MissDemeanor

Now that's interesting. An initial op featuring six single-target attacks leads to the discovery of an AOE defense bug...

Nice work Castle, and interested data-gatherers.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember which one it was. I just know that I had +33% accuracy and +91% to-hit buff, and my accuracy was apparently floored after all that, and that is plainly ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size is too small to draw such a conclusion. Short run statistics lie, once again:

Binomial probability distribution
Let's say your changce of hitting is 95%. Your 1-hit-of-6 scenario is unlikely, but not impossible:

p=0.95 N=6 k=1 or less
p=1.8E-6 A long shot (half a million to one), but far from impossible...and almost guaranteed to happen in CoX to someone several nightly, given the number of rolls we all generate.

Let's say your chance of hitting is somewhat reduced, to 50%
p=0.50 N=6 k=1
p=0.10- Now it's only 9:1. You'll see this one a DOZEN times a night, if you're defeating a lot of villians.

----------------------------

Draw a bigger sample, at least. Six rolls tells us virtually nothing about Accuracy, and is nowhere near a large enough sample to draw conclusions from.

CoH, consumed by popular culture? (Go, Hunt, Kill Skuls!)

Never!

[ QUOTE ]
I do think, however, that the devs have some kind of office game where they all get together and see which comments they post get the most flames.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more complicated than that. I know this other game...the head of Dev (guy responsible for making all the hard choices) is the guy that posts anything negative. And he leaves the posts that players will like to other Devs to pass along.

It's a good working system, all of the hate posts focused on the one fella, while a lot more work gets done by his (happier) people because they aren't getting flamed omgnerfzz!!!one1!!

Pretty much my definition of a good boss, takes the ***** jobs himself and gives the glory work to other people.

[ QUOTE ]
what does a Blaster do that a Scrapper can't already do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Die in one shot from a single standard Boss. No scrapper over L5 has ever experienced this.

Get Mezzed. It happens to scrappers who dive into a group of master illusionists or mesmerists, but other than that it's pretty foreign to them.

Find that his control powers are far more important than his primary set to his survival, because he can't survive anything that has the ability to shoot back.

Wait until L44 for a half-decent amount of defense.

Discover that other ATs hate him for his dependence and squishiness.

[ QUOTE ]
I have some more things I find "unfun" that need fixing as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that 'unfun' was the reasoning behind this change. I'm assuming 'it's a developer's job to actively limit exploits' was the reasoning. The devs (to this point) have been silent, and will likely continue to be.

But there's a basic law of the universe that a lot of people are ignoring here: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Wolf herding was simply too good to be true, and remain that way forever--too much reward for effectively zero effort.

The crowd's moved on to exploiting other missions instead, and the predictable, sure as the sun rises dev response will be that those missions will also see changes.

[ QUOTE ]
If it isn't timed, you can "repeat" the mission as much as you want. The game engine can't tell how many times you "started" the mission. Only how many times you've completed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the system carries enough bitfields on a player to track dozens of "how many clockwork gears have you killed" type integers, it can certainly carry a "how many times has this mission been reset" integer. The coding is trivial.

Actually, they just applied the wrong solution. Simpler way to end this (and most other mission cycling) would be to limit a mission to being repeated no more than three times--after that the contact marks it as 'failed' and moves on to the next.

[ QUOTE ]
Since we are the ones paying to play this game and you, hypothetically speaking, work for us, please give us a better reason for changing something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addiction stems from challenge, risk and reward. When there is no challenge, ultimately boredom occurs, and you lose a player. The constant rapid increase in the level number is entertaining for a while. but ultimately does grow stale (see the 'more content for level 50' thread if you don't believe this to be true).

Make no mistake about it, it is the job of a game designer to keep people addicted to playing.

"…playing a videogame could be considered a non-financial form of gambling…a non-substance form of addiction." [Ferguson, 1998, p. 5]

Basic game design theory. You do not allow godmode or too-rapid advancement in a game where you wish to maintain a long term paying customer base.

It is also a basic of game design theory that some players will always be at odds with the system, and do their best to find a way to work around it...and that these players ultimately make themselves dissatisfied with the product. They will grow bored with the repetitive nature of earning levels with little or no effort, and move on to another game (likely repeating the cycle there).

It's a developer's job to abort exploitive behavoirs, bulletproof the code against extremist leveling.

And that's really all there is to it.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't place all of the blame on those people who get upset when you don't follow your "rough guesses."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can. Software is organic, not linear, it isn't as straightforward as building a house. You can't set hard deadlines, because you can't deliver hard deadlines.

Most people want to know what's coming. Most dev teams will tell you "We'd like to do x, y, and z by thisdate." Z turns out to be a much bigger project than anticipated, and x+y+q is delivered instead (while finishing work takes place on z).

If you interpret a plan as a promise, you will always be disappointed with software development. If you demand 100% bug-free you will always be disappointed with software development (there hain't no setch animal).

After hearing the children frolicing on broadcast in PI tonight, I have to say I'm less than anxious to see Global--just another chat channel to ignore, I suppose.

And once again, the "They Never Listen To Us" crowd must be reeling in confusion. A dev team that actually responds, whoah, scary kids.

[ QUOTE ]
He said that in the context of a discussion of the soloability of a mission. The soloability of a mission does not normally depend on defeating everything in the mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

At my level, the soloability of the mission depends on 'defeat all' or 'defeat boss + his mob' or 'defeat archvillian' at least 50% of the time. I think it's a little facetious to attempt to imply otherwise...particularly to all of the people (L25+) who are affected by this change and know better.

While we're discussing in context/out of context, instead of leaning on the letter of the argument, let's examine the spirit of the argument...that the boss change was unnecessary in light of the slider addition, reduces the soloability of some specific AT's, and further increases the already large gap between the AT combinations that have "good" anti-boss powers versus those who do not. And further that that addition of the slider creates an EXPERIENCE inequity between AT sets.

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean states is wrong? Of coruse it does. He's wrong. But the reason is, there are a couple of exceptional missions that have to be that way for the sake of content, and there's a known bug that's needed to be fixed a long time. And aside from these two things, States is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, except for the fact that he's wrong, he's right?

Hairsplitting

I think that board negativity is contagious, and people love to work themselves into a furious frenzy of indignation instead of just playing and having fun. No nerf has every really 'ruined the game', but rather some players choose to give in to their tempers (often to the point of making rash decisions). Anger management is in order.

On the other hand, some people that leave the game do so from cool consideration and for rational reasons. They should be listened to (the few of them that post 'farewell' letters), because without the emotion their points are much more cogent...even if you don't agree with them, there may be gems of wisdom.

I think the netiot syndrome applies to every bulletin board I've ever read, all the way back to 300 baud telnets, gaming boards and non-. Don't let it bother you. People can (and will) disagree with you, how they do it tells an awful lot about the value of their opinions.

The sheer number of missions that turn into 'defeat all's (after the other objectives are completed) would tend to disprove that I'd say.

Personally, I think all of the AV missions should not require the defeat of the AV to complete (see the first two Envoy missions)--leaving the option to bypass these particular missions and go on to more content, or gather a team and whallop the AV, as the player prefers.

I also think that all missions/arcs that lead to badges should have an icon, or a bit of mission text, or something to indicate "don't skip this one". How many old folks missed Spelunker? I know I had to get Ex'd for it, all of my 'missed' content is between L5 and L15, when the levels are coming fast enough that there's actually too MUCH content.

The Accolade system would work out much better if instead of "Mission Badge X required", something more along the lines of "Any two of Mission Badges W, X, Y, or Z required".

Options are good, give the players as many options as possible and you'll have a happier playerbase.

[ QUOTE ]
My question is: Does it mention anywhere in that mission description that I'm going up against a frigging Arch Villain and should bring a team?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Investigate psychic disturbance" (leads to the Psy Clock King, who you MUST defeat-to-complete).

I could be mistaken, but I think at least one of the Envoy missions doesn't mention Envoy's going to be there (but to their credit he isn't a mission requirement either).

The Madame of Mystery is mentioned, as is Countess Crey and Antimatter.

And heck I went into a Council mission last night with five (count em) five Fame Nems in a solo mission--no mention of *any* kind of nemesis being present came up in the mission text.

I think States was pretty clearly mistaken in thinking bosses are pointed out by the mission text, it is very frequent that they aren't...and some AV's aren't either.

[ QUOTE ]
And having friends who play blasters and controllers I completely sympathize with their plight.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people I feel most sorry for are those between 25 and 32 (sometimes 38). Having to fight these beefed up guys without your 'signature' power...? Le ugh.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I 'll admit I didn't read all 20 pages but I'd have to agree with the general statement about boss levels. I took my tank out and found that within 3 hits from a boss my level I was down 75% of my health (and yes that was with a shield, and yes it was damage I was shielded against and yes I had DO's in it).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have DO's in it, it sounds like you were fighting an under-25 boss (= no changes were made to these bosses).

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, just seems like a logical conclusion.

I hate to say it, but it looks to me like bosses are not what needed modification in this game.

I've played several AT's (34-42) vs bosses since the change, and there's a stark difference between them when it comes to boss-surviving.

Blasters--City of Blasters has been over now for quite a while. The Man of Kleenex is what blasters have become in the modern game--if I can keep that boss from EVER getting a shot at me I win, otherwise say hi to the nurses in the hospital. All or nothing.

Still, it IS do-able, just the level of reward does not stack up to the level of risk, not even remotely. Were it possible, I'd avoid bosses completely with the blaster--but we all know it isn't.

Scrappers--My scrapper still laughs at bosses. Boost their health and attack by another 50%, and I will continue to laugh at them. I've soloed Monsters and the lesser AV's, so most bosses require nothing more popping a pill or two then plowing through them. No change then Devs are likely make with respect to Bosses is going to change this. This is the Man of Steel, or the closest thing to it CoH provides.

Defender -- Very type-dependent, obviously some defender builds are much more suited to boss hunting than others. Mine didn't have any particular trouble with the new bosses, except that the fights lasted ~ 4x as long--stocking up fully on pill supplies beforehand is highly recommended. Your mileage will vary. This is the Man of Tedium.

And my scrapper has mission difficulty cranked to the maximum, the defender and blaster cannot survive that setting (soloing). So not only is it a much easier, more comfortable mission--but the scrapper also gets ~3x as much experience for doing it!

I must be one of the very few players who plays (and loves) his scrapper, but knows that this inequity cannot last forever. I fully expect more scrapper "nerfs" after the Devs watch this situation for a while.

The other AT's I can't speak to, as I don't play any in the level range affected by the boss mods. It doesn't look like tanks are bothered much by it, just as a first impression. I suspect controllers are highly build-dependent on whether bosses are 'too hard' or not also.

Overall, I'd say it's a bad change. Truly doesn't affect the awesome power a good group can bring to bear at all, only hurts the casual players and non-power-gamers, and folks who like to solo most of their content.

I think datamining on the mission slider settings will reveal some very interesting data.

Some AT's are laughing at the increase in boss difficulty, that slider just means more xp for them. Others aren't going to be running up that slider at all, things are more than dangerous enough vs. a Boss as it is.

The question is, once that data is revealed, will the situation change at all?

>Atta at level 11 I found much harder since he knocked me back constantly and did a hell of a lot of damage to boot. I leveled to 12 and had a hard as hell fight. Had to burn every inspiration I had and with dull pain he nearly got my scrapper.

That's kind of the point. I never have much trouble with him at L9-10ish, but you can get this mission assigned as early as L6.

You really shouldn't have to level up once (or several times) to crack a mission you've been assigned through normal channels, particularly not in the newbie stage. Consider new player on his first trip through the levels, getting wiped out by Frostfire (or killed on the way to the mission) a half dozen times...discouraging, no?

And running through the L10-12 large angry mobs at L6-7 is a non-trivial problem; getting to the mission door alive is possibly as big an accomplishment as surviving the mission.

It's not simple. It's not undoable. It is fairly easy to screw up and boot the respec, if you have one of those disorganized groups (but so is any other TF). But it's possible even for gimps to finish this.

I disagree with the op, my personal vote for the most difficult missions would be the Hollows missions (if you try to do them at L6-7 they're a freakin nightmare--a L8 boss with pets? Puh-leaze devs, *try* to play by the same rules we do).

Still, they too can be completed sucessfully...soooo...the point is to get stubborn, get help if you need it, and blow through it. You'll feel better afterwards.