+0

[VPrime]

So I play the 1-50 game on +0 diff.

 

Am I to understand that Masterminds are now even worse at completing +0 difficulty missions?

[Arbegla]

There's some math posted in the focus feedback forums about this very thing, but it really depends on how you view 'worse'.

 

Your T1 and T2s are going to do slightly (between 10% and 20% less) damage to +0s, but they are going to be between 15 and 30% more survivable due to the purple patch no longer affecting them. @Maelwys did some amazing spreadsheet work to work out exactly how things are now with the changes.

[Crysis]

By almost every experienced MM players definition, yes, in fact, at +0 you are going to worse than you’ve ever done before.  

 

In particular, if in the past you were already building for offense and had henchmen sturdy enough to solo +4/x8 while keeping them pretty much full time Aggressive/Follow, you will most assuredly notice that you now solo +0 -objectively worse- than you ever did before.  Then again, you were doing +4/x8 so…..sort of a straw man argument.

 

 

[Neiska]

1 hour ago, VPrime said:

So I play the 1-50 game on +0 diff.

 

Am I to understand that Masterminds are now even worse at completing +0 difficulty missions?

 

I feel this is appropriate for this context. 

 

[Maelwys]

1 hour ago, VPrime said:

Am I to understand that Masterminds are now even worse at completing +0 difficulty missions?

Vs +0s; Your T1 and T2 henchmen will both deal a little less damage than before vs even-level foes.
But they'll also be considerably more survivable vs those same foes. 
The T3 henchmen and the Mastermind themselves are unchanged.

That said... if you were intentionally fighting +0s because you typically struggle vs higher-level foes? Perhaps try fighting higher-level foes.
Vs +1s; your T1/T2 henchmen will only be dealing very slightly less damage; but still be more survivable.
Vs +2s; your T1/T2 henchmen will deal exactly the same damage as before, but still be more survivable.
Vs anything over +2; they'll deal more damage and be more survivable.
 

 

[ElectricKnight]

Yeah, I think the "considerably more survivable" is getting overlooked.  I mean, I'll find out when I log in, but I suspect my MM will be better than before.  Those -2 and -1 levels really have an affect, so even level pets should be nice.  And if the tweaks to damage feel too bad, I'd hope they'll tweak it.

[tidge]

18 hours ago, ElectricKnight said:

Yeah, I think the "considerably more survivable" is getting overlooked.  I mean, I'll find out when I log in, but I suspect my MM will be better than before.  Those -2 and -1 levels really have an affect, so even level pets should be nice.  And if the tweaks to damage feel too bad, I'd hope they'll tweak it.

 

I have some comments on "considerably more survivable".

 

Because of the (previous, negative) level shift outside of Incarnate content... T1 and T2 henchmen were more likely to be hit by enemies that were even level with the MM (and T3). If the player had previously accounted for the level shift and had capped the henchmen defenses for certain content, the new changes haven't really improved survivability.

 

Imagine if we gave all blasters a +3 bump in all defenses, but cut back damage by 3%... all Blasters would become "more survivable", but some wouldn't become "considerably more survivable."

 

The sky isn't falling... but +0x8 content does take longer, per my tests. 

 

Against level-less enemies... the T3 and T2 don't have a net change in how often they get hit, but when they are hit they are hit harder, and they hit back less often then before. Against this sort of content, it is more fair to say that they are "less survivable"... but this might be considered niche enough that TPTB don't care. I doubt most players would even notice, I expect when zone Invasions start up folks may notice their henchmen dying sooner but maybe not.

 

 

[Arbegla]

7 minutes ago, tidge said:

\

Against level-less enemies... the T3 and T2 don't have a net change in how often they get hit, but when they are hit they are hit harder, and they hit back less often then before. Against this sort of content, it is more fair to say that they are "less survivable"... but this might be considered niche enough that TPTB don't care. I doubt most players would even notice, I expect when zone Invasions start up folks may notice their henchmen dying sooner but maybe not.

 

I tested some level-less content after the patch (specifically GM solo-ing) and while I hadn't previously took on that specific GM before (P.E.A.C.E Keeper) I did notice my pets (T1 and T2) getting one shot more so then 'normal'. Granted, the PEACE Keeper also one shot my acid mortars, so that was an entirely new experience having those pets (which normally don't die, just time out) get destroyed too.

 

Maybe it was just the GM in question, so I'll have to see how Nemesis/Rikti/Zombies go once there is an invasion of them and people stick around long enough to form up a group. 1v1 'invasion' content is pretty easy to handle.

[Maelwys]

Whenever the T1/T2 MaxHP reduction was in effect, they were indeed taking more (proportional) damage from levelless enemies.
But that was reverted and didn't make it to Live, so it should be exactly the same as before (unless you've +HP/+resistance set bonuses in which case they'll be taking less...)

However they'll take anything up to 18% less damage from levelled enemies; and being able to withstand "more punishment" = "more survivable" (to me anyway!)

If you don't have heals/regeneration/etc to top up their health bars, there's an argument to be made that reducing their damage output reduces their survivability (because they can't kill stuff faster than stuff can kill them!) but given that's not true vs +2s and above, IMO it's hardly a huge issue. MM performance vs low-conning foes isn't exactly poor.
 

Edited 3 hours ago by Maelwys

[tjknight]

21 hours ago, Maelwys said:

Vs +0s; Your T1 and T2 henchmen will both deal a little less damage than before vs even-level foes.
But they'll also be considerably more survivable vs those same foes. 
The T3 henchmen and the Mastermind themselves are unchanged.

That said... if you were intentionally fighting +0s because you typically struggle vs higher-level foes? Perhaps try fighting higher-level foes.
Vs +1s; your T1/T2 henchmen will only be dealing very slightly less damage; but still be more survivable.
Vs +2s; your T1/T2 henchmen will deal exactly the same damage as before, but still be more survivable.
Vs anything over +2; they'll deal more damage and be more survivable.
 

 

 

The post above sums it up perfectly. I've found my weaker Masterminds are much more enjoyable to play. I'm re-summoning my pets less often and can keep up with teammates in TF's and regular missions. I realize I'm in the minority here, but that's been my experience. My Masterminds are doing well and seem to be handling missions more smoothly. And I'll add that +0 is a cakewalk for Masterminds now, an absolute breeze. *ducks and hides*

[tidge]

10 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

If you don't have heals/regeneration/etc to top up their health bars, there's an argument to be made that reducing their damage output reduces their survivability (because they can't kill stuff faster than stuff can kill them!) but given that's not true vs +2s and above, IMO it's hardly a huge issue.

 

I consider the current stuff on Live to be something of a wash... but you can't have it both ways: (a) It's not a big deal that solo +0x8 takes longer and (b) vs >+2x8 solo MMs do better.

 

I didn't play MM solo against +3 content... not because my MM couldn't survive, it was because my MMs take too long to finish that content.... and not entirely due to the level shifts, The fact that the T1 and T2 need less net +Accuracy to fight >+2 enemies is true... but it isn't practical, at least not for me. I can't even bring myself to believe this without some sort of statement like "the game is balanced around +2 for solo play". I used to regularly take my MM through +3 content... just not solo.

 

Maybe I'm the niche player by soloing GMs and content at +0/+1x8... but since that is the content I play all the time... It was easy for me to test in on Beta.... and it does take longer to do these things. It's not necessarily harder... just longer.

[Arbegla]

One thing to consider is that +0 to you USED to be +2 to your T1s, and +1 to your T2s, but now its even level across the board. So, +0 to you is now +0 to all your pets.

This makes the math kind of finicky but as others have stated, its about the same damage wise, and BETTER survivability.  

[tidge]

29 minutes ago, Arbegla said:

One thing to consider is that +0 to you USED to be +2 to your T1s, and +1 to your T2s, but now its even level across the board. So, +0 to you is now +0 to all your pets.

This makes the math kind of finicky but as others have stated, its about the same damage wise, and BETTER survivability.  

 

This is true... except against leveless enemies, a level 50 MM had the T2 facing level 49s, and T1s were facing level 48s. Now the T1 and T2 are facing level 50s, but with lower base chances ToHit. The level-less have the same chance to hit as before, but now they hit like level 50s.

 

[Maelwys]

2 hours ago, tidge said:

you can't have it both ways: (a) It's not a big deal that solo +0x8 takes longer and (b) vs >+2x8 solo MMs do better.

...

Maybe I'm the niche player by soloing GMs and content at +0/+1x8

 

I remember levelling my first MM, a Bots/Dark circa i7. Back then you could only select up to +2 difficulty (Relentless), and they were comfortably able to do so by the time they were able to purchase SOs. Although I did have to occasionally drop the difficulty to downgrade Archvillains to EBs. It may have helped that back then Bots had considerably higher AoE damage than they do now, and setting the difficulty higher got you much larger spawns.

 

Since then, I've levelled a pretty large number of MMs, although I very much prefer the Ranged primaries. I found Demons on Live one of the toughest to handle, purely because they didn't leash properly back then and very much resisted my attempts at micromanagement.

I do tend to start out fighting even levels until level 12 ish (which is typically my "might as well swap to SOs now" threshold) but after that I'll normally only bother setting the difficulty below +2 whenever I'm trying to get my "defeat X mobs" badges or if I've disabled Exp gain (in order to complete more contact arcs) because otherwise I find it rather boring. And the main reason I don't set it higher than +2 is because whenever I'm fighting mobs that are +2/+3 to my MM, my T1 and T2 henchmen (until now!) really suffer. 

 

I am however keenly aware that some players prefer having the game set to "easy mode", including those who prefer playing suboptimal builds or are physically unable to react particularly quickly... and I expect that in those cases having your henchmen survive for longer might be a reasonable trade for them requiring a few more attacks to defeat things. Therefore in my mind it's really only the players who have the capability to play at higher difficulties but choose to run at +0 (especially if they're built well enough to never be in any danger of their henchmen dying) who are actually going to be inconvenienced by the changes... but even then, we've had multiple examples of people simply not seeing any noteworthy difference in clear times. So I'm definitely leaning towards the Devs having found a reasonable balance for establishing the new baseline performance.

 

Soloing GMs though, I'll 100% accept that's taken a noteworthy performance hit. However those characters tend to not really be hurting for performance in the first place (AFAIK MMs were and still are the strongest AT for soloing GMs. Illusion Controllers and Crabberminds can dish out a lot of damage too, but they both have issues focusing their pets attention onto a specific target and the latter has a much harder time keeping their pets alive).

 

And as mentioned previously... there are further changes due shortly. Not Soon^TM but soon.

 

 

[tidge]

1 minute ago, Maelwys said:

Therefore in my mind it's really only the players who have the capability to play at higher difficulties but choose to run at +0 (especially if they're built well enough to never be in any danger of their henchmen dying) who are actually going to be inconvenienced by the changes... but even then, we've had multiple examples of people simply not seeing any noteworthy difference in clear times. So I'm definitely leaning towards the Devs having found a reasonable balance for establishing the new baseline performance.

 

This is me... on both counts: I prefer "even level" solo (not just for MMs) because I've done elevated difficulty as proof-of-concept, but I find it boring. I can also 'survive' whatever content.... although Lusca is now firmly in the category of difficult and boring to solo, so I'm not ashamed to admit that she was just boring to solo before.

 

IPerhaps it was just my (lack of?) reading comprehension... but on Open Beta I didn't see many people posting time differences. I posted mine for GMs, for Tips @ 50 and some Incarnate content. And mine was only for a single MM.

 

8 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Soloing GMs though, I'll 100% accept that's taken a noteworthy performance hit. However those characters tend to not really be hurting for performance in the first place (AFAIK MMs were and still are the strongest AT for soloing GMs. Illusion Controllers and Crabberminds can dish out a lot of damage too, but they both have issues focusing their pets attention onto a specific target and the latter has a much harder time keeping their pets alive).

 

And as mentioned previously... there are further changes due shortly. Not Soon^TM but soon.

 

I'm not salty about the changes... but because of the level-less effects, they hit *me* in what I do most with my solo MM. I can believe that the Devs would prefer no one be able to solo a Giant Monster... but that appears to have simply pushed people towards multi-boxing them... with some irony is that it is both easier and more rewarding to multi-box GMs.

 

The current round of changes don't seem particularly inspiring to get more people to play MMs... as @Maelwys notes... there is no shortage of suboptimal builds and playstyles, and eventually that catches up with the enjoyment. It will be new primaries that drive the real excitement.

[Neiska]

8 minutes ago, tidge said:

I'm not salty about the changes... but because of the level-less effects, they hit *me* in what I do most with my solo MM. I can believe that the Devs would prefer no one be able to solo a Giant Monster... but that appears to have simply pushed people towards multi-boxing them... with some irony is that it is both easier and more rewarding to multi-box GMs.

 

Don't worry hon, I gotchu! I'll be salty enough for both of us. 😆