[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if we can get back to blaster damage in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
Long, long, long ago, I think the subject of movement came up as a related point to blaster damage; if blasters have to move more, then even if their raw damage numbers were intrinsicly higher than scrappers, their net damage output might be lower in real combat because of time lost to maneuvering.
I believe that is theoretically true, but as a practical matter most blasters that develop a more maneuverable style tend to gravitate to superspeed jousting. Almost by definition, if their play style requires a lot of moving, and they can't move fast, they'll die.
So connecting this whole line of thought back to the original question, I believe that while blasters may or may not need to move more, the cost for burning time to move around is so high for (defenseless) blasters, that they almost never pay it - they switch to another style that requires less movement, or switch to SS jousting.
In other words, the "cost" for maneuvering is theoretical only, the tendancy is for the average blaster to pay for the maneuvering cost by picking up superspeed, not by losing time to jog around. That time wouldn't just be costing dps, it would be exposing the blaster to more damage, which I think most blasters un-learn to not do.
Blasters are only standing around not firing if they don't have an available attack, not because they are changing scenary. So they are usually fighting near their best damage output, at least solo. In teams, some blasters seem to hold back deliberately because of aggro concerns. I don't, so I can't address how much of an impact that might have through personal experience. If my damage output is not near my maximum, I'm chatting on the SG channel or on a bio break.
So I think its fair to look at our high end damage output without a lot of corrections factors. What I don't think is fair is comparing it to scrapper damage to see if its "good enough." Blaster damage should be compared to blaster health, not scrapper damage. The only relevant question is: do blasters do enough damage to defeat what they are "supposed" to be able to defeat, before they die. If they do, then their damage output is satisfactory. If they don't, then its not. It doesn't matter if blaster damage is 10% of scrapper damage, or 200% more than scrapper damage.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
yup. There's no reason why a less defense-equipped AT must ALSO have less HP than others. It'll lose it faster, but it can take a few extra hits of just about any type [rather than many many many many more of one type, and only many many more of the second, which is what you get from various defenses].
If what we take in terms of HP chunks is to make range defense equal to scrappers, one way could be to give us... now don't all start screaming now...
...
...
Tanker HP.
yup. that would make us lose our health bar only SLIGHTLY faster than a scrapper with heavy defenses. It wouldn't protect us against mezzing much, though it would give teammates a slightly higher window to save our sorry butts [thus good for teaming].
the only "problem" some might balk at is that yes, this WOULD make us more resilient in solo-play too.
Unless maybe we were to get +15% hp/teammate or something? thus making us safer in teams [well not really but at least that would somewhat offset the increased risk from said teaming]
On the upside though, extra HP is far more reliable than an extra 5% defense [we all know what 5% can mean in this game... 95% chance to hit, anyone?] or toughness, and reliability is something us blasters prize in our abilities... because if it doesn't kick in like you want it to... you die.
[ QUOTE ]
It would be nice if we can get back to blaster damage in this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can help with that. Because I'm a ding bat and never noticed this sticky till now, I posted this in it's own thread, which has been deleted, But this is what i've got
Alright, we've all heard the argument, I'll just delve into what I've done.
I've played both Assault rifle blaster, and Broadsword Scrapper, I know them rather well. I took my time to put this chart together using the info I have. If a move was an AOE there is the *aoe attached, along with a problable number of mobs hit with the skill.
this is what I've got together. It's in Jpeg because I don't ahve a decent Html editor on hand and don't have the urge to write tables atm.
If anyone knows a build and can give a similar set for other primaries feel free to toss it into the conversation.
But looking at these the final values actually point to that scrapper doing slightly more than a blaster on a single target, a bit over 10 brawl per minute. But the blaster takes off as the targets grow, getting an extra 60 brawl per minute over the scrapper per target beyond the first
[ QUOTE ]
GS, you're overlooking a very important reality. The toons, the powers have to be balanced against the mobs. The reason they have "nerf" is because the game is too easy. The 30's game is too easy. You can't just keep upping people's powers. This is the fundamental disconnect everyone has when they piss and moan about "why not just bring the weaker sets up??!!!"
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point! The game is too easy. Actually, the game needs to be too easy, but that's a point for another post. In the here and now we'll discuss your valid point.
OK, let's assume that everyone is nerfed to the level of Blasters, and the game is a challenge for many people on Heroic.
Great! Except that CoH is not in Beta any more.
People have been playing CoH more than a year, in many cases, and people are used to how it plays. For lack of a better word, CoH has inertia. Why is this a problem? Well, the main issue is that people have a percieved power level (PPL!) for their toons now.
Now that they are familiar with the current PPL, they will choose to maintain it. How? Well, if the game keep getting more balanced / harder, the only good way to maintain the previous PPL is to PowerGame. That is, exploit every possible hole in the game by every and any means possible. That's mostly accomplished in CoH by "building" a custom hero using certain powers and slotting.
Players trying to hold on to the old PPL will make little Hero clones, and that is boring as dirt to me. I'm not going to get into the fact that the Arena is screwing around with PvE balance, and it's pointless to mention that people quit when the PPL goes down.
The fact that leveling will slow (a lot) is just extra joy.
Since I agree with you that the game needs to get harder in some way, I think that the Mobs need boosting. The Tsoo are a real challenge for many heroes in the early 20's. I think that a little power set makeover would go a long way to making the game a bigger challenge, without mass gimpage.
Oh, and to use your previous point about ATs, I think you're correct. Modifying one AT to be better (Blasters) is much simpler and quicker than modifying 3 downward (Tanks/Scrappers/Controllers).
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
yup. There's no reason why a less defense-equipped AT must ALSO have less HP than others. It'll lose it faster, but it can take a few extra hits of just about any type [rather than many many many many more of one type, and only many many more of the second, which is what you get from various defenses].
If what we take in terms of HP chunks is to make range defense equal to scrappers, one way could be to give us... now don't all start screaming now...
...
...
Tanker HP.
[/ QUOTE ]
More thematically in sync with the notion that blasters are "squishie" but ought to survive better at range is to make ranged attacks inherently less accurate, so we get hit less often.
It completely fits the comic books, action movies, and all other cultural touchstones that when the hero is over here, and the bad guys is over there, the bad guy might spray hundreds of bullets trying to hit the good guy. If any of the comic book villains had even my aim and a good pair of glasses, none of the "squishy" blasters in comic books would survive to page 8.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Preferably without at the same time turning the hero into a storm-trooper that can pop aim or use the drone, of course. Thus the suggestions on range-only defense boosts for blasters, who should know even better than their player to keep moving and use cover!
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's assume that everyone is nerfed to the level of Blasters, and the game is a challenge for many people on Heroic.
[/ QUOTE ] The devs believe this is desirable. I agree with them. It should be challenge for first time players on heroic. It should be nearly undoable (without a single defeat) for veteran players on Invinc. Think Halo on Legendary.
I just got done playing a mish with a stone/stone lvl 22 a lvl 21 Grav/Emp a lvl 22 fire/fire blaster and my lvl 21 Ice/El. We did the Tanker's Striga mish on Invinc. Not a single death. The blasters moved some...but the tanker spent FAR more time running around holding aggro and using taunt. Not a single death. The tanker probably had all SO's...i'm almost sure of it. His health probably never went below 90%. But we should not have been able to do that mission that easily with DO's. Mine are all yellow.
The game is too easy on Invinc. Way too easy. I'm not sure why you think it needs to be that easy. I'm fighting +2,+3s with DO's and still we worked them. My attacks have only 4 dmg in them. Two blasters chewed that mission up. Upping blaster damage for blasters in the 20's is absolutely the wrong way to go. When I get to the 30's, we'll see if it changes.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if the game keep getting more balanced / harder, the only good way to maintain the previous PPL is to PowerGame.
[/ QUOTE ] The reason I quit playing my lvl 37 scrapper is because it got boring. The low lvl game is so much more fun because it is a struggle. Because you need blastesr...you need defenders, you need tankers...you need controllers. I have no interest in powerleveling and routinely refuse offers to do so. Right now, the best part of CoH, imo, is lvls 1-22 where the game is the most challenging. Guess what...everyone plays those lvls and look how popular it is.
I am more interested in badges at high lvl than xp. I have spent more time exemping down in to the teens and 20's just to relive the challenge i used to have with my scrapper. Easy is boring.
The fact that blasters are so fagile is what makes them exciting for me.
[ QUOTE ]
Modifying one AT to be better (Blasters) is much simpler and quicker than modifying 3 downward
[/ QUOTE ] Yes..it is simpler and quicker, and ultimately the wrong decision given the strenthg of the mobs. If they increase mob HP's by a lot, then I'm 100% in favor of upping blaster HP's. Just reduce the endurance for everyone else's attacks.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's assume that everyone is nerfed to the level of Blasters, and the game is a challenge for many people on Heroic.
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs believe this is desirable. I agree with them. It should be challenge for first time players on heroic. It should be nearly undoable (without a single defeat) for veteran players on Invinc. Think Halo on Legendary.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot express my disagreement with this strongly enough.
Extrapolating outward, then, if the only way to make it interesting is to make sure 3 whatevers can kill you, that doesn't bode well for tanks. Or are they the ones that will be bearing the burden of being bored so the rest of us can have an exciting game?
Eventually, when everything can kill you, thats just as boring as when nothing can kill you. Right now, my tank, my scrapper, my blaster, and my controller, all play differently on live. The SR changes makes my SR play the same as my blaster.
Maybe thats good for first time players - every class, no matter what they pick, will play with the same sort of rollercoaster death-around-every-corner pace. But for long term players, thats equally boring.
If I want to play like a blaster, I play my blaster. When I want to play like a tank, I play my tank. When I4 goes live, I will not have a high level scrapper to play, I will have a blapper, and with free copies to test and 3 respecs left, I can make a blapper whenever I want. I will not have a scrapper. I'll switch to my kat/invuln, because she still plays like a scrapper.
When my controller plays like a blaster, and my tank plays like a blaster, I will eventually have nothing but blasters with different costumes. I can tell you that will burn me out much faster than if my scrapper is "boring" - which I've never thought she was.
Why take the variety away? Perma-elude only affects people who can even get to level 40 in the first place, and the devs have gone so far as to state that many, if not most, casual players do not get to 50, given the small relative numbers of 50s. It was mainly a "problem" for people devoting the time to drive their characters into the high levels - where the late game challenges are the Rularuu, AVs, etc. The devs seem to almost be saying "we expected the stuff 40+ to really jump up and kill you, and if it doesn't, we need to tweak it so that it does."
If the game is supposed to "look" the same from level 1 through level 50, why have levels? Why not eliminate levels altogether from the game. If the game, balanced in accordance with what the developers feel is "good" starts off with one hero challenged by 3 level 1 minions, and ends with a level 50 hero challenged by 3 level 50 minions, get rid of the numbers, they are only psychologically sapping.
I believe that the game should escalate from 1 hero challenged by 3 level 1 minions, to 1 level 20 hero challenged by 3 level 22 minions, to a level 30 hero challenged by 8 level 33 minions, to a level 40 hero challenged by 3 level 42 bosses, to a level 50 hero challenged by an archvillain, his five lieutenants, 30 swarming minions, and oddjob's hat.
If its always exactly the same, just the numbers are different, keep in mind I don't actually *see* those numbers when I'm playing. I see my scrapper fighting 3 minions, over and over again, for 50 levels. In my honest opinion, thats poor design in that it doesn't take human psychology into account at all. It presumes people will spend hundreds of hours paying monthly fees to play PacMan vs the same four ghosts forever.
I'm going to state categorically right now perhaps a very controversial - and odd coming from me - position. It is more important that the AT classes are different than they are balanced. If they are different but unbalanced there's always hope, because people might not play the way you want, but they'll play. If they are balanced but identical, people will not necessarily play just because they appreciate the academic accomplishment of making a balanced game. I believe I'm in as good a position to judge balance as anyone else, and I know that balance is important, but while it is a long-term necessity, variety is the short term imperative. Without variety, you won't hold subscribers long enough for them to notice the game isn't balanced.
Preserve variety, and then try real hard to balance within those variety parameters. You shouldn't necessarily mortgage tomorrow for a better today, but if you are going to sacrifice variety, you are wrecking today for a tomorrow that may never come.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Thought I'd post a further explanation about the Blaster damage explanation in "Ask Statesman."
That was - and is - the reason why Blaster damage is capped lower than Scrappers. I did forget to add that the ranged attacks of mobs deal less damage (typically) than melee attacks - and the Blaster is generally the target of raned attacks.
But many issues have come up - most notably, the perception that Blasters are too fragile at levels 35+. Their damage potential does not compensate for their low hit points.
And, of course, there's the complaint that some Secondaries have too many melee attacks - something that the Blaster avoids at all costs.
At the moment, Scrappers, and to a lesser degree, Tankers, are being analyzed. Once we establish a baseline, then we'll be in a better position to look at Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ice only has 2 melee attacks... which boths suck... and there are really only 3 usefull powers in the whole set. ANd Ice patch is PBAoE which is a bit situational and shiver is a killer animation time for a blaster. Fix ice secondary
lol...your post seems to say like three different things....only one of which I think I agree with...
[ QUOTE ]
that doesn't bode well for tanks.
[/ QUOTE ] First off, Tanks are the most overpowered AT of them all once they get in the 30's. Talk about zero risk. Tankers should be defeatable by something they encounter in a mission at the hardest settings....from lvls 1-50. They shouldn't have to hurrd the entire map to risk defeat. Recently, my lvl 37 DM/SR hooked up with an 8 man team (typical controller created group). The tank was lvl 40...mission was on Invinc...lvl 43 DE bosses..Greater Devoured. Total party wipe out...3 +3 bosses...Quartz Crystals, Eminators, ToL. Inv/* tanker killed them all by himself. A friggin 8 party spawn on Invinc, wiped out by one Inv/* tanker. I've heard plenty of stories of one Inv/* tanker completely dominating Respec missions. I hear Stone/* tankers are even tougher. Apologies for not being too concerned that Tankers might be brought down from the stratosphere.
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe thats good for first time players - every class, no matter what they pick, will play with the same sort of rollercoaster death-around-every-corner pace.
[/ QUOTE ] Hyperbole. You are exaggerating. Risk =/= death around every corner. You are creating a false comparison to support an otherwise invalid assertion.
[ QUOTE ]
Perma-elude only affects people who can even get to level 40 in the first place
[/ QUOTE ] So now we're talking about Perma-Elude in the blaster damage thread?
[ QUOTE ]
The SR changes makes my SR play the same as my blaster.
[/ QUOTE ] When your blaster can take on 10 +4 Crey without inspirations, come talk to me. When your blaster can take out 6 +4 Malta, come talke to me. When your blaster can take on 8 +4 Nemesis, come talk to me. Your /SR may play like blaster because you've refused to use Toggles for 39 lvls. Mine doesn't. My guess is yours doesn't either.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the game should escalate from 1 hero challenged by 3 level 1 minions, to 1 level 20 hero challenged by 3 level 22 minions, to a level 30 hero challenged by 8 level 33 minions, to a level 40 hero challenged by 3 level 42 bosses, to a level 50 hero challenged by an archvillain, his five lieutenants, 30 swarming minions, and oddjob's hat.
[/ QUOTE ] Except this vision is dependent upon one of the grossest oversights by the devs and players alike. Lvl 1 minions are a magnitude weaker than lvl 41 minions. You've fallen victim to this infernal color coding which has no comparative value what.so.ever.
The color coding is wholly inaccurate and completely undermines our sense of increased power. It is based on the fact that the game has stuck the mob with the same number as your hero's lvl. Colors are not based on any quantative difficulty comparison.
If you have even a single iota of analysis in that head of yours, you'd recognize how ridiculous it is for people to argue we should fighting +3's instead +0's. The game does not assess your power lvl and code the mobs accordingly. Are even lvl Sappers the same threat lvl as even lvl Outcast Initiates?
If the game removed colors and rank, this silly notion of not increasing in power would evaporate. What they should do is get rid of color coding after lvl 10 and have Mrs. Liberty tell you that
"Do to the growth of and uniqueness of your powers and slotting, the city can no longer determine your power lvl compared to the mobs....though we can tell you when you are probably way outclassed" (+4's and higher will still be purple).
[ QUOTE ]
It is more important that the AT classes are different than they are balanced.
[/ QUOTE ] yes, we went through this in your other thread. A position I have been arguing for months. Different means arguing who's "better" is purely subjective and no one is arguing about nerf x. The problem is the game has to make those differences a necessity. Range is worth less (not worthless) if everything can be defeated by melee.
[ QUOTE ]
If you have even a single iota of analysis in that head of yours, you'd recognize how ridiculous it is for people to argue we should fighting +3's instead +0's. The game does not assess your power lvl and code the mobs accordingly. Are even lvl Sappers the same threat lvl as even lvl Outcast Initiates?
If the game removed colors and rank, this silly notion of not increasing in power would evaporate. What they should do is get rid of color coding after lvl 10 and have Mrs. Liberty tell you that
"Do to the growth of and uniqueness of your powers and slotting, the city can no longer determine your power lvl compared to the mobs....though we can tell you when you are probably way outclassed" (+4's and higher will still be purple).
[/ QUOTE ]
And if you were not illiterate, you would see you are directly supporting my contention, which is that the color coding and level numbers do not matter. If we start off fighting 3, and end the game fighting 3, the game does not change. Its fighting 3.
You have a nasty habit of being the most annoyingly assertive when you are also the most completely off the mark. But, okay, lets see:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that doesn't bode well for tanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, Tanks are the most overpowered AT of them all once they get in the 30's. Talk about zero risk. Tankers should be defeatable by something they encounter in a mission at the hardest settings....from lvls 1-50.
[/ QUOTE ]
I figured intelligent people would get my point, which is that if they are balancing the game for the same identical risk for everyone, tanks, which are supposed to draw aggro, are going to have difficulty doing their jobs. If I need to spell it out more: if scrappers are being brought down to the same level of risk as blasters, then the same should be true for tanks. And if tanks are going to face the same risk as blasters, they are going to be at even higher risk when they draw aggro away from blasters and everyone else on the team. And unless your definition of risk doesn't match the english one, that means they are going to die. If they can do their jobs of drawing aggro for the team, they are going to have to be at massively lower risk exposure than the rest of the team combined.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe thats good for first time players - every class, no matter what they pick, will play with the same sort of rollercoaster death-around-every-corner pace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hyperbole. You are exaggerating. Risk =/= death around every corner. You are creating a false comparison to support an otherwise invalid assertion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not exaggerating. You are attempting to sound intelligent by stating your premise authoritatively, but without any support. I'm not generally impressed by it, I see it a lot.
If you are at risk, you are going to die eventually. If you never die, by definition your risk exposure was zero. That is how risk is actually defined - a probability of an event occuring. If you are at risk of being defeated, you will eventually be defeated. If your risk of being defeated is higher than someone else, you will be defeated more, or the person who calculated the risk failed to carry a two somewhere.
It is not hyperbole. If the risks are being calculated to be relative to blasters, then most blasters would say that, in fact, every engagement has some not insignificant risk of defeat. So my statement fails to meet the definition of hyperbole, because it is not exaggeration.
[ QUOTE ]
When your blaster can take on 10 +4 Crey without inspirations, come talk to me. When your blaster can take out 6 +4 Malta, come talke to me. When your blaster can take on 8 +4 Nemesis, come talk to me. Your /SR may play like blaster because you've refused to use Toggles for 39 lvls. Mine doesn't. My guess is yours doesn't either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what yours plays like. But quite honestly, if you are going to call me out for playing with less toggles than you, I'm calling shenanigans and asking you to stop talking about elude changes while you are still 37. Or for that matter discussing any end game issues while you are still in the mid-game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perma-elude only affects people who can even get to level 40 in the first place
[/ QUOTE ]
So now we're talking about Perma-Elude in the blaster damage thread?
[/ QUOTE ]
Reading is fundamental, Mieux. The original post which I responded to was this:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's assume that everyone is nerfed to the level of Blasters, and the game is a challenge for many people on Heroic.
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs believe this is desirable. I agree with them. It should be challenge for first time players on heroic. It should be nearly undoable (without a single defeat) for veteran players on Invinc. Think Halo on Legendary.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you remember it, its your post. The specific topic was that someone argued that it was not a good idea necessarily for everyone's power level to be brought down to the level of blasters, and you contradicted them and further stated that this was not only the devs goal, but personally desirable to yourself. I'm not sure why I have to remind you what you yourself said, but you seem to have forgotten.
Within that context, I mention perma-elude as a change that serves to reduce the play difference between scrappers and blasters, at least for me. You might disagree with the point, but I didn't think I needed to draw a picture for you not to get lost while I made it.
Although I try to avoid being antagonistic, its clear to me that you are primarily someone for whom it is more important to sound clever than logical or reasonable. To take quotes out of context, even when the context is your own words, just to sound intelligent tells me you lack ammunition to sound intelligent any other way. You nit-pick posts while doing nothing but asserting things without basis, support, or anything approaching reason. And you seem to have no problem attempting to sound authoritative about things you aren't necessarily fully familiar with.
On top of that, your sarcastic tone really makes it difficult to treat you in the sort of civil manner I try to accord every poster in these forums.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
And if you were not illiterate, you would see you are directly supporting my contention, which is that the color coding and level numbers do not matter. If we start off fighting 3, and end the game fighting 3, the game does not change. Its fighting 3.
[/ QUOTE ] no. I am not supporting your contention. Your contention is based on the myopic view that fighting "3" at lvl 1 is the same as fighting 3 at lvl 40. By your definition, if we start out fighting 3 civililians, and end up fighting 3 AV's....we are still only fighting 3. Ridiculous. The classification of "Minion" is somewhat arbitrary Arcana. It's not like there is some Minion certification program. Go make a toon at level 1 and see how many unslotted Shadow Punches it takes to defeat him. Now try a Minion at lvl 40 and see how many unslotted Shadow Punches it takes to defeat him.
[ QUOTE ]
I figured intelligent people would get my point, which is that if they are balancing the game for the same identical risk for everyone
[/ QUOTE ] Another myopic assessment. The risks are not "identical" for everyone. Where do you get this stuff? If I seem curt or rude it's because you consistently distort and misrepresent my posts and assertions. It is obvious that what the devs mean when the talk about a metric, there will be variation around that metric consistent with the soloing abilities of the various AT's.
[ QUOTE ]
If they can do their jobs of drawing aggro for the team, they are going to have to be at massively lower risk exposure than the rest of the team combined.
[/ QUOTE ] yet another erroneous conclusion. A tanker can be all defense and no offense. Which mean his/er ultimate ability to survive is zero. A blaster can be all offense and no defense and given the DPS he/she needs to put out to kill the mobs before they kill him or her, his or her ability to survive is zero. Combine the two...the tanker holds the aggro, the blaster kills the mobs. Very very very simple concept.
Tanker defenses after a certain lvl far exceed the DPS that mobs can even put out in any misson they can encounter solo. This is unbalnced in terms of the game. You assume that for a tanker to provide value to an 8 man team his defense has to be so good he/she is unkillable solo. That is flatly not true. The defense simply has to be good enough that the teammates can defeat the mobs before Tanker's defenses are overwelmed due to his lack of offense....except past lvl 35 or so..his or her offense is more than enough...as witnessed by me on the ground while he solo'd like 15 mobs including 3 +3 bosses...while getting no +DEF bonus from Invinc due to the Quartz Crystals.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are at risk, you are going to die eventually.
[/ QUOTE ] Factually incorrect. Lots of people are at risk for winning the lottery their whole lives.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not generally impressed by it, I see it a lot.
[/ QUOTE ] But you don't see it Arcana. You consistently don't see it. You take this 2' foot leap over a 10' ditch and then act like you made it. "Death around every corner" is a disengenuous characterization of what Jack has expressed as the level of risk players should encounter on Heroic. I might get hit by a car everytime I cross the street, but no one calls it "death at every cross walk." Yes. I get peturbed at your inaccuracies strictly to support your arguments. I'm not impressed either.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm calling shenanigans and asking you to stop talking about elude changes while you are still 37.
[/ QUOTE ] lol...I've no interest in talking about Elude changes in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Reading is fundamental, Mieux. The original post which I responded to was this:
[/ QUOTE ] yes...reading is fundamental...let's look at what is being said:
[ QUOTE ]
The devs believe this is desirable. I agree with them. It should be challenge for first time players on heroic.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you saw this:
[ QUOTE ]
it was not a good idea necessarily for everyone's power level to be brought down to the level of blasters, and you contradicted them and further stated that this was not only the devs goal, but personally desirable to yourself.
[/ QUOTE ] Literacy is a good thing. It's good when you can responed to what someoen is actually saying and not what you want them to say to suppport your claims. I say the game should be challenging to the "first time" player on heroic and you accuse me of saying that we should play like blasters....
[ QUOTE ]
Within that context, I mention perma-elude as a change that serves to reduce the play difference between scrappers and blasters, at least for me. You might disagree with the point, but I didn't think I needed to draw a picture for you not to get lost while I made it.
[/ QUOTE ] Your issue is with a small range of levels where 90% of the players don't go. Yet, you throw out asertions as if they apply to all /SR's. They don't. Be specific. My /SR does not play like a blapper. If he does, then Blappers need the living daylights nerfed out of them.
[ QUOTE ]
its clear to me that you are primarily someone for whom it is more important to sound clever than logical or reasonable
[/ QUOTE ] Defamation is not your style, Arcana. I'm not having trouble with logic nor reasonability. I'll let my posts speak for themselves.
[ QUOTE ]
You nit-pick posts while doing nothing but asserting things without basis, support, or anything approaching reason.
[/ QUOTE ] it's funny, I've gotten quite a few PM's from people who I disagree with in threads where they come around and say they agree with me. At times, we are saying the same things. Since our Perma discussion way back...there seems to be a disconnect on the logic. If you think yours is superior...well, it's not like I'm going to convince you with reason.
[ QUOTE ]
On top of that, your sarcastic tone really makes it difficult to treat you in the sort of civil manner
[/ QUOTE ] Yes...I need to work on that. I gets triggered when I feel a poster is carelessly misquoting me.
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I quit playing my lvl 37 scrapper is because it got boring.
[/ QUOTE ]
You like challenge, then pick a class which, by definition of being best at soloing, needs no help. OF COURSE you got bored with your scrapper.
[ QUOTE ]
I just got done playing a mish with a stone/stone lvl 22 a lvl 21 Grav/Emp a lvl 22 fire/fire blaster and my lvl 21 Ice/El. We did the Tanker's Striga mish on Invinc. Not a single death. The blasters moved some...but the tanker spent FAR more time running around holding aggro and using taunt. Not a single death. The tanker probably had all SO's...i'm almost sure of it. His health probably never went below 90%. But we should not have been able to do that mission that easily with DO's. Mine are all yellow.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you would like there to be multiple deaths on invincible no mater what? You like dying? All right... You should probably trying playing without a tanker sometime, if you would like a challenge. Seems to me like you're doing everything in your power to protect yourself, then complaning it's too easy.
Go do everything you can to challenge yourself before you come back here with nerf calls.
[ QUOTE ]
The low lvl game is so much more fun because it is a struggle. Because you need blastesr...you need defenders, you need tankers...you need controllers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Barring the fact that at high levels you still need all these classes, this game would be vomit if you needed every AT to get anything done. This game would be utterly ridiculous if you had to get together an even reasonably sized team to accomplish anything. Then, this would be alot more like EQ and FFXI, which, and I hope you're keeping score at home, is a bad thing.
[ QUOTE ]
Right now, the best part of CoH, imo, is lvls 1-22 where the game is the most challenging. Guess what...everyone plays those lvls and look how popular it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are super, super wrong if you think tons of people play 1-22 because it's the best part and the challenge makes it popular. It's popular because people like trying out new AT's and powers and you HAVE NO CHOICE but to start at early levels. I'll tell you right now, if I could skip to level 20 immediatley, I would never start another toon from scratch again. This is why this isn't done, by the way: Everything before Striga would be utterly deserted.
By the way, the best TF in the game is the Hess TF, followed closely by the Eden trial, both of which are far, far outside your "funnest part ever" range, so you fail it.
Mieux, you need to realize you are part of a very vocal minority. This game is casual friendly: holding true to that is not just a minor decision, it is vital. If you make the game hardcore gamer hard, you are going to alienate the much larger playerbase that likes to log on, mess around for an hour or two with a team, maybe not with a team, and then log off.
I'm firmly convinced that you are in the wrong genre of game if you want challenge and bareknuckle excitement: This isn't a twitch arcade fighting game. This isn't a reflex shooter. This isn't even a wacky platformer.
This is an MMO. That means that for the most part, your skill really doesn't matter. Stats matter. There are some skill things you can do like breaking line of sight, knowing what your powers do and how best to use them, and stuff like that, but it's not rocket science. MMO's are many things, but no one will ever accuse any of them of being hard. Once you know the rules, this game consists of pushing buttons that do things to an enemy, and whether you hit or miss and how much damage you do is done by a computer's equation, not by how skillful you are.
You're not dodging shots. You can't even crouch to avoid fire. Hit or miss is based on math, not you doing anything. No matter how you tweak numbers, no matter how much you kick tankers in the balls, a tanker's job will never be more complicated then "leap into middle of group with taunt aura on, throw taunt at stragglers".That's what a tanker was designed from the ground up to be. Anything else requires a complete wipe and revamp of the entire class.
The reasons blasters are failing is that people have to play them like some kind of FPS hero where FPS rules don't apply. If an enemy starts his shoot animation, your stats will determine whether you get hit or not, not your skill at ducking or dodging. Sure you can do stupid things like kiting and jousting, but that's more akin to cheating the game engine's rules than just sitting down and playing a blaster by the book. Doing that kind of weird crap shouldn't be required to survive.
This game's challenge comes from knowing what your powers do and using the appropriate tool at the right time: the Blaster's problem is that in the late game, he simply has no tool to pull out to defend himself against the oodles of mezzing he'll encounter. The only tool he has is... well.... someone else, or failing that, a break free.
If you're looking for bare knuckle action, Mieux, you're in the wrong game. Wrong genre. You're looking for something like Ninja Gaiden or F-zero. Turning CoH that requires the level of practice and dedication those games require would be the worst thing in the entire world: the legions of casual parents, their children, girlfriends and co-workers would simply leave.
You've misinterpreted. Invinc should be deadly. Heroic should provide some element of risk to the first time player. How you've turned my statement into bare-knuckle action is anyone's guess.
[ QUOTE ]
You like challenge, then pick a class which, by definition of being best at soloing, needs no help. OF COURSE you got bored with your scrapper.
[/ QUOTE ] I got bored with my scrapper after I got SO's. Before that I enjoyed her immensily.
[ QUOTE ]
Go do everything you can to challenge yourself before you come back here with nerf calls.
[/ QUOTE ] Expecting players to self-nerf to be challenged is a fundamental flawed way to make a game. I think the devs know this.
[ QUOTE ]
You are super, super wrong if you think tons of people play 1-22 because it's the best part and the challenge makes it popular
[/ QUOTE ] You've made an error in logic here. Saying the he game is popular because of the challenge in the first 22 lvls is logically different than saying that people play the first 22 lvls because is the most popular. If the game was as easy from 1-22 as it is from 28-37, I think this game would fail....my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
Mieux, you need to realize you are part of a very vocal minority.
[/ QUOTE ] I have no knowledge of what % of people feel the way I do. Doomy would say its 42%. More importantly, neither do you. Add to this, the fact that Jack himself has acknowledged the game is too easy in the 30's. What do you think all those minion/lt/boss changes were aimed at? Do you think they spent all that time and energy to satisfy a minority of players? A vocal minority...maybe.
[ QUOTE ]
the Blaster's problem is that in the late game, he simply has no tool to pull out to defend himself against the oodles of mezzing he'll encounter
[/ QUOTE ] Blasters weren't meant to have those tools because other people did. The problem is by the high lvls, everyone is so powerful, they don't need blasters....they can all do damage. I'm all in favor of nerfing damage (by a reasonable amount) for everyone but blasters.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're looking for bare knuckle action...
[/ QUOTE ] I'm looking for a game with a good teaming dynamic, but is not so two-dimensional as Counter-Strike. I enjoy the casual intelligent player and routinely refuse SG invites.
[ QUOTE ]
Ninja Gaiden
[/ QUOTE ] Punishing/unacceptable camera angles managmenet and unforgiving penalty for failing to execute. How do you fight something you can't face? But fun for awhile.
EDIT:
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the best TF in the game is the Hess TF, followed closely by the Eden trial, both of which are far, far outside your "funnest part ever" range, so you fail it.
[/ QUOTE ] Striga wasn't around when I made my DM/SR. The devs openly admit that the set a new standard with Striga. For that reason, it does make the 20..A LOT more enjoyable than lvl 1-22. Striga provides things, interaction, elements, that the game did not previously have. And yes, the Hess TF is the second best TF I've been on. The best was Respec for the first time at lvl 26 while facing +4 boses. Three deaths on that TF...that was awesome.
Yes... I want Invinc to provide that challenge. I do not want Heroic to provide that challenge.
And as an aside...lvls 1-13 suck. No travel powers suck. They could stand to give us travel at lvl 6.
[ QUOTE ]
I got bored with my scrapper after I got SO's. Before that I enjoyed her immensily.
[/ QUOTE ]
You instantly and totally missed my point. You picked the easiest class, then complained it was boring when you got the things that made your class come into its own. Scrappers get SO's, which makes their defenses/attacks actually effective, and their solo abilities shine through. Next time, talk about challenge when you don't pick the easy class.
[ QUOTE ]
Expecting players to self-nerf to be challenged is a fundamental flawed way to make a game. I think the devs know this.
[/ QUOTE ]
You does not = all players. A majority of players are already challenged quite well. The casual players, who are a majority of the playerbase. It's not flawed to ask the hardcore and the leet (of which you belong to) to nerf themselves to still enjoy a challenge in a game they love. Games have been doing it for decades. It's usually called hard mode, or beating the game in a certain time limit to get the best ending. Beating the game without getting hit/not getting certain items. That's not flawed.
[ QUOTE ]
You've made an error in logic here. Saying the he game is popular because of the challenge in the first 22 lvls is logically different than saying that people play the first 22 lvls because is the most popular. If the game was as easy from 1-22 as it is from 28-37, I think this game would fail....my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
You said the first 22 levels were popular, which is flat out wrong. You are literally the only person, on this board or otherwise that I have talked to that prefers the early game. If the early game was popular, you wouldn't have powerlevelers trying to get past it. Time and again, I hear the opposite: "I am so sick of the early game, I wish I coulld just start at Striga". If I had ever heard anyone else say they love the early levels alot, you might have a point, but as it is, you are pretty much standing by yourself. Your opinion holds very little sway, as it has no other voices behind it, i'm sorry.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no knowledge of what % of people feel the way I do. Doomy would say its 42%. More importantly, neither do you. Add to this, the fact that Jack himself has acknowledged the game is too easy in the 30's. What do you think all those minion/lt/boss changes were aimed at? Do you think they spent all that time and energy to satisfy a minority of players? A vocal minority...maybe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly sure what changes you're referring to... Because if you remember right after I2, enemies were RIDICULOUSLY hard, there was a huge outcry, and they were rolled back. Around I3, bosses had boosted HP and all that jazz, and that too was broken, unfair, there was a huge outcry, and it was rolled back. I'm not puling things out of my rear here... My experience with others in the game and on the boards, and the trend of enemy changes has shown that people really, really don't like enemies being made harder. Like someone else said: dying is just as boring and un-fun as not dying.
The I3 bosses were the sole reason by blaster hit the debt cap: It was before the little addition the the difficulty slider where if you had it set on heroic, you didn't see bosses. So here I am, faced with un-deletable DE missions set to heroic that were filled with lesser devoured that could one shot me either from range or in melee. Meanwhile, their boosted HP meant that even if I were invincible, it would take me not seconds, but minutes of constant firing to come close to taking one down. I'm sure your boring scrapper would have loved it: my blaster on the other hand, who could before then solo with caution, now could not solo, period.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters weren't meant to have those tools because other people did. The problem is by the high lvls, everyone is so powerful, they don't need blasters....they can all do damage. I'm all in favor of nerfing damage (by a reasonable amount) for everyone but blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rubbish. I love blasters whenever I team, no matter the level. I do think blasters tend to do better in small teams rather than large, but blasters are still very much awesome in a team setting. I routinely team with a competent AR blaster, and I would kiss his Full Auto right on the mouth if I could.
Now, retards might think they don't need blasters and that blasters are useless, but that's not my tanker's damn problem. Leave him alone.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for a game with a good teaming dynamic, but is not so two-dimensional as Counter-Strike. I enjoy the casual intelligent player and routinely refuse SG invites.
[/ QUOTE ]
You need to go play other games if you honestly think CoH doesn't have the friendliest team dynamic you ever saw. Virtually any ragtag group of powersets and AT's can accomplish their goals, providing half the team isn't a vegetable on the keyboard. If an AT isn't availible for a mission, no big deal. You can do fine. I would absolutley utterly hate this game, and many others would too, if your missions were hard to do if you didn't happen to have a controller availible, or if there were no blasters in your level range currently LFT.
If we had to spend an hour getting a competent team together to do anything, this game would instantly cease being fun.
EDIT:
[ QUOTE ]
Three deaths on that TF...that was awesome.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mieux, I hope to god you aren't so far gone as to think that line of thinking is anywhere near normal or anywhere near what anyone remotely likes. Please tell me you're still enough on this plane of existence to where you realize you are a weirdo for thinking that.
OK, Mieux, I've finally managed to get some opinion out of you, and I don't like what I see...at all. This is why people say that communication causes more problems than it solves. 
This is just awesome. Let's examine this post:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You like challenge, then pick a class which, by definition of being best at soloing, needs no help. OF COURSE you got bored with your scrapper.
[/ QUOTE ]
I got bored with my scrapper after I got SO's. Before that I enjoyed her immensily.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you follow up this reasonable argument with this self-centered crap:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Go do everything you can to challenge yourself before you come back here with nerf calls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Expecting players to self-nerf to be challenged is a fundamental flawed way to make a game. I think the devs know this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, no. I do. Others do. No, it is you, Mieux, who is the player that is unwilling to self-nerf. That's nice. That's great that you're selfish. I normally couldn't care less.
But you're asking for global nerfing based on your experience with what you want.
I agree that the game is too easy for some people. I agree that it's not for others. I think that calling for nerfs helps no one and hurts everyone.
Show me that casual players won't leave if the game gets harder.
Show me that Tanks never solo, and therefore don't need offense.
Show me that Blasters can always get a team.
And if you can? We'll have an actual argument about where the balance line should be, where my opinion matters too.
Thanks.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
Show me that Tanks never solo, and therefore don't need offense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I know that one can't be shown, because my four tankers are strictly solo characters!
[ QUOTE ]
no. I am not supporting your contention. Your contention is based on the myopic view that fighting "3" at lvl 1 is the same as fighting 3 at lvl 40. By your definition, if we start out fighting 3 civililians, and end up fighting 3 AV's....we are still only fighting 3. Ridiculous.
[/ QUOTE ]
That ludicrous. Have you even seen an AV, or fought one before? The actual experience of fighting an AV is wholely different from fighting minions. The experience of fighting three level 50 minions is identical to fighting three level 20 minions. Take the numbers, the color cons, and even the names away, and I can tell the difference between an AV fight and a minion fight.
This, by the way, would be an excellent example of hyperbole.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they can do their jobs of drawing aggro for the team, they are going to have to be at massively lower risk exposure than the rest of the team combined.
[/ QUOTE ]
yet another erroneous conclusion. A tanker can be all defense and no offense. Which mean his/er ultimate ability to survive is zero. A blaster can be all offense and no defense and given the DPS he/she needs to put out to kill the mobs before they kill him or her, his or her ability to survive is zero. Combine the two...the tanker holds the aggro, the blaster kills the mobs. Very very very simple concept.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you seem to be having serious difficulty with the concept of "zero" so I wouldn't attempt anything more complex yet. When my tank engages a group that her defense is completely solid on, but can't kill, her "ultimate ability to survive" is not zero, its one, or certainty. Her risk exposure is zero, or near zero. As I said the first time, its actually beginning to amaze me that you are willing to assert with conviction statements that anyone who thinks about them for more than two seconds can prove to be false.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading is fundamental, Mieux. The original post which I responded to was this:
[/ QUOTE ]
yes...reading is fundamental...let's look at what is being said:
[/ QUOTE ]
You say you agree with "this." Here's the "this" you were referring to, since you excised the quote yet again:
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's assume that everyone is nerfed to the level of Blasters, and the game is a challenge for many people on Heroic.
[/ QUOTE ]
So:
[ QUOTE ]
But you saw this:
[ QUOTE ]
it was not a good idea necessarily for everyone's power level to be brought down to the level of blasters, and you contradicted them and further stated that this was not only the devs goal, but personally desirable to yourself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Literacy is a good thing. It's good when you can responed to what someoen is actually saying and not what you want them to say to suppport your claims. I say the game should be challenging to the "first time" player on heroic and you accuse me of saying that we should play like blasters....
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that is exactly what I saw. Someone said it was not necessarily a good idea to nerf everyone down to the level of blasters, and you immediately followed with a post where you
a) quoted the statement, including the "nerf part"
and then
b) responded to it by saying that both "the devs think so" and "I agree." I cannot possibly be taking your statements out of context when I quote them in their entirety.
[ QUOTE ]
well, it's not like I'm going to convince you with reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should try it once or twice first before you make such a statement, advice that has wide general applicability here. You might be surprised. I've been convinced by reason before on these very forums.
[ QUOTE ]
Defamation is not your style, Arcana. I'm not having trouble with logic nor reasonability. I'll let my posts speak for themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think that would probably be best all around.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
sigh....one erroneous deduction after another.
[ QUOTE ]
You picked the easiest class, then complained it was boring when you got the things that made your class come into its own.
[/ QUOTE ] I didn't pick the easiest class. I picked the solo class. Picking the solo class does not mean that soloing should be a walk through the park. Not picking the soloing class means that you should have a much more difficult time soloing. You're not supposed to be taking out even lvl bosses as blaster or defender or controller with nearly the efficicency or ease as a scrapper. And the scrapper isn't supposed to be able to do it reliable. Go read the devs posts since day one. You conveniently ignore this.
The core problem is SO's and how they boost damage. Jack as admitted to this point blank. They over estimated the availability of SO's. Jack is suggesting a way to decrease their prevelance. This ammounts to a nerf of all powers, but damage will be the most effected as it is the most commonly slotted. Dammit_Man...your grasp of what is going on in this game is severely clouded by your own emotional reaction.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not flawed to ask the hardcore and the leet (of which you belong to) to nerf themselves to still enjoy a challenge in a game they love.
[/ QUOTE ] Yes it is. You play a game for the challenge...to overcome obstacles. Asking players to self-impose gimpness to enjoy your game is idiotic. It's like telling a right handed teninis player to play left handed so he'll be challenged by your AI. I'll just quit and go play a game that demands I bring all my skills and abilities to succeed. This is a very fundamental aspect of psychology DM. Failing to grasp this points means we can't have any meaningful discussion.
The other factor you fail to acknowledge is the disparity a player can encounter. My own missions are silly. Joining a TF with +4's is not. Nerfing my self to enjoy one aspect will preclude me from even being viable in another.
[ QUOTE ]
You said the first 22 levels were popular, which is flat out wrong.
[/ QUOTE ] You have a comprehension issue. I said I enjoyed the first 22 lvls the most...now the first 2x because of Striga. I didn't say they were the most popular. I said the game is popular and enjoyed immensely as a result of the challenge people experience during the first 22 lvls. That challenge dissappears from about 26 or so on. Striga offers things that are enjoyable because those things are not dependent on being able to deal damage. Getting temp powers from Striga missions, the base itself...are exciting in themselves and enjoyment does not come from the challenge in the missions. If you can't understand what I am saying, then a discussion because futile.
[ QUOTE ]
people really, really don't like enemies being made harder.
[/ QUOTE ] True...most people don't want to rise to the challenge. They'd rather complain. The fact is you experience an increase in difficulty. If you had just started playing, you wouldn't. Naturally people like you will complain. The question the devs are trying to determine is if a new player will find that it is too difficult or the just right. They didn't give specific reasons why the rolled back all the minion upgrades. They said it was because they "weren't seeing what they were looking for". They rolled back the bosses, and rightly so, because people would get stuck with mission they couldn't complete and couldn't delete. If they had put a way to dump mission in the game, we might still have the bosses.
DM, despite what you feel you should be able to do as a solo blaster, there is what the devs feel you should. The two don't match.
[ QUOTE ]
Rubbish. I love blasters whenever I team, no matter the level.
[/ QUOTE ] I don't know what school of logic you went to, but your love of blasters has ZERO relevance to whether they are needed. Because of the proliferation of slots and hence the ability to slot for damage, no AT is really needed to do missions. I've done Respec without every single class.
[ QUOTE ]
if you honestly think CoH doesn't have the friendliest team dynamic you ever saw.
[/ QUOTE ] This is exactly what CoH has and the reason I enjoy it. I honestly don't know what post or poster you are referring to.
[ QUOTE ]
I would absolutley utterly hate this game, and many others would too, if your missions were hard to do if you didn't happen to have a controller availible, or if there were no blasters in your level range currently LFT.
[/ QUOTE ] I completely agree. But this is what CoH has to balance. If no AT is really needed, than that AT doesn't have a role that is really unique or needed. The game has to make me feel like I really need a blaster, but still allow me to succeed without one. It means bridging the gap between people like you and me. That's a tall order and the reason why the deserve being well paid for figuring it out.
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're still enough on this plane of existence to where you realize you are a weirdo for thinking that.
[/ QUOTE ] Jesus man....Respec is supposed to be THE hardest mission at that point in your career. I was fighting +4's the WHOLE time...you know why I died? Only two of those deaths were actually in the Reactor mission...I was pulling for the team. Me, an /SR scrapper with ZERO AoE defense was Stealth/SS pulling +4 Assault bots. We had one person at lvl 28..the healer, and everyone else was below him...and you're going to tell me that the two deaths I suffered in the final run were too much?
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is you, Mieux, who is the player that is unwilling to self-nerf.
[/ QUOTE ] Scott, get a grip. If you think expecting playings to self-nerf to find a challenge in your game is viable....you have no future in game design.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that calling for nerfs helps no one and hurts everyone.
[/ QUOTE ] A myopic view of nerfing. Scott, what happens when the devs make a mistake and make a power too powerful? They should just raise every single power/AT up to compensate. The idea that nerfing is NEVER an option is completely selfish and childish. THere are many posters who have the maturity to understand the need to tone things down. Nerfing....done right doesn't mean the nerf hurts all players universally
EXAMPLE:
The purple patch. The average/casual player is almost completely unaffected because he or she is not fighting +5's. The purple patch however was a global nerf.
You and so many others have this narrow, stilted, cramped view of how changes can be made or applied. You over generalize about impacts and convienently misconstrue counter arguments to support an emotional reaction.
The players after we get SO's are out of balance with the enemies we fact ...at least until lvl 37...per the devs design/vision. You agree the game can be too easy. How do they solve that?
[ QUOTE ]
Picking the solo class does not mean that soloing should be a walk through the park. Not picking the soloing class means that you should have a much more difficult time soloing. You're not supposed to be taking out even lvl bosses as blaster or defender or controller with nearly the efficicency or ease as a scrapper. And the scrapper isn't supposed to be able to do it reliable. Go read the devs posts since day one. You conveniently ignore this.
[/ QUOTE ]
You assuming that your ability to play is the same as everyone else's .....again.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. You play a game for the challenge...to overcome obstacles. Asking players to self-impose gimpness to enjoy your game is idiotic. It's like telling a right handed teninis player to play left handed so he'll be challenged by your AI. I'll just quit and go play a game that demands I bring all my skills and abilities to succeed. This is a very fundamental aspect of psychology DM. Failing to grasp this points means we can't have any meaningful discussion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er, no. Your opinion that you like to be challenged is your opinion. That's a fact. I grasp what you like just fine, but I guess we can't have a meaningful discussion if your opinions are to be considered facts, because they aren't.
[ QUOTE ]
I said the game is popular and enjoyed immensely as a result of the challenge people experience during the first 22 lvls.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't true for me. In fact, I'll bet a bunch of people feel differently from you. For example, I like the early levels for the neat story arcs. The challenge I could do without.
[ QUOTE ]
DM, despite what you feel you should be able to do as a solo blaster, there is what the devs feel you should. The two don't match.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. The Devs have the "final say". This being a subscription game, however, the players' opinions matter more than you seem to think.
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus man....Respec is supposed to be THE hardest mission at that point in your career. I was fighting +4's the WHOLE time...you know why I died? Only two of those deaths were actually in the Reactor mission...I was pulling for the team. Me, an /SR scrapper with ZERO AoE defense was Stealth/SS pulling +4 Assault bots. We had one person at lvl 28..the healer, and everyone else was below him...and you're going to tell me that the two deaths I suffered in the final run were too much?
[/ QUOTE ]
You admit to being insanely skilled at the game, and then wonder why you're not challenged?
Wow.
I guess we're all just as good as you and we all need to be "challenged" just like you do... I wish I knew I was that good earlier, but it's ok, you just told me I was. Whew! 
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
A myopic view of nerfing. Scott, what happens when the devs make a mistake and make a power too powerful? They should just raise every single power/AT up to compensate. The idea that nerfing is NEVER an option is completely selfish and childish. THere are many posters who have the maturity to understand the need to tone things down. Nerfing....done right doesn't mean the nerf hurts all players universally
[/ QUOTE ]
Nerfing is always an option. It's even good in certain cases. The problem with nerfs is that, unlike the purple patch you mention, they are currently very specific, and that's bad.
Why? Because players have the opportunity to move to another character, that's still powerful in some way.
Nerfing individual powers causes opportunistic players of high knowledge/skill to move to the next "Build of the Month"...which causes that combination of powers to get looked at. People that already had an unoptimized version of that new "BotM" get weakened too. Surprise!
Since you've brought this up, let's look at how a "simple" change causes unintended upheaval. Let's imagine that the base resists for a Fire Tank are reduced by 10% because a lot of players in the know take Tough. Sounds reasonable at first glance.
What about the Fire Tank that doesn't take tough because they don't know about the power? They start dying and they don't know how or why.
What about the Fire Tank that doens't take Tough for roleplaying reasons? I guess they should drop a power and grab Tough? If they have a respec?
What about the Fire Tank who is built as a Scrapper and already has low defenses? Should that play style not be allowed?
The problem with nerfing individual powers because of a certain combination of powers is broken is that unoptimized builds become weaker than the devs intend.
If this game, say, came with a manual that actually listed what powers do, that would be one thing. But it doesn't.
Most players don't even have a board account, and the first thing they will notice from a change is the sudden death.
[ QUOTE ]
The players after we get SO's are out of balance with the enemies we fact ...at least until lvl 37...per the devs design/vision. You agree the game can be too easy. How do they solve that?
[/ QUOTE ]
SO's would not be an issue if the enemies had a brain. Heck, that's not even needed. I've said it before, but I'll say it here again: if Mobs had Defenders on thier team the game would be much much harder without needing to nerf anyone. Forget about boosting mob hit points, forget about nerfing certain powers.
If a level 30-40 villain group had two members like Tsoo Sorcerers Invincible missions would be just that.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't pick the easiest class. I picked the solo class. Picking the solo class does not mean that soloing should be a walk through the park.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you DID pick the easiest class. The reason scrappers are good at soloing is that they don't really need anyone else. Everyone else NEEDS someone else to do things as well as a scrapper does. Ask ANYONE who has played every AT, scrappers are the game on easy mode.
[ QUOTE ]
Dammit_Man...your grasp of what is going on in this game is severely clouded by your own emotional reaction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please. This is an internet argument board.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. You play a game for the challenge...to overcome obstacles. Asking players to self-impose gimpness to enjoy your game is idiotic. It's like telling a right handed teninis player to play left handed so he'll be challenged by your AI. I'll just quit and go play a game that demands I bring all my skills and abilities to succeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again Mieux: You are not all players. You are not even a remotely large percentage of all players. You are leetest of the leet. I'm not asking for every player to gimp themselves for a challenge.... what i'm trying to TELL you is that lots, and lots of people (who aren't playing scrappers or tankers) are being PLENTY challenged. YOU might not be, but YOU are almost totally alone. You, mordirin_, and maybe cyclone jack. Instead of trying to make everything harder for everyone across the board, why don't you try to challenge yourself and leave other people alone who are having challenging fun right now? I'm not failing to grasp crap. You're the one failing to grasp that your percieved lack of challenge is the minority, not the majority. Majority wins.
[ QUOTE ]
The other factor you fail to acknowledge is the disparity a player can encounter. My own missions are silly. Joining a TF with +4's is not. Nerfing my self to enjoy one aspect will preclude me from even being viable in another
[/ QUOTE ]
But you love dying and a challenge, Mieux. You should have a blast. I've got an idea, go buy some tranings, go play the game, and stop posting.
[ QUOTE ]
You have a comprehension issue. I said I enjoyed the first 22 lvls the most...now the first 2x because of Striga. I didn't say they were the most popular.
[/ QUOTE ]
You undercut your own argument: If you say the first 22 levels are the most popular, you're simply wrong. If you say that the upper levels are the most popular, those levels, according to you, have the least risk, so you fail it again. All because you can't understand that the challenge you're looking for would alienate tons of other people.
[ QUOTE ]
True...most people don't want to rise to the challenge. They'd rather complain. The fact is you experience an increase in difficulty. If you had just started playing, you wouldn't. Naturally people like you will complain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mieux, since you love to bring up reading comprehension, i'm not the one complaning. My stance, in almost every argument i've gotten on this board save for blaster issues is that the game is fine, and the direction the devs are going is fine. You're the one peeing everywhere because you're not dying at least once in every mission with your easy mode scrapper.
[ QUOTE ]
They didn't give specific reasons why the rolled back all the minion upgrades. They said it was because they "weren't seeing what they were looking for".
[/ QUOTE ]
I will tell you exactly why they olled them back, because it was devastating to everyone and super cheap. Every single damn outcast in SC had fricking flight and hurricane. Every outcast rock minion had stone armor. If a mezzing enemy SAW you, there would instantly be little "held" icons all the way across the screen from your team name. It was a long time ago, but to me it was like there were no minions. Soloing anything was an impossibility for me. every minion acted like lt's do now, every lt. acted like a boss, and every boss was a god.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what school of logic you went to, but your love of blasters has ZERO relevance to whether they are needed. Because of the proliferation of slots and hence the ability to slot for damage, no AT is really needed to do missions. I've done Respec without every single class.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that is beautiful. You should be able to do the respec without having to have every single class. Making every AT needed is not where we should go, because this is a game that is dependant on other people besides yourself. If you want to do a respec and one of each class within your level isn't on, you're boned. Does that sound awesome? Well, its' not. It's what other MMO's do, and it's what CoH needs to stray far away from.
When I form a respec, I would never go "we don't need to look for a blaster". Only idiots would say that, that's not my fault. However, when i'm looking for said blasters and one's not on that we can use, I can go "eh, a couple of scrappers will do instead". And it will do, and we'll win, and that is beautiful. I don't want my ability to do things hinging so direly on other people. Teaming should be fun in and of itself, not forced to such a degree that ever AT is required so you all feel like big important men now.
[ QUOTE ]
DM, despite what you feel you should be able to do as a solo blaster, there is what the devs feel you should. The two don't match.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're calling for nerfing of tanks, which i'm disagreeing with. It really doesn't matter what I feel about the solo-ability of blasters. The devs apparently want blasters soloing days to be over post 35, and that's fine. Just make sure players KNOW this before they go 35 levels soloing and then get disgusted and quit.
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly what CoH has and the reason I enjoy it. I honestly don't know what post or poster you are referring to.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are complaning. You want things changed. You said that you want a game with a friendly teaming dynamic, which it has now. There's no need to change anything if the teaming dynamic is already friendly, yet you still want things to be different, which implies dissatisfaction with the current teaming dynamic.
[ QUOTE ]
If no AT is really needed, than that AT doesn't have a role that is really unique or needed. The game has to make me feel like I really need a blaster, but still allow me to succeed without one.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you would, I dunno, not play a SCRAPPER, then maybe you would feel like you need a blaster a little bit more.
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus man....Respec is supposed to be THE hardest mission at that point in your career. I was fighting +4's the WHOLE time...you know why I died? Only two of those deaths were actually in the Reactor mission...I was pulling for the team. Me, an /SR scrapper with ZERO AoE defense was Stealth/SS pulling +4 Assault bots. We had one person at lvl 28..the healer, and everyone else was below him...and you're going to tell me that the two deaths I suffered in the final run were too much?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it was too much. You had admittedly, an awful team and i'm surprised you completed it. I'm saying you thinking those deaths you had were awesome is freakish and retarded. No one likes seeing their beloved hero decimated by small arms fire. No one likes failing... except for you. I was trying to get you to SEE that, that merely the fact you said that poves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are the 1% of the 1% of the player base.
[ QUOTE ]
SO's would not be an issue if the enemies had a brain.
[/ QUOTE ]
To a degree. It would also help if the villains were not all primarily hitpoint baskets with turrets. If the villains had all sorts of range, maybe slotting for range would mean something. If some had better defense, maybe accuracy slotting would mean something. If they could chain knock you on your tail, maybe you'd want to slot recharge for a faster attack chain yourself (interrupt slotting really ought to reduce activation time, even though I understand exactly why it is not allowed to).
AoE vs single target damage wouldn't be a problem if villains were not always bowling pins.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with nerfing individual powers because of a certain combination of powers is broken is that unoptimized builds become weaker than the devs intend.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of this is because of lack of knowledge, but a lot of it has to do with the way the math actually works out. So you miss 10% resistance. Should that be a problem? Well, if it is the difference between 80% resists and 90% resists, then, yeah, its gonna matter a great deal.
Blasters aren't usually facing this problem, because 5+1 slotting, if not "perfect," is hard to beat, and certainly isn't broken.
[ QUOTE ]
Nerfing is always an option. It's even good in certain cases. The problem with nerfs is that, unlike the purple patch you mention, they are currently very specific, and that's bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is another way to look at self-nerfing: people identify with and make a connnection to their characters. Most people are going to react adversely to a perceived reduction in their characters, and that should be avoided whenever possible.
But people self-nerf all the time. If the issue is making sure people do not gain xp faster than they ought to, or burn through the content faster than they ought to, then in fact some of the things that people call "broken" are in fact self-nerfing of a sort.
Every time people set to invincible instead of unyielding, they are fighting higher level foes for no increase in xp (I and many others confirmed this when the sliders came out - unyielding appears to be the sweet spot). They are in effect making themselves weaker for no reward. Why do they do it? Because people don't mind going after a harder challenge even if there is no proportional xp gain.
They will even take a substantial xp hit. Every time someone "solos" an AV (why in quotes? Well, my ill/rad never actually "solos" anything), they've smacked themselves big time. Their net xp/minute goes way, way down. A big team would obliterate the AV (AVs do not scale with team size). A solo player can take a half hour or more to defeat an AV - and playes often die trying, even if they eventually succeed.
So they take longer to do what a team would do quicker, they take less xp per minute doing it, and they actually spend more time running through missions ("the content").
This is bad because?
In a certain sense, an issue with blasters is that their risk/effectiveness scale is completely different from everyone elses. They cannot, even under penalty, experience some of the content that all other classes can at least take a credible swing at. In teams, they are the ones most likely to have their difficulty and effectiveness ratchet upwards much faster. My Ill/rad controller can run with people five, seven, even ten levels higher and still do something. My blaster can mainly grant invisibility if teamed with people that much higher (theoretically, and in the past - obviously no one is ten levels higher any more). Not that I didn't try to act as a blaster in a team four or five levels higher - but it wasn't easy (a severe understatement).
The best way to "self-nerf" is to give players a way to ratchet up the difficulty - give them the option and most people will take it, because most people want to enjoy the game, most people will enjoy the challenge, but everyone will calibrate their challenge level differently.
The important thing isn't so much what we can do at what level, but whether all of us scale at reasonable (if not necessarily identical) curves. That way, in a team with a very high difficulty slider, blasters might be in over their heads, but only in the deep end of the pool, not the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Reducing the overall effectiveness of things certainly has to be done when there are critical imbalances, but they should always be a last resort, in my opinion, not a first resort. It can't be a last resort if the highest the slider goes is invincible. My blaster can run invincible missions solo, and any set with defenses, like scrappers and tanks must be able to do better, or the defenses are meaningless.
Blasters should go up to the level of scrappers in offensive capabilites, or be superior - we will never equal them in defensive capabilities, and that is what will ultimately retard our ability to "move higher." Even large offensive increases will prevent my blaster from going much higher than invincible while solo. Scrappers should be balanced: they should "run out of defense" at the same time they "run out of offense." Tanks should never run out of defense, they should be limited by what they can kill.
Under that point of view, blasters are somewhat underpowered on the offensive side.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Sorry to jump in on the scrapper vs blaster movement discussion, but let me clarify this some. I have a 50 Ar/Dev, 27 Fire/Fire and 22 En/En blaster. Now the Ar and Fire blasters have to MOVE to line up their cones. My katana/sr, spines/invuln, ma/invuln, claws/regen, dm/da scrappers do not MOVE to line up attacks. They run into the mobs, then when the mobs start to close in, I SELECT the best target (i.e. the guy in the middle). I don't move around to line it up, since they're already on top of me. My blasters MOVE around to escape, while my scrappers might move to chase a guy. Scrappers do NOT move more than blasters...except MAYBE my DM/DA scrapper, because he is almost as frail as a blaster.