Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
Isn't this a sign that you might perhaps be a awesome MMO player, and therefore have a skewed idea on difficulty?
No, the awesome ones had 60s in a few days.
After 30 years of gaming I'm pretty good at it, but I outgrew powergaming for its own sake ages ago. I'm more of an Explorer type.
Snoozefest? For great players like you, perhaps. I find the game an awesome challenge on Heroic with my Invuln/EM Tank, and may not ever reach SO's. Of course, that toon only has one slot in armors, and two in attacks...
What are you slotting, Brawl and Rest?
Er, you just said the game was too easy? I don't get it, if you crave difficulty, why not play your PB on Invincible?
Because she gets defeated just fine on Tenacious. Two faceplants last night doing the Revenant Hero closer (and a close call involving a +1 Power Protector with a +1 7th Gen and a +1 Void for backup). Pushing the difficult up would be pointless -- I could probably take an Invincible mission if I moved slowly and burned a metric buttload of inspirations, but other than nailing the coonskin on the wall it would be a waste of time.
He has not said so post-Issue 6. In fact, I doubt he will in the future, either, since they are designing Mobs better, as you point out.
Again, remains to be seen.
Uninteresting? To you? Certainly. Of course, the fact remains that there are ways to make the game harder for you, but the game remains too hard for me.
Sorry, but if you can't handle CoH on Heroic you are doing something profoundly wrong.
I feel the need to point out that an All-Blaster team, under the current Issue, is sub-par.
If you mean an eight-man team of all Blasters, good. Such a team should be nothing but a race to the debt cap.
If you're talking about small teams (2-4 players) then you're just plain wrong. Unbalanced small teams can function just fine.
As you yourself point out two paragraphs later, unbalanced teams are now broken. How is this good?
Because if unbalanced large teams can function, properly balanced ones will tear the game apart.
This is not a compelling argument. There should be no balancing based on scarcity of an unlimited resource. The base game design was broken, the economy never made sense, and this is a Developer problem from the beginning. There isn't any way to blame Level 50's from acting this way...
I am not blaming the 50s; I am simply pointing out that the economy is borked beyond repair. The loss of inf from mob kills for those who wish to contribute Prestige to their SGs may require they make a few sacrifices in the 30s, but by the 40s they'll still find themselves making enough to get by. All of this is predicated on the notion that players should be able to afford all the enhancers they want, which is a very shakey premise to begin with.
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"
Please tell me since WHEN did a single 8 man spawn - half th map? :P
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 ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
[/ QUOTE ]
BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it
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 ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
[/ QUOTE ]
BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the devs thought of ED on that day, coded it all up and put it in the game. The point he was making is that the CoV ATs were designed with the knowledge that ED was going to happen.
Think of it like this: Without ED, PvP would be even MORE a game of "Get In The First Shot". It's bad enough as it is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
[/ QUOTE ]
BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the devs thought of ED on that day, coded it all up and put it in the game. The point he was making is that the CoV ATs were designed with the knowledge that ED was going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
and by that logic "issue 5" was thoug of with ED in mind...EXCEPT
the devs said outright that if you 6 sloted defensive powers your be fine....
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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
[/ QUOTE ]
BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the devs thought of ED on that day, coded it all up and put it in the game. The point he was making is that the CoV ATs were designed with the knowledge that ED was going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
and by that logic "issue 5" was thoug of with ED in mind...EXCEPT
the devs said outright that if you 6 sloted defensive powers your be fine....
[/ QUOTE ]
From what I've read, the changes in Issue 5 were done with the knowledge that ED might have to be put in place if the changes in Issue 5 weren't enough. So at that time they were presenting things in that fashion because they hadn't done enough testing to know if ED would be needed at all. After collecting the data they decided that ED was indeed needed. Now that ED has been around and they have more data collected I understand that they are now going to begin tweaking things with small buffs in those areas where they are needed to rebalance things. With things as they are after these changes they have a much better idea which powers and powersets as well as which archetypes are underperforming and by how much. I don't however expect these changes too much until the Defense Scaling is added. They will either be released simultaneously or after DS so that more testing can be done. Maybe even a little of both.
Quote in Cuppa's Post from Positron during CoV Beta:
[ QUOTE ]
This totally cripples my character! I thought you were done balancing the game?
All the Issue 4 and 5 balance adjustments were done with this system in place internally here at Cryptic. All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was no 'might be' about it. It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards. My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.
As to what tweaks are in store, who knows. I have yet to play CoH for any significant time since ED. I have been playing CoV almost exclusively. There, I do not know what I have lost.
There was no 'might be' about it.
Sure there was but it happened and that's all that matters.
[ QUOTE ]
All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards
The boards just want to explode. It is their purpose. It is so on any internet gaming forum.
My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.
Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5. Your quote doesn't actually disprove this fact. It does prove that they've had the system in place for quite some time and could have possibly pushed it out much earlier if they saw it as needed immediately.
[ QUOTE ]
There was no 'might be' about it.
Sure there was but it happened and that's all that matters.
[ QUOTE ]
All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards
The boards just want to explode. It is their purpose. It is so on any internet gaming forum.
My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.
Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5. Your quote doesn't actually disprove this fact. It does prove that they've had the system in place for quite some time and could have possibly pushed it out much earlier if they saw it as needed immediately.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the issue.
All developer playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since 2005.
But all player testing, player feedback, player comments prior to the announcement of ED was done without Enhancement Diversification. There had been NOTHING to suggest that it was going to be changed. And many of the complaints for players (particularly in terms of recharge times) were answered by rednames pointing out the effect of the change with permahasten and six slotting.
ED may not have been a "done deal" but if we are to trust the first statement it was pretty clearly something they were considering. They knew we were evaluating I4 and I5 without ED in mind.
Had it been presented as something to consider during testing, as something they are testing internally and may happen, at the very least the feedback would have been different.
My arcs are constantly shifting, just search for GadgetDon for the latest.
The world beware! I've started a blog
GadgetMania Under Attack: The Digg Lockout
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was no 'might be' about it.
Sure there was but it happened and that's all that matters.
[ QUOTE ]
All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards
The boards just want to explode. It is their purpose. It is so on any internet gaming forum.
My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.
Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5. Your quote doesn't actually disprove this fact. It does prove that they've had the system in place for quite some time and could have possibly pushed it out much earlier if they saw it as needed immediately.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the issue.
All developer playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since 2005.
But all player testing, player feedback, player comments prior to the announcement of ED was done without Enhancement Diversification. There had been NOTHING to suggest that it was going to be changed. And many of the complaints for players (particularly in terms of recharge times) were answered by rednames pointing out the effect of the change with permahasten and six slotting.
ED may not have been a "done deal" but if we are to trust the first statement it was pretty clearly something they were considering. They knew we were evaluating I4 and I5 without ED in mind.
Had it been presented as something to consider during testing, as something they are testing internally and may happen, at the very least the feedback would have been different.
[/ QUOTE ]
AND all the DEVs Issue 5 builds to show you were stil workable (liek oh statsman stating a FF defender get 55% buffs running 6 sloted) PURPOSLY ignored ED as a factor
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 ]
and by that logic "issue 5" was thoug of with ED in mind...EXCEPT
the devs said outright that if you 6 sloted defensive powers your be fine....
[/ QUOTE ]
What, developers lying to players? Next, you'll say that the sky is sometimes of a bluish hue. I've given up in expecting even basic decency. After all, basic decency would dictate that a comprehensive list of "play as intended" would be published and not kept secret from players.
a few comments...
[ QUOTE ]
...except for earlier in the thread, where you complain that you can't tank without healing. If you could tank group-sized spawns without healing, we'd be right back to the Bad Old Days.
[/ QUOTE ]
if by bad old days you mean when the server was chock full of people and teams were easy to find and the game was really fun to play- I say bring me back the "bad old days"
...
[ QUOTE ]
Xeno's already covered this but it bears repeating. MMOs are a social activity. What one person does affects everyone in the society. If people can use exploits, design flaws or broken builds to trivialize content it doesn't just ruin the game for them as if they were cheating at solitaire. It affects the levelling curve. It affects grouping dynamics, both by affecting the curve and because the tactic in question will leak out and get used by groups. Even if everyone who ever used the tactic in question only ever played solo, its use would spread and trivialize the game for more and more people. That's exactly what's been happening to CoH.
[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially incorrect. MMORPGs can be a social activity but how fast you level and how fast I level are not related. COH has been trivialized because instead of improving the content (including mob dynamics) the devs have chosen to screw around with the game mechanics (not that other MMORPGs don't but I haven't heard of a successful game that has essentially completly eliminated the original game machanics like COH has). Wether folks PL, cheat, exploit, run macros, or hire folks to level their toon, has absolutely no effect on the way you have to play your game.
[/ QUOTE ]
...
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the powers would have to be tweaked again- something the devs have proven themselves to have alot of practice at.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was no 'might be' about it.
Sure there was but it happened and that's all that matters.
[ QUOTE ]
All playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since March 2005.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was planned and implemented (ED) and led to a huge explosion here on the boards
The boards just want to explode. It is their purpose. It is so on any internet gaming forum.
My how history gets a bit twisted with the passage of time.
Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5. Your quote doesn't actually disprove this fact. It does prove that they've had the system in place for quite some time and could have possibly pushed it out much earlier if they saw it as needed immediately.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the issue.
All developer playtests, QA checks, difficulty adjustments and balances have been done with Enhancement Diversification in mind since 2005.
But all player testing, player feedback, player comments prior to the announcement of ED was done without Enhancement Diversification. There had been NOTHING to suggest that it was going to be changed. And many of the complaints for players (particularly in terms of recharge times) were answered by rednames pointing out the effect of the change with permahasten and six slotting.
ED may not have been a "done deal" but if we are to trust the first statement it was pretty clearly something they were considering. They knew we were evaluating I4 and I5 without ED in mind.
Had it been presented as something to consider during testing, as something they are testing internally and may happen, at the very least the feedback would have been different.
[/ QUOTE ]
With so much of the insanity that explodes across these boards everytime the developers make a change or a mistake is made, it's not suprising they only talked about the here and the now with what the players knew. Why discuss changes that might not be needed and therefore not be released? In the end they decided they were needed after all and implemented them. It doesn't seem to matter how they handle things though, there turns out to be a spectacle regardless. They tried to play it cautiously and it blew up in their face anyway. Seems to be no matter what they do they lose.
[ QUOTE ]
With so much of the insanity that explodes across these boards everytime the developers make a change or a mistake is made, it's not suprising they only talked about the here and the now with what the players knew. Why discuss changes that might not be needed and therefore not be released? In the end they decided they were needed after all and implemented them. It doesn't seem to matter how they handle things though, there turns out to be a spectacle regardless. They tried to play it cautiously and it blew up in their face anyway. Seems to be no matter what they do they lose.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why?
(1) Those who spent hours testing I4 and I5, carefully seeing what the problems were, where things got cut too far, etc. wouldn't feel slapped in the face as they are told "Guess what? What you were testing wasn't really what we were looking at."
(2) Some of the changes like recharge rates that were hard to swallow even without ED could have been argued for what they did to the real game going forward
(3) There would have been more than a couple weeks of testing the concept of ED and would have been more time to address things like powers that only take one type of enhancement (by, say, adding extra effects) or whose secondary effects are so minimal it's not worth slotting (by, say, making knockback or disorient enhancements increase the chance of the effect instead of "should this effect happen once per blue moon it happens longer")
(4) It would have been honest. We wouldn't have been told, for example, that Instant Healing can be active almost half the time with six-slotted recharge and permahasten.
As I've said elsewhere, I approve of ED conceptually. But ED on top of the nerfs in I4 and I5 make harsh nerfs even worse, and ED needs some tweaking to actually give us a reason to diversify instead of just punishing us for using the only effective enhancements.
With this stealth issue, I think it's clear that as players from our perspective, we see things that the devs don't see from their perspective. Same with the AV to elite boss for small teams (not just solo). It's there game, they have to make the tough decisions. But by talking about things with us, we can provide them with another perspective that sometimes can help them make better ones.
My arcs are constantly shifting, just search for GadgetDon for the latest.
The world beware! I've started a blog
GadgetMania Under Attack: The Digg Lockout
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much of the insanity that explodes across these boards everytime the developers make a change or a mistake is made, it's not suprising they only talked about the here and the now with what the players knew. Why discuss changes that might not be needed and therefore not be released? In the end they decided they were needed after all and implemented them. It doesn't seem to matter how they handle things though, there turns out to be a spectacle regardless. They tried to play it cautiously and it blew up in their face anyway. Seems to be no matter what they do they lose.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why?
(1) Those who spent hours testing I4 and I5, carefully seeing what the problems were, where things got cut too far, etc. wouldn't feel slapped in the face as they are told "Guess what? What you were testing wasn't really what we were looking at."
(2) Some of the changes like recharge rates that were hard to swallow even without ED could have been argued for what they did to the real game going forward
(3) There would have been more than a couple weeks of testing the concept of ED and would have been more time to address things like powers that only take one type of enhancement (by, say, adding extra effects) or whose secondary effects are so minimal it's not worth slotting (by, say, making knockback or disorient enhancements increase the chance of the effect instead of "should this effect happen once per blue moon it happens longer")
(4) It would have been honest. We wouldn't have been told, for example, that Instant Healing can be active almost half the time with six-slotted recharge and permahasten.
As I've said elsewhere, I approve of ED conceptually. But ED on top of the nerfs in I4 and I5 make harsh nerfs even worse, and ED needs some tweaking to actually give us a reason to diversify instead of just punishing us for using the only effective enhancements.
With this stealth issue, I think it's clear that as players from our perspective, we see things that the devs don't see from their perspective. Same with the AV to elite boss for small teams (not just solo). It's there game, they have to make the tough decisions. But by talking about things with us, we can provide them with another perspective that sometimes can help them make better ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
just really hoping the Devs reading all this stuff, its really good
*****
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to give you all a little heads up on something that we've had in the works since March of this year that is finally seeing the light of day soon.
Your questions and comments will help refine the patch notes so that we can make this new system as clear as possible for all players.
[/ QUOTE ]
The above taken from the ED thread ie Positrons post to the CoV Beta boards.
I am merely pointing out to Personameta/Phantom Echo that yes indeed this change was planned to be implemented. There was no wait to test out the ramifications. There was no listening to the player base (hence the two locked threads here as well as the one over 300 pages long on CoV Beta boards).
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman himself said that ED wasn't a done deal at the time of I5.
[/ QUOTE ]
If memory serves and I could be mistaken, I5 was before CoV launch and I6 was at CoV launch hmm. ED was sprung on the CoV Beta crowd two weeks before launch. So yes your right it was not a done deal at I5, but then ED was contained in I6 and Positron's plea was to look over the material and ask how best to present it for public consumption.
So I merely ask Phantom Echo/Personamophor?? to quit trying to rewrite the history and sugarcoat it. Oh and if you have that quote from Emmert I would love to see it and stand corrected.
No need to rewrite history and sugarcoat it. I'm simply trying to remove this shroud that several angry players have placed upon these forums that have been demonizing everything the developers have been doing. Shining a light in the dark so to speak. It's an almost futile task given my lack of ability to communicate intent and information as well as the fact that people have the tendancy to only see what they want to see. On top of that I've let my anger with some of the content in these forums cloud my judgement several times and at this point it has severely tarnished reputation as a poster in these forums. As for quotes I'll have to go looking when I have more time. I have several important things I have to do tomorrow early in the day so I can't spend all night searching through the forums.
[ QUOTE ]
No need to rewrite history and sugarcoat it. I'm simply trying to remove this shroud that several angry players have placed upon these forums that have been demonizing everything the developers have been doing. Shining a light in the dark so to speak. It's an almost futile task given my lack of ability to communicate intent and information as well as the fact that people have the tendancy to only see what they want to see. On top of that I've let my anger with some of the content in these forums cloud my judgement several times and at this point it has severely tarnished reputation as a poster in these forums. As for quotes I'll have to go looking when I have more time. I have several important things I have to do tomorrow early in the day so I can't spend all night searching through the forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, a lot of people are angry. Many people feel they've been given the mushroom treatment. Long threads for developer feedback with no feedback.
And then ED. For many people, ED was a serious breach of faith. Why?
(1) We'd just gone through I5 with SERIOUS reductions in powers, after I4 with reductions in many powers, after I3 with some. People were talking about viewing future issues with dread, wondering where the nerfbat was hitting next. Statesman came in saying they had to make big changes because they wanted them all done at once, the devs were now happy with how the game was, and no future changes to powersets. That last part technically didn't cover ED, but clearly the big changes WEREN'T all done at once, and the devs weren't happy. The implication was clearly, the nerfbat has gone into the closet.
(2) ED was revealed only to the CoV beta people, late in the beta, and we were told that to reveal it to the non-beta people (deciding whether to renew their account and place orders for CoV) would get their account yanked. We were encouraged to go ahead and do testing...with our players in the teens or early twenties.
(3) We were informed that this had been decided back during I4, that all the testing and decisions they'd made in I4 and I5 was made based on ED. And all that testing we did in I4 and I5 must have been round-filed because we weren't testing the environment they were making decisions about. Yes, Jack Emmert came along later and said "Well, it wasn't really nailed down" but does that mean that the first statement was incorrect or they were just playing around with the numbers?
(4) We were saying "Get it on the test server so we can test it, give it time for it to be fully tested." ED went on the CoH test servers for two weeks before it went live. We've been assured that ED was fully tested internally, planned for months, but it couldn't be made available for testing in CoH for more than two weeks???
(5) MANY posts were made about ED's issues. Yes, some ranting, some rather out there, but also a lot of considered analysis. NONE of it was responded to. The statement finally made about ED after pages and pages of complaints? "The developers are happy with it." Not even an acknowledgement that many, dare I say most, of the players were NOT happy with it.
The message from the developer response threads without a developer response and the back-handed posts about ED was, "We developers, you players. We design, you shut up and play." And people respond poorly.
THIS event is a real change. I hope it's an indicator of things to come. Communication is good, early and often. Yeah, there are some so soured that anything that isn't a complete rollback of ED and I5 will cause complaints, there are others who will rant about anything. But those aren't the core. At least, they weren't.
There is no downside to communication. Those who will whine and rant will whine and rant when the changes hit anyway. Early communication has three possibilities: As players, we get to see things from the developer's perspective and even if we still don't agree, we understand the whys. As developers, they get to see how these things come across from the player's perspective (which is more than just "Yes I can still do missions"--best line I ever heard about this was "You can't datamine fun") and might head a problem off before it even hits their internal test servers. Worst case, those who defend the developers against the whiners and ranters can say "Look, Statesman completely explained this here: link"
My arcs are constantly shifting, just search for GadgetDon for the latest.
The world beware! I've started a blog
GadgetMania Under Attack: The Digg Lockout
[ QUOTE ]
Did you reply to that twice?
Oh, and still interloping.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. then I deleted it. so you can't prove it.
Erm...except I admitted it...
Rats.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remberfolks
SiconOfSatan Lord of the Flame Wars
Neko_Lurker Lord of the Typos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can I have a title, too?
Maybe "Dasher, Lord of the Rant" (I think I'm probably a shoo-in for this one), or "Patron Saint of the Lost Cause"?
Dasher (Something or Other of the Something)
[/ QUOTE ]
"Dasher, Jester of the Suppressor"?
"Dasher, Lord of travel and lost luggage"?
"Dasher, Suffering Sheik of Suppression"?
"Dasher, Peon of Pulcritude"?
lol
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if everyone
who ever used the tactic in question only ever played solo, its use would spread and trivialize
the game for more and more people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't yet adequately explained why trivializing the game is bad. I'm sure it is, although I only bother playing CoH to trivialize it (for good reasons, mind you)
I'd post that argument here, but I don't want to overload you, since you haven't responded to my first post, yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish you wouldn't quote him...I'm trying to ignore him... 
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but you're just being obstinate here. ED is incorporated into the design of CoV, meaning that to roll back ED all of CoV would have to be redone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUZZ Wrong, see i was in CoV Beta...ED was added in th e weak before it went live...it was /never/ intergrated with it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the devs thought of ED on that day, coded it all up and put it in the game. The point he was making is that the CoV ATs were designed with the knowledge that ED was going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless it is your claim that they were made stronger so as to be less "gimped" by ED, in which case the heroes who WEREN'T made that way are in BIG trouble when the villains get to lvl 50, there is no point to this. Either the PC's are balanced hero and villain, or they're not. If they ARE balanced, then rolling ED back won't alter that balance, just the way people can slot, and how slotting choices affect balance. Which is to say "If you choose to slot per ED when ED is not in effect, and I do not, then we can see if the argument that ED doesn't "nerf" characters is true or not."
All of this is a canard. And WAY off topic.
Thanks again for the EB/AV change, devs, and for not nerfing stealth. And thanks for giving me hope that you WILL eventually alleviate the suffering caused by ED/I5 joined together.
[ QUOTE ]
Think of it like this: Without ED, PvP would be even MORE a game of "Get In The First Shot". It's bad enough as it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Disagree. In fact, there's a post floating around right now talking about how a tank and a stalker were stalemated. And how boring that is. It's why no one plays tic-tac-toe.
Oh, and the element of surprise, and the concept of the pre-emptive strike, are well-documented and effective battle strategies in the real world of military doctrine. It is why the feint and the "bait" concepts were developed. It is the nature of an ambush, which usually is a trap for an offensive force TRYING to strike first. So unless you are arguing that stupidity should be rewarded in PvP, or that real-world strategy should play no role in how PvP combat works, I would argue that this is a most unconvincing argument.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if everyone
who ever used the tactic in question only ever played solo, its use would spread and trivialize
the game for more and more people.
[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't yet adequately explained why trivializing the game is bad. I'm sure it is, although I only bother playing CoH to trivialize it (for good reasons, mind you)
I'd post that argument here, but I don't want to overload you, since you haven't responded to my first post, yet.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?