now haw a whopping 1 KB from Temp Protection now). While at the same time, the recent buffs/changes to Invuln and Stone move them to the S+ tier (arguably to the S++ as they were already pretty awesome to start) as the KB doesn't affect them due to the KB Resistance the sets have (10,000 mag (?), sorry don't recall the exact number/increment). Seems like the other Armor sets should get some level of the Resistance as well, or have there base level raised so you don't have to commit extra slots to more KB protection. Overall it seems like this was rushed, and not fully tested. As I stated before, did anyone really care that players were enjoying the game running Council. After all, there are other ways to do basically the same thing.

 

 

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, Warboss said:

 

I'll take your word for it, but based on what little testing I've done (I don't have a lot of free time these days), I don't think the change/bad will was worth the cost of a developer's time.

Except the developers already did it. They chose to do it and they did it. So the devs decided it was worth their time. Who are we to second guess if someone else thinks something is worth their time to do after they have already done it?

 

Edited June 30 by Rudra
Edited to contract quote.

[Akisan]

Having actually had more time to solo a few of the upgraded Council and CoT - the new versions of these groups are more fun to play.  I actually have to prioritize targets against the Council now (including tossing a Hold on every non-wolf Lt./Boss before they reach critical HP), and the CoT has more variety now, so they're less of a boring slog to wade through. 

 

My only complaint about the groups so far is the "Freem!" mechanic.  I very deliberately put my main up to 13 pts. KB protection so I wouldn't be tossed around - and that's much less about the "unable to act" portion (Stuns/Sleeps do that just fine, thanks), but really about how jarring it is (as a player) to be suddenly sent flying.  Having random 20 pt. KBs throwing me around is not fun to play against.

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Akisan said:

Having actually had more time to solo a few of the upgraded Council and CoT - the new versions of these groups are more fun to play.  I actually have to prioritize targets against the Council now (including tossing a Hold on every non-wolf Lt./Boss before they reach critical HP), and the CoT has more variety now, so they're less of a boring slog to wade through. 

 

My only complaint about the groups so far is the "Freem!" mechanic.  I very deliberately put my main up to 13 pts. KB protection so I wouldn't be tossed around - and that's much less about the "unable to act" portion (Stuns/Sleeps do that just fine, thanks), but really about how jarring it is (as a player) to be suddenly sent flying.  Having random 20 pt. KBs throwing me around is not fun to play against.

Freem! definitely needs to be toned back. I wholeheartedly agree with your description including that.

[Warboss]

3 hours ago, Rudra said:

Except the developers already did it. They chose to do it and they did it. So the devs decided it was worth their time. Who are we to second guess if someone else thinks something is worth their time to do after they have already done it?

 

 

I'm trying to get my head around this. If I understand what you're saying, because they did it, it was the correct thing to do? Or, because they did it, it was just worth their time? I'd like to point out that just because you do something, doesn't make it right (and perhaps, not worth your time). As I've already said, the change disproportionately effects certain sets over others. Based on that alone, if that it was known, and the change was done anyway, it would imply that their intent was to impact those sets. Does that seem like a well thought out change? Really? Impact all set but the top tier ones? Seems like set choices to use when running said content just got trimmed down.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Warboss said:

 

I'm trying to get my head around this. If I understand what you're saying, because they did it, it was the correct thing to do? Or, because they did it, it was just worth their time?

No, I'm saying because the devs already did it, there is no point to arguing about whether it was worth their time or not. The devs that already made these changes and had them implemented decided the change was worth their time. So we as the players of the game do not get to say it was not worth their time because they obviously thought it was for having done so. So if you want a change rolled back or changed to something else, find a different argument other than what the devs chose to do was not worth their time, because you do not get to decide what another person thinks is or is not worth their time, especially after they already showed they felt it was for having already done it.

 

(Edit: So to simplify my response, no for the 1st question and yes for the 2nd question.)

 

Edit again: You know what would make something a dev spent time making for the game a waste of their time? Telling them to remove it afterwards. If they remove something from the game after they have already spent the time developing it, testing it, and then implementing it, then all that time spent developing, testing, and implementing whatever it was is very much wasted for having to be removed. So you are asking the devs to have wasted their time when you ask them to undo something because you as a player of the game they are maintaining decided you think it was a waste of time. So if you want something changed or undone? You need a different argument than what is or is not a waste of time for them.

 

Edited June 30 by Rudra
Edited to correct "the" to "them".

[Sanguinesun]

On 7/1/2024 at 7:47 AM, Rudra said:

No, I'm saying because the devs already did it, there is no point to arguing about whether it was worth their time or not. The devs that already made these changes and had them implemented decided the change was worth their time. So we as the players of the game do not get to say it was not worth their time because they obviously thought it was for having done so. So if you want a change rolled back or changed to something else, find a different argument other than what the devs chose to do was not worth their time, because you do not get to decide what another person thinks is or is not worth their time, especially after they already showed they felt it was for having already done it.

 

(Edit: So to simplify my response, no for the 1st question and yes for the 2nd question.)

 

Edit again: You know what would make something a dev spent time making for the game a waste of their time? Telling them to remove it afterwards. If they remove something from the game after they have already spent the time developing it, testing it, and then implementing it, then all that time spent developing, testing, and implementing whatever it was is very much wasted for having to be removed. So you are asking the devs to have wasted their time when you ask them to undo something because you as a player of the game they are maintaining decided you think it was a waste of time. So if you want something changed or undone? You need a different argument than what is or is not a waste of time for them.

 

 

No right way to inanely defend the wrong thing.

[Rudra]

12 minutes ago, Sanguinesun said:

On 6/30/2024 at 4:47 PM, Rudra said:

No, I'm saying because the devs already did it, there is no point to arguing about whether it was worth their time or not. The devs that already made these changes and had them implemented decided the change was worth their time. So we as the players of the game do not get to say it was not worth their time because they obviously thought it was for having done so. So if you want a change rolled back or changed to something else, find a different argument other than what the devs chose to do was not worth their time, because you do not get to decide what another person thinks is or is not worth their time, especially after they already showed they felt it was for having already done it.

 

(Edit: So to simplify my response, no for the 1st question and yes for the 2nd question.)

 

Edit again: You know what would make something a dev spent time making for the game a waste of their time? Telling them to remove it afterwards. If they remove something from the game after they have already spent the time developing it, testing it, and then implementing it, then all that time spent developing, testing, and implementing whatever it was is very much wasted for having to be removed. So you are asking the devs to have wasted their time when you ask them to undo something because you as a player of the game they are maintaining decided you think it was a waste of time. So if you want something changed or undone? You need a different argument than what is or is not a waste of time for them.

 

Expand  

 

No right way to inanely defend the wrong thing.

There are no grounds upon which a person can tell a volunteer that chose to do something that the said volunteer had an interest in, that doing so is a waste of time. Especially after said person has already done so. If you don't like a change, give a valid argument as to why that change should be undone. Because "You did this, and I want it rolled back. Your efforts in making this change were a waste of time." goes well beyond inane or asinine or whatever other word for foolish you choose to use.

[Sanguinesun]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:48 AM, Rudra said:

There are no grounds upon which a person can tell a volunteer that chose to do something that the said volunteer had an interest in, that doing so is a waste of time. Especially after said person has already done so. If you don't like a change, give a valid argument as to why that change should be undone. Because "You did this, and I want it rolled back. Your efforts in making this change were a waste of time." goes well beyond inane or asinine or whatever other word for foolish you choose to use.

 

And still no right way to defend the wrong there going on there.

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Sanguinesun said:

 

And still no right way to defend the wrong there going on there.

Then tell the devs why you think it was wrong. Don't say "This is a waste of time to do, so you should undo it", because first it has already been implemented, and second the dev obviously thought it wasn't a waste of his/her/their time to work on and implement. Tell the dev "Hey, I don't think this was a good change because...".

[Sanguinesun]

3 hours ago, Rudra said:

Then tell the devs why you think it was wrong. Don't say "This is a waste of time to do, so you should undo it", because first it has already been implemented, and second the dev obviously thought it wasn't a waste of his/her/their time to work on and implement. Tell the dev "Hey, I don't think this was a good change because...".

 

 

Guess what I'm going to state?  Yep, still again no right way to defend the wrong thing.  

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

Can we disagree without being disagreeable?

 

If not, can we agree to disagree and move on?

 

Please?

 

Thank you.

[Warboss]

On 8/6/2024 at 3:48 PM, Rudra said:

There are no grounds upon which a person can tell a volunteer that chose to do something that the said volunteer had an interest in, that doing so is a waste of time. Especially after said person has already done so. If you don't like a change, give a valid argument as to why that change should be undone. Because "You did this, and I want it rolled back. Your efforts in making this change were a waste of time." goes well beyond inane or asinine or whatever other word for foolish you choose to use.

 

Actually I did, on several threads and sent comments as well. Unfortunately with life you don't always have time to visit the test server. That doesn't mean feedback after a rollout is wrong. The Devs should be will to reevaluate the change and community response based on feedback provided at several different points in the rollout. For many players, myself included, it was the first time I encountered them. As the game is community supported, you have the right to provided feedback at any timen.  As I recall "Freem" wasn't extremely popular in the original game when it was initially tested/rolled out (April 1st or such iirc), so I'm a bit surprised it got pushed through here.

[golstat2003]

6 minutes ago, Warboss said:

 

Actually I did, on several threads and sent comments as well. Unfortunately with life you don't always have time to visit the test server. That doesn't mean feedback after a rollout is wrong. The Devs should be will to reevaluate the change and community response based on feedback provided at several different points in the rollout. For many players, myself included, it was the first time I encountered them. As the game is community supported, you have the right to provided feedback at any timen.  As I recall "Freem" wasn't extremely popular in the original game when it was initially tested/rolled out (April 1st or such iirc), so I'm a bit surprised it got pushed through here.

 

You can give feedback at any time you wish. Doens't mean they have to take that feedback.

 

I too wish they focused less on enemy revamps, but it is what it is.

 

However, I don't find the updates that bad on teams. Nearly every revamped group still gets curb stomped on level 50+ teams I've been on.

[Rudra]

8 minutes ago, Warboss said:

On 8/6/2024 at 4:48 PM, Rudra said:

There are no grounds upon which a person can tell a volunteer that chose to do something that the said volunteer had an interest in, that doing so is a waste of time. Especially after said person has already done so. If you don't like a change, give a valid argument as to why that change should be undone. Because "You did this, and I want it rolled back. Your efforts in making this change were a waste of time." goes well beyond inane or asinine or whatever other word for foolish you choose to use.

 

Actually I did, on several threads and sent comments as well. Unfortunately with life you don't always have time to visit the test server. That doesn't mean feedback after a rollout is wrong. The Devs should be will to reevaluate the change and community response based on feedback provided at several different points in the rollout. For many players, myself included, it was the first time I encountered them. As the game is community supported, you have the right to provided feedback at any timen.  As I recall "Freem" wasn't extremely popular in the original game when it was initially tested/rolled out (April 1st or such iirc), so I'm a bit surprised it got pushed through here.

You can give all the feedback you want. This forum is all about giving the devs feedback on things they implemented and on suggestions you would like them to consider. I am not saying to not give feedback. What I am saying is that none of us have any grounds to tell a dev (s)he/they is wasting their time on something. Especially to tell the dev (s)he/they is wasting their time on something after they have finished. If you don't like a change? Then say so. Give what it is you don't like about the change. Give your feedback, Telling a dev (s)he/they is/are wasting their time working on something (s)he/they already finished and implemented isn't giving feedback on said change though.

[Bionic_Flea]

9 hours ago, Rudra said:

You can give all the feedback you want. This forum is all about giving the devs feedback on things they implemented and on suggestions you would like them to consider. I am not saying to not give feedback. What I am saying is that none of us have any grounds to tell a dev (s)he/they is wasting their time on something. Especially to tell the dev (s)he/they is wasting their time on something after they have finished. If you don't like a change? Then say so. Give what it is you don't like about the change. Give your feedback, Telling a dev (s)he/they is/are wasting their time working on something (s)he/they already finished and implemented isn't giving feedback on said change though.

 

Can I give you the feedback that you are wasting your time providing this feedback to Warboss' feedback, even though you have already given your feedback to his feedback?

[Glacier Peak]

I'd like to jump in here and give unsolicited feedback on the feedback that is being fed back or back fed. 17 pages in a suggestion and feedback thread without lock is pretty impressive, well done.

[seebs]

On 6/6/2024 at 6:24 AM, CrusaderDroid said:

About one hour, tops.

 

Programming being time intensive? Sure. I can believe that. The basic design groundwork being time intensive? Only if you're so unpracticed that it takes you days to think of one power.

 

Ideas are not a big deal. I don't know the power team myself, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the coding with a janky system that holds up anything, instead of the frankly insulting implication that they are somehow unable to generate ideas.

Generating ideas is easy. Generating ideas that actually work well is not.

[Rudra]

5 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

 

Can I give you the feedback that you are wasting your time providing this feedback to Warboss' feedback, even though you have already given your feedback to his feedback?

Sure.

[golstat2003]

Yo dawg I heard you like some feedback with your feedback, while offering feedback to the feedback that came in about the feedback.