High level enemy group revamps

[KaizenSoze]

On 5/15/2024 at 5:49 PM, Shin Magmus said:

     K.  Well just so you know, the frequency of changes based on player feedback during open Beta periods and leading up to patch releases, is about 100x greater than the frequency of changes based on player feedback at any other time.  I'm sorry that you personally were very late to the party, but I'm just letting you know to temper your expectations and expect literally nothing to be done to the Council in the future.  I'd be shocked if they rolled back or nerfed any of the stuff they did to Council or CoT after sitting on the changes for this long.

 When folks say Council and CoT are too hard now. Oh sweet summer child. You should have seen the first couple of iterations.

 

CoT could spawn 4 mages in a single group. And usually they were all different types. Earthquake, Tar Patch, healing, mezes, and four different damage typed nukes.

 

I got two shotted on my fully built Bane at 1x8 due to rapid recharging Bane and Night Widow LTs placate/crit hit powers

 

As Shin says, the devs do listen.

[Warboss]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:23 PM, KaizenSoze said:

As Shin says, the devs do listen

 

Not based off the feedback I just received. It seemed tone deaf and displayed a lack of understanding of game mechanics. I think we're stuck with the changes. I don't like them as they seem to impact Resistance based sets more than the Defense based ones.

 

I'd like to add that not every enemy group needs to be "A" tiered (or above). Having enemy difficulty diversity allows for players to advance in the game at their own speed. Upping difficulty of all the enemy groups limits the enjoyment of people casually playing, or just getting into the game. Also "more debuffing" is a pretty bad way to "balance" a game. From what I can tell, the only way to make your voice/option heard is "vote" with your donations...

[Laucianna]

9 hours ago, Warboss said:

 

Not based off the feedback I just received. It seemed tone deaf and displayed a lack of understanding of game mechanics. I think we're stuck with the changes. I don't like them as they seem to impact Resistance based sets more than the Defense based ones.

 

I'd like to add that not every enemy group needs to be "A" tiered (or above). Having enemy difficulty diversity allows for players to advance in the game at their own speed. Upping difficulty of all the enemy groups limits the enjoyment of people casually playing, or just getting into the game. Also "more debuffing" is a pretty bad way to "balance" a game. From what I can tell, the only way to make your voice/option heard is "vote" with your donations...

As mentioned multiple times in the thread, you can lower the difficulty down so you are fighting at the level suited for you and your current character, if your settings are any more then +0/x1 then you have actively chosen to make the game harder, not the devs or anyone else ❤️

Also the whole "vote with your donations" thing is utter nonsense, anyone can join the beta and voice their opinion, there are no paywalls in any part of Homecoming.

[Glacier Peak]

13 hours ago, Warboss said:

From what I can tell, the only way to make your voice/option heard is "vote" with your donations...

That's a terrible thing to imply without any evidence. Can you share how you came to this conclusion - particularly without being a member of the Homecoming Team?

[Shin Magmus]

Who am I?

[Shin Magmus]

Y'know... when I make a personal attack against another poster: I'm subject to immediate retaliation.  Ghost, PeregrineFalcon... an escalating series of personal attacks against each other does literally nothing but summon @GM_GooglyMoogly to delete your comments and tell everyone to "Be Excellent To Eachother".  I've used pattern recognition over the past few months and learned a few things.  You guys have fun.

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 minute ago, Shin Magmus said:

Y'know... when I make a personal attack against another poster: I'm subject to immediate retaliation.

You and me both, and I have the Warning Points to prove it. It sure is a good thing that I've been careful to not make any personal attacks.

 

But hey, you feel free to report my posts. It's ok. I'm used to it.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

What the heck is going on?

 

Oh.  I see now.

 

Quote

an escalating series of personal attacks against each other does literally nothing but summon @GM_GooglyMoogly to delete your comments and tell everyone to "Be Excellent To Each Other"

 

You know me so well.  B.E.T.E.O.

Edited May 22 by GM_GooglyMoogly

[ZacKing]

16 hours ago, Warboss said:

I'd like to add that not every enemy group needs to be "A" tiered (or above). Having enemy difficulty diversity allows for players to advance in the game at their own speed. Upping difficulty of all the enemy groups limits the enjoyment of people casually playing, or just getting into the game. Also "more debuffing" is a pretty bad way to "balance" a game.

 

I very much agree with this, especially the first sentence.  The direction of content being driven by a very select few seems to be inching more and more toward the WoW model where every team is a must-have tank/heal/support/damage teams to do anything.  Not every player is following the latest meta to build purple IOed out to the gills characters with every last drop of resist/defense/DPS squeezed out of it.  I can confidently say this because I team with a lot of random folks on PUGs and can see the lack of set bonuses on their characters. 

 

I'll also echo the sentiment that feedback is taken into consideration, but it does seem very, very, very heavily slanted toward feedback that's praising changes.  More often than not, feedback that runs counter are shouted down and/or hidden from view.  It's HC's server so they can do whatever they want, just providing an honest opinion on that. 

[Shin Magmus]

I believe the topic was supposed to be something along the lines of how enemy groups getting revamped was handled?  Are they too hard now, when and how does OP give feedback on how they dislike NuCouncil and such?  I think the feedback is historically most likely to cause changes during the Closed/Open Beta test periods.  I think that's a good thing to talk about.

[PeregrineFalcon]

6 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

What the heck is going on?

You switched from your normal account to your GM account and then deleted a bunch of posts that weren't violating any of the rules.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

That's funny.  I seem to recall that you correctly identified at least one of the posts as an ad hominem.  There were, in fact, several.

 

Who am I?

[PeregrineFalcon]

Just now, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

That's funny.  I seem to recall that you correctly identified at least one of the posts as an ad hominem.  There were, in fact, several.

An Ad Hominem is a Logical Fallacy. "I don't know who you are therefore I don't believe what you're saying is true" is NOT a personal attack.

 

If Logical Fallacies were against the rules you'd have to shut this forum down permanently.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

From your link:  "Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments."

 

Objection overruled, counselor.  Move on.

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

From your link:  "Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments."

 

Telling someone you don't know and have no experience in dealing with that you don't believe what they're saying isn't necessarily a personal insult or character assassination, which is what an ad hominem is.  It's being prudent in not taking the word of a stranger as fact.

 

"Trust, but verify."

[Eiko-chan]

7 hours ago, Shin Magmus said:

I believe the topic was supposed to be something along the lines of how enemy groups getting revamped was handled?  Are they too hard now, when and how does OP give feedback on how they dislike NuCouncil and such?  

That was my post in the General forum. My post in Feedback was a much clearer "this is bad and should be changed" post, but is now buried on page 2 or 3 because a GM merged the threads together for some reason that is still unclear to me. 

[Shin Magmus]

4 hours ago, Eiko-chan said:

That was my post in the General forum. My post in Feedback was a much clearer "this is bad and should be changed" post, but is now buried on page 2 or 3 because a GM merged the threads together for some reason that is still unclear to me. 

I 100% can't help you there.  The actions of the GM are mysterious; scientists debate the role GMs have in the ecosystem to this day.

[Ignatz the Insane]

3 hours ago, Shin Magmus said:

I 100% can't help you there.  The actions of the GM are mysterious; scientists debate the role GMs have in the ecosystem to this day.

 

Sadly, the GMs are human, with the same flaws and virtues as other humans.  Fortunately, the GMs for Homecoming are more virtuous than flawed.  Or so I believe.  

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

10 hours ago, Eiko-chan said:

That was my post in the General forum. My post in Feedback was a much clearer "this is bad and should be changed" post, but is now buried on page 2 or 3 because a GM merged the threads together for some reason that is still unclear to me. 

 

You had started two threads with similar, some might say identical, topics.  Both threads were getting responses from players.  So it seemed sensible to merge them so that all the commentary on the topic was on one page.

 

I did, however, mess up when I merged them into General instead of Suggestions and Feedback.  I apologized then for that error and do so again --  Sorry.

[Ruin Mage]

17 hours ago, ZacKing said:

 

I very much agree with this, especially the first sentence.  The direction of content being driven by a very select few seems to be inching more and more toward the WoW model where every team is a must-have tank/heal/support/damage teams to do anything.  Not every player is following the latest meta to build purple IOed out to the gills characters with every last drop of resist/defense/DPS squeezed out of it.  I can confidently say this because I team with a lot of random folks on PUGs and can see the lack of set bonuses on their characters. 

 

I'll also echo the sentiment that feedback is taken into consideration, but it does seem very, very, very heavily slanted toward feedback that's praising changes.  More often than not, feedback that runs counter are shouted down and/or hidden from view.  It's HC's server so they can do whatever they want, just providing an honest opinion on that. 

I have a few things to say about this as one of the beta testers of ye olde pages.

The game's health is very very important for a server to add content. New arcs, new enemy types, upgraded groups - everything needs to be able to evolve and change on the whims of the developers. Why? Because at the end of the day, what we get comes down to what they want to work on. Occasionally it overlaps quite well into what people have asked for--just not usually exactly how it was asked for. If HC's whole idea was to remain stale and set in i23/i24 era gameplay? Sure, we wouldn't have half the stuff we have now.

I must absolutely refute your statement about where content is heading. If you want to be optimal in +4/x8 content or Hard Mode Content? Absolutely. However, there is very little evidence to support that we're heading towards a "WoW model" - that's just a general MMO model. There's also a very big hurdle to content in general at some point in the form of Incarnate Powers - which can homogenize things a little too much. Having a support on the team (for task forces/strike forces/trials/raids) should absolutely be pushed, because we have 4 archetypes that have access to that sort of playstyle. Defenders, Corruptors, Controllers, and Masterminds in particular. However, AT balance is a whole other can of worms.

Yes, certain groups have been made a little more tedious or tougher. This is necessary for the game to grow and for the game to be healthy. Easy groups should not exist past level 40--anything before hand is...eh. I personally believe that groups should start coming into 'using your brain' levels around level 40. Others can and will disagree. Obviously, some of that may fall through the cracks or trickle down too far into lower levels.

On feedback getting hidden, there's a few major problems that people fall into (myself included in the past) with feedback. They do not provide data, they attack other's feedback, or they simply say "This change is shit" but do not explain why. None of those three things help the developers nor do they help the Focused Feedback threads at all. This happens every time there are open beta cycles. People need to get better at the feedback they provide. In this case there is a right way to give feedback and a wrong way. It is this fact that tends to get put aside. Reacting to patch notes alone does not tell the developers much, or so I am inclined to believe based on previous pages.

Now, some feedback has worked to get a change walked back. Other times, the feedback is used to dial things up or down. It's not ALL feedback, but it has happened in the past. It can happen in the future if people are better about their feedback. Not all feedback is good or useful and that needs to be accepted. On the flip side it can be annoying to see primarily praise in a feedback thread--from a player's perspective at least.

There are changes that people did not like that, unfortunately for them, had to go through for COH to grow. Fly Change, Defense Type Change, AE changes, and enemy group changes (COT/Council primarily right now). On the flip side, there have been very questionable changes that have gone through (Beanbag in AR had some diehard defenders for some odd reason, personally speaking) - though they usually also came interconnected with fixing/buffing/changing things for the better.

The direction of content is primarily driven by the developers as far as I am aware. We've gotten new arcs at mid level. We've gotten a whole new set of contacts on Striga. Those things don't follow the 'WoW Model' as you think. Now Hard Mode can be done without a effective team. It has been 4-manned if not 3-manned before. I've had less-than-stellar teams go through the 4-Star ASF with trouble, but we've done it. At least that is my personal experience with it.

Now, I'd be more inclined to agree if the Hard Mode approach was being widespread. Two groups and a set of level 50+ content do not...affect the whole game yet. Yet being the key word there--I could very well be wrong next page or next issue! However, for the time being? The doomsaying? around where content is heading is a touch silly if not out of place. It's harmful at worst.

In summary: I disagree with what you're saying, but we've also had very different experiences & have different views.

Also, to see "vote with your donations" pop up in a thread has made me laugh way too hard at this hour. Thank you for the laugh, Warboss.

Edited May 23 by Ruin Mage

[shortguy on indom]

so, it seems.

[Excraft]

55 minutes ago, Ruin Mage said:

Now Hard Mode can be done without a effective team. It has been 4-manned if not 3-manned before.

 

Sure, by a very, very select few extreme edge cases.  Based on what I see and the PUG teams I run on daily, the absolute overwhelming majority of players aren't anywhere near that level.  Not even close.  Content should never be balanced for what a tiny minority of players are capable of doing in my opinion.  That's a bad design philosophy.  You're just making things more tedious and annoying for the majority of your playerbase.  What you're essentially arguing here is the old "I have a sandwich, so you can't be hungry" defense.  

 

55 minutes ago, Ruin Mage said:

There's also a very big hurdle to content in general at some point in the form of Incarnate Powers - which can homogenize things a little too much.

 

As for incarnates, I personally have always agreed with the sentiment that there needs to be more specific incarnate level content - more story arcs and trials specifically designed for and balanced toward incarnate level characters.  Council, CoT, Crey, Arachnos etc. in PI radio missions don't fall into that category.  If they're too easy, that's because incarnate level characters have outgrown them, just like they've outgrown the content in Atlas Park or Mercy Island. 

 

55 minutes ago, Ruin Mage said:

Having a support on the team (for task forces/strike forces/trials/raids) should absolutely be pushed, because we have 4 archetypes that have access to that sort of playstyle.

 

I disagree and don't think any AT should be "pushed" in favor of another.  One of the unique selling points of this game was that any AT is optional, not required, for a team.  Things will absolutely always go better with a balanced team, which is more than enough incentive to take the time and form a well balanced team.  Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be what we're getting.  "Pushing" specific ATs is being done at the expense of all other ATs and by neutering defense and resists with auto-hit, unresistable damage attacks, near insta-kill attacks, heavily scripted encounters that are very punishing of failure and the like. 

 

55 minutes ago, Ruin Mage said:

On feedback getting hidden, there's a few major problems that people fall into (myself included in the past) with feedback. They do not provide data, they attack other's feedback, or they simply say "This change is shit" but do not explain why.

 

This is true some of the time, but based on my own experience here, it's not what happens the majority of the time.  Feedback that has been well thought out and well presented against changes being made or against the direction of a change gets immediately shouted down by the white knight brigade to the point of getting lost in all the noise, getting outright hidden from view, or basically refuted with "it's not changing, so deal with it" type responses.  I personally know quite a few players who won't BETA test or provide feedback any longer because of that.  It's not that they expect their feedback to be acted on or changes reverted either.  It just isn't worth it.

 

55 minutes ago, Ruin Mage said:

There are changes that people did not like that, unfortunately for them, had to go through for COH to grow.

 

Yes like ED, which nearly killed the game. 

 

One last thing that I'd like to clarify here as these forums are polluted with overly sensitive people who inject intent into posts that isn't there, I respect your point of view and appreciate that your experience is different than mine.  I'm just offering what I see based on my experience.  My disagreement with you and questioning your responses isn't a personal insult or attack. 

[Ruin Mage]

12 minutes ago, Excraft said:

My disagreement with you and questioning your responses isn't a personal insult or attack. 

This means war, Excraft.

 

12 minutes ago, Excraft said:

"Pushing" specific ATs is being done at the expense of all other ATs and by neutering defense and resists with auto-hit, unresistable damage attacks, near insta-kill attacks, heavily scripted encounters that are very punishing of failure and the like. 

My caveat is that it should only be done in Task Forces, Strike Forces, Trials, and Raids. Regular story arcs I don't really see a point, but in the team game I believe we need to promote every AT having a spot, or there being roles. As far as I am aware, this level of stuff is only in the Hard Mode content. I haven't seen/heard (personally) of it being in something like the new Striga arcs.

 

14 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Feedback that has been well thought out and well presented against changes being made or against the direction of a change gets immediately shouted down by the white knight brigade to the point of getting lost in all the noise, getting outright hidden from view, or basically refuted with "it's not changing, so deal with it" type responses. 

Yes and the white knight brigade is, to put it crudely, cringe as fuck. They need to get their things hidden just as much as the non-feedback folks or those who jump to attacks on others. It's a shame that others feel it isn't worth it, but it is worth it or nothing changes or not enough changes. The damage may be done, but damage can be healed I hope.
 

 

23 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Council, CoT, Crey, Arachnos etc. in PI radio missions don't fall into that category.  If they're too easy, that's because incarnate level characters have outgrown them, just like they've outgrown the content in Atlas Park or Mercy Island.

CoT was just too easy by way of losing a LOT of their mobs before the 40s. They lost Ruin, Agony, Madness Mages. They lost their spooky ghosts or most of them anyway. The CoT change was needed to not make it "oh yay another death mage." type of group. Bringing back the early pain of CoT to 45-50 was absolutely the right choice to make the group different. I think their spawn chances were a lot worse back before that change made it to live too.

I for one think Council did need a change, but I also am the sort to get put to sleep by mindless +4/x8 Radio grinds. Fighting one single group because its the easiest should not be at the 45-50 experience, but I know that isn't what others want. I'll stand by my opinion that 45-50 should be where you're expected to use your notoriety settings until you can handle +4/x8 or to pick your battles carefully.

Incarnate stuff being accessible in the open world is a big issue, but that's a fight for another thread.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Sure, by a very, very select few extreme edge cases.  Based on what I see and the PUG teams I run on daily, the absolute overwhelming majority of players aren't anywhere near that level.  Not even close.  Content should never be balanced for what a tiny minority of players are capable of doing in my opinion.  That's a bad design philosophy.  You're just making things more tedious and annoying for the majority of your playerbase.  What you're essentially arguing here is the old "I have a sandwich, so you can't be hungry" defense.  

Thankfully, the Hard Mode content has four tiers of hardness and is only currently locked to: Aeon, Imperious, and Lady Grey. Nothing about the game as a whole is being designed around the top players. Maybe special K'ong in 4-star HM LG but that's it? 4-Star Vanguard fight, for example, is...decently easy and optional.

Now if Hard Mode style content ever breaches outside of 3 TFs? Then I'd probably be singing a different tune. But for now its always remained optional. Despite what might be claimed, the aim isn't to make this like WoW or "Mythic+" like one (or more?) poster might claim--it's just a real hard balance to achieve that won't please everyone. Pleasing everyone, as it goes, is also not what anyone should do.

[tidge]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:10 PM, KaizenSoze said:

FREEM! checks against KB resistance first I believe, which only some armor sets provide. Then it checks KB mag protection.

 

Which is why my Widows never get FREEM! even though they only have mag 10 KB protection.

 

None of the KB protection IOs provide any resistance as far as I know.

 

The KB resistance must be checked first; I noticed a SR character with no extra KB protection aside from Practiced Brawler was not affected by FREEM! at all.

 

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Ruin Mage said:

On feedback getting hidden, there's a few major problems that people fall into (myself included in the past) with feedback. They do not provide data, they attack other's feedback, or they simply say "This change is shit" but do not explain why. None of those three things help the developers nor do they help the Focused Feedback threads at all. This happens every time there are open beta cycles. People need to get better at the feedback they provide. In this case there is a right way to give feedback and a wrong way. It is this fact that tends to get put aside. Reacting to patch notes alone does not tell the developers much, or so I am inclined to believe based on previous pages.

 

46 minutes ago, Excraft said:

This is true some of the time, but based on my own experience here, it's not what happens the majority of the time.  Feedback that has been well thought out and well presented against changes being made or against the direction of a change gets immediately shouted down by the white knight brigade to the point of getting lost in all the noise, getting outright hidden from view, or basically refuted with "it's not changing, so deal with it" type responses.  I personally know quite a few players who won't BETA test or provide feedback any longer because of that.  It's not that they expect their feedback to be acted on or changes reverted either.  It just isn't worth it.

 

I observe many more instances of what @Ruin Mage describes (i.e. "roll it back, I hate it" *1) in suggestions than anything else except threads started by players (who often appear to be new-ish, at least to HC) making suggestions that appear to be a stray thought that crossed their mind about something that simply happened to peeve them. I don't consider it brigading when multiple people point out the triviality of suggestions or the (often) many ways too avoid being peeved. I also don't think it is brigading to defend HC dev decisions that have empirically been good for the game... e.g. most assets are fungible, with a limited number of Influence sinks that mostly don't affect in-game performance.

 

Actual feedback on Beta is a mixed bag... I deeply appreciate the beta testers because for a while I wasn't able to Beta due to my own laziness about not changing launchers. I have occasionally chimed in on a Beta thread, but for the most part I'll just read them because I can almost never offer constructive feedback without having tried the Beta content. Full Disclosure: I want to say the last time I had a shared opinion on Beta content without playing it was the GM revamps... The GMs did become slightly harder, but not by the means I would have chosen. Frankly, if the devs had implemented my suggestion (or at even tested it) there probably would have been a louder player revolt than whatever is bothering people about the recent Council and CoT updates.

 

(*1) Something new to HC players should keep in mind: Homecoming has had several "The sky is falling"/"Things have changed" moments in the years before a 2024 player joined. Based on some of the comments made by new players, I can easily imagine them making similar posts about how the game is ruined because they can't get to Echo Dark Astoria from a SG Base, or how they can't instantly pop into a SG base, or how the Crey Confuses are ruining their play experience, how their Fire Farms are ruined, how the economy is ruined because of Vanguard/Empyrian merit conversions, how they lost a billion inf because of level 53 Hami-O's, whatever.