Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
[ QUOTE ]
Further, even if I agreed that it was possible to grief AI bots by clicking on glowies while invisible, which I don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
You can't grief the AI (exploit, but not grief)
Scion, what we were talking about is this.
Under the (now-withdrawn) change it would NOT be possbile to click a glowie if you had a effect that gave stealth.
Combined with the fact that if someone drops from the team, they don't get booted from the mission, you get:
Griefing situations:
1) Group invis - if someone is going to log, and wants to be an [censored], they can cast this on everyone. Roughly a 2-minute duration. Clickie, not a toggle.
2) Grant invis - This does not require being teamed to use on someone. They could camp a glowie someone needs to finish the mission, and cast it on anyone who tries to get near.
3) Toggle Stealth - Things like Shadowfall and steamy mist a) don't require they be your teammates to be affected, b) are toggles, c) AoE. You can easily sit on top of the glowie and prevent it from being clicked.
Also, there is the situation with the fact that some powers that are primarly defense (+DEF, literally) have a stealth componet.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ QUOTE ]
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf. The reason why: many well reasoned posts. It's that simple. You guys pointed out the problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
oh
my
god!
you actually listen to us nowadays!? Halliliuah!!!!! ( or however you spell that) The end of time must surely be near!!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
First...I confirm that we're working on right now (as in pohsyb in the next room) to add CoV costume parts into CoH if you own both games....
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf. The reason why: many well reasoned posts. It's that simple. You guys pointed out the problems.
AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn. A ton of forum goers disliked adding so many AV's into missions a while back...so we've come up with a solution. If the team size and mission difficulty are ABOVE a certain level, an Archvillain spawns. Below that, players will face only an Elite Boss. If the mission is set on the first two levels of difficulty, it takes 4 heroes or more to spawn an Arch Villain. On the third level, 3 heroes or more. On the fourth level, 2 heroes. On the highest (Invincible), a solo hero will spawn an AV. Note this works in BOTH City of Heroes and Villains.
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
/em clap clap clap clap clap
this will be awesome now I wont feel annoyed when I need to get a team for only an AV/hero
since the stealth nerf is gone there badges whores will be able to go throguh the easy parts or a tf without wasting time
this is gonna get good on the normal servers
[ QUOTE ]
First...I confirm that we're working on right now (as in pohsyb in the next room) to add CoV costume parts into CoH if you own both games....
Then we repeal the hated stealth nerf. The reason why: many well reasoned posts. It's that simple. You guys pointed out the problems.
AND now...we're changing the way Archvillains spawn. A ton of forum goers disliked adding so many AV's into missions a while back...so we've come up with a solution. If the team size and mission difficulty are ABOVE a certain level, an Archvillain spawns. Below that, players will face only an Elite Boss. If the mission is set on the first two levels of difficulty, it takes 4 heroes or more to spawn an Arch Villain. On the third level, 3 heroes or more. On the fourth level, 2 heroes. On the highest (Invincible), a solo hero will spawn an AV. Note this works in BOTH City of Heroes and Villains.
In order to incentivize larger teams, Positron is going to add a bonus to AV rewards!
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks States 
I know I'm prob in the minority, but I liked the unique looks of my villains...
I don't suppose there is any sort of ETA on the costume options? Maybe even just "when it's done" vs. "Issue 7". I'm sitting on some free costume changes and I'm wondering if I should make sure to save them for the CoV options, or if that's months away then just go for it with what we've got.
Or, I don't suppose it'd be possible to get costume tokens with the new costume options? Wow, that'd be shiny.
[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.
No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.
The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.
No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.
The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't. Then again, that comment is from 04-11-05, before "The Global Defense Nerf [Issue 5] and "Enhancement Deversification" [Issue 6].
Here's the posts:
[ QUOTE ]
Let me talk about goals in balance
.
Originally, we targeted a basic formula. A hero equaled 3 to 4 minions. Or a Lt. and one minion. Or 3/4 of a boss. A hero could fight things one (or more levels) below him with only a slight chance of defeat. A hero could fight things his own level with some chance of defeat; mobs one level higher would be hard, but defeatable. If a foe was two or more levels above the hero, a player would have a relatively high likelihood of defeat.
.
Our entire spawn system in zones and missions depended upon these equations. But then we released the game 
.
The system holds up pretty well up until the mid to late twenties, but once players can purchase S.O.s in the stores, their abilities rapidly outstrip the curve. Enhancements ended up being priced too cheaply (something that well change sometime soon). In order to find something fun to do (i.e. something that had an element of risk), players needed to hunt in zones; missions became boring.
.
We had a choice a while back the easy way to fix the issue was to increase the difficulty of mobs. But this impacted EVERY Archetype. Some builds, we found, fit into the paradigm quite nicely. Others did not. Increasing the difficulty for them would have had a drastic impact. Instead, we added a difficulty slider. Those Archetypes and builds that could handle tougher foes now could ratchet up their Reputation. Admittedly, this meant that some builds could gain more XP/hr. than others, but we thought this would be the best solution. We wanted to make sure that the fun/risk in a mission could match what a person could find out in the zones.
.
Why? Because we feel that missions are a great part of the game. If a player eschews missions to street sweep, he isnt seeing all of the great City of Heroes content.
.
The difficulty slider allows a player to raise the difficulty of mobs he faces in missions up to +3 levels. The goal for the level 30+ game is for players to have fun battling those foes. So, if youre level 40, 3 to 4 +3 level minions should present a challenge. Does this mean a fifty/fifty chance of success? No it simply means that theres a chance of defeat. A boss +3 levels should present a significant threat.
.
Certain Archetypes can handle more mobs than this Tankers, for example, are designed to take on the agro of many mobs at once. Sure, a Tanker can survive tackling 10 or so minions, but his damage rate is relatively slow and he needs the other Archetypes to wipe out the opposition quickly.
.
A few other points. Arch Villains were NEVER designed to be solo-ed. Whenever a hero can defeat an even conned Arch Villain, theres definitely an issue. Were also aware of the significant imbalance that Hamidon Enhancements cause in the Arena and we are striving for a solution.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is also after the following post my Statesman on 09-15-04 ... yes 2004.
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I'd post here to explain why developers make changes to MMP games. In a nutshell: because they think it'll make the long term enjoyment better.
.
Human nature often demands immediate gratification. Sometimes, this comes into conflict with the long term enjoyment.
.
Case in point: much of our zone distribution, spawn placement and mission difficulty is based on a simple supposition. Players should be entertained/challenged by mobs -2 to +2 levels different. A single +2 minion should be REALLY hard - a single -2 minion should be pretty easy. But that's the range that much of the game hangs on. And that works great for levels 1 to 20, in my opinion.
.
Starting at level 22, when players get S.O. Enhancements, they quickly outstrip their foes. The missions cease to be entertaining, because a +1 mobs are just too easy. Better XP can be found by taking on +4 mobs in zones. Single characters can take on spawns that are intended for many heroes. And there's no place for a maximum sized group to go in order to find a tough and rewarding battle.
.
In the case of making the higher level game more fun, I want to make the difficulty of the later levels resemble early gameplay. At first, some players will decry "but I can't do what I used to! Ack! I can't solo two +4 bosses anymore?" True - but they'll have fun battling 3 white minions - which is something you can say at level 15, but not at level 35. Long term, the entire game will sparkle once this sort of balance is restored - because so much of the game design hangs upon it.
.
Anyway, sorry for my rambling. I wanted to give you a glimmer of the developer reasoning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out the bold part there. "Long Term."
Now, given the older post, the use of the term "Long Term" 
, and all the changes since the older post, I think States is finally getting the game back to the way he intended it.
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.
No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.
The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't. Then again, that comment is from 04-11-05, before "The Global Defense Nerf [Issue 5] and "Enhancement Deversification" [Issue 6].
Here's the posts:
[ QUOTE ]
Let me talk about goals in balance
.
Originally, we targeted a basic formula. A hero equaled 3 to 4 minions. Or a Lt. and one minion. Or 3/4 of a boss. A hero could fight things one (or more levels) below him with only a slight chance of defeat. A hero could fight things his own level with some chance of defeat; mobs one level higher would be hard, but defeatable. If a foe was two or more levels above the hero, a player would have a relatively high likelihood of defeat.
.
Our entire spawn system in zones and missions depended upon these equations. But then we released the game 
.
The system holds up pretty well up until the mid to late twenties, but once players can purchase S.O.s in the stores, their abilities rapidly outstrip the curve. Enhancements ended up being priced too cheaply (something that well change sometime soon). In order to find something fun to do (i.e. something that had an element of risk), players needed to hunt in zones; missions became boring.
.
We had a choice a while back the easy way to fix the issue was to increase the difficulty of mobs. But this impacted EVERY Archetype. Some builds, we found, fit into the paradigm quite nicely. Others did not. Increasing the difficulty for them would have had a drastic impact. Instead, we added a difficulty slider. Those Archetypes and builds that could handle tougher foes now could ratchet up their Reputation. Admittedly, this meant that some builds could gain more XP/hr. than others, but we thought this would be the best solution. We wanted to make sure that the fun/risk in a mission could match what a person could find out in the zones.
.
Why? Because we feel that missions are a great part of the game. If a player eschews missions to street sweep, he isnt seeing all of the great City of Heroes content.
.
The difficulty slider allows a player to raise the difficulty of mobs he faces in missions up to +3 levels. The goal for the level 30+ game is for players to have fun battling those foes. So, if youre level 40, 3 to 4 +3 level minions should present a challenge. Does this mean a fifty/fifty chance of success? No it simply means that theres a chance of defeat. A boss +3 levels should present a significant threat.
.
Certain Archetypes can handle more mobs than this Tankers, for example, are designed to take on the agro of many mobs at once. Sure, a Tanker can survive tackling 10 or so minions, but his damage rate is relatively slow and he needs the other Archetypes to wipe out the opposition quickly.
.
A few other points. Arch Villains were NEVER designed to be solo-ed. Whenever a hero can defeat an even conned Arch Villain, theres definitely an issue. Were also aware of the significant imbalance that Hamidon Enhancements cause in the Arena and we are striving for a solution.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is also after the following post my Statesman on 09-15-04 ... yes 2004.
[ QUOTE ]
I thought I'd post here to explain why developers make changes to MMP games. In a nutshell: because they think it'll make the long term enjoyment better.
.
Human nature often demands immediate gratification. Sometimes, this comes into conflict with the long term enjoyment.
.
Case in point: much of our zone distribution, spawn placement and mission difficulty is based on a simple supposition. Players should be entertained/challenged by mobs -2 to +2 levels different. A single +2 minion should be REALLY hard - a single -2 minion should be pretty easy. But that's the range that much of the game hangs on. And that works great for levels 1 to 20, in my opinion.
.
Starting at level 22, when players get S.O. Enhancements, they quickly outstrip their foes. The missions cease to be entertaining, because a +1 mobs are just too easy. Better XP can be found by taking on +4 mobs in zones. Single characters can take on spawns that are intended for many heroes. And there's no place for a maximum sized group to go in order to find a tough and rewarding battle.
.
In the case of making the higher level game more fun, I want to make the difficulty of the later levels resemble early gameplay. At first, some players will decry "but I can't do what I used to! Ack! I can't solo two +4 bosses anymore?" True - but they'll have fun battling 3 white minions - which is something you can say at level 15, but not at level 35. Long term, the entire game will sparkle once this sort of balance is restored - because so much of the game design hangs upon it.
.
Anyway, sorry for my rambling. I wanted to give you a glimmer of the developer reasoning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out the bold part there. "Long Term."
Now, given the older post, the use of the term "Long Term" , and all the changes since the older post, I think States is finally getting the game back to the way he intended it.
[/ QUOTE ]
personly i find it would b e depressing if after a YEAR he was still adheroing to
'no mater your level 3 white minnions hsoud be a challange'
which basicly says Relationally a lvl 50 shoud be /exactly/ as powerful as a lvl 5 hero
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
[ QUOTE ]
2) Grant invis - This does not require being teamed to use on someone. They could camp a glowie someone needs to finish the mission, and cast it on anyone who tries to get near.
3) Toggle Stealth - Things like Shadowfall and steamy mist a) don't require they be your teammates to be affected, b) are toggles, c) AoE. You can easily sit on top of the glowie and prevent it from being clicked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Understood. I guess my response to this would be to tell the victim to /petition and report the person to the GM's on at the time. This is a mechanism already provided for those who use griefing in the game (like those who tp someone in front of a giant monster for giggles).
That mechanism being available, the examples given seem pretty trivial, pretty temporary, and pretty self-destructive to the griefer. This includes the one I didn't mention, about casting group invis and logging. Pretty short duration, only one shot to do it, and reportable.
To put in a stealth suppression nerf to "solve" these problems seems like using a hammer to kill a fly, when you have a flyswatter sitting next to you on the table. Does more damage than necessary, particularly when the irritant is so small and can be eliminated by readily available means.
Also, I've NEVER run into this kind of behavior after a year in-game. But maybe I'm just lucky like that.
[ QUOTE ]
personly i find it would b e depressing if after a YEAR he was still adheroing to
'no mater your level 3 white minnions hsoud be a challange'
which basicly says Relationally a lvl 50 shoud be /exactly/ as powerful as a lvl 5 hero
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it means they should be LESS powerful. The reason?
A level 5 can be fully tricked out in even-con enhancements with little effort, and while collecting prestige for his SG. He is equal to three even-con minions.
The level 50 fully decked out with even-con SO's, which conceivably double his damage, accuracy, etc, is then to be equal to three even-con minions? That would mean that, if he were instead decked out with even-con TRAINING enhancents, he would get his butt handed to him. Which would mean he's LESS powerful than the lvl 5, relatively speaking. And in order to be fully decked out with SO's at even-con level the moment he hits lvl 50, he CAN'T be gaining prestige, or he won't have any inf. to spend on SO's. So the choice is: Abandon the inf. to get the SO's you need to be equal to three even-con minions so as to be able to gain prestige for your SG (albeit more slowly, since you can't defeat enemies as quickly, being enhancement-gimped as you are), or forgo gaining prestige for your SG so as to be able to enhance up to the level you were at MONTHS ago when you first started your character, meaning at the end of your career you are worthless in terms of gaining prestige for your SG. Oh, how Thor must be ashamed.
So, technically speaking, a fully decked out hero with even-con SO's SHOULD be able to beat +2- +3 minions at the same risk level as a lvl 5 with TRAINING enhancements fighting those 3 even-cons.
Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier, not to mention less useful in all ways to your SG.
Just doesn't make sense. And that's not even TALKING about heroes like my inv/ss tanker who CAN'T handle three red minions at lvl 50 with SO's AND 14 Hami's.
[ QUOTE ]
Understood. I guess my response to this would be to tell the victim to /petition and report the person to the GM's on at the time. This is a mechanism already provided for those who use griefing in the game (like those who tp someone in front of a giant monster for giggles).
[/ QUOTE ]
Or better yet the devs could close up the grief (like they did with TPing) so the GM staff won't be overworked.
[ QUOTE ]
To put in a stealth suppression nerf to "solve" these problems seems like using a hammer to kill a fly, when you have a flyswatter sitting next to you on the table. Does more damage than necessary, particularly when the irritant is so small and can be eliminated by readily available means.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stealth suppression already exists in game. It is now being added to object interaction to alleviate a problem with getting a reward for nothing. It's actually closer to the flyswatter in your example than the hammer which I would say would more appropriately refer to the original solution of noninteraction with these objects.
I think the balance vision isn't anywhere close to reality. 3 white minions? All of my characters can take down 3 reds without much trouble.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the balance vision isn't anywhere close to reality. 3 white minions? All of my characters can take down 3 reds without much trouble.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be the reasons for Issues 5 and 6.
But, hey ... I'm just making "crazy talk" ... the Devs arn't doing exactly they said they would. 
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
And in order to be fully decked out with SO's at even-con level the moment he hits lvl 50, he CAN'T be gaining prestige, or he won't have any inf. to spend on SO's.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess the 5M influence I gained from enhancement drops didn't really happen.
[ QUOTE ]
So, technically speaking, a fully decked out hero with even-con SO's SHOULD be able to beat +2- +3 minions at the same risk level as a lvl 5 with TRAINING enhancements fighting those 3 even-cons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman did admit that a higher level hero would have an easier time of facing higher level foes but player skill has to factor in somewhere. If I can give a level 50 character to my cat and he can complete an invincible mission something is horribly wrong with the game. The baseline of the game is that a hero is equal to three white minions. If at any time this is not true then there is a potential problem.
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier
[/ QUOTE ]
Or inversely the badguys have gotten a whole lot tougher.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out the bold part there. "Long Term."
Now, given the older post, the use of the term "Long Term" , and all the changes since the older post, I think States is finally getting the game back to the way he intended it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh. It seems to me that the later statement is a modification to the earlier statement - that the goal was altered to some degree.
And I was here for those, read them when they were posted, noticed when he conceded that higher-level characters should be able to take on relatively tougher enemies than lower-level characters, hence my question - a question you did not answer, I add.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Or better yet the devs could close up the grief (like they did with TPing) so the GM staff won't be overworked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Assumes facts not in evidence. The GM's are not, to my knowledge, "overworked". If they are, there's another solution: Hire a few more GM's. There. Now no nerfs are needed, and no one is overworked, and the happier playerbase means longer subscription times, which will pay for the added GM's. At least, that's as likely as YOUR assertion.
[ QUOTE ]
Stealth suppression already exists in game. It is now being added to object interaction to alleviate a problem with getting a reward for nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or you could A) eliminate xp reward for clicking glowies and B) reduce or eliminate the mission bonus for missions where no spawns are killed to reflect the reduced risk, or C) put +perception patrols and cameras in game to reduce the ease with which "glowie collecting" missions are accomplished, or D) You could just leave it alone, and understand that the loss of all the xp, enhancements, prestige and inspirations dropped when mobs are defeated is punishment enough, and that the travel time to new missions without garnering every drop of xp available in a mission reduces the reward to less than that of street sweeping for the same amount of time. In fact, even if someone chooses to "farm" a glowie mission, as with the example of the person who takes the mission, recruits a team, quits the team who then completes the mission, then rinses and repeats so that there's NO travel time, the length of time to find all the (often randomly placed) glowies in a multi-floor bldg or huge cavern is not completely negligible. So street-sweeping aggressively for the same length of time as it takes from start of mission to restart the mission is, if less rewarding in xp, only negligibly so, and garners you all the enhancement drops you can hold. And it's less boring. Is there more risk? Yeah, somewhat. But honestly, not so much moreso that a nerf is required as if the person were farming Dreck or Shadowhunter.
Not to mention the infrequency of missions where you can stealth to the end and click the glowie. There are almost ALWAYS other requirements, implicit or explicit in the mission, like rescuing a scientist, or defeating the boss.
Sorry, Xero, but as usual we disagree. Saying that one nerf is "better than" another doesn't change that fact that it's a nerf, and an unnecessary one at that. All it does is encourage the devs to take the most mundane, player-punishing alternative and tone it down a little so that people will say, "oh, well, that's MUCH better..". I would much rather the game reward people who chose the "road less taken" for using their noggins as something other than a hatrack.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to point out the bold part there. "Long Term."
Now, given the older post, the use of the term "Long Term" , and all the changes since the older post, I think States is finally getting the game back to the way he intended it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh. It seems to me that the later statement is a modification to the earlier statement - that the goal was altered to some degree.
And I was here for those, read them when they were posted, noticed when he conceded that higher-level characters should be able to take on relatively tougher enemies than lower-level characters, hence my question - a question you did not answer, I add.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did. I said it didn't ... then went on to give the reason why I thought it did. Err, didn't.
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the balance vision isn't anywhere close to reality. 3 white minions? All of my characters can take down 3 reds without much trouble.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be the reasons for Issues 5 and 6.
But, hey ... I'm just making "crazy talk" ... the Devs arn't doing exactly they said they would.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not "crazy talk." You're just trying to muddy the issue, not making any real points.
All of my 30+ characters can take on three +3 minions under I5 and I6 changes. If the devs are happy with balance as it stands, you're just blowing smoke.
Now, why would you want to blow smoke?
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
I did. I said it didn't ... then went on to give the reason why I thought it did. Err, didn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you did so in a way that asks me to ignore what Jack posted, or rather, to assume he posted them in reverse order.
I don't think we have evidence that invincible missions are supposed to be as difficult as Venture feels, or rather that the ability to complete invincible missions is an indication that the AT/build/powersets is overpowered to the point of needing nerfage. It seems that if a 30+ character can solo invincible missions, that this is within Jack's revised intended goal for difficulty.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did. I said it didn't ... then went on to give the reason why I thought it did. Err, didn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you did so in a way that asks me to ignore what Jack posted, or rather, to assume he posted them in reverse order.
I don't think we have evidence that invincible missions are supposed to be as difficult as Venture feels, or rather that the ability to complete invincible missions is an indication that the AT/build/powersets is overpowered to the point of needing nerfage. It seems that if a 30+ character can solo invincible missions, that this is within Jack's revised intended goal for difficulty.
[/ QUOTE ]
We do have evidence that Statesman stopped talking about things in the future that may change though. [IE: Giving a sugjection to slotting 5 SO'sdurring I5 knowing that they were working on ED]
My contention is that in the 04/05 post he was speaking to the "current" situation. In reguards to an "undesierable" activity, streetsweepping and not doing mission. To get the "chalange" of what they can find on the streets it's "OK" that they find it in missions on Invincible.
But if you read posts again, he states clearly in both that starting when the characters get SOs they "outstrip" [he used that word in both posts] the Mobs.
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
We do have evidence that Statesman stopped talking about things in the future that may change though. [IE: Giving a sugjection to slotting 5 SO'sdurring I5 knowing that they were working on ED]
My contention is that in the 04/05 post he was speaking to the "current" situation. In reguards to an "undesierable" activity, streetsweepping and not doing mission. To get the "chalange" of what they can find on the streets it's "OK" that they find it in missions on Invincible.
But if you read posts again, he states clearly in both that starting when the characters get SOs they "outstrip" [he used that word in both posts] the Mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why ED, but doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether 3 +3 minions are supposed to be an impossible fight at 35+.
My contention, in other words, is that you're interpreting his posts selectively, ignoring anything that might imply the balance goal shifted between the first post and the later post - either because you want to assume the worst about his motives, or because it gives good leverage to nerfherd.
If they nerf across the board yet again in issue 7, I guess you were right. However, I'm not going to partake of this avant-garde quote game where what someone said first counts for more than what was said most recently.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We do have evidence that Statesman stopped talking about things in the future that may change though. [IE: Giving a sugjection to slotting 5 SO'sdurring I5 knowing that they were working on ED]
My contention is that in the 04/05 post he was speaking to the "current" situation. In reguards to an "undesierable" activity, streetsweepping and not doing mission. To get the "chalange" of what they can find on the streets it's "OK" that they find it in missions on Invincible.
But if you read posts again, he states clearly in both that starting when the characters get SOs they "outstrip" [he used that word in both posts] the Mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why ED, but doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether 3 +3 minions are supposed to be an impossible fight at 35+.
My contention, in other words, is that you're interpreting his posts selectively, ignoring anything that might imply the balance goal shifted between the first post and the later post - either because you want to assume the worst about his motives, or because it gives good leverage to nerfherd.
If they nerf across the board yet again in issue 7, I guess you were right. However, I'm not going to partake of this avant-garde quote game where what someone said first counts for more than what was said most recently.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not "nerfherding," just being realistic. There will be nerfs in Issue 7, and 8, and every other Issue.
And while you think I'm being selective, I think you are dismissing the idea Statesman could have been speaking to the current situation in reguard to the second post, or that he couldn't have changed his mind in the time since the second post. The time between the 2 posts is 7 months, and 9 since the second one.
NCIS: Best gorram show in the 'verse.
-------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the 5M influence I gained from enhancement drops didn't really happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't say 5 million over how many levels, but let's say you're at lvl 40, where you're getting about 20k per accuracy enhancment sold. That's 20k x 5 for 100k, x 10 for a million, x 5 for five million. That's 250 Acc. SO's to get five million by selling enhancements. Not DO's. Not TO's. Not Sleep enhancements. The numbers change as you get to higher levels, but not so significantly that you can jimmy these numbers in any meaningful way.
So is it your argument that all that "extra" inf. you get from defeating enemies and finishing missions is "gravy", and not necessary in order to be able to buy the needed enhancements for a character? Because, if so, I'm calling you a liar, right here, right now. Hell, I don't even think I believe that you kept a running tally of all the inf you gained from selling enhancements apart from that gained by defeating enemies.
Maybe lvl 50 wasn't the best example. Maybe lvl 40 would've been better. But to argue that, throughout the late game, you don't need the inf. you gain from defeating missions and enemies to be able to afford to enhance your character is just ridiculous. Hence, here is me, ridiculing you. Again. Seriously, haven't we been around this merry-go-round often enough, Xero? You really want to go again?
Let me put it simply: You gain less than half the inf. needed to buy an enhancement of your origin type by selling it to the appropriate store IF it's an SO to begin with AND it's of a similar type to the kind of SO you wish to purchase. Since training enhancments and DO's also drop, which are worth about 1/45th and 1/8th of what you need for an SO, respectively, and since some of the SO's OF your origin will be unuseable by you, that means you have to sell a WHOLE lot of enhancements to deck out a character with all white, never mind green, useable SO's of their origin.
Now, in any given mission, I get between zero (that's right, ZERO) and 5 enhancement drops while soloing on invinc, which averages out to about 3, and since I can hold 10, that means that every three missions on average I HAVE to go sell. Further, if I'm in a mission and I'm full up, I either have to delete some training to hope for a better drop (which sometimes happens and sometimes results in me having empty slots in my tray at the end of the mission), which is money lost.
Since it only takes me two to three normal missions to get a bar of xp, and since I need 10 of those, or 25 (on average) missions soloing to get my next level, that means I can count on about 75 total sold enhancements for a level.
Since the drop ratio of SO's to DO's and TO's alters as you level up, it's tough to say EXACTLY how many SO's you would have sold in that time, but let's say they're ALL SO's, and you're level 50. From 1-30 you gain two slots every other level, and one with each new power, or 45 slots, minus one for the extra "power" level you get at level two, is 44 slots. You then get THREE every other level, plus one every power level, or an average of two per level the rest of the way, so around 84 slots by the time you are level 50. That means you would need to sell about 200 SO's (remember, they sell for LESS than half of what you need at the RIGHT stores) to pay for all SO's of even con, IF you were at, say, level 40, and not, lvl 41, where you would have to combine to get there, and could conceivably lose a significant number of "combines" due to failure.
And these are generous numbers, since the amount you get for, say, an immobilize enhancer is pitifully small compared to an accuracy, which is what I'm basing the numbers on. And don't say, "yeah, but it COSTS less for an immob. enhancer". Yes, it does, but far fewer players use them, and those who DO use them and others like them get drops of them far in excess of the number they NEED, hence the sale of such enhancements tends to vastly underwhelm the cost of the "big 10", i.e. acc, dam, recred, endred, and the like, which everyone needs considerably more often. Hence, I'm being generous. Even if we take into account the rare SO drop from the appropriate enemy that matches your origin and is needed by you, I'm being generous.
So if you're claiming that the money you earned from selling drops (whether or not it was five million) is sufficient to deck out your character? Sorry. No way. Uh-uh. Forget it. Buh-bye. See? Me ridiculing you.
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman did admit that a higher level hero would have an easier time of facing higher level foes but player skill has to factor in somewhere. If I can give a level 50 character to my cat and he can complete an invincible mission something is horribly wrong with the game. The baseline of the game is that a hero is equal to three white minions. If at any time this is not true then there is a potential problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a mighty big "if" you snuck in there, and such absurd commentary does your argument, which is weak to begin with, little credit. If you are actually suggesting that your cat CAN solo on invinc now, well, I think your cat is probably incapable of even logging in, so your comparison of a cat to someone, anyone, who has the experience you HAVE to gain while getting to lvl 50 as a player (assuming you don't power level), is nothing but hot air, and downright insulting to players who have difficulty playing on invincible with, say, their ice tankers or empathy defenders at the higher levels while soloing.
Further, as you yourself point out, States flat-out SAYS that players should be able to defeat higher-conning minions at higher levels, so who are you kidding here?
Seriously, why even take the time to type these kinds of posts, Xero?
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or inversely the badguys have gotten a whole lot tougher.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since we are talking about relative power levels of a lvl 5 vs. 3 even-cons and a lvl 50 vs. 3 even-cons, I guess my response would be: and? You are just agreeing with me while trying to be disagreeable.
And that's not even taking into account that A) In many cases you're facing the same enemies (like freakshow) with the same names (like Metal Slashers) and the same powers as you faced 15 levels ago. If they are SO much tougher, then WHY are they so much tougher? If you are so much wimpier, then WHY are you so much wimpier? And if the villains are going to get more powerful, faster, and are more numerous, and as well-organized as their heroic counterparts, isn't the smart thing to say "well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"? If nothing else, you could learn the secrets of their FABULOUS power gains, and bring it back to the heroes of Paragon.
Sorry, but your argument smacks of "I know it's arbitrary, but once upon a time States said it should be 3 even-cons vs. one hero, and States is never wrong, nor does he ever misspeak, and no statements by him or anyone else are going to convince me otherwise. So you're wrong. Plbbbt. 
"
Not convincing. Sorry again.
[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.
No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.
The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
You "should" read entire paragraphs, to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you DID read the entire paragraph, then you SHOULD only quote someone in context, not take a portion of what they wrote to set up a straw man for you to knock down. Particularly when they expound specifically to prevent broad-stroke misquoting and misunderstanding as I did, to wit:
[ QUOTE ]
I say "should be" not referring to the "vision" of the game, but according to my experience playing every AT (except khelds, I avoid them like the plague) in CoH, and playing several so far in CoV, my highest being lvl 35.
[/ QUOTE ]
Specifically, then, I am referring to the balance within the game AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, not as you would have it be at some mythical, far off time and place. RIGHT NOW, any AT and any powerset CAN, if built wisely and played to its own strengths, solo on invincible. Except for inv/ tanks, ice/tanks, and a few others that were hardest hit by I5 and ED. That means, rather than create balance, it created imbalance, which is the entire hijacked point of this far-off-the-topic, ought to be deleted sub-thread.
[ QUOTE ]
The tanker used to be solo-able on that difficulty level for the IN-experienced player, once he was slotted up and had a basic idea of how to use his powers, at least with MOST powersets.
------------------------------------
Don't you think there's something wrong when inexperienced players can solo on the game's highest difficulty setting?
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, READ!!
[ QUOTE ]
Now, while you are of course correct that some (Earth, especially) tankers were less affected than others by the changes, the fact is that the ones who USED to be the best at it, are now the worst.
I don't know what YOU call that, but I call it overkill.
[/ QUOTE ]
THis is the continuation of that thought. Quite clearly, I didn't say that a change was unnecessary, only that the change made was OVERKILL.
Seriously, this kind of knee-jerk, respond-to-what-you-want-him-to-be-saying-because-you-don't-have-a-response-to-what-he-IS-saying kind of post just wastes everyone's time, yours included.
[ QUOTE ]
You are supposed to be the damage soaker, the strongman, the colossus of the game.
You're not. Not even close. You're the meat shield, and then only if you have a good defender watching your back.
------------------------------------------------
Tankers are a group support class and should expect to require a group to function at peak efficiency.
[/ QUOTE ]
The tank is, as the name would suggest, supposed to be the heavy armor with impressive guns of the group. Not the artillery with no defense (blaster), or the support team (defender), or intel (controller), or infantry (scrapper), but the TANK! Yes, each AT should be able to contribute to the group, but the tank shouldn't be one of the least dangerous, easiest to knock down classes. Think about the Freakshow tanks. Why should YOUR tank be less imposing than THEIR tank? Don't know, but it is. Maybe the double-whammy of I5 and ED was OVERKILL. Maybe there's a happy medium in there somewhere where the tanks can't herd an entire map and survive, but can solo at least as well as a controller or a scraper or a blaster. Hmmm? Ya think?
[ QUOTE ]
At least, that's been my experience, with my inv/ss tank.
-------------------------------------------
I will concede that they went overboard with the Invul nerfs in I5, and that was compounded by ED. But where Invul needs to be is still nowhere near where it was and nowhere near where you want it to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
First you misquote me,or at least quote me out of context, then you agree with me, then you say I was wrong. For God's sake, man, pull it together. You just admitted I was right, then argued with yourself.
Sheesh.
[ QUOTE ]
ED, itself, was a bad idea; they used a Patriot missile to shoot down a mosquito. But now that it's done, the only thing that could possibly compound the error would be to reverse it.
[/ QUOTE ]
What??!! How do you figure that? Because to change one's mind is to show weakness? The hyenas will pounce if they sense the pack leader wavering?
For the love of all that is holy, just stop. Please.