embyr

In EQ I was part socializer, part explorer, part achiever - I just never achieved end-game stuff. I missed out early in the games beginnings, on things I really wanted because "the vision" removed it, or it was later characterized as "overpowering", or "not working as intended".

This time, I made it to 50 before I could get pi!s!s!ed off about the incessant tweaking of powers and ATs that incites the masses, but never really balances anything according to the people who play the game.

That is part of the reason I am 50 now.

That being said, I am hopeful that more content comes in (on a 3 month cycle - yuck) sooner rather than later.

I vote for Las Vegas too!!!

Well, as I previously said in this thread - and taking into consideration both quotes in your message, it sounds to me like AoEs will be addressed in some capacity.

All I ask is that whatever is done is equitable to Blasters of all level and doesn't only remedy "overpowered" Blaster between level 32-38 who are alpha striking clustered groups in Brickstown. Those tactics don't work for Blasters post level 40 and as a result, leveling slows down considerably after level 40.

Since we are quoting so much, how about this one from the Statesman himself in an interview with Robert Cox of WarCry.com:

[ QUOTE ]
We appeal to people that the other games might not, because we want people to get in and have fun. It's got to be fun. Instead of making game mechanics require people to be online for a long time, we just want people to get in the game and have fun. Our game is simply easy to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If changes are made to AoE's such that my time spent online is less fruitful - and it takes me hours and hours to level, I will likely move on.

Fortunately, it sounds like the Stateman has his thumb on the pulse of gamers to whom he refers in the quote (and "the silent majority" in the interview transcript) that are like me who want some entertainment, not hours of EXP grinding.

Thanks,

Also...


I just read a post from Positron about the "forced grouping" missions that were added to Update # 2 on the test server. He removed those from the Story Arcs and changed them to one-off missions because:

[ QUOTE ]
Our goal is not to prevent you from completing Story Arcs or Multi-stage missions you started as a solo character, and we feel that this (removing forced grouping from the Story Arcs-embyr) best accomplishes that with the system we have in place right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement seems to imply that making people group is not an intention that they have with the current AT system.

Thanks,

[ QUOTE ]
...What this will require is tankers/controllers if you want to aoe things over your own level, making them more usefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a prospective change that would force me to group if wanted to level without an extended grind. As has already been stated in this and other threads, the risk of using AoEs post level 40 is extremely high against tougher, stronger villains. As the game currently works, death is all but ensured if you alpha strike any group with bosses or certain LTs that can hold or stun (remember, powers like Inferno leave you with no endurance or recovery thereof for 10 seconds after using it). The changes in that proposed solution makes it even more dangerous than it currently is to attempt that sort of encounter.

I think that solution was proposed in good faith, but I'll pass.

/veto

Thanks,

Here are a few of my mental drippings about the consequences of tweaking AoE damage.

You can't alter the AoE damage without upping the rewarded EXP. If I am doing less damage, that means it is taking longer for both me to level and consequently any of my SG mates that are grouping with me. This doesn’t even take into consideration that we are already making less progress as EXP is distributed to the rest of the folks in the group and that the group EXP bonus is so poorly designed that having more than 4 people in the group is virtually a EXP penalty. CoH is already a grind/timesink post level 30 for all but a few builds, so altering the efficacy of AoEs without increasing the rewarded EXP simply slows down level progression. I for one don't want to get to 50 as fast as humanly possible, but I don't want acquiring one level to take a month or two either. Not upping rewarded EXP if AoEs are negatively altered simply increases the time it takes to level. Is the goal here balance for ATs, or to slow down ATs that level fast?

After about level 30-35, alpha striking or AoE'ing large packs of mobs becomes more and more risky. After level 40 its nearly suicide to try the same alpha-striking tactics that worked in Brickstown - because of bosses and LTs that can hold, stun, or one-shot poorly defensed Blasters. Blasters give up HPs and defense so that they ARE able to deliver incredible damage. It’s just that enemy group composition doesn't really expose those defensive weaknesses in Blasters until the more powerful bosses and LTs are encountered at later levels, which effectively neutralize hit-run or alpha strike tactics. Considering the lethal group composition of enemies post level 40, if AoE damage is altered negatively, it will be extremely difficult to play alone as an AoE blaster and it will force grouping. Is the goal here balance for all ATs, or to force grouping?

I group regularly with my SG mates and generally have more fun playing with other heroes who know what they are doing than playing alone, but removing the possibility or even feasibility for me to play alone will make me (and dare I say other blasters) think twice about spending any more time and money on this virtual entertainment. I enjoy a gaming challenge, but I don’t want to pay someone to frustrate me while I am supposed to be “blowing off some steam” after a day at the office – I get that for free from my spouse and kids.

I am not saying that changes are not warranted or acceptable; I’m just saying it should be done equitably taking into consideration how changing AoE damage will affect a level 10, 20, 30, 40, or level 50 blaster. It should also be done completely disregarding some of the more vocal proponents of the Nerf Blasters Camp who seem to have other motives besides a genuine effort at balancing ATs.