Fighting Purples Vs. Fighting Whites
By
Arcadian_Hunter,
Posted on: 2004-09-15 24:20 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
On the post about the purple patch - yes, if groups could street sweep higher level critters at a wider range, then sure, the issue would be resolved. Missions, however, would continue to be simple - and therefore worthless for XP.
On the "group penalty" myth - there is a NO penalty for groups. There is an XP bonus for every member you add to a group. BUT, the problem is that the more members you have in your group, the fewer areas there are that have a challenge big enough for you. So you can street sweep more effectively with 4 or less - because you can go into areas now that were designed for groups of 6 to 8, but aren't hard enough now. That larger group is left in limbo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this boils down to semantics. When players say there is a penalty for larger groups, this is exactly what they are talking about. Outside of TFs at certain levels, there is nothing to hunt that will provide sufficient XP for a large group, and missions are an outright waste of time for a group of equal level heroes.
The point stands that before the purple patch a group of 8 could earn better XP than a group of 4. After the patch this wasnt true, except perhaps in a few situations each with other drawbacks.
We can argue all day about whether we should be able to hunt +8s or if +3s should challenge a large party. To be honest it doesnt matter to me so long as Im challenged no matter the group size and that my character growth isnt too fast or too slow. The purple patch was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that wasnt as simple as it appeared to be. I think more than anything we wanted to hear that you acknowledge the problem and plan to fix it. Theres nothing left now but to complain about your final solution (and no matter what it is, well complain). 
Just like to throw my support behind Prometheans proposal (Vs. just making mobs generaly tougher). I like many others, actually felt powerful and superhero like for the first time once SO's came into play at 22. I felt pretty weak before that. Sometime back, quite a few people who played scrappers were posting on the boards that they thought Scrappers needed a boost. The most common reply from developers to this complaint was that scrappers came into there own after 20 and that most of the people complaining were not 20+.
Statesmen just mentioned that (paraphrasing here) the real problem with difficulty vs. even con minions evidences itself in door missions and wasn't as much an issue in other areas where heroes can choose risk vs. rewards via higher con enemies and trial zones. This to me is the best reason to have a difficulty slider in missions (that I hear is comming sometime soon).
I actually find I am having more fun at 30+ than at anytime before simply becuase I feel like Regulas is very much super hero like now. That will change if they up difficulty much as I won't be able to take on higher con villains solo (which is how I mostly play). Basicly what I am saying is that I would much prefer the game difficulty stay the same and that people be able to choose how difficult they want there missions via the slider.
Edit: When I paraphrased Statesmen's comments on this thread I did not paraphrase entirely correctly. He has commented in other threads that larger groups can find decent hunting if they go to the right zones (Trial zones) and fight tough villains....he just didn't make that comment in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?
[/ QUOTE ]
Semantics. On the same note, you can consider it making the purple patch worse.
He aready answered your question. Easier? Assuredly. Good for the game? Hell no.
PP isn't going away, Don Quixote.
Missions are worthless for XP for many reasons. They waste untold amounts of time: travelling, meeting contacts, etc. Because street sweeping is actually useful, you seem to be saying let's nerf it to make missions more useful. Chopping off the right leg of everyone else on the planet does not suddenly make the one guy who already had one leg a gimp -- it makes EVERYONE a gimp.
Also seems like you want to FORCE ppl to run missions. That also disturbs me.
[ QUOTE ]
I actually find I am having more fun at 30+ than at anytime before simply becuase I feel like Regulas is very much super hero like now. That will change if they up difficulty much as I won't be able to take on higher con villains solo (which is how I mostly play). Basicly what I am saying is that I would much prefer the game difficulty stay the same and that people be able to choose how difficult they want there missions via the slider.
[/ QUOTE ]
The appearance of being weaker is just that, an appearance. A perception. You're used to plowing through enemies you had no business plowing through. This isn't intended. I'll be more than happy to kill 3 white minions to get the XP that 12 whites got me before. (As a general idea. I have no idea what the actual values will be.)
I think the original said a to-hit buff would be beneficial...
I think that a to-hit buff would worsen the situation for buff/debuffers, controllers, etc, since mass holds/mez's would be effectively nerfed early on. In addition, it would be more disenheartening to see 'MISS' 4x as often than it would have been to just have to take the extra hp down.
I think a damage resistance buff, using the op's time idea would work nicely though, as it would limit the effectiveness of the alphastrikes, and bring to the forefront the use of controllers to hold mobs early and def's to debuff em early. If nothing else, the powerAoE crew may have to have def's walking around debuffing the crap out of mobs so they CAN alpha strike effectively
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?
[/ QUOTE ]
Semantics. On the same note, you can consider it making the purple patch worse.
He aready answered your question. Easier? Assuredly. Good for the game? Hell no.
PP isn't going away, Don Quixote.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand what Statesman wants to do (and I am just using these terms to illustrate the idea):
Green cons will be made as tough as yellow cons now. Green cons will be worth as much xp as a yellow con is now. Apply this shift across all the cons.
If the purple patch remains the same as it is now (+5 your level are essentially unkillable) in the context of the proposed system, the purple patch is indirectly removed. It isn't semantics, it would be a fact. Players who wanted to solo would be fighting green and blues and advancing at the same rate as they are now. BUT, a large team could be formed to tackle orange and red con mobs.
If I understood correctly, I am all for it. I am all for anything that allows players to form large teams and engage in challenging fights. That can't currently happen because of the purple patch but it looks like the new system would allow for it.
As for the original poster's idea. I like it. I think it could be implemented as certain villains having their defenses up, for example, CoT could have mystical wards that boost defense up to a certain amount of HPs, then they're dispelled, or the Freaks could have an electricity barrier that needs to be knocked out so that you can do full damage, or the Crey can have energy/matter deflectors that degrade with damage, etc.
From ladyofrage:
[ QUOTE ]
Basically "in a nut shell" people ABSOLUTELY dread, and hate street sweeping - BUT, this is the BEST way of exp in this game, bar none.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? I enjoy street sweeping and haven't really run into anyone who 'dreads' it. I like saving the old lady, the terrified, traffic cop, the victim being levitated by the Cot, etc.
Anyhoo, I like that States and company are watching and interacting. Wonderful job!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow states I'm amazed. I didn't think you'd ever come out and say that small groups are penalized by adding more members past 3 or 4 after yesterdays declaration that there was no group penalty at all for adding team members. Kudos to you for seeing past the simple math of the group bonus.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wipe the smirk off your face, Bonzo. If you acually read what he said, you'd notice that he's not talking about the same thing you're deriding him on.
(asides)
Is it just me, or are these forum posters intentionally trying to act smarter than the people who made the game and failing miserably?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm do you even understand what you're reading? To see the penalty you have to read between the lines. Yesterday's posts from him were on straight up group bonus and not reading between the lines which was not what anybody was referring to when they were talking about the group penalty. Thanks for playing though. Love the bonzo comment. Insultive troll fanboi posters rule. Just wipe your lip every now and then and you'll be ok.
[ QUOTE ]
On the post about the purple patch - yes, if groups could street sweep higher level critters at a wider range, then sure, the issue would be resolved. Missions, however, would continue to be simple - and therefore worthless for XP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then why don't we fix missions? Where is the difficulty slider? Why does the mission scaling not reflect the premise you just stated above?
Why don't we fix the things that make a group of 8 heroes worthless instead of nerfing the entire gaming community into this 1 hero=3 minion mold?
At level 5 sure, 3 minions should pose a threat. At level 35 though? I don't see anything heroic about having a high level hero afraid of 3 Security Guards with billy clubs, or running in fear every time they see a Lt.
Are we heroes or not? Are we supposed to grow in power over time or not? Are we just supposed to be sidekicks for the game's real heroes (Statesman, Back Alley Brawler, etc)?
I didn't sign on to be Statesman's sidekick! I signed on to become a super hero (in a virtual world obviously) all my own.
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that the more members you have in your group
[/ QUOTE ]
But Statesman! The diversity that you find while hunting with eigth people is fun! Having a full team and changing tactics while the team morphs is amazing!
More people together == More fun! IMHO.
How about some zones made for teams with more than 5 people that don't envolve time commitement? A TF lasts about 6 hours, that's too much time.
How about a place where, the more people you have, the better, but the team can be dynamic? One person go, another enters, and you chat, laugh, have a good time? The more the better!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually find I am having more fun at 30+ than at anytime before simply becuase I feel like Regulas is very much super hero like now. That will change if they up difficulty much as I won't be able to take on higher con villains solo (which is how I mostly play). Basicly what I am saying is that I would much prefer the game difficulty stay the same and that people be able to choose how difficult they want there missions via the slider.
[/ QUOTE ]
The appearance of being weaker is just that, an appearance. A perception. You're used to plowing through enemies you had no business plowing through. This isn't intended. I'll be more than happy to kill 3 white minions to get the XP that 12 whites got me before. (As a general idea. I have no idea what the actual values will be.)
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is mostly a change in appearance. However to place value (in this case power) in anything we must have something to compare it to. Currently we have two ways to do this:
1. Compare our powers against the foes we fight. In this case we will be indeed weaker. So while it may be an "apperance" as our powers have not really changed, it is also true that they are less effective against our opponents.
2. Compare our power against other Heroes. Well i could go here (my main was a MC by the way come and see his one man show in Perez Park this saturday time TBA later this week) but i wont (just go see the show 
, You are invited too Jack ).
So in truth for all intents and purposes, we will be weaker.
I have gathered from Jack's interviews and posts that the heroes will be buffed accordingly to make Soloing somewhat compareable to how it is now for the lower class heroes (Controllers, Tanks and Defenders). That is a good sign .
I do think that missions should scale according to how the player desires. I like the idea of having the choice to do a tough mission, or a hard mission. In fact, perhaps there should just be a difficulty setting on the chatacter ID screen, that affects all missions. This way i dont have to bother changing it every time i accept a mission. Plus I would imagine one switch on the "character sheet" would be easier thatn one switch for each mission.
If i had to pick a main point for my original post it would be this: Eventually the "casual gamers" are going to reach the higher levels. I just want to make sure that we wont be isolating us/them with a higher difficulty than they expect.
Perception is everything Jack while the 1 hero = 3 minions may seem great from a video game aspect (and it does seem reasonable) A lot of people will be coming from the comic world where one hero = at least a half dozen minions and their lt. too.
On related note: This whole concept is going to need serious consideration if you are going to market it in Asia. Japanese Anime and chinese Cinema have some of the highest hero to villian ratios of anything i know of. Ever watch Macross, old Dragonball episodes, Vampire Vunter D, Ninja Scroll, or heck just about any martial arts movie?
Just heads up
P.S. remember we love this game that is why we are here posting our opinions, we want this game to last
Mission slider? Statesman? Hello? Are you there, my dear fellow?
Also, you can just have missions con higher as you rise in level. The mission sldier can push it back to even con.
So for post 20, 3 minions +1 level = 1 hero. And missions will always con 26 (or even sometimes 27) for a level 25 character. The slider wil push it all the way back to level 24 if you want--or all the way up to level 28 if you're really in the mood for a challenge.
Likewise,
30-40: 3 +2 level minions = 1 hero
40+ 3 +3 level minions = 1 hero.
The point is, you don't need super-large groups to kill fps if you make the mobs higher level as we level. We'll be fighting over our head--and that will be superheroic. You will argue it's an illusion. That's perfect! Frankly, the illusion is worth a great deal for the comic fans out there.
Mind you, but all means toughen up the MOBs. I'd just as soon do only missions and end street fighting forever.
In fact, I'd like to end street fighting forever (prefer to have private "patrol" hunting grounds) and just put the odd "crime in action" on the actual streets. That way, if a 50th level character saw a mugging, well, they would take the time to stop it! Because it would be rare and a hero is a hero.
As it is, we arrest mobs for loitering which just isn't that cool.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
L36-40: 1 Hero = 20 minions
L41-45: 1 Hero = 25 minons
L46-50: 1 Hero = 30 minons
[/ QUOTE ]
Under this scenario, a team of 8 heroes would be facing 240 minions in a single mission room. I don't need to point out that 1) the rooms aren't big enough for this and 2) most video cards aren't good enough for this. You'd end up with exactly what we have now - small groups hunting massive spawns, while the larger groups are penalized because there's nothing challenging enough for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a bad idea to dismiss the idea because you're assuming that 8-person groups would be facing even-level minions. There's (in my opinion, at least), a fairly obvious solution to the "facing 240 minions in a single room" problem. Would it not be reasonable to assume that if 1 player can take on even-level things, 8 players would be capable of handling +4 level things?
While I would agree that the number of things the OP is proposing a player can take on is rather high, the concept itself has merit, in my view.
[ QUOTE ]
On the post about the purple patch - yes, if groups could street sweep higher level critters at a wider range, then sure, the issue would be resolved. Missions, however, would continue to be simple - and therefore worthless for XP.
On the "group penalty" myth - there is a NO penalty for groups. There is an XP bonus for every member you add to a group. BUT, the problem is that the more members you have in your group, the fewer areas there are that have a challenge big enough for you. So you can street sweep more effectively with 4 or less - because you can go into areas now that were designed for groups of 6 to 8, but aren't hard enough now. That larger group is left in limbo.
[/ QUOTE ]
At higher levels the street spawns need to exceed the level of the highest member of a team. This would help to increase the difficulty. Also, maybe larger spawns at the higher levels with less minions.
I don't think those of you asking for the "purple patch" rollback or for increased amounts of mobs really understand what you are asking for here. We would have a system where the color-coded evaluation system is meaningless other than "anything not purple is not worth fighting". You have gotten used to looking for these purple con'd mobs and are incapable or unwilling to retrain your mind to accept that you are going to be doing the same exact thing as you are right now except for the fact that the names of the mobs will be in a different color.
After Statesman's proposed changes, you will have the same exact difficulty with the same rewards fighting -2L to +2L mobs as you have right now fighting +L2 to +6L mobs (or thereabouts). The only longterm effects this will have is in the color of the mobs' names that you look for in the street and possibly the location of where you will hunt these mobs (which will only increase your overall hunting grounds). In inside missions, this will spawn the same mobs as we have now, but will make them much more challenging.
For those of you trying to compare this to the comic books and the fact that Batman and Spider-Man can take hordes of goons with guns, keep in mind that this would be the equivalent of these 2 superheroes fighting mobs well, well below their level. It'd be akin to a L30-something (or maybe even L50+) running around Atlas Park arresting Hellions. The main difference here is in the comics, there is a reason for the heroes to be fighting "low level" street crime. In this game, there is no incentive for us to do so (and probably shouldn't be or the low lvl players would have nothing to fight). When it comes to the "higher level" villains in the comics, Batman and Spider-Man aren't fighting 30 at once. When fighting against something more similar to their level of experience/training/skill, they are hard pressed to take on 3 at one time.
To summarize, I just wanted to point out to everyone that in a sense we're all talking about the same thing. The end result will be the same as we currently experience (give or take). Sit back, relax, and let them work on their game. When the changes go into the test server, we can test it there and make comments.
- Pan
Just to clarify:
I am not the one who suggested 1 hero to 20 minions. I favor more of a one hero to 6 even level minions(at 30+), or 3 +2/3 lvl minions.
My point here is that appearances do count. Fighting things that seem higher level makes people feel more heroic period. Look around the gaming world, they have difficulty settings for a reason. People like to beat things on the highest difficulty it makes them proud.
Example from console FPS games:
Halo vs. Perfect Dark
Two of the best console FPS's ever. Both have pretty damn good enemy AI, both have many levels of difficulty. the highest difficulty level on Halo is Legendary, the Highest difficulty setting in Perfect Dark is Perfect.
While both of these high settings sound really hard Halo Legendary is a joke setting compared to Perfect. Anyone who has played both these games can attest to that. Perfect enemies are pretty damn perfect while Legendary Difficulty in Halo is hard but doable.
The real measure is how does that game make me feel?
After beating Halo on Legendary I felt Damn good, I beat the coolest game (this was before KOTOR) on the XBOX on its hardest setting. I Rock! 
After being pwnzxored by the Perfect baddies in Perfect Dark, i pretty much didnt know what to do.After about 10 matches of 20 - 2 scores i felt like it was a complete waste time. I still have nightmares about them today, well not really since i dont sleep much thank you CoH, but i would if i did .
My Point: It is beneficial to make the average gamer feel powerful, we like that
[ QUOTE ]
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?
[/ QUOTE ]
If the purple patch is rescinded, then for many players even-con mobs are pretty much useless. But you cannot simply ramp up mission difficulty to make up for this, since not all ATs and/or builds can solo as well. Therefore missions become very bad exp-wise for most players, including those who would prefer to do indoor missions.
Bringing mob difficulty up and increasing exp rewards to match makes indoor missions more challenging without making them overwhelming for less efficient builds/ATs, while still allowing people who can handle tougher mobs to do so for better exp/hour.
If it isn't clear by now (and I don't ever expect a dev to say it directly), they have an idea regarding how long it should take to level, and I think one reason the purple patch was applied was to keep people from getting ahead of that pace. I think that the changes to portal missions are for the same reason, and if changes are made to herding/dumpster diving, it'll be for the same reason. It isn't good PR for them to come out and say it, but they don't want people to level too quickly.
The trick is to find a leveling pace that doesn't lead to people leveling too fast (because then they get bored and leave) or too slow (because then they get frustrated and leave). I don't think you'll see much tweaking made to the leveling grind to make it any quicker aside from stuff like upping mission exp. Because at the moment people seem to be willing to roll up alts when the grind sets in. If they ever get an indication that people are leaving in larger numbers, you just might see an exp bump.
Xp bump? So you mean like adding additional XP from larger teams?.. omg they bumped the xp.. the end is nie, people must be leaving in droves!!
I hereby give the "Nostradamus" badge to UncaMilty for his amazing prediciton powers.
I also award Grendyl with the "Necromancer" badge for his amazing ability to dig up a long dead discussion and foist it upon the rest of us.
[ QUOTE ]
I hereby give the "Nostradamus" badge to UncaMilty for his amazing prediciton powers.
I also award Grendyl with the "Necromancer" badge for his amazing ability to dig up a long dead discussion and foist it upon the rest of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
*accepts award and steps up to the microphone* "I'd like to thank...." 
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?