101,888 EXP in a single kill -- Can you top it?
By
Alannon,
Posted on: 2007-01-27 16:36 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is legendary lets look at what we have:
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the PS3 and Dracula are also in here somewhere. Plus, I think I'm being nerfed in I9.
[/ QUOTE ]
Transformers MMO too! 
nerf Arcanaville!
why choose the lesser of two evils, vote Cthullu for president!
[ QUOTE ]
What it is like, is like going into Pizza Hut after enjoying their vegetarian pizza for a year, and finding that it tastes radically different, and makes you a little queasy. You then notice that they have 3 new Meatlovers pizzas, and you wonder... are they cooking the pizzas on the same pan as the Meatlovers?
They *say* they aren't, and give you other reasons for why the vegetarian pizza is different, but it's still hard to stomach. (ba-dum-tch)
[/ QUOTE ]
I know man! Whenever my fiance and I go to this local restaurant, I always get a Philly Cheesesteak. But sometimes, my fiance will order the big [censored] burger with grilled onions, and the disgusting taste of onions taints my sandwich (yes, I'm a freak who doesn't like onions).
Oh, and I did a quick double check to make sure I'm on topic, and as near as I can tell, I am...
[ QUOTE ]
Also:
ZadkielSalubri:
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure that comparison is a very good one, Arc. The customer who orders bell peppers can't ruin the other customers' experience in Pizza Hut because they think it's a fun idea to be a jerk.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's also off the point of the analogy. The entire post being quoted in both places is in reference to a previous statement I made
[/ QUOTE ]
My bad then, we we thinking totally different things there. I was thinking about the analogy in terms of the PvP gankers.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe restriction suggestions like that proposed for Shivans and Nukes all implicitly have the premise that its ok to marginalize PvP. I don't agree: I believe they have to pass the same tests as all other suggestions do regardless of their involvement with PvP. Which means in this case, two things that seemingly are taken for granted by most I don't:
1. If Shivans and Nukes are seen as too powerful, why would anyone advocate allowing their use in PvP? PvP has stronger balance requirements than PvE, and if Shivans and Nukes are overpowered, the *first* place to ban them is specifically in the PvP zones. Suggesting the reverse, that they be used *only* in PvP zones, but allowed elsewhere, is untenable unless you believe PvP balance is irrelevant, because PvP is significantly less important, and its fine to make it the dumping ground for balance issues. Lets just say I happen to disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know what? You're right, I just realized that I'm very likely far too bias against PvP due to past experiences to be anywhere near objective enough to debate this issue, so I'm going to (for the most part) leave it alone.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The design *purpose* of the Shivans and Nukes is obviously to be allowed to use in the most challenging circumstances the player might face. Restricting them from being used in those situations circumvents their design purpose. Why continue to have them at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll just say one thing, though... what I and many others object to the most in terms of the Shivans and Nukes is that there's so much in the game where unless you have a very select set of ATs/power sets on your team, you -need- those Shivans/Nukes in order to succeed. Not every team is going to have several Rad Defenders. I'd be psyched if they became somewhat helpful, but not -necessary-. There should not be anything in the game that you cannot accomplish without temp powers.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll just say one thing, though... what I and many others object to the most in terms of the Shivans and Nukes is that there's so much in the game where unless you have a very select set of ATs/power sets on your team, you -need- those Shivans/Nukes in order to succeed. Not every team is going to have several Rad Defenders. I'd be psyched if they became somewhat helpful, but not -necessary-. There should not be anything in the game that you cannot accomplish without temp powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's one way to look at it. But that presumes that there exists content that is specifically balanced with the thought "well, even if you don't have the best build, you can still do it with Nukes and Shivans." That's a guess. My guess is that that is not true. Which means the alternate viewpoint is that in the absence of nukes and shivans, hard content only doable by some with nukes and shivans will become impossible, not rebalanced.
If there is content that is too hard without shivans and nukes, then its too hard. The problem is convincing the devs that its too hard. Take the LRSF: its currently easier for a suboptimal team *without shivans and nukes* to complete it, than the original version would have been for the same suboptimal team *with shivans and nukes*. Its just designed to be super hard. That some things can do it and some can't is inevitable when you make things super hard.
The *way* it was made extremely difficult is, in my opinion, a mistake. But the fact *that* its difficult means there will always be some composition of teams and player skill and tactics that will be unable to complete it. Even my perfect balanced vision of the strike force wouldn't necessarily allow even the majority of all possible random team compositions to be able to complete it with reasonable certainty. But that's a separate issue, not the core issue of whether its intrinsicly too difficult, and whether shivans and nukes allow or force the devs to maintain that difficulty higher than desirable.
Put simply: nukes and shivans do not force the devs to make content harder. They do that because they want to.
On this specific subject:
[ QUOTE ]
There should not be anything in the game that you cannot accomplish without temp powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
In any game where there is a diverse set of capabilities, and a diverse (and high level) set of difficulty levels, there will *always* exist a specific difficulty level which, for a specific player or team, is just out of reach ordinarily. And for such a player or team, *any* advantage that then puts that challenge in reach is, technically, necessary. Just because something is necessary in this specific sense, doesn't make it wrong, because this situation is inevitable in any system with any combat diversity.
In this case, the average team has a combat ability of 100, a lot of suboptimal teams have a combat ability of only 50, and highly optimal ones have a combat ability of 350-500. Most missions are designed to be a small challenge to a team with a 100 rating. Some are designed to be a challenge to teams with a 150-200 rating, like some trials and task forces. The LRSF is designed to challenge those with a combat ability of 400+. It would be so designed regardless of the existence of temp powers that can boost a team by 200 points. So the two questions you have to ask yourself are, voiced in these (possibly over-) simplistic terms:
1. Is it intrinsicly wrong to make at least some content balanced for teams above 200?
2. If its not, is it intrinsicly wrong to give teams below 200 the ability to buy themselves a temporary ability of more than 200.
The devs have decided that the answer to question 1 is no, and the answer to question 2 is no. You're suggesting that the answer to question 2 is yes, and I can only assume that is because you have the unstated opinion that the answer to question 1 is also yes. But I think, even if you think the answer to question 2 is yes, you should work on changing the devs' mind about question 1 first, because the two are not linked: changing their mind about 2, without first changing their minds about 1, means lower level teams get nerfed, but nothing else changes.
For the record, I believe the answer to both questions is no.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is legendary lets look at what we have:
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the PS3 and Dracula are also in here somewhere. Plus, I think I'm being nerfed in I9.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if you slot Foo inventions first.
[ QUOTE ]
(Quick Reply)
Just to clear up:
No, we're not discussing any changes to Shivan's or the Warburg Nukes at this time. Shivan's are easier to get than anticipated, but even that is not likely to be changed in the near future. My original post was meant to show that we knew how these powers were being used -- and that is all.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, didn't consider the impact of the no regen thing, huh?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is legendary lets look at what we have:
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the PS3 and Dracula are also in here somewhere. Plus, I think I'm being nerfed in I9.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if you slot Foo inventions first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think that is *how* I'm being nerfed.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is legendary lets look at what we have:
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the PS3 and Dracula are also in here somewhere. Plus, I think I'm being nerfed in I9.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not if you slot Foo inventions first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think that is *how* I'm being nerfed.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you only lose when Foo "slots" you.
"I see your words..." ~The most menacing thing a forumite could say
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll just say one thing, though... what I and many others object to the most in terms of the Shivans and Nukes is that there's so much in the game where unless you have a very select set of ATs/power sets on your team, you -need- those Shivans/Nukes in order to succeed. Not every team is going to have several Rad Defenders. I'd be psyched if they became somewhat helpful, but not -necessary-. There should not be anything in the game that you cannot accomplish without temp powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's one way to look at it. But that presumes that there exists content that is specifically balanced with the thought "well, even if you don't have the best build, you can still do it with Nukes and Shivans." That's a guess. My guess is that that is not true.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that the devs expect everyone to have the "mad number crunching uber build skillz" one sees so often boasted about in these forums in order to succeed at the content of this game? If I've misunderstood, please elaborate on that point.
[ QUOTE ]
Which means the alternate viewpoint is that in the absence of nukes and shivans, hard content only doable by some with nukes and shivans will become impossible, not rebalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which in my opinion isn't right.
[ QUOTE ]
If there is content that is too hard without shivans and nukes, then its too hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is convincing the devs that its too hard. Take the LRSF: its currently easier for a suboptimal team *without shivans and nukes* to complete it, than the original version would have been for the same suboptimal team *with shivans and nukes*. Its just designed to be super hard. That some things can do it and some can't is inevitable when you make things super hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, nothing in the game should require you -have- to have certain things in order to win, whether they be temp powers or certain powersets. I've heard many a story about players of certain ATs (notably Stalkers) who've been blatantly excluded from the LRSF just because of their AT. Again, in my opinion that isn't right. As far as I can tell from your first sentence below this, you seem to agree.
[ QUOTE ]
The *way* it was made extremely difficult is, in my opinion, a mistake. But the fact *that* its difficult means there will always be some composition of teams and player skill and tactics that will be unable to complete it. Even my perfect balanced vision of the strike force wouldn't necessarily allow even the majority of all possible random team compositions to be able to complete it with reasonable certainty. But that's a separate issue, not the core issue of whether its intrinsicly too difficult, and whether shivans and nukes allow or force the devs to maintain that difficulty higher than desirable.
Put simply: nukes and shivans do not force the devs to make content harder. They do that because they want to.
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs may or may not have admitted it, but I do believe that the LRSF (which is in the end the meat of the topic at hand) was created with Nukes and Shivans in mind. So in that, I disagree with you. That's my opinion and (for now) I'm stickin' to it.
[ QUOTE ]
On this specific subject:
[ QUOTE ]
There should not be anything in the game that you cannot accomplish without temp powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
In any game where there is a diverse set of capabilities, and a diverse (and high level) set of difficulty levels, there will *always* exist a specific difficulty level which, for a specific player or team, is just out of reach ordinarily. And for such a player or team, *any* advantage that then puts that challenge in reach is, technically, necessary. Just because something is necessary in this specific sense, doesn't make it wrong, because this situation is inevitable in any system with any combat diversity.
In this case, the average team has a combat ability of 100, a lot of suboptimal teams have a combat ability of only 50, and highly optimal ones have a combat ability of 350-500. Most missions are designed to be a small challenge to a team with a 100 rating. Some are designed to be a challenge to teams with a 150-200 rating, like some trials and task forces. The LRSF is designed to challenge those with a combat ability of 400+. It would be so designed regardless of the existence of temp powers that can boost a team by 200 points.
[/ QUOTE ]
You just hit one of the biggest things that's wrong with this game... If most trials and task forces are designed to be challenge to a 150-200 team (and most TFs are pretty tough), and all the ultra min/maxers are running around at 350-500, what's the problem... the missions, the normal players (100-150), or the uber min/maxers?
[ QUOTE ]
So the two questions you have to ask yourself are, voiced in these (possibly over-) simplistic terms:
1. Is it intrinsicly wrong to make at least some content balanced for teams above 200?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but 400-500 is imo pushing it. (Since by your logic the "normal" players are running characters 1/5th as effective as the highly optimal characters) Twice or even three times the average in terms of challenge is one thing, but 5 times?
[ QUOTE ]
2. If its not, is it intrinsicly wrong to give teams below 200 the ability to buy themselves a temporary ability of more than 200.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but even tacking 200 onto that average 100 player is still not enough to tackle a 400-500 mission/tf.
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have decided that the answer to question 1 is no, and the answer to question 2 is no. You're suggesting that the answer to question 2 is yes, and I can only assume that is because you have the unstated opinion that the answer to question 1 is also yes. But I think, even if you think the answer to question 2 is yes, you should work on changing the devs' mind about question 1 first, because the two are not linked: changing their mind about 2, without first changing their minds about 1, means lower level teams get nerfed, but nothing else changes.
For the record, I believe the answer to both questions is no.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really do see what you're saying, and I agree that question 1 should be addressed first. In the end, all I can do is state my opinions. I certainly don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me just for the sake of agreeing with me.
[ QUOTE ]
You just hit one of the biggest things that's wrong with this game... If most trials and task forces are designed to be challenge to a 150-200 team (and most TFs are pretty tough), and all the ultra min/maxers are running around at 350-500, what's the problem... the missions, the normal players (100-150), or the uber min/maxers?
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is the devs, who made the difference between optimal and suboptimal the difference between 50 and 550.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least. 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
They designed a powers system that allowed for those massive imbalances, and they designed an XP system that one-dimensionally rewarded only ability along a specific axis: speed of defeat (and as an underlying component: direct effective damage dealing).
A better reward system and a better balanced powers system could have allowed teams that were only a damage-dealing 50 to attempt to satisfy mission objectives in non-standard ways, for which they were a 250 instead. Or to put it in more direct terms, controllers could win with control, instead of having their control be a means to an end of delivering more damage while the targets were controlled.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really not like that. Asking for bell peppers to be no longer served is like asking for PvP to be removed from the game entirely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, "it" is really like that, because the "it" the passage you quote specifically refers to the sentence immediately preceding it, which you didn't quote with this passage:
[ QUOTE ]
If I absolutely hated PvP, I might tell the devs that, speaking as one person, I would prefer the game focus on other things. But I would not suggest that the game itself would be automatically better if it didn't have it, unless I had a much better reason than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Then that's a strawman, because that request wasn't presented by anyone else that I saw. If I'm wrong, however, you did do a good job debunking it, and I apologize for misinterpreting your target argument.
[ QUOTE ]
1. If Shivans and Nukes are seen as too powerful, why would anyone advocate allowing their use in PvP? PvP has stronger balance requirements than PvE, and if Shivans and Nukes are overpowered, the *first* place to ban them is specifically in the PvP zones. Suggesting the reverse, that they be used *only* in PvP zones, but allowed elsewhere, is untenable unless you believe PvP balance is irrelevant, because PvP is significantly less important, and its fine to make it the dumping ground for balance issues. Lets just say I happen to disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
PvP doesn't have stricter balance requirements, it has *different* ones. Radically so. That's why people don't like it when changes are made to powers because of PvP, when they didn't need to be made in PvE. The perfect example is Hibernate. Being able to sit there forever, invulnerable but unable to move or affect anything, in PvE is not an advantage (once Taunt wears off, anyway). Being able to do so in Siren's Call to deny people bounty for amusement, or after beating someone in an Arena match to ensure a 1/0 victory, is.
Things work the same in the shard as they do everywhere else. If Kora Fruit are unbalanced in the Shard, they are unbalanced everywhere else, unless they made Rularuu harder to counter the existence of Kora Fruit (or vice versa). Under those circumstances, you might expect people to suggest the idea, but Malta and Carnies really can be just as hard, and are found outside of it as well.
This is not the same with PvP zones: Player Characters are VERY different from mobs.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The design *purpose* of the Shivans and Nukes is obviously to be allowed to use in the most challenging circumstances the player might face. Restricting them from being used in those situations circumvents their design purpose. Why continue to have them at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
To make PvP more interesting.
[ QUOTE ]
The presumption is that the only people who get them are people who are willing to tolerate PvP, and such people don't count.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this worse than the current situation where the only people who *don't* get them are those who can't stand PvP, and *those* people don't count?
[ QUOTE ]
Saying "you can still use them in PvP" is a discriminating brush stroke: it says "you are willing to get them, therefore you are a PvP person, so you shouldn't mind if we restrict some of your activities to PvP only."
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is better than discriminating against players who don't like PvP and can't complete the LRSF without those powers how?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't use shivans or nukes in PvP. Moreover, I would be totally happy if they were barred *from* PvP, because of balance issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you're okay with "PvPers can't use these powers in PvP" but not "PvPers can't use these powers in PvE"? What the hell?
[ QUOTE ]
So for me, restricting shivans and nukes to the PvP zones only, is the absolute worst of all possible options. It only looks good because the dumping ground for the problems is largely in PvP, and that of course doesn't count.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it looks good because they are obtained in PvP zones, and spice up PvP.
You are assigning malice to the reasoning. The reasoning behind the request is not malice, but a desire to help PvE balance without removing all interesting activity from Bloody Bay and Warburg. That desire may be misinformed, as the devs may not rebalance the LRSF without them, and the Devs may not be concerned with people soloing AVs with them, but it's the desire.
[ QUOTE ]
The irony is that this suggestion takes something away from the PvE experience, but doesn't replace it with anything. Its an Anti-PvE suggestion, it just doesn't look like one because of (what I believe to be) the mistaken belief that without Shivans and Nukes, the devs would improve the PvE experience in ways a lot of people seem to believe they are currently *prevented* from doing, but which I would assess as having essentially zero probability of occuring. So its an anti-PvP suggesstion, and an anti-PvE suggestion simultaneously. I seem to be in a minority of one that sees it that way, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that, when people suggest they be restricted, it is because they know the devs don't want us soloing AVs, and are hoping to provide a suggestion that prevents the powers from being made worthless in PvP. Also, many people making the suggestion do believe that the Devs might lower the difficulty of the LRSF if those weren't usable in it.
It's a pro PvE suggestion that is intended to remove any impact on PvP. Again, it may be made using false assumptions, but it's not made for the reasons you think it is.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
They designed a powers system that allowed for those massive imbalances, and they designed an XP system that one-dimensionally rewarded only ability along a specific axis: speed of defeat (and as an underlying component: direct effective damage dealing).
A better reward system and a better balanced powers system could have allowed teams that were only a damage-dealing 50 to attempt to satisfy mission objectives in non-standard ways, for which they were a 250 instead. Or to put it in more direct terms, controllers could win with control, instead of having their control be a means to an end of delivering more damage while the targets were controlled.
[/ QUOTE ]
I could go with that... I doubt it'll get implemented, but it does sound like a good idea.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is the devs, who made the difference between optimal and suboptimal the difference between 50 and 550.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having minor anxiety over arguing with you so much in the last couple of days, so I feel the need to say that I agree with this. Just so you know that I don't mean to just be combative.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
They designed a powers system that allowed for those massive imbalances, and they designed an XP system that one-dimensionally rewarded only ability along a specific axis: speed of defeat (and as an underlying component: direct effective damage dealing).
A better reward system and a better balanced powers system could have allowed teams that were only a damage-dealing 50 to attempt to satisfy mission objectives in non-standard ways, for which they were a 250 instead. Or to put it in more direct terms, controllers could win with control, instead of having their control be a means to an end of delivering more damage while the targets were controlled.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also make a case that the player base as a whole could use better education about the powers/slotting system. Is ED even described in the manual? If a larger segment of the playerbase made more informed power/slotting decisions, perhaps you could narrow the chasm of ability. I'm just thinking out loud here...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
They designed a powers system that allowed for those massive imbalances, and they designed an XP system that one-dimensionally rewarded only ability along a specific axis: speed of defeat (and as an underlying component: direct effective damage dealing).
A better reward system and a better balanced powers system could have allowed teams that were only a damage-dealing 50 to attempt to satisfy mission objectives in non-standard ways, for which they were a 250 instead. Or to put it in more direct terms, controllers could win with control, instead of having their control be a means to an end of delivering more damage while the targets were controlled.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also make a case that the player base as a whole could use better education about the powers/slotting system. Is ED even described in the manual? If a larger segment of the playerbase made more informed power/slotting decisions, perhaps you could narrow the chasm of ability. I'm just thinking out loud here...
[/ QUOTE ]
To accurately describe the power slotting scenarios that run through this game, Cryptic would have had to have printed a game novel, not a manual.
"I see your words..." ~The most menacing thing a forumite could say
Ever since the last time I got into one of these discussions, I've been trying to stay out of it, but I just don't learn.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The design *purpose* of the Shivans and Nukes is obviously to be allowed to use in the most challenging circumstances the player might face. Restricting them from being used in those situations circumvents their design purpose. Why continue to have them at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
To make PvP more interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps PvP on your server differs from PvP on mine, but I have never ever ever ever seen someone effectively use a Shivan in PvP. They're slow and have stupid AI and any idiot can joust away from them effectively. Nukes can be effective in PvP *once*, but after that, you've just used up something that takes you 20 to 30 minutes to get for about five seconds of glory. Who in the world would bother? The PvP rewards would become useless and no one would get them, kinda like the mini-heavy you can get from RV is now. Hell, most people don't even know it exists. Why? Because it's not worth the time, so no one gets it. I don't like suggestions that make content useless.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The presumption is that the only people who get them are people who are willing to tolerate PvP, and such people don't count.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this worse than the current situation where the only people who *don't* get them are those who can't stand PvP, and *those* people don't count?
[/ QUOTE ]
This will sound mean, but it's true. People who can't stand PvP don't "count" in this sense because they aren't experiencing the whole game. If I hate Strike Forces but want to fight the entire Freedom Phalanx on my villain, I have a choice of either getting over my hatred or not getting to see that fight. People who aren't magnetically repelled from PvP zones "count" because they're willing to experience that aspect of the game, and get all the pains and pleasures that come with it.
If I didn't like levelling, would it be fair for me to demand that your level 38 power got nerfed? No.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony is that this suggestion takes something away from the PvE experience, but doesn't replace it with anything. Its an Anti-PvE suggestion, it just doesn't look like one because of (what I believe to be) the mistaken belief that without Shivans and Nukes, the devs would improve the PvE experience in ways a lot of people seem to believe they are currently *prevented* from doing, but which I would assess as having essentially zero probability of occuring. So its an anti-PvP suggesstion, and an anti-PvE suggestion simultaneously. I seem to be in a minority of one that sees it that way, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that, when people suggest they be restricted, it is because they know the devs don't want us soloing AVs, and are hoping to provide a suggestion that prevents the powers from being made worthless in PvP. Also, many people making the suggestion do believe that the Devs might lower the difficulty of the LRSF if those weren't usable in it.
It's a pro PvE suggestion that is intended to remove any impact on PvP. Again, it may be made using false assumptions, but it's not made for the reasons you think it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here it comes.....
Ready for it? Say it with me now!
Bull.
I hear lots of people going on about how the devs do not want people soloing AVs. This is true to the extent that they don't want *everyone* to be able to solo AVs without trying, but really, *look* at the damn game mechanics. Look at how difficulty levels work. Let's examine the following facts:
1) The devs know that some players solo AVs. They do. Clearly. They also know some folks like it.
2) Up until a little while ago, the devs clung to their "1 hero = 3 white minions" mantra. This was blatantly untrue before ED and still is today. Why did they cling to it? Did they just not know that someone with decent skills could handle four white minions? Or are they catering to the lowest common denominator with that statement?
3) If you set your difficulty to relentless/invincible and solo, you will get AVs. Not EBs.
Now then: Which is more likely?
1) The devs forgot that setting the "required heroes to spawn AV" counter to 1 for invincible would force people to solo them.
2) The devs want soloers to never use invincible.
3) The devs want soloers to have to change their difficulty one notch down at the end of virtually every story arc from 35 on.
4) The devs know damn well that some folks can and like to solo AVs, and know that if you factor in all the time it takes to get the temp powers and take the guy down the xp/time ratio is such that it's not a PLable thing. Therefore, they left in the option, while saying that they aren't technically supposed to be soloable to make sure they don't set people in the mindset that everyone should be able to handle it.
AVs are soloable and the devs know it. And if they change the temp powers, the AVs will still be soloable by certain builds using certain tactics and other, different temp powers.
Leave the Shivans and nukes as they are. They're a great example of "fun" farming (as opposed to riding around picking flowers for and hour to make fire resist potions) that provides a kind release from the static mission formula. Making them worthless would effectively kill this activity.
- J
[ QUOTE ]
I hear lots of people going on about how the devs do not want people soloing AVs. This is true to the extent that they don't want *everyone* to be able to solo AVs without trying, but really, *look* at the damn game mechanics. Look at how difficulty levels work. Let's examine the following facts:
1) The devs know that some players solo AVs. They do. Clearly. They also know some folks like it.
2) Up until a little while ago, the devs clung to their "1 hero = 3 white minions" mantra. This was blatantly untrue before ED and still is today. Why did they cling to it? Did they just not know that someone with decent skills could handle four white minions? Or are they catering to the lowest common denominator with that statement?
3) If you set your difficulty to relentless/invincible and solo, you will get AVs. Not EBs.
Now then: Which is more likely?
1) The devs forgot that setting the "required heroes to spawn AV" counter to 1 for invincible would force people to solo them.
2) The devs want soloers to never use invincible.
3) The devs want soloers to have to change their difficulty one notch down at the end of virtually every story arc from 35 on.
4) The devs know damn well that some folks can and like to solo AVs, and know that if you factor in all the time it takes to get the temp powers and take the guy down the xp/time ratio is such that it's not a PLable thing. Therefore, they left in the option, while saying that they aren't technically supposed to be soloable to make sure they don't set people in the mindset that everyone should be able to handle it.
AVs are soloable and the devs know it. And if they change the temp powers, the AVs will still be soloable by certain builds using certain tactics and other, different temp powers.
Leave the Shivans and nukes as they are. They're a great example of "fun" farming (as opposed to riding around picking flowers for and hour to make fire resist potions) that provides a kind release from the static mission formula. Making them worthless would effectively kill this activity.
- J
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to have to agree with all of this. Back when Ultimus' thread first popped up in the Tanker forums, it was met with a lot of mixed feelings. Some said he was nerf-herding, but he insisted he just wanted to share his accomplishments with everyone (to "prove how strong I am" I believe was his motive).
Before I passed judgement on his actions/motives, I decided to try to take down an AV on two of my tankers. Both of my tankers were able to take down AV's (though they were just Battle Maiden and Bobcat, smashing/lethal specialists) with the aid of temp powers. I received 1000 prestige for my efforts both times. When you look at the time it took to acquire the temp powers, and the time it took to fight the AV, the reward didn't nearly come close to the time invested. You can easily stealth two Newspaper/Safeguard missions on Relentless/Invincible and receive the same (or greater) amount of prestige. My AV fights lasted between 10-15 minutes, so the reward Vs. time equation definitely wasn't violated.
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard many a story about players of certain ATs (notably Stalkers) who've been blatantly excluded from the LRSF just because of their AT. Again, in my opinion that isn't right.
[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that something that isn't right happens doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem that requires a coding solution.
I get excluded from stuff all the time, because I'm a Defender without the Empathy set. It's annoying, but there are lots of other people to team with. I don't think the fix for that problem involves writing code.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hear lots of people going on about how the devs do not want people soloing AVs. This is true to the extent that they don't want *everyone* to be able to solo AVs without trying, but really, *look* at the damn game mechanics. Look at how difficulty levels work. Let's examine the following facts:
1) The devs know that some players solo AVs. They do. Clearly. They also know some folks like it.
2) Up until a little while ago, the devs clung to their "1 hero = 3 white minions" mantra. This was blatantly untrue before ED and still is today. Why did they cling to it? Did they just not know that someone with decent skills could handle four white minions? Or are they catering to the lowest common denominator with that statement?
3) If you set your difficulty to relentless/invincible and solo, you will get AVs. Not EBs.
Now then: Which is more likely?
1) The devs forgot that setting the "required heroes to spawn AV" counter to 1 for invincible would force people to solo them.
2) The devs want soloers to never use invincible.
3) The devs want soloers to have to change their difficulty one notch down at the end of virtually every story arc from 35 on.
4) The devs know damn well that some folks can and like to solo AVs, and know that if you factor in all the time it takes to get the temp powers and take the guy down the xp/time ratio is such that it's not a PLable thing. Therefore, they left in the option, while saying that they aren't technically supposed to be soloable to make sure they don't set people in the mindset that everyone should be able to handle it.
AVs are soloable and the devs know it. And if they change the temp powers, the AVs will still be soloable by certain builds using certain tactics and other, different temp powers.
Leave the Shivans and nukes as they are. They're a great example of "fun" farming (as opposed to riding around picking flowers for and hour to make fire resist potions) that provides a kind release from the static mission formula. Making them worthless would effectively kill this activity.
- J
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to have to agree with all of this. Back when Ultimus' thread first popped up in the Tanker forums, it was met with a lot of mixed feelings. Some said he was nerf-herding, but he insisted he just wanted to share his accomplishments with everyone (to "prove how strong I am" I believe was his motive).
Before I passed judgement on his actions/motives, I decided to try to take down an AV on two of my tankers. Both of my tankers were able to take down AV's (though they were just Battle Maiden and Bobcat, smashing/lethal specialists) with the aid of temp powers. I received 1000 prestige for my efforts both times. When you look at the time it took to acquire the temp powers, and the time it took to fight the AV, the reward didn't nearly come close to the time invested. You can easily stealth two Newspaper/Safeguard missions on Relentless/Invincible and receive the same (or greater) amount of prestige. My AV fights lasted between 10-15 minutes, so the reward Vs. time equation definitely wasn't violated.
[/ QUOTE ]
What temporary powers did you use? When I took down Ghost Widow it was under 2 minutes.
[ QUOTE ]
PvP doesn't have stricter balance requirements, it has *different* ones.
[/ QUOTE ]
PvP has to be, on at least some level, fair. PvE combat does not. PvP's balance concerns are based having some equity in players defeating other players.. PvE balance concerns are essentially revolve around us not being able to kill the critters too fast: its not based around them necessarily having a good change to actually kill us. The PvP constraints on balance - whether the devs do a good job of it or not - are several orders of magnitude higher.
That's one of the reasons why ultra-strong short duration powers are intrinsicly fine in PvE, but less so in PvP. Something you can only use once, or every so often, resolves one fight or situation in PvE, but doesn't overly impact levelling. In PvP, it gets you a kill. Put it another way: the unit of combat in PvE is (typically) the mission: things only have to balance out on average over a mission. In PvP, the unit of combat is the engagement: PvP has to be balanced within that shorter time frame.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I consider the missions the only one of those three options directly as a result of the devs, so we're on the same page in terms of that, at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
They designed a powers system that allowed for those massive imbalances, and they designed an XP system that one-dimensionally rewarded only ability along a specific axis: speed of defeat (and as an underlying component: direct effective damage dealing).
A better reward system and a better balanced powers system could have allowed teams that were only a damage-dealing 50 to attempt to satisfy mission objectives in non-standard ways, for which they were a 250 instead. Or to put it in more direct terms, controllers could win with control, instead of having their control be a means to an end of delivering more damage while the targets were controlled.
[/ QUOTE ]
You could also make a case that the player base as a whole could use better education about the powers/slotting system. Is ED even described in the manual? If a larger segment of the playerbase made more informed power/slotting decisions, perhaps you could narrow the chasm of ability. I'm just thinking out loud here...
[/ QUOTE ]
I had to explain that more than three slots of one type was a waste to my friend over the DoubleXP weekend, and he's been playing long enough to have most of the Veteran Rewards.
It's not 'cos he's stupid. It's 'cos he doesn't read the website/forums.
The first part of your post is reasonable:
[ QUOTE ]
Ever since the last time I got into one of these discussions, I've been trying to stay out of it, but I just don't learn.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The design *purpose* of the Shivans and Nukes is obviously to be allowed to use in the most challenging circumstances the player might face. Restricting them from being used in those situations circumvents their design purpose. Why continue to have them at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
To make PvP more interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps PvP on your server differs from PvP on mine, but I have never ever ever ever seen someone effectively use a Shivan in PvP. They're slow and have stupid AI and any idiot can joust away from them effectively. Nukes can be effective in PvP *once*, but after that, you've just used up something that takes you 20 to 30 minutes to get for about five seconds of glory. Who in the world would bother? The PvP rewards would become useless and no one would get them, kinda like the mini-heavy you can get from RV is now. Hell, most people don't even know it exists. Why? Because it's not worth the time, so no one gets it. I don't like suggestions that make content useless.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The presumption is that the only people who get them are people who are willing to tolerate PvP, and such people don't count.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this worse than the current situation where the only people who *don't* get them are those who can't stand PvP, and *those* people don't count?
[/ QUOTE ]
This will sound mean, but it's true. People who can't stand PvP don't "count" in this sense because they aren't experiencing the whole game. If I hate Strike Forces but want to fight the entire Freedom Phalanx on my villain, I have a choice of either getting over my hatred or not getting to see that fight. People who aren't magnetically repelled from PvP zones "count" because they're willing to experience that aspect of the game, and get all the pains and pleasures that come with it.
If I didn't like levelling, would it be fair for me to demand that your level 38 power got nerfed? No.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony is that this suggestion takes something away from the PvE experience, but doesn't replace it with anything. Its an Anti-PvE suggestion, it just doesn't look like one because of (what I believe to be) the mistaken belief that without Shivans and Nukes, the devs would improve the PvE experience in ways a lot of people seem to believe they are currently *prevented* from doing, but which I would assess as having essentially zero probability of occuring. So its an anti-PvP suggesstion, and an anti-PvE suggestion simultaneously. I seem to be in a minority of one that sees it that way, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that, when people suggest they be restricted, it is because they know the devs don't want us soloing AVs, and are hoping to provide a suggestion that prevents the powers from being made worthless in PvP. Also, many people making the suggestion do believe that the Devs might lower the difficulty of the LRSF if those weren't usable in it.
It's a pro PvE suggestion that is intended to remove any impact on PvP. Again, it may be made using false assumptions, but it's not made for the reasons you think it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here it comes.....
Ready for it? Say it with me now!
Bull.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here, though, there are issues, primarily factual. Ill point them out for future reference:
[ QUOTE ]
I hear lots of people going on about how the devs do not want people soloing AVs. This is true to the extent that they don't want *everyone* to be able to solo AVs without trying, but really, *look* at the damn game mechanics. Look at how difficulty levels work. Let's examine the following facts:
1) The devs know that some players solo AVs. They do. Clearly. They also know some folks like it.
2) Up until a little while ago, the devs clung to their "1 hero = 3 white minions" mantra. This was blatantly untrue before ED and still is today. Why did they cling to it? Did they just not know that someone with decent skills could handle four white minions? Or are they catering to the lowest common denominator with that statement?
3) If you set your difficulty to relentless/invincible and solo, you will get AVs. Not EBs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The metric 3=1 is untrue. The metric is 3 minions should be the *minimum* that any one hero can handle. It is not a cap, but rather a baseline.
ED and the defensive rebalance were designed to bring players closer to this baseline.
[ QUOTE ]
Now then: Which is more likely?
1) The devs forgot that setting the "required heroes to spawn AV" counter to 1 for invincible would force people to solo them.
2) The devs want soloers to never use invincible.
3) The devs want soloers to have to change their difficulty one notch down at the end of virtually every story arc from 35 on.
4) The devs know damn well that some folks can and like to solo AVs, and know that if you factor in all the time it takes to get the temp powers and take the guy down the xp/time ratio is such that it's not a PLable thing. Therefore, they left in the option, while saying that they aren't technically supposed to be soloable to make sure they don't set people in the mindset that everyone should be able to handle it.
[/ QUOTE ]
The rest of this is expansion upon a flawed premise: that 3:1 is a cap, and this evidence shows it to be broken. These items you point out simply mean that the difficulty slider is there to allow players who can and wish to do so to attempt more difficult missions.
The point, however, that AVs have been stated by the Devs to be team-based content still stands. They simply dont have an issue with people being able to solo them occasionally.
[ QUOTE ]
AVs are soloable and the devs know it. And if they change the temp powers, the AVs will still be soloable by certain builds using certain tactics and other, different temp powers.
Leave the Shivans and nukes as they are. They're a great example of "fun" farming (as opposed to riding around picking flowers for and hour to make fire resist potions) that provides a kind release from the static mission formula. Making them worthless would effectively kill this activity.
- J
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this conclusion, though I disagree that the powers are fine as they are.
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is legendary lets look at what we have:
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the PS3 and Dracula are also in here somewhere. Plus, I think I'm being nerfed in I9.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)