Can someone explain Enhancement Diversification to me here?

[Maelwys]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

*This* is closer to my (pretty much) faded memory about the whole "Nerf Regen" narrative. 

Yeah mine too.

I went hoking on the forum archive, but can't seem to find the original video or rant threads. There are plenty of comments from the circa-i4/i5 days that touch on it; but the closest summary I could find of the event which matches my own memory is this one (and Arcanaville's followup a few posts down!)

[tidge]

10 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

I went hoking on the forum archive, but can't seem to find the original video or rant threads. There are plenty of comments from the circa-i4/i5 days that touch on it; but the closest summary I could find of the event which matches my own memory is this one (and Arcanaville's followup a few posts down!)

 

Digression!

 

That thread brought up old feels about why I more-or-less checked out of the original forum(s): From my PoV there was often a lot of heat being generated over asymptotic edge cases, and it wasn't unusual (in my experience) for those sorts of edge cases to end up dominating certain discussions. I'd forgotten how polarizing/triggering the Purple Patch was at times!

 

The most common manifestation of that sort of old-school thinking/advocacy are in-game or in-forum requests for specific ATs (with or without specific primary/secondary sets) for content that doesn't require such specificity to either succeed or be efficient at completing. I'm not strictly rolling my eyes at requests for "more healing" (that's a MMORPG trinity issue, not a CoX thing) but I do experience involuntary ocular motion when certain Tankers get poo-pooed for Hamidon raids, or when a request for "FRAD" goes out for GMs/AVs, or when Ill Controllers come up as GM killers, or "MF Warshades", etc. etc. I'm not intending to take anything away from those characters, its entirely that the game's context for when such specificity regarding optimal AT choices has radically changed.

 

To circle this back to Enhancement Diversification... if the game didn't have the enhancement limits enforced by ED, we'd pretty much have even more asymptotic builds. I've no doubt this could be a fun intellectual challenge, but there isn't anything like a need for it.

[Mopery]

Without ED, this would still be City of Fire Tanks Herding Entire Zones Into Dumpsters.

[Snarky]

21 minutes ago, Mopery said:

Without ED, this would still be City of Fire Tanks Herding Entire Zones Into Dumpsters.

ie…. AE

[srmalloy]

20 minutes ago, Mopery said:

Without ED, this would still be City of Fire Tanks Herding Entire Zones Into Dumpsters.

It's not ED that did that, it was the target cap. When you can't run around the "close the dimensional ruptures" map (the one that looks like the NE corner of Boomtown) grabbing more and more mobs with each use of Taunt, to get them to chase you into the dumpster, and the /Dev Blaster can't hit each of them with each of the dozen Trip Mines they've put down inside the dumpster, it pretty well kills farming that mission for wolves -- or at least makes it much more tedious, as you have to clear the map section by section, limited to what you can grab aggro on at one time.

[Snarky]

2 hours ago, srmalloy said:

It's not ED that did that, it was the target cap. When you can't run around the "close the dimensional ruptures" map (the one that looks like the NE corner of Boomtown) grabbing more and more mobs with each use of Taunt, to get them to chase you into the dumpster, and the /Dev Blaster can't hit each of them with each of the dozen Trip Mines they've put down inside the dumpster, it pretty well kills farming that mission for wolves -- or at least makes it much more tedious, as you have to clear the map section by section, limited to what you can grab aggro on at one time.

So, you are saying we should remive the agro cap?

[BZRKR]

35 minutes ago, Snarky said:

So, you are saying we should remive the agro cap?

How about we* make an IO  that removes the aggro cap, like we have an IO that removes Knockback? 

 

*I know, I know, it's really ask the Devs to do all the work and then tell them thank you if they do.

[Snarky]

1 hour ago, BZRKR said:

How about we* make an IO  that removes the aggro cap, like we have an IO that removes Knockback? 

 

*I know, I know, it's really ask the Devs to do all the work and then tell them thank you if they do.

You should start a thread in suggestions forum to have it an option at Null the Gull.  Always goes well

[BZRKR]

10 minutes ago, Snarky said:

You should start a thread in suggestions forum to have it an option at Null the Gull.  Always goes well

🙂

 

[BlackSpectre]

5 hours ago, Snarky said:

So, you are saying we should remive the agro cap?

No. The aggro cap does address several big problems. Personally, I’d like to see the aggro cap increased. Instead of 16, maybe to 32, 48, or 64?

 

Given the 16 mob aggro cap, I do really like the Changes HC did to make the whole thing a little more realistic. I love that mobs beyond 16 attack from range but dont move. Way better than mobs just standing there doing nothing. 
 

I also liked the addition of the defense debuff for some fire powesets in AE. At the very least it’s interesting as a way that mass numbers of mobs can have an impact on a very tough hero. 

 

To be clear, I’m not talking about increasing the number of mobs that can be taunted, but rather the number of mobs that are allowed to move. 

 

P.S. I'd also drastically reduce the duration of aura taunts to something like 2 seconds. This would prevent a tank from merely jumping around the area for their taunt aura to hit mobs and would prevent the tank from controlling all the aggro. This way taunt auras still keep the baddies next to you, focused on you, but can't really be used to control over 16 mobs. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:28 PM by BlackSpectre

[biostem]

Yes, remove the aggro cap, but at the same time, make healing, debuffing, buffing, and ranged attacks generate more aggro than taunt - those are the real threats!

 

[Snarky]

40 minutes ago, BlackSpectre said:

No. The aggro cap does address several big problems. Personally, I’d like to see the aggro cap increased. Instead of 16, maybe to 32, 48, or 64?

 

Given the 16 mob aggro cap, I do really like the Changes HC did to make the whole thing a little more realistic. I love that mobs beyond 16 attack from range but dont move. Way better than mobs just standing there doing nothing. 
 

I also liked the addition of the defense debuff for some fire powesets in AE. At the very least it’s interesting as a way that mass numbers of mobs can have an impact on a very tough hero. 

 

To be clear, I’m not talking about I creasing the number of mo s that can be taunted, but rather the number of mobs that are allowed to move. 

You know i was just taunting… right?

[lemming]

27 minutes ago, Snarky said:

You know i was just taunting… right?

You hadn't hit the aggro limit yet

[Major_Decoy]

I would like to see the aggro cap extended into the real numbers. Currently you can only aggro the imaginary enemies in the game, but I'd like it if using taunt could also get my dog to hate me.

 

Edit: I suppose taunt wouldn't work on my dog, but I'm pretty sure my cat has at least yellow borders.

Edited Tuesday at 08:56 PM by Major_Decoy

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Major_Decoy said:

I'm pretty sure my cat has at least yellow borders.

It's because you are its underling and it, the boss...

[Cyri]

On 3/30/2025 at 10:58 AM, Captain Fabulous said:

Exactly this. And it wasn't "the developers", it was one single lone developer.
 

 

ED and the slew of nerfs that quickly followed weren't for balance. They were to soothe one man's ego.

 

Respectfully, this is <redacted>. ED did none of these things. The only purpose of ED (and the GDN, travel suppression, target caps, etc etc etc etc etc) was to enforce Jack's ass-backward obsession that we play his game in accordance with his Vision™️ (1 hero = 3 minions) and it infuriated him that people were able to solo AVs and herd entire maps. The mass exodus from the game at the time made it clear players were NOT happy, and it's no secret Jack's slew of narcissistic nerfs nearly killed the game. IOs were added as way to stem the hemorrhaging after CoV failed to bring players back long-term, and after Jack moved on to Marvel/Champions. AE came shortly after that, again, as a desperate attempt to keep players that came back. All this is evidenced by just how clunky and unpolished both systems were (and don't get me started on Incarnates).

And before anyone chimes in with "but ED was necessary for IOs and Incarnates to exist", I again say <redacted>. Getting some kind of crafting system was inevitable, as was some kind of post-level 50 achievements, as both serve to keep players grinding away month after month. Neither system has anything to do with ED. And I will go so far as to say without ED, the invention system and AE likely would have been far more streamlined and polished than what we inevitably got, because it wouldn't have been a mad rush to shoehorn them into a dying game.

 

1000%

[Cyri]

On 3/29/2025 at 2:32 PM, JJDrakken said:

E.D. was needed for the longevity & health of the game.

 

No

[Octogoat]

From what I'm understanding people want tanks to be more like brutes.