The_Foo

Time to make the "Enhancement Diversification, and how everybody got duped!" thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Taking your suggestions into account, I've added Defense to the Power Pools to EVERY single damage type EXCEPT Psi. In other words, the Pools are no longer limited to Smashing and Lethal.

Frankly, my original idea didn't account for the fact that some pools would have been situationally more useful to certain Tanker and Scrapper builds...This change addresses the inequality.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a suggestion regarding Hasten and Stamina, and reducing them in effectiveness while boosting our inherent recharge and endurance rates if you're interested...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Er, clarification please? I thought a 14% damage debuff would turn 100 into 86?


[/ QUOTE ]

Edited post - you're right. Typing in haste made me use the original 7% value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Time to nerf Hasten, I say. (Seriously. Kill the dang thing!)

Even the clarifications of these things confuse me!


Also: *cough*Invulnstillunhappytoo*cough*

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every time Statesman has said a change will happen, it's happened or he's explained why it couldn't (like that "rage" ability for tankers).

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Fury?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the one.

[ QUOTE ]
Statesman, any chance we'll get some reasonable method of knowing what these powers do? I know you guys have a design philosophy about numbers, but resistance can be easily determined whereas Defense cannot.

I just don't get why you're creating all this confusion where posting a couple of numbers would make things so much more clear.

Instead of the Good, minor, slight defense can we just know that we're getting from say, Dispersion Bubble:

10% defense to all damage tyes; 10% defense to AoE attacks.

Are you really saying that such a description is more complicated than a subjective descriptor?

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. It's *not* having numbers that drove me to math, so that I could figure out if something was worth taking.

Sounds better, but I'll have to rely on Circeus' reaction to guide my own.


While we're being all forthcoming with information and changes, any comment on the overwhelming desire of Inv Tankers to be skewed more towards RES than DEF, particularly the widely-held opinion that Invincibility is the *only* power in the set that's really important?

How about the possibility of other-typed DEF power pools, then?

I consider this proposed fix a bandaid, at best, frankly.

[ QUOTE ]
...So why are we bringing this up again? JUST UP OUR DEFENSE ALREADY, DAMNIT!

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the RES thing is resistable, so it doesn't always even out, even if the math says it does, which I'm not sure it does.

I agree about the DEF thing, though. Let's fix some stuff here!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, it's really not. Having a Tanker class to begin with was a bad idea. A whole section of heroes that can be beaten quickly, but they can't defeat enemies quickly either? That's guaranteed to be disappointing, and that's the way it has worked out. Over and over we've had people say they made a Tank because of the powersets, and then got upset because it wasn't fun. Even Statesman has said he regrets forming the archetyes so heavily around the classic MMO classes. The result was that they have had to raise the damage that Tanks do, but to offset that they've had to lower the ability to take damage. The whole thing isn't working out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a tanker in a superhero MMO isn't a great idea, no, but saying that "thus, both melee ATs should be one melee AT" is not really an improvement.

It could be argued that tankers should have been bricks, with offense primary/defense secondary, and given melee powersets with the slow recharging heavy hitting attacks that people have wanted for tankers for a long time (and to some extent, already have). However, that doesn't really leave room for characters like Spider-Man, Nightcrawler, Beast, Wolverine, Batman, and the like - melee characters who are not bricks, and who are thematically quite different..

[ QUOTE ]
Before the devs lowered the defense caps on Scrappers, Scrappers were able to *make* tanks using power pools. They were actually better than tanks because they could tank *and* defeat enemies in a reasonable amount of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

God, tankers with mature offense never had trouble defeating enemies in a reasonable amount of time. Ever. Ever. Ever. I'm so tired of that canard. Yes, you had 70% base scrapper damage, but you also had some hard-hitting attacks in most of the secondaries. If you had trouble defeating enemies in a reasonable amount of time, you were neglecting your attacks and blaming game mechanics.

And, scrappers could not tank as well as tankers. Never. Ever. Ever. Ever. That was never true, is not true, and never will be true. A completely reasonable argument could be made that they could tank well enough, and that I'll grant you.


[ QUOTE ]
I think that getting rid of Tanks now would be much harder than if they'd just shipped that way originally, but it's still worth considering. Change all Tanks to scrappers. Open up all the powersets to both sides, so an Axe/Regen character would become possible. Raise the Scrapper defense caps so that the former tankers could still tank if the wanted to sacrifice a few more powers to tanking.

It'd be painful, but it would be worth considering. It' probably too late in the game to do it, but it's worth discussing at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to get rid of tankers, make them into bricks or something. Don't bother to turn them into scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]Gotta agree. I was never a fan of the "make them one AT" thing. I just think that the two ATs were mis-managed. In actuality, I tend to see them reversed.

Spiderman is more powerful defensively than he is on offense. "Scrappers", tend to be less powerful from the get-go than "Bricks", but make up for it with skill. To me, that means buffs/debuffs and relying more on all-on-nothing DEF-style defense.

When Spidey gets hit, he gets hit hard. (Which is not to say any melee AT should have 0 RES inherently. All fighters learn to roll with punches.)

Bricks are usually flat in offense and defense, and rely more on taking hits and shrugging them off.

So, to me, Tanks should've been Scrappers, minus the criticals.

Scrappers are the ones that should've had a more defensive leaning, with offense that started small and worked its way up (but not like a Brute's Fury).

'course, that's just me. And this is totally off-topic.

Good to see Statesman is looking into it.

Noooooooooooooooooooo!



...does that mean your job's open?

[ QUOTE ]
I knew this would happen one day. He kept telling me that the readers wanted more in-depth reporting. So he started to take risks. He wanted to do more hard-hitting stuff.

Now this... poor guy. I hope he turns up some day. I'm going to miss him.

-Gil

[/ QUOTE ]
Shocking and sad!


So... does that mean that his job is available for an intrepid reporter?


...why's everyone looking at me like that?

Now that's a damn fine, long, helpful set of posts!

[ QUOTE ]
Taunt is auto-hit, you do not need to put an acc in it. Also it costs no end to use. If you want it 2-slotted, try a recharge reducer and a taunt duration instead.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't even think the darn thing accepts ACC enhancers, and if it does, it's definitely a bug.

Follow Ivy. She knows of what she speaks!

Birthdays for everyone!!! Huzzah!

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, there are issues with Defense builds; we’re going to look at that problem more carefully (the Damage Resistance Inspirations are a step, but there's a little more to come).

[/ QUOTE ]
So that means Invulnerability is being looked at, right? After all, it's more a DEF set now.

A little bit of communication works wonders. There's an entire Issue's worth of changes that people are looking for a clear explanation to that rings true like this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well the Monkey Badge is for an accolade. So to get the accolade power to help make the game that much more enjoyable, some people have to do things that they don't necessarily want to, like kill 10 K monkeys. It was doing something in the short term that was enjoyable so that something in the long term would be more enjoyable. It's one of those "grin and bear it" type things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a nice attempt to rationalize. Sadly, I don't believe it will work.

See, either Galactiman is a smart guy playing dumb to rile people or he really is an idiot. Either way, there is no reasoning with him.

Look up Accolades Galctiman and you will understand why people collect certain Badges

[/ QUOTE ]
Are the Task Force badges in question part of those Accolades?

Also, is another 10 endurance worth the time it takes to get it?

They can't do the badges due to it being unfeasible. Live with it. With all the crap that's flying around now due to I5 and CoV, I doubt this TF badge is even in the periphery of their concern. Pick your battles, people.

I have the solution.

Add a "Get a Life" badge. If you petition for any old TF badge, you get that badge and are forced to wear it for two weeks.

Alternate titles include, "Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder" and "Simple Things for Simple Minds".

[ QUOTE ]
Now is there any reason for both of those to be as high as they are? No. The only reason is to get people to play a few months longer to get 2 badges with no practical purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know, I disagree with the idea that badges won't be datamined, but this post is ludicrous.

Take the following with a grain of salt, directed at a general manner of thinking, rather than a specific person.

If you're sticking around for another few months in order to obtain another two badges, then that's your fault. For pity's sake, people, take some personal friggin' responsibility. YOU are the ones that are hot for these badges that do nothing. They DO NOTHING. If obtaining them is the sole determinant of your continuing a subscription to a game, then you've got issues, man.

The badges do nothing. They're a diversion for when you don't feel like playing the game for XP or whatever else. If the diversion is the only thing keeping you in the game, and it's clearly no longer a fun diversion, then GO!

Leave! There's a whole world of things you can collect out there and you don't have to pay 15 bucks a month to do so!

It sucks that past badges won't be datamined. You won't get the souvenir for your trip to Disneyland, but the point of the trip to Disneyland is supposed to be the experience of going, not some *useless* tchotchke.

It's a crappy turn of events, yes, but let's keep some perspective here. Do the TFs for fun, not because your OCD compels you to.

To me, it would make more sense for there to be a distinction among Stealth powers.

Certain powers should operate as a droppable toggle. You click it, you hide. It lasts until you are discovered, attack, or turn it off. The first attack you get while under this Stealth power gets a % boost.

Other powers operate as you outline above, as an obscuring field that keeps others from pinpointing you, and provide some DEF, except when you attack, at which point they suppress for a SHORT time, if at all.

I do echo the question, however: What's the point of a DEF buff if it suppresses when you're in combat?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh - one other change coming soon to the Training Room...

This was an idea taken right from this forum. Since Ice Armor has no Resistance, it's a zero sum sort of power set. In other words, you're hit or your not. Well, someone (I've forgotten who) suggested adding a Damage Debuff to one of the powers - and we did! Chilling Embrace gains the ability to debuff mob damage (though it's Recharge debuff is slightly slower now).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good change, that I like.

And not just because I'm one of the hojillion people who suggested it at one point or another.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm vain, so that's exactly why I like it!

[ QUOTE ]
The spreadsheet is an attempt to demonstrate to Statesman that he is so far from achieving balance its not even remotely funny, it is in fact sad. Very sad.

Let me quote something from Bridger the "CuppaJo" of the European forums. He's actually a bit more talkative in general than devs are here I find, but you get an idea of what the devs are shooting to do:

[ QUOTE ]
It's not possible to make Defense as effective as Resistance in all situations, no. The trick is to make Defense more effective than Resistance in enough situations to balance the two out.

If Defense is more effective against large numbers of Minions and Resistance is more effective against Bosses and AVs, I'd say that actually favours Defense when you consider how much time you spend, over the course of a hero's career, fighting Minions as opposed to Bosses and AVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

(edit: added bolding above for effect)

That's very important, because that's basically the basis for comparison of the spreadsheet that's presented. And I agree with him its basically impossible to get the numbers to 100% line up, but they should be reasonably close. And they're not.

Keep this in mind, its damage taken for both. You can presume they both get healed, recover health, whatever. Those are an X factor when thrown against damage take, so its damage taken that matters in the end. Because no matter how much healing/recovery sits behind a character, they are going down faster if they are taking more damage.

And when it comes to comparing Tankers to each other, then need to be reasonably equally survivable. Damage taken when figured in relation to each other is a means of determining reasonable equality under normal circumstances - which is exactly the same thing Bridger says.

In other words you figure those numbers should be within a margin of error from each other of 10% (e.g., 90% - 110%) rather than the 900% we're seeing for S/L as an example. And that margin of error should hold for increasing mob difficulties (increased levels) - which only widen's the margin right now.

I think you're talking about "Eff # of hits" and "Total hits" that's probably badly labled, because it should be "Eff # of attacks" and "Total Attacks" - because that's what they really are. But its defintely not damage, that's calculated later on. So I agree, hits is misleading, but I only updated the numbers not the column headers

[/ QUOTE ]
Bridger's a smart dude. He also wrote: "...balancing is a process, rather than an event," which I think many posters would do well to remember.

Good to see Dev presence on the boards again. Best of luck to your brother.

I will be dropping a big ol' Inv. Tanker write-up on you shortly, so if you've got *any* good news for Inv. Tanks, you should let us know soon.

So Burn was overpowered. Not a secret. So it needs to be fixed. I suppose that's reasonable.

But if we're to believe that different Tanker primaries are meant to have different flavours, this is the kind of change that serves to hamper that.

I hope once the fear aspect is fixed (you ARE fixing that, aren't you?), that Burn becomes a useful power, but not the raison d'être of the whole primary.

We will be sure to let you know if it is not.

As well, consider that the flavour of each primary is one of the main reasons a person might choose it. If changes made to it radically alter this flavour, that is very, very bad. If I were concerned with simply being impervious to damage, I might take Stone. If I wished to create a character that is solid defensively and has bonus damage, I would likely take Fire.

If changes go too far and dramatically shift the mechanics and intent of a set, then you're going to disenfranchise players of that set.

Be careful where you tread.