Weaker Enemies!

[Herotu]

In D&D 4e there's a concept of minions.

 

Minions do the same damage as a normal NPC. The players still have to waste actions attacking them, because they can be dangerous... but they have 1hp.

 

You know when you see those ARPGs where hoards of enemies get easily one-shotted? Could the City of Heroes engine handle this kind of thing? I mean there's already Gang War ...

 

I played the Praetoria arc and it feels like SO MANY times there are occurrences when there could have been ghoul hoards, instead it's just a few and they aren't quite one-shottable.

 

It feels like a missed opportunity to make the players feel like EPIC superheroes!

So my suggestion is another class of super-weak enemy in the style of D&D 4e Minions, which should be deployed in great numbers. Not in every mission, ofc, but in some (especially timed ones, perhaps, for drama).

[OverkillEngine]

There is the Underling/Small class that Rikti Monkeys occupy, and they're pretty squish.

[Rudra]

Players can already clear entire spawns/rooms with their nukes and Judgements, so let's extend that feeling to the rest of the game with any attack? No thank you.

[CrusaderDroid]

7 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Players can already clear entire spawns/rooms with their nukes and Judgements, so let's extend that feeling to the rest of the game with any attack? No thank you.

Maybe instead of saying no to everything, you ask and make sure you know what the suggestion actually is?

 

5 hours ago, Herotu said:

I played the Praetoria arc and it feels like SO MANY times there are occurrences when there could have been ghoul hoards, instead it's just a few and they aren't quite one-shottable.

From my reading, it looks like instead of replacing any type of enemy, it's just adding more enemies to certain missions that are still dangerous but easy to defeat, mostly to ratchet up tension. You keep the few ghouls because there's no reason to remove anything, and you add the swarm so it feels like a horde without having to set the difficulty to x8.

 

I'm not seeing how this is a negative myself, accordingly, especially when they don't even need to grant experience.

[Rudra]

8 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

19 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Players can already clear entire spawns/rooms with their nukes and Judgements, so let's extend that feeling to the rest of the game with any attack? No thank you.

Maybe instead of saying no to everything, you ask and make sure you know what the suggestion actually is?

I wholly understand what the request is. And I oppose it. There is no real threat if all you have to do is throw a sneeze in the enemies' general direction and they die. Doesn't matter if they do enough damage to one-shot Hamidon for some insane reason. (Edit: And yes, I am aware they would do normal damage for their mob type. Please don't take my exaggeration as me misunderstanding the post again.)

 

8 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

From my reading, it looks like instead of replacing any type of enemy, it's just adding more enemies to certain missions that are still dangerous but easy to defeat, mostly to ratchet up tension. You keep the few ghouls because there's no reason to remove anything, and you add the swarm so it feels like a horde without having to set the difficulty to x8.

We already have several enemies that are worth nothing when they are spawned in. The Husks the Death Shamans summon, the turrets from the Malta Operation Engineers, and anything that comes out of a Rikti Communications Officer's portal readily come to mind. I would rather not have more of that. And they at least don't just curl up and die if you look at them in a hostile manner. And as already stated, players are already mass clearing spawns with their nukes and mass clearing rooms with their Judgements. I don't find that fun. So I don't want to see it replicated to other content. So again, I oppose the OP.

Edited May 25 by Rudra

[megaericzero]

What Overkill said - there's the underling rank; it just gets used sparingly. I could see incorporating additional underling versions of minions into special encounters on top of whatever's already regularly there to make them feel more horde-like.

[CrusaderDroid]

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

I would rather not have more of that.

 

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

I don't find that fun.

 

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

So I don't want to see it replicated to other content.

Heartily recommend you stop posting in this forum if the only lens you can evaluate anything through is your own personal experience when you play the game. The game is for everyone, not just you.

 

4 minutes ago, Rudra said:

There is no real threat if all you have to do is throw a sneeze in the enemies' general direction and they die. Doesn't matter if they do enough damage to one-shot Hamidon for some insane reason.

Especially when you're this off-base. By definition, due to target caps, a single player can't clear everything in one shot, especially in pre-incarnate content where Judgments are disabled and especially if they're using an AT that doesn't even get any big AoE attack and especially if they're melee and can't even launch their big AoE attacks without first getting into enemy range. That would inherently make a swarm of enemies threatening if they can do normal damage - even if you can one shot them, that's still a bunch of attacks they get in first.

 

9 minutes ago, Rudra said:

And as already stated, players are already mass clearing spawns with their nukes and mass clearing rooms with their Judgements.

The vast majority of missions take place outside of incarnate content. The only ATs with big (PB)AoE nukes that can wipe those spawns are Blasters and Sentinels, leaving the entire rest of the cast in the lurch.

7 minutes ago, Rudra said:

We already have several enemies that are worth nothing when they are spawned in. The Husks the Death Shamans summon, the turrets from the Malta Operation Engineers, and anything that comes out of a Rikti Communications Officer's portal readily come to mind.

This is actually an argument in favor of the OP, not against. There's clearly design space for more Underling-type enemies in missions. An expansion of the idea to include more swarm-y type enemies for verisimilitude in missions without having to set the difficulty to x8 isn't going to hurt anyone by itself.

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Heartily recommend you stop posting in this forum if the only lens you can evaluate anything through is your own personal experience when you play the game. The game is for everyone, not just you.

This isn't the first time you have recommended I stop posting on the forums. And it still won't get me to stop. As for evaluating things through the lens of my own personal experience when I play the game, what else am I supposed to do? Omnisciently know what everyone wants? I already try to see multiple points of view, but if I keep my mouth shut about how I personally feel about something, then that is 1 less voice looking out for players that may feel the same way. So yes, the game is for everyone to play and enjoy, and that includes me. So I am not going to stop posting on the forums.

 

7 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Especially when you're this off-base. By definition, due to target caps, a single player can't clear everything in one shot, especially in pre-incarnate content where Judgments are disabled and especially if they're using an AT that doesn't even get any big AoE attack and especially if they're melee and can't even launch their big AoE attacks without first getting into enemy range. That would inherently make a swarm of enemies threatening if they can do normal damage - even if you can one shot them, that's still a bunch of attacks they get in first.

So let's tackle this from a multi-AT point of view. Let's use Controllers. They have low health. Multiple power sets in their AT only get 1 mass hold. In the case of Darkness, it isn't available until level 22. So they are playing through Praetoria and they enter a mission that now spawns masses of 1 HP enemies that do regular damage alongside the regular spawns the mission already has to ramp up the tension. Let's assume the 1 HP mobs are clearly identified as such. So the Controller cone immobs the group and assuming all of the mobs were caught/affected by the power with the miss chance not affecting any of them, they all die for having 1 HP. Joy. What fun. Now you only have to deal with the regular mobs that are already spawning in that mission and are already immobilized. What if they aren't all affected? Well now that very squishy Controller is in a really bad spot because all those mobs are going to get at least 1 free attack on the very squishy Controller. And if the spawn was an ambush, all those mobs would get at least 1 free attack on the very squishy Controller even when the Controller goes to use their 1 AoE immob'. Very unhappy Controller. And as for a big AoE attack? Are you talking area or damage? Because Controllers get a 16 target cap for their AoEs. And even with a 10 target cap, other ATs won't have any problems mass clearing the 1 HP mobs even if their chosen power set only grants them 1 AoE at that level. If they lack AoEs? Then they're just hosed. Gonna get eaten by larger swarms than their difficulty settings already generate.

 

21 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

This is actually an argument in favor of the OP, not against. There's clearly design space for more Underling-type enemies in missions. An expansion of the idea to include more swarm-y type enemies for verisimilitude in missions without having to set the difficulty to x8 isn't going to hurt anyone by itself.

More Underling tier mobs? Sure. They spawn at I think a 2:1 ratio for any non-Small unit their spawn replaces. That works for me. Adding masses of 1 HP mobs in addition to the already spawned mobs to mow down to feel super powerful like the OP is asking for? Hard pass.

[Greycat]

56 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Heartily recommend you stop posting in this forum if the only lens you can evaluate anything through is your own personal experience when you play the game.

 

Heartily recommend you not start trying to tell people who can and can't, or should and shouldn't, post.  And whose experience should anyone base their opinions on other than their own?

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

 The only ATs with big (PB)AoE nukes that can wipe those spawns are Blasters and Sentinels, leaving the entire rest of the cast in the lurch.

 

Fire/spine tanks would like to talk to you. Or brutes. Or scrappers. Or /rad. Ever hear of CEBR? It was a farm type on live for a while, designed because a claws/elec brute (C-laws E-lectric BR-ute, thus the name) could make short work of low level enemies n a farm - as in single digit levels - and farm *very* effectively for a while. They haven't removed those powers - and thanks to level availability changes, more powers like that are available early on.

 

So, pretty much all of melee is not "in the lurch," given the number of powersets with AOEs like that - that's ignoring cones, that's ignoring Khelds just spamming Nova AOEs (also single-digit-level.)

 

And what would the OP's suggestion get us? Basically... visual spam. A bunch of single-hit enemies with little to no XP to make up for it, eating up the target cap.

 

And I'll go from *my* experience - even ignoring the gas clouds they leave, the Rikti Monkeys are this already... and I hate seeing mobs of them standing around. Since they're not *worth* the time, but I do have to clear them - and that's when I'm not on a MM, where I might as well prepare to dismiss and resummon pets instead of trying to wrangle them from wherever they've gone (but that, again, specific to the gas clouds. Though, what else are these other mobs going to do in theory? Explode like cadavers? Something else?)

 

About the only characters of mine I could think of *loving* this wouldn't do it for "making you feel super!" as the OP thinks it would (and what if you're not *supposed* to be?) but my Warshades. Group of quickly killed underlings filling my Mire up and jacking up my damage? Or my Eclipse and capping resists? At little risk, since I'd be teleporting in, firing off what I need to and killing them? Cheaper than inspirations! And if anything *does* hit me, I've got a bunch of Stygian fuel there to top up health and END. (Mind you, I'm talking just lower to low-mid levels. As many other characters get higher, they can get the same sort of "surround with enemies and buff" - especially in the dark armor/dark APPs. Dominators /psy has also been notorious for its AOE buff to regen/recovery... which I'm blanking on the name right now.)

 

If this were a *single player* game, I'd call this much more doable. Fitting, even. Even squad based, where everyone's at some sort of balance - thinking, say, L4D's survival modes - it'd fit in. But here, where you can't just say (for instance)  "A controller will...." because all you have to do is switch what secondary you'er putting with what primary can radically change performance... I don't really see it.

Edited May 25 by Greycat

[CrusaderDroid]

29 minutes ago, Rudra said:

As for evaluating things through the lens of my own personal experience when I play the game, what else am I supposed to do? Omnisciently know what everyone wants?

Short version: Actually yes.

 

Long version: This is a fallacy. The inability to achieve a perfect state does not preclude the ability to work closer to that state. It is entirely possible to work towards learning how other people work and what other players might enjoy and take that into account. It's a skill that takes practice - not the kind of practice you get by saying no to everything, but the practice you get by making stuff of your own, seeing what people like, observing what other people like, and adapting accordingly.

29 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I already try to see multiple points of view, but if I keep my mouth shut about how I personally feel about something, then that is 1 less voice looking out for players that may feel the same way.

This is not the noble pursuit you think it is. You're treating every single thread as an invader at the gates instead of a person to talk to and learn about and maybe even teach. The other players that feel the same way can speak for themselves if they're so inclined - e.g. Greycat.

29 minutes ago, Rudra said:

So let's tackle this from a multi-AT point of view. Let's use Controllers. They have low health. Multiple power sets in their AT only get 1 mass hold. In the case of Darkness, it isn't available until level 22.

This entire attempt at an argument catastrophically contradicts your earlier argument of "nukes and Judgments clear everything", which was your original impetus for saying no.

30 minutes ago, Rudra said:

So they are playing through Praetoria and they enter a mission that now spawns masses of 1 HP enemies that do regular damage alongside the regular spawns the mission already has to ramp up the tension. Let's assume the 1 HP mobs are clearly identified as such. So the Controller cone immobs the group and assuming all of the mobs were caught/affected by the power with the miss chance not affecting any of them, they all die for having 1 HP. Joy. What fun. Now you only have to deal with the regular mobs that are already spawning in that mission and are already immobilized. What if they aren't all affected? Well now that very squishy Controller is in a really bad spot because all those mobs are going to get at least 1 free attack on the very squishy Controller. And if the spawn was an ambush, all those mobs would get at least 1 free attack on the very squishy Controller even when the Controller goes to use their 1 AoE immob'. Very unhappy Controller. And as for a big AoE attack? Are you talking area or damage? Because Controllers get a 16 target cap for their AoEs. And even with a 10 target cap, other ATs won't have any problems mass clearing the 1 HP mobs even if their chosen power set only grants them 1 AoE at that level. If they lack AoEs? Then they're just hosed. Gonna get eaten by larger swarms than their difficulty settings already generate.

Sure. All of this can be up for discussion. It's a completely fair point - there's at least one AT that gets screwed by a reckless implementation.

 

But we can't have a discussion over that if the whole thing is dismissed out of hand like what you just attempted to do with your first post. We can't discuss tuning damage numbers or spawn numbers or level differences or to-hit modifiers or whether the 1 HP suggested should literally be 1 HP or literally anything in the face of /jranger. And we know the game can support this because you already mentioned the other Underling-type enemies that do spawn - not even mission-unique ones either.

 

36 minutes ago, Rudra said:

More Underling tier mobs? Sure. They spawn at I think a 2:1 ratio for any non-Small unit their spawn replaces. That works for me. Adding masses of 1 HP mobs in addition to the already spawned mobs to mow down to feel super powerful like the OP is asking for? Hard pass.

And if you led with something like this, we'd be cool! This is a good place for further discussion! We go from "vague idea" to "more concrete, possible take of said idea" - very logical discussion progression. We can start having a discussion around the idea of swapping out a few minions for twice as many underlings, or whatever else you or anyone else may like.

 

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Players can already clear entire spawns/rooms with their nukes and Judgements, so let's extend that feeling to the rest of the game with any attack? No thank you.

But we can't have a discussion from this. If this is all you are going to bring to a thread, don't post. Nobody wins - no discussion, nobody learns anything, nobody has fun. Lead with "maybe 2:1 for minions but I'm not really sure since it might mess up control ATs", and everyone wins - you voice your concerns, OP gets more to think about.

 

14 minutes ago, Greycat said:

And whose experience should anyone base their opinions on other than their own?

You might be limited to your own experience, but that doesn't stop you from going out and learning how other people play and experience the game and factoring that into your own opinion accordingly.

 

16 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Fire/spine tanks would like to talk to you. Or brutes. Or scrappers. Or /rad. Ever hear of CEBR? It was a farm type on live for a while, designed because a claws/elec brute (C-laws E-lectric BR-ute, thus the name) could make short work of low level enemies n a farm - as in single digit levels - and farm *very* effectively for a while. They haven't removed those powers - and thanks to level availability changes, more powers like that are available early on.

Oh, great. It's not as bad as Rudra was describing then. I'm relieved - more ATs can clear large groups than Blasters and maybe Sentinels.

 

17 minutes ago, Greycat said:

And what would the OP's suggestion get us? Basically... visual spam. A bunch of single-hit enemies with little to no XP to make up for it, eating up the target cap.

As a DM, my go-to favorite tactic in most D&D battles is swarms of weak enemies. I like seeing the delight in my players when they throw out a big attack or spell that wipes out mobs of enemies. At the same time, swarms can be dangerous enough in their own right that it forces players to course correct if they don't want to be caught out in a bad spot.

 

I don't think "visual spam" is the only end goal here. It can be an opportunity to show off certain powers, it can be a tool to drive tension, it can be a neat way of saying "the enemies are not your goal, hurry and leave the mission". It's just adding another thing to be used in missions - whether that's good or bad is a matter of implementation, and we've already seen that it has been implemented.

 

22 minutes ago, Greycat said:

And I'll go from *my* experience - even ignoring the gas clouds they leave, the Rikti Monkeys are this already... and I hate seeing mobs of them standing around. Since they're not *worth* the time, but I do have to clear them - and that's when I'm not on a MM, where I might as well prepare to dismiss and resummon pets instead of trying to wrangle them from wherever they've gone (but that, again, specific to the gas clouds. Though, what else are these other mobs going to do in theory? Explode like cadavers? Something else?)

And hey. That's fine and reasonable. I think that's a valid concern that should be addressed by the OP. It's also a much different concern from "everything dies from nukes and Judgments", which is also important.

 

30 minutes ago, Greycat said:

(and what if you're not *supposed* to be?)

If you're not supposed to feel super, you're probably playing the wrong game. Mercifully we are spoiled for choice on MMOs where being super is not inherently a design objective.

 

32 minutes ago, Greycat said:

If this were a *single player* game, I'd call this much more doable. Fitting, even. Even squad based, where everyone's at some sort of balance - thinking, say, L4D's survival modes - it'd fit in.

Given that story arcs are probably easier to do solo than with a team, what with people waiting on you to hurry up and read or getting desynced if they're following along, it's possible to end up with that single-player experience in this context.

[Greycat]

6 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

As a DM, my go-to favorite tactic in most D&D battles is swarms of weak enemies. I like seeing the delight in my players when they throw out a big attack or spell that wipes out mobs of enemies. At the same time, swarms can be dangerous enough in their own right that it forces players to course correct if they don't want to be caught out in a bad spot.

 

However, this is a video game, not tabletop. There *is* no DM there to ratchet things up or down depending on how the players are doing. And I mean that either as characters ("well, if I keep doing this, a team wipe is coming," for instance, or "ok, they're really cruising through this, time to throw a curveball at them") or as people ("ok, I'm putting off what I had planned for this encounter, Steve's really stressed over something and is not in the mood for it.")

 

Plus the game's ... not that bright, mob-behaviour-wise. Ambushes, for instance, do one of three things:

- Zero in on the player (or whichever player triggered them) no matter what, and nothing the player can do short of leaving the floor or mission can break it (and sometimes going back in just sets that target on them again,)

 

- Zero in on where they player *was* when they were spawned

 

- Go to/spawn at a predetermined point and stay there.

 

They don't deviate. They don't really do anything clever (or to make the player feel clever.) I've rescued/kidnapped someone and avoided an ambush by... stepping 10 feet down a side hall and watching them all run by.

 

Related, unless you have a debuff aura on a critter, they don't alert *anyone* as they run by at 5% health away from whatever was fighting them.

 

"Hey. Was that Frank?"

 

"Yep."

 

"Was he on fire and bleeding out?"

 

"It's Wednesday, he does that."

 

"Ah, OK. Hey, going to the game this weekend?"

 

Unless they're supposed to be absolute doofuses, I don't think any DM would have this as a common "thing," or that many players would find it all that satisfying (talking tabletop again.)

 

While it's fine to have ideas inspired by tabletop, it's not always a good argument for (or against) something, since the only thing going on behind the scenes are simple algorithms, not someone judging you for the quality of the pizza you brought for the group. 😉

 

18 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

If you're not supposed to feel super, you're probably playing the wrong game.

 

Not your call. Look through the forums at how many people want to play "street level" heroes. The game has room enough for both SuperUltraMan and AngryManWithStick. Just like trying to say who can and can't post, you probably shouldn't be deciding for people who should and shouldn't be playing the game.

 

Frankly, I have more fun with my not-that-super characters. It's also part of why I don't do "builds." Yes, I could easily do defense-capped, recharge-capped uber characters - I'm well aware of how, and can fund them fairly easily if I chose to, but I don't find them particularly fun 98% of the time. Even my few farmers aren't hyper-optimized (but I don't AFK farm, where that'd be a bit more important.)

 

24 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Given that story arcs are probably easier to do solo than with a team, what with people waiting on you to hurry up and read or getting desynced if they're following along, it's possible to end up with that single-player experience in this context.

 

You're being willfully obtuse here. But I'll explain anyway.

 

A single player game is not "I happen to be playing an MMO alone." Especially one with the variety of ATs and powerset combos we have here. A single player game tends to be fairly restricted in what a character can be, and has *much* more control over what they'll face and when. It's designed with and tailored to *a* single person playing.

 

Nobody's going to confuse a single player game - from Zork to Assassin's Creed to Dragon Age - with an MMO someone's playing through solo. It has nothing to do with people losing network connection or not wanting to wait for you to read something.

[Triumphant]

56 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Short version: Actually yes.

 

Long version: This is a fallacy. The inability to achieve a perfect state does not preclude the ability to work closer to that state. It is entirely possible to work towards learning how other people work and what other players might enjoy and take that into account. It's a skill that takes practice - not the kind of practice you get by saying no to everything, but the practice you get by making stuff of your own, seeing what people like, observing what other people like, and adapting accordingly.

This is not the noble pursuit you think it is. You're treating every single thread as an invader at the gates instead of a person to talk to and learn about and maybe even teach. The other players that feel the same way can speak for themselves if they're so inclined - e.g. Greycat.

This entire attempt at an argument catastrophically contradicts your earlier argument of "nukes and Judgments clear everything", which was your original impetus for saying no.

Sure. All of this can be up for discussion. It's a completely fair point - there's at least one AT that gets screwed by a reckless implementation.

 

But we can't have a discussion over that if the whole thing is dismissed out of hand like what you just attempted to do with your first post. We can't discuss tuning damage numbers or spawn numbers or level differences or to-hit modifiers or whether the 1 HP suggested should literally be 1 HP or literally anything in the face of /jranger. And we know the game can support this because you already mentioned the other Underling-type enemies that do spawn - not even mission-unique ones either.

 

And if you led with something like this, we'd be cool! This is a good place for further discussion! We go from "vague idea" to "more concrete, possible take of said idea" - very logical discussion progression. We can start having a discussion around the idea of swapping out a few minions for twice as many underlings, or whatever else you or anyone else may like.

 

But we can't have a discussion from this. If this is all you are going to bring to a thread, don't post. Nobody wins - no discussion, nobody learns anything, nobody has fun. Lead with "maybe 2:1 for minions but I'm not really sure since it might mess up control ATs", and everyone wins - you voice your concerns, OP gets more to think about.

 

You might be limited to your own experience, but that doesn't stop you from going out and learning how other people play and experience the game and factoring that into your own opinion accordingly.

 

Oh, great. It's not as bad as Rudra was describing then. I'm relieved - more ATs can clear large groups than Blasters and maybe Sentinels.

 

As a DM, my go-to favorite tactic in most D&D battles is swarms of weak enemies. I like seeing the delight in my players when they throw out a big attack or spell that wipes out mobs of enemies. At the same time, swarms can be dangerous enough in their own right that it forces players to course correct if they don't want to be caught out in a bad spot.

 

I don't think "visual spam" is the only end goal here. It can be an opportunity to show off certain powers, it can be a tool to drive tension, it can be a neat way of saying "the enemies are not your goal, hurry and leave the mission". It's just adding another thing to be used in missions - whether that's good or bad is a matter of implementation, and we've already seen that it has been implemented.

 

And hey. That's fine and reasonable. I think that's a valid concern that should be addressed by the OP. It's also a much different concern from "everything dies from nukes and Judgments", which is also important.

 

If you're not supposed to feel super, you're probably playing the wrong game. Mercifully we are spoiled for choice on MMOs where being super is not inherently a design objective.

 

Given that story arcs are probably easier to do solo than with a team, what with people waiting on you to hurry up and read or getting desynced if they're following along, it's possible to end up with that single-player experience in this context.

Well dude, the bottom line here is that you don't get to decide who does or doesn't respond to your forum posts.  You can ask them not to (as you have done), but they aren't under any obligation to refrain from doing so.

 

Sorry, but unless someone violates a rule of the people hosting the forums, that's just how a public forum works.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

3 hours ago, Rudra said:

3 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Heartily recommend you stop posting in this forum if the only lens you can evaluate anything through is your own personal experience when you play the game. The game is for everyone, not just you.

This isn't the first time you have recommended I stop posting on the forums.

 

Yeah.  Please don't do that.  Anyone is free to post their opinions as long as they stay within the CoC.

 

Some people are just contrarians by nature.  They like things as they are and need a bit of convincing to accept change.

 

Other people crave change and adventure and want to experiment and try different things.

 

Both are valid positions to have, even if having one position frustrates the folks on the other side.  We love all kinds here.

 

Generally though, I think people in this thread have been good about arguing the issue and not arguing personalities.

 

B.E.T.E.O.

[Bionic_Flea]

I'd like to see more bugs in the game and swarms would be a great way to do that.  We already have Devouring Earth Swarms. 

 

It wouldn't have to be everywhere or added to every group.  In fact, it shouldn't be added everywhere.  But a new group with say ants or bees coming at you in a huge swarm would be cool, IMO.

 

MOAR BUGS!

[Rudra]

2 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Short version: Actually yes.

 

Long version: This is a fallacy. The inability to achieve a perfect state does not preclude the ability to work closer to that state. It is entirely possible to work towards learning how other people work and what other players might enjoy and take that into account. It's a skill that takes practice - not the kind of practice you get by saying no to everything, but the practice you get by making stuff of your own, seeing what people like, observing what other people like, and adapting accordingly.

I can understand how others play differently from me and still not want something added because it will still affect how I get to play the game. The OP isn't asking for an option that players can turn on and experience this otherwise I wouldn't even be responding the way I am. And I don't say no to everything. I just say no to things I disagree with and don't want to deal with in game. And this forum is the place for me to do exactly that. Not everyone likes the same things and the fact I don't like something you do does not make my preference invalid. It means I have a preference that I am giving voice to, just like you can do. So no one has to be omniscient, we can each give our takes on something. And that take can be "I don't like this idea and don't want it in the game".

 

2 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

4 hours ago, Rudra said:

I already try to see multiple points of view, but if I keep my mouth shut about how I personally feel about something, then that is 1 less voice looking out for players that may feel the same way.

This is not the noble pursuit you think it is. You're treating every single thread as an invader at the gates instead of a person to talk to and learn about and maybe even teach. The other players that feel the same way can speak for themselves if they're so inclined - e.g. Greycat.

You are free to have any opinion you desire. I personally think trying to understand others, even if I completely disagree with them, is a good thing. Not that any of this has anything to do with the OP.

 

2 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

4 hours ago, Rudra said:

More Underling tier mobs? Sure. They spawn at I think a 2:1 ratio for any non-Small unit their spawn replaces. That works for me. Adding masses of 1 HP mobs in addition to the already spawned mobs to mow down to feel super powerful like the OP is asking for? Hard pass.

And if you led with something like this, we'd be cool! This is a good place for further discussion! We go from "vague idea" to "more concrete, possible take of said idea" - very logical discussion progression. We can start having a discussion around the idea of swapping out a few minions for twice as many underlings, or whatever else you or anyone else may like.

Why would I lead with this? The OP was not about adding more Underling class mobs to the various groups. It is about adding 1 HP mobs that can be easily mowed down by AoEs for the sake of ego stroking.

 

2 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

As a DM, my go-to favorite tactic in most D&D battles is swarms of weak enemies. I like seeing the delight in my players when they throw out a big attack or spell that wipes out mobs of enemies. At the same time, swarms can be dangerous enough in their own right that it forces players to course correct if they don't want to be caught out in a bad spot.

 

This isn't table top D&D. (And even if it were, not every player will appreciate that.) So that has no relevance to a video game that has no active arbiter making sure the swarms and threats remain manageable and interesting to the involved player(s). And adding more mobs to various spawns beyond what the player's chosen difficulty settings are even with just 1 HP to missions, especially lower level missions where characters may not have the powers and/or enhancements to deal with it is not going to be as welcome by as many players as you seem to think. Especially in Praetoria where the biggest complaint is the sheer number of overlapping ambushes. (Edit: And at higher levels serves no purpose than to give players the ability to Judgement mobs with regular powers.)

 

2 hours ago, CrusaderDroid said:

If you're not supposed to feel super, you're probably playing the wrong game. Mercifully we are spoiled for choice on MMOs where being super is not inherently a design objective.

And what gives you the right to tell another player what sort of hero or villain they should be playing in a super hero/villain game?

Edited May 25 by Rudra

[CrusaderDroid]

15 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

Yeah.  Please don't do that.  Anyone is free to post their opinions as long as they stay within the CoC.

 

Some people are just contrarians by nature.  They like things as they are and need a bit of convincing to accept change.

 

Other people crave change and adventure and want to experiment and try different things.

 

Both are valid positions to have, even if having one position frustrates the folks on the other side.  We love all kinds here.

 

Generally though, I think people in this thread have been good about arguing the issue and not arguing personalities.

 

B.E.T.E.O.

If you post on this forum with an idea you think would be a good idea (and of course it would be to you, that's why you post), and the first and most immediate reaction you get is a thumbs down and a brief one-liner half-mocking your idea, how likely are you to try again? What would you think of anyone that did that to you?

 

More relevant to your job: would you want to encourage that kind of forum behavior? Where instead of discussion and learning, you get rejection?

 

It's not a matter of people being contrarians, it's a matter of people not elaborating and rejecting threads outright. That's not something that someone that posts a thread wants to hear, and they're not obliged to put up with that kind of behavior. That means we lose that poster when they quite rightfully decide this isn't worth it. That's not a sustainable cycle - driving off both old and new posters, coupled with plain old attrition over time is how you get closer to a dead forum.

 

I'll live with everyone disagreeing with me. The thread's now got more to work with than "nukes kill everything". That's better than it was before I posted even with me looking like a fool. If people are supposed to be excellent to each other, they should be taking the time to show why an idea isn't good so that the poster can be enlightened and possibly revise their original idea.

 

I don't know what in the world your goal is as a moderator, but I'd start there if you wanted people to be excellent to each other. Disagreeing is fine and healthy - hugboxes are contemptible - but there has to be teaching and discussion in that disagreement.

[golstat2003]

23 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

If you post on this forum with an idea you think would be a good idea (and of course it would be to you, that's why you post), and the first and most immediate reaction you get is a thumbs down and a brief one-liner half-mocking your idea, how likely are you to try again? What would you think of anyone that did that to you?

 

More relevant to your job: would you want to encourage that kind of forum behavior? Where instead of discussion and learning, you get rejection?

 

It's not a matter of people being contrarians, it's a matter of people not elaborating and rejecting threads outright. That's not something that someone that posts a thread wants to hear, and they're not obliged to put up with that kind of behavior. That means we lose that poster when they quite rightfully decide this isn't worth it. That's not a sustainable cycle - driving off both old and new posters, coupled with plain old attrition over time is how you get closer to a dead forum.

 

I'll live with everyone disagreeing with me. The thread's now got more to work with than "nukes kill everything". That's better than it was before I posted even with me looking like a fool. If people are supposed to be excellent to each other, they should be taking the time to show why an idea isn't good so that the poster can be enlightened and possibly revise their original idea.

 

I don't know what in the world your goal is as a moderator, but I'd start there if you wanted people to be excellent to each other. Disagreeing is fine and healthy - hugboxes are contemptible - but there has to be teaching and discussion in that disagreement.

 

Discussion does not mean silence or blind agreement. Folks are fine to post that they disagree with a suggestion. Full stop.

Edited May 25 by golstat2003

[CrusaderDroid]

10 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

 

Discussion does not mean silence or blind agreement. Folks are fine to post that they disagree with a suggestion. Full stop.

...yes. That is what I said.

 

33 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Disagreeing is fine and healthy - hugboxes are contemptible - but there has to be teaching and discussion in that disagreement.

 

My complaint is when it's barely better than a /jranger. You've got all the time in a world for a forum post, and it's much easier to search up posts and digest arguments on forums than on Discord. It's in everyone's best interests to take that time, no matter what your stance is, to go ahead and explain your position in detail either way. Lively discussion and new information being shared is preferable to a thumbs down and a flat no.

[Rudra]

40 minutes ago, CrusaderDroid said:

Disagreeing is fine and healthy - hugboxes are contemptible - but there has to be teaching and discussion in that disagreement.

 

From the Concerning this forum pinned thread:

If you don’t like it, no problem.  Just say “I don’t like it”.  You don't have to say why if you don’t want to.

 

So no, there does not have to be teaching and discussion in someone's disagreement.

[tidge]

"When the discussion on page 1 degenerates to an argument about how to have a discussion, then it is very likely that either it was a bad suggestion or the OP didn't really want a discussion."

 

As for the OP suggestion, The game already has different instances of something this(*1), but maybe not in the way suggested.

 

(*1) Aside from the common "in mission" things that spawn "extras"  mentioned by @Rudra (who read my mind, BTW), several of the "Giant Monster" class will spawn a (usually relatively small) number of associated critters. The most annoying thing about these (to me, YMMV) is that without a targeting bind... they kinda get in the way of quickly targeting the GM. Otherwise, they are barely a threat. I don't see how this suggestion would play out any differently.

[biostem]

Use the existing "underling" category and implement swarms of weak enemies.  Why not try it out in AE and see how it'd play out, then get back to us about how good or bad it feels.

[Herotu]

On 5/25/2024 at 1:29 PM, OverkillEngine said:

There is the Underling/Small class that Rikti Monkeys occupy, and they're pretty squish.

You know what? That might fit the bill!

[Herotu]

On 5/26/2024 at 1:55 AM, tidge said:

without a targeting bind... they kinda get in the way of quickly targeting the GM. 

Then they are working-as-intended, I think. I like novel ways of thwarting the player, this is one of them. 

 

On 5/25/2024 at 10:53 PM, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

Some people are just contrarians by nature.  They like things as they are and need a bit of convincing to accept change.

 

Other people crave change and adventure and want to experiment and try different things.

Indeed. Although I get frustrated by Rudra's constant #jrangering everything, I see them as a challenge. One day I will suggest something they agree with and on that day I will light a firework. 

Edited May 27 by Herotu

[Seed22]

5 minutes ago, Herotu said:

Indeed. Although I get frustrated by Rudra's constant #jrangering everything, I see them as a challenge. One day I will suggest something they agree with and on that day I will light a firework

I just slapped em on ignore. 
 

It’s their right to post contrarian crap and its my right to ignore it. I’m not wasting my breath telling you what you can and can’t post, and I’m not wasting my time reading something I know will be poorly thought out or asinine. 
 

I suggest for others they do the same. There is an ignore function on these forums for a reason. 

[PeregrineFalcon]