Cognito

Why shouldnt people tar a set? Would you rather the Devs wasted resources looking at sets randomly? Just as people have a right to suggest some sets are underpowered (nobody complains about that, of course), surely the reverse is true?

The Devs ARE going to keep rebalancing the game. Players can help make the resources they are in more efficient.

Or maybe next time you go to the doctor you shouldnt say whats wrong with you. Let him do all the tests he can. Dont give him any clues where he should spend his limited time with you (and no, you dont get any more time with him).

(Incidentally, Im a doctor, so I am rather numbed to medical jokes. However bad you think it health professionals are, I can assure you the reality is both different and worse)

WHo cares why people roll them really? Nobodies going to nerf a set because it is more popular. Quite right, really.

However, surely if a significant proportion of people feel that, or show mathematical models of imbalance (either positive or negative), would you not prefer the Devs to focus their "rebalancing eye" on that? Or would you prefer they wasted resources by not listening to players and looking at sets/powers blindly.

Im not for one second suggesting that the "Rebalancing eye" actually DOES anything, but that it examines whether their is a case or not.

No No No!

Im considering it at any point. I am talking about the ease of getting through, or winning an ecounter/mission/SF!

I never mentioned anything at all about rewards!!!

Your "case rested" post "proved" that I was wrong by saying the servers were more full at the time of DXP! Its got absolutely nothing to do with what Im talking about and provides absolutely no proof whatsoever!!!

I was NOT talking about ease of getting rewards, I was talking about ease of "winning". Whilst easy winning leads to easy rewards, DXP is a case of just multiplying the rewards you get!!! It dosent make "winning" the encounter any easier or harder!!!

And even if it did! What on earth proof is that? Are you saying that if we doubled XP permenantly then we would get the permenant increase in numbers we did over DXP weekend??? Of course not, the Devs would have done it years ago!!! Its busy because its double XP RELATIVE to normal XP!!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If certain sets become more popular, for whatever reason, then that variety is diminished.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to pick you up on this, that is so untrue. I posted in the other thread about this and I don't want to just duplicate that but the basic premise is that people will play differing characters because they have different tastes.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe and ARor Elec/dev blaster performs as well as an Fire/MM blaster if played by a player with the same skill in both sets ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they don't perform as well in a solo situation doesn't mean they can't perform as well in a teaming situation. It's all about skill and tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course people will pick what suits them and not purely by what is most powerful.

I am talking about the herd, however. I can pretty much garuntee that if Jump Kick did x10 more damage, more people would take it. I have changed diddly squat about it in any other aspects.

The same applies to sets. If Hot feet did 1/10th of its current damage, less people would choose Fire controllers.

Its just herd behaviour. I never said there werent other factors in play that werent just as, or more important.

Even scraping my example down. If Hotfeet did 1% less damage - it would have an affect. There would be less people choosing/ playing Fire controllers. They effect would almost certainly be so small it would take a huge effort, possibly sampling the entire CoX over all servers for a year (and even then with normal distrubitions it may dissapear or even reverse). But there would likely be a tiny shift away from fire controllers.

If anybody is even remotely tempted to suggest that I am calling for above changes or that resources should be put into that degree of survey, please reread this mail, calm down, and resist that temptation!

[ QUOTE ]
Cold/psi, storm/psi, rad/psi. Resistance problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

resistance resists resist debuffs.

Secondly, it doesnt apply to a blaster

Imbalance bothers me. I dont think at the end of the day its good for the game, and therefore good for anyone.

Like it or leave it folks, but every single MMORPG takes the veiw that imbalance is bad, and rebalancing is necessary. I dont know why people are arguing about it tbh, the Devs arent going to change what they do; i.e. balance.

The only thing that changes is how much resources they commit to it (and commit to it they will, and wont listen to us about how much they do so), and how they do it; what proportion of buffs, or nerfs or both simultaneously (which we may have a vague hope of influencing).

Heh, im not swayed either way to be honest. Superstrength I have no Idea on really. My willpower brute seemed to overperform noticibly over my other brutes. I think it needs to be looked at, to examine if there really is a problem.

Wasnt really swayed, wasnt really leaning in that direction to begin with. As far as I can see calling for nerfs against specific sets is against forum rules anyhow (although the one time I ignored it when I posted on fire/kins, the reason for which was actually to protect the bulk of players from nerfs... oh so how easily forgotten that was... easy to pidgeonhole me isnt it?) I actually got a redname reply complementing me on well thought out points so clearly its not an absolutely hideous crime.

This thread? Well, I sidelined it by defending nerfs as a principle and trying to eradicate the mythology tht you cant trget specfic combo's. Dhould have lept out, PRAF, as you said!

I wouldnt pick on specific categories.

But ill tell you this. Some of my alts are clearly performing better than my others, and not because of any miracle uberslotting.

In my judgement about 75% of all difference in ability is due to sets, 25% skill. The only excpetion is relative newcomers; clearly there is a learning curve, but I imagine we are talking about people once they have ascended most of the way up that.

I wouldnt want to seed somthing in your head. It might confuse you. Only a psychic could predict the shockwave.

A proportion of people will be influenced to stay in the game because they PuG and find variety in new toons, new players, new sets, etc. You may argue its a small proprotion, but from my limited experience, its a significant one. You may argue its not a strong factor - I woud concur, but it is there.

If certain sets become more popular, for whatever reason, then that variety is diminished.

Now, I would never suggest that peope are forced to play certain sets.

You may, however, have noticed the large number of a certain powerset combination floating around PI, or in Orebanga for instance. This particular combination is not a staple "Heroic" set like Superstrength/Invuln or anything like that. It is very difficult to suggest anything other than this powerset is so hidiously common because it is very effective. You can suggest it, but I think you will be laughed at. This is not to say that players choose said combination for perfectly good reasons, and I cant blame them for choosing this combination since it is so powerful.

You may say that this combination is not as common as I imply. I would reply we can argue about that exact proportion, im not interested. The very fact that everyone will know exactly which combination I am talking about makes it hard to deny it is more popular.

If I was a Dev I would be making a calculation in my head:

"Do we loose my players by nerfing said combination or by leaving it alone".

Guess thats their call. Personally, nerfing that combination means diddly squat to me as I dont have one. However, I would suggest that all Dev's, MMORPG's take the veiw that not balancing sets is, in the long run, a bad thing. However, the Devs seem to have taken the veiw, I one I can hardly blame them for, is that the game is in a sufficiently precarious position that short term losses are unacceptable. In their shoes, I would hope that recent investments in the game pay of over the next year or two, then tolerate that short term problem.

I would however, say that I do have another toon whom I judge to be horribly overpowered, not due to synergy, but because both sets just plain overperform (in both cases because they contain just one power that is laughably good). In this case, as I do have a toon that is directly affected, I would really love it to be nerfed.

Id would also really love to be honest and say which combination it is, but its against the forum rules.

Its the set.


The player may think its the player, but it is the set.

Funnily enough, but I have been restraining myself from DOOMING. But, as you brought it up, I am of the inclination that the current mantra "Give the players what they want" smacks of desperation.

The company may be of the veiw that they are tetering on the abyss and have to make short term gains even if that is the cost of long term death (which is what a "Give the players what they want" mantra means to me). Hopefully this is because they view it a short term measure whilst more positive long term goals come to fruition (recruitement, advertising, move tie-in, conntent boost) to stop it going under before that day arrives. If one was pessimistic, it just to string out the death.

Hey thats another C, minimal resources, no comment!

Has anyone actually got another position?

Thats position C, next to no resources allocated, not commenting otherwise?

Hmmm, periously close to my position actually. Not that suprising actually, squire - funnily enough admit all the emotional slosh, I actually respect your voice.

Worthy of a post in suggestions, if you ask me.

No pressure *oils thumb screws*

Been reflecting on this thread...

Firstly, an apology. Logically, the ease of the game has absolutey squat to do with the issue at hand. *slaps head*
Mind, out of manure comes good- some people had some good ideas on that subject - worthy of another thread.

Secondly, to sort out the mess, I would like to start another thread "Balancing, whats your veiw?". Unless people have objections. As a survey.

As far as I can see there are the following positions one could have:

A: UNBALANCED IS GOOD. Therefore resources (probably minimal but have your say) should be expended on maintaining inbalance or even (although unlikely but have your say) promoting it.

B. INBALANCE IS IRRELEVANT. Both to myself individually and the overall good of the game. Therefore no resources should be spent on either promoting or removing Inbalance.

C. INBALANCE IS BAD. Therefore, resources (a variable amount from minimal to a lot) should be expended on trying to minimise imbalance [NB: The one thing everybody agrees on is perfection is impossible, so please read carefullly the phrase "minimise".

D: IMBALANCE CANNOT BE ADDRESSED: The average intervention of the current Dev team will cause more imbalance than balance. (Note average, we all accept mistakes will be
made).

Then, there is peoples veiw of how balancing should occur, if it occurs (either with or without their agreement).

If you take position A or B, or even D, this is saying "I'd rather balancing didnt occur, but if you must expend resources on it, this would be the way that I would dislike the least".

1: ONLY EVER BUFF.
2: BUFF AND NERF, BUT BUFF MORE THAN NERF
3: (ATTEMPT TO) BUFF AND NERF EQUALLY
4: BUFF AND NERF, BUT NERF MORE THAN BUFF
5: ONLY EVER NERF (I dont think anyone argued for this, but I put it in for completeness)

Incidentally, logically the effects of [1 and 2] and [4 and 5] are exactly the same.

My position is C3, and I think a low but not insignificant amount of resources needs to be allocated.

Has anyone got any comments on how I have laid out peoples position?

I thought it would be better to start a new thread surveying peoples opinion.

Unfortunately, my logic is pretty good (not infallible), but I seem to have unconsciously used emotive but not insulting explanations (blame my job, but I apologise nevertheless) which detracted from my whole point. Clumsy of me, and Mr M I tip my hat to you.

just to persuade people im actually a positive person!

OI, DEVS! IM ALLOWED TO PLEAD FOR SPECIFIC BUFFS!!!

Psionic Blast for Blasters! Come on! More damage!!!
Trick Archery! Give it some [censored] -regen!!!
Jump Kick!!! What on Earth!!! Make it remotely viable!!!

(lots of o thers but those just sprung out!)

SHOCK HORROR! COGNITO WANTS BUFFS!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, Cognito didn't start this thread, he just rather foolishy chose to attach his argument in favour of nerfs to a ridiculous thread calling for a nerf to something that most people can see quite obviously doesn't need nerfing.

I suspect you are right, this is just an extension of a nerf Fire/Kin rant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was foolish, yes. I have wouldnt argue that SS/WP needs nerfing. I would like devs to examine WP, but I dont advocate any buffs or nerfs to a set without a close look.

However, a few people have made a blanket statement "It is absolutely impossible to target any combination under any circumstance"

Actually PRAF, we are in complete agreement!, we agree its possible, we agree its a lot of resources. (Unless people come up with constructive ideas).

If people wish to modify their statements "Its too much resources to do the complex task of specific nerfs/buffs to specific combinations", then I would totally accept that.

Well, firstly, well spotted on the first point.

Secondly, my statement is not false at all, I am arguing for possibility.

Examine again, you can Alter a set so its effect is different but the next effect is zero (maybe even a net buff)

I will use a hypothetical example (Too much resources to do, dont advocate it blah blah blah)

Fire Control gets +25% to its hold and stun durations.

Activating Hot feet makes you immune to +recharge buffs and -recharge debuffs.

Now, how does that effect the combinations:

Anything but /Rad or /Kin:
Woohoo I can hold for 25% longer! I am t3h ub3r!
Wow, im immune to -recharge debuffs. Thats pretty handy!
Hmmm, I cant get sped up anymore. Well, its not too bad, I cant do that to myself anyway
Overall, its hard to argue that this would be anything but an average buff for fire control (heck, Id be pretty pleased with this on my Fire/Storm).
Rad:
As above, with the sorrow that the +recharge from AM would be lost. Overall, Id say toon was about averaged out.
Kin:
[censored]! YOU NERFED MY TOON TO HELL! Em/ TOYS OUT OF PRAM!

Now, im not saying you cant ALTER the effects of sets by "targetted" nerfs or buffs, but you can target the combination (imperfectly). In the above example, One combination is CLEARLY more affected than the others.

Ill give a more extreme example of a buff, as my argument applies equally to this, and it will probably upset people less and make them look at the cold logic:

Say you wanted to SPECIFICALLY buff a DM/Energy Stalker:

ENERGY ABSORBTION:
Activating this power also increases the value of your "to hit" debuffs by 200%.

Bear in mind hypothetical, not avocating, it doesnt need to make sense, etc.

This is clearly a targetted buff. It will also effect those taking Soul Mastery epic (on two powers), but are you really suggesting this is not a targetted buff on the combination DM/Energy?

Funnily enough, I donnt havea any uber characters. I have 15 level 50s, none powerlevved, and I have never farmed.

I engage in frankenslotting from levels 30-40 (usually), mainly for the fun of it, although I am pleased with the end results.

Uber? I have two retired toons (Dom and controller) I play once a month who have anything approaching the "Uber" category.

Again Mr M. you state my position better than I could.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just using my examples to show you can target specific combinations, I wasnt proposing they were actually implemented.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you actually did is demonstrate very effectively why it is difficult to just target specific combinations.

[ QUOTE ]
Strength of Will could ignore buffs or debuffs to damage WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RAGE.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are rewriting the whole game engine in order to address a minor (and completely imaginary) problem. As far as the game engine is concered a damage buff is a damage buff, it doesn't keep track of where they come from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was easy, I never said it should be done. I said it was POSSIBLE.

Im quite open to debate about how much resources should be put into game balancing (as it happens, a small amount in my opinion), and the most efficient way of doing so (as it happens, generally to look at sets individually)

I AM SIMPLY SAYING IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE CHANGES THAT SPECIFICALLY AFFECT (POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY) TO SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS MORE THAN OTHERS.

Is anyone seriously opposing this statement? You are actually prepared to argue that it is BLANKET IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO MAKE ANY CHANGES WHATSOEVER THAT AFFECT A SET EQUALLY IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS COMBINATION.

INstead of me defending, what is actually a laughably easy proposition (which I have done), why dont people actually try and defend the opposing ludicrious position.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, im working on the proposition that the game is too easy, bordering on collapse upon itself easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your error.

Clearly, the game is not too easy.

If you would like proof of this, I suggest you look back at last weekend, when the server population doubled while the game was even easier.

I rest my case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lordy. The game wasnt easier or harder. You just doubled the rewards for victory. Easier to get to level 50, not easier to win. .

*Bangs head against wall*

*Sigh*

Read again, I am also proposing a buff to Rage: Removing its other crash effects.

Also please note, I didnt specify how long:[x] seconds. 1? 10? I dont know, youd have to see.

Lastly, those two poinst are irrelevant: its purely a hypothetical illustration. Im not proposing its implementation. The hypothetical example illustrated that a specific change can have a greater effect (positive or negative) on a specific combination of sets.

For the paranoid amongst you, Im not sure SS/WP needs nerfing, although I suspect the individual sets needs examining carefully to see if they are under or overperforming.

I can keep this up for years, there isnt a hole.

I was just using my examples to show you can target specific combinations, I wasnt proposing they were actually implemented. I thought those up in about 2 nanoseconds for the purposes of showing what you could do. Im sure more elegant solutions could be thought off.

For instance, taking one example, Strength of Will could ignore buffs or debuffs to damage WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RAGE.


But all this is irrelevant. I dont propose any of the above are actually implemented.Im not even conviced SS/WP needs a nerf myself. I am just counterinng the blanket and frankly ridiculous proposal that you cant nerf (or indeed buff) specific set comibnations. If they have a particularly good or bad synergy, then that synergy can be altered. Maybe not easily, maybe not well, but to say under no circusmtances can it ever be acheived for any combination is just plain and evidently wrong.