Whats wrong with Issue 5?... sadly plenty.
I have been playing this game since issue 1 and it certainly has lost 'its' (lets be honest here) vision and its creative direction since then.
First off before I get started on the nerfs, NEW CONTENT ?!?!
I ask whats really NEW about the game in the last few issues since Issue 3? some rehashed models? Zones?... same old tasks and NO new content for high lvls
Well, you did make some new ATs so we could do the same thing over again and a hat to put on a toons head and make us wait around a lake for countless hoursfor a lochness wanna be. Heres a word GamePLAY, or is it GameWAIT? 
As far as the LOOK and FEEL of the game, How about putting some effort into the enviroment? Croatoa is cool, but why does every building look the same inside? Are you not getting tired of that office map within every building? (oh I forgot you do have a lab map). What about skinning some new walls to match the acrhitecture and feel of the zones? would that bust the budget? What about NPCs such as waiters and patrons in the cafes that are always empty? What about Gas stations? they could blow up real good? Airports? a Train Mission where you are actually on the train saving people (look at spiderman 2) Its the little things that add flavor.
How come there are no Bank maps? Banks are prime targets for villians yes?...what would it take to create a 'Foil a bank heist' mission? Throw use something slightly different please at least try to continue creating on the superhero world theme.
What about building more complex interaction with NPCs?
there are several ways to do this...
Now onto the NERFS...
What are you thinking States? Balance? for what PvP?
1. Nerfing Hamio's was not the answer... you POed alot of people that put effort into earning those fair and square. If PvP was a problem and you want balance why not just neutralize ALL enhancements upon entry to the arena? I am sure there is some code that would do that just fine.
At LEAST bump them to 53 so those that ditched theirs in place of the 50% get a fair shake.
2. Same as nerfing peoples powers? Why not just scale it back upon character entry into a PvP zone? Why nerf INV and all the other ATs as you did? To make everyone the same? FOR teamwork? That just adds to mediocrity, we all dont like Vanilla but it seems thats the only flavor CoH is coming in.
You need better creative direction for this game not technical.
Its always easier to take away then it is to ad...but there seems to be stratigic vision implementaion that your public can understand.
I have been in the creative business for 15 years and have done a few games in my day (way back before the cd rom market crashed). I now consult for Fortune 500 companies in online marketing and branding and man! You do have some brand issues States.
You have a real cool job States, I envy you, Now be a CREATIVE director rather then a number cruncher. If its not fun for you anymore pass the torch or hire some people with a clear vision. Give us back the PvE we came here for.
Mogster
For Controller's - Ditch containment, I want control, not damage. Revert to the I4 recharge times and hold durations for AoE's but retain the number limit. I like the way Pet's are now delt with, this is better than before and I don't mean it makes my controller more powerful, just a nicer experiance to play (one pet all the time, not multi pets).
Blasters - rename the inherant power Bansai or kamakazi, cos if your getting the bonus you're about to die. Bit of a double wammy with Full- Auto, restrict the number of those you hit AND lengthen recharge times (see AoE's for controllers).
Inv - I have a scrapper and boy did I notice the differance!!!! Like OUCH!! Inv to what, that's the question. I'm thinking life.
[ QUOTE ]
I ask whats really NEW about the game in the last few issues since Issue 3? some rehashed models? Zones?... same old tasks and NO new content for high lvls
[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose this depends on how you define "new content". In my experience with other MMOs, reusing models with new skins and content that other than intensity of power (ie. mobs use the same tactics but just hit harder, faster, have differant resistances or player debuffing, etc.) is the norm. CoH has actually addded new content in the form of hostage escort missions and waves of attacking bad guys.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you did make some new ATs so we could do the same thing over again and a hat to put on a toons head and make us wait around a lake for countless hoursfor a lochness wanna be. Heres a word GamePLAY, or is it GameWAIT?
[/ QUOTE ]
New content added and you're not happy with it? While I can sympathyze with not liking the form new content takes I can't really sympathize with criticizing them for not adding new content and then criticize them for adding it in a form you dislike.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the LOOK and FEEL of the game, How about putting some effort into the enviroment? Croatoa is cool, but why does every building look the same inside? Are you not getting tired of that office map within every building? (oh I forgot you do have a lab map). What about skinning some new walls to match the acrhitecture and feel of the zones? would that bust the budget? What about NPCs such as waiters and patrons in the cafes that are always empty? What about Gas stations? they could blow up real good? Airports? a Train Mission where you are actually on the train saving people (look at spiderman 2) Its the little things that add flavor.
[/ QUOTE ]
New mission types have been added.
- Hostage escort
- Villain waves
Mobs now actually fight one another and injure one another.
New NPCs were added to the Paragon Dance Party.
Croatoa is a very cool zone (and incidentally your non-power-10 SOs are for sale in the stores in that zone).
New taskforce with a tangible reward (ie. new costume option)
[ QUOTE ]
How come there are no Bank maps? Banks are prime targets for villians yes?...what would it take to create a 'Foil a bank heist' mission? Throw use something slightly different please at least try to continue creating on the superhero world theme.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rome wasn't built in a day. New things are coming, but not everything can be done at once and priorities are chosen. Like you I may not agree with all of them but I have to call "unreasonable" on accusations that they aren't putting work and new content and new features into the game on a regular basis.
Bear in mind, if this were SOE and not Cryptic/NCSoft we'd have needed to purchase the "Ruins of The Hollows", the "Scars of Striga", and the "Shadows of Croatoa" expansions. They'd have real loot associated with them that you couldn't get if you didn't pay them too.
[ QUOTE ]
What about building more complex interaction with NPCs?
there are several ways to do this...
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed their are, but again "Rome wasn't built in a day". Take a look at everything that has been added and realize that with all of that and everything else that is coming that not everything can be done at once. I completely support and agree with the idea that having more ways to interact with the environment and NPCs would positively be awesome, but that falls under the category of "suggestion" not "valid criticism of i5"
[ QUOTE ]
1. Nerfing Hamio's was not the answer... you POed alot of people that put effort into earning those fair and square. If PvP was a problem and you want balance why not just neutralize ALL enhancements upon entry to the arena? I am sure there is some code that would do that just fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have hami-o's on my blaster, and I had no problem with the nerf. Possibly I'm in the minority, but I take at Statesman's word that while nerfign hami-o's was in part for PvP it wasn't entirely for PvP. A power that is 6-slotted with hami-Os is the equivilent to a 12-slotted power, and that alone is tremendously beneficial, compounding this with having the hami-o's be about 1.5x as powerful as an equivilent SO would make them the equivilent of a power with 18 enhancement slots.
Regarding PvP and hami-o's, as Positron noted it is impossible to know if certain powers are being used in a PvP setting or not. Is my fire shield from pyre mastery being used to resist a mob attack or a player attack? Am I in a PvP zone and only fighting PvE content? Am I using Aim so I can snipe a mob or a player? The number of "what ifs" that need to be resolved would (as Positron noted) crush the servers under the computational strain.
[ QUOTE ]
At LEAST bump them to 53 so those that ditched theirs in place of the 50% get a fair shake.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? They're already twice as powerful as SOs in terms of the number of aspects of a power they're enhancing.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Same as nerfing peoples powers? Why not just scale it back upon character entry into a PvP zone? Why nerf INV and all the other ATs as you did? To make everyone the same? FOR teamwork? That just adds to mediocrity, we all dont like Vanilla but it seems thats the only flavor CoH is coming in.
[/ QUOTE ]
And what if I enter a PvP zone and engage in PvE content? Do you really want powers to have differant levels of effectiveness depending on where you go? I don't.
Secondly, the power adjustments were made for what I see as valid PvE reasons as in my opinion I find PvE gameplay far more fun and exciting in i5 than I did before.
[ QUOTE ]
You need better creative direction for this game not technical.
Its always easier to take away then it is to ad...but there seems to be stratigic vision implementaion that your public can understand.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define "better" in terms of creative direction. CoH has some very interesting and detailed lore and backstories going on here. Just because you or I may not like the specifics does not mean they aren't "creative" or anything other than "we would have done it differantly."
[ QUOTE ]
I have been in the creative business for 15 years and have done a few games in my day (way back before the cd rom market crashed). I now consult for Fortune 500 companies in online marketing and branding and man! You do have some brand issues States.
[/ QUOTE ]
Easy to claim credentials on the internet isn't it? I have no way of knowing if this is true or not, or the degree of exaggeration or not, nor does anyone else. In terms of this medium of exchange its also largely irrelevant unless you can either provide proof or the substance of your arguments self-supports this claim. Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I do not see your preceeding arguments providing support for your claimed credentials.
[ QUOTE ]
You have a real cool job States, I envy you, Now be a CREATIVE director rather then a number cruncher. If its not fun for you anymore pass the torch or hire some people with a clear vision. Give us back the PvE we came here for.
[/ QUOTE ]
An integral part of being a game master (and as an aggregate Statesman & Co. are functioning in this capacity) is balancing the game-play on numbers. This is necessary so that the most content and fun can be provided to the most number of people.
A number of players (particularly tanker players but not limited to them) who were used to feeling like "super heroes" in comparison to their fellow players are now feeling pain as a result of now actually needing their teammates in order to handle team level content. What I am seeing in the particulars of complaints at a high level amounts to "I don't want to learn new tactics!" and "I shouldn't need 7 other people to handle an 8-person mission!"
Specific complaints such as those directed towards how sets like invulnerability were changed in i5 are differant. Criticizing that invulnernability has become a defense-defined set instead of a resistance defined one and providing the numbers and hard facts to back it up are fair and I absolutely agree that it amounts to a very legitimate criticism.
Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much?
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much? [ QUOTE ]
I have to say that I always saw a full team being a tank, a defender, a controller them blasters/scrappers. You could have no controller but two tanks or the other way around but with the AoE restictions it's looking close to a tank, two Controllers, maybe a defender and hopefully blasters/scrappers, of there is room.
Hmm, not sure that makes the point I want to make but....
Oh! I still hate containment. Pointless.
Katahn,
You may think that repurposing is 'NEW'... and if that makes you happy so be it. Ever see the Simpson episode where Malibu Stacy gets a new hat?
There is still no new content for higher lvls... The Nerfs are disapointing to people that actually dont like to respect every issue. If people like crunching numbers thats just swell, I rather just play. Some people have 'fun' with that others dont.
True there are some 'add ons' to existing content whats really new about escorting? its an add on to rescue the hostage...
The Shadow shard was cool becuase it was completely different look wise from anything that was in the game before.
I would like to see the game more immersive at least in atmosphere, perhaps you do not. I would like to get a FEEL for the different zones.
You ask if i would want to learn how to use a power set every time i enter zone, well its the same priciple for every issue now dont you think?
The main thing is that CoH has lost its PvE feel that drew alot of people here and altered game play to Arena and PoV.
Since these are load areas why not do the nerfing there? the goal was to make everyone more 'even' yes? Well, there is a possible solution to adress that issue.
Being creative is about problem solving the current solution is just to average everything out...
If you really want to verify my work history email me here and i will gladly send you a link to my portfolio.
Mogster
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I look to be redundant whenever possible.
On a Pentad Team + You, you had better be redundant, regardless of what AT you play.
More Damage? Nice, not needed.
More Taunting? Nice, not needed.
More Buffs? Nice, not needed.
More Control? Nice, not needed.
Noticing that my powers are redundant is the cardinal sign of a good team. I like playing with good teams.
Teams that I bring appreciable help to, and where I feel noticed, are crap teams.
More Damage? Needed, since no one else is doing any.
More Taunting? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.
More Buffs? Needed, since no one has sufficient defenses.
More Control? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.
Simply put, if a team NEEDS you, and your help? It sucks.
If a team doesn't NEED me, I don't quit, or complain, or whine. I enjoy it.
However, if this bothers you (as it seems to), since you're not being "Heroic" enough, quit and form your own team, that lacks your AT of choice. Then you sure will feel that you're helping.
This is a pathetic attempt to justify the Controller nerfs. I should be able to build the kind of Controller I want. If that means that I specialize in AoE Holds, the game isn't making me redundant. I am, by my choice.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, saying something like "1 controller can't provide 100% of the needed control for an 8-person team" is unreasonable to me. The limits on controller AoE holds, and all area-based powers in general, were meant to achieve a result were a team with 2 controllers wouldn't have one of them being basically redundant or a team with 2 tankers and one of them being basically redundant. This is an adjustment that I think we as players are just going to have to "suck up" and live with. After all, who likes joining a team and then realizing that your real and pertinent contribution to the team is mission-padding and you could be AFK at the door and the team really wouldn't be impacted much?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I look to be redundant whenever possible.
On a Pentad Team + You, you had better be redundant, regardless of what AT you play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rubbish, I play on a pentad +1 on a regular basis. We have two defenders, one sonic and one bubble, so we don't tread on each other's toes. In a previous incarnation, we had two controllers instead, one grav/kin and one ill/rad. The rad did the debuffs, the kin did the buffs, the grav guy spammed AoE holds, the ill guy used his pets, and some other holds to keep bosses locked down.
We have been playing together since level 1 and are now level 36, and the team is definitely significantly weaker if any of us is missing.
A second member of many of the ATs is not essential in normal missions, but will seriously speed things up in many cases. We don't do normal missions if we can avoid it, we do TFs and trials against +4s and +5s, and for that sort of difficulty, with the reduced durations of holds and the level effects on our damage and the monsters', trust me a second defender or controller is very handy.
RollingDoughnut 36 FF/dark def Freedom
and 50+ others including 3 50s
It's true. This game is NOT rocket surgery. - BillZBubba
[ QUOTE ]
We don't do normal missions if we can avoid it, we do TFs and trials against +4s and +5s, and for that sort of difficulty, with the reduced durations of holds and the level effects on our damage and the monsters', trust me a second defender or controller is very handy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er, Minotaur, I know all this - fighting +4's is why I seek redundancy. The first thing I /invite when I'm playing a FF defender....is another FF defender.
Having a bunch of disparate toons that don't work well together just gets everyone killed.
I teamed with an awesome Kinetics Defender, an Awesome Storm Defender, a Great Grav/Rad Controller, and a good Energy Blaster. With my Martial Arts Scrapper.
This was a chaotic hell that ended us in perma-debt. Just like I5 was supposed to encourage.
Needless to say, it wasn't fun or interesting, and we went back to our usual "Dual FF Defenders"/"Dual Invuln Tanks" team, and everything smoothed out.
I can only imagine how bad it would have been for inexperienced players...
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
This was a chaotic hell that ended us in perma-debt. Just like I5 was supposed to encourage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right... I5 was designed to put us in more debt.
If you're fighting +4's, I assume you're on invincible? And you're upset about debt? If your team doesn't mesh well, did it ever occur to you to lower the difficulty setting from its highest level? I'm on a mixed team that plays together once a week, and after setting our difficulty back to heroic after I5 hit, we've now got it back up to Unyielding. We may raise it to Invincible at some point, but until then we're doing fine and having a great time chugging along at Unyielding. We get great XP and a good challenge. Occasionally things go south (almost always due to aggroing too much at once), but not enough to ruin our fun or slow us down much. Especially with half debt in missions, our debt is gone almost as soon as we get it.
[ QUOTE ]
I can only imagine how bad it would have been for inexperienced players...
[/ QUOTE ]
Inexperienced players doing an invincible mission against +4s... yeah, death, debt, and failure sounds like a pretty natural consequence. I see that as a good thing--not out of spite, but because it means that the difficulty setting actually means something. Something's wrong if "inexperienced players" can waltz through invincible missions with no problems.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I look to be redundant whenever possible.
On a Pentad Team + You, you had better be redundant, regardless of what AT you play.
More Damage? Nice, not needed.
More Taunting? Nice, not needed.
More Buffs? Nice, not needed.
More Control? Nice, not needed.
Noticing that my powers are redundant is the cardinal sign of a good team. I like playing with good teams.
Teams that I bring appreciable help to, and where I feel noticed, are crap teams.
More Damage? Needed, since no one else is doing any.
More Taunting? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.
More Buffs? Needed, since no one has sufficient defenses.
More Control? Needed, since no one is controlling their aggro.
Simply put, if a team NEEDS you, and your help? It sucks.
If a team doesn't NEED me, I don't quit, or complain, or whine. I enjoy it.
However, if this bothers you (as it seems to), since you're not being "Heroic" enough, quit and form your own team, that lacks your AT of choice. Then you sure will feel that you're helping.
This is a pathetic attempt to justify the Controller nerfs. I should be able to build the kind of Controller I want. If that means that I specialize in AoE Holds, the game isn't making me redundant. I am, by my choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
But I like feeling useful. I played a low level Scrapper on a TF with some serious Blasters, and at first, I felt like I wasn't helping much. Then, when I backed off once to heal up (the Defender was low on End, got me later), I noticed how much slower the kills were. I wasn't the star player of the team, but I was definitely important.
A friend who plays alot of WoW complains that certain classes aren't wanted in Instances. I've never seen that in CoH. I've seen teams forgo an archtype (like Blasters or Controllers), but I've never seen them dismiss someone. Team battles are simply amazingly breathtaking in CoH, and I've been amazed at how awesome they are. I recently played with a controller and I was astonished by how amazingly useful she is.
I see alot of complaints on this forum, particularly about I5, but I'm simply delighted by what I see. I've never played an MMORPG as fun as this. Ever.
here is the J-Man's two cents on i5.
(J-Man bein an invul/ss tank)
Since they gave me the option of invincable i have ran on it. Before i5 I would walk into an invincable mish, aggro everyone, turn on autobrawl, then go surf the internet. When I would come back everything was dead. There is a problem there.
Now with i5 I started on heroic (because they dropped me down to it, dirty devs) then as soon as I could kicked myself back up to invincable. it was all good.
I solo invincable with i5. orange is my white. I solo invincables with my trick arrow/archery defender. Invincable is the only way to go, everything else is sissy.
Moral to this post: I can solo invincable, you all must be chumps.
JFS
-The Legendary J-Man-
PS Only down side to invincable missions is when the mish is REALLLY far away from the hospital
PSS debt is great its like exp, but for dying. The only real negative thing in i5 is that the cut debt in half, now its almost impossible to hit debt cap
If you're really sad about the half debt in missions just take your fights outside. You can die all you want out there and get all that lovely debt.
[ QUOTE ]
Moral to this post: I can solo invincable, you all must be chumps.
[/ QUOTE ]
Last I checked, not too many Inv/* tankers were complaining about not being able to solo on Invincible. Soloing is the easy part. I soloed a bunch of Malta missions the other night on my 50 still using her I4 build (haven't bothered to respec her yet). That's not, and has never really been, the issue.
Tanking for large teams against non s/l damage dealers is more of an issue. And actually, the biggest issue seems to be play style. For those of us who enjoyed being damage sponges and holding the aggro of very large groups of mobs, COH is no longer the same. For the Skrankers and solo tankers, I5 didn't bring a huge change to their playstyle.
My mid-level tank, Doc, still runs on Invincible and has done everything from solo to 8 man TFs with no deaths, but he is no longer the tough damage sponge he was created to be. He is now a skranker and accepts no responsibility for anyone's aggro but his own. He's far more team dependant and in my opinion, no longer has the same job he did under I4. I don't care for him as much, but he's still survivable.
[ QUOTE ]
Tanking for large teams against non s/l damage dealers is more of an issue. And actually, the biggest issue seems to be play style. For those of us who enjoyed being damage sponges and holding the aggro of very large groups of mobs, COH is no longer the same. For the Skrankers and solo tankers, I5 didn't bring a huge change to their playstyle.
[/ QUOTE ]
By the same token, being a non-tanker on a team with a i4 invulnerability tanker was best described by me playing a blaster as "tanker's pet", "redundant", or "bridge so I can PL people."
I'm sympathetic to people who can't play the old way anymore and lost what they enjoyed most about being a tanker in i4. I really am. But I tended to feel as non-heroic as a tanker felt heroic in those situations. I noticed teams generally didn't look for or want a second tanker or a controller to do anything other than spam pets, with an i4 tanker. I've seen 2nd tankes invited because "my buddy wants to play" and I've seen 2nd tankers leave teams where they weren't the 1st tanker and "felt useless."
The i5 tanker is still pretty darned tough, they just now have the same limitations (more or less) that all players do: they cannot handle team-level challenges without their team's support. Leaving it the way it was in i4 where a tanker could handle team-level challenges without team-level support was pretty clearly broken and equally clearly not healthy for the game long-term.
I don't agree with the approach i5 took to reducing tankers from over-powered to in-line, I believe especially that invulnerability as a powerset should be resist and not defense defined, but that doesn't change the fact that i4 tankers were desperately in need of an adjustment.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tanking for large teams against non s/l damage dealers is more of an issue. And actually, the biggest issue seems to be play style. For those of us who enjoyed being damage sponges and holding the aggro of very large groups of mobs, COH is no longer the same. For the Skrankers and solo tankers, I5 didn't bring a huge change to their playstyle.
[/ QUOTE ]
By the same token, being a non-tanker on a team with a i4 invulnerability tanker was best described by me playing a blaster as "tanker's pet", "redundant", or "bridge so I can PL people."
I'm sympathetic to people who can't play the old way anymore and lost what they enjoyed most about being a tanker in i4. I really am. But I tended to feel as non-heroic as a tanker felt heroic in those situations. I noticed teams generally didn't look for or want a second tanker or a controller to do anything other than spam pets, with an i4 tanker. I've seen 2nd tankes invited because "my buddy wants to play" and I've seen 2nd tankers leave teams where they weren't the 1st tanker and "felt useless."
The i5 tanker is still pretty darned tough, they just now have the same limitations (more or less) that all players do: they cannot handle team-level challenges without their team's support. Leaving it the way it was in i4 where a tanker could handle team-level challenges without team-level support was pretty clearly broken and equally clearly not healthy for the game long-term.
I don't agree with the approach i5 took to reducing tankers from over-powered to in-line, I believe especially that invulnerability as a powerset should be resist and not defense defined, but that doesn't change the fact that i4 tankers were desperately in need of an adjustment.
[/ QUOTE ]
which is just bunk if you job is agro managament of a team you need to uh..manage the agroa team generates...
funny that...
if i forgo all attacking power to be a damng spong i better be a damn good dmg sponge
simple as fact
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
I have no problem admitting that the I4 version of Inv needed a step down. Like you, I just wish it had gone in the direction of RES based instead of DEF based. I have no desire to play a DEF based melee character. So much so that I doubt I'll ever play a Stalker in COV since it looks like every single one of their secondaries is a different flavor of SR. I'll pass. I don't like the feel of it. I'd rather play a blaster/corruptor with zero defense than a scrapper/tanker/stalker with "random chance" defenses.
Aside from the RES vs. DEF issue, my main beef with I5 is that it is dictating a certain playstyle on people. I think they should have left to door open to us to be able to maintain our I4 level defenses at the cost of slotting attacks. Sure, that would kill the soloability of the ultimate meatshield, but who cares? You only need that much defense on a team anyway. It's a fair tradeoff. If you want to solo, you skrimp on defenses a little and pick up only what you need to survive your own missions and slot your attacks, if you want to tank for large groups, you should have the option to grab, and survive the aggro of an 8 man team by slotting up your defenses as opposed to your attacks.
Unfortunately, that scenerio probably wouldn't work for PvP, and I think that's the biggest reason Inv was hit the way it was. I actually believe States when he says herding and PLing aren't that big a concern for him. Inv tanks are still running Dreck just like in I4, they're just doing it on Rugged now in 5 man teams. The XP is the same for the lowbies with the XP increase in I5, so that's a moot issue. But Inv has certainly been crippled for PvP. Invincibility is an almost useless power in PvP and I think that's how the devs intended it to be. They also made Inv extremely weak to ranged attackers with its pitiful +RES to elements and energies. Most blast type powers chew right through an Inv/* tank now...while most melee is still s/l based (for the most part). I dislike PvP and the lack of PvP is what drew me to this game in the first place. It's too bad that my favorite characters had to be gutted to accomodate a playstyle that I never intended to participate in.
I don't really care for the flavor of Inv now. I may still play my 50 once in a while, but honestly, my blaster is more consistent now and I don't have too much fear that her playstyle will be forcibly changed anytime soon. I'm looking forward to COV where I won't care so much about defense and will just kill, kill, kill. Evil for teh win!
You know choice is a beautiful thing.
For all the people that complained that it was too easy before ...why didn't you just ditch your enhancements?
That would make the game harder yes?
I was never a number cruncher and probably about 90% of the people that dont frequent these forums are not as well. We just chose what we thought was best suited for the 'personality' of our toon.
I enjoyed my Hami O pre hami nerf 'Uber' Tank... I earned him. He still got the snot kicked outta him during AVs but at least he didnt get one shotted like he does now. When i found him boring I went on to start other ATs and had fun.
Now the answer to my once uber tank is here is the same old stuff just harder now. hmmmmm... great solution Cryptic.
This is a cool game, great graphics, cool people to hang with BUT I repeat there seems to be no CLEAR VISION anymore!
CoH could be so much more with some attention and without becoming unloved step-child to CoV.
When you hit what some call 'Uber' status there is no game content to handle the challenge. Its cool how this thread has players disagreeing with fellow players rather then Cryptic who had no vision for the end game so just decided to nerf the whole thing. There could have been a whole new zone catered to hugh lvls with new Uber powered Villians to hand them there @ss...but no
There could have been alot of things to handle the 'problem'... but no
They took the easiest way out... that is not being 'Creative'.
As far as a work in progress, yes I can understand that
but do you take a concept car, introduce it to the public as a an exciting sports car, then launch it as a non practical urban comuter car? Look what happened to the Pontiac 'Fiero'.
Croatoa is a really nice zone, excellent touches, great stuff...but once again its for the mid lvl game.
Most of CoH is rehash as I mentioned before...Boomtown, Faultline why have both nothing unique really, Eden, The Hive?
How many zones are really different from one another in look and feel? Perez was great when launched, rather then tweak it to be better... they slap up the Hollows.
They are throwing us scraps here... because they are too busy with CoV?, or they have run out of creative juice?
Is it really hard to skin some more walls for interiors rather then everything being an Office building inside?
Is it really that hard to create an illusion of the city? like with people sitting in cafes, waiters? People lined up at the movies etc?
Is it really herd to address the gameplay with out nerfing everything? no...but its the easy way when your pumping away on the new product.
Challenge us with NEW challenges, Immerse us in Paragon.
Make a cool place BETTER not just BIGGER.
Mogster
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the RES vs. DEF issue, my main beef with I5 is that it is dictating a certain playstyle on people. I think they should have left to door open to us to be able to maintain our I4 level defenses at the cost of slotting attacks. Sure, that would kill the soloability of the ultimate meatshield, but who cares? You only need that much defense on a team anyway. It's a fair tradeoff. If you want to solo, you skrimp on defenses a little and pick up only what you need to survive your own missions and slot your attacks, if you want to tank for large groups, you should have the option to grab, and survive the aggro of an 8 man team by slotting up your defenses as opposed to your attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's basically the tradeoff I have with my peacebringer. I can deal lots of damage in nova form or I can take lots of damage in dwarf form. I'd personally love it if invulnerability (and other tankers) had that option in i5 instead of what we currently have. It would be for tankers what completely focusing on their primaries is for defenders: a very powerful team-player who is going to equally suffer outside of teams.
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, that scenerio probably wouldn't work for PvP, and I think that's the biggest reason Inv was hit the way it was.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll actually disagree with you on this. Even with 90% resistance to everything, having only default-slot or 2-3 slotted at best attacks is not going to let a tanker win PvP battles. They'll take forever to bring down but it would take them an equally long time to bring others down, and in PvP protracted battles tend to go badly for the player with a defensive posture.
The reason is defenses can be overwhelmed, and players have the means to circumvent defenses (aim + buildup + teleport foe + total focus + bonesmasher is gonna play havoc with a tanker's toggles) or eliminate the ability of a character to use them (electric and end drain) or use their attacks even as weak as they are to begin with (accuracy debuffs, damage debuffs, etc.) Furthermore debuffing resists via sets like sonic resonance exacerbates the issue.
[ QUOTE ]
I actually believe States when he says herding and PLing aren't that big a concern for him. Inv tanks are still running Dreck just like in I4, they're just doing it on Rugged now in 5 man teams. The XP is the same for the lowbies with the XP increase in I5, so that's a moot issue. But Inv has certainly been crippled for PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
I stand by the reasoning being primarily that if 1 person can provide 100% of the team role of their archetype for a large team then the second member of that archetype that arrives is at best "emergency backup". If one tanker can handle the tanking of an 8-person team (primarily this is in terms of aggro-redirection) then a second tanker is basically redundant.
Whereas the AoE limits and particularly the ones on taunt mean while with good support a tanker can handle the punishment of an 8-man spawn patch, they are going to have a noticeably harder time with keeping aggro off the squishies. A second tanker in that group now is making a definite contribution towards making the team safer. They're keeping the 1st tanker from needing to deal with a full spawn patches' damage and two tankers taunting and benefiting from gauntlet means less stray aggro.
Likewise a controller on a team with a tanker is now more than pet-spamming "defender". Their controls and holds (single target) aid in defeating enemies and aid in locking down stray aggro or the most dangerous enemies. Two controllers on a team mean added safety as opposed to a controller and the controller understudy.
I recognize this is purely my opinion, and I'm not intending for this to come off as fact per se, but I really see the primary intention in the nerfing of area controls, taunts, and even tanker defenses as part of allowing tankers and controllers better stacking in teams and to better differentiate controllers and defenders with containment and AoE hold changes providing a greater incentive for a controller to focus on slotting their primaries instead of their defense secondaries.
[ QUOTE ]
Invincibility is an almost useless power in PvP and I think that's how the devs intended it to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I am missing something, invincibility has never been good in PvP since it depends on a large number of enemies in immediate proximity of the tanker. I haven't see that kind of behavior in any PvP I've participated in.
[ QUOTE ]
They also made Inv extremely weak to ranged attackers with its pitiful +RES to elements and energies. Most blast type powers chew right through an Inv/* tank now...while most melee is still s/l based (for the most part).
[/ QUOTE ]
This I agree with. I imagine my energy blaster or a nova form kheldian would find it a lot easier to deal with a tanker in PvP, particularly invulnerability. Then again, in i4 I had no chance versus tankers so perhaps its more balanced now. Then again, a tanker in PvP that can't get at their enemy will need to find a way to use the terrain or their other powers (or their allies) to get their enemy to come to them.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really care for the flavor of Inv now. I may still play my 50 once in a while, but honestly, my blaster is more consistent now and I don't have too much fear that her playstyle will be forcibly changed anytime soon. I'm looking forward to COV where I won't care so much about defense and will just kill, kill, kill. Evil for teh win!
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't particularly care for invulnerability now either. The new invulnerability doesn't gel with my internal conception of a tanker as resistance-defined instead of avoidance-defined. If I do play a tanker in the future and nothing changes I'll most likely end up playing a fire/* tanker. Conceptually I liked resistance-defined invulnerability as being the best way to model a character like "Golden Boy" from Wildcards or a certain "last son" of a exploded world. 
[ QUOTE ]
rather then Cryptic who had no vision for the end game so just decided to nerf the whole thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
You honestly believe that? To me that's a big non sequitur.
I'm all for content and agree with you wholeheartedly about adding content in the form of making existing zones better (through more detail and more immersive gameplay), not just making the game bigger with new zones. I just don't see the I5 changes being a result of the devs being unable or unwilling to create endgame content, which is what you appear to be saying.
You seem to use the word "uber" as a stand in for "a character who can make an 8 man team on invincible completely safe through his efforts alone," which might apply to I4 controllers (permalocking everything) and I4 tankers.
The way I see it, that's a poorly designed game. It has nothing to do with jealousy. I will be bored in a team where I'm never in any danger and all I do is contribute some damage to the mobs buzzing around the tanker, or punch statues held by the controller. So to me, the I5 changes were about improving some fundamental aspects of the gameplay. You, on the other hand, see the I5 changes as some sort of easy way out in lieu of improving the game by adding content.
Sure, choice is a beautiful thing, but it's not the number one priority when you're designing a game. Why not just add a god mode to COH? You never take damage and when you create your character you can choose your level and as many powers as you want. Why limit characters to four power pools? More choice = better, right? The game designers have to balance choice against making a game that is challenging and fun for all.
If you want to say that the I5 changes should have happened sooner, I won't argue with you. If you want to say that COV is pulling away dev time that could be spent improving COH with new content, I won't argue with you. We just disagree about the reason for and the benefits of the I5 changes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invincibility is an almost useless power in PvP and I think that's how the devs intended it to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I am missing something, invincibility has never been good in PvP since it depends on a large number of enemies in immediate proximity of the tanker. I haven't see that kind of behavior in any PvP I've participated in.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that now, since Inv can no longer rely on +RES and is forced to rely on Invincibility in PvE to survive, it is generally 6 slotted for +DEF in I5. That +DEF will not help much in PvP whereas in I4 I had Invinc 3 slotted for To-Hit (I hate missing ). That To-Hit was actually pretty useful in the very limited "goofing off" I did in the arena with some SG mates. I'll no longer have that option unless I go with a specialized PvP build since the lack of 6 slotted +DEF Invinc will be noticeable in PvE...and will likely get me killed.
But I'm not all doom and gloom over it. Being relieved of the burden of 100% aggro management in I5 is kind of refreshing. That's actually why I've been playing my blaster more lately. Nobody complains to the blaster when they faceplant...and slowly, I5 is re-educating people to the fact that it's not the tanker's fault you died either.
Another major concern I have over I5 and the way Inv was changed is that it has an even bigger impact on the early game that the later. With base numbers so low and TOs and DOs not being all that effective, no Inv tank will really live up to its name until SO are available. Those early levels were already hell in I4 (I took Rikka from 1 to 50 completely in I4) I can't imagine how the pre SO Inv tank can survive with the current numbers aside from just slotting up the secondary and skranking their way to 22. I know I'll never roll another Inv tank with the way things are now...there's no fun to be had in the set prior to a hundred hours or so invested. that's a long time to be bored for a lackluster payoff.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're fighting +4's, I assume you're on invincible? And you're upset about debt?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not particularly. I wasn't terribly upset. On the flip side, constant death isn't enjoyable.
[ QUOTE ]
If your team doesn't mesh well, did it ever occur to you to lower the difficulty setting from its highest level?
[/ QUOTE ]
We always play together on this setting, and we know how each other plays. The only difference between "normal" and "hellish" was that we were playing different power sets.
[ QUOTE ]
Something's wrong if "inexperienced players" can waltz through invincible missions with no problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more, but, then, I'm weird. Teaming is a power multiplier. Even total n00bs should be raising their difficulty on a team of 8.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
I stand by the reasoning being primarily that if 1 person can provide 100% of the team role of their archetype for a large team then the second member of that archetype that arrives is at best "emergency backup". If one tanker can handle the tanking of an 8-person team (primarily this is in terms of aggro-redirection) then a second tanker is basically redundant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Katahn, you're missing the fact that this is a good thing.
I feel bad that some players will be underused some times in some situations. That's actually a real problem.
On the other (more important) Hand, Making a Tank Not Redundant Is Functionally Identical To Needing More Than One.
If one Tank can't carry a team (by design), then I need two (or more). When I need two or more, that's someone else telling me how to make up my team.
In Issue 5, it's great that Heroes are no longer redundant. I like that, everyone gets to feel Heroic.
Then there's me, Team Leader. I now need 2 Defenders, and/or 2 Controllers, and/or 2 Tanks....two of an AT, when before I needed one. This makes team-building hell, and leads to me kicking my Blaster/Scrapper friends on some occasions.
I don't see how exchaging one problem for a slighty worse one is good, although I'm sure someone will tell me how I'm wrong.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rather then Cryptic who had no vision for the end game so just decided to nerf the whole thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
You honestly believe that? To me that's a big non sequitur.
I'm all for content and agree with you wholeheartedly about adding content in the form of making existing zones better (through more detail and more immersive gameplay), not just making the game bigger with new zones. I just don't see the I5 changes being a result of the devs being unable or unwilling to create endgame content, which is what you appear to be saying.
You seem to use the word "uber" as a stand in for "a character who can make an 8 man team on invincible completely safe through his efforts alone," which might apply to I4 controllers (permalocking everything) and I4 tankers.
The way I see it, that's a poorly designed game. It has nothing to do with jealousy. I will be bored in a team where I'm never in any danger and all I do is contribute some damage to the mobs buzzing around the tanker, or punch statues held by the controller. So to me, the I5 changes were about improving some fundamental aspects of the gameplay. You, on the other hand, see the I5 changes as some sort of easy way out in lieu of improving the game by adding content.
Sure, choice is a beautiful thing, but it's not the number one priority when you're designing a game. Why not just add a god mode to COH? You never take damage and when you create your character you can choose your level and as many powers as you want. Why limit characters to four power pools? More choice = better, right? The game designers have to balance choice against making a game that is challenging and fun for all.
If you want to say that the I5 changes should have happened sooner, I won't argue with you. If you want to say that COV is pulling away dev time that could be spent improving COH with new content, I won't argue with you. We just disagree abo
ut the reason for and the benefits of the I5 changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you make some good points...
But i feel If anyone is bored in a team they are not doing anything in...they should leave... just a matter of finding a situation where you can.
Sure my tank was tough but it wasnt invinclible. I still died and got my @ss haded to me in PvP and in invincible missions.
As far as the game itself goes...Its as challenging as you 'want' it to be a few more notchs on the mission scales would also have fixed that like 'suicidal' or 'certain death' ...
I also ask this question.
What is CoH? a PvE game? a PvP game? or a PvP game?
rule of brand, you cant do everything well, do what you do best. What is the core of the game?
So i stand by my lack of vision claim
'Uber' was used to address those number crunchers that wanted to have soloing characters. Hard hitting Nerf's are not a good solution. Pumping things would have been a better approach.
Another 'rule' is You never take away from a consumer... sure its one half a dozen or six... BUT its the perception.
By making things more difficult you are not taking back from the consumer.
I would hate to buy a ferrarri and have someone sneak into my garage and swap it for a Smart Car. But I would'nt mind giving the road I drive my Ferrarri on more curves challenges to navigate. Wouldn't you?
Mog
[ QUOTE ]
The i5 tanker is still pretty darned tough, they just now have the same limitations (more or less) that all players do: they cannot handle team-level challenges without their team's support. Leaving it the way it was in i4 where a tanker could handle team-level challenges without team-level support was pretty clearly broken and equally clearly not healthy for the game long-term.
[/ QUOTE ]
Leaving it as it was in I4 would not have been good for the game long term, I'm strictly talking Inv tanks here. I could survive things way over my head in I4 that's a fact. I posted pages of tests and fought every foe asked of me. I even had tankers who disagree come out and see just how far over my head I was safe. That was no good. Many tankers agreed things needed fixing some never will.
Problem is the change they made actually makes a team wanted for spawn size but not anything else. I can solo an eight man mission but not with my teammates around. Its much safer for them to be elsewhere as I fight alone. Reason for that is simple. First I can't hold aggro like I used too, I really don't mind that part. Second I'm safer with 16 foes, normal spawn size for an eight person team, then I am with 2 foes. My defense to everything non-S/L is so dependant on numbers about me that its simply much safer for me to defeat the group together being careful to bring everyone down as close together as possible that a team will likely not be as good about it as I will. Also while doing this I am very safe and don't need their support. The biggest danger for Inv is getting into the melee, once in he's snug as a bug in a rug.
Take my White Dwarf for comparison. He's fine with inital aggro but over time he needs help and his teammates to either arrest or buff him. Its simple as that he gains from having a team because resists allow damage to build up over time and cause you to need your team to either reduce that time you need to tank or buff you up so you can take it longer. Right now with Inv I don't see that need for support or even a desire for it if the Inv tank knows how to work his powers well.
[ QUOTE ]
You say that as if he cares what you think. I''m pretty sure he's made it abundantly obvious that he has no interest or concern for the playerbase, as long as he appeals to the PvP market. Aside from that, really nothing you or anyone posts on these forums really even matters anymore.
[/ QUOTE ]
This should be everyones signature.