NPCs: Volume Vs. Difficulty (Which is Better?)

[ QUOTE ]
The Fifth Column Oroborous 'TF'.

Last room. Fighting off ALL of those Ambushes while fighting Maestro, Requiem, -and- Vandal on their little platform. 1 SR scrapper, 2 Regens. We survived by the skin of our teeth through the Triple AV Aggro, then spent a good 4 minutes fighting back against all the ambush waves. Both Regens died at least three times before we all went down.

AWESOME fight. =-3

-Rachel-

[/ QUOTE ]

When I soloed that on my inv/em tank, that last battle lasted ten minutes or more of constant fighting and I survived for only two seconds after the "Mission Complete" signal went off. Incredibly exhilarating!

---

Dec out.

Hmm, I do LIke the idea of underling swarms. But they wold ahve to exist in truly, overwhelmingly, MASSIVE numbers to pose a serious threat, but if there were enough of them acompanying the normal mobs, it could be fun.

---

[ QUOTE ]
For me, the distinction is always simple - many weak enemies to form the bulk of the resistance throughout the story, and then a single tough enemy, or a series of single tough enemies at the very end.

If every fight is a boss battle, that makes the hero seem weak by comparison. When every mook is a boss, then the hero is barely as strong as the average mook. It's much more impressive to have the hero tear through hordes of faceless supergoons, only to be matched by a single hard enemy. This lends both the hero much more credence by displaying his prowess, and it lends the villain much more credence by having him be able to take a hero who's torn through so many mooks one-on-one.

In my opinion, difficulty should always be a plot device and never a status quo. Not unless you're making some kind of survival horror, which this game most decidedly is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, see, personally I like difficulty. games are partly a storytelling excercise but they are also partly a tactical excercise as well. I can only speak from personal experienc, but as I say above, you would need a truly vast amount of underlings - we're talking at least 3 or 4 times as many mobs as in a typical 8-man spawn, and probably much more than that, before there would be any measurable chance they could bring me down. The same would be true, I think, of most skilled players I've seen in action.

Now that would be a FUN fight, but I imagine there would be logistical rpbolems with such huge spawns on many maps, and at any rate, you would need to mix some normal mobs in in order to keep things interesting - it tends to be the normal mobs that ahve the mezzes, or the HUGE burst attacks, or the stealth, or the dirty Malta-Sapper-style tricks that keep the battle interesting.

If the game could do that, then tht would be awesome, I agree. But it if just took the current spawns and removed a certain number fo mobs to replace them witha certain number of extremely underpowered mobs, just to make you feel more powerful, that might be cool for a short while,b ut once the novely wore off, it would be so easy you'd practically die of boredom.

Also, bosses are not a credible threat to a hero. You kill them b the bucketful. Thats why the majority of truly dangerous enemies are on a whole other, higher, tier -that of EB/AVs. The same tier that player-characters are held to occupy.

---

"Boss fight" is a general gaming term, at least as far as I could tell. I don't mean specifically fighting bosses, the CoH enemy class, but fighting "bosses," the general gaming concept of... Well, a boss. Take any side-scrolling beat-em-up and think what you get at the end of each level. That kind of boss.

And I have to say that bosses, at least certain ones, are very much a credible threat to at least certain ATs. I'm not sure about other people, but being that I don't over-optimize my characters and don't shoot for fighting purples all the time, so for me the right boss, say a Malta Gunslinger or a Rularuu Overseer, is very much a real, pressing threat even of a Scrapper, and pretty much a very genuine boss fight on a Blaster. More so now that they use all their powers.

But more to point, what I meant about underlings was to add them IN ADDITION to regular spawns, not INSTEAD OF enemies in the regular spawns. Think of how Void Hunters get added to spawns without replacing anyone from it. And the point of Underlings as I described it was never to present a challenge, but rather the complete opposite - to present NO challenge whatsoever, but display large groups of enemies regardless.

I've heard it several times, though I'm not sure it still holds true, that there is a certain upper limit on the number of enemies that can be drawn on the screen before the performance hit on both client and server becomes unacceptable, and that that number is roughly what an 8-man team running on one of the "more enemies" difficulties (second and fourth) would see. For that reason, I suggested padding solo spawns with Underlings until they reached somewhere close to that number of enemies to provide the visual effect of tearing through MASSES of enemies, but without screwing players by slapping them with extra difficulty in the process. To that effect, the Underlings are intended to make spawns look bigger but NOT increase their difficulty by a meaningful amount.

The net result is that if a team of 8 would face 20 enemies, then a solo player will also face 20 enemies, only his enemies would be MUCH weaker. Say, a full team of eight might face two bosses, four lieutenants and 12 minions or some such, whereas a single player would face three minions and 17 Underlings. In both situations, you're fighting against HORDES of enemies, but they are tailored to be doable for both solo players and big teams. Effectively, a mass of Underlings would be nothing more than cannon fodder, a Fireball's worth of carnage before moving on to the real, credible threats that are the actual enemies.

Essentially, we'd have a constant maximum spawn size. When the spawn rules call for anything LESS than that, the rest of the spots would be filled with Underlings. The bigger the spawn that the spawn rules dictate, the more of the worthless underlings would be replaced with actual enemies. Honestly, aside from the work needed to make it happen, I don't see a downside. Not even graphical or network lag, as we're already facing these kinds of numbers on a daily basis with no ill effect.

---

That would be interesting, but it would pose new soloing balance issues between sets with credible AoE damage ability and sets without. Problems that could nto easily be solved by simply changing damage variables (making ST heavy sets deal more damage to compensate, for instance), since that would overpower them during team play which would, in this plan, remain unchanged from what it is now. It wouldn't be anhug issues, granted - underlings are VERY weak - but I suspect it would elad to a measurable increase in disparity of solo performance between sets.

---

The problem I have with the idea of massed underling spawns is that it only provides the illusion of overwhelming odds, not the real deal.

The only time rikti monkeys have been a problem for me (not really a problem, more of a nuisance) was in wide open maps, where they got in the way when I was using tab to select my next real target. So as a threat they're on a par with a parking meter in a mayhem mission.

---

[ QUOTE ]
That would be interesting, but it would pose new soloing balance issues between sets with credible AoE damage ability and sets without. Problems that could nto easily be solved by simply changing damage variables (making ST heavy sets deal more damage to compensate, for instance), since that would overpower them during team play which would, in this plan, remain unchanged from what it is now. It wouldn't be anhug issues, granted - underlings are VERY weak - but I suspect it would elad to a measurable increase in disparity of solo performance between sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Partially, yes, though if they're not strong enough to put you in a serious danger of death by underling, I'm not sure how serious of a problem they would be. On the other hand, however, this would help make sets that overfocus on area effect attacks a lot more viable for solo than they currently are. For instance, one of the BIGGEST drawbacks of Assault Rifle is that half the set is made up of expensive AoEs when solo, you'll be lucky to face more than three enemies at a time. Yes, it's INCREDIBLY STRONG against large groups of enemies like those faced in big teams, but it's a drawback that is in no way compensated for in solo play. There are a few more sets like these, as well.

Granted, it's not as simple as "Make it happen!" but I still think it would make the game look and feel a lot more exciting than it currently is, at least solo. I have a friend who usually plays WoW on the computer next to me while I play City of Heroes, and one of the things I keep elbowing him over is "Dude! Look at how much stuff's shooting at me!" when I manage to get double spawn aggro or a few ambushes on me. Granted, a REAL big mob of strong enemies is technically more impressive, because it's a credible threat, but I still feel the theatrics of many weak enemies attacking you are worth it just by themselves.

---

Lots of tough mobs. Really wish they would increase the aggro cap. 16 Bosses just aint enough sometimes.

Edit to add. They also need to increase the number of mobs on the Nemisis platform (Redside farm). Too many empty spots not filled in with mobs.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the workload of actually making it happen, what reason is there for this NOT to be the case for all enemy groups?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would decrease the soloability of single target damage and drastically increase the value of enemy-targeted self-buffs like Soul Drain, Rise to the Challenge, and Against All Odds. Those last two powers specifically would probably make it a balance nightmare.

---

Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the workload of actually making it happen, what reason is there for this NOT to be the case for all enemy groups?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would decrease the soloability of single target damage and drastically increase the value of enemy-targeted self-buffs like Soul Drain, Rise to the Challenge, and Against All Odds. Those last two powers specifically would probably make it a balance nightmare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! Yes, I completely forgot about enemy-drawn buffs. I guess making these underlings not count would be too much of a coding nightmare, though I wouldn't say it would be a pain for single-target powersets. After all, with posing little credible threat and being easy to kill, one shouldn't have to worry about them, much less worry about viability against them. It's kind of like Gears, only even less intimidating. I'd actually put those at an almost guaranteed one-shot kill from almost everybody.

---

I used to play EQ, way back at the beginning. Our groups would work to pull a single +1 orc and beat it down. Adds needed to be mezzed or taken to one side and rooted. By no means did you feel super.

The game was grinding, challenging, boring, satisfying, and neat all at once. There is considerable nostalgia there. However, EQ [u]was not[u] super.

To me, coming to COH, one of the big 'super' things is wading through large spawns of +0* or more foes. I don't really care that they are cannon fodder- they are "my level" and I can take on lots. The LT's and Bosses serve to introduce little spikes of difficulty and "danger." Overall, I like to run on Unyielding, as the added level of Invince adds little difficulty, but I like the larger spawns of Unyield.

*for some reason, blues/greens/greys don't cut it, whites are tolerable, though weak.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from the workload of actually making it happen, what reason is there for this NOT to be the case for all enemy groups?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would decrease the soloability of single target damage and drastically increase the value of enemy-targeted self-buffs like Soul Drain, Rise to the Challenge, and Against All Odds. Those last two powers specifically would probably make it a balance nightmare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! Yes, I completely forgot about enemy-drawn buffs. I guess making these underlings not count would be too much of a coding nightmare, though I wouldn't say it would be a pain for single-target powersets. After all, with posing little credible threat and being easy to kill, one shouldn't have to worry about them, much less worry about viability against them. It's kind of like Gears, only even less intimidating. I'd actually put those at an almost guaranteed one-shot kill from almost everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard Code Rant applies to me not having any idea if it'd be too hard to make these underlings not count for the purpose of buffs, but doing so would certainly eliminate a lot of the potential problems.

---

Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
Standard Code Rant applies to me not having any idea if it'd be too hard to make these underlings not count for the purpose of buffs, but doing so would certainly eliminate a lot of the potential problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually suspect that will be the key problem with something like this. From what I've seen of the powers that do that, all of them use a pseudo-pet that just counts off one extra buff for each enemy it "sees." That's how Fulcrum Shift works and that's how whatever it's called in Cold Domination works, as well. I'm not sure about self-buff powers, though I suspect the same, which would be a rather tricky problem to fix. If it goes into AI behaviour, rather than power mechanics, it becomes a lot harder.

I can't really guess any closer without knowing how the powers actually work.

*edit*
They don't seem to work like Fulcrum Shift, but rather like Invincibility. I'm seeing two effects listed, one of which is repeated by a system that does not appear to be part of the power mechanics, because it's not described in any power documentation that I've ever seen, including Red Tomax's City of Data. It's just listed with two effects, but one isn't "normal." It's a lot like how you could never tell Thunder Strike's smashing damage component doesn't hit all targets in AoE range by reading the power's documentation, because whatever is limiting it to just the target selected is somehow... Odd.

---

[ QUOTE ]
The Fifth Column Oroborous 'TF'.

Last room. Fighting off ALL of those Ambushes while fighting Maestro, Requiem, -and- Vandal on their little platform. 1 SR scrapper, 2 Regens. We survived by the skin of our teeth through the Triple AV Aggro, then spent a good 4 minutes fighting back against all the ambush waves. Both Regens died at least three times before we all went down.

AWESOME fight. =-3

-Rachel-

[/ QUOTE ]


THIS in spades.

I duoed that with my husband. He tanked, I scrapped. Swear to god our eyes lit up when we saw that room full of eeeps. The waves were glorious.

---

Currently playing:
The Domestic: Broom/WP
Shadowhex: Dark Control/Dark Affinity
Defenestration Lass: Grav/Kin

"See, this is what happens when you have to shove all this stuff into your pockets: it's easy to misplace a suborbital warhead." -Arcanaville, on how crowded our power trays are getting lately

Given the current state of the mob AI, definitely more. While I've b*tched about it happening, there is something to the overagro on a team , especially if the Room of Death and trying to make it through anyway that is very satisfying.

The problem with 'tough" right now is that all that that means is that the mob is more tedious. They take longer to take down and are and increased risk because they hit harder but the basic tactics to take one down is the same.

I would be fully in favor with [u]smarter[u] AI for special mobs. Ones that have better reactions to solo vs. teams, reacts to different team makeups, uses their powers in more intelligent ways, etc. I wouldn't want all the mobs in the game very smart, but certainly a number of the Heroes/AVs could stand to be better tactitions.

Z

---

"I don't have an angel and a devil on my shoulder, I have Rocky and Bullwinkle." - Lore Sj�berg

Lots of enemies is the way to go, baby. I love mowing through hordes of yellow-con minions and orange LTs. Orange minions are okay... reds just start to get tedious. I would love it if you could use the difficulty to actually set spawn size and enemy level; I would choose the largest groups of +1s that I could.

Of course, I always prefer a mission to end with a fight against a Boss at least, or an Elite Boss if possible. Something to cap off all that minion-mowing with a good minute or two of trading blows with a single tough target.

---

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."

- Thomas Jefferson

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Fifth Column Oroborous 'TF'.

Last room. Fighting off ALL of those Ambushes while fighting Maestro, Requiem, -and- Vandal on their little platform. 1 SR scrapper, 2 Regens. We survived by the skin of our teeth through the Triple AV Aggro, then spent a good 4 minutes fighting back against all the ambush waves. Both Regens died at least three times before we all went down.

AWESOME fight. =-3

-Rachel-

[/ QUOTE ]


THIS in spades.

I duoed that with my husband. He tanked, I scrapped. Swear to god our eyes lit up when we saw that room full of eeeps. The waves were glorious.

[/ QUOTE ]

That room was tons of fun with my spines/dark scrapper. Popped some lucks and jumped the AVs and then just hit every inspiration that came up as the minions died.

---

Depends on the AT. On my Dominators and Controllers, I prefer to go with either Rugged or Invincible. Smaller numbers of foes mean less targets to hold, so I can get more mileage out of my control powers.

On Brutes, Tankers and Masterminds, I'd rather go with Unyielding, the larger number of foes makes for more targets for my henchmen to fire at, and to hit me to build my Fury. On my Tankers I just enjoy being surrounded by foes, although since most of my Tankers have Invincibility I am probably taking less damage from having more foes with less damage, instead of less foes with more damage.

My more stealthy Scrappers and Tankers I will usually go for lower numbers and higher levels. And Stalkers, of course, do best one on one. Likewise with my Blasters it depends on if they're more single target or AoE.

---