UberGuy

I typically used 2 ACC.

And I would not go back. I would still use IOs, because they let me build better attack chains with fewer powers (thanks to recharge slotting) and to fight for longer without stopping (thanks to endurance slotting). And hey, most attack sets give around 4 SOs worth of damage anyway.

It does explain it to me, I think.

I would say, though, that in a game like this, I probably agree with Masque (I think >.>) to the extent that I don't think that's reasonably achievable for two arbitrary characters. If all the ATs are equally proficient against one another in battle (assuming comparable player skill), in practice that's probably going to mean there's minimal differences in what those characters actually do.

Now, I do believe it's possible to have PvP where multiple character types that have carefully tuned capabilities that could be fairly even in head-to-head play, but the more distinct character types you try to have, the less reasonable that becomes for all of them. When you consider that, for CoH, "character type" means AT not just AT, but also primary/secondary(/epic) combinations, I think we have too many combinations for them all to be distinct and all to also be equally likely to win against all the others, head-to-head. Some of them are going to need to be better at support, or indirect fighting, or something like that, and therefore not as good in a one-on-one match-up.

I never accused you of saying balance was achievable. What it looks to me like you said was that either balance was unachievable or at least very undesirable.

I didn't, and it's definitely a great example of a definition of "balance" that I have an issue with. You and I do both disagree with Coyote_Seven on that part.

Here's where, though, even though you and I may both disagree with Coyote_Seven's post, we aren't saying the same thing. You don't argue that balance should mean something else than how Coyote_Seven described it in context. Instead, you implicitly agreed with it by referring to "balance" as he did, and saying it's a bad thing. Specifically, you said:

So I agree with you that Coyote_Seven may be off the mark in whether or not Controllers vs. Tankers should be an "even" matchup, but I don't agree with the conclusion you stated as a result. You appear to accept C7's version of "balance" as being when Controllers and Tankers (and, by extension, everyone versus everyone) would be evenly matched. Hopefully clearly by now, I disagree strongly with that definition of "balance". You didn't bring that definition of balance into the argument, but you not only repeated it in a reply, you reinforced it by applying it even more generically to "a 50/50 chance of winning a fight no matter what". That is why I am having this discussion with you, and not Coyote_Seven.

I trusted them to ask for things more specific things than I, exactly because they have more hands-on experience than I did. Several of them were in direct discussion with the Devs and gave the devs detailed suggestions. Heal Decay was not a suggestion they made. Extreme diminishing returns was not a suggestion they made. God knows that anything like I13 travel suppression was not a suggestion they made. It's been a long time, I don't remember all the specific things they talked about having suggested. What I remember is that they were, broadly speaking, attempts to address some of the ATs and powersets that were limited or even overpowered in various PvP contexts, to bring them in to a tighter performance cluster. They were attempts to modify pre-I13 PvP to improve its "balance" without ripping out the essence of how it played. What they got instead did rip out its essence by most of our opinions (and by "our" I mean the group of players I was involved with), and didn't include the more moderate changes they suggested.

And I'd like to point out at this point how childish the "*friends*" thing was. I'm amused you think you might have hurt my feelings. I didn't ask about it so I could know whether or not to be mad at you. I asked about it so I could point out that only people with crappy arguments resort to attacking the arguer. You're someone I don't know spewing text at me on the internet, so don't kid yourself into thinking you can make me care what you think of me as a person.

I hate to tell you, but that's not a PvP community. That isn't going to grow the way one with regular activity and pugs would. That's stagnant. And that's not what it was like pre-I13.

What a thoroughly asinine analogy. CSI is a load of crap. Real forensic investigation doesn't play out like that, and real CSIs don't do a fraction of the stuff depicted on the show. CSI and its spin-offs is a dramatization. If, in fact, I worked with real CSIs, talked to them about what they did, and actually occasionally went into the field with them, I would still not be a CSI, but I would damn well be able to talk intelligently about what CSIs do, how, when and why.

That's true. And if you have lunch with them and talk about golf or the stock market, you aren't going to even be able to talk about surgery. But if you spend a lot of time talking with them about their specialty, asking questions about what they do and why, and then sometimes accompany them into the operating room and help out with surgery, then you are going to be able to have intelligent conversations about surgery. If you happen to spend a lot of time studying human anatomy, you're going to be able to have even better conversations about surgery.

Are you going to be an expert? No. Guess what, I never sold myself as an expert on PvP. I sold myself as someone who had some actual experience. I sell myself as someone very knowledgeable of the game's mechanics, who's pretty good at extrapolating what those mechanics mean for practical play before even trying them out, and who had people with more experience that I could bounce those extrapolations off of. (I was good at that extrapolation in PvP pre-I13. I haven't cared enough about post-I13 PvP to hone up on its special mechanics to do so any more.)

Because I have more experience with it than you're trying to make out that I do. I don't have the credibilty of some of the people who really did PvP a lot back then, but that doesn't mean I have no credibility.

Strawman number three that I've picked up on, I think. I never said CoH PvP wasn't fun. I liked pre-I13 PvP, and I have declared that I think it was imbalanced. I believe it would have been more fun if it was better balanced in ways that tried to retain its best features. Tweaking certain powersets and powers would not have changed the core of the PvP game. Iterative changes.

Not relevant to a discussion about pre-I13 PvP.

... So, like, you read the video poster's own comments on that movie, right?

Sorry, but I'm pretty confused about your deal with AR. You make points about how it can be played well or be good with the right build, but then turn around and offer solid evidence of the opposite.

I don't even know what to do with this comment. I mean, first off, "duh"? This is an internet forum. Nothing is true because any of us say them here. If that's the position you take on everything, then no one can have a conversation, because no one is an authority on anything. But when people have a history of posting sensible things, I give them more weight than someone who, from my perspective, comes out of the woodwork saying things about "balance" that I think are absurd on their face.

Honestly, I don't even think I know what you're asserting here, but it doesn't look to me anything like what Arcanaville said.

Please quote where I said that about PvP. I referenced viability of certain characters or powersets, but not of PvP.

I think PvP here is no longer viable because the I13 changes gutted the PvP community, and made PvErs even less likely to venture into PvP zones than they were prior. That is not directly a comment about post-I13 "balance".

Let's let Arcanaville answer that.

Seriously, what? I can find huge swaths of those suggestions that I don't think were implemented. Several of the items on the top priority list are not implemented. But most importantly, what they did get came with a bunch of stuff that no one asked for. The list of request would have been radically different if they had been asking for it post-I13.

Even for the things they did get, saying they got what they wanted is like saying someone who asked for a face and boob job got what they wanted over four surgeries, during the first of which the doctor cuts off both their legs. What do you think they'd ask for after you cut their legs off? Do you think maybe their list of requested changes might be a little different after that? You think that chin tuck is still the priority?

Just looking at the priority list.

1. People often have to reset matches multiple times to get an acceptable map. Add selectable arena maps, as well as the ability to eliminate maps from the selection while still having a random pick.

I think they got most of this one, though I don't recall if it was in I13.

2. There aren’t any meaningful rewards to encourage participation in PvP.

Still true. Drop rates for actual PvP play are very low. PvPOs are not universally considered meaningful rewards. PvPOs did not appear until I14.

3. The Only Affecting Self timer in the arena has two big issues: its wide variability, and the ability to affect people who are in OAS. This video
shows how to trick the OAS timer. Additionally, the OAS timer itself lasts between 0 and 20 seconds, a world of difference in an arena match. Consider decreasing the range, normalizing the timer to a set value, or switching it to the PvP enabled mechanic that exists in zones.

No idea about this one.

4. Villains have no ally grantable source of +perception in Sirens Call. Consider switching the order of clarity and sonic repulsion, adding +per to the /cold shields, or adding it to thaw. This in itself could go a long way towards fixing balance issues.

How long did this take to change? Did it change before side switching?

5. Instanced PvP missons are a highly requested feature. Many people would like to PvP, but would like a story or different tasks other than just “kill the most people on the other team.” Hero vs. villain safeguard/mayhem missions are the most popular request, but king of the hill and capture the flag are also frequently mentioned.

Never happened.

I don't see where that's anyone but the devs' fault. Someone asked for a training wheels zone, and the whole thing was wrapped in training wheels and bubble wrap, with the option to turn off some but not all of that in the Arena. The devs decided to do that. None of that goes on Putz or whoever else may have originated the quoted suggestion. They asked for a limited thing which was reasonable, and the devs are the ones that made it universal and unreasonable.

You have a very strange notion of what it means to be "listened to". If someone hears the words coming out of my mouth but completely screws up the intent and basic meaning of what I told them, they did not listen to me.

Solo is one of the people who used to be in the crew of players I'm talking about. (Notice he is no longer a subscriber.) So was mac. Why don't you ask him (or mac) directly if the things I have said are indicative of ignorance?

What, exactly, was your experience with pre-I13 PvP? Discussing this thread with people in global channels who are still around and who did PvP back then, the opinion expressed was that you don't sound like someone who experienced it.

That's where the developer time investment you mentioned comes into play. I don't think any game, PvE or PvP is balanced out of the gate. But iterative observation and change should allow it to be modified to be closer and closer to balanced.

Let me be clear, I don't think that perfect balance is reasonably achievable, whether or not it's technically possible. But as Arcanaville I think mentions, it is always possible to get it "close enough". What's "close enough"? That's always going to have to be subjective, but if your player community can, without developer help, reasonably respond to other players' complaints that something is weak with reasonable situations (not just rare edge cases) where it's actually desirable, and that's true of most of the options available, then you are probably well on your way to a pretty well-balanced game.

In what you quoted, I'm saying that if you asked someone what (game) balance is, what you said is not what they would describe.

In direct response to Zwil, I also then said:

You haven't been reading my posts. It's balance. It's just the most narrow, limited form of balance possible.

Like I said up-thread, that's the most narrow definition of "balance" possible. I really don't understand why people think that's all it can mean.

Let me give you an example from an FPS. Yes, most FPS games are much, much simpler in terms of "classes" than an MMO, but we need a simple example to get the point across.

In Tribes (the original), there were three "classes", representing three weights of armor - light, medium and heavy. The Heavy armor was (probably unsurprisingly the toughest, and could carry heavier weapons. It was far less mobile. The light armor carried less ammo, could not use some weapons the heavy could, and was far more agile.

A head to head fight was not clearly dominated by one or the other with players of comparable skill. Their benefits had downsides. You were tougher on a heavy, but you tended to take more hits. You could dodge around more on a light, but the heavy had a wide-area blast weeapon that was extremely dangerous.

"Balanced" does not mean identical.

I am not using the word in some special way that applies only to me. I am using it in a way that many game makers and players use. Specifically, I rebut that achieving "balance" requires that two characters facing off have to have a 50/50 chance of winning and have equal DPS, mitigation, mobility, etc., to achieve "balance". You specifically claimed that and used it to assert that balance is impossible and/or undesirable. There's a term for saying an untruth about something and using it to argue that the something is wrong or bad - it's a strawman argument.

I don't think CoH is as well balanced as it could be, either before I13 or after. I think better balance is a desirable goal. I will be very shocked if we ever get it, because it takes time and effort, and PvP is too niche a concern for our community.

OK. I13 chased most of the good ones away.

Because I was party to conversations involving a dozen or so people who did, zone and arena, pug and league/ladder, and I understand the mechanics of the game. While nothing is a replacement for actual experience, with a firm knowledge of game mechanics and some experience you can draw a lot of decent conclusions. When those conclusions are then verified by what other players who actually PvP a lot report, you can feel pretty confident that you're on the right track.

Both.

By the way, what are you attempting to imply with your emphasis asterisks on "friends"? Are you trying to insinuate that they didn't exist? That they weren't my friends?

Strawman. That's not what I claimed, nor is it the point. Again you're arguing against an easy to counter claim I did not make. If you want to argue with me, actually argue against what I say.

Dark Blast and Rad Blast did not exist for Blasters in I13.

Sonic was not that popular on Blasters because of its animations. It was more popular (though I still didn't see it used a lot) on Defenders.

And thanks for reinforcing my point about AR compared to the others.

Couldn't say, I didn't see much of that. (Level 5 PvP I mean. People I hung with did stuff like that sometimes, but not a lot. I never did it.)

No. I have explained why and how it is not. If you don't undestand, you aren't reading what I am saying. (Edit: Arcanaville is saying something similar, too.)

Too late, but...

Pedantic, much? Did someone have to leave the day I13 went live to leave because of I13? Con and a bunch of others in his channel left because of the decay of the PvP scene that resulted after I13, and Con and several others in his channel pretty directly attributed that decay of the community to the changes introduced in I13.

... What do you think those things are?

Yeah, and the community offered Castle a lot of suggestions that they felt would have improved what was not so hot while keeping some of the most attractive things - notably the mobility. Basically none of those suggestions are what happened, as I recall them saying. Mac and Flea can probably correct me if I've got that wrong, as they hung around the same crew.

Edit: Ugh. Posing in non-default fonts makes responding to clipped parts of the post really sucky.

Yes, I do *not* mean that. Anyone who thinks that is what "balance" means outside of anything much more complex than tic-tac-toe is using the word incorrectly.

This is much closer to the definition appropriate to a MMO or actually a lot of FPSes that introduce "classes" of character someone can play.

You offset the absence of certain capabilities with the presence of other capabilities. All capabilities do not have to be equal. Importantly, in anything designed where classes of character can fight others cooperatively, any given class vs class face-off does not have to be a fair fight. However, you can create intricate webs of balance: for example, someone who's disadvantaged against one foe might be advantaged against a different foe or be able to provide advantage to an ally beyond their own DPS contribution.

Edit: AR has nothing to do with that combination.

I find this confusing. The PvE game is heavily predicated around the random number generator. Success or failure is strongly influenced by that randomness. The primary way to swamp this factor is to play at low difficulty relative to your and your characters' actual capabilities - the closer to the edge you push it, the more likely it is that randomness will be your undoing. If you don't think the PvE game is random, then you're taking it very easy. Not everyone does that.

Knowing the correct reaction in a given circumstance and executing that reaction faster than an opponent does is the same thing distinguishes excellent sports figures and excellent players of video games. There is certainly an immense difference in physical conditioning between, say, a skilled basketball or tennis player and a skilled video game player, but the fundamental mental and physical capabilities that make one good also make the other good. A player of either game with superior situational awareness and reflexes has more "skill", by definition. I honestly cannot conceive how you could think this does not exist.

It is a problem, but as you say, it's one I don't think this game will ever be able to address because it's too baked in. I think it all stems from designing the game for PvE first and then thinking about PvP balance far later, and really far too late.

Designed from the ground up, there should be no such thing as a damage dealer that's markedly inferior at actually dealing damage, unless it gives up that damage dealing for some other useful capability (or, to what I take as LISAR's point, some conditionally better way to deal its damage than another set). It's true that over time I saw Con's crew put together a lot of different powersets for different contexts (zone vs. arena vs different team sizes), but there were also AT/powerset combos that seemed clear winners and losers over the long haul. Like Zwil said, time needs to be invested in bringing the really outlying laggards up and the really outlying FotMs down.

Everything doesn't need to be equal. It just all needs to be useful somewhere. And preferably, there's nothing that is always useful everywhere.

Actually, it can suck asteroids much earlier, depending on what you're fighting. NPC mezzes aren't modified the way player ones are, but player protection from mezzes are modified to assume players (with very short durations) are mezzing them. Being held by a Madness Mage or stunned by a Freak Tank is way uncool under I13's rules ... and those guys are in Bloody Bay.

I was responding to a case where the two were specifically contrasted. I'm not trying to create an actual debate here about the merits of these two powersets, in PvP or PvE.

But AR was consistently viewed as largely under-performing in pre-I13 PvP. In that context, high accuracy was less meaningful since there was no Elusivity for Accuracy to strongly counter. Moreover, damage resistances were not normalized across types, and L/S resistance was the one resistance type all ATs could get. I that context, that left range as its only real advantage, which, while useful in pre-I13's high-speed PvP, was not seen as sufficiently useful to counter the degree to which it was resisted.

Edit to answer your edit:

That is a balancing point. In all likelihood, it is the most simplistic one in which the sets are actually equal in DPS. That is not the only way to balance powersets. Ignoring how it might step outside AT roles for a moment, what if AR dealt lower damage (or at least more-resisted damage), but being hit with all its attacks severely gimped its target's ability to travel? That would not likely become a relevant advantage in bot-on-bot combat because CoH AI sucks at using travel powers. But players might be able to leverage that on a team to a degree that it was attractive to bring AR out in team contexts.

Indeed. See: Guild Wars, where powers constantly change to keep the PvP FotM target moving.

Again, "balance" does not mean what you seem to think it means. In fact, it is completely possible to make a powerset do something that makes it desirable. AR need not do as much single-target DPS as Fire Blast, but it should do something that makes people want to use it instead. If it is considered suck-tastic in all functional regards, then something is, in fact, wrong with it, and it should be changed.

Is balance going to be perfect, down to the decimal point? Of course not, especially when contrasting capabilities that do not relate directly. If one powerset does strong debuffs or mezzes and another does straight DPS, you're always going to have to define specific and probably conditions under which to compare them. But if your game system is such that debuffs rarely have practical value, then no one is going to value debuffing, and that set needs change.

Any less intent than that is being lazy. Intent and reality don't always match, but if the intent is never there, the reality almost certainly won't be.

"You can make anything viable with enough skill" is completely subjective hogwash and nothing but a cop-out. If something is so much not competitive for some form of play such that no one plays it except people who don't know better, it's not viable. If it's only played by people who are gods among gamers just to break even in performance with Jow Blow on some other powerset, it can be balanced better.

This is wrong on a scale so epic I can't even see it all from where I'm standing.

Ask anyone who does serious game design and I promise you that is not even close to what they will tell you.

Said another way: "You keep using that word (balance). I do not think it means what you think it means."

The irony, it burns.

Think about this, for a second. If you're addressing that to players who don't feel they have to do that in a PvE zone, and they are exploring why they should PvP, do you really think it makes any sense at all that they are going to be interested in trying out PvP if the advice is "turn off your chat tabs"?

That's good advice for people who are already dead set on the idea that they're going to try it. It's a significant cultural barrier to people who might like it enough to do it for real, but may just never be bothered if that's what they get as their first impression.