Great_Scott

Thanks, Katahn, this is a gold mine! Awesome reply!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning a tanker now actually requires the support of their team to handle team level content. Meaning adding a tanker to any group will now be beneficial to the group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite correct. A Tank now requires support.

You just downed every Tank+Blaster duo as "needing additional support". This concerns me, even though I don't play that combination.

Making Toons need additional support complicates play for everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning they cannot single handedly manage the control needs of an 8-man team without breaking a sweat. Meaning you are ignoring critical holds and containment. Meaning you are ignoring perma-pets. Meaning adding a controller to any group will now be beneficial to the group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also true. I'm sure every group with just one Controller is crying...and not for joy. Do you even play in pickup teams?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning you're ignoring their raised damage caps. Meaning you're ignoring that minions aren't a threat to blasters and haven't been and that lieutenant and higher mob accuracies are reduced. Meaning you're ignoring that the "invincible" standard of acceptable on missions worked against a blaster's accuracy and damage dealing due to the rapidly diminishing returns that come from going after things higher than your level. Meaning you are glossing over blasters derived very little benefit from pool defenses compared to just popping a luck once in a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you aren't just opinonated, but actually wrong. Power pool defenses were nerfed more than LT/Boss accuracy was reduced. Overall, by a factor of two. That argument has little weight. 66%-8%=57%, 60%-3%=57%

Everyone does less damage fighting +level cons. The higher level you fight, the more important Blasters become. Directly opposite of what you're trying to say.

Lucks were too good, now they are shockingly effective. This really doesn't have much to do with Blaster in particular.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning they aren't capable of being substitute tankers and simultaneously being effective melee range damage dealers. Meaning you're ignoring that i5 boosted their base damage. Meaning that a scrapper can and does contribute effective damage on teams. Meaning that a scrapper can still handle sustained aggro from a small group of enemies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time I can't recruit a Tank, I'll tell my team "That's ok, guys, we'll just wait until one shows up, since the Scrappers here can't tank a little any more". That will comfort them, I'm sure.

I fail to see how boosting Scrapper damage makes Blasters more needed on a Team. Just the opposite. You're allowed to support my arguments, but it feels weird.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning vigilance is being ignored or not being taken into account in a slotting strategy. Meaning defender contributions on a team now actually matter instead of being "nice".

[/ QUOTE ]

Empaths, perhaps. I'm not burning a respec on mine in order to take advantage of an Inherent power. Issue 6 is coming soon, you know.

You are also failing to understand that Vigilace does absolutly nothing for FF and Sonic. It isn't helping Kinetics, Dark, Rad or Storm that much, either.

Reactive powers are the province of Empathy, and to a lesser extent, Kinetics. I don't see that you understand the Defender AT very well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.

[/ QUOTE ] Meaning invincible is now a challenge. Its the hardest setting in the game. This somehow surprises you or strikes you as unreasonable that the hardest setting is actually, well, hard?

8-man on heroic now with good tactics is still easier than invincible was for an 8-man team back in i4. Defeats in an instanced mission map are half debt. Experience rewards are up in or out of a mission

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we're done with the potatoes, here is the meat. Wow, you've got a lot of nasty assumptions in there. Let's see if we can pull them all out...

Invincible was a challenge in Issue 4. Sometimes I was playing experimental "weak" toons. Sometimes I was playing with inexperienced players. Sometimes I was fighting Carnies. Sometimes I was fighting Tsoo. On other occasions I was fighting in large teams.

In every case, in every occasion, Invincible was brutally difficult.

I guess if you're playing powerful power sets with close friends at high levels against weak villain groups, then Issue 4 Invincible was easy.

Props to you. I fail to see how this helps me or any of the PUGs I join.

You're assuming good tactics and/or powerful toons and/or good players. I can't, and don't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.

[/ QUOTE ] It becomes less forgiving of bad tactics and sloppy play. I have not observed any catastrophic problems running 8-man missions, medium-sized missions, small-team missions, or solo missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an unhelpful attitude for every n00b, every lazy player, and everyone with an experimental toon. Bad Tactics happens. Sloppy play can be fun.

I'm not here for "challenge".

I used to be able to set my own level of challenge, in fact. Now, I can't.

I HAD a Invuln Tank without Invincibility, because he was fun to play with only +Resists.
I HAD a Force Field Defender with Provoke and PFF that worked like a Tank.
I HAD a AoE-centric, no-pet, no-damage Fire Controller.
I HAD a Empath with no Blasts except the Level 1 power.

I'm (usually) here to blow off steam playing a Super Hero, and Issue 5 is specifically making the random-team, random-mission "ah, whatever" style of play obsolete, and for no good reason.

[ QUOTE ]
You are viewing a tanker that actually needs team support and support archetypes to handle team-level content as broken based on how I read your comments. You also seem to be viewing a controller that can't be the sole control on a large team as broken/inadequate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do. On a pickup team, there may only be one Tank, or one Controller, or one Defender, or one Blaster. There may not be another available. There might only be a certain AT available...of a bad power set.

I see that Issue 5 has ganked teaming so that everyone can feel needed, and that's a bad thing, overall.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, since you're on Protector as well, maybe we can team up sometime and debate the merits/flaws of the new system there? My seven man SG has thinned over the last three months down to about 4, and I'm having to rely on pickup groups for fun now. And we all know how hit or miss those can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure thing, Fist! I'm always interested in teaming with more, and new, people.

Another one of my SGs left today, after being together since 12/04, since some n00b reported one of our toons to a GM.

It kinda killed that whole SG, I'm 0 for 3 now.

If anyone still has enough morale left to keep playing, I'll herd them into another, new SG, and we can carry on from there...

[ QUOTE ]
I much prefer that over feeling like I could /afk and /em boombox at the mission door. <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[/ QUOTE ]

Except this was only a "preception", even in Issue 3.

I once held this point of view, until I tested.

I invited two "Burn" Tanks, set them loose, and recorded how long the mission took while a Defender (me), 2 Blasters, and a Scrapper emoted.

I then reset the mission, and had the Tanks run in one direction and the rest of the team went in the other.

It wasn't even close. Splitting up the team finished the mission in 1/3 the time.

All toons always help the team. It just isn't always enough to help in some situations, or noticable in others.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I find that every new member of a team is welcome, regardless of their AT, as long as they play smart. Issue 5 actually renewed my waning interest in the game. It's challenging again. Thank you!

[/ QUOTE ]

This "extra challenge" that you like so much is killing two of my SGs.

Just an equal and opposite opinion, not calling you out.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, you don't need exactly 2 or more tanks to have a viable team. What you need is 2, 3, or 4 tankers, controllers, or defenders, in any combination. Out of 8 possible slots, I don't see that as all that burdensome or unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

All True. This doesn't change that fact that Pickup Teams that are Scrapper or Blaster-heavy need to wait longer to get much done.

[ QUOTE ]
Each additional player added to the team contributes more to the team now than in I4, where all you may have needed for success on an 8 man invincible team was a single tank or a single controller, and everyone else was just there to help move things along more quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely false.

Tanks now bring less to a team (Taunt Change, Defence Changes)
Controllers now bring MUCH less to a team (Pet and AoE changes)
Blasters now bring less to a team (AoE Change, pool defense changes)
Scrappers bring less to a team (Less defenses, need more baby-sitting)

The only AT that bring the same amount to the Team as in Issue 4 is Defenders.

However, the spawn size and level increases remain the same.

So, the game effectively gets harder as you add toons, since each brings less effectiveness, but the same extra danger.

I don't see this point of yours, in fact, it seems (unless I'm interpreting you wrong) that you're factually incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by the reasoning being primarily that if 1 person can provide 100% of the team role of their archetype for a large team then the second member of that archetype that arrives is at best "emergency backup". If one tanker can handle the tanking of an 8-person team (primarily this is in terms of aggro-redirection) then a second tanker is basically redundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Katahn, you're missing the fact that this is a good thing.

I feel bad that some players will be underused some times in some situations. That's actually a real problem.

On the other (more important) Hand, Making a Tank Not Redundant Is Functionally Identical To Needing More Than One.

If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.

In Issue 5, it's great that Heroes are no longer redundant. I like that, everyone gets to feel Heroic.

Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.

I don't see how exchaging one problem for a slighty worse one is good, although I'm sure someone will tell me how I'm wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're fighting +4's, I assume you're on invincible? And you're upset about debt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly. I wasn't terribly upset. On the flip side, constant death isn't enjoyable.

[ QUOTE ]
If your team doesn't mesh well, did it ever occur to you to lower the difficulty setting from its highest level?

[/ QUOTE ]

We always play together on this setting, and we know how each other plays. The only difference between "normal" and "hellish" was that we were playing different power sets.

[ QUOTE ]
Something's wrong if "inexperienced players" can waltz through invincible missions with no problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more, but, then, I'm weird. Teaming is a power multiplier. Even total n00bs should be raising their difficulty on a team of 8.

[ QUOTE ]
We don't do normal missions if we can avoid it, we do TFs and trials against +4s and +5s, and for that sort of difficulty, with the reduced durations of holds and the level effects on our damage and the monsters', trust me a second defender or controller is very handy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Er, Minotaur, I know all this - fighting +4's is why I seek redundancy. The first thing I /invite when I'm playing a FF defender....is another FF defender.

Having a bunch of disparate toons that don't work well together just gets everyone killed.

I teamed with an awesome Kinetics Defender, an Awesome Storm Defender, a Great Grav/Rad Controller, and a good Energy Blaster. With my Martial Arts Scrapper.

This was a chaotic hell that ended us in perma-debt. Just like I5 was supposed to encourage.

Needless to say, it wasn't fun or interesting, and we went back to our usual "Dual FF Defenders"/"Dual Invuln Tanks" team, and everything smoothed out.

I can only imagine how bad it would have been for inexperienced players...

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I look to be redundant whenever possible.

On a Pentad Team + You, you had better be redundant, regardless of what AT you play.

More Damage? Nice, not needed.
More Taunting? Nice, not needed.
More Buffs? Nice, not needed.
More Control? Nice, not needed.

Noticing that my powers are redundant is the cardinal sign of a good team. I like playing with good teams.

Teams that I bring appreciable help to, and where I feel noticed, are crap teams.

More Damage? Needed, since no one else is doing any.
More Taunting? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.
More Buffs? Needed, since no one has sufficient defenses.
More Control? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.

Simply put, if a team NEEDS you, and your help? It sucks.
If a team doesn't NEED me, I don't quit, or complain, or whine. I enjoy it.

However, if this bothers you (as it seems to), since you're not being "Heroic" enough, quit and form your own team, that lacks your AT of choice. Then you sure will feel that you're helping.

This is a pathetic attempt to justify the Controller nerfs. I should be able to build the kind of Controller I want. If that means that I specialize in AoE Holds, the game isn't making me redundant. I am, by my choice.

[ QUOTE ]
The main difference I see between I-4 and I-5 is before when I played my tank, I would click a few attacks, sit back and watch the effects, then spin, repeat and fold while I went off and made a sammich...

With I-5, I don't have time to even think about food, it's click that toggle, run over here, leap to that person's defence, in between beating down some purple conned baddie with my particular brand of Hands-on-Justice!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hoped-for Effect of Issue 5. More Active Gameplay. You're stating this as if it was a good thing in general.

Unfortunately, since I play CoH for relaxation, spending intense concentration is not "fun" for me.

In fact, forcing a specific type of gameplay (which is, in the end, what I5 does) has negative effects.

1. "Active Play" means that I can't roleplay as well as before. This affects my SG and all my teammates. I'm not making battle comments while forced to pay attention to every little thing.

2. "Active Play" means that I can't design a Hero to play with automated defenses. Previously, there was a choice: do I make a click-power (active management) or toggle-power (set and forget) Scrapper/Tank. Now I don't have that choice. Taking away choices is bad, and is a recurring theme in I5.

Other Issues:

1. Costume choices were not all replicated in the new categories. These removed options need to be restored. Even worse, there are now Clipping issues with some of the copied "old" costume options. Beyond that, there is no choice whether the copied costume options are "Shiny" or "Matte", as there in many cases was.

2. The balance between +Defense and +Resistance is outright broken. Now that it's been shown that Positional Defense powers and Damage Type Defense powers do not stack, there is no way to recommend Defense as a primary mitigation. +Resistance is always better in every situation.

While it's a nice fix that Ice and Stone Armors can now be aided by Force Fields, +Defense-based sets still need to be "looked at".

I'll concede that the "double penalty" of increased Mob accuracy at higher cons isn't meaningful (we, after all, aren't supposed to be fighting +3's). That concession still doesn't make +Defense better.

The Mob Accuracy reductions don't keep up with the Defense loss. In addition, the PvP problems with too much Accuracy/not enough Defense was just worsened.

In fact, I haven't seen a Developer rationale for why Defense was lowered more than Resistance overall, at all.

3. The Defender Inherent power isn't as useful as some of the others. It does not apply, in fact, to a great many Defenders. Vigilance, like Gauntlet, is only useful when teaming. In addition, Vigilance is only helpful when a Defender isn't being vigilant.

Containment is universally useful, and Defiance will be used by default.

I don't sense that Inherent powers are balanced.

Ice Tanks won't be fixed for Teams because they aren't broken if a FF or Empathy Defender happen to be around.

Similarly to SR Scrappers, the Ice Tank Armors count as a "pre-buff" to help out when they are buffed by Defenders and Controllers.

I mean, the 40% or so +DEFENSE that Ice can eke out stacks wonderfully with Fortitude (base 30%) and Dispersion/Insulation Shield (base 25%).

The new flavor of "balance" seems to be "get a Team, n00b". If this is actually the case, any time one powerset in another AT allows you to succeed, you're not "broken".

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that giving any toggle less than 5% defense is pretty much not worth it, and giving it less than 7.5% is not worth slotting. IMO, you should be able to feel the difference between the power unslotted and the power six-slotted. As it stands on test, that's simply not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

A great argument, but irrelevant to me. My Ice Tank is taking and 6-slotting Weave.

It doesn't matter if the power gives only 2.5% (Combat Jumping), if I feel I need more defense, I have no choice but to put my slots there.

If this means that my attacks are one-slotted at 41, that's just a sign that I'm willing to go to bizarre extremes to get my Hero Idea to work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
never got within melee range. I kept my distance.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's your problem. Blasters are much more affective in melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, of course, proves what we already knew. A 10-20% boost is all that Blasters really need to be "balanced". Boom. Done. Heh, I'm so punny.

There will still be other issues, but the melee range attacks show every day, all day, that more damage is precisely what Blasters need to work the way they should.

Heck, we even know about how much they need, too. Really takes the guesswork out.

Oops, was I supposed to not state the obvious? Sorry.

Sigh. Melee is your defense. Range is your weakness. Don't get mixed up, Golden Ace!

Remember, all the good status effects and all the real damage is done in melee...that includes you, not just the mobs.

Don't be confused by the mediocre looking Brawl index...AKAIK, all melee Blaster damage is multiplied by 1.1.

I hope this helps!

Not really. More Risk (melee range) = More Reward (1.1 damage multiplier for melee attacks, AFAIK).

Blaster HTH attacks have always been awesome - all my "scrappers" since I3 have actually been Blasters.

I started doing this because the Blasters get cool melee attacks....I never suspected (until recently) that my "theme hero" was not gimp, but actually pretty effective...

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say blasters need an across the board dam increase of about 10%, and that scrappers need about a 10% trim, but given that a trim will never fly, I'd say blasters are due for a 20% boost. It doesnt compensate for the infuriating and unbalanced lack of status protects, but it would give them some chance in the post-level 15 world...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. In fact, I know that a 10% damage boost is needed for Blasters because I do the extra damage now.

I built a NRG/NRG Blaster to mess around with Blapping.

I was appalled to discover that my melee blaster was more survivable than my ranged one!

Especially when soloing, I discovered that mob death is the best damage mitigation.

My melee attacks could take out single targets faster and more efficiently than ranged blasts ever could.

So, yes, Blasters need either 10-20% more damage...or they need very short activation times.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bushpig,

The respec TF only has about 3 or four missions to it. That's not a huge time commitment -- 1-2 hours, perhaps? And considering it's something you can do only once every 10 levels, starting at level 24, it shouldn't be putting that huge of a dent in your play schedule. And I have a hard time believing that respec teams are so hard to come by -- I was invited to both respec teams I served on, and I wasn't even looking to do it at the time.

And, of course, you could always plan out your hero correctly the first time around.

NewScrapper

[/ QUOTE ]

New, trust me... sometimes getting a respec team together hurts. Then there's always the 5 blasters no melee'ers/healer's team that's sure to be eating dirt when the reactor goes nova.

[/ QUOTE ]

...And here we have the actual problem.

See, when we say "Teams Good!" and "Teams Bad!" and have our shiny happy trite arguments we are completely ignoring the elephant on the sofa.

The ATs aren't the same.

Sure, a Controller can substitute for a Tank....unless he's Mezzed.
Sure, a Scrapper can substutute for a Tank....unless there's no Defender.

The real problem of "forced (encouraged, sorry) teaming" isn't that lots of players are needed.

It's that these type of changes make at least one of every AT needed, and that's a very bad thing for anyone that's trying to form a team.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this just arguing semantics? What difference does it really make if we call them archetypes or classes?

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes a big difference. Archetypes have power sets.

For example, a "Kheldian" AT would have 4 power sets: a Peacebringer primary/secondary and a Warshade primary/secondary.

Of course, then you could mix and match powers, but as we all know, choice is bad

My Main is Claws/Regen, but my first alt is NRG/NRG....guess which Hero is more "fun"

Seriously, I find that my single-target damage (at level 28 now) is insane.

I have had other players ask me what my build is, and why people thier Blasters suck so much(!)

In any event, I'm trying to figure out how to best use my power pools, not that I have a free respec....should I drop a pool to get Leadership?

I really want to get Tactics and Assault, so that I can 6-slot damage, and be capped whenever I use Build-Up.

Any advice would be great!

Thanks.

Exported from version 1.5A of CoH Planner
http://joechott.com/coh
Name: (The) Knockout Punch
Archetype: Blaster
Primary Powers - Ranged : Energy Blast
Secondary Powers - Support : Energy Manipulation

01 : Power Thrust acc(01) dam(7) dam(9) dam(9) dam(23) dam(23)
01 : Power Blast acc(01)
02 : Energy Punch acc(02) dam(3) dam(3) dam(5) dam(5) dam(7)
04 : Build Up recred(04)
06 : Swift runspd(06)
08 : Boxing acc(08) dam(42) dam(48) dam(50) dam(50) dam(50)
10 : Bone Smasher acc(10) dam(11) dam(11) dam(17) dam(19) dam(19)
12 : Hasten recred(12) recred(13) recred(13) recred(15) recred(15) recred(17)
14 : Combat Jumping defbuf(14)
16 : Conserve Power recred(16) recred(43) recred(43) recred(43) recred(46) recred(48)
18 : Health hel(18) hel(36) hel(48)
20 : Stamina endrec(20) endrec(21) endrec(21) endrec(31) endrec(31) endrec(31)
22 : Tough damres(22) damres(27) damres(27) damres(29) damres(34) damres(29)
24 : Weave defbuf(24) defbuf(25) defbuf(25) defbuf(36) defbuf(37) defbuf(37)
26 : Super Jump jmp(26)
28 : Acrobatics endred(28)
30 : Power Boost recred(30) recred(34) recred(34) recred(36) recred(37) recred(39)
32 : Nova dam(32) dam(33) dam(33) dam(33) dam(42) dam(42)
35 : Stun acc(35)
38 : Total Focus acc(38) dam(39) dam(39) dam(40) dam(40) dam(40)
41 : Personal Force Field defbuf(41)
44 : Temporary Invulnerability damres(44) damres(45) damres(45) damres(45) damres(46) damres(46)
47 : Hurdle jmp(47)
49 : Force of Nature damres(49)

[ QUOTE ]
Every AT CAN can solo and that is their intent. It is NOT their intent that every AT can solo ALL their missions. This obviously true when you consider that AV's start showing up in story arcs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. So story arcs should not be soloable, natch.

One thing I don't understand....say you get 3 missions in a row and they all have Elite Bosses or AV's..how do you drop them?

Or do you just street hunt until you can get a team?

[ QUOTE ]
IMO Every AT should be able to solo at least at the heroic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naah. That's why there is a "soloing" AT. The Scrapper. According to Mieux, other AT's don't deserve to solo.

Ordinarily I'd /ignore such a ridiculous assertion, but the sad fact remains that Statesman has said just that on more than one occasion.

I really don't get it either, but you'll have to take it up with the devs?

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the fundamantal differences I have with many of the posters is that i don't think my blaster should be able to solo all my missions or even half of them. If I wanted to solo, I'd play a scrapper or tanker. The fact that I CAN solo as a blaster or defender or controller is gravy. The problem is that at low levels, blasters are one of the BEST soloers and so the expectation gets set. The other problem is that you can't dump missions as discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually understand this point of view. The fact that any AT can solo well (and not just specific builds) is probably too powerful.

The problem is twofold: not only were skewed expectaions set that cannot be undone, but making any AT Team-Only (in capital letters!) can't work.

One of the core design rules of CoH is "log in, have fun for an hour and get something done, and log out".

That can't happen if you're spending 15 or more minutes "looking for team".

[ QUOTE ]
Acting like any challenge is counterproductive to an enjoyable game is disengenuous. I've been playing video games for well over 10 years now as I think most people on here have.

[/ QUOTE ]

...right. The challenge that there is now is fine. You're the person saying that there is no challege.

You're factually wrong on that, too. Try soloing a fire melee Blaster and be amazed by the current level of diffiuclty that you seem to find so easy.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break it to you, but most of us are used to video games being 10 times harder than CoH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doom (all), Quake 1-3, UT (all), are not MMORPGs, sorry. I won't even bother to mention that the type of difficulty is different.

Difficulty in CoH happens from depending on other people to do thier jobs. In an FPS, you depend on them to screw up. Guess which is more likely.

I'd mention, oh, that every solo RPG ever made is actually easier than CoH, since you have full control over your Hero/Party... but you typed "video game" in the above quote.

Yeah, I'll admit that some SNES games were harsh, my friend had them.

They were shooters, or platform games...maybe you meant fighting games? Regardless, irrelevant when discussing MMORPG difficulty.

If you want a difficult, nasty MMORPG I understand that AC is quite harsh, has a cooler death penalty too. The few remaining subscribers really seem to enjoy PvP with thier Level 200+ chars.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I thought it made the game much more demanding. Clearly many players could not adjust and did not want to adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. After a hard day of work, I enjoy some nice debt. After all, my end-of-day entertainment should definitely involve tactical planning.

One thing I find exhilirating about pickup groups is everyone finding out how everyone else's playstyle interferes with thier own.

Oh, and lots of typing. The first thing I want to do when I'm playing a melee Blaster and I fail to stun the boss is stop and send a quick Tell to my teammates to help me out.

Heck, it only takes 4 seconds. 3 seconds, if I stop and find the macro button out of the 15 or so I made with stock phrases. Yay for the 3rd button tray!

Yeah, I live for the game to be more tactical....right after I get Teamspeak.

I'll have to figure that out, because it'll be required when Bosses get twice as hard so 15% or players can have a good time.

Too bad other players won't have voice chat, either...oh well, it was a good idea.

It's sure a good thing we have that difficulty slider now, it stopped everyone from complaining that the game was too easy.

[ QUOTE ]
You honestly believe "pulling" is an exploit? I'm sorry, but you're weakening any argument you have by making totally outrageous statements like that. "Pulling" exists in EVERY MMORPG game I've ever played. For CoH, it's even covered in the Stragegy Guide (which is endorsed by Cryptic).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope! I'm claiming that "gaming the AI" is an exploit, and Pulling is an AI artifact.

The larger point I was making, since before the Arena even came out, is that in PvP you are playing Humans.

Humans, unlike any MMORPG AI, know that Tanks are a waste of time, Defenders are really squishy, and Blasters do a lot of damage.

The entire "Meatshield" and "Mage" paradigm painfully doesn't work in PvP, and I consider the game fiddling with my targeting to be:

1) A cheap way to force a PvE abililty to work in PvP.
2) Annoying, since I want to play myself, not let the game do it.
3) An unrealistic band-aid on real class balance.

Tanks should not even HAVE taunt in PvP.

Tanks should do double damage in PvP, with double endurance cost and double the recharge duration.

That will make playing tactically rewarding without the pathetic attempt to temporarily turn me into a mob.