Enhancement Diversification: A Player's Guide
By
Blastzilla,
Posted on: 2005-10-19 02:50 in Player Guides
[ QUOTE ]
Correct ED formulas
[/ QUOTE ]
The math man strikes again!
Thank you, sir.
Statesman had a gab-fest with us about ED on Friday. Here are the posts:
Re: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 04:53 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for everyone who posted their play experiences on the Training Room: Shadow_Caedere, Lady Andreca, Helmkat, Daemon_TW, KaliMagdalere, James_Bonnell, Tannim222, Ineffable_Bob, Monkey_King, Freelance Wizard, MythrilGuardian, AmazingMoo, PBBredeux, Armsman, Iron Tiger, Speqter, Lobster, Centerfine, Saccade, Schechter, Hudson Smith, Mr. Startle, Valeria, Infernius, The_Z, Reese_Riley, _Ilr_, and Creole_Ned. Each of you described your characters, your missions and foes it really helped us get an idea of how ED affected players.
By and large, characters abilities match what we expected. Some heroes can still solo even on Invincible though its admittedly harder than before. Bosses are tough, but skilled players with Inspirations can handle them.
I5 and ED shared this same goal in common: 1) introduce challenge into missions and 2) make it so that no Archetype can hit his own caps with powers and Enhancements alone. In other words, Defenders, Controllers and Inspirations can always useful and needed buffs.
One of the posters discussed his Tanker and how he leaped into the fray with 2 Bosses, 2 or 3 lts. And 2 or 3 minions
and promptly had to flee. A spawn such as that in a mission would be designed for 5 heroes. So, yes, a single Tanker might have problems soloing that spawn. He should expect 4 other heroes contributing to that fight! Controllers locking down some of the mobs, Defenders buffing the Tanker, Blasters and Scrappers eliminating mobs
Evil_CoH has some good questions that I wanted to answer:
[ QUOTE ]
1. Where is the Diversity?
I'm talking about Regen, SR, Invulnerability, Ice, Stone, etc. The problem that a lot of us forsaw is being proven, the defenses are getting weaker and in the cases of a lot of these sets, perhaps too weak.
[/ QUOTE ]
As the observations of numerous posters in this thread pointed out, the Tankers and Scrappers can still solo missions some can even handle spawns designed for larger groups without problems.
I do see the argument that some builds simply dont have as many powers that they can slot with different types of Enhancements. Passives, for instance, sometimes boost a single attribute and thats it. Of course, theres a slight benefit, in that the hero can now have more free slots for other powers, but I understand the underlying issue.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Hover? Why does it have to suffer?
A lot of players want to know, why is it bad that I can move so well with 6-slotted Hover? Certainly a power like this doesn't work the same way as a damage or defense power, why should it play by the same rules?
[/ QUOTE ]
Id like those Buff powers that provide a speed boost to still be desirable, but this is a good point that Geko and I should talk about.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Why only 3?
At least when it comes to the non-schedule A enhancements, why keep the same "rule of three"? And if the rule has to be the same for all schecdules of enhancers, why not go back to the original "3 ok, 4 little less, 5 and 6 bad"
[/ QUOTE ]
We accounted for ED in all our testing. At the moment, boosts are where wed like them to be.
[ QUOTE ]
4. Has ED borked accuracy?
Don't have a cow Geko, but I think enough people are reporting accuracy problems to at least warrant a little code check to see if maybe this change effected something in there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ill look into it. If anything turns up, Ill post it.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:21 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is all fine in optimal situations, but what happens if at 3 a.m. the only people LFT in Peregrine are a tank, 2 blasters, and a scrapper? Does that simply mean they can not tackle one of the 40 AVs offered in the 40+ game?
Forced teaming is harsh enough, but when its forced teaming that requires a certain number or a certain AT, then not only is it not much fun, its not that easily attainable.
[/ QUOTE ]
A good point. AV's take perhaps a half-dozen players to take down. I like having epic battles at the zenith of a player's career, but perhaps this is too stringent.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:30 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's way too abrupt to promote real diversity. Why not convert it to a slowly sliding scale that ends at the same values?
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question, Pilcrow. We knew the % caps we wanted out of ED...and we also wanted to impact players as little as possible. Currently, the system doesn't affect anyone with DO and only begins affecting someone with a third SO. If we were to ramp down the % to a slower sliding scale, we'd for sure be affecting even the second SO - and, if the scale was that slight - the first SO.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:35 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, why would you assume that all 5-man teams consist of a controller, a defender, a blaster, a scrapper, and a tanker? You do realize, don't you, that lots of times this is not possible nor even fun? What about a team that is a tank, 2 scappers, and 2 blasters? Or a team that is 5 tankers? Or a team that is 4 scrappers and a controller?
[/ QUOTE ] \
Sorry if my example gave that impression. If a group is made up of a Tanker and 4 Scrappers - then the 4 Scrappers will be defeating foes while the Tanker tries to hold aggro. In that situation, a Tanker hardly needs to hold the aggro of every mob; Scrappers can easily take on 3 to 4 minions without too much trouble.
Each Archetype has to have an ACTIVE part in the combat - yes, that's true. It's not about the ideal team, but it's about developing tactics that fit your team composition.
Remember, ED essentially affects only characters levels 25+; by this point in the game, players have a pretty good grasp of the game and the various powers. Is there a challenge in working with different composition groups? Sure! But that's exactly the point. Learning new tactics, different strategies - this is the core of any game.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:40 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what point is there in having a difficulty slider, then?
[/ QUOTE ]
To provide a challenge, of course. But the problem was: it wasn't. The Heroic to Invincible scale simply didn't provide any challenge. There's definitely a problem when players need to resort to teaming up with other players, and dropping them right after entering the mission in order to boost the spawn size.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:49 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd ask that you consider making it a priority to add a way for players to abandon missions. I loathe big teams, and if the goal for AVs is that they require six people to take them down, then I'd like some way to bypass that content.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the priority list. To be honest, we haven't instituted it before for fear that people would run out of content. It's extremely easy to say "well, I don't want to face Carnival - I think I'll drop this story arc..." - and then do the same to several others...before you know it, a player has hit a dead spot in levels.
BUT in City of Villains, we have "newspapers" that provide a near endless supply of one-off missions. Once we introduce that into City of Heroes, we'll add the abandon mission tech.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:52 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You deftly dodged the meat of my comment though, which is that playing my ED-compliant tanker on a team of 8 was death unless I switched into scrapper mode and had her do hit-and-run or perimeter strike tactics. And while there is nothing wrong with such tactics in the abstract, they are not TANKING.
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you PM me your build, your team and what you were fighting - and tactics?
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 05:54 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At this moment it's just so sad to be a rifle/dev blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meant to mention this - I'll look into this. I read several refrains about this problem...
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 06:25 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's easy to explain--he's dishonest. Otherwise, he'd have laid out that whole "vision" rather explicitly and published what "as intended" is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I did back in July.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 06:28 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just as there's definitely a problem when heroic's sometimes too difficult for certain powersets to deal with...
[/ QUOTE ]
Now if this is true...we've got a problem. The results that people have posted, and from what we've got from the Training Room do not in any way suggest that even Heroic is impossible. Someone asked earlier in this thread, "is there anything we'd do to change ED" - this is it. Heroic is the base level of difficulty - everyone (baring mistakes) should be able to complete Heroic missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 06:33 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying the slider doesn't work?
[/ QUOTE ]
It "didn't" work...sure, it increased difficulty - from fall asleep boring to just mind numbing. On Invincible, some builds would team up just to artificially boost spawn sizes. I myself was part of teams where I was told to sit by the entrance and just leech XP. Really.
If someone is on Invincible, this means they're the cream of the crop. They're doing what most can't. Invincible should be hard. Why? Because really good players should be able to find something that takes them to the limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 06:40 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa whoa... 25+?
So that means the young hero at level 12, slots his best blast power with 1 acc and 5 dmg... cause he has seen a significant performance increase by doing so, even with training enhancements... he has to totally rethink his approach to slotting once he gets to 25?? Well, really 22, since that's when you can first buy SOs.
That just seems like you are abandoning your stance of "players making informed decisions." If this hero never comes to the boards, or reads his patch notes... he's going to sorely disappointed with the performance of his powers upon reaching the mid-levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. As a player gains SO's and slots them - he can choose to put them into that six slotted power - and decide whether to put all of the same kind of Enhancement or to diversify his slotting.
Ah-ha! But what about those powers that accept only a single kind of Enhancement! These players will have slots at early levels that give negligible benefit at higher levels. There's no way a player could reasonably foresee this...and this is somewhat an issue. For one, players can respec - but perhaps we should add additional "free respecs" at certain level marks. That's something that I'm discussing internally.
But by no means does this "destroy a character" to have extra slots in those powers. Players often quote my (infamous) belief that players shouldn't make uninformed decisions. Remember the context, though. A game should also not encumber a player with too much information either. A player should get enough information to be able to play the game - period. In the case of City of Heroes, a player should be able to make choices in game that allows them at least to be able to play at Heroic - the default setting. And right now, ED does not affect that - if it does, there's a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
RE: ED Testing Results (10/27/05 07:02 PM)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Are you going to look at making existing enhancers that aren't often slotted (range, KB, etc.) more appealing in some manner?
2. Are you going to be looking to add new TYPES of enhancements to the game so we have more choices in slotting?
3. Are you going to look at adding aspects to "one trick pony" powers so we have something else to slot in them?
4. Many people posted about a decrease in XP gain, is an increase in MOB XP being considered?
[/ QUOTE ]
I received these questions from Pilcrow in a PM, so I thought I'd answer them here.
1. Always open to ideas here.
2. Yes.
3. Again, open to ideas, but if the balance is right for a particular build, we'll need to decrease to compensate anything we add.
4. Yes.
Also - just to make sure that this is clear. People should be able to solo on Heroic. They should be able to team up with other players and contribute against spawns that range +1 to +3 levels. Obviously, the greater the level difference, the less the contribution.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example. Let's look at an Invulnerability Scrapper's S/L DMG RES:
PRE-ED 6 SLOTTED[*]Resist Physical Damage BASE = 5.625%, 6 Slotted = 12.375%[*]Temporary Inv BASE = 22.5%, 6 Slotted = 49.5%[*]Unyielding BASE = 3.75%, 6 Slotted = 8.25%
[*]Total 6 slotted = 70.125% S/L DMG RES
POST-ED 3 SLOTTED[*]Resist Physical Damage BASE = 5.625%, 3 ED Slotted = 8.83125%[*]Temporary Inv BASE = 22.5%, 3 ED Slotted = 35.325%[*]Unyielding BASE = 3.75%, 3 ED Slotted = 5.8875%
[*]Total 3 ED slotted = 50.04375% S/L DMG RES
So this Scrapper is 50/70 = only 71% as able to absorb S/L as they were before ED. There's that 30% we keep hearing.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, as usual, nice work.
I do have to point out an issue with the EFFECT of ED on powers like Defense and Resist, though.
Your example is numerically correct, but the "% less effective" is misleading.
Using your example
100 pt ATTACK
Pre-ED Scrapper takes 29 damage
Post-ED Scrapper takes 50 damage
In absolute terms, the Post-ED scrapper takes 21 pts more damage, but that represents an increase of 72% when compared to what he used to take.
He's not taking an extra 30% damage, he's taking a whopping extra 72% damage.
Similarly, Defense builds can suffer larger drops in effectiveness than "30% or so" would seem to indicate.
30% drop in your RESIST value or DEFENSE value does not necessarily translate into a 30% increase in damage or frequency of successful attack. In most cases, its significantly worse.
My own /Dark Armor scrapper RESISTS dropped from roughy 50% S/L to 35%, a reduction of %30
Thats an absolute drop of "15" but now, instead of taking 50, I take 65
That's a 30% increase in the damage I take, but only a "15" drop in my Resists.
Due to my previous Resist levels, my absolute reduction and increased damage taken % are about the same. My PSI resists dropped so that I now take 75% more damage than prior.
The higher your previous resists (and higher your previous DEF), the bigger the ED reduction hits you.
I know that you know this, but folks reading might see "30% or so" and go "that's not so bad", when for many folks, it is a significant reduction in defensive capabilities.
[ QUOTE ]
What the Devs have said about ED:
CuppaJo (for Positron) - Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
(This is a repost due to forum issues. My initial warnings in the first thread did not seem to make any difference. This is your ONLY warning. Abuse of other posters, mods, devs or anyone else will be removed and you will be banned.)
I wanted to give you all a little heads up on something that we've had in the works since March of this year that is finally seeing the light of day soon.
Your questions and comments will help refine the patch notes so that we can make this new system as clear as possible for all players.
As always, we ask that you play and test the changes before crying "DOOOM".
Without further ado...
Enhancement Diversification:
This is a new system being implemented into City of Villains and City of Heroes (when City of Villains launches) to promote the use of more different types of Enhancements in powers. Using a system of diminishing returns, when slotting the same type of Enhancement into a power, you will begin to see less effect of that Enhancement when the bonus reaches a certain threshold. The effectiveness of Enhancements you are slotting in can now be seen in the Enhancement Slotting screen.
What does this mean? Simply, if you are slotting Enhancements and your bonus to a single attribute reaches 70% through Enhancements, you will begin to see a drop in the amount each Enhancement should be giving you. If you exceed 100% bonus, then the drop will be more severe. We have added to the Enhancement Slotting screen a display of how much bonus you are getting from your Enhancements. When you are adding in Enhancements that will be reduced in effectiveness you will be able to tell.
Note that this only affects Enhancements of the same bonus. So you can have a Damage bonus of 66.66%, and an Accuracy bonus of 66.66% (from 2 SO Damage and 2 SO Accuracy Enhancements) and you will not be affected in any way. Adding in another SO Damage Enhancement will not give you a 99% bonus, but a 94% bonus, because the damage bonus now exceeds 70%.
A good rule of thumb is 2 Single Origins Enhancements = No Reduction. 3 SOs = Slight Reduction. 4 SOs = Moderate Reduction. 5 or 6 SOs = Major Reduction
What if I dont have more than 2 SOs of any one type in my powers already? Then you have nothing to worry about, your character will function exactly as they did previous to this feature being added.
Does this affect Dual Origin Enhancements at all? Yes. If you have 5 DOs of all the same type you would normally get an 83% bonus. Because of Enhancement Diversification your bonus will actually only get an 82% bonus. If you have 6 DOs of all the same type, instead of a 100% bonus you will have a bonus of 95%.
Are Hamidon Enhancements affected? Yes. The bonuses that a Hamidon Enhancement gives you that exceed 70% will be reduced. Because of this change, Hamidon (and other dual-purpose) Enhancements are now combinable. You can only combine dual-purpose Enhancements that affect ALL the same bonuses (so you can combine Damage/Accuracy with another Damage/Accuracy, but not with a Damage/Endurance Reduction).
This totally cripples my character! I thought you were done balancing the game? All the Issue 4 and 5 balance adjustments were done with this system in place internally here at Cryptic. All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
What if a power only takes one type of Enhancement to begin with? You have a couple of choices. You can respec the character and only go so far as putting a couple slots into the power, or you can go with more slots and eke out a little more effectiveness out of the Enhancements.
How can I tell when I am not getting full effectiveness out of an Enhancement? On the Enhancement Slotting Screen you will now see what bonuses Enhancements are giving you. This will help you make the choice as to what Enhancements to slot over what.
Does it matter what order I slot Enhancements in? No. The reduction in effectiveness is calculated off the total bonus you are receiving, so it does not matter what order you slotted the Enhancements in.
How is combining Enhancements affected by this? Enhancements that are higher level than you give you a bonus above normal Enhancements, if you combine Enhancements to get a higher bonus, this may put you over the point at which a reduction in effectiveness takes place.
Some Enhancements give me a 33.33%/16.66%/8.35% bonus, and others give me a different bonus, how are these affected by Enhancement Diversification? There are four categories of Enhancements, Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C, and Schedule D. The majority of Enhancements fall into the Schedule A category. This means that an even-level Training Origin Enhancement gives an 8.35% bonus, an even-level Dual Origin Enhancement gives me a 16.66% bonus, and an even-level Single Origin Enhancement gives a 33.33% bonus. All of the examples above assume using Schedule A Enhancements, since these are the most common.
Schedule B Enhancements are things Defense Buff, Damage Resistance, Range Increase and To Hit Buff. These have a smaller bonus because a small shift in these values has a larger impact on gameplay. With these Enhancements a Training Origin Enhancement gives a 5% bonus, a Dual Origin Enhancement gives a 10% bonus, and a Single Origin Enhancement gives a 20% bonus. Enhancement Diversification for these bonuses kicks in at 40% with a severe drop at 60%.
What Enhancement Types are what bonuses (schedules)?
Schedule A Enhancements (33.33%, 16.66%, 8.35%) are:
Accuracy, Confuse, Damage, Defense DeBuff, Drain Endurance, Endurance Discount, Fear, Fly, Heal, Hold, Immobilize, Intangible, Jump, Recharge, Recovery, Run, Sleep, Snare, Stun, Taunt, To Hit Debuff
These bonus types start to see reduction when the bonus is 70% or more, and a severe reduction at 100% bonus or greater.
Schedule B Enhancements (20%, 10%, 5%) are:
Range, Defense Buff, Resist Damage, To Hit Buff
These bonus types start to see reduction when the bonus is 40% or more, and a severe reduction at 60% bonus or greater.
Schedule C Enhancements (40%, 20%, 10%) are:
Interrupt
This bonus type starts to see reduction when the bonus is 80% or more, and a severe reduction at 120% bonus or greater.
Schedule D Enhancements (60%, 30%, 15%) are:
Knockback
This bonus type starts to see reduction when the bonus is 120% or more, and a severe reduction at 180% bonus or greater
Also - There will be a 12% reduction in endurance cost for ALL powers and a reduction in the debt cap by 50% due to this system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Positron Endurance Discount
[ QUOTE ]
With Enhancement Diversification comes a benefit for ALL City of Heroes powers.
Every power, across the board, is getting a 13.33% reduction in its Endurance cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman-RE:Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
Why didnt you do it at I5?
First, there were some tech issues. Secondly, because I wanted to test the changes individually (i.e. powers and Enhancements)
I5 on the Training Room provided numerous insights on powers alone!
Youve destroyed my character!
Everyone is entitled to their opinions; I cant deny that. But please wait till you play with Enhancement Diversification before passing final judgment. I think youll find that slotting previously underused Enhancements, such as Endurance Reduction and Recharge Time, really makes a difference.
Youre doing this only after weve pre-ordered CoV.
If we were that Machiavellian, we would have waited until after CoV was out for a few weeks. I wanted to put this change in before hand so that everyone knew the system well before CoV came out.
Our opinions dont matter.
Demonstrably not true. Feedback from players resulted in many changes to the initial launch of I5 Dark Armor Endurance Reduction, lifting AOE limits for certain powers, making Controller pets permanent, buffing Ice Tankers, increasing Hold durations, increasing Instant Healing duration
etc. The forums are a vital place for us to get player input. Data and personal anecdotes only go so far!
Once we get this up on the Training Room server, well be able to start looking at modifications to the system.
Im sick of all these nerfs.
The goal with I5 was to address the base abilities of powers. But as many pointed out on these boards, Enhancements were also a significant problem. In fact, many people suggested on the boards and in PMs that we look into some form of diminishing return.
I already said that I didnt want powers touched any more in a large way after I5. Same is true with Enhancement Diversification; I think we have finished the large scale changes to bring the game into the right borders.
Does this mean no more changes? Id like to promise you that there wont be ANY changes in I7 that are nerfs and that any change is a buff, but thats unrealistic given that there might be bugs, errors, etc. It simply wouldnt be honest. BUT I do promise that I dont foresee any more big swings on how things are done. And I hope that the powers list for I6 has very, very few power patch notes. And I7, and I8, etc.
The least they could have done is given us some sort of carrot with this.
Couple of things didnt get posted. Were cutting Endurance costs by 12% across the board (to ameliorate the effect that Enhancement Diversification has on Stamina). Were also cutting the Debt cap in 1/2 . Yep. In half.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman-RE:Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers and especially Tankers will be hurting badly, and that's after their defenses already took a severe hit. There was already talk wondering if Tankers were useful. Are they going to be tenable at all with these changes?
[/ QUOTE ]
Our playtests have shown that they fare just fine. But hey - that's what the Training Room is for!
[ QUOTE ]
What benefit does this bring to my play experience?
[/ QUOTE ]
We feel that the game ends up being more fun - players will learn the benefits of other types of Enhancements.
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so it seems obvious that respecs will be a part of this update.
[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely.
[ QUOTE ]
what does the debt cap have to do with these changes?
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest, nothing. Players have long complained about "perma-debt" and thus I thought I'd add this in.
[ QUOTE ]
It was very misleading to tell people that the I5 changes were then end of the powers changes, using wording to open the loophole for changing enhancements. Is there no one at Cryptic that suggested that was the case? I would have at least mentioned it in the hallway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, pohsyb said that very thing to me - in the hallway! That's my bad if it's misleading - my intent was to tell people that their powers themselves won't change anymore. In my mind, Enhancements were a different category.
[ QUOTE ]
In general, Cryptic does not explain the thought process behind a change - they reiterate the perceived need for the change. We the playerbase are shooting in the dark as to what your thinking was when you made a change, and as a result, cannot really craft a targetted response to the core rationale. Because a lot of the "tweaks" you describe weren't actually asked for by the majority of people giving feedback, its hard to say the change was driven by feedback.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes changes are driven by a few people, sometimes by a lot (Dark Armor, Ice Tanker...). Not really sure how to tell people one way or the other - though I'm willing to here suggestions!
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman-RE:Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Day_Dreamer
But how do you plan to deal with single-enhancement powers and powers that naturally gravitate towards a specific sort of enhancement -- like all resistance and defense powers, especially passives?
[/ QUOTE ]
At the moment, those particular builds have an advantage in that they can use those extra slots on something else. We'll be looking at the Training Room and the forums for feedback and suggestions.
[ QUOTE ]
Silas_Dark
If you look at the Enhancements that exist in City of Heroes, there are far too many of them that are of very limited usefulness (or not useful at all).
Others, which in theory would be potentially interesting or add some variation to a power (ie. Disorient Duration or Knockback) simply don't have enough of an effect (or the right kind of effect) to be worth slotting. the game itself encourages people to use the same 10 Enhancements (the "Power 10") more than any other, simply because they're the ones that are the most readily available.
[/ QUOTE ]
ALL Enhancements are available through Contacts...are you suggesting putting them in the store? The only reason why we didn't, originally, was to prevent the nightmare of scrolling through hundreds of Enhancements...
[ QUOTE ]
CatMan
Will powers that have a long recharge be compensated?
[/ QUOTE ]
In these cases, I think most players will slot several Recharge Enhancements to compensate for anything lost by Hasten.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman RE: Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if people thought I was misleading them by saying "no more big power changes." In my mind, powers and Enhancements are two different systems (they really are in terms of data). It certainly wasn't my intent.
Secondly, we didn't put out info about Enhancement Diversification out earlier because 1) we hadn't nailed down the exact system and 2) we didn't want to announce changes until they were on the Training Room. Until something can be tested, it isn't "real" yet - I'd hate to say something is coming when it isn't. Skills is a good example of this; we designed it. It seemed ready, but it ended up not being ready.
Thirdly, I CAN say unequivocally that we have NO other major changes planned. A few posts have asked that specifically.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman RE: Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Positron stated I4 AND I5 changes were balanced with ED in mind. You just stated the system for ED hadn't been nailed until recently (and it STILL isn't in the training room).
What gives? How can there be balance when the system wasn't finalized?
[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, we did do internal testing with simulated ED results - but we didn't have the UI and final numbers. I learned after Skills never, never, never mention a system until it's really "in" the pipeline. We hope to get ED up on Training Room later this week.
And to those who think I'm couching my apologies a little too much - I'll be straightforward. I'm sorry. I should have tried to understand how things would be perceived. That's an oversight/error on my part. I thought Enhancements and Powers were two different things, but many players don't see it as such. While I may have been *technically* correct, clearly players thought I was expressing a different spirit: no more nerfs. I should have known that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman RE: Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Statesman, as an aside: when you say "NO other major changes planned" does that apply only to players or to both players and NPCs? In my mind tweaking villain damage/resist/defence/etc would be major in light of the changes that have been made Issue 5 and forshadowed in ED for Issue 6 (assuming I6 is part of CoV's release).
[/ QUOTE ]
No plans to make villains harder or easier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman RE: Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how he said "villians" and not NPCs? I love how they drop a bomb on us and then only respond with 1 or 2 lined posts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um. We're not changing the NPC's either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Please tell us the real Reason for ED
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) For almost a year, Statesman has though the level 30+ game was imbalanced. He thought it was too easy. Offensive heroes caused so much damage and defensive heroes were so tough that there was no need for buffs or debuffs. Pure offense (blasters and scrappers) and pure defense (tankers), with perhaps an empath as a safety net, were enough to dominate the end game.
2) Statesman has always been happy with the low to mid game (levels 1-25). He felt they were properly balanced and challenging.
3) the difference between the low/mid game and the high end game is the proliferation of Single Origin enhancers and the dramatic effect they have on powers once they are 6 slotted.
4) solution: insert a soft-cap on enhancer-based power-magnitude, thus causing heroes suffer more damage, and cause less damage. This makes buff/debuff powers more valuable and leaves room for the vaunted skill system with room to provide a tangible, measurable benefit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's add a few more...
3.1) Players focused on just a few types of Enhancements alone; the usefulness of secondary effects was overlooked.
3.2) We wanted to be able to vary the % of Enhancements moving into the future. With ED, we now can have a single Enhancement that boosts Damage by 50%. Players can't horde many, many copies of said Enhancement, because there is still an ultimate cap.
3.3) We wanted to curtail the constant powers analysis more; we wanted to set a balance standard and move towards it.
And that's the reason(s).
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Something else States said about I5...
[ QUOTE ]
As I've already said, there's little use calculating ED into ANYTHING until it goes to the Training Room. It could have easily ended up on the scrap heap (see Skills). Until something is on the Training Room, I don't like avoiding it (Skills being the classic example).
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Apologies and amends.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman, how do you reconcile this with these two points?
* ED, as currently implemented, will slow down levelling from I5 speeds - damage cut by 1/3 will slow killing speeds, while most defenses also cut by 1/3 will increase downtime.
* As of I5, you said that you were happy with the then-current levelling speeds - to the point where you buffed villain XP to compensate for the I5 changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough...You've got some pretty big assumptions here - namely that you'll be gaining XP at a much slower rate. It hasn't been my experience at all internally; but we'll keep an eye on it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Please tell us the real Reason for ED
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a single enhancement worth 50%?????
whats the point that means that if we can get on we can only have 1 before ED takes effect. there are not that many options to put in the powers
[/ QUOTE ]
Some powers have few Enhancement choices - that's true. But many don't. In those cases, one could s
Let's take "Charged Bolts" for example. It has the following Enhancements permissable:
Accuracy Boost
Damage Boost
Endurance Discount Boost
Range Boost
Endurance Drain Boost
Recharge Boost
It's unlikely right now that someone would spend a single slot on each of these aspects...even with ED. But with some high level Enhancements - it's possible. A high Damage Enhancement frees up slots to boost something else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Please tell us the real Reason for ED
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not going to be able to ever curtail power analysis. Powergamers enjoy powergaming, and they WILL analyze the powers you put into the game. The harder you make it for them, the less accesable you make the game to non-powergamers. I do not think that trade is worth it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops. My bad - I meant OUR powers analysis - constantly tweaking individual powers without any overarching goal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Lies and the lying liars that tell them
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jeesh...you're not kidding! Reading posts like these make me surprised he bothers to post here at all!
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, most devs don't post on their forums. There's various reasons why - but I've never subscribed to them (probably because I'm not from the game industry, really).
Here's what I keep in mind:
1) Players are paying customers.
2) They are entitled to their opinions.
3) It's easy to fly off the handle when you care.
4) Players who care isn't really a bad thing.
5) It's easy to type things in anger or haste.
I've met many posters at conventions who've written some vitriolic, personal attacks. Inevitably, they're patient, kind and intelligent. They really don't mean these things personally, because they don't know me personally. It's just that they felt strongly on an issue and posted quite passionately.
[/ QUOTE ]
<a href="" target="_blank">Statesman - Re: Lies and the lying liars that tell them</a>
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone from Cryptic is reading this, clarity would be good. Is the intent to have it go live on CoH when CoV goes live?
[/ QUOTE ]
Never. ED is scheduled to go to the Training Room within a week (if not much sooner). We were going to do the announcement then...
In an ideal world, we'd have timed the CoV and CoH patches at the same time (unfortunately, this was impossible)...but as soon as people started posting info about it on the CoH forum, it made sense to announce it before it was on the Training Room.
Several people have noted that ED will "inevitably" cause a slowdown in leveling. That's why we're putting this up on test; internally, we didn't notice a change. There's a variety of reasons for this (less Endurance cost, slotting of different powers that reduced downtime, etc.), but I wanted to see the effect on the Training Room. I'm more than happy to increase XP should ED slow stuff down too much...
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: A 2nd chance and a suggestion to the devs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite possible the reduction in endurance and the debt cap were supposed to be in the announcement. Positron's post on the CoV boards was looking for ways to refine the announcement. Since we've been told the endurance reduction is already built into CoV (not sure about the debt cap) he likely didn't feel the need to mention it there. He never got the chance to edit his post, because CuppaJo was forced into posting it, as is, on these boards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they were...the hurried nature of things kinda threw things out of whack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Anything in I6 besides ED, PVP , and Bases?
[ QUOTE ]
To clarify:
Bases are NOT in I6. Bases are a CoV feature...
We'll be posting the features list for I6 "soon."
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman - Re: Anything in I6 besides ED, PVP , and Bases?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying only CoV owners can build bases?
[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot enter or build bases without CoV. You cannot participate in Base raids without CoV. CoH players will gain prestige and Salvage (I think) that they can contribute to the Super Group...
[/ QUOTE ]
Positron on CoV - Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blasts like fire that have no secondary effect that can be slotted,
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage, Endurance Reduction, Range, Accuracy, Recharge Rate, that's 5 different effects right there. 3 of which play directly into Damage Per Second (Damage, Accuracy, Recharge).
[/ QUOTE ]
Positron on CoV - RE: Post by Posi on CoH Boards
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question is, if they had planned this END reduction and the halving of debt to go along with ED, why was it not patched with the ED? Seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
CoH players will have it patched with ED.
CoV players have had the reduced endurance for... I think 2 weeks now (it was ready before ED was for CoV).
That's why the post was on the CoH boards.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
and oddly unlike most ppl i dont mind ED the only ppl who whine about it are ppl who go like
"Hey my Invunubility tanked Babbage"
or
"My Sniper attack can one shot"
or
"I used to be able to solo AVs"
or
"Slot in 5 Damage and 1 acc for all attacks"
or
"6 slotted Stamina solves everthing"
well I feel unaffected by ED i used 4 damage and 2 acc enhancements in all my attacks and i have NEVER EVER EVER! have gotten stamina
so ppl you can whine and beg and plead to the mods saying "let me solo AVs again"
yet just get used to it I have felt nothing from ED
but this is a very good explanation on ED very good for the type of ppl i have mentioned above(like the invulnarbility guy)
CuppaJo (for Positron) - Enhancement Diversification
[ QUOTE ]
3.1) Players focused on just a few types of Enhancements alone; the usefulness of secondary effects was overlooked.
[/ QUOTE ] Serious question here, what secondary effects are useful? I can think of only a couple off hand and the secondary effect is DAMAGE!
Basically, youve dropped damage and defense, the two things the entire game revolves around. Add more diverse content and missions to change the situation, but until then DPS rules and every power games out there will calculate exactly what build they need.
I had My own suggestion for fixing ED - Did anyone ever ge around to playing with the numbers on this idea?
The Optimist says the glass is half full.
The Pessimist says the glass is half empty.
While they argue about it, the Opportunist comes along, drinks what's left, and removes all doubt. - Redwood
Alvays remember, schmot guy...any plan vere you lose you hat...is a BAD PLAN!
I really needed this info. Thanks a bunch. 
FWIW, here's my take on ED. Opinion worked happily into facts in this one folks, you want just the facts, look at the previous posts.
Enhancement Diversification does the following things for the game:
<ul type="square">[*]#1) It kept players from getting as close to their caps as they used to, so buffs would be more wanted[*]#2) It significantly nerfed all "One Trick Pony" Powers like many armor powers, Stamina, Hasten that people were getting instead of using similar enhancements in their powers[*]#3) It created a smaller range of performance between a casual build and the min/max build[*]#4) It decreased burst damage significantly, while leaving sustained DPS within about 10-15% of what it was before[*]#5) It prevented SOs from having such a significant effect in terms of MOB/PC balance[*]#6) It corrected some of the excesses caused by offering mixed-mode enhancers like HOs[/list]
So, the question of whether or not you think ED was positive is really a question about what you think about all these things. Did you think that SOs were too large an increase in power? Were min/maxxers really breaking the curve? Were HOs overpowered? Was burst damage a problem? Did people have too much defense? Etc.
Since I think some of those things needed to be done, and others were already working fine before ED, Im ambivalent about ED.
One of the things that annoys me about ED is how it could have met some of these objectives SO MUCH better than it does.
For example:
#1) One of the best ways to keep enhancers from causing people to hit their caps is to have enhancer act as increases in the BASE value of the power instead of as buffs on the power. If enhancers worked as an increase to the BASE value of a power, buffs are always useful, and buffs are stronger too because they have more base to buff. You'd have to mess with the caps and the base buff values to balance it all out, which is more work, but also a much more effective way to accomplish that goal, if that was really an important goal to meet.
#2) Certainly SOME one-trick pony powers needed to be nerfed. Hasten and Stamina come screaming to mind. But was there really a problem with how fast you could make hover and fly go pre-ED? Was the massive 13% RES a Scrapper could squeeze out of resist physical damage post I5 a problem? I don't think so. This strikes me as a place where direct nerfs to the powers in question would have been a much better way to handle things than ED. Either that, or the delivery of ED and some countermanding buffs at the same time (like putting movement enhancers on schedule C or D, for example).
#3) This is the place I am most frustrated with ED. If this goal was really intended (and it was), then you need to not only beat down the bonus from the 5th and 6th enhancement, but also put BONUSES on the 1st enhancers. Give us a true sliding scale like one of the following and you will have both narrowed the min/max gap but also made ED decisions REAL decisions (instead of slot 3 and skate):
Instead of a sliding scale of 1x, 1x, 0.85x, 0.15x, 0.15x, 0.15x
Use a sliding scale of 1.25x, 1.0x, 0.75x, 0.5x, 0.25x, 0.125x
SOs still at 33.3% (net 6% power boost for Schedule A)
<ul type="square">[*] 1 SO = 41.6 (vs. 33.3 for ED)[*] 2 SO = 75 (vs. 66.6 for ED) [*] 3 SO = 100 (vs. 95 for ED) [*] 4 SO = 116.6 (vs. 100 for ED) [*] 5 SO = 125 (vs. 105 for ED) [*] 6 SO = 129.15 (vs. 110 for ED)[/list]or
SOs still at 30% (net 0% power boost for Schedule A)
<ul type="square">[*] 1 SO = 37.5 (vs. 33.3 for ED)[*] 2 SO = 67.5 (vs. 66.6 for ED)[*] 3 SO = 90 (vs. 95 for ED)[*] 4 SO = 105 (vs. 100 for ED)[*] 5 SO = 112.5 (vs. 105 for ED)[*] 6 SO = 116.25 (vs. 110 for ED)[/list]
#4) I think that taking an edge of burst damage was a good thing, and that ED did a pretty good job of this objective if viewed in microcosm (in macrocosm, it has a lot of side effects for this one thing it does well). I do think the END reduction was a bit chincy to really make this work though. Since the battles are longer, then it should have been a bit more than the amount lost due to stamina acting under ED.
#5) This is another objective met better on a more sliding scale that begins with a bonus. I'm among those who is mostly happier that the game is harder as a result of I5/ED. But I wish they would invest some of the time they spent on I5/ED on making more factions as tough as the TSOO and MALTA, and those guys are hard because they have such a variety of abilities in their LTs and Bosses, not because it's hard to overcome their HPs. I guess the recent AV changes show they don't find this avenue pursuable for some reason. *SIGH*
#6) Would be great, if they had actually introduced some new enhancers by now. Where are the 50% enhancers we were promised? How 'bout a reverse of the nerf on the dual aspect HOs, guys? Can you please implement some of the clever, interesting and fun ideas in the Consolidated Enhancement Ideas Thread? C'mon guys, you SAID we suffered ED so we could have this kind of thing, it's been 7 months. Time to deliver.
In short I give ED a B+ for Concept and a C- for execution.
But execution can be fixed! If the devs took on just #2 and #3, ED would be a TON better.
Thus ends my monthly rant on ED's shortcomings. Please check your listings for our next scheduled meltdown.
EDIT: Ran through a spell checker. I honestly am a much better Speller/Grammarian than my posts would indicate, but I'm a horrid typist.
I have long posted this, and I'll post it again. I am against this extended nerf called Enhanced Diversification of enhancements. Noone in the player community asked for it. It was a side effect of jack 'statesman' wanting to remove the super human powers from heroes playing this computer game. I and many players who have played the game since beta have all agreed that the effort put into this nerf is futile and a waste of time. If a person wants to put 6 damage enhancements into a power and rely on the tohit buff given to them from tactics or focus accuracy, then it is upto their imagination on how to effectively create a hero or villain that can effectively use those powers and create a toon that is effective and powerful in their own right.
But for some reason ED has stuck around. Even though thousands of players have quit the game due to ED and other nerfs, the propieters of cryptic keep touting it as an effective way of managing enhancements of their players toons.
I disagree. Thousands of players who no longer play the game, who have voted with their financial might and have moved their money to other games that dont have stringent and ill thoughtout views on how their game should be played.
I'm sorry. But that is the way it is. And because paid people working for cryptic and plaync dont agree with me and everyone else doesnt strip the fact that this is the state of affiars.
It is offensive that they would put this thread and highlight a series of threads about this nerf to new players and make them think that this is the way the computer game started and this is th way it is being played since time immortal.
Saying this, I expect this thread to be censored and deleted.
In advance, thanks for reading the point of view of a long time player and fan of the game.
Correct ED formulas