ZGravity

Just out of curiosity, Statesman, I'm wondering what exactly the higher-level versions of this inspiration would do? The healing inspirations heal more, the status resist inspirations last longer, etc. I'm assuming it'll have a short duration so it doesn't negate the usefulness of Discipline-type inspirations, so what advantage can be added to it?

[ QUOTE ]

2. Fear changes are across the board. Any power with fear will change from "foe running away" to "foe cowering and not moving."


[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the panic effect from Rain of Fire or Freezing Rain to be "Fear" effects? Personally I think that causing enemies to run around randomly is not only a worthwhile crowd-control effect in certain situations, but the only really logical response to AoE damage over time powers like these. It makes sense for psychological fear powers such as Intimidation or the Dark Miasma power (forget the name) to cause enemies to cower in abject terror, but making enemies run out of the range of AoE damage makes more sense in other situations. Both have their uses, and I think that the intended fear effect shouldn't apply universally to every power that currently makes enemies run away.

Incidentally, can you say whether or not we will see enemies using fear-based powers on heroes? From the earlier descriptions it sounds like it would act as a hold-like power, but without the toggle-trops inherent in stun or sleep powers. Is this going to happen?

I'd rather have the Epic AT, but it's sort of a moot point at the moment. I'd prefer to start over at level 1 because I think the lower level content has better balance overall, and I enjoy going through the process of building up the character's fundamental powers rather than refining the high-end stuff.

Which basically means that I won't have the patience to get to level 50 to get the new AT in the first place. I'm sure I'll get one of the Epics eventually once there are some alternate methods for earning them, but I'll have to wait a bit longer than a lot of people.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a wacky proposal...

Why not make ALL the tanker and scrapper primaries and secondaries available to both ATs? Each character would choose one offensive set and one defensive set. For Scrappers, the offensive one would be the Primary, while for Tankers, the defensive one would Primary. For Scrappers, the base numbers for their defensive secondary would be set at 75% of those for the matching Tanker primary; the same would be true for Tanker offensive sets, which would be set to 75% of the base numbers for the corresponding Scrapper primary.

Certain specific secondary effects would be tied to the chosen AT, of course. Only Scrappers would get the chance to Critical Hit, while only Tankers would get the inherent taunting effect on their attacks and various other powers, like Invincibility. In the scrapper primary version, the third power would be Taunt; in the Tanker version of the same set, the power would be Provoke.

Challenge, in the Presence pool, would be upgraded to be the equal of Taunt, while Provoke would remain as is. Thus, Tankers could get the AE Provoke without wasting a pool, and those Tankers and Scrappers that actually WANT both a single-target and an AE taunting power can still dip into Presence for the one they can't get in their offensive set.

This would make room for the current crop of unhappy Inv/SS tankers, who really want to be SS/Inv scrappers. It would open options for both ATs, without really undermining either. The only thing to stop this from happening is a gut sense by the devs that Super Strength "feels" like a tanker power, while Claws "feels" like a scrapper power. But that is just graphics and special effect, really--they've already blurred the line between the ATs by making Invul available to Scrappers. Why not just open everything to both ATs? If the numbers balance out--and there is no reason why they shouldn't--such a change would do nothing but widely broaden the choices available to both ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go quite so far as totally melding the two archetypes, but that's only because I feel there should be a difference between the more agile feel of the Scrapper and the heavy brute feel of the Tanker. But I think it might be an option to simply balance the offense and defense of both AT's. Tankers get their usual higher HP, the added taunts and rage build-up powers, and they get their defense powers much earlier. Scrappers get critical hits, and get their offensive powers much earlier. But on a power-for-power basis, they both get roughly the same results. Tanker invulnerability and Scrapper invulnerability are both equal, but Tankers get Invincibility at level 18 instead of 26, and so on. Overall Scrappers would still deal more damage, but only to balance the extra Tanker HP, and an offense-heavy Super Strength build could still outdamage a defensive Broadsword player.

Only trouble is that people who are currently enjoying Tanking as the one thing they can do better than Scrappers might be a bit disappointed to find out that they're not as superior as before. But moving things in that general direction might be an improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. Plain and Simple: The Tanker primary Taunt power should have always been like Provoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. Apprently some tanks disagree with you and would rather run willy nilly around the battlefield "tagging" mobs just so they can do their jobs. I prefer provoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, personally I'd love running around tagging stuff. I'd go with either that or ranged attacks as an alternative to taunts and provokes, because if Tankers are going to be the anchors that all combat revolves around, I'd much rather have a system centered on an all out brawl rather than yelling at guys. I want enemies to notice me because I'm ripping up concrete and throwing cars and leaving gaping craters in my surroundings. Taunt is the emergency backup if something goes wrong and I can't get to a guy fast enough. But I know he knows I mean business.

The reason it doesn't happen now is a combination of Tanker powers that limit mobility (directly or indirectly), Tanker powers that can only be used from close range, and Tanker powers that only affect single targets. And then you've got a pool power that's a ranged AoE that makes those problems disappear.

Rise to the Challenge would be cool, but someone once posted the idea of having an automatically set "PvP level" that everyone fights at all the time, which would basically accomplish the same thing. Everyone in the zone is effectively sidekicked to the same level (or exemplared, but without the loss of powers/slots).
Or a more confusing system, just adjust the level of any power to match its target. Everyone keeps their level, and so they can keep fighting NPC's, but a level 10 will never get hit for level 50 magnitude damage. Say a level 30 fires a power at a level 20, but it deals damage as if it the two players were at the same level. A level 20 reacts to all incoming attacks as if they were level 20, etc. Downside is it'd be kinda confusing seeing your strongest attacks doing tiny amounts of damage against a low level player, and I have no idea what other exceptions there might be that would complicate things. What about debuffs, for instance? I dunno.

Either way though, I think it's a nice basis for a system. High level players get more powers, more slots, better enhanements and all, but no inherent advantage for their level differences. So fighting a level 32 Fire Controller as a level 12 would be similar to fighting a level 12 Lead Scorcher with Fire Imps. Yeah, they've got a bit of an advantage, but they're still defeatable.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, though. I consider the AI in CoH excellent. Actually, better than any of the MMOs I've played, and even many single player games. Giving them powers almost 25 levels above them seems silly, though. I can understand a few levels--four to six levels above, but seeing a level 8 or 9 Shocker or Scorcher pull up a Lightning Storm or Fire Imps diminishes the "Hero" factor for me. Yes, their powers are scaled down by comparison, but really... why not just give them more hit points, more endurance, or more minions and lieutenants for us to deal with?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that fighting more villains with more HP is a lot less interesting than fighting villains with better powers. I think it's a lot more satisfying, win or lose, to fight against something that can fight back in a cool or unique way.
If fights are going to be made challenging, the guys who use cool powers are going to stick in players' minds much more than the guys who can just take a beating longer, or outnumber the players.

I vote yes, Villains should have any powers that the devs think would make them challenging and interesting. Seeing as they only get, what, 3-5 powers to choose from in total ever I can't see how it unbalances them. A level 32 Controller isn't hugely powerful merely by getting their "pet" powers, they also have 17 other powers and SO enhancements. If a level 6 villain had 15 different powers, all chosen from those available at level 6, I think they'd be pretty effective. Compared to some current villains who get one really cool power and not much else of interest.

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of less XP per kill and much large groupings of MOBs.

Statesman said 1 hero = 3 minons

How about that scales based on level.

L01-10: 1 Hero = 3 minions
L11-20: 1 Hero = 6 minions
L21-25: 1 Hero = 9 minons
L25-30: 1 Hero = 12 minons
L31-35: 1 Hero = 15 minions
L36-40: 1 Hero = 20 minions
L41-45: 1 Hero = 25 minons
L46-50: 1 Hero = 30 minons

XP rewards could be adjusted accordingly, based on the assumtion. That way herding 100 minions for a 3 Hero team isn't too far off the mark. Besides, I love being able to eliminate 10-15 Crey solo at L30.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem with large groups of smaller villains is twofold. First of all, an AoE attack will deal twice as much damage against two 100 HP villains than against one 200 HP villain. To a lot of character builds, taking on twenty of one type of mob is almost as quick and easy as taking on just one. Second of all, dealing 100 damage to the above group of two 100 HP villains can cut the damage potential in half, whereas 100 damage to a single 200 HP villain leaves him still at full offensive power. To a powerful damage dealer in the current game being able to kill enemies quickly is a very effective form of damage mitigation. If you were to face a single large villain with the combined damage potential and HP of a group of 10 regular villains, you would require both a damage dealer and a damage mitigator to be as effective as a single damage dealer is now.

What this change does is leave the XP per damage ratio the same, but remove the AoE damage dealer's ability to trivialize large groups of minions, and reduce the ability of damage dealers in general to control mobs by killing them. If a level 30 hero was expected to fight a group of 12 or 15 mobs solo in a typical encounter, then alpha strikes designed to take out large numbers of smaller mobs become even more powerful than they are now. If instead he or she was expected to face two or three larger villains with the same level of power as those 12 or 15 little mobs, it's a whole different game. Leading off with a massive AoE strike will still deal decent damage, but it won't reduce the enemy's ability to return fire, and won't reward you with any experience until you finish one of them off.

What I'm hoping is that the Tanker taunt gets powered up a little bit as a result of this change. Now that there are more possibilities for aggro management, the single-target ranged Taunt is much less powerful by comparison, and I think it deserves to get a bit more super-powered. A minor damage (brawl equivalent or so) but very intimidating ranged aggro-drawing attack based on the secondary set would be a lot of fun, and still fulfill the same sort of purpose.

(Yeah, I'll probably keep pushing this until the day I can taunt someone by throwing a car at them )

I think it's more like calling a Canadian an American. Sure technically it's part of North America, but it's a different country, just like Scotland or Wales. I wouldn't be offended if someone who didn't know better referred to the USA and Canada as "America", but it'd still bug me that people didn't know that there's a difference.

I actually doubt that any AoE changes will affect combat that much unless people go out of their way to gather really big groups. The only thing that unbalances it is the fact that the overall damage output can be multiplied indefinately as long as you can cram more targets into the area of effect. They just need to put a cap on how many mobs is "enough" (I imagine just slightly less than an average group size) and prevent damage from increasing any more than that. So just picking random numbers, say a max of 7-10 targets worth of damage? Haven't played the high-end game, so maybe groups of 15 or so are commonly found in the streets past the 20s. Anyway, a fix might only affect the people herding and blasting lots of mobs at once, while the people who just take one group at a time might not even notice. That's just speculation of course.