Stargazer

For whatever it's worth, you're one of the posters on these forums I've had the most respect for. You've always seemed to manage to remain level-headed, with a genuine interest in learning, while being friendly and helpful to those that needed it. Those are attributes I value highly, and I believe that your presence has made these forums a better place. Thank you.


I know the feeling. I haven't had as much available time as I would have preferred for the last couple of months, and now that The End approaches, I find myself rapidly having to cut goal after goal from my list of long term goals. I hope to still manage a few more though, including one that's been planned for about 8 years now.

And this is for critters that are designed as AVs and then scaled down to EBs. In this case we're talking about critters that have already been designed as EBs (and thus never been given power(s) responsible for PToD or any special "AV resistances"), and then retroactively given the *rank* of AV.

We *could* solve this by making these special powers treat different ranks differently, but in this case it's much simpler to just not give them the powers in question in the first place, because the design goal would be to not let them have them.

This is actually exactly what I was talking about.

There is a concern that "promoting" mobs to AVs would somehow impact solo/small-team players (e.g. give the newly promoted AVs PToD), even though that would not be the case unless you expressly want them to get it.

PToD is not something that is automagically granted to mobs simply by virtue of being AVs; it's part of powers that have to be given to them. Most AVs get such a power, but it is not mandatory, and there are AVs that do not have them.

In this situation, it would be a design imperative to *not* change the difficulty for solo/small-team players (assuming they do no have the "prefer to fight AVs" flag set), so the "promoted" AVs would *not* get such a power (or any new powers whatsoever). We *want* them to stay the same (as EBs).

(all of this has been mentioned a number of times in this thread)


When you face them as AVs, they would have the benefits that are actually inherent to AVs; basically (and somewhat simplified) higher HP and increased "AT modifiers" (pretty much higher damage on their attacks). When you face them as EBs they would not be changed from now. At all.

And this is for a change that is limited in scope, has known balance implications (we've fought AVs before. Sometimes these AVs), does not require any particular UI changes (if things are to be *unchanged* for those solo/small-team players that wish, then many other potential solutions will require some way to opt-in/out), uses existing tech, and doesn't really do anything "new".


An as-of-yet undecided potential alternate solution that would involve doing something previously untested, might require some sort of UI changes (or might impact solo/small-team players) and might require new tech would presumably take significantly longer.

At such a time, it would seem quite likely that it would instead be incorporated into some *new* content instead, especially if you could write a story around this new mechanic.

In such a case, the situation in DA would still not have been addressed.

I considered that possibility, but it didn't seem to match with your previous response to UberGuy in which you said that Tina and Unai have a high concentration of EBs/AVs. Tina isn't really all that remarkable in this sense, and Unai has a remarkably *low* AV-concentration if you count all his missions (few AVs, a ton of missions).

In general, the initial Hero-side 45-50 contacts (Maria being an exception) have a low AV concentration. They have a large number of non-arc missions, and the arcs tend to be long, with one or a few AVs in them. In contrast, newer 45-50 contacts tend to have a higher concentration. Villain-side high-level contacts tend to have several short arcs (around 3 missions per arc is common), and a low number of non-arc missions.

So, it really depends on what content you're looking at. For EB/AV concentration per mission, Hero-side content tends to lie lower than Villain-side content.

It also depends on what you're comparing to. "standard 45-50 content" doesn't have EBs+ all that often compared to what?

I'm getting the impression that any solutions that might pop up in that other thread would be more likely to show up in future content rather in the current DA content (if nothing else, a "complex" fix would be more likely to have an unintended adverse effect on the intended target for DA).

In any case, while making a "quick fix" now would remove the requirement (or at least "reduce the incentive". I wouldn't say that a "requirement" exists) for a "better" fix, it also wouldn't *preclude* such a better fix. The devs could easily implement the easy fix now, and still opt to go for a better fix at some later point if they so choose. I'm pretty sure that the discussion won't die down just because they add the option to get AVs (if nothing else, the people who are still discussing after a couple of weeks probably won't be deterred). The devs certainly won't stop thinking about it.


Basically, there's a chance that a quick fix is the only kind of fix DA is going to get, and even if a better fix shows up at some point in the future, such a fix could replace the quick fix.

I would certainly be willing to wait a couple of weeks/months to see if a better fix could be implemented in DA, but at what point does it become better to just go for the quick(/easy/safe) fix instead of waiting for a potential better fix that might never arrive?

Yes, but they were not originally designed that way, and there's no point in looking at the alternatives that won't give the desired behavior (no change for solo/small team players).

We do however have the option of *now* turning them into AVs *without changing their powers at all*. This would give players the option of facing foes with higher HP/damage, while still leaving them unchanged for "small" teams that do not wish to see them improved.


This would give easier-than-normal AVs, which would make it somewhat easier to get the AV rewards, but given that we're talking about missions where players can be +3 and AoE huge spawns left and right, is that really a significant issue?

I don't see the first part (the goal being to provide challenging content for solo players and small teams) precluding the option for AVs, and he doesn't elaborate on what the potential issues might be, so I'd be reluctant to conclude what he feels they might be.


Regardless, other posters have expressly mentioned a concern that making the bosses AVs that scale down might make it harder for them to handle the missions solo/on small teams, and I see no reason for why this should be true. Feel free to disregard the "including Dr. Aeon" part above, and the point of my previous post still stands.

Going by Paragon Wiki's list of 45-50 story arcs:

The Final Darkness: 2 AVs
Future Threat: no AVs/EBs
A Hero's Hero: 15 AVs
The Horror of War: 5 AVs
Project: World Wide Red: 1 AV (and one optional Giant Monster outside the mission)
The Red and the Black: 1 AV, 1 EB (PW says 2 AVs, but unless it's been fixed "recently", Sefu is just mislabeled)
To Save a Thousand Worlds: 1 AV
Upon the Psychic Plane: 2 AVs
Alone in the Darque: 1 EB
Ancient History: 1 AV
Brainpower: 1 AV
The Code Merlin: 1 AV
The Conference of Evil: 9 AVs
Crimson Hunt: 1 AV
The Destiny Raids: No AVs/EBs
Escaped!: No AVs/EBs
The Great Grun Gathering: No AVs/EBs
Indigo Hunt: 1 AV, 1 EB
Iron Fist: No AVs/EBs
Light and Darkness: 1 AV
Politics, Cimeroran Style: 2 EBs
Snake Fest: 1 AV
The Spirit City of Hequat: 1 AV
Time After Time: 1 AV, 1 EB
The TV Invasion: No AVs/EBs
The TV Report: No AVs/EBs
Video Killed the Radio: 1 AV
Vigilante Justice: 2 AVs
Vindication: 4 AVs
Von Grun's Lament: 1 AV
Von Grun's Redemption: 1 AV
Von Grun's Science: 1 AV


Out of 32 arcs, 23 have AVs (25 have EBs or AVs (78%)). There's an average of 1.9 EBs/AVs per arc (though that's obviously inflated by a few arcs with an exceptional number of AVs).

I'd say that EBs/AVs are fairly common in the high-level *story arcs* at least.


If you look at stand-alone missions, the ratio will go down a bit. Maria's one-off missions are shock-full of AVs, and most of the high level Villain contacts don't even *have* any stand-alone missions (Pither has 5, Grillo has 5, and TV has 4. Out of those 14 missions, only 1 has an EB in it), but most of the high-level Hero contacts have a fairly low AV ratio in their one-off missions.

I acknowledge that there are reasons for why people might want to feel that they are playing at the maximum possible difficulty (that no one else can play at a higher difficulty). I also agree that there is a value in accommodating these people (it could be debated how large that value is, and how it compares to the value of other alternatives, but that is a subjective call).


However, it seems to me that two separate issues are being conflated in this thread.

We agree that there are people who do not wish others to be able to play at a higher difficulty, but that is not what most people in this thread appear to actually be talking about. Most people, including Dr. Aeon, talk about the content being targeted at "solo and small team" players. I would argue that those two groups are not the same, and that the "no higher than me" group is no more representative of the "solo and small team" group than the "I solo AVs for breakfast" group is. Yes, there are people belonging to the "solo and small team" group that are also part of the "no higher than me" group, but there are also those that are members of the "I solo AVs for breakfast" group, and it is my belief that *neither* of those two groups are representative of the "solo and small team" group as a whole.


It is my belief that most people who play solo and on small teams do not have an easy time handling AVs.
It is also my belief that most of the people who play solo and on small teams do not care at all if *others* have the ability to fight AVs even if they themselves prefer not to.
I believe that most of the people who prefer to play solo and on small teams simply want content that they can play at their own pace, without running into opposition that they are not able to handle on their own.



My impression of the posts in these thread are also that most of the people who express concerns about making it possible to get AVs in these missions do so out of a worry that it will impact their ability to handle the missions on their own, not out of a worry that *others* will be able to fight harder foes than they themselves prefer to fight.

In my opinion, such a worry is unfounded.


I consider it to be axiomatic that it is possible to give the *option* of fighting AVs, without making the foes *any harder whatsoever* for the solo and small team players who do not elect to fight those bosses as AVs.

Since such a change would thus not present a problem specific to the "solo and small team" group as a whole (or a representative part of it), I do not consider it appropriate to say that the reason to not implement such a change is because of that very group.


Sure, the "no higher than me" group would prefer the status quo, but if *they* are the reason for not implementing the change (a valid reason), then *that* should be the stated reason, not some vague "we're doing it for the solo and small team players" statement.

I also agree. It would be a shame if things were messed up for solo and small-team play.

It is however not clear to me how changing it so that teams of 6 or more players would face AVs, with *no changes whatsoever* for teams with 5 players or less, would be able to have this effect.

That's the "But eating meat is eeeeevil!" reason I meant before.

Are there any other reasons?


The standard high-level game is already packed with AVs that convert down to EBs. In this sense, having regular AVs would be *the same* as the standard difficulty of the game. Making the DA bosses AVs with EB powers would still be *easier* than the standard difficulty of the game.


Since the players that do not wish to fight AVs are presumably already running with downgraded AVs (either that, or they must be extremely frustrated), it is also quite possible that a large number of them wouldn't even notice a change that made these bosses "upgraded (to AVs) EBs". Of those that do notice, it is also likely that many of them will not care one bit that an option for higher difficulty exists.


Isn't that still the case with the AVs that still exist in these arcs though? If the design goal is to avoid that situation, shouldn't those AVs also be demoted to "pure" EBs? It seems a tad inconsistent to leave *some* of them (including one that's arguably the toughest of them all to beat) as AVs.


Leaving aside the topic of if one should specifically cater to the "If I can't have it then no one should!"-perspective or not for now, there are still a few potential issues here.

Apparently DA is supposed to simultaneously be the part of the game where we are significantly more powerful than in the rest of the non-trial (and 2 TFs?) game (the possibility for 2 extra level shifts), and in large parts one of the easiest high-level parts of the game (native EBs instead of downgraded AVs).

This is of course great for those that want little in the way of difficulty (and specifically don't want others to have even an option of a higher challenge for the same content), but...

Where does it leave the solo/small-team players that actually want some challenge from their end-game content?
I'm quite sure that there are a lot of those.


If there are more solo/small-team Incarnate zones on the way (and by Tielekku I hope there is, because as previously mentioned I feel that the new DA is awesome) I am absolutely fine with DA remaining an easier alternative (Incarnate-lite if you will). However, if this is the *only* (significant) solo/small-team Incarnate content we're going to get (for the foreseeable future), then does it really make sense to limit the solo/small-team players who want a challenge simply in order to appease the (hopefully smaller) number of people who consider it imperative that others may not have the option of getting a higher challenge than they themselves are able to handle?

This assumes that "vegetarian" is equal to "solo and small team".
However, many of the people who would prefer the option of higher difficulty actually fall into that category themselves. We're thus not really catering to all "solo and small team" ("vegatarian") players, but rather a subset of them (vegans?). If those solo/small team players could be satisfied by adding an *option* for higher difficulty, wouldn't that make the zone better targeted to the larger group of solo/small team players?


If the bosses in question were turned into AVs that scale down to EBs, but *not* given *any* extra powers or other kind of re-balancing, how would this affect teams of 5- members set to scale down AVs? Wouldn't this pretty much cover "solo and small team"?



Also, even if they would count as "small team" (which could be debated), couldn't the majority of teams with 6+ members in an Incarnate zone be expected to handle a weaker-than-usual (no PTOD, debuff resistances or extra powers) AV?

If these teams of 6+ *can't* handle a watered-down AV without any particular naughty tricks, how do they manage to get past a mandatory fully souped up AV version of the cowardly Diabolique (which I find to be one of the most troublesome AVs in the entire non-TF/trial game)?

Also, old Nightstar on the old PI arcs (she had the Resistance power, but it didn't give the customary mez protection (it's possible that it was only a gap to Stun. I don't fully recall at the moment)).

And the point is really that they don't *have to* have the PTOD. These are typically implemented in a power called Resistance, and if you don't want the EB/AV to have PTOD, simply don't give them such a power.


edit: Oh, right. Also Sunstorm and, I believe (it's been a while), Indigo in the high-level CoV arcs.

This seems a bit weird to me too.

There are lots of people who prefer a diet with both meat *and* vegetables. Such people would not be catered to by either the pure-meat feast or the all-vegetable meal. They could eat from both meals, but would not be satisfied by either.

However, if the all-vegetable meal had the added *option* of being served a hamburger (or if you could get some salad with the pure-meat feast), those people would be able to get something that they enjoyed, while people could still eat pure-meat or all-vegetable if they so prefer.


The question is really this: Would giving the option of hamburgers spoil things for the vegetarians (other than on a "But eating meat is eeeeevil!"-basis)?

Fortunately they wouldn't need to be. There are already AVs without PTODs and special AV debuff resistances.

If people can solo AVs or not isn't really relevant though.
The more interesting question is: Can you and 5 of your friends handle an AV?

First of all, I really like the new DA zone, and feel that it (and the signature story arc) is some of the best new content I've seen in years. Things are actually *progressing*, and it makes the player feel really powerful.

It is also nice to see Incarnate content that is not exclusively trial-based, and I *really* hope that you'll end up providing more similar content in the future. Solo/small team (and "big team" too for that matter) content is, to me, far more interesting than multi-team trials.


However...
I'm not sure I agree with you here.

If you *only* upgrade these EBs to AVs without changing any of their powers, what would the possible issues that you mention be? If the difficulty is set to scale down AVs to EBs, teams up to 6(?) members would still fight them as EBs, and with the same powers as before.

Do 6-member teams qualify as "small" (i.e. are those what you're targetting)? Maybe more importantly, how many teams of 6+ would have issues with these AVs, especially if some of those team members would be partially Incarnated?

If the *only* impact of a change would be on teams of 6 and larger, it would seem to me that the benefit of giving other players the *option* of facing tougher opposition would be worth it. I know that I would have liked things to be a bit tougher when soloing, and I believe that many "small teams" would have also liked that option.


Also, it should be kept in mind that these 6+ member teams are *already* hitting brick walls in these arcs. There are a few bosses that already *are* AVs that scale down, so they would already be facing them as AVs. (has that presented any issues so far?). Notably, Diabolique is one of these AVs, and with her constant phasing/running, she's actually one of the tougher AVs to beat. If 6+ member teams are already supposed to be able to handle an AV Diabolique with phasing and PTODs, isn't it reasonable that they would also be able to handle say an AV Requiem *without* PTODs and special AV debuff resistances?

There seems to be a bit of a double standard there.



So...
Love what you've done with the place, but I'd like some more options.
Also: More content like this please.

Close, but not quite.

Eat many cookies, and then... eat some more cookies!