Combat
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Quote:I've remarked on this before, but I dislike randomness in my characters if it is not absolutely necessary. I disliked the HO change solely because it randomized a character than I enjoyed because of his consistency. Even with a 90% chance to succeed, the proc change would make the character far less fun to play just because of the 14.5% chance to fail for no good reason (assuming that that target needs to be hit for the proc to work, which would make the chance for the proc to actually off to be 95%*90%=85.5%).Originally Posted by UberGuy
I'm seeing a Superior version of the proc right at the 90% cap, even at ED-"max" recharge. I can't see a change from 100% to 90% chance as a large playstyle change". I'm going to play exactly the same way, and I'll get slightly less numerical benefit for doing so. It's still going to be the optimal way to play.
Maybe for some people, it wouldn't be annoying, but to me it would seriously impact the feel of the game. Random annoyance =/ fun in any way for me. Indeed, the main reason I became a mids junkie was because I wanted to design a character that didn't have random weaknesses to large portions of the game, in many case sacrificing actual performance for consistency. Oddly, I don't really mind the inconsistency of procs if they a low chance to fire, but having a 90% chance makes it so that I am annoyed when it doesn't proc.
In fact, I wouldn't mind removing the 95% cap for accuracy. It doesn't make gameplay any more interesting, just annoying.
In 6+ months, I will have invested large amounts of time and inf into the character, and will suddenly have to deal with a new annoyance that would make the game less fun to play. And I've seen nothing that says the 90% maximum proc-rate will be removed, so I'm going to avoid having a large stock in a character that may become annoying to play.Quote:A change that isn't finalized, that is probably 6+ Months down the line?
Hrm. Your choice is logical. -
Quote:You are correct, and this change would merely be to mobs lower than the current level disparity max. That is it would probably only account for foes -6 and lower. And I'd be fine if it were a badge or something as well.Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Aren't there actually two levels of grey? Perhaps it would make sense to get 1 inf and/or 1 prestige for grey conning foes that are, oh... say, at most ten levels below yours?
Or how about 2 inf for foes that are six and seven levels below you, and 1 inf for foes between eight and ten levels below you? I think you actually do get inf for defeating foes that are five levels below you, right? Or correct me if I'm wrong. -
(Not to interrupt the thread or anything, but I've decided to cool my Stalker for now. This isn't due to a lack of power or anything, but mainly is because I am concerned about the PPM change, which should make the Stalker ATO far less valuable by lowering its odds of firing and making it random. I don't want to put a lot of effort/investment into the character with such a large playstyle change on the way)
-
Quote:Does that mean anything in a vacuum? Sets should be judged relatively as well as absolutely, and set is comparitively worse than most melee sets at damage. It doesn't have the potential to knock off the top performers, and can be demonstrably proved to be one of the worst single target DPS sets.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
The thing is people are in the game right now on Staff toons killing X8 spawns so the call that the set is under performing is hogwash and the devs and most players know this.
Nobody here is saying it is top tier, but to say that it is under performing is ridiculous and false.
Given enough resources, virtually any powerset/AT combination can defeat x8 spawns. That doesn't necessarily mean balance disparities don't exist, and being able to achieve that level of performance shouldn't automatically disqualify a set from potential positive changes. -
Quote:You don't believe that a damage powerset should be balanced according to the damage it deals in a way that prevents ridiculously underpowered and overpowered sets? We'll have to agree to disagree.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
I know EXACTLY what you are arguing. The issue is, I don't AGREE with it.
Balance is bad if it simply reskins different powersets. Balance is good if it prevents abuse and/or underperformance. CoH has many ways to OPness, and ideally balance would not change the feel of the sets, just the result. And please don't try to tell people that what makes CoH good is that certain powersets are badly balanced. That argument would just fly with /Devices Blasters, I6 Stalkers, I0 Dark Miasma characters, etc.Quote:True. You can never completely balance one effect against a different kind of effect, which means that powersets in CoH are NEVER perfectly balanced. That's the charm of the game. *****-retentive attempts to make things perfectly "balanced" is what kills choice and variety, and what did for me in a certain recently released high profile MMO.
From this point forward, you can never say that the game should be more balanced, and I will use this quote to silence anyone wishing for any type of buff to an underperforming set.Quote:Exactly. "Your opinion". The fact is that people are still happy to play those sets, so your opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.
People liking sets SHOULD NOT prevent those sets from changed if they are underpowered. People liked played PBs, yet the devs have buffed them. People liked Stalkers, and yet the devs buffed them. People liked Blasters, and the devs have tried several times to buff them.
People like devices. People like Ice Melee. In fact, there are probably people that like just about every and AT. But when a powerset is underperforming, it should be brought at least up to average or serviceable.
Fact of the matter is, your argument is silly. It shouldn't matter whether a person wants to play a tactical set or a brute force set; either should get the job done. I'm not trying to "kill" playstyles, but promote them by actually make them equal choices. By punishing people for playing a certain way, you are restricting diversity, not promoting it. -
Quote:You are confusing my argument. I'm arguing that melee damage sets primarily do damage and should be judged accordingly. I've made this argument about 50 times in this thread, but I'll gladly repeat it again:Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
You have a very narrow view of things. Fire armour offers less survivability than the other defense sets. This is because it offers more damage. It has always been designed that way.
"It's a damage set, therefore the only thing that that counts is damage", has never been the way CoH sets are designed, there has always been some which are intended to overlap with other roles with many powersets.
The benefit of damage can be measured moreso than the benefit of other effects. In fact, we have formulas relating damage to recharge and endurance (and AoE size when applicable). We do not have any way to judge the benefit of perks (-tohit, -def, heals, +res/def, -dam, etc.), especially in relation to the benefit of damage.
Therefore, any attempts to balance with perks will at best be guesstimates. That lack of accuracy causes a lack of balance in sets designed around their perks. Evidences of this:
Ice Melee
Most Ranged Attacks in Melee Sets
Dual Pistols
Electrical Blast
Devices
Ice Manipulation
etc.
As long as the perks caused by the secondary effects of the set do not cause the set to become demonstrably under/over-powered, the set should be balanced first and foremost around damage. As shown over my last few posts, single target damage is much more easily determined than AoE damage, so it should be balanced accordingly, not because it is more meaningful but because it is more accurate.
My opinion on the "advantage" of tactical sets: "it does not matter how you get there, but whether you get the job done." The end result is more important than the process. Devices is another "tactical" set and it absolutely does not get it done in comparison to other blaster secondaries. Dual Pistols is better, but again sacrifices the end result for the process.Quote:I doubt "running the numbers" would tell you anything useful, since it is a matter of when you have the buff, and what other powers you have.
For example, consider staff pared with Fire Aura (any AT). Use FoB to get the maximum damage buff, then activate Fiery Embrace. just before FE expires consume FoB and switch to FoM for the recharge bonus, to get FE back up as soon as possible.
Other tactics could be developed for other pairings (with some worse than others, I wouldn't pair staff with WP myself). That's the thing with Staff, it a tactical set, not a brute force and ignorance set like Titan Weapons.
And the benefit of using FE (or other damage buffs) in combination with FoB is overstated. FE increases all damage (except for procs/reactive) the same amount (~40%), and thus the ratio of damage dealt will be the same as without FE active. Therefore, FoB will be just as useful as it is without FE active, because it will either be better to use standard attacks with the damage buff or use Sky Splitter for the bonus damage. That is the real problem with so-called tactical sets: either they sacrifice actual potential for the illusion of choice, or one option is clearly the best (ie: Incendiary Ammo).
And if you want choice, you should support my actual fix. Increasing the value of FoB and FoM will only increase the value of choice.
The magnitude of the effects makes FoM considerably less valuable than FoS. That isn't in question. In addition to the endurance reduction, Sky Splitter grants a fair amount of regeneration while in FoS, and the side effects of FoM are considerably worse.Quote:Actually, quite a few defense sets have clicks with long cooldowns, but the thing about Staff is you can SWITCH. If your end is running low, use FoS, if you need your cooldowns up, switch to FoM. End use can vary significantly depending if you are fighting single or multiple foes.
Let me put it this way: Which is better, a few seconds off your clicks, or nearly double the value of base Stamina/Health and an SOs worth of endurance reduction? Very rarely will FoM win. Heck, it won't win 50% even with my suggestion. But at least things would have slightly more parity.
My apologies, as CoD had the effect at 7.5%.Quote:It's +10% resistance for tankers, and it's not just Invun who needs some extra: Fire and Dark are also short of the cap, Stone when not in granite (e.g. fighting psi mobs), and Ice has a horrible psi hole. SR is so for over the def cap on a tanker that ony +res makes any difference.
It also make resistance sets on stalkers significantly less gimped.
I used Invulnerability because Tough grants Smashing/Lethal resistance and Invul could get close enough to the S/L resistance cap that the resistance could become more useful than 10% defense and because it would allow tough to be skipped, theoretically.
However, for defending against psy attacks, 10% def to positionals will almost always be worth more than 10% to psionic resistance. For sets will nill in either resists or defense, it will be worth twice as much. It will also be of more benefit in lower levels.
As for SR, it gains several things from /MA. First, it gains softcap by level 22 (earlier possibly with DFB SOs or IOs/DOs). Secondly, it gains a much easier I-softcap, allowing it avoid slotting tough with a +def unique, and basically affirming musculature as the alpha. It should be noted that even with with 3 IOs in the toggles and passives, and Storm Kick, SR/ only gets to 51.2%, so it still has plenty to gain from additional defense. It especially benefits in that it doesn't have to run 3-4 extra toggles for defense, allowing it to pick up Hasten, Aid Self, Spring Attack, and other useful pool powers. Whereas it would gain less from 10% more resistance. -
Quote:The difference is in the goal of the powerset. Staff is a "melee damage set", whereas fire is an "armor set." The goal of a damage set is to deal damage, with mitigation and other perks secondary. The goal of an armor set is to enhance survivability, with damage and other perks secondary.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Depends on your playstyle, but if more damage was always better than def or res then Firey Aura would be the only defense set anyone ever played.
(Also, I believe that I read some comment that said fire was the second most popular armor set behind willpower; I'll try and find it later)
That is something that could be numerically determined. I guess I could run the numbers and see if the advantage of 15% +damage is worth the loss of Sky Splitter/Eye of the Storm, though I doubt it (at least for brutes).Quote:Here is a tip for getting the most from Staff: just because a button has an orange ring around it doesn't mean you have to push it immediately. Another: Hardest hitting attack is not always the best attack to use.
Small quantities of variable +recharge are generally worth considerably less than large quantities of variable endurance reduction. For damage sets, the main purpose of +recharge is to facilitate attack chains, and variable +recharge is worth less to an attack chain because it cannot be relied upon. Most armor sets don't have a ton of clicks that would benefit from +recharge, and those that do have a preference towards constant +recharge because of the need to perma certain abilities. The only set that would rely benefit a lot from FoM is Regen, and even then a case can be made from FoS.Quote:Just how useful +recharge is depends on which secondary you are paring it with.
On the contrary, it becomes very worthwhile. Even after soft-capping, it helps to gain incarnate level of defense (59%), and allows /MA tankers to soft-cap considerably earlier than other sets for exemplaring purposes. Remember, MA has the ability to use storm kick from level 2 onwards, whereas Staff only has Sky Splitter from 32/38 to 50.Quote:And then becomes completely useless as it's easy to softcap defense without it, especially for tank.
Technically, the Storm Kick's +def applies to everything but psi. But realistically, the positional defense will protect versus almost all psionic damage except for about 3 attacks that don't have a positional tag.Quote:On the other hand, Psi resistance is very very useful for pretty much any tank.
Apart from psi. A lot of psi damage in the endgame.
And while +resistance could theoretically be more useful in edge cases, the vast majority of the time +def will be more powerful. It is also more versatile in that only one toggle power (currently) grants +resistance, but investment in +def can require 3-4 power pool picks. That means that +10% defense greatly expands build options, whereas +7.5% resistance grants little added versatility (the exception being invul/ tankers who might be able to skip tough). -
Quote:Before we get snide, remember that this whole side-track of the thread happened because I was asked to prove that SS performed at a higher level AoE wise than Staff. I didn't want to try to prove something as impossible as AoE potential, but I was compelled to do so to prove my point. Ergo, the last few days of posts.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Of course, in that case the numbers showed KM was good. The problem was that it seemed only my numbers showed that, because only I use organic high quality free-range numbers.
Like I've said before, I don't think AoE is really a problem with any melee set. Those that want more AoE can get it easily, in a variety of different forms. In a lot of ways +dam is more important than the actual strength of a powerset's AoEs, which is shown by the plethora of SS farmers.
Single target damage, however, is both an important part of a set and hard to replace with patrons/Epics. Only one Patron power is really great for DPA, and even then it is better for non-weapon sets and those with lots of +damage, making it only really great for SS Brutes and Tankers (by the way, I've seen posts that claim the best chain for SS only uses one SS attack, much like the AoE chain).
I'm guessing that you know how futile it is to try and predict AoE performance from numbers. That's why I've never tried before this thread, especially for melee ATs. Simply put, it is silly to try and do so, because so much depends on player skill and build. SS could have piss-poor damage with no additions and without an offensive secondary, or ridiculous AoE with 3 extra AoEs from Mu and /fire. Even sets like Dark, Stone, and Ice can easily supplement their weaknesses with extra AoEs, potentially above sets like TW and Spines with a lot of AoE tools in their attack set.
Besides that, the actual fix I've suggested for staff should implemented for more than inter-powerset balance. Making all 3 forms useful is something that would make Staff better without potentially overpowering it. While I still think adjusting the recharge on Serpent's Reach and Sky Splitter could make the set a lot more attractive without pushing the boundaries of OPness, I think that making FoB and FoM worthwhile would be enough. If you don't think that a lack of overall damage can be proved numerically, than you can at least objectively say that a large portion of people are ignoring the variety of Staff because the other options are simply far less valuable. By the way, this was something that appeared in my second post, if I remember correctly.
I have learned my lesson though. It is impossible to prove powerset imbalance in a way that will satisfy the math gods. It is much easier to simply complain about sound effects and the direction that the hilts are orientated, and I guess that's the kind of feedback that can make a difference. The mechanics of CoH make it virtually impossible to develop a rigorous approach to overall damage. Next time I'll make sure that I have a paper worthy of appearance in an academic journal, and demand the same standard for all other posters even when the necessary data is unobtainable/unusable without thousands of game logs and tons of time.
I'll also direct you to what I actually posted in my OP, just so posters realize that I haven't been calling Staff an underperformer throughout this thread:
"The point is that Staff has end-game potential, but not because it is a top-tier DPS set. It has a decent AoE, good enough damage, and allows players to build in previously impossible ways. It is both mechanically and aesthetically fun to play, and better in low levels than most sets."
My basic opinion of the set is unchanged. It peaks at level 8 for Brutes, Tankers, and Scrappers. I think that is a problem. The higher level attacks should feel like improvements, but my experience leveling my stalker was that leveling made my character worse. Serpent's Reach and Sky Splitter simply don't do a lot of damage per second, and having only EotS and GS makes the AoE non-compensatory. For me, I did the most damage relative to mob health in the low levels, and even with enhancements it felt like I got worse, not better. In fact, my early criticisms did not resolve around inter-powerset balance, but mostly were about the way Staff got worse later in the game and forced players into Form of Soul via the lack of strength from the other two Forms. -
Quote:However, AVs tend to have a little resistance to everything with a lot in one resistance (ex: Infernal for fire).Originally Posted by Mr_Morbid
This is a case where the averages don't work well for real play. Toxic, for example, only shows as being highly resisted because a fairly small number of mobs have very high resistance to it while most mobs have none. And the mobs that do resist toxic include relatively rare mobs like arachnoids, toxic tarantulas, and tentacles.
The spreadsheet allows people to find their own answers. It doesn't have every enemy in the game, but it has enough that people can find out what the resistance of a 5th Column minion is, or the resistances of Lord Recluse.
And to be honest, a few enemies with high resistances is more annoying to me than every enemy having 10% resistance. Psychic works that way; most mobs don't resist it, but the few that do resist it by a ton. -
Quote:However, the first list also failed to account for several factors:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, that's not true. The value of a metric is the degree to which it performs compared to alternatives. Here's your rankings *and* the numerical value for them:
That's each set with your computed rating, plus the actual number of AoEs in the set and their net target cap.Code:Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 7. SS 451.24 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10 19. Dark 55.52 3 25
Your metric places the three sets with the most AoEs at the top which most metrics would do. It places *almost* all the sets with one AoE at the bottom, as most would do. You counted Dark as having three, but two of them have inconsequential DPC so Dark is really another 1/10 set.
The most noteworthy aspect of your metric is that it seems to go out of its way to elevate Super Strength. But it also does some very bizarre things, like claim Battle Axe with three AoEs has only 22% more AoE potential as Martial Arts, or Ice and Dual Blades are basically tied. It says Tremor all by itself is 50% better than all of War Mace.
This metric doesn't correspond to my experience at all, nor does it correspond to anything that resembles conventional wisdom. You point out the top and the bottom, but the top and bottom were practically predestined. The top four also have the highest number of AoEs, except for Claws that has a broken AoE damage formula and has known AoE advantages. The bottom three are essentially all of the one AoE sets - except for Super Strength and Stone. And no one thinks Stone is an above average AoE set.
If I resort your list just by number of AoEs and target cap total, I get this:
My guess is that's closer to people's expectations, and that metric doesn't even look at what the AoEs do. A more refined metric should do better than that, not worse.Code:Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 19. Dark 55.52 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 7. SS 451.24 1 10 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10
1. Damage Buffs
2. The added difficulty of using a larger narrow cone from melee combat
3. The "saturation" level, which should limit AoEs to a maximum value after a certain point.
I tried a rudimentary pass at that by estimating +dam and multiplying different values by constants (2/3 for large PBAoEs, 1/2 for "long" cones like Repulsing Torrent, and 3/2 for small PBAoEs). In practice, this would be a constant determined by experimentation.
For +dam buffs, I assumed 5% buff from BU, 75% from Follow-Up and clones, 80% from Rage, 50% for Soul Drain, 4% per slottable Achilles' Heel, 20% for Power Siphon and 15% for Form of Body.
My numbers for that:
1. Electric->1960.633
2. Claws-->1709.146
3. Spines-->1648.728
4. TW----->1463.804
5. T Fiery-->1368.157
6. Kinetic-->823.42
7. Staff---->804.15
8. SS------->779.245
9. DB------->758.443
10. Fiery N/T->693.7731
11. War Mace->666.5697
12. Katana---->562.5828
13. Ice-------->542.3904
14. Stone------>540.6596
15. BS--------->487.8149
16. BA--------->4224.5196
17. Street----->408.2553
18. Martial Arts>397.4095
19. Energy----->241.661
20. Dark-------->159.6407
That list is more accurate, but the numbers used are just placeholders. I'd like to this moment to restate that I think the idea of an AoE damage metric that ignores AoEs outside the sets is not a good metric for ingame performance. As shown with SS, most sets can actual find more AoE outside their sets than inside. Remember SS has the highest AoE potential of any set, and it is ranked close to last if we only rank sets by the criteria in your second chart.
However, if you insist on using a formula to calculate the AoE potential of each set, it should contain the following:
1. Base DS
2. Cycle Time (Animation + Recharge)
3. Max Number of Targets
4. Relation of Max # of Targets to Area, capping a certain value (probably with diminishing returns).
Using methods that don't contain number 4 will give misleading results. Again, doing that will vastly overstate the ability of attacks like Headsplitter, with extremely narrow cones, and understate the ease of hitting targets with a large PBAoE. -
Quote:Here's the damage resistances of most of the enemies in the game:Originally Posted by Yogi_Bare
There's a lot of discussion about DPS when comparing sets and I think everyone is using raw numbers when calculating for set comparison?
Has anybody done any net calculations that involve the median resistances (and defenses) of enemy factions? (Ex. If you're comparing two powers of equal DPS, Toxic damage vs. Smashing damage; would the overall DPS advantage go to the Toxic attack being that it is resisted against less often than Smashing damage? Is it reasonably quantifiable?)
Hypothetical: I'm looking to roll a MA Stalker because, on paper, the damage looks really good... but its all Smashing. If the median Smashing resistance of all the mobs that I may encounter is X%; isn't that decreasing my DPS by X%? Enough to make it go down in comparative ranking to sets that use mixed, exotic or damage types less affected by median mob resistance?
http://www.culex.us/ig/coh/CHres.xls
I think it should help what you are looking for. Here are the interesting findings:
Lethal is the most resisted, at 93% average (using only minions, lts, and bosses). It is tied with toxic, at 93%, and psy is the next worst at 94%. Smashing is next at 95%, and all the others are resisted equally at about 97%.
So, to answer your question, the average damage will probably be WORSE for an equivalent toxic attack. It should be noted that enemy resistances do not match up perfectly with the rarity of player attack types, and that toxic and psy are both heavily resisted when they are resisted.
Also, note that enemies tend to be universally more resistant at higher levels. Enemies appearing from 40+ resist psychic the most at 91%, lethal and toxic the next most at 92%, smashing at 94%, energy/negative/cold at 96% and fire the least at 97%.
Single target chains have the most impact against AVs however. AVs resist psychic/smashing/lethal damage by the most (86-87%), but tend to resist other damage types at around 91%.
Hope that helps. -
Quote:Using at the highest recharge rate I calculated, and using the attack as fast as the recharge, the combined EPC would be 7.045. That would be the endurance cost of each power divided by the animation + recharge. At the recharge necessary for GS-IS-GS-Eye chain, the SS user using just those three powers would have a combined EPS of 6.479.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Care to share with the class what the SS/FA/Mu's chain costs? It isn't pretty!
4.5 EPS for an attack chain would be cheap if we were talking about single target. For aoe it is peerless both because few sets can even muster an aoe chain at all and because none of those that can can match staff's rates. I may not have gotten my wish for expensive perma toggle hybrid but I'm sure you can think of things to do with endurance apart from that.
And while strenuous on the endurance bar, it should be noted that DPE isn't greatly different. At the max recharge I calculated, SS would be dealing 21.19 DPS with FS/EF/BL for a cost of 7.045, or a DPS/E of 3.008 (using the max recharge because it would lend the highest end burn). Staff would deal 15.65 DPS with the GS-IS-GS-Eye chain for 4.5 end, so about 3.48 DPS/E. Considering that Staff would need to be perfect with its cones in order to reach that mark, I'd consider it pretty even.
And about that 4.5 end/sec being cheap for a single target attack chain...
Most single target attack chains will be probably be better than that. My TW character's attack chain burns a base of 8.11 EPS, but that is by far the most extreme example. For instance, a single target attack chain for Katana consisting of DA>GC>DA>GD would have a EPS of 4.16.
Also, remember that an AoE attack chain would be useful in approximately 3 cases, none of which are regular cases (those three being the Nemesis mission with 8 Fake Nems, the ITF with a lot of EBs, and the mission you played). Given that the FS>BL>EF chain will usually defeat most minions in a spawn, the EPS of an AoE chain is not usually a factor in everyday gameplay because AoEs are very rarely constantly used, and when they are (...farming) usually enough blue candy drops to prevent endurance drain. In a way, AoE DPS = Endurance gain by increasing the rate of blue inspirations, so the only real advantage is when fighting a large number of tough targets, which is never a factor in the early game and rarely a factor in the late game. -
Quote:In order to run the chain's I listed above and have the damage numbers I listed above, staff would have to run both FoB and have Hasten. And while Staff has an endurance advantage before FoS even, it should be noted that the endurance you are referring to only existing a perfect static situation. Practically, the end difference will be less because it will take either more time or more end to defeat targets because it is impossible to constantly get 5 targets in GS and IS with either repositioning or taking extra time to find a perfect target.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
For an anecdote on this topic, consider my staff/elec scrapper that I've unfortunately only had the occasion to get to 27 today. Picked up Mercedes Sheldon's third arc while level 25, I ran a couple TFs reaching 27 and continued the arc surprised to find that despite the contact theoretically expiring at 25 the missions continued to be of my actual level. To make a long story short, on one of her missions you get ambushed by six or seven warrior bosses at once. They pretty much all went down at the same time, and it was before a single medium luck wore off. As you said in practice it is most often wise to mix aoe and single target, but it isn't outlandish to run into legitimately aoe-focused scenarios in all corners of the game's content.
On that note, it seems likely that my finished build will typically require neither form of the soul nor power sink in the general case for the full aoe chain. The patron-augmented SS build argued for earlier burns more than twice as much endurance to be competitive with staff's damage before you even consider the constant drains from rage and hasten's crashes. How interesting is that? It doesn't have an additional low-endurance mode to fall back on if the situation were to call for it, either.
Very few AoE chains would be possible to chain indefinitely, so EPS isn't as big a problem as single target chains. Because perfect sustainablity isn't possible in most situations, achieving it is not a very practical goal. Even Staff's basic AoE chain of GS-IS-GS-EotS, which is pretty stringent by AoE standards, burns about 4.5 end/sec before enhancements. -
Quote:Never played it, have no idea how it works.Originally Posted by Kirsten
is it just me, or does it sound like the OP is suggesting we turn PvP into DCUO?
-
Quote:Funny you mention TF2. This would be almost EXACTLY like TF2. You chose between a variety of options, can switch after deaths, and the system would remove unbalancing factors. But in this case, the balance of pre-created sets would allow a more diverse amount of workable playstyles, instead of forcing everyone to FotM builds and powerset combinations. Because of the progressive system mentioned above, this could actually lead to MORE diversity, not less.Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
for 1, that would be impossible because of AT hp caps
for 2, that doesnt make sense, unless you mean they have to reach an exit within x amount of time instead of just out of a jail cell
for 3, that would be quite boring honestly, low lvl mobs like that have 2 attacks, brawl and a pistol shot, and with everyone being exactly the same aside from costume would again be extremely boring
also your other reasoning for removing the AT disaprities is also bad because it again would make pvp dreadfully boring, things being TOO balanced is a bad thing in pvp
as a hypothetical allusion to what you want to do it would be like removing ALL classes from tf2 except for the demoman, imagine every server every player always playing as a demoman, that would get very boring very quickly
adding arena matches to the queue system is a good idea, trying to do a lot of what you want to do is too much work for the low return as pvp is not high popularity outside of the freedom server (aside from the small pvp leagues that run on other servers which only do arena based pvp)
about the only thing the devs can really do at this point to even out pvp in the experienced/hardcore pvper vs newbie/non-hardcore pvper debate is to disable all enhancements while in the zones/matches (arena could have option to allow enhances to spice up the matches more), and even then i honestly think that would make pvp even more unpopular than it is now
As for AT MaxHp caps, that is a fairly easy thing to change. Players would probably be limited to a base MaxHP of around that of a MM, and would get more for choosing options like a 'tank' option, which would increase max hp. It wouldn't be hard to adjust the strength of the powers given so that corresponding well to the lower +MaxHp, and this sort of thing would allow these types of 1v7 matches to occur. Same thing with the gang idea, but the powers would vary by gang (players would spawn as boss level critters, so would have access to either fire, dark, elemental, or super strength type powers).
Besides, it is just silly to argue over the specifics of the future of a possible plan. The point is that this system can offer more dynamic PvP options, which could attract some people that would never otherwise play it. -
Quote:Again, I would agree an issue or two ago.Originally Posted by I Burnt The Toast
Again... Paragon is a BUSINESS.. they have to make money to stay viable... and while you may think your idea easy to implement...I can guarantee it would take HUNDREDS of man hours ...and reap no financial gain.
There are already multiple hints at pvp for new players:
The zones themselves (AP has a link to RV itself)
The Arenas in most zones
Arena Chat
The forums
The enhancement screen (you know how it says "Show results in pvp")
And you know...the players.
If Newbie A comes to CoH and is even remotely thinking about pvp...I would hope they would ask someone (even in broadcast or help) "How do you pvp in this game?"
There are many things that need fixed in pvp before it could even think about attracting new "casual" pvpers; least of which are the mechanics of pvp. I have brought numerous friends into CoH from RL...and shown each of them pvp, AE, etc etc.... None of them pvp...and it has nothing to do with the mechanics or cost of the uber builds.
I think it is great that you are so interested in pvp...but I also think you need to take a step back and look at the true reality of pvp in CoH in regards to cost v. benefits. CoH is not some huge mmo that can ill afford to spend time/resources on something that will not prove financially fruitful...which unfortunately means...no major revamps for pvp (and yes your idea is a major revamp...you do not grasp the amount of time/manpower needed to implement such a drastic change).
But everything I have suggested could be done with things currently in game. Therefore, it wouldn't take nearly the amount of effort you are proscribing. And though I would like to have everything contained in this suggestion, the basics could be done easily. -
Quote:While I agree that would solve part of the problem, it still leaves the problems of intra and inter-AT balance, level disparities, etc.Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
i agree with him in the fact that i dont care for your changes either, an even easier way to just even the playing field would be to just disable all enhancements in a pvp zone and just leave it as options for arena to allow enhancements
Now, making sometimes a system that forces divisions can be bonus. It is almost a necessity in a game with millions of players (10,000, waiting to join your level 15-19 instance...).
But when you have a fairly small community and a much smaller PvP crowd in that community you have to make the system easy for anyone interested to join. When the system is harder for low levels, harder for certain entire ATs, harder non-FotM combinations, and finally harder for anyone without significant investment, you basically have completely eroded your potential PvP playerbase.
The advantages of this system are simple:
1. Easy to join
2. Allows any character to be competitive, increasing the # of potential users
3. Better PvP specific progression than PvP IOs
4. Allows characters to switch roles without respecing, changing ATs, or levelling/slotting entirely new characters.
5. 10000x easier to balance
In addition, the load-out method could be used for some extremely cool new instances, both PvP and PvE based. For instance, imagine the following scenarios:
1. 1v7: Supervillain Invades
Player is set as "supervillain" - gains access to high amounts of life, minion spawns, super attacks, etc. Everyone else has access to standard abilities and is tasked with defeating they reach an objective (ex: destroy city hall)
2. 4v4: Prison Break
4 players spawn in jail cells, and try to escape their confinements before they are defeated by the other team.
3. 4v4v4v4: Gang Violence
Players spawn as one of four gangs (Hellions, Skulls, Trolls, Outcasts maybe), and try to fight other teams for territory. This one could use costume change tech.
etc. These things wouldn't easily be done by the current system, but might be possible with the proposed. While many wouldn't play PvP normally, these types of things might be the spark of life needed to bring casual players in. -
Quote:I agree with him. That's why I think a PvP that didn't rely on AT, powerset combination, and investment would superior.Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
memphis bill is right in the fact IOs did set a baseline to pvp, in hardcore pvp if you dont have a good IO build then you will pretty much never win
the things i personally dont like about pvp are: travel suppression and heal decay and the general lack of rewards for pvping (i know that wont change though way too easy to afk pvp farm) -
Like I said, in my mind influence from mobs isn't a gold drop, just the game saying "hey, thanks." Of course, I can see while other people don't feel that way, but maybe because I make about 1% of my money from defeats I have a slightly different reaction.
But because everyone's reaction, I want to say again that I would be fine with inspiration drops or badges. The idea is more for the feeling than the actual benefit. -
Quote:I would agree with you, if the coding for everything I mention wasn't mostly in place.Originally Posted by I Burnt The Toast
You do know there are global channels as well as Arena Chat... right? These are tools which are already in game to help you find fellow pvp players.
As far as your idea... meh... it would not get me to go back to pvp. And I pvpd quite a lot for around 4 years.
You are asking for a lot of investment (code wise) for something that will not bring in any return financially.
Instead of going on and on about "fixes" to the mechanics; maybe what is left of the pvp community should band together and adapt (I mean hello it has been 3.5 years since Issue 13)...and learn to make the best use of the tools which are already in place. If you think the devs (rather ncsoft) are going to greenlight something which requires hundred of hours of coding and then testing... for absolutely no financial gain...you are mistaken. Pvp has proven time and time again in this game that it is not a financially lucrative aspect of CoH.
This isn't me being "mean" or anything like that...it is simply me being a realist. There is not enough pvpers to warrant the financial cost...nor produce any financial benefit for time spent on major upheavals.
The team up teleporter? Have that. Even does multiple teams.
Tech to nullify existing powers? Anyone that has a rocket board can tell you that we have that.
Contact to change the powers? Null the Gull.
This doesn't change the mechanics. Ideally, this system wouldn't need the complex rules added to PvP in I13, but even if it did have them it would merely be a new option, not a change to all PvP. Standard code rant applies, but none of the individual components would be new to the game.
And for your point about Arena Chat/Global Channels: They exist, but still don't speed up the process enough. And the work in an exclusionary fashion, making it harder for new entrees to have people (they would have to know the right globals or even know that the arena chat exists). And the existence of global channels didn't mean that the TuT wasn't faster in a lot of cases (and once the improvements come in, in virtually every case).
And while CoH will never have a hardcore PvP crowd like many other games, they might have some success with a very casual friendly system like the one above. The Team Fortress style PvP is probably the best fit for a super-casual game like CoH. -
New normal ATs? Not at all.
New Epics? No interest if they aren't one of the following:
1. DE, preferably Praetorian DE
2. Rikti (even has its own Heroes and Villains!) -
Quote:I'm pretty sure the Well was in Cimerora at the time. Ergo, the mission where you try to become an incarnate by going to a cimeroran map. Since Requiem was in the place at the time, it is quite possible that he managed to contact the Well and gain incarnate status before it left Cimerora.Originally Posted by EU_Damz
In one of Maxs missions you come across Requim who has now become incarnated himself.
He says that he was able to get this new power [and thus be stronger than the now weakened Reichsman] back in the time of Cimerora which would explain just exactly why he went back there. What is not explained however is just how he was able to become incarnated in the first place.
According to the timeline it would have been after the ITF but before we go back to free Cimerora of the Talons as the 5th have all gone now. Am i missing some content lore as i have looked all over and found nothing in relation to this.
Also could this be the start of Requim himself playing a big role in the incarnate picture? -
Quote:The places to PvP are easy to find. But people? Unless you only play on Freedom, it is considerably difficult to find people to PvP with. The zones are make it mostly difficult to find people (siren's call is better than most about that), and the arena makes it hard through UI. Arguably you could make it easier just by revamping the arenas, but using the Team-Up Teleporter is both something the devs have been trying to do for almost all new content, and a way to make the access easier.Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Hmmm. Admitting I've skimmed a bit:
1. Make it easy to find.
It *is* easy to find - there are four zones and an arena.
However, the arena UI, at least last I saw of it, was... fairly nonintuitive and a bit of a bear to get around. So that needs to be tweaked, first and foremost.
I wouldn't argue with using the Team Up Teleporter... somehow. Say, options of "Watch for arena events and notify," "Watch for PVP zone events" (but not just "someone has entered" - maybe have an imbalance trigger the user can set, or a temporary "PVP zone alert" power that comes up.)
Don't you think that having yours powers do one thing in PvE and one thing in PvP is annoying? The entire system is completely different PvE, whereas this system would allow players to basically enjoy the same system (ie, no diminishing returns or travel suppression, though maybe controls should work as they do now).Quote:For 2 - and tied in with 3 - er... I just don't see that working.
In the first place, they can (and do) have separate PVE and PVP effects on powers. So there's no "annoyance" there.
Forgot about that, but the point remains. I don't think players need to get a mission forcing them to "Go to the Bloody Bay Liason." Do they need a mission to tell them to do sewer trials?Quote:Second... I mean, looking at #3... there are exactly zero missions that send players to the PVP zones. WAY back when they were introduced, you had to go into the zone for the PVP warzone liason. Those were finally moved *out* of the zone so if you didn't want to, you didn't have to enter them, period.
The problem is that what you describe is the current system. When your dark tank enters PvP, his controls instantly become less valuable, his resistances go up to non-standard damage, and he plays differently. Which means this system is least equal to the current system in that regard.Quote:Now for the biggie... the wholesale power replacement.
I get the idea behind it. (Actually suggested something similar in a dedicated zone for it years ago.) But here's the thing - these are *our characters.* A Defender isn't a 'healer,' for instance (just to take a possible replacement) and forcing my Trick Arrow defender to suddenly have Empathy powers and some generic buff and debuff means I'm *not going into that zone.* Forcing my fairly controller-y Dark Armor tank to suddenly just "be tough and hard to hit" guts the purpose I built that tank for (in PVE, admittedly) - so I'm no longer playing *that* character.
Secondly, I never said anything about forcing this system on the rest of PvP. I13 tried that, and failed miserably. Instead, this would be an option for arena fights and the standard for the new TUT PvP events.
But that doesn't match the reality. The best PvPers always migrate to whatever works best. That could be a Energy/x Stalker back in the day or Psy/Energy Blaster, but they will go to whatever set wins the most. And the current system downright penalizes players for going against the flow. Your trick arrow character, for instance, is penalized for not being empathy, for not having the necessary "stuff".Quote:As far as balance? The stance on it for a long time was quite simply "It isn't. It's balanced around being part of a team," and I find that 100% acceptable, since we don't have "Tank, Healer, DPS" - we've got a ton of different power combinations which, in a PVP zone, make every encounter unique.
And the reason the current system is unbalanced is because it is impossible. Heck, PvE isn't balanced at all, so how can we expect PvP to be balanced against literally tens of thousands of possible combinations, even before we get to teams and IOs? But with this system, no characters would be penalized for their AT, powerset combination, level, or investment (DOs v SOs v IOs). Hopefully the various modes would have enough unique powers to promote different playstyles in a more effective way than the current incarnation.
It sounds like you see one of the big advantages to this system. It doesn't matter whether you are a level 50 purpled/incarnated perfect combination or a level 5 Ice/TA controller without even TOs, you can compete. If done right, it would be something that a player that just started playing could immediately enter and be marginally competitive at, but will still reward people for repeat plays. And if nothing else, old-style PvP would still exist in zones and in arena play.Quote:Frankly, I think the worst thing (and that which will be the biggest problem for reclaiming PVP) is the introduction of IOs. On SOs - or even commons? There's a low entry point. You may have DOs slotted, you may not have as MUCH slotted as that level 50 - but it's a matter of leveling and getting to know your character. Now? Soft-cap this, proc that, recharge out the wazoo... there's a decided *price* to enter serious PVP, and a decided gap between the "casual" and "hardcore." (I say that as someone who still goes in on common IOs and fights if there's someone around - but the people I tend to fight seem to end up being either new or also highly casual, so this is more of an arena or high end issue. Not that I've found anyone in the zones in *months,* mind you.)
Of course the other issue is just that, IOs and everything else aside, there's a big barrier just from powers working differently in PVP than they do in PVE *anyway.* And that can be discouraging for someone to walk into. -
Just some thoughts:
1. Make it easy to get involved:
PvP isn't that easy to find. It isn't uncommon to have very little arena activity (crowded out by the computer generated tournaments) and few people in the zones. Therefore, an easier way to set up matches and facilitate PvP should be found.
I think the best solution would be to use the Team-Up teleporter technology to facilitate PvP matches. This would make PvP as easy to set up as a trial or TF, and would help give it a better avenue to bring in new players. I'd probably use the system outlined in my second idea. I'd set up the following options:
1 on 1
2 on 2
5 on 5
8 on 8
16 on 16
When players zone in, they would be in a blank environment. The PvP map would be chosen by clicking on glowies with an image of the map overhead, and the map with the most votes would be selected. In this same zone will be a store selling inspirations.
Obviously, something would also need to be done about level disparities. Which leads in my next section:
2. Redefine PvP by separating it from PvE entirely
Basically, we now have the technology to remove access to a characters powers and grant new powers. In PvE, this has been used to change characters into NPCs or as a way to allow certain types of travel powers. In PvP, I think it brings balance.
When a player enters new-PvP (obviously, allow options for traditional PvP), give them access to a variety of toggles, for different playstyles. When no toggle is on, the player is intangible and cannot attack. When the game begins, a player will be randomly swapped into a load-out if they have not selected one yet.
When a player activates the "blaster" toggle, they gain access to T1, T2, T3 level attacks, BU/Aim, and any other necessary blaster attack. Other options I'd consider would be controller, mm, support, tank, and stalker. Once a toggle is clicked, the character would become corporeal, but wouldn't be able to switch while the character is alive. When the character respawns, they will have 5 seconds to chose a new load-out.
This would have to be done right, of course. I'd create a NPC that would change the visual effects of the powers (ie, make the Blaster toggle shoot ice instead of fire), but there would be no inherent advantage to using one type of visual over another. All characters would get access to SJ, SS, and Fly, regardless of load-out.
In addition, I'd give some points for continued success at one particular "AT." Those points could be used to improve a blast set by increasing damage slightly, or reducing recharge, or adding a proc. Same for all the other styles of play. This would help give some progression and keep people coming back to play.
Now, the abilities of the various AT toggles still need to be set, but if done right it could allow for a sort of balanced Team Fortress style of combat. It could even be used for more intricate PvP events, like an infiltration event or bank heist.
Here's what I want from such a system:
1. Balance
Virtually impossible in the present system, fairly easy in the proposed system.
2. Speed
With the above balance, the there should be no need for speed suppression. This would make PvP more fun in my my opinion.
3. Intuitiveness
By reducing the number of available powers, we can make them simple and intuitive. The Blaster toggles deals damage at range, the control toggles does CC, the tank is survivable and can force aggro on himself, etc. We wouldn't need to have things like Flurry doing ridiculous damage, or diminishing returns.
4. Progression separate from PvE
A PvP player should not be forced to grind in PvE to be good at PvP, and a PvE player should not be forced to PvP to get enhancements for PvE.
5. Eventually, things like Capture the Flag or other more intricate PvP games
Think a mission where 4 villains are trying to rob a bank and 4 heroes are trying to stop them. If done right, this could be REALLY cool.
3. Remove intrusions to the PvE game
PvP doesn't need to annoy PvE players to survive. It should be its own entity, and attempts to attract PvEers might actually turn them off from the system. Therefore, remove any missions that send players to the PvP zones, and find a solution that doesn't force badgers into the zones, especially for accolades.
I'm not sure what should be done about PvP IOs, given the new system above. It is possible that they could just be bought on the same points system that allows PvPers to adjust their loadout abilities.
So, any thoughts about these ideas, specifically 1 and 2? -
Quote:Obviously, what I'm saying has limits. A set where every power gave +15% defense to all would be OP.Originally Posted by UberGuy
This is a dangerous view in game design, and I'm pretty sure it's one the devs will never agree with. So long as it is a pillar in your position, I think you're going to argue to deaf ears in terms of the people who matter.
"Balance" of the sort you're talking about is pretty subjective. This game's complex interactions of various buffs and debuffs means it's exceptionally hard to assign numeric "damage equivalency" values to specific non-damage effects. Because of that, balance for those sorts of things go by feel, not formula. That doesn't mean, though, that efforts to balance them are ignored.
However, it does mean that relative balance of powersets its something of a dart board exercise. They do take aim at a bulls-eye, but near misses are acceptable. Therefore, when viewed in any particular, narrowly-defined performance metric, such as DPS, some powersets are winners and losers. And the devs are OK with this, so long as the powersets don't win or lose by too much.
I think it's a heavy burden of proof to show that Staff lies outside the devs' "near miss" target area for powerset balance. It's good to raise concerns to them, in case they might agree, but I think you need to be careful about the firm assumptions you make about what design approaches are "right" and "wrong". If you go into things sounding like you're telling the devs they "did it wrong", you're less likely to get them to take you seriously.
But as long as it is within reason, we should be try to balance relatively easy mechanics to judge, such as single target damage, more than hard or impossible things. Trying to balance around perks shouldn't be a primary option for the devs because perks are so much harder to numerically judge.