Let's discuss new difficulty options in the IO/Incarnate Meta!

[Galaxy Brain]

The original topic here was asking if nerfing IOs would kill the game, but we quickly shifted to providing more challenging content instead! This would be better as it allows players to still build strong characters, but also allow them to take on appropriate challenges for greater reward.

 

One such idea for different content is to take on the "Quantum Enemy" system that we see for Kheldians.  The tech seems to be there where special enemy types can be set to appear within existing groups, so a tweak could be done via the difficulty settings and/or just by being an incarnate or IOd character.

 

"Enhanced ______" enemies could have various perma-buffs attached to them such as a perma Speed Boost, perma Resist armors until they are CCd, CC protection of mag 10000, etc to spice up gameplay and make you think about encounters a bit differently or at least provide a struggle for decked out teams.

 

"Incarnate _______" enemies would have additional powers they can use that change up how you approach them. For example, they could have Radiation debuff toggles they put on players that would make you want to change your position else you debuff your team. They could have damage auras that get dangerous in groups that you wade into. Certain ones could have powerful AoE buffs to their groups, or extreme AoE defense that makes you need to take down individuals, and so on!

 

We dont need to get started on "Enhanced Incarnate ______" either 😉

 

 

 

Moreso a discussion than a suggestion, but it seems almost every thread here about balance revolves around how the IO system sort of breaks powersets or even whole ATs. Would making them less potent bring those scenarios in line, or would it do more harm than good?

Edited August 14, 2019 by Galaxy Brain

[Redlynne]

Nerfing set bonuses would do more harm than good.

 

However, I've always been of the opinion that Damage enhancements slotted into Cone, PBAoE and Target AoE powers ought to have been put on Schedule B ... while Damage enhancements slotted into Single Target powers ought to have remained on Schedule A.

 

This would have "nerfed" the maximum damage output of multi-target damage slightly so as to knock it off it's undisputed throne of always being the best answer to any problem ... and create room for competition of alternative approaches to the same outcome.  As is, with Damage enhancements on Schedule A, 1 Damage enhancement = 1 Endurance Reduction + 1 Recharge Reduction in terms of benefits accrued (overall, over time, etc.) from slotting Damage enhancement.  It tilts the field too much towards Damage enhancement for ... well ... everything.

[Murcielago]

I like how the game has become broken without a focus on balance. 

[LaconicLemur]

Even if one figures out mathematically the absolute best way to nerf IO's, too many people already expect it to work a certain way. And if one *does* figure out mathematically the absolute best way to nerf IO's, one can probably do something else that improves the system rather than nerfing it.

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by LaconicLemur

[PaxArcana]

Wait.  Full stop, please.

Are we talking about nerfing SETS, or about nerfing all IOs, even Commons?

[Leogunner]

Could make a different kind of difficulty setting.  Make it so that all passive bonuses are turned off (so just the bonus stats) but you're still getting the benefit of the actual IOs in the slots.

 

Would have been cool to make it so normal settings with bonuses on allowed uncommon/rare salvage and brainstorms to drop but not rare recipes and then the setting with bonuses off gave the rare recipes but only common salvage.  Kinda too late now since much of the saturation of salvage and recipes wouldn't change anything but perhaps over time?

[Cementi]

Personally IO's were always a cancer from day one they made sets like Force Field totally obsolete especially with the diminishing returns system on top of it. Those two things removed most support sets from PVP.

 

However I also understand that I am a minority in that opinion as I kind of hate loot. Takes away from just playing the game. However I will admit that it does allow some interesting depth to the game once you max out a character and I would likely appreciate that a lot more if certain things worked differently. Namely the ability to stack defense and to a lesser degree resistance through set bonuses. Remove those two completely and put in various other bonuses like mez protection or various other buffs and I would be a lot happier with the system. No more "tank mages" running around. However I do not see that happening as people really like being able to soft cap defenses on classes that have no business doing that.

As to the rage that would occur if the system was revamped.......lets be honest. No matter what you do there will be people that flip out over minor things. As a society we need to start just looking at those people and go "That's nice" and continue on with what needs to be done.

Now I do not expect what I would like done to be the way they go about it. However no matter what they do the obvious concern that people will bring up is the amount of time they put in to aquiring the resources needed to IO out characters. That does need to be addressed. I am no coder but a few free respecs and an npc that allows you to trade in crafted enhancements for their reward merits and salvage would probably address the concerns of the more rational people.

I could care less about the more excitable types.

Also if nothing is done I am not overly concerned but PVP to me is dead without something significant being done to how IO's work. For me that is removing the defense and resistance bonuses. Something I do not expect to ever happen.

[ed_anger]

Half all IO bonuses and set bonuses, same for incarnate powers. 

[Cementi]

There are lots of sets with interesting bonuses that are considered worthless because they do not give defense bonuses.

[Cementi]

Just now, ed_anger said:

Half all IO bonuses and set bonuses, same for incarnate powers. 

Not all. The only ones that are really a problem are the defense ones and to a lesser degree resistance.

Some might argue recharge and endurance recovery but I personally do not have an issue with those.

[XaoGarrent]

Yes, because ED 2.0 is suuuuch a gooood ideaaaa.

 

...And before someone responds "akchtually, itsch not enhantchment divershification:" That's not the point.

[PaxArcana]

I have to agree with the biggest problem being +Defense set bonuses.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

except those that build for soft defense have also always been frankly cowards about certain content. Those who depend upon def from sets loathe things like the shadow shard or even ITF entirely due to the def debuff of the mobs.They will face nazi all day long but suggest facing giant floating eyes and they cower and quail.

 

Let them act as gods in content anyone could roll without sets. Against the real foes of the game Your better off with sets that focus on anything but soft defense bonuses.

 

How about we just give more mobs def debuff so that def sets with def debuff res feel more worthwhile? Because I see no need to nerf any set bonuses. if one set bonus seems problematic in certain cases, rather then kill it lets simply buff the mobs in a minor way that wont hurt casuals or levelers using common stuff nor break builds outright, just make sure every group of mobs has a def debuffer unit. And up the def debuffing on those that already do, and up the def debuff res on sets like SR to compensate so they are not punished while making soft def abit less a go to for the average players and force them to either step up and be better builders or step down in dif abit.

[DSorrow]

IOs and the power you can unlock through them are a big part of why I like playing CoX: my character actually gets to feel like one of those movie superheroes, plus I like the process of tinkering with a build to optimize it. Personally, I'd say nerfing IOs would carry a pretty hefty risky considering the quite small potential gain as any player who thinks IOs are too powerful can already choose to not use them.

[Mr. Vee]

Or the even simpler solution. Don't build for defense on your toons if you feel like it's a problem. If you think other things are a problem don't use them either. If you're against set bonuses in general, use common IOs or SOs. 

[PaxArcana]

4 minutes ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

except those that build for soft defense have also always been frankly cowards about certain content.

... what about those of us who like sets like Force Field?  Those of us who want to make YOU untouchable (on top of your existing protections) ...?

 

We are rendered irelevant everywhere by plentiful and strong Set bonusses to defense.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

2 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

... what about those of us who like sets like Force Field?  Those of us who want to make YOU untouchable (on top of your existing protections) ...?

 

We are rendered irelevant everywhere by plentiful and strong Set bonusses to defense.

Not at all with my idea, just make sure to give FF plenty of def debuff resistance and boom it offers alot while facing mobs that will shred soft defense.

[Some Random User]

8 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Would making them less potent bring those scenarios in line, or would it do more harm than good?

The correct answer is that current T.O.s/D.O.s/S.O.s/I.O.s don't fit. The current Schedule 1/2/3/4 bonuses for them can't work mathematically. Nerfing won't be enough. The staff have said "no throwing out the whole system" so fixing this problem will require lateral thinking, not just buff/debuffs.

 

You're right, O.P., everyone agrees something needs to be done. This board is full of that message. There are bad egoes in the mix, and nefarious "they" want to shout the wise down or to play god more than they want to be a part of a contributing community. Lurk, upvote, and ignore users you see hassling or lying. Respond to staff posts and posts from new users. You'll have more impact than you will if you become a target.

[Mr. Vee]

Not everyone agrees something needs to be done. You can self-nerf if you want, leave my builds alone. If people aren't taking bubblers because they're already softcapped or denying any other AT for whatever reason they're probably someone you don't want to team with anyway. I'm happy with whatever people want to bring if they enjoy it.

[GM Sijin]

Personally I'd prefer seeing new soloable through group content built around full incarnates that can be scaled up by players via whatever method to make it more challenging for their power level. This is a pretty hefty long-term goal though, and comes with plenty of challenges.

 

To the question itself: nerfing them may not kill the game, and undoubtedly there would be some proponents, but nerfs of this nature are never received well in a system this longstanding.

[Omega-202]

Feel free to download and tweak your own server to test nerfing IOs. Changes this extreme have no place on the largest active server.  I would hope the team in charge have more sense than even entertaining such an idea.

 

[Galaxy Brain]

45 minutes ago, GM Sijin said:

Personally I'd prefer seeing new soloable through group content built around full incarnates that can be scaled up by players via whatever method to make it more challenging for their power level. This is a pretty hefty long-term goal though, and comes with plenty of challenges.

 

To the question itself: nerfing them may not kill the game, and undoubtedly there would be some proponents, but nerfs of this nature are never received well in a system this longstanding.

What could be cool is offering alternate boosts to enemies sort of like Diablo 3 does in their extreme difficulties.

What if enemies had perma hasten on their attacks, making streakbreakers more common even on def capped players? What if they had a bunch of damage auras? Mez protections? Etc

[Infinitum]

8 hours ago, Cementi said:

As to the rage that would occur if the system was revamped.......lets be honest. No matter what you do there will be people that flip out over minor things. As a society we need to start just looking at those people and go "That's nice" and continue on with what needs to be done.

I could care less about the more excitable types.

 

PVP to me is dead without something significant being done to how IO's work. For me that is removing the defense and resistance bonuses. 

Kinda like you Are calling for sweeping changes to a system that was designed to step outside the box and do things that wasn't possible before and only limited by the imagination of the user?

 

Are you seriously talking about balancing around PVP

[PaxArcana]

9 hours ago, Cementi said:

I could care less about the more excitable types.

Translation:

I want this thing and I don't care how many other people dislike it, I want it and that is all that matters.

:sigh:

[DSorrow]

6 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

What could be cool is offering alternate boosts to enemies sort of like Diablo 3 does in their extreme difficulties.

What if enemies had perma hasten on their attacks, making streakbreakers more common even on def capped players? What if they had a bunch of damage auras? Mez protections? Etc

Something along these lines would be my preferred choice. We could have enemies that:

• have at least partially unresistable attacks
• have very high ToHit values
• have strong debuffs
• have strong aoe buffs
• provide debuff resistance to their allies
• can use taunt / placate
• can summon several allies (making mobs go beyond aggro cap size)
• high damage resistance unless CC'd
• damage reflect unless CC'd (not sure if this is actually possible)
• etc.

Mix and match those into one enemy group so you'd actually have to stop between mobs, check what you're fighting and prioritize targets depending on your team composition. I think that would be both more challenging and fun than the current "haha every enemy in this group does all debuffs + long DoT in every attack so gg unless you can just cycle nukes" you see fighting basically every end game enemy group.