Not once, not twice, but three times...
By
008Zulu,
Posted on: 2006-01-10 16:26 in Developers' Corner
[ QUOTE ]
The real "problem" with ED isn't a problem at all. It's the Issue 5 defense nerfing combined with ED that is a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tink that's part of it, GS, but I think there's a bit more than that. The problem with ED is the little things it screws over. Things like Endurance Drain and Flight Speed that took huge and seemingly unnecessary hits to performance. Taken as a whole and overlooking the blemishes, ED doesn't seem like such a bad thing, but when you take a closer look at it, it just caused a lot more problems than it solved.
$.02
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW!! OMG!!! YOUARETEHBEST!!!
Not really. ED still sucks. Supression still sucks. PvP is still awful compared to the other PvP choices out there(5 million customers=doing something right). The game is awful compared to I2-I3. Almost all the people I enjoyed playing the game with have left for greener pastures, and all you can do is give out more nerfs? Yes, you did undo this nerf, but not entirely. You still are going to introduce it again, just in a different way. There is no reason to play a superhero game where you feel more like a minion than a hero.
[/ QUOTE ]Attention customer:
Piss in someone else's Cheerios. That is all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, please, don't be such a blatant fanboy. It's an insult to human intelligence.
Stryker is 100% right, and you know it.
Dasher
HELP SAVE THIS GAME!
If we can save this game, I promise I will never complain about Travel Power Suppression again! You have my word on it!
"The customer is always right."
yay! finally a change that works for everybody!
[ QUOTE ]
1. Removing the Issue 5 changes is WAY simpler than rewriting your Defense code.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting point. It goes deeper than it seems at first glance. My initial reaction was, "Well, we don't KNOW that. It COULD be far simpler than trying to pick and choose what to remove, or alter."
Then I thought about a little more. For about 3 seconds. And it occurred to me: You don't solve a complex problem by adding more variables.
The proper way to solve a complex problem is through simplification. You SIMPLIFY the problem you're trying to solve. And completely rewriting the defense code, while leaving in the double complexity that was the I5/ED disaster for defense, is just BEGGING to miss something. Either someone will be left out, and will still be "gimp", or someone will be "accidentally" buffed too much, and will become the new FOTM uber "I am teh PWNZ0r" build.
Either way, it's probably a bad idea. Why not try ED WITHOUT the I5 defense/damres nerf, and see how it works.
And roll back the "no multiple pets" change for controllers, while you're at it.
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the posts regarding ED I have seen are at least 60% against it, if not more. Is there anything being done about it?
James
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of knee-slapping, pointing and laughing I would gather.
OOO! A fire! *grabs the gasoline*
[ QUOTE ]
...You "nearly" die? And you are complaining? The standard for Heroic (as statyed by a developer at one point) was designed to be roughly one death per mission. Anything better than that means you are ahead of the curve.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that's the standard the dev's are shooting for then I'm really going to hate this game when we get there!
Please post a reference. I have a hard time to believe that this is their intended level of play.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...You "nearly" die? And you are complaining? The standard for Heroic (as statyed by a developer at one point) was designed to be roughly one death per mission. Anything better than that means you are ahead of the curve.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that's the standard the dev's are shooting for then I'm really going to hate this game when we get there!
Please post a reference. I have a hard time to believe that this is their intended level of play.
[/ QUOTE ]
My feelings exactly. If this is what they are striving for, please tell me now so I can cancel my account.
[ 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 ]
Does this mean that stealth WILL be nerfed or WONT be nerfed? (Im very, very, very slow on stuff)
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Does this mean that stealth WILL be nerfed or WONT be nerfed? (Im very, very, very slow on stuff)
[/ QUOTE ]
Stealth isn't getting nerfed ^^m you may relax
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...You "nearly" die? And you are complaining? The standard for Heroic (as statyed by a developer at one point) was designed to be roughly one death per mission. Anything better than that means you are ahead of the curve.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that's the standard the dev's are shooting for then I'm really going to hate this game when we get there!
Please post a reference. I have a hard time to believe that this is their intended level of play.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hear, hear.
How ludicrous is that? Establishing a standard "defeat ratio"?!?!
Good lord, if that isn't an indictment of the Dev's lack of imagination, I don't know what is. That's the crappy, unimaginative, dull-witted D&D Dungeon Master School of Game Design.
"Well, let's see, they are all Level 5, so I will stock the Fifth Level with Level Five monsters! Hurray, I am a planning genius!"
Ugh. All I can say is "ugh"...
Dasher
HELP SAVE THIS GAME!
If we can save this game, I promise I will never complain about Travel Power Suppression again! You have my word on it!
"The customer is always right."
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss 
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[ QUOTE ]
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem, from my perspective, isn't the stat gathering. It's saying that you should die once per heroic mission. By that count and your own admission, you would need an Elite Boss in every heroic mission.
My only point was that I really doubt that that's the stat the dev's are shooting for. If it is, it really will kill the game for most of us.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem, from my perspective, isn't the stat gathering. It's saying that you should die once per heroic mission. By that count and your own admission, you would need an Elite Boss in every heroic mission.
My only point was that I really doubt that that's the stat the dev's are shooting for. If it is, it really will kill the game for most of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I died once in every mission set on heroic I would have left 2 yrs ago. Someone is saying that is what the Devs are striving for? That's ludicrous. If I'm doing heroic missions and I die once a LEVEL, I'm doing something wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem, from my perspective, isn't the stat gathering. It's saying that you should die once per heroic mission. By that count and your own admission, you would need an Elite Boss in every heroic mission.
My only point was that I really doubt that that's the stat the dev's are shooting for. If it is, it really will kill the game for most of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I died once in every mission set on heroic I would have left 2 yrs ago. Someone is saying that is what the Devs are striving for? That's ludicrous. If I'm doing heroic missions and I die once a LEVEL, I'm doing something wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except Statsman said jsut that
"one defeat at least at heroic, a hand ful on invincible"
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 ]
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem, from my perspective, isn't the stat gathering. It's saying that you should die once per heroic mission. By that count and your own admission, you would need an Elite Boss in every heroic mission.
My only point was that I really doubt that that's the stat the dev's are shooting for. If it is, it really will kill the game for most of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I died once in every mission set on heroic I would have left 2 yrs ago. Someone is saying that is what the Devs are striving for? That's ludicrous. If I'm doing heroic missions and I die once a LEVEL, I'm doing something wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except Statsman said jsut that
"one defeat at least at heroic, a hand ful on invincible"
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because Statesman said it doesn't make it any less stupid. (not trying to argue with you Neko........)
If heroic is the easiest level, why would they expect everyone to fail at least once a mission? I would not expect to die every mission even when I am set on rugged or unyielding.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly disagree. A defeat ratio is in fact a good idea. It would allow you to get an idea based on some variables to determine how hard your game is to the average user. Getting that statistic would be hard, mind you, but yeah.
There's a difference between a statistic, and how you choose to achieve that statistic. Just because they determine that the average user will die once a heroic mission (which, honestly, I've never heard a dev say), doesn't mean that they can't come up with imaginative level design that the average user will possibly die once too.
There are other ways you can come about to figure out how hard your levels are, of course, but I don't see why coming up with a number on how often the average user will die, would be so bad.
My statistic when soloing? I die once per elite boss. Then I buy a crapton of inspirations and show that elite boss whose... boss
Math != Creativity. You can use one to get the other, or not, they are unrelated.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem, from my perspective, isn't the stat gathering. It's saying that you should die once per heroic mission. By that count and your own admission, you would need an Elite Boss in every heroic mission.
My only point was that I really doubt that that's the stat the dev's are shooting for. If it is, it really will kill the game for most of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I died once in every mission set on heroic I would have left 2 yrs ago. Someone is saying that is what the Devs are striving for? That's ludicrous. If I'm doing heroic missions and I die once a LEVEL, I'm doing something wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except Statsman said jsut that
"one defeat at least at heroic, a hand ful on invincible"
[/ QUOTE ]
Just because Statesman said it doesn't make it any less stupid. (not trying to argue with you Neko........)
If heroic is the easiest level, why would they expect everyone to fail at least once a mission? I would not expect to die every mission even when I am set on rugged or unyielding.
[/ QUOTE ]
YOU said you would quit if we got there
all i was saying was "but that IS what they want to push us to"
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
I said if I died once in every heroic mission I ever did, I would have quit. If they make it like that, then what would be the point in playing? I can see if their goal for some level of debt doing invincible missions, but on the easiest setting? Once a mission? What would they do in invincible missions? Once a mob?
If they nerf this game so much more that even vetran players die routinely in heroic missions, I would bet I would not be the only one that would not find that fun.
[ QUOTE ]
If that's the standard the dev's are shooting for then I'm really going to hate this game when we get there!
Please post a reference. I have a hard time to believe that this is their intended level of play.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is Statesman's comments from an "Ask Stateman" (emphasis added)
[ QUOTE ]
Q: Why did defense need to be scaled back so drastically?
A: Here was my goal. Have every type of build able to play on Heroic with perhaps one defeat on groups of all sizes, and do the same on Invincible with at most a handful of defeats. Also, Tankers needed to tank, and Scrappers needed to survive long enough to contribute. We tested and arrived at our numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a defeat ratio to me.
[ QUOTE ]
This is Statesman's comments from an "Ask Stateman" (emphasis added)
[ QUOTE ]
Q: Why did defense need to be scaled back so drastically?
A: Here was my goal. Have every type of build able to play on Heroic with perhaps one defeat on groups of all sizes, and do the same on Invincible with at most a handful of defeats. Also, Tankers needed to tank, and Scrappers needed to survive long enough to contribute. We tested and arrived at our numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a defeat ratio to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.
[ QUOTE ]
I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also says a group of all sizes. That means a team of 8 on Heroic should still face the likelihood of a defeat. That means a WIPE. If one or two people die in the process, that's not a defeat.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also says a group of all sizes. That means a team of 8 on Heroic should still face the likelihood of a defeat. That means a WIPE. If one or two people die in the process, that's not a defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
True. There has to be the chance for defeat in variety of situations. Not a guarantee, but a chance. From heroic to invincible, from solo to full teams, for every archetype the potential should be there. I think the game is beginning to lean closer to this ideal.
I'm curious would you prefer for them to say....
"People should never ever be defeated on heroic."
I would find that very very boring. Easy should not = God mode. Just, easy. There should always be the chance of defeat in a mission, that's the fun part of any game. Risk vrs Reward.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've italicized some text here to further highlight something I think a few people have missed. Not a certain chance for a defeat every mission, but the possiblity for a defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think he's saying the 'possibility' of one defeat per group.
In other words, we're talking about one out of 2 to 8 toons dying once, not a total team wipe.
It also says a group of all sizes. That means a team of 8 on Heroic should still face the likelihood of a defeat. That means a WIPE. If one or two people die in the process, that's not a defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, if we are to have the possibility of a defeat each mission and a handful at invincible, why don't they just reward us with automatic debt each time we complete a mision? It would be simpler and STATESMAN WOULD GET HIS "VISION" of a GREAT GAME DESIGN!?!
I am sorry, but there is no balance in Statesman's balanced vision. I mission that will cause a single death for a scrapper or a tank results in nearly constant death for a controller or a defender! And don't give me the same crap that they are suppose to team up... no hero should have to team up for EVERY DARN MISSION! Plus, because of the number of poeple that left to play villains ( not to mention those that left because of VERY POOR PLANNING on COH), there are very few people online when I play in the mornings.
At heroic level, every toon should be am to complete their own missions by themselves- assuming there is no AV or multiple bombs to defuse (that you are NEVER WARNED ABOUT WHEN YOU TAKE THE MISSION!) and it SHOULD NOT PUT YOU FURTHER INTO DEBT THAN WHEN YOU STARTED!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the posts regarding ED I have seen are at least 60% against it, if not more. Is there anything being done about it?
James
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, ED on it's own isn't so bad.
Do I think it was needed? No.
Do I think that it helped as much as it hurt? No.
Am I willing to put up with it for the sake of other players? Sure.
The real "problem" with ED isn't a problem at all. It's the Issue 5 defense nerfing combined with ED that is a problem.
While it's nice that the Devs proposed two solutions and used both (lowered mob to-hit, and soon will release a new +Defense model in I7), the simple facts are:
1. Removing the Issue 5 changes is WAY simpler than rewriting your Defense code.
2. Removing the Issue 5 changes means that you don't need to tweak the mob's to-hit values, get them wrong, and tweak them some more.
3. Removing the Issue 5 changes means that +Resist passive powers work, and while I'm sure that they will get buffed eventually, we don't really want that to take 8+ months (or Issue 8) to happen.
4. All of the above reworking has taken Dev time away from developing new content. While it's great if the new changes work properly (which will need testing), that doesn't suddenly give all the time wasted on reworking Defenses back to the Devs.
Sadly, since they've blown 7 months of their time fixing something they could have rolled back, we won't see them do that now. The best we can hope for it that some of the Invuln and Fire +Resists get buffed, but, as any other change, that also will take more developer time away from new content.
It's really depressing and sad to write this, but once again, here we are, campaigning to fix something that didn't need to be broken... and will get fixed... someday.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't completely roll back I5, but I would do something similar...
For every power that had its effectiveness cut in I5 (hold duration, defense, damage resistance are the biggies, recharge rates--and I'd include the recharge rates that got greatly increased in I4) should have the base increased so that 6 slotted post ED is the same effectiveness that it was 6 slotted under I5 without ED.
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