SpittingTrashcan

The problem with EM is not that it's not good at anything. It's just that its clear and overwhelming superiority in ST melee control has, shall we say, somewhat limited applicability in the game as it exists now. If there existed a class of enemy that was a) dangerous enough that meleers had a reason to fight not more than one at a time and to want it locked down (as opposed to simply soaking damage using their mitigation set) and b) could be mezzed permanently with reasonable levels of stacked mez, then EM would have a niche all to itself. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that comes close to fitting that description is an EB that isn't a downgraded AV, and those are somewhat thin on the ground (and for sufficient levels of IO mitigation, do not even meet criterion a).

The reward system as it exists now favors high passive multitarget survivability and high AoE DPS. EM's ST control is redundant with sufficient passive mitigation, ineffective against multiple targets, and ineffective against hard targets, and its AoE DPS is very low. It's a good set for a game that doesn't exist.

Then again, everything that I just said was true before ET was changed, but it didn't get mentioned nearly as much because omgET.

Claws, you are incontrovertibly right about the design intent of the zones and the reward structure about the zones. Your argument is still about as effective in quelling resentment as rolling your face around on the keyboard.

From the perspective of the PvEer, the PvPer is being unreasonable because they're not doing what the PvEer would do in that situation: cooperate so that everyone can achieve their goal faster. From the perspective of the PvPer, the PvEer is being unreasonable because they're not doing what the PvPer would do in that situation: fight, as the zone was intended for. People are different, which is fine, but when the zone design sets up a conflict between two groups of people who both feel that they are acting reasonably, the result is an intractable source of friction. As I said before and will continue to say, the PvPers have the intent of the zone behind them, and the PvEers have the facts of how the zone dispenses rewards behind them.

You must admit that without PvP, the zone rewards would be absurdly easy to obtain for their value, which is part of their "balancing factor". This has been brought up time and time again as the reason why they must be in a PvP zone. The problem is that they're still easy to obtain as long as nobody uses the zone for its intended purpose. This means that control of the risk/reward ratio is placed directly in the hands of players. This is a recipe for disaster.

Suppose that there was a zone where you could run instanced missions where enemies gave double XP, inf, and drops. However, other players could arbitrarily choose to adjust your mission difficulty upwards without increasing the reward, for credit toward a badge and a chance at a rare and valuable item. Can you imagine how much resentment there would be towards people who used that feature? Yet it's definitely part of the design of the zone, intended to balance the otherwise too-good rewards. It'd create an enormous howling scream-fight between those who try to get the good mission rewards in a cooperative fashion and those who tweak upward mission difficulty for the benefit that provides. It'd go around and around between "look, this is totally an exploitable reward as long as we get along" and "the zone is designed with this feature, I'm within my rights to use it as intended."

No of course it's not a perfect analogy, in all sorts of ways. But it cuts to the heart of the matter, which is this: when players are, by design, allowed to control how difficult it is for other players to do something as a free and voluntary choice, this is a recipe for disaster. No matter how fair and balanced it was intended to be, those who choose to follow the design intent of the system for any reason become the enemy of everyone else. I mean for heaven's sake, if nothing else, isn't the PvP community tired of being among the most resented minorities in the game, just because the most frequent first encounter a player is likely to have with PvP is getting shot on the way to trying to grab a Shivan? It's not like the PvPers have this level of blind faith in developer intent in any other respect - remember I13 and how it made PvP totally awesome and anyone who says otherwise is a whiner?

I wonder why I even try, it's not like anyone reads this crap.

I give the devs a bit of guff from time to time for failing to learn from others who have already done what they are trying to do and have done it better.

This is one area where the CoH devs are miles and miles ahead of everyone else, and others should be learning from them.

You fools! Don't you see that this is the Worst Thing Ever? How will we demonstrate our rugged grizzled manliness if soloing Defenders is no longer slow and difficult? Not that it ever was, mind - you whippersnappers just didn't have the guts! Besides, it's way too good! And it's not good enough! And it's not equally good for everyone! They should have given us a worse better different buff!

Also, this $20 bill Castle mailed me is all wrinkly. I'll keep it, but I'm sending a strongly worded letter!

Gentlemen I propose my bottom!

I think we're getting into the distinction between "the secondary effects of all sets are balanced, separately from other considerations" and "set balance takes secondary effects into consideration." The first is plainly not the case and probably never will be (or indeed can be, given situational utility). The second was false when the sets were made, but then at that point the devs had a very poor understanding of what aspects of power design would turn out to be important in determining the value of a power (to put it charitably). If that's still the case now I'd be extremely surprised.

Edited to add:

It's been mentioned several times already, but it's worth repeating: the "speed" issues with TF and ET have a lot to do with when the attack effects are delivered. It'd probably take some animation tweaks to justify (and we all know how popular those are), but if TF and ET delivered their effect within a second or so of activation and then wound down, both the perceived speed and the actual utility of the powers would be notably improved.

I'm not sure what a character could do for 1.67 to 2.33 seconds after delivering a powerful blow that wouldn't look silly, though. Rub their knuckles?

Hm, what if ET started with the double-punch lunge and huge blast of energy, the energy halos around the fists then disappeared, and the charge-up portion of the current ET animation played as the halos restore? And for TF, a leaping two-handed uppercut, with the remainder of the animation being the landing and return to fighting stance.

Well, I'm not BaB.

Do the sets that compare with EM on single target damage also compare with EM on mitigation? If DPS were the only balance point, FM would be way out of line. EM is a set where every ST attack has at least a chance of the same mag 3 stackable hard mez. I'm aware the value of this is debatable, but it's not nothing, and ignoring it when discussing balance is at least slightly disingenuous.

Round 2: Slightly less off-the-cuff suggestions, ordered from most to least likely to meet with general approval - that is, among rocks-in-the-head average market users (like me!).

1. Allow players to set level of random rolls.
2. List recipes sold to vendors for a fixed multiple of the vendor buy price.
3. Remove recipe level brackets; all rolls draw from all brackets up to specified maximum level.
4. Remove fixed-buy option for merits - random rolls only.

Any option seen as increasing "choice" is likely to be popular. Any option that removes "choice" - even if one of the choices on offer was almost certainly inferior on every level - is likely to be seen as a nerf.

To clarify: the goal of all these suggestions is to put more, and more varied, recipes into circulation, on the assumption that low recipe supply is the main issue.

I'm no marketeer, but I fail to see how it's in a marketeer's interest to create a shortage. Marketeers make money on transactions, not on the absence of them. AFAIK, the only time marketeer activity creates shortages is in the initial stage of a price increase, when they buy up existing supply at a lower price so they can sell it at a higher price. Of course, I don't know much.

If there are no items of a type on the market, it's because not enough are being made, or not enough is being offered. System changes can fix the first problem, albeit in ways that might not be very popular. Not much can be done for the latter, save perhaps (and this is quite ridiculous) having NPC vendors list every recipe they buy. At 4x their purchase value. Like they do with SOs.

As far as I can recall from fighting Freaks with my fire/fire tank, yes. Godspeed, farmer.

In case it wasn't clear, my point was not so much to complain about the behavior of other people as to note the futility in complaining about the behavior of other people. People do what is best for them, and can't be faulted for doing so; to induce people to do the "right thing", the system must make it the right thing for them.

And by them, of course, I mean me.

Indeed, it's a curiously incomplete "fix". The enemies are not untouchable, just untargetable by players, much like invasion zombies when they're emerging from the ground. And much like invasion zombies, they're still affected by patches, auras, PBAoEs, and can be targeted by pets. You can hurt them, you just can't aim at them. It's odd.

The problem is that it is not your behavior in specific, nor the behavior of PvPers in general, that I am arguing about! It is perfectly normal that someone who came to the zone to PvP should attack other players. I am not arguing that they shouldn't. I am not arguing against the behavior of any player. I am addressing my argument directly against the zone design, because the behavior it promotes does not square with the stated intent of the zone.

I have not been as clear as I would like to be. Let me try to put this in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted.

Player A enters the PvP zone with the goal of engaging in PvP with other players. It is presumably to his benefit (and if I'm wrong about this, I would be very very surprised) that there be a lot of other players here on either faction, who will respond to being attacked by remaining in the zone and fighting back.

Player B enters the PvP zone with the goal of obtaining a PvE reward. He wants to do so in the least time necessary. It is to his benefit if no players attack him, because being attacked makes it more difficult to obtain his goal. In no way does engaging in PvP bring him closer to his goal. Whether he wins or loses, time spent PvPing is time wasted, and must be measured against the rewards he could be earning by leaving the zone and engaging in PvE instead.

The presence of player B induces player A to arrive. The presence of player A induces player B to leave. The absence of player B induces player A to leave. The absence of player A induces player B to arrive. Round and round and round we go. This is the problem.

Yes, some people think they are B and are actually A. But there are other ways to induce reluctant players into PvP, that do not involve drawing players with zero intent to PvP into a PvP zone. Rewards that can be obtained exclusively through PvE play, and are more difficult to obtain in the presence of PvP play, have no place in a PvP zone, because they draw in people who will never want to do what the zone is supposed to be for. That is my point.

The prescription is not to players, but to designers. When the design turns fellow players into obstacles to enjoyment (and that applies to both A and B), that is stupid and toxic.

Okay, I said I wouldn't do this, but here I go.

Memphis_Bill, you have proved that if you try hard enough, you can avoid the point I'm trying to make. Which is that PvE rewards can induce any number of PvE players to enter PvP zones, but they cannot induce them to stay for PvP - and in fact, the presence of PvP, by hindering them from achieving their goals in an acceptable timeframe, encourages them to leave.

It is utterly insane that the presence of PvP in a PvP zone reduces the population in a PvP zone, but that is exactly what is happening! There is no way you can possibly claim that PvP makes it easier to obtain the rewards that PvE players enter PvP zones to obtain, and it doesn't matter what other rewards are available for PvP because that's not what they came for!

ARGH. It is like arguing with a brick wall.

Bill, I'm not sure what question you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure it's not the one being asked.

If I understand correctly, the question is: if your goal is PvP, do you prefer to play against people whose goal is also PvP, or do you want people present who (accurately) view PvP as an obstacle to their reason for being in the zone? Or more briefly, is PvP better when all participants are willing?

Note that it doesn't matter why they're willing, whether they enjoy it or are just being bribed to participate. The point is that they don't see PvP as counterproductive. Which, at the moment, it is.