[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, 'stealthed' boss-missions ARE missions in which you have no choice but to go face-to-face with the big bossman himself. The number of times I HAD to defeat the boss(es) FAR outweigh the number of times I didn't.
Also, I find it QUITE odd that this type of mission is considered to be a "known bug". Why the hell hasn't it been fixed yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree on the first part, and boy howdy do I agree on the second part.
I have a LOT of experience doing missions in which I only hunted objectives, or only hunted objectives, lieutenants, and minions. TONs of it. I normally don't do bosses if I can avoid it, and in the 30s and early 40s (up until the AV thing, which is a whole new can of worms), I'm seriously pretty confident I've NEVER seen an unmentioned boss that had to be defeated to complete the mission, except for: 1) stealth defeat-alls, and 2) the few wierd storylines in which it's inherent.
And, yeah, I'm with you. How could they possibly have not fixed this bug, which I've bugged ZILLIONS (okay, like, 5 or 6) times, and argued in-mission with GMs until they brought in *their* bosses to talk to me, and they conceded almost every time it was a bug.
Anyone who wants proof I'm not a blind fanboy can hit me up for further discussion of the 7-month-unfixed hidden-defeat-all bug.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so youre saying I should be able to solo this mission and not defeat the Lesser Devoured bosses. ...
So what youre really saying is that all of these other missions with bosses in them can be soloed as long as you are willing to die many, many, many times, and spend 6 hours per mission taking pot shots at the bad guy you need to kill.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just for crystal clarity, you've got it mostly right, but I didn't say anyone, e.g., you, should be able to solo the mission. The fact that *you* can't doesn't mean the mission is unsoloable.
And, yes, one of the alternatives is to die many many times. I've done it that way myself. For some people that's what soloing bosses will be.
Which brings us to my point. It's not that you can't solo anything. It's that now, there are more things you don't LIKE to solo. (I assume I've guessed correctly from you tone that you don't like dying several times per mission).
Alternatives include: group.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
Oh-- Davistian reminds me of something, and though I have to run, I want to say this (not that I'm afraid of having people hate me... but...):
I think it really is reprehensible that they'd push I3 without making the free respec available.
That was a fairly stupid thing to do, and very unfair. I happen to be in a good place with my build, but I'm very sympathetic to people with builds that don't work as well in I3 who don't have respec.
That sucks. Sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just my 2 cents since this thread is teeters on hijacking every few posts or so.
I actually think having issue 3 come out before the respec was a good idea. Yeah, it was hard. I have earned all three debt badges when I didn't have ANY of them before, but I also know now what sort of powers I need to keep and get rid of to be more viable in issue 3, and if I'd had that respec the first day, I know I wouldn't have spent as much time sussing out the intricacies of the new issue.
The Solo Superhero
I wrote "A Letter to Statesman Clause", I have also been called fanboy several times and have been been sent several PM's by Statesman
I was a very happy loyal gamer.
What happened to the Story of my hero, one that had been unfolding for 8 months now...
How would it have felt if every time you read a Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Spawn, or Punisher comic the main hero had to call in four of their friends to finish a task or mission? I am talking every single issue of every single comic. I have read a significant amount of comics in my day, maybe not as many as Statesman but let me tell you, for the most part Superman and Spiderman comics began and ended with the subject hero winning his battles alone. Spiderman never called in three other heroes every time the Green Goblin came to town, or when Neo faced Agent Smith alone, Batman faced the Joker, Superman faced Bizzarro, they were always the most exciting moments for me.
Well since Update Three the story of my hero has changed from that of a great lone hero to that of what appears to be a hero who sits on the virtue server scanning the Hero looking for work pages in his local Hero Directory trying to form a team for 30 minutes so he can jump online to do a "Quick" mission. I hit Level 40 with Update Three, six of the missions I had so been looking forward to so much since my contacts finally opened up have all been far too difficult to solo. So much for the casual friendly game. Last night four (Real Life Friends) non-board posting casual, married players all logged in to help me, we all quit when the three blasters and one scrapper (me) could not defeat the two orange bosses in my mission. We all left annoyed and with plenty of debt, we have been playing together for 8 months and this has never happened. You could easily say "well you guys suck" well fine, then we always sucked and never had this problem before because the game we played was for people like "us". That is not the case anymore.
I have practically soloed to 40, with the exception of "you will need help from friends" missions, arch-villains, "click two boxes simultaneously", and the odd "damn thats a tough mission" mission. I couldn't even solo a clear the warehouse mission last night. Now when I log in for a quick mission all I can do is street sweep, well I did that from 38 40, and if I have that as my only option then maybe this isn't the game for me anymore. That is pretty sad, because this was the only game for me last week, and had been four 8 months, and for a while I felt like a real hero. Now I feel like I am on a team of vigilantes. Maybe we need to change the game to "City of Vigilante Teams" because a real hero of my former stature could defeat a Carnie Boss or a Paragon Protector. I had always imagined that by level 40 you would be doing amazing things with great power and villains would fear you
well my contacts don't know me that well because I can't complete a single one of their tasks alone. They think far too highly of me
am I not the hero they had hoped for? Maybe they were expecting the Fantastic Four.
I am sorry but I feel cheated. Please change the game back to what it was before the boss tweaks. If people want more of a challenge, use the difficulty slider. Sadly, for the first time in 8 months, I couldn't be bothered to play tonight.
[ QUOTE ]
I was making a point in an admittedly smartalec way. The smartalec part is: That poster is dead WRONG. *I* could SOLO that room conned for two people with the tools I have available at the level I got the mission. And I could do it with or without taking down the boss.
[/ QUOTE ]
My point, Doc, is that you're running an MC. You can sleep the boss or confuse or terrify or whatever manner you wish to make it so that you can get the hostage without having to actually fight the boss. The ones who run without Stealth or SS or Cloaking, they must engage the boss because of proximity aggro.
Before my Blaster gained Stealth and Superspeed, I had to really be careful when taking on any mission. Proximity aggro sucks. Sure, admittedly, since gaining SS+Stealth pseudo-invis and adding in Combat Jumping, I'm a little less likely to be careful. What's the main advantage for Red is the fact she hits hard and fast. That's her only protection, when soloing. Losing that really puts a crimp in things. I now save my missions and run them with Doc exemp'd. Why? Protection. I don't have that much. And too many times the first opening shot misses and sometimes I can't run fast enough once the boss has targeted me and fired. Sometimes I can get timing right and hit a jump and get missed, like what happned with Infernal, but most of the time I'm hit. Yes, I use inspirations, yes I'm careful and do plan tactics. But one shotted...not fun.
[ QUOTE ]
But the point part was: the poster used the generic "you" as if to say "Wah! Nobody can solo this mission (without taking down the boss)."
Saying nobody can solo that mission is flat wrong. A number of controllers, most tanks, and most scrappers, can, at that level.
And what's more, all kinds of ATs can solo that room, so long as they're willing to die a few times, and do some running.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I pointed out that it's easier for you, Doc, because of the build you have. Same for the others who are able to solo. And there is also, as I've pointed out, the fact that not everyone runs with Stealth or with Superspeed or Cloaking or any other type of stealthing. They MUST deal with bosses, like it or not.
So yes, it is not soloable by all. Many have said they had to go out and gain help to finish their missions. And how many times have I done the same with you? Just last night I asked as you were in your alt "If I need help, can I scream for Doc?" As much as I love teaming with you and my SGmates, I really really like to solo. It's feeling self-sufficient, independent, and actually like a hero.
Most were already doing the dieing alot and running, but had better success than they do now.
[ QUOTE ]
The game still has lots of soloable content. You just have to make some semi-intelligent choices about AT or at least powers IF YOU WANT TO SOLO A LOT. That's an EXTREMELY REASONABLE place for the game to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
But why must a player make a cookie cutter AT that everyone and their monkey is making just to be able to solo? That takes away their ability to choose.
Last night I stared at the new character generator screen, trying to decide on what type of AT to play for soloing better than I do with Red. I read many guides to Tankers, Scrappers, Controllers...but the more I did, the more annoyed I got. Why? Because I had to conform to the Flavour Of The Month or the cookie cutter AT in order to have I wanted, what I had with my Blaster's build.
Yes, with the free respec I've changed out powers and I think I can get Red soloing well again...still testing it out, but she's done far better today than I've been able to since I3 went live. But what irks me is that I shouldn't have to change out my concept to play the game.
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it's not universally soloable by any build whatsoever, for example a melee-oriented blaster with no defenses aside from stealth, is, to be sure, a disheartening development for people like Ahtropa whose melee blaster used to be able to do that stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Red became melee oriented by accident, but I see your point. And even with Hasten permaslotted and running with Combat Jumping, I'm still low in defenses. Statesman has said that Blasters are the most vulnerable. Where Hasten gives 5% protection to Defenders, Blasters gain 4%. FOUR. So no matter how much defense I apply, it will ALWAYS be less than a Defender or Controller simply because she IS a Blaster.
[ QUOTE ]
That flaw lies with the fact that bosses were *ever* soloable to such a character. If CoH had been released in I3 form, we could avoid all this acrimony and the disappointment of players. But the disappointment of individual players over individual characters is does not necessarily mean it's a bad move for the game overall.
[/ QUOTE ]
Making the bosses tougher, sure...what seems to be the crux of the overall discussions/debates is the DAMAGE they do. It's been doubled, just about. And the oneshotting is just ridiculous on ANY AT.
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, I still would have a rough time being as disappointed as Ahtropa is in her Blapper. I always *thought* her concept for the character was extreme-damage with support. And that character performs SUPERBLY. She and I duoed can take down 10-strong cons of reds as fast as two scrappers, more safely, with only one of us doing any serious damage.
Seriously. I blink, and she has stuff on the pavement. We were routinely taking down +4 clusters including Bosses yesterday; we cleared out two "arrest 50" hunts like that.
That's sick.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, Red was made FOR soloing. Mainly due to the fact that Blasters are usually the highest damage dealers. Note I said USUALLY. My first char was a Blaster, Energy/Energy, waaaay back when. I changed to a Defender because my friends kept dying and we NEEDED support. I've had Ahtropa for 44 levels, and doing 99% grouping. I made Red for a change in game experience, to BE the damage dealer again after so long. I have no patience for Scrappers or Tankers, I also don't like being in the thick of things constantly. I like being able to hit distance when needed. Red became a meleer out of sheer luck and coincidence. Ever since I saw the damage of her Electric secondary, I've been rather happy. I get the in-close scrapping that I like to do and can take it to distance when I must/want to.
But...in regards to taking down the bosses in PI...the thing you're forgetting is that it's mainly due to the fact YOU are holding them. If not for the fact that your Mind Controller CAN keep a boss quivering and held 99% of the time, I COULDN'T go all out on a boss.
When I teamed with the Earth/Storm Controller in my SG, it was much harder for Red to take a boss. Gia had to Fossilize the boss many many times in order to keep it held. That kept her from being able to lay down much else save for AEs like Lightning Cloud, Volcanic Gas, and she has to let the pets run wild. I know Gia's holds are pretty heavily slotted, but I noticed a marked difference between Gia and Doc. I think it's because she has only two really good holds whereas Doc has others...I may be wrong, but that's what comes to mind based on experience.
I still say it's the fact that Doc is a Mind Controller that makes your game experience vastly different. And my husband has one of exact type, MC/Emp Controller and has experience similar. After I3, a 27 Blaster needed help taking down a boss. He offered and his then L8 was sk'd. He had just gained the AE sleep hold. And with his help the Blaster was able to complete their mission.
Once more: Mind Control appears to be one of the best builds TO be able to solo. Other ATs are able to as well. But there are many who aren't such, and why must we suddenly all be hampered? Why must we change our character concept? Why must we conform to cookie cutter and Flavour Of The Month in order to play as WE want to?
Our choices of group or solo has been taken from us. Yes, you can argue that we can still do so if we adapt. But in most cases, adaptation isn't the best course of action. I've read many have shelved their favourite charactes, the ones that gave them such joy to play, due to the changes in I3. What it comes down to, again, is not the boss hp but the boss DAMAGE. All due to Statesman's vision of "encouraging grouping", to use his wording for it from another thread.
I just think and feel that this move to "encourage grouping" is wrong...especially when the majority of the player base is willing to group on their own as it is. But it's also not good for those who cannot group due to 1) limited amount of time to play, 2) needing to go afk for whatever reason (usually parents), 3) being able to play at odd hours and not being able to find anyone to group with let alone a good group.
This blanket change has affected so many so deeply and on so many levels. I'd like to see some correction but it's all now just wait and see.
[ QUOTE ]
And, yes, one of the alternatives is to die many many times. I've done it that way myself. For some people that's what soloing bosses will be.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that this statement points out where you and I (and probably more people as well) differ in opinion.
You say it's perfectly acceptable to die a few times on a mission, as long as you can finish it. If that's the case, then you're absolutely, 100% correct: you CAN solo each and every mission.
But seriously, where's the FUN in that? Being in a constant state of debt, only to be able to say "see, I can solo my missions". For my main, a scrapper, this is not an issue. Sometimes I die, sometimes I don't. Debt is worked off pretty fast and doesn't really bother me all that much anymore. I have also joined a pretty small, but cool SG, with some players being online at the same time as I am, usually. So I can always enjoy being on a good group. If we fail terribly on a mission, we laugh it off and try again.
A lot of people, judging from the displeased posts, do not have the luxury of being able to find a good team, or playing a good AT. Ramping up the boss-damage was a big blow to these people. Dying over and over again so as to be able to finish off that pesky boss, usually means being in perma-debt for these people.
I adjusted to the increased difficulty of issue 2 by making a scrapper, even though I enjoyed the diversity of defenders a whole lot more. Pre-issue 2, my defenders could solo reasonably well and I was a happy camper. Okay, what the hell. I made a scrapper. Been having a lot of fun with him. But is this the direction the game is going in? Everyone who enjoys soloing, or is pretty much forced to soloing due to whatever (all very valid) reasons, are now pretty much forced to make a scrapper to be able to play the game and see all it has to offer.
If this trend is continued, the game will be called City of Scrappers in no time. Either that, or Paragon City will become a ghost-town, with the occasional, lonely scrapper wandering around with a dazed look on his/her face.
[ QUOTE ]
You say it's perfectly acceptable to die a few times on a mission, as long as you can finish it. If that's the case, then you're absolutely, 100% correct: you CAN solo each and every mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there are some (before we even talk about AVs) I can't, but right, generally, I can.
I didn't say it was perfectly acceptable to die a few times per mission. As an Empath Controller with no pets, I resolutely hope everyone intends to try and play death free, because that's about all I'm good for.
I think it's acceptable that (as is currently the case) some BUT NOT all missions will require you to EITHER risk lots of death, or group.
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people, judging from the displeased posts, do not have the luxury of being able to find a good team, or playing a good AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Look; that second part is something that isn't getting any truer the more it's said. You can play five of the seven archetypes and any of the 137 builds possible under those five in each of 8 slots on each of 11 servers, right out of the gate. 88 chances to play 137 combinations is all the opportunity anyone needs, to solo.
And as I was saying to Ahtropa the other day, I'm sympathetic that not all pickup teams are great, but there are ways to get around that. There are lots of great intelligent players actually playing the game all the time.
Not only that, but a lot of the less-than-great, tactically, players are mediocre because they're not as familiar with a few things as some of us who've played the game a lot are. And ESPECIALLY because they don't have much experience grouping.
Because people don't group enough in this game.
It's a learning curve. If people hadda group more, more people would be good teammates.
And anybody who likes can rail myopically at me re: what idiots everyone online is. Ask some of the people I've been playing with the very longest-- they've seen me do awfully stupid things, and repeatedly. But I tend to be *fairly* good on a team now.
CoH will not *become* city of scrappers-- it already practically was-- if we take defender/controller/tanker numbers as the norm, there're already 6% excess scrappers and 16% excess blasters. In the high end (31-50) game, it gets even more extreme, where by the same logic there are 9% excess scrappers and 20% excess blasters. If scrappers suddenly became the #1, rather than #2, diversity balance buster, what would be the big difference?
THIS move will get people to group more-- a thing that's perfectly available, and when people see what a rad/* defender, Mind/* controller, or properly built (and hopefully fixed) tanker can do on a large team against missions set on unyeilding, it will 1) become the new (acceptable) PLing, and 2) increase the diversity of ATs in the game.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that if the THREE ATs built most for team play are a smaller (49.2%) combined part of the population than the TWO others, you make grouping more relevant if you want diversity in the game.
It also seems like a no-brainer that that diversity is not achieved by making the different ATs more alike in capabilities, such as, soloing.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
My point, Doc, is that you're running an MC.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you could have, too. Or a scrapper, or tank, or any of the other controller or defender or blaster builds that are good for soloing. Instead you built a character that's one of the least viable for soloing even+ bosses I can think of.
[ QUOTE ]
... not everyone runs with Stealth or with Superspeed or Cloaking or any other type of stealthing. They MUST deal with bosses, like it or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that's just not true. They can certainly deal with bosses solo. By building a more viable soloable character or building in some stealth.
I'm not being even remotely facetious, either. You must realize that the ONLY alternative is to take the ATs a HUGE step in the direction of being completely cookie-cutter, with no difference one character to the next.
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because I had to conform to the Flavour Of The Month or the cookie cutter AT in order to have I wanted, what I had with my Blaster's build.
...
But what irks me is that I shouldn't have to change out my concept to play the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're one of the coolest and probably the most tactically savvy people I've played with in the entire game, and I like you as a friend, and you've put up with me being arbitrarily grouchy about things in the game like a saint.
But we disagree strongly over this, and I don't think it's something that can be left at a difference of taste. I think it's pretty unreasonable, objectively speaking.
I AGREE that it's irksome that they didn't have this game perfected when they released it. But that's just not going to be sufficient reason to demand they don't move this game closer to how it was intended to be, and BETTER, which this does in my opinion, and I think, in the long run, in the opinion of lots of folks who at the moment aren't looking beyond a change in the role a character they put time into, now plays. That definitely happened to some people like yourself, but that also is not a sufficient reason to demand they roll back something that makes the game overall better and truer to itself.
[ QUOTE ]
But why must a player make a cookie cutter AT that everyone and their monkey is making just to be able to solo? That takes away their ability to choose.
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal isn't infinite choice. It's structured choice. Infinite choice would allow people to do things like build an EXTREME damage character with few or no real defenses who could still SAFELY go toe to toe with supervillains AND their henchmen without ANY help.
You shouldn't get to safely be weilding crazy damage AND have very little defensively going for you AND safely solo extremely dangerous things, like bosses.
[ QUOTE ]
But...in regards to taking down the bosses in PI...the thing you're forgetting is that it's mainly due to the fact YOU are holding them.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know even I can't keep +4 clusters including bosses quivering indefinitely, because we occasionally come close to disaster doing that stuff. Moreover, I think you must know that I can't do *anything* about doing damage to those guys.
I HAVE to group. I can't realistically do anything meaningful without a group, aside from stealthing for objectives and content.
[ QUOTE ]
Our choices of group or solo has been taken from us. Yes, you can argue that we can still do so if we adapt. But in most cases, adaptation isn't the best course of action.
[/ QUOTE ]
You *can* solo unadapted. Just not everything.
You mean "Our option to take builds that are supposed to be hard to solo, and comfortably solo through *everything*, has been taken away."
That option never should have existed to begin with. It ruins the verisimilitude and balance of the game.
Unadapted with a hard-to-solo character, there's still lots to solo. There's still adapting. There's still grouping.
That a character should have to do something to adapt to the world and its dangers is an underlying premise of every setting I've ever heard of except Tom and Jerry. We also don't have the choice to safely go up against mezzers without one form of protection or another.
[ QUOTE ]
I just think and feel that this move to "encourage grouping" is wrong...especially when the majority of the player base is willing to group on their own as it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's built into the game that there are ATs that are group oriented-- some that will be far better at grouping, some, like mine, that need to group to make meaningful progress and experience the game.
As States said, an MMO shines when you group. And, they're trying to build an MMO with Controllers, Tanks, and Defenders. The way people played this game it was overwhelmingly evident that it provided sparse encouragement to group.
I don't at all think everything about the game is perfect now, but this was the kind of move I was always hoping for, not just for my own sake (I can solo with Oak fine), but for the sake of the game itself.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like a no-brainer to me that if the THREE ATs built most for team play are a smaller (49.2%) combined part of the population than the TWO others, you make grouping more relevant if you want diversity in the game.
It also seems like a no-brainer that that diversity is not achieved by making the different ATs more alike in capabilities, such as, soloing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Teaming should be made preferable over soloing by making the rewards for teaming greater. NOT by punishing those who want to solo. People WILL team, regardless. In most cases it IS more fun than going at it alone. The boss-damage problem is a real problem for those who cannot team all the time due to certain issues. As has been pointed out many times in this and other threads, people DO have very valid reasons not to team all the time. People have families, jobs, other hobbies, pets, etc. Or they just play at odd times, when it becomes hard to find a good team, unless they are willing to search for 30 minutes.
[ QUOTE ]
Teaming should be made preferable over soloing by making the rewards for teaming greater. NOT by punishing those who want to solo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't follow your reasoning, because I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two. A lesser reward is a punishment. Either way, it means, doing more work per reward if you solo.
And I agree that people's reasons to not team all the time are valid.
But the game's not being taken away from them. There's plenty to solo. There's SOME stuff that, to solo, they'll either have to adapt to, risk lots of debt for, put off until they can get a GOOD group, or lower their standards about the kind of group they'll tolerate.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
A lesser reward is a punishment.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, a lesser reward is just that: a lesser reward. It's not a punishment. You play your missions solo, you receive one piece of candy per mission. You team, you get two pieces. In either case, everyone is getting their candy. People who are not pleased with one piece can do the obvious and team up. People who don't have the time etc. to team will just have to make do with that one piece. But it's still a reward.
One question for you though: why is it so important to you that people team up? Plenty of people do, with or without incentives to do so.
For months, people have been complaining that the relative amount of XP received for completing a team mission doesn't match the XP of a solo mission. People still team up all the time. People complain that the more solo heroes, the less people to find for teams. People still team all the time. People say "this is an MMO, so suck it up and team, that's what the game is supposed to be like." Still, up till issue 3, people were soloing to their hearts' content, but still... people teamed all the time too.
Why is the fact that so many people want the ability to solo their own missions back so threatening to you? Does that somehow interfere with your own sense of enjoyment you get from the game?
Not trying to flame here. I'm just really curious to the mind-set of some of the staunchest supporters of teaming.
All that these soloers want, is for the boss-damage to be rolled back to the way it was. Most of them have even stated they don't mind the HP-increase. It's just the insane amount of damage they want fixed.
At the risk of stepping back into the line of fire...
I agree completely that there should be a compelling and sometimes mandatory content driven reason for people to group as opposed to soloing.
It would be ridiculous in an MMORPG (note, the multi-player aspect) to try to provide an lively and interesting single-player experience to everyone who wanted it. Balancing a game so that a single player could successfully accomplish encounters and goals that were balanced for a team would likely be nightmarish and result in essentially two games anyway. CoH was never touted as being a single-player game with incidental multi-player aspects.
That being said, I think that the ability and rewards for soloing should be balanced fairly. If the game is becoming more of what it was intended to be by creating greater and more dangerous obstacles to grouping, why has the game also singled out certain ATs for solo experience bonuses? I have seen many posts of people (mostly scrappers, with the occasional tank or blaster (which boggles my mind!)) who have claimed they have bumped the difficulty slider to the max and are still soloing their way through their missions. Perhaps a little more slowly, but with just as little risk.
If my ability to solo has been reduced with the understandable intention of promoting grouping, why has that intention been applied only to some classes and others? I know the manual says that scrappers are one of the premiere solo classes, but I don't think it mentions they can also do so with a significant XP bonus as well.
Adding a difficulty slider with xp increases to promote grouping for only most classes is not very balanced. If you want balance you don't widen the gap between characters.
I agree, grouping is good and I enjoy grouping. My build shines in a good group since I am not a single target weapon of death. But shouldn't grouping be good and encouraged across the board instead of rewarding some people for picking the right AT and telling others they now have to play by a manual that for many months was left ignored?
On a side note, they've made a lot of changes to the game to differentiate it from what was printed in the manual. I would be hard pressed to say that because this is what the manual originally said it is a good change. Especially since I think that some of the ways the game is different from the original manual (or intent, if they are the same) have made the game much more enjoyable and alive. If the change is truly better for the game, more power to them, and if this change promotes grouping and fosters a better online community, then I will agree its a good change. However, so far I've seen more dissatisfaction, people leaving or shelving toons and unwilling to restart. If the vision is standing in the way of building a stronger online community, shouldn't the vision adapt?
Maybe this is a shakedown. Maybe we should call I3 the begining of CoH 2.0 and just realize this is a different game in many ways; not a game that all the players of CoH 1.0 would want to play. It's sad that they won't be with us in CoH 2.0, but this new version is striving for something other than it's predecessor.
Just my two cents, well...actually a few more than two. 
To me this is all just very disheartening. Until I3 came out, I knew with confidence that my Claws/Reflexes Scrapper could handle most Orange bosses in a mission and have a decent chance of even soloing a Red. Now Orange Consiglieres on the street can smack me so fast sometimes I barely know it happened. I used to whomp them all the time, now I avoid them. I am a soloer by preference, although not above grouping occasionally to take out a particularly nasty Boss, or for those missions where you have to simultaneously disarm multiple bombs or such. The thing I love about CoH is that there is finally a MMORPG that lets me play the way I want to, at least most of the time. Now, I just don't know if I can play that way. It seems like if I want to do missions (and that is where the "plot" of the game is, and the part I most enjoy), I will be forced to group increasingly. I simply want to state that, irregardless of challenge or balance, it seems like the game has become far less Soloer friendly. If it was not the intention of the developers to do so, then they need to reverse this quick, and let increased difficulty be a matter for the Mission Slider, because for players like me, the primary reason to play CoH has been lost. I don't want to be able to solo everything, just to be able to solo missions on a regular basis, and if every mission boss is this powerful, I can't see how I can do that.
[ QUOTE ]
You play your missions solo, you receive one piece of candy per mission. You team, you get two pieces.
[/ QUOTE ]
You may not like the way this impacts your (non)distinction, but that's punishing me at the rate of one piece of candy per mission for not grouping. That's a punishment scheme.
You punisher you.
[ QUOTE ]
For months, people have been complaining that the relative amount of XP received for completing a team mission doesn't match the XP of a solo mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, I've been wrong before. Twice I think, as a matter of fact. But I'm pretty confident the people complaining they're getting less XP when they group are flat out wrong, FWIW. As I understand it, an 8 man team, everybody gets 22.5% of the defeat XP for doing 12.5% of the work-- that's +80%.
So, I see it exactly opposite from the way you do. Grouping is good for XP, but people aren't teaming very much-- witness the comparative irrelevance & scarcity of characters that are geometrically stronger in groups, particularly at high levels.
Moreover, and States already said this, people *would* have more fun if they grouped. It may give people fits to be contradicted about what they like, but on the one hand, that's exactly why economists have the term "revealed preference," as well as this being perfectly familiar stuff from a wide variety of other skilled forms of entertainment such as dancing or playing music, which we also have to be encouraged to learn and behave certain ways to get any meaningful enjoyment. And on the other hand, I doubt anybody's saying the game will appeal to everyone now that it has more encouragement to group, just that: 1) it will be truer to itself, and 2) it will be more fun to more people. IOW, it may have improperly attracted some hardcore non-multiplayer-players. If you want to make a case that those people have been misled, you're welcome to, but it doesn't look like a winning case to me.
And when you use rhetoric like "why is this so threatening to you," whether or not you mean to flame, you're really just straw-man-ing me. It doesn't threaten me, and that's nothing to do with my argument.
I'm arguing from what I perceive to be the welfare of the game as a balanced, coherent, believeable setting.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
If the game is becoming more of what it was intended to be by creating greater and more dangerous obstacles to grouping, why has the game also singled out certain ATs for solo experience bonuses?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a sorta hard time seeing that out of the mission slider. For me, set on unyeilding, I can take a couple three people a few levels lower than me into a mission of mine, and boom we have a superb and safe form of XP (because I can keep sizable clusters of 51s held easily long enough for teammates to do them in.), in fact superb XP for the guys I bring along, and really, better XP than I could possibly get solo.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the slider is rewarding me and people who group with me for grouping. Because I'm good for grouping.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
Very good point. *IF* you can group. The problem lies in the fact that now that is the only way for many classes to enjoy the slider, whereas other classes can enjoy it grouped or ungrouped. An extreme, and a bit far fetched, similar (though not exact) example would be if they released a new zone and said,"Okay, defenders can come here any time for xp, but the rest of you folks need to come in with a defender or in groups of 3+." Would limiting the content (missions) like that be fair in the spirit of promoting groups?
Admittedly it isn't that dire, I can still go into a mission with my slider bumped up one notch or two and just re-enter repeatedly until there isn't a red con mezzer at the door and I can carefully, hazardously try to farm the mission for some XP while I am waiting for a group (sometimes finding one, sometimes giving up after hours of looking and false starts). But I can't finish my mission, I can't "see" the content.
So, although I can group and solve that problem easily, if the arguement for the change is to promote grouping and I am forced to do so, as so many others, why is there even a AT or set of builds that we can point to that are even highlighted as being soloing sets? Either grouping should be good and forced or it should be a choice that individuals can make. It shouldn't be forced for some and purely incidental for others.
Okay, like I said, it's not that dire, I'm talking in some abstraction. I can still group to a certain extent. I don't mind that it's been cutailed to a great degree, but I understand the "promote grouping" logic. It just seems to me that this was the wrong way to do it and it was VERY un-evenly applied if that was the basic intention.
You're turn, fire away. 
In case anyone wants to know, there is a thread over in the Developer's Corner started by Statesman (IIRC) about the boss changes where he specifically states the intention of boss changes as well as a basic outline of how/why bosses (including generic, unnamed) show up in a mission.
I found this very enlightening and I hope that with all of the anecdotal evidence people are giving there they really look into what is going on. States said directly:
[ QUOTE ]
A solo player (unless the mission calls specifically for a boss in a spawn override) will create spawns with minions and lts. ONLY.
[/ QUOTE ]
His caps, not mine. A lot of people are chiming in that they feel the # of "boss override" missions are either out of proportion or so great that "boss override" is more the norm.
They are looking into the one-shot issue, apparently.
Thought I would point it out to you folks that haven't seen it yet since it has helped me understand the situation a bit more and it seems like a thread that is being watched more closely by the devs than our current debate.
Thanks, Doc! To use your own saying "You ROCK!".
Tell you what, let's cheerfully agree to disagree. I do see and understand your points, and I hope you see and understand mine.
I've said this before: all I want to see changed with the bosses is their godsawful damage. Keep the hp rise. Just have the damage dropped back down to either pre-3 levels or slightly harder. That is my issue about them. Sure, a fight takes longer, I can deal with that. It's getting nailed by horrendous damage in one or two shots.
Remember, your mission with the warrior clan. That boss nailed me with a 1260 shot. ONE. The Scrapper was nailed for 1900 and she wasn't sk'd higher as I was.
It's really an issue of SURVIVABILITY, solo OR grouped, slider OR not. There are many accounts of good tactics, inspiration use, having the right ATs, etc. and they all end in the players being wiped due to too much damage being done.
That right there is the crux, IMHO. Surviving the bosses. This has affected everyone across the game one way or another. Some not at all, some a little, others greatly. I feel that is what should be looked at by Statesman and the devs.
Fortunately, Statesman WILL be doing so. He has stated in another thread. I, for one, am going to shut up and wait to see what solutions they come up with.
Meanwhile, I hope you're up to exemp'ing, because Doc's going to get a work out with my blaster.
New post from Statesman about tweaking the Boss changes in the Developer's section.
Statesman: Solo and Team Play
He laid out a short, medium, and long term plan for the renovation of the mission system. In the short term:
[ QUOTE ]
We will roll back the Boss changes.
Team up XP bonuses will be increased.
Lets not start pointing fingers the whiners had their way or the games too easy, make it harder because I think the Boss changes violated a basic principle. Namely: never let a person make an uninformed decision. And right now, people arent clear when a mission requires a team up and when it doesnt. Plus, they have no ability to drop a mission if they dont feel like doing it. Besides, weve introduced our Mission Difficulty Slider to satisfy the demands of those who want something more challenging in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
Check out the link for further details.
And once again, the "They Never Listen To Us" crowd must be reeling in confusion. A dev team that actually responds, whoah, scary kids.
You know what. Try as I might. I cant stay mad that the devs. I for one, from now on. Am just going to keep my big mouth shut when the devs do something I dont agree with...
Wait, who the hell am I fooling. I'll complain as always. It's just that I now know that they'll actually be listening.
'If Champions Online is what "CoH was supposed to be", I'm glad that I have what I have rather than "what it was supposed to be".' - The Alt oholic
"I solo'd Hamidon...but I also totally cheated." - Back Alley Brawler
"It is still early. Someone is going to get stabbed tonight I can feel it." - Ishmael (said in Jello Shooters chat)
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, your mission with the warrior clan. That boss nailed me with a 1260 shot. ONE.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bah. As you recall, that was a +3 boss. If we can't agree that a +3 boss should be able to one-shot any blaster, controller, or defender, we'll have a lot more to cheerily disagree about.
States' solution looks at first glance to be a withdraw of the whole boss thing. That doesn't change my opinion of whether it was better for the game, and I'm disappointed to hear there'll be a rollback.
It certainly 'proves' to some that he reads people's posts, though.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters
[ QUOTE ]
States' solution looks at first glance to be a withdraw of the whole boss thing. That doesn't change my opinion of whether it was better for the game, and I'm disappointed to hear there'll be a rollback.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman did state that once players are able to drop missions, the question of Boss difficulty will be considered again.
RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE
Dawnslayer on Virtue.
[ QUOTE ]
Not quite as cute as taking a civil discussion and turning it into a personal insult.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not feeling too bad about it; sarcastically calling a general trend cute wasn't exactly a bitter personal attack.
[ QUOTE ]
What people are discussing here, however, despite what you choose to believe, is that for many of us even normal bosses are show stoppers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Solo? They should be. I can't really any longer say I can't solo even-con bosses; I can, and that's as a Mind Controller/Empathy, one of the worst solo builds there is.
But you've heard States say in this thread (unless I'm misremembering), that that's what HE thinks bosses should be too.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I wish, hope, pray that he would come out of hiding more and be MORE clear about this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I agree with that. All the moreso, having somehow made myself his impromptu apologist.
[ QUOTE ]
What I do object to is that there are randomly generated, generic bosses that are no more difficult now than they were before to a few classes, but wipe the floor (like a named boss) of many other classes and MUST be dealt with unless you were smart enough to min/max or lucky enough to pick the right class pre-I3.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree that there're some ATs that are unaffected. If I have infinite time, taking down a single boss my level or lower is almost always doable (very high regen rates will defeat me), but my AT is probably among the foremost exceptions. And even I have to take a *lot* longer. Anything can happen during that lot longer-- like ambushes and walkers in missions, which will kill me extremely dead if I don't promptly run.
I agree that boss survival and mission-soloing requirements having changed WITHOUT the free respec available was awful. It's awful. Serious.
But I just don't think everybody should be able equally to solo all missions or even con bosses. It goes to AT diversity, to verisimilitude, and, frankly, to the degree to which people group, since like, 40% of the ATs in this game are explicitly and heavily group oriented.b We'll have to disagree there too-- I'm grouping-booster.
But that's what I'm interested in. Let's get at the real problems. I want to see:
1) the respec issued ASAP
2) States clarify what he meant so either all of you, or I, can be clearly wrong.
3) the cotton-picking hidden defeat-all issue, which is a BUG, darn it all to heck, that I have been dealing with for six months now, dealt with.
4) A revisitation of Terra, Justifier, Akarist, Mr. Wolfe Esq., and whether those mission structures are still reasonable,
5) A revisitation on certain power sets to make sure they're not being run over by I3; again the one that comes to mind is Empathy, not because it's my secondary (I don't heal much anyhow), but based on Ahtropa's experiences.
Choosing a Controller V2 | Splattrollers | Plant/Rad | Fire/Storm | Mind/Emp & Mind/Rad
Weird Controller Powers | Conf & XP/Time | Controller Damage
Being a Healer | The word Necessary | Natural Concept Characters