Kitsune9tails

I'm guessing, but I think that it's a little easier to write iTrials than regular content because of the Incarnate abilities, in a way.

One of the reasons our regular content is so easy is because you have to make it soloable for an empathy/electricity defender, which can make the same content a snooze fest for, say a fire/fire scrapper (unless they voluntarily dial up the difficulty).

But when writing content for 24 Incarnates, you can assume they are at all of the buff caps, side step all that with irresistable abilities, and assume that they have access to all of the Incarnate Abilities of the appropriate tier.

"There's at least 8 Incarnates in this trial with 3 level shifts; we can assume somebody has Incandescence, and that somebody else has Rebirth. So it's a slam dunk that the League has mobility for getting around death patches and healing, as well as massive AoE from Judgement."

And any team that doesn't have the right abilities can just go slot them and try again.

The endgame isn't like the 1-50 content, where if you are defeated, it's because you nodded off at the keyboard or pushed beyond your luck, it's probably expected and intended that you will be defeated several times per run, at least for your first several runs.

Quite true.

You guys are tangenting off into another thread entirely.

Dark Astoria will need content intended for people who have Alpha unlocked but are otherwise normal level 50s.

It will also need content for people who are 50 +3 and have T4 Judgement.

There should be enough difficulty range in there for everybody.

On Status:
As Samuel Tow touched on, 'defeat' is a binary status effect in this game. Either an enemy is defeated, or they are just as dangerous as when they were fresh as a daisy (fleeing bosses nothwithstanding).

The only thing that isn't binary in this game is debuffs.

Now I could imagine changing things so that enemies (and of course players) debuff themselves as they become damaged or as mezzes stack below the effect threshold, but that would also require rebalancing all of the combat in the game.

I also agree that it is thematic to be able to defeat an opponent with a mez. I actually see that as something you could implement here without much problem. The game already knows whether you have 0 or 50 stacks of mez beyond your threshold anyway. As to whether it could be implemented in a way that impacted the average fight without the gamewide rebalancing? That's more of a conundrum.

On Tanks:

Well, of course, the reason that the bad guy doesn't just shoot the squishy standing next to the tank is just story drama, but I also see lots of stories where the tank explicitly stands between the team and incoming fire. Somehow, the hail of bullets finds the tanker's chest instead of slipping by (unless of course that is the point of the story). Taunting is supposed to emulate the tanker being in the way of the shot, as well as being targeted due to seeming like a priority threat.

I'd love to see tankers emit a melee-ranged +def zone/aura for their allies. It would simulate the tank interposing themselves between the ally and the incoming damage. Just an idea I trot out every once in awhile. I'd love to see a team clustering around the tank rather than giving them wide berth when the AoEs start flying.

I can understand your sentiment, and I appreciate your opinion. At the same time, it can be bothersome when a new powerset comes out and it would be perfect for some character you have already levelled.

I'll agree to disagree on that one, and I can see how it would be better tied to an ingame mission or something.

His experience has obviously been very different from, Arcanaville's or Snow Globe's.

In any case, he is welcome to his perception: it doesn't address the point of this thread, IMHO.

The changes to Dark Astoria are not precisely what I expected or wanted, but they do show that the Devs are listening and devoting time and effort to answering our requests.

Go Devs!

and

Go us!

Are we going to get what we want 100% of the time if we tell them what we want? No. But if we don't tell them what we want, we won't get what we want at all.

Just be mature, calm and constructive, that's all I ask. Being accusatory and hyperbolic does not help.

Regardless of whether raids are actually harder than regular content, I don't think there should be any question that they are designed and intended to be harder.

Sure, you allow (and require) more people in, thus everyone is buffed to near-invulnerabilty...which is countered by instant death and irresistable damage, not to mention ultra mezzing and super debuffing. You do huge amounts of damage...to targets who can take it.

On top of this, there are tactical 'gimmicks' that punish you for not paying attention to the environment, or to the red announcements.

Most regular content is straight up tank and spank or zerg for a full team.

Trials are intended for people who like trial stuff: watching timers, maneuvering around death traps, pulling enemies to specific locations, and the like.

Solo content should have a wide variety of difficulties, since it has to accomodate everyone from Captain Empty Alpha Slot up to Doctor Triple Shifted.

I suspect much of it will be built around the Incarnate Abilities themselves. A Dev cannot know, when designing content, whether a player is bringing a Claws/Invuln or a Rad/Elec to the party. But they can design content around the assumption you have Judgement, because everyone can get it (eventually).

Happy Thanksgiving!

*Holds up gruel bowl*
Yes, more of that, please

Or just raise their melee damage modifier, and possibly their cap

I don't doubt that the reasons that have been given in the storylines for the most part give the 'generic' villain a reason to fight the good fight.

But for story-oriented players, the reason to be a villain is not just a bunch of additional zones with xp in them, it's the chance to do naughty things, even (and in some cases especially) if they result in being put (very temporarily) behind bars, left behind in an explosion 'no one could have survived', dropped into a vat of disfiguring or mutating chemicals, etc.

The heroes will save the day. That's cool.

But let some villains try to double cross them, to steal the dangerous technology, to summon the fell abominable entity even while they are protecting their own interests while saving the world: it's more work, but that's what villains do!

- We have all been kidnapped to a distant world, where we must vie against each other for the amusement of a Sufficiently Advanced Alien? Doctor Doom says: I'm stealing that power. Galactus says: What planet? You mean this snack here? (Secret Wars)

- The entire continuum of multiverses is being destroyed by the Anti-Monitor! We have to team up with the heroes to stop it! Various villains: Or we have to team up with the Anti-Monitor to survive it! (Crisis on Infinite Earths)

The SSAs are excellent villainous content. Just add a bit of that to the co-op and we're golden (er, so to speak )

Actually, I like your idea of a kill putting you right back into Hide. To my mind, it brings to mind the idea of Batman nabbing thugs one by one as they creep through a darkened area, or someone doing a series of 'flash step' kills on mooks in anime.

Since Hide doesn't make the critters lose track of you, it would not be broken solo by making you invulnerable, but it would help your Defense.

The only downside I see at the moment is how it could lead to Stalkers wandering away from small teams or complaining that teammates are 'kill stealing' them.

Hmmm...

IMHO, although it would be extra effort, it would be relatively simple:

Have an extra, villain-only arc where the player villains can optionally attempt to either help the main threat or impair the heroes' efforts to fight it. By the end of this arc, the main threat is either targeting you or has betrayed you most foully, but in any case makes it clear they will no longer even pretend to work with you. From there, you may join the main storyline.

This could work for both villains ("How dare you betray me first!") and rogues ("Paid in lead? Aw sh-"), and in some case, vigilantes ("But you said you were going to help me destroy Doctor Naughty!").

If the hero only players complain (and they will), add an extra hero-only or co-op mission where they get to turn a minor minion good, or punch an extra villain in the face or something.

In fact, something like this could (and in some cases, definitely should) be retrofitted into existing zones and arcs.

- In Cimemora, you start off helping Romulus and desstroy one of Daedalus' inventions for him. Then you realize he's working with Nazis. Because even villains hate Nazis.

- In the Incarnate storyline, you start off pledging Loyalty to Cole and reporting on the activities of the Primals. Then you turn against him when you realize he attempts to kill you (if Primal) or capture you and surgically remove your identity (if Praetorian).

- In First Ward, you start off working for Master Midnight and defeat one of the First Ward Signature heroes for him. Then you catch him agreeing to sell you out to his True Love.

- In Dark Astoria, you could start off working with Diabolique, planning on stealing the power of Death Incarnate from her when she reveals how to get it. You steal an artifact for her, and then she tries to murder you (surprise surprise).

...

In addition or as an alternative, many co-op missions could spawn an extra villain-only objective. This could do nothing but let you feel villainous, but it could also give some minor reward such as an Inspiration, some xp, or a temp power.

Examples:

- You click a glowy to steal loot related to the storyline.
- You kidnap an npc while nobody's looking.
- You kill a defeated npc to make sure he isn't a future threat.

...etc

Even something as simple as having the villain side Contact be someone you threaten, blackmail, or bribe into allowing you into the storyline could work.