Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. I know I'M certainly ignoring that idea, as it's woven out of whole cloth. It's never been said, nor suggested, by a redname poster, only made up by you five minutes ago, so I'm going to ignore it. Unless you will allow me to say that he may have changed his mind about ED and I5, and THOSE are likely to get rolled back in I7, because, y'know, it's been a long time since I5 went live, and in for a penny in for a pound.
And see my above posts, if you please. Refusing to allow heroes with FAR better enhancements to face FAR tougher enemies is to make them relatively WEAKER than they were BEFORE they had access to those enhancements/levels/powers.
Just makes no damned sense.
And I'm not calling you a nerfherder, but if you're herding nerfs, you should stop. It's bad, mmkay?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It first came up in response to someone asking if it was reasonable to have characters fight higher (relatively speaking) enemies at higher levels, and Statesman basically said, "Yes! It's reasonable to progress to 3 +3 minions in higher levels." His next mention included that assessment.
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 ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It first came up in response to someone asking if it was reasonable to have characters fight higher (relatively speaking) enemies at higher levels, and Statesman basically said, "Yes! It's reasonable to progress to 3 +3 minions in higher levels." His next mention included that assessment.
[/ QUOTE ]
to with i mad a quip about his original 3 wotn miniosn contention and reletavistic power levels
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 ]
[ 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 ]
He is not saying that they are currently overworked.
Why did they implement the Rez and TP confirmation boxes? Because people were being griefed. IIRC, it was alot, but it was still a way to grief people that did not need to exist.
Now, considering a) the only "protection" that stealth really gives you is the -perception and you can still get attacked/AoE'd, and b) xp has been removed from what few glowies give it, there is no need to have this there, especially considering that there are people who will grief it.
I mean common, we had people that wouldn't believe that they were griefing unless a redname said they were not allowed to TP people into the towers in the PVP zones and leave them there, making it to where those characters cannot play unless a) they chose TP themselves, b) manage to find a hero/villian with either TP foe or Recall friend, as apporiate. Why leave them something like this when there is no reason for it?
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 ]
[ 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 ]
So, how much to you think you earn over three levels? Five? I don't buy new enhancements every level. I don't think anyone getting SOs does. You are just using one level's worth of earnings, when I don't think anyone plays that way.
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.
Yeah, because that sounds like SO much fun...
I'd at least try it, and I'm sure lots of others would too. Build a mountain, and people will try to climb it because it's there.
Uh, no, because they are PAYING to play a game where they can play a SUPERHERO, not part of a Cirque Du Soleil acrobatics troupe fighting crime on their night off.
That's got nothing to do with the issue. Just because it's a superhero game doesn't mean it should be mind-numbingly easy even at the highest difficulty setting.
Where in HELL do people get off dictating to others how they can play the game when those others are playing it ALONE?
No one plays this game alone, even if they solo all the time.
Jesus CHRIST, what is this, Nazi Germany?!?!
I WIN!
As for "perfect builds", in terms of the games that require and encourage them, and the attitude which seeks to create them, both are the producst of lazy minds which cannot be bothered to seek creative solutions to problems.
There is no need for a creative solution to a problem when a perfect solution exists. Games that only function so long as the player refrains from putting "X" in the center square are inherently uninteresting.
This is the Engineer's mindset which sees every aspect of every problem as quanitifable in mere numbers.
All problems are quantifiable in mere numbers. It's just that in RL, we usually don't know the numbers. Or the equations, and they'd probably be too complex to deal with at that level anyway. Games, though, are mathematical structures and nothing else and can (and should) be dealt with as such.
You "should" read entire paragraphs, to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I did.
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.
I am quite aware of that. I am merely pointing out that, your caterwauling notwithstanding, the game is still too easy.
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.
But now you are being disingenuous, as you argued quite vociferously against both the I5 and I6 changes, and you've made it perfectly clear that you want the game to let you throw mobs around with no chance of defeat.
The tank is, as the name would suggest, supposed to be the heavy armor with impressive guns of the group.
That is not what "tank" means in MMOs, including this one, and you know it.
Not the artillery with no defense (blaster), or the support team (defender), or intel (controller), or infantry (scrapper), but the TANK!
And who would play any of the other ATs, if Tankers were what you want them to be? The simple fact is that if you want Blaster or Scrapper offense, you'll have to live with the corresponding level of defense.
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.
Which they are not. Even poor beleagured Invulnerabilty Tankers are more impressive, defensively, than Scrappers, never mind the squishies. (Invulnerability Scrappers on the other hand are now lagging that particular pack.)
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.
Of course. But your idea of that "happy medium" is to restrict the Tanker to herding only half the entire map instead of all of it.
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.
No, I merely conceded that Invulnerability was reduced too much, specifically in its resists to elemental and energy damage types. That is a far cry from agreeing that Tankers should be "the colossus of the game"...the game should not and must not have a "colossus".
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?
No, because once you've made a fundamental change to a complex system and proceeded from that point, reversing the change doesn't fix the problems it created: it compounds them. Rolling back ED would break all the changes made to the game since its introduction -- including all of CoV. It would be a disaster. Like it or not, ED was a committed move that can't be taken back.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
It means Invincible needs to spawn higher cons, or (as some have suggested in the past) needs to promote mobs up a rank (spawning LTs instead of Minions, and so on), or in some other way be more difficult than it currently is.
The highest difficulty setting shouldn't just mean "yay, more XP!"
AFAIK, moving the line in the post SO game to three +2 or +3 Minions instead of +0s was a concession on the devs' part because the amount of nerfing needed to restore balance to the intended level was seen as prohibitive. I5 and I6 were clearly intended to push the game's balance back in the direction of the intended level, if not all the way back to it, and players should not be surprised if such efforts continue.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
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.
Which is how MMOs work -- the mobs gain power faster than the players. The fac that this is a superhero game does not trump that principle.
And at level 50 (level 47, really) you don't need inf any more, so at the end of your career there is nothing stopping you from going to SG mode full-time, even if you were right about it crippling your income, which you aren't. (Losing inf from mob defeats is a significant but not crippling loss. )
The only real reason why a +2 Minion shouldn't be able to wench-slap a PC around is because of the way grouping works. In order to allow some wiggle room in terms of who can group with whom, level-wise, +2 mobs have to be defeatable with good play. That does not necessarily mean they have to represent as much threat to a post-SO player as a +0 represents to a newbie.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
[ QUOTE ]
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
It means Invincible needs to spawn higher cons, or (as some have suggested in the past) needs to promote mobs up a rank (spawning LTs instead of Minions, and so on), or in some other way be more difficult than it currently is.
The highest difficulty setting shouldn't just mean "yay, more XP!"
AFAIK, moving the line in the post SO game to three +2 or +3 Minions instead of +0s was a concession on the devs' part because the amount of nerfing needed to restore balance to the intended level was seen as prohibitive. I5 and I6 were clearly intended to push the game's balance back in the direction of the intended level, if not all the way back to it, and players should not be surprised if such efforts continue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then people should not be surprised when the less Uberleet such as myslef stop playing certain AT/powersets because they are not very much fun. Or that people quit and play something else.
I do not find the game to be too easy in its current incarnation and frankly I measure the game not buy the number but buy how much fun I am having. Post I5 it has not been as much fun as prior and post I6 almost all my characters feel less exciting. I am still having fun (but it seems i can only really put 3 fun SO' in my excitement power now days) but the excitement and my most memorable moments (except for one recent COV dream team) come from the Pre I5 days.
I feel they ave traded excitement for frantic to me there is a difference.
Pinnacle
Arch light L50 INV/SS
Psiberia L50 Kin/Psi
Screaming Mentallica L50 Sonic/MM
Infinity
Arc Voltinator L50 SS/Elec
Mind Fire Kinesis L50 Fire/Kin
Flaming Screamer L50 Fire/Sonic
[ QUOTE ]
Which is how MMOs work -- the mobs gain power faster than the players. The fac that this is a superhero game does not trump that principle.
[/ QUOTE ]
"But MMOOOMMM! all the other kids are doing it!"
"Free will is irrelevant. Individuality is irrelevant. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."
Seriously though, i've always found the "everyone else does it" argument a bit weak. This is probably because many of my favorite games have been those that deviated from genre norms. 
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
[ QUOTE ]
A) eliminate xp reward for clicking glowies
[/ QUOTE ]
They did this.
[ QUOTE ]
B) reduce or eliminate the mission bonus for missions where no spawns are killed to reflect the reduced risk
[/ QUOTE ]
This requires altering missions in a very large way which would take much longer to implement and would eat up valuable dev time. Particularly since it would require the people who are working on whatever new zones will be upcoming as opposed to the powers (and probably some of the engineers) team.
[ QUOTE ]
C) put +perception patrols and cameras in game to reduce the ease with which "glowie collecting" missions are accomplished
[/ QUOTE ]
This cannot be used because it is a combat nerf to stalkers and only a nuisance to anyone else.
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize this is a total load of crap? If you aren't engaging in combat inspirations are irrelevant. XP is XP no matter the source. Same for Prestige and Infamy/Influence. Prestige and salvage are both SG rewards and can be regulated by the players in so much that if the leadership feels you aren't contributing enough out you go. So the only thing lost when stealthing a mission that is of any concern to your own person is drops which according to another post by you don't even matter.
[ QUOTE ]
Which is how MMOs work -- the mobs gain power faster than the players. The fac that this is a superhero game does not trump that principle.
[/ QUOTE ]
In WoW (which is not a difficult game, but people often criticize it for adds being fatal when soloing), my lower level characters can typically solo stuff up to a level or two higher with a bit of difficulty, but my upper level characters can solo multiple equal-level enemies or handle elites or normal enemies that are 4-5 levels higher.
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 ]
How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?
It means Invincible needs to spawn higher cons, or (as some have suggested in the past) needs to promote mobs up a rank (spawning LTs instead of Minions, and so on), or in some other way be more difficult than it currently is.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would break the difficulty scaling and do so arbitrarily. It would also deprive people who try to push the limits of the ability to run invincible eight-person missions (with all eight in the mission defeating stuff), something that should be possible with teamwork and good builds.
[ QUOTE ]
The highest difficulty setting shouldn't just mean "yay, more XP!"
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't. Unyielding can easily provide more xp faster, depending on what your build is best at handling. Fighting +3s can take long enough that the higher xp rewards are offset by the time invested.
[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, moving the line in the post SO game to three +2 or +3 Minions instead of +0s was a concession on the devs' part because the amount of nerfing needed to restore balance to the intended level was seen as prohibitive. I5 and I6 were clearly intended to push the game's balance back in the direction of the intended level, if not all the way back to it, and players should not be surprised if such efforts continue.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think we've seen any indication that the devs don't want anyone to be able to solo invincible. That's a guideline you came up with to justify nerfherding. The only actual statements we have is that Statesman acknowledged that players should be able to handle 3 +3 minions at higher levels. Doc_D had to resort to a much older statement to claim that it somehow trumps the later one.
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)
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?
The average level 50 in CoH was ending up with somewhere around 20M extra influence. Can you honestly tell me that was necessary?
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.
I ran from level 30-40 in CoV in SGmode probably 95% of the time. I started with approximately 2M influence buying enhancements as they were needed and including a couple of costume changes which ate up around 200K. I ended up getting to level 40 with 2M infamy while my friend who was not in SGmode ended up with approximately 8M infamy. I continued gathering prestige and ended up garnering another 3M infamy from drops alone.
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.
Who in their right mind will constantly keep buying a new set of SOs every level just to keep them green? That's a massive waste of time and resources for a small bonus particularly with ED in place.
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.
I never said my cat could play on invincible now. But I could have probably given the cat (or at least my friend's kid) a level 50 regen scrapper and he could have completed an invincible mission and not died once. Hell I could've done it with a level 34 regen scrapper. That means that my capabilites as a player are irrelevant to the equation meaning the difficulty of the game isn't high enough to actually challenge my character, let alone me as a player. That defeats the purpose of having a difficulty slider for anything more than an xp farm.
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?
Focus should be on the capabilites of the player not simply the character she built. Castle said back in CoV beta that most of the powergaming in this game was done on paper and they were trying to add an element of the player skill back into the game. I'd say they've accomplished this to some extent.
[ QUOTE ]
You "should" read entire paragraphs, to give you the benefit of the doubt.
--------------------------------
I did.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you purposely used my quote out of context, and are both dishonest and moronic, since everyone on the thread can go back and see that what you "quoted" isn't what I said.
[ 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.
----------------------------------
I am quite aware of that. I am merely pointing out that, your caterwauling notwithstanding, the game is still too easy.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) It's not caterwauling to defend oneself from people who, like you, can't argue effectively and use dishonest debating tactics to cover this.
2) Just because you SAY it's "too easy" doesn't make it so. There are various options with which you can make the game more difficult, even if the difficulty slider is already on the highest setting, such as not selecting the most effective powers, not slotting them, or slotting them with TO's or DO's instead of SO's, as well as going up against enemies best suited to kick your butt. PM me with your AT/build and I'll be happy to walk you through this, if you can't figure out how to do it on your own.
But stop nerfherding.
[ 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.
---------------------------------
But now you are being disingenuous, as you argued quite vociferously against both the I5 and I6 changes, and you've made it perfectly clear that you want the game to let you throw mobs around with no chance of defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like you to quote the post where I said that. Or the post where i said that I made it to lvl 50 with either my tanker or controller without ever BEING defeated, which would of course be the case if there was "no chance of being defeated".
Please. You're rebuttals are pathetically transparent, and they're beginning to transfer that quality to you.
[ QUOTE ]
The tank is, as the name would suggest, supposed to be the heavy armor with impressive guns of the group.
--------------------------------
That is not what "tank" means in MMOs, including this one, and you know it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Words mean things.
2) This class is called "Tank". that means tank.
3) MMO's are not a monolithic structure, nor are their communities monolithic.
4) Don't presume to tell me what I know so that you don't have to give anything resembling a substantive reply.
[ QUOTE ]
Not the artillery with no defense (blaster), or the support team (defender), or intel (controller), or infantry (scrapper), but the TANK!
-----------------------------------
And who would play any of the other ATs, if Tankers were what you want them to be? The simple fact is that if you want Blaster or Scrapper offense, you'll have to live with the corresponding level of defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are different weapons and tactics that can be used to take out a tank, against which the tank has little or no defense. This is why there are support units, like mech infantry, air support, intell, supply, engineers, etc, that travel WITH a tank, so that these tactics cannot be used on them.
Note that infantry, air support, intell, and so forth can all be effective in their own element without tanks, as well, but when all are used together, the synergy makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. So it should be here. And it's not, because the tank has had it's armor stripped off, and it never DID have a "main gun".
Just as not every person wants to be stuck inside a tin can shooting loud shells at the enemy, and so chooses one of the OTHER jobs, so to it would be, and in fact WAS, in this game.
Or are you claiming that, before I5 and I6, there WERE no other AT's being played? Because, if that's what you are claiming, then you're a liar. And if it's NOT what you are claiming, then your argument is demonstrably false (by which I mean that you may be merely mistaken, instead of being an out-and-out liar).
[ QUOTE ]
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.
------------------------------------
Which they are not. Even poor beleagured Invulnerabilty Tankers are more impressive, defensively, than Scrappers, never mind the squishies. (Invulnerability Scrappers on the other hand are now lagging that particular pack.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Written like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Outgoing damage, which kills your enemy quickly, is the best way to mitigate INCOMING damage. That is, if your enemy is dead, they can't hurt you anymore. The tanker's problem is he can't kill ANYTHING quickly nor can he survive for long anymore.
I'm getting bored with you. You are showing yourself to be ignorant AND arrogant, and the two are a most unpleasant combination.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
-------------------------------------
Of course. But your idea of that "happy medium" is to restrict the Tanker to herding only half the entire map instead of all of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, where did I say that? I want them to be able to withstand a +2 - +4 3-man spawn as well as the supposedly "squishie" classes can. That hardly translates to "herd half the map".
Seriously, you're pissing me off with all this straw man crap.
[ 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.
---------------------------------------
No, I merely conceded that Invulnerability was reduced too much, specifically in its resists to elemental and energy damage types. That is a far cry from agreeing that Tankers should be "the colossus of the game"...the game should not and must not have a "colossus".
[/ QUOTE ]
Says you. I say it should. Since you give no support to YOUR argument, or any of your OTHER arguments (and I'm being generous by calling them that), I won't give any support to MY statement, either.
[ 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?
----------------------------------------
No, because once you've made a fundamental change to a complex system and proceeded from that point, reversing the change doesn't fix the problems it created: it compounds them. Rolling back ED would break all the changes made to the game since its introduction -- including all of CoV. It would be a disaster. Like it or not, ED was a committed move that can't be taken back.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...there hasn't BEEN any progress since ED, and once again you've made a statement with no supporting arguments.
Here's a little hint for you: saying "nuh-uh", or simply throwing out a statement as if it is a God-ordained truth of the universe, with no support whatsoever, doesn't make it so. All it makes is you to look like an idiot.
So stop making yourself look like an idiot. I know what I said. YOU know what I said. And we BOTH know you have NO substantive response, which is why you buried your excuse for a response in a piecemeal post to someone else.
Oh, and while we're at it...that's just rude. If I take the time to respond to you, give me the same courtesy, or don't bother to respond at all. This is the last time I bother to pull out MY quotes and separate them from someone ELSE'S quotes because you were too lazy to post twice.
And for God's sake, learn to use the "quote" button in your posts. I'm sick of having to type in line separators so that a reader can see what you said vs. what I said in the post. Bolding doesn't carry over from post to post. That's why they included the quote button. Please learn to use it.
Good day...I SAID GOOD DAY!!!
[ QUOTE ]
So, how much to you think you earn over three levels? Five? I don't buy new enhancements every level. I don't think anyone getting SOs does. You are just using one level's worth of earnings, when I don't think anyone plays that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong. I did on my first four or five toons, trying to keep all enhancements green at all times. And even if you're suggesting that you should buy them at +3 levels at the earliest opportunity, then leave them alone until they are -2 levels and repeat the process, you have to recognize that that meanst you're getting an even SMALLER percentage of the buying price from selling, as your drops are that much lower in level than the next level you're looking to buy.
As to how much can be earned, my lvl 35 MM currently has all SO's, all white or green, and 1.5 million in the bank. He has only purchased for open slots (and one or two of those were filled by drops) since level 32, not to combine, and has not been in SG mode at all since lvl 27, nor has he purchased anything at Icon. To give you an idea of how frugal I'm being with him, he's been hoarding a lvl 39 damage SO since LAST level, to use NEXT level.
I think that, if I weren't getting inf rewards per kill I would be broke and poorly enhanced. I think I've shown this. I don't think, by level 37, that I will have 5 million in inf, but if I do, it will be because of the kill and mission rewards, not from selling enhancements alone, or even mostly.
[ 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.
Otherwise, all you've been doing for 50 levels is getting steadily wimpier, not to mention less useful in all ways to your SG.
Which is how MMOs work -- the mobs gain power faster than the players. The fac that this is a superhero game does not trump that principle.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Again, you start your response with a conclusion: "this is how MMO's work". Care to support that?
2) Even if it IS how MOST MMO's work, this one was touted specifically as a solo-friendly MMO without the "grind" of the usual MMO. This means it's more fun, and less time is needed at the old grindstone to gain new levels, powers, etc. Hence, whether or not it's because it's a superhero game, the fact that it's THIS game DOES trump that principle, if it is in FACT a principle.
3) "This is how it's always been" is not a good reason for "this is how it must always be". This should be self-evident. If it's not, PM me and I'll explain, as it'll take this thread even FARTHER off-topic.
[ QUOTE ]
And at level 50 (level 47, really) you don't need inf any more, so at the end of your career there is nothing stopping you from going to SG mode full-time, even if you were right about it crippling your income, which you aren't. (Losing inf from mob defeats is a significant but not crippling loss. )
[/ QUOTE ]
I gave a great deal of support in my statement. You gave none in yours. I win.
[ QUOTE ]
The only real reason why a +2 Minion shouldn't be able to wench-slap a PC around is because of the way grouping works. In order to allow some wiggle room in terms of who can group with whom, level-wise, +2 mobs have to be defeatable with good play. That does not necessarily mean they have to represent as much threat to a post-SO player as a +0 represents to a newbie.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I knew what your point was here, I'm sure I'd have to rebut it. Since I don't, I can't. Sorry.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) eliminate xp reward for clicking glowies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did this.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. I received XP for clicking a glowie in a mission just today. So you're wrong. Again.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B) reduce or eliminate the mission bonus for missions where no spawns are killed to reflect the reduced risk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This requires altering missions in a very large way which would take much longer to implement and would eat up valuable dev time. Particularly since it would require the people who are working on whatever new zones will be upcoming as opposed to the powers (and probably some of the engineers) team.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is supposition on your part. It seems to me that, if they do a running tally of the number of enemies remaining or defeated in a mission (which they do, it's how they know when a "kill-all" has been completed, and how they know when you've defeated a "hunt X" mission), then it would be a fairly simple matter to create a class called at the end of a mission counting spawns remaining vs. spawns at the beginning, creating a percentage, comparing the percentage to a table (if this then this), then applying a formula to the xp bonus, altering it.
If you KNOW it's not that simple, then please explain how, and how it REALLY works. If you DON'T know, then don't pretend you do.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C) put +perception patrols and cameras in game to reduce the ease with which "glowie collecting" missions are accomplished
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cannot be used because it is a combat nerf to stalkers and only a nuisance to anyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's no more a combat nerf to stalkers than requiring them to "unhide" to click a glowie, or suppressing their stealth upon clicking a glowie, making them a target for every mob's alpha strike in the room. And the "stealth suppression" answer is also just a minor inconvenience to everyone else.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realize this is a total load of crap?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't, and no, it's not. PL'ing is only PL'ing if it gets you levels faster than playing the game normally. Otherwise, it's almost ANTI- PL'ing. If you can gain experience/enhancements/inspirations (which, since they cost influence to buy are valuable if you ever plan to be in combat again) at a quicker rate by playing then by "exploiting", then you aren't really exploiting in a meaningful way. Your reward is less because your risk is less.
So, "it's a load of crap" right back atcha. Again. Xero, seriously, move along. You're not going to win this debate, you're not even going to TIE it.
[ QUOTE ]
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?
The average level 50 in CoH was ending up with somewhere around 20M extra influence. Can you honestly tell me that was necessary?
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, where are you getting this info from? Who told you that the "average" level 50 "ended up" (whatever that means) with "about 20 million extra influence"? You are just making things up, and then asking me to justify these arbitrary numbers.
But even assuming you were right, which I don't, so what? What about at level 45? 40? 35?
A level 50 is at the end-game. It was fun "giving away" influence to people with cool character bios and great costumes, and I don't mean in Atlas Park. It was FUN being able to be a benefactor unexpectedly to some struggling lowbie. But I couldn't do it as soon as I hit 50. I had to play for a while, getting all my SO's to ++, then gaining enough extra to be able to be a philanthropic "hero of the city".
Sorry, but still not convincing.
[ QUOTE ]
I ran from level 30-40 in CoV in SGmode probably 95% of the time. I started with approximately 2M influence buying enhancements as they were needed and including a couple of costume changes which ate up around 200K. I ended up getting to level 40 with 2M infamy while my friend who was not in SGmode ended up with approximately 8M infamy. I continued gathering prestige and ended up garnering another 3M infamy from drops alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you admit, then, that you DIDN'T get 5 million infamy from drops alone.
[ QUOTE ]
Who in their right mind will constantly keep buying a new set of SOs every level just to keep them green? That's a massive waste of time and resources for a small bonus particularly with ED in place.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you admit, then, that you DIDN'T have money to waste in upgrading your enhancements.
[ QUOTE ]
I never said my cat could play on invincible now. But I could have probably given the cat (or at least my friend's kid) a level 50 regen scrapper and he could have completed an invincible mission and not died once. Hell I could've done it with a level 34 regen scrapper. That means that my capabilites as a player are irrelevant to the equation meaning the difficulty of the game isn't high enough to actually challenge my character, let alone me as a player. That defeats the purpose of having a difficulty slider for anything more than an xp farm.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you now claiming that, after hitting 50, you NEVER were defeated? You NEVER died? Really? There was no group, no AV, no giant monster, even excluding Hamidon, that could defeat you?
Wow. How uber you must be. I mean, I was playing THE uber tank, the inv/ tanker, and I still died from time to time, and I DIDN'T herd entire maps. Carnies gave me fits.
I guess your problem is that you are just too good for this game. You should find a different one.
I saw lvl 50's die all the time. You just have to push your limits. That's what makes the game "fun". And it was fully possible to do that pre-I5. To claim it wasn't is to be flatly dishonest.
[ QUOTE ]
Focus should be on the capabilites of the player not simply the character she built. Castle said back in CoV beta that most of the powergaming in this game was done on paper and they were trying to add an element of the player skill back into the game. I'd say they've accomplished this to some extent.
[/ QUOTE ]
see above.
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person! 
[ QUOTE ]
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!
[/ QUOTE ]
Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey!! Shut up! I've never won anything before...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey!! Shut up! I've never won anything before...
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, you win. 
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 ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
congratulations you just won an award for the most posts in a row by the same person!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five? FIVE? Five in a row? That's...most?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey!! Shut up! I've never won anything before...
[/ QUOTE ]
feh i once filled a entire page with quotes
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 ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he's on fire?
Kali, I think I love you.
MWAH!