Should the signature villains be AV rank?
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2009-06-16 09:15 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
To those who feel average I'll say that's because you are. It's called City of Heroes, plural. The Heroes in this game aren't earthbound gods - they're cops with capes. On a busy night in AP you'll see more heroes on the streets than you'll see in any Marvel or DC story outwith the most bloated crossover event. I don't care what your back story claims - you are NOT that special.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that sucks. Why is it so wrong for us to be special and powerful and omniscient by the time we hit 50? Why should it bother anyone else? Why can't the game at least pretend it's about me, me, me? I don't understand how people can like being grunts in a grunt game when the tools are there to make us feel like we really are all that cool and all that awesome.
Besides, the story contradicts you. I beat up Lord Nemesis, Requiem, Tyrant, saved the Statesman, saved a thousand worlds, stopped a nuclear bomb from destroying the multiverse... Oh, and I did it all by myself. I also beat up Lord Recluse single-handedly, slapped around the entire Freedom Phalanx and all the Vindicators, oh, and before I forget, beat up a GODDESS all by myself. And you want to claim I'm just a cop/thug with super powers? Does not compute.
[ QUOTE ]
As for not doing a mission because you're scared of Malta - neither my Scrapper nor my MM shy away from them. In fact I like them, because unlike most other high level enemy groups they present a reasonable challenge to those characters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, pick the two most horribly overpowered ATs and use them as a baseline. I'm sure that'll work out great. Scrappers and Masterminds aren't scared of Malta. They're not scared of anything at all. Pick something simpler, like a maybe a Blaster or a Corruptor or even a Stalker and look at that.
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the minions of most enemy groups can be casually swept aside. If my scrapper focuses all of her attacks on the boss just firing off Spin and/or Shockwave a few times will ensure that by the time the boss goes down the minions around her are either defeated or close to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, sure, so can my Scrapper. My Blaster, though, can't afford to do that because these minions shoot him dead. Using Scrappers as a measuring stick is NOT a good idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
<QR>
Far too much has gone on in this thread for me to properly comment on the bulk of it, so I'll stick with the original question.
Signature characters should be AV rank.
I think the the problem with AVs is that there is a disconnect on intent. The people that are unhappy with them see the AV rank as the character's natural state. A juggernaut of power reminiscent of the old Mary Sue that no player can ever match.
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
Certainly it might be nice to have a bit of in game evidence to support the idea that these guys aren't naturally better than you. Some overblown mooks, like Hopkins, might simply be higher level than you are right now. If Hopkins showed up in the 40s as a mere EB, it might send the message that when you beat him on Manticore's Task Force, he may have had AV stats, but you were really just fighting a bum ten levels higher than you. A few select characters showing up this way would imply that many, or most lower level AVs are really just tough because you con gray to them, not some special class of power you can never reach.
I still wouldn't mind far more engaging fights with multiple foes or against less moronic AI, rather than against mountains of bigger-numbers-than-you-get. Thankfully, the new SF shows that the Devs are working in that direction. Sure Reichsman is the biggest bag of hitpoints so far, but there are more complications in that fight than any other.
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Provided they scale down to elite bosses, it doesn't really matter anyway. That's a reason why it actually work. Thank our lucky stars for that particular change.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Provided they scale down to elite bosses, it doesn't really matter anyway. That's a reason why it actually work. Thank our lucky stars for that particular change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Anything outside of team only content does. Yes, its one of my favorite changes so far. Now if they'd only do something about the PToD on EBs for the poor Dominators. (Or just do something about that dumb cludge in general, like put any thought into it.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you've been playing an MMO for a VERY long time for someone who just stated that they essentially hate the MMORPG model.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only MMO I've ever been able to play for more than a week exactly BECAUSE it doesn't follow the "MMORPG model" to the letter. I like this game IN SPITE OF it being an MMO, not BECAUSE of it. If I wanted the hardcore Korean grindfest MMO experience, I'd go play WoW or Lineage II or 9Dragons or any of the other games to that effect. I picked City of Heroes because it WASN'T any of these things.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, it isn't as grindy as some other MMO's, but it still is an example of what you said you hated. You don't start as powerful as you're going to be. It's a time consuming process to get stronger and stronger until you hit that peak level.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you've been playing an MMO for a VERY long time for someone who just stated that they essentially hate the MMORPG model.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only MMO I've ever been able to play for more than a week exactly BECAUSE it doesn't follow the "MMORPG model" to the letter. I like this game IN SPITE OF it being an MMO, not BECAUSE of it. If I wanted the hardcore Korean grindfest MMO experience, I'd go play WoW or Lineage II or 9Dragons or any of the other games to that effect. I picked City of Heroes because it WASN'T any of these things.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, it isn't as grindy as some other MMO's, but it still is an example of what you said you hated. You don't start as powerful as you're going to be. It's a time consuming process to get stronger and stronger until you hit that peak level.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, unlike other MMOs, it's also an entertainment process. I don't start out as strong as I'm going to be, but I start out as strong as I need to be, and for the most part, stay as strong as I need to be the game over. I don't mind progress itself, I mind NEEDING progress and having to grind for it. Any time I feel like I'm not enjoying what I'm doing but I have to do it anyway because I need to move forward, I'm no longer having fun.
And that's not unique to MMOs or RPGs. Recently released game Prototype is just as grindy as this. Rather than follow the actual story, you're forced to indulge in mindless "Kill Frenzy!" style events for "evolution points" so you can unlock the powers you need.
The argument, though, was more about not having combat decided before it ever starts. I don't want my battles to take place in the spreadsheet and on the stopwatch, with the ACTUAL encounter being only a foregone conclusion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
[ QUOTE ]
The argument, though, was more about not having combat decided before it ever starts. I don't want my battles to take place in the spreadsheet and on the stopwatch, with the ACTUAL encounter being only a foregone conclusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem with MMOs though...even this one. There are very few encounters where anything surprising happens. You've noticed how boring the powers of most AVs/EBs are right? They are simply inflated in damage and effect to make the encounter 'hard'.
That should never be the case in ALL encounters. That's why I used Countess Crey in my example earlier. To me, it's ok if the actual AV/EB is whimpy...but their encounter is still challenging in some way. The devs have obviously felt that this is too much of a hassle to design any encounters this way.
[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree that:
1: Encounters intended to be challenges for OCD minmaxers should be labelled as such.
2: Such encounters should exist.
3: It's okay for at least Statesman and Recluse, if not their sidekicks and pals, to be above the level that PCs can reach, and on the same level as P.L.O.T device characters like Superman or Thanos.
4: Casual players should be able to solo 80%+ of content their Contacts give them on heroic without faceplanting 5 times per mission if they at least stay awake at the keyboard.
5: The game should have more time invested in making challenging content more chjallenging in variety of ways other than the 'bag of hit points' method.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, "we" can't agree. Not on all points.
1: and 2: Again, why should the developers cater to (referring back to my anecdote) the guy who chooses to leverage an advantage the developers didn't intend to give him to gain a reward higher than everyone else just because he made that choice?
I strongly doubt the developers sat down at a meeting table and said: "Ok, we're rolling out this ED thing soon because player characters are over powered. We're going to knock all them down a couple pegs in the interest of game balance. BUT these combos here, they get to solo AVs just because.
Your ill/rad Controller that you put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on for rare IOs, doesn't deserve to be able to tackle an AV that my WP/SS Tanker, who I've put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on rare IOs for can't defeat, just becuase developers like to crap on S/L damage and because debuffs are way more potent than they really should be.
If min/maxers are just seeking a challenge, why don't they challenge themselves with running arcs with the added difficulty settings like being debuffed and having the enemies buffed? Or having their enhancers deactivated? I'm sure with those settings, EBs would become as challenging as AVs.
The reason is because it's not about challenge. It's about e-peen. And at this point it's not even about saying your the first to solo an AV with X build.
So I would not hesitate to "diminish" the accomplishment(pressing buttons iz hard) of defeating an AV by allowing the majorty of players to be able to, or by changing what an AV is so more players could defeat them.
You can't hide behind "lack of challenge" to oppose that because I'm willing to bet if the extreme min/maxers used those challenge settings pointed out above, or *GASP* used a less than optimal build, AT or combo, they would have more than enough challenge.
3: No, it's not. That's exactly what this thread is about. A good number of people here feel the signature characters, especially the flagship characters, are over shadowing. Recluse and States have no reason to dwarf players in power levels.
I'm likely a better boxer than the president. There are smarter people than him. But he's the president and we're not. There's no reason for Recluse and Statesman to need to be on a power tier above everyone else in order for States to be the premier hero of the city or for Recluse to have established his web of power as ruler of the Isles.
If anything, the game should be about the next generation of upstart heroes and villains who come in and upset the status quo of States' and Recluse's little 75 year old family feud because they're no longer the towers of power they once were.
4: I'm under the impression we're at this point. I don't object to the dev's bare minimum level, but the spread of low end to high end has always been very large. Larger than it really should be. I'm about empowering players, but rewarding the outliers isn't part of that philosophy. Either every AT and combo gets a fair shot at soloing an AV, or no one should. Capping your damage and recharge and surviving the damage being dealt against you and still not being able to succeed isn't a fair shot, IMO.
5: That, I will agree with 100%
.
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even in that situation, what is better writing? The entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom is suddenly abnormally badass for no reason what so ever, or the entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom has gotten his hands on the Magical McGuffin which makes him ten times as powerful?
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm fine with signature characters temporarily becoming AVs when the story gives reasons for it, but not when it is totally arbitrary.
Infatum on Virtueverse
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even in that situation, what is better writing? The entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom is suddenly abnormally badass for no reason what so ever, or the entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom has gotten his hands on the Magical McGuffin which makes him ten times as powerful?
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm fine with signature characters temporarily becoming AVs when the story gives reasons for it, but not when it is totally arbitrary.
[/ QUOTE ]
And even when the story does give reason for it, as in the last three TFs added to the game, using that all the time to justify every AV encounter gets real old, real fast, especially when you rarely see that character NOT powered up.
Don't get me wrong, having a reason is better than no reason, but if all they're doing is using that as a cop out to keep throwing AVs at us, that doesn't fix anything.
As Shadow_Fire pointed out, fickle power levels and inconsistant writing are part of comics; part of the poorer ones.
While it's true I think the game should embrace fun aspects of comics, this isn't one of them. I don't want it any more than I want pop-up ads half way through a mission about "Selling Grit for CASH PROFIT and FREE PRIZES!"
That being said, I've said before I wouldn't mind a riff on Hostess Fruit Pies in the game in some form.
There's your "gadget fight" and alternative finale encounter right there.
http://www.seanbaby.com/hostess/v2spiderman21.htm
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If that is true, then it begs the obvious question: why is it possible to spawn them solo? If the developers were not only certain it was impossible to defeat them solo, but specifically WANTED to ensure that no one ever defeated thems solo, thenit seems to me that the unbelievably simply
[/ QUOTE ]
If my memory is correct...
Originally the AV->EB system was such that AVs never spawned solo. However, players with builds capable of, and desired to, solo AVs, complained that they had to get additional teammates to pad their missions in order to spawn an AV. So it was changed such that AVs will appear on the highest difficulty setting.
This doesn't indicate that the devs intended for people to defeat AVs solo, but that they were willing to allow people who to make a choice whether they want an AV or an EB in a solo mission.
But it doesn't mean that they don't intend people to defeat AVs solo, either. dev intention has changed over time and I think the current state is acceptance that IOs and powerset selection can create AV-killers.
[/ QUOTE ]
It may not mean that its a specificly intended feature, but it certainly seems like a clear indication that they have no particularly fundamental objection to the concept, as Butane claims.
[ QUOTE ]
I think most AV fights are stupid and boring. My main gripe is stupid AI and lack of challenging fights. Instead we have the brute force "bag of hp with big damage". The same "bag of hp with big damage" is what causes people to dislike AVs for making player characters feel third rate, because no matter what, you know your tanker's handclap isn't going to be hitting for hundreds of hp damage...and your defender isn't going to be hitting like 10 blasters combined...
If we have better AI and better designed fights, we can do away with the whole AV mechanism. It'd be probably more difficult to fight a bunch of smart EBs with different powers, than one dumb AV. Win-win for everyone. People who can't solo don't feel outclassed because they were outnumbered, and people who can, get a higher sense of satisfaction at beating a more difficult challenge.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Its simply that designing a smarter AI is hard. YOu cna tell by how no one seems to be able to do it. I've played games with "advanced" AIs - most recently Darkfall Online (GREAT PvP game if you dont mind the FPS-style targetting... and if you can actually manage to buy it); if there was any difference between their AI and the one here, I couldn't tell. The "advanced" AI was so bright it would even walk through lava flows and other damaging environment features to reach someone who agroed it. I would like to see a smarter AI, buit it seems to be a tough thing for programming teams to actually accomplish. Raising the amount of damage something does, however, is eays. I dont know enough about programming (that is to say: anything at all) to undertand why that is exactly, but experience tells me it is so.
As we discuss above you an simulate a smarter AI by changing certain basic assumptions, as in the immune to taunt powers example. Of course, as we also discussed, if you did that for every battle it would mean that all taunt powers were literally useless. The game is built around certain assumptions in how encounters work, and while changing those assumptions for a particular fight would lead to an awesome and unique challenge, changing them for every fight would quickly make vast numbers of builds, and even whole classes in danger of being obselete.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree that:
1: Encounters intended to be challenges for OCD minmaxers should be labelled as such.
2: Such encounters should exist.
3: It's okay for at least Statesman and Recluse, if not their sidekicks and pals, to be above the level that PCs can reach, and on the same level as P.L.O.T device characters like Superman or Thanos.
4: Casual players should be able to solo 80%+ of content their Contacts give them on heroic without faceplanting 5 times per mission if they at least stay awake at the keyboard.
5: The game should have more time invested in making challenging content more chjallenging in variety of ways other than the 'bag of hit points' method.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, "we" can't agree. Not on all points.
1: and 2: Again, why should the developers cater to (referring back to my anecdote) the guy who chooses to leverage an advantage the developers didn't intend to give him to gain a reward higher than everyone else just because he made that choice?
I strongly doubt the developers sat down at a meeting table and said: "Ok, we're rolling out this ED thing soon because player characters are over powered. We're going to knock all them down a couple pegs in the interest of game balance. BUT these combos here, they get to solo AVs just because.
Your ill/rad Controller that you put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on for rare IOs, doesn't deserve to be able to tackle an AV that my WP/SS Tanker, who I've put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on rare IOs for can't defeat, just becuase developers like to crap on S/L damage and because debuffs are way more potent than they really should be.
If min/maxers are just seeking a challenge, why don't they challenge themselves with running arcs with the added difficulty settings like being debuffed and having the enemies buffed? Or having their enhancers deactivated? I'm sure with those settings, EBs would become as challenging as AVs.
The reason is because it's not about challenge. It's about e-peen. And at this point it's not even about saying your the first to solo an AV with X build.
So I would not hesitate to "diminish" the accomplishment(pressing buttons iz hard) of defeating an AV by allowing the majorty of players to be able to, or by changing what an AV is so more players could defeat them.
You can't hide behind "lack of challenge" to oppose that because I'm willing to bet if the extreme min/maxers used those challenge settings pointed out above, or *GASP* used a less than optimal build, AT or combo, they would have more than enough challenge.
3: No, it's not. That's exactly what this thread is about. A good number of people here feel the signature characters, especially the flagship characters, are over shadowing. Recluse and States have no reason to dwarf players in power levels.
I'm likely a better boxer than the president. There are smarter people than him. But he's the president and we're not. There's no reason for Recluse and Statesman to need to be on a power tier above everyone else in order for States to be the premier hero of the city or for Recluse to have established his web of power as ruler of the Isles.
If anything, the game should be about the next generation of upstart heroes and villains who come in and upset the status quo of States' and Recluse's little 75 year old family feud because they're no longer the towers of power they once were.
4: I'm under the impression we're at this point. I don't object to the dev's bare minimum level, but the spread of low end to high end has always been very large. Larger than it really should be. I'm about empowering players, but rewarding the outliers isn't part of that philosophy. Either every AT and combo gets a fair shot at soloing an AV, or no one should. Capping your damage and recharge and surviving the damage being dealt against you and still not being able to succeed isn't a fair shot, IMO.
5: That, I will agree with 100%
.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, I fundamentally disagree with your number 4 assumption. Not all builds are eqallyt good at soloing. ANd frankly not all builds are equally good, period. IF you didnt do the research and/or analysis to figure out which ones were better (or if you chose to build a sub-optimal character anyway) then you do not get the same performance as someone who did. If you want that performance, roll a better character. I dont see a cosmic injustice in that; all I see is lazy or incompetant people who want the game to be made easier for them rather than rising to meet its challenge. I knwo blasters, and defenders, for that matter, who have soloed archvillains. For the love of pitty there are DOMINATORS who have soloed archvillains, and they have been widely derided as the most utterly useless architype in the game in an archvillain fight. Don't tell me only scrappers, masterminds and illusionists can pull it off because thats flatly untrue.
And thats without even getting into temp powers. Drop a shivan and pop some inspirations for survival, and you really don't even need a partiularly tricked out build for AVs.
In my opinion every single class should be capable of reaching the absolute highest tier of performance. Thats botha realisticaly attainable goal in terms fo game design, and also a goal that is fair to all players, since all play-styles (in so far as the architypes available to us represent all players) will be represented.
But trying to create a game where every single build possible for every single class will reach the top tier of play is not only impossible, its highly undesirable. Not only would it obviate any need to every put any work into designing your character, but it would mean that there would be no variety in play-style. Earth/Storm is a very high end controller build. It will never solo archvillains. It doesn't ahve the damage. But it is still very high end. There are thigns that a well-build Earth/Storm controller cna do - impressive, seamingly impossible, feats of crowd control - that my illusion/radiation controller will never, ever be able to duplicate no matter how much time or influence I put into her. Similarly, I will never be able to mow down spawns with the awe-inspiring speed of a fire/kinetic controller, but I can survive extremelly difficult encounters that would leave a fire/kinetics controller laid out on the pavement. These are not bad things, they are good things. I wouldn't want there to be one controller build that was literally better than every other build in every single situation. And similarly, if anyone who just chose two randomly selected priamry/secondaries and slapped them together, and picked whichever powers sounded cool were capable of doing all the exact same things as somone who carefuly researched his build; painstakingly tested it; and spent hundreds of hours assemblin the necessary loot to make it sing, then what would be the point of doing any of those things? The cynic might say "none, and you're a looser, Fernandes"... and he might be right, but MMOs thrive on people who keep playing because they're constantly seeking to acquire the next step in the leet-gear ladder, and defeat the next impossible challenge, and you can't blame me if, as one of those people, IM not keen to see my hard work rendered irrelevent.
[ QUOTE ]
Its simply that designing a smarter AI is hard.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMHO (IANAP, Standard code rant) it's easy to make smarter AI: it's just not easy to make BETTER AI. They are not the same thing.
It would be easy (someone alluded to EQ) to add:
- healing aggro.
-To have the foes concentrate fire on the opponent in range with the lowest hp.
- to have foes react to 'holes' in PC defenses or weaknesses
- foes that aggro other groups while fleeing
- foes that call more groups
- hot doors
- foes that use Teleport Other, or Taunt
Many of these have come up before, and for each player that wants one of these in the game, there are three that shout "No! Don't!"
Heck, just give all of the enemies a 200' radius perception range like the players have for one day and see the chaos that brings.
There are a lot of clever AI tricks I see in this game and no other:
- Tsoo Sorcerers
- The way Vahzilok become smarter around their handlers
- General critter pathing (not nearly perfect, but far better than in any other game I've seen, including WoW, AO, and others)
Problem is, players don't really want 'smarter' foes, they want 'more interesting' ones. Which is subjective and often exploitable.
That's why I think one solution is to have some encounters/foes that are labeled 'for OCD crack monkeys only', rather than to have bland content literally anyone can solo.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even in that situation, what is better writing? The entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom is suddenly abnormally badass for no reason what so ever, or the entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom has gotten his hands on the Magical McGuffin which makes him ten times as powerful?
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm fine with signature characters temporarily becoming AVs when the story gives reasons for it, but not when it is totally arbitrary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Granted, but as Butane notes above, using a McGuffin for every single boss fight would fast approach the point of rediculousness. Comic writters have long since realized this and dispensed with any need for consistency in the power level, and even gross capabilities of characters (any long time Doctor Strange fans such as myself will be familiar with the phenominon where something which is done easilly in one issue will later be described as theoretically impossible and visa-versa; magical time travel is a good example). Instead the comi writters use whatever works best for the narrative. the AV/EB scaledown is essentially the 'writters' of CoH doing the same thing.
[ QUOTE ]
Granted, but as Butane notes above, using a McGuffin for every single boss fight would fast approach the point of rediculousness. Comic writters have long since realized this and dispensed with any need for consistency in the power level, and even gross capabilities of characters (any long time Doctor Strange fans such as myself will be familiar with the phenominon where something which is done easilly in one issue will later be described as theoretically impossible and visa-versa; magical time travel is a good example). Instead the comi writters use whatever works best for the narrative. the AV/EB scaledown is essentially the 'writters' of CoH doing the same thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I've suggested turning some AV fights into multi-EB fights (any team that would mow through multiple EBs would also mow through a single AV, most AVs are easy already).
But honestly if this power scaling thing is so acceptable, why not reverse it? Have a mission or two where you fight the entire freedom phalanx and they're all lieutenants, because in this issue of City of Heroes you're the star? Obviously that'd be ridiculous and not exceptionally fun, but that's pretty much how some people such as myself see the current AV mechanic. It's ridiculous and silly in the majority of places its used. A team shows up and all of the sudden Mr. Natural Manticore can take freight trains to the chest?
I can and do beat these jokers into the pavement, but it doesn't change the fact that they're numerically superior for no reason whatsoever. It's hard to find any sense of accomplishment in winning over adversity that conceptually has no reason to be there, and makes me feel less super given the time and effort overcoming said adversity took.
Infatum on Virtueverse
[ QUOTE ]
1: and 2: Again, why should the developers cater to (referring back to my anecdote) the guy who chooses to leverage an advantage the developers didn't intend to give him to gain a reward higher than everyone else just because he made that choice?
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think the developers should reward exploiting (small e), which is what this would be.
But I do think that someone who went out and collected SOs should be rewarded with better performance, and consequently be able to solo content, that someone who doesn't bother should. I am a casual player myself, and If I don't take time to collect IOs or HOs or SHOEs, I should not be able to complete 100% of the content in this game on the hardest difficulty.
It's one thing to say, "I don't want to feel outclassed and disrespected by the game content" and another to say, "no one should be able to face any challenge I cannot face, despite any disparities in our builds, playstyles, or skill".
The same principle applies to reading the forums for build advice, learning by trial and error, or even calling for help from total strangers.
[ QUOTE ]
Your ill/rad Controller that you put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on for rare IOs, doesn't deserve to be able to tackle an AV that my WP/SS Tanker, who I've put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on rare IOs for can't defeat, just becuase developers like to crap on S/L damage and because debuffs are way more potent than they really should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your Tanker may not be able to take on THAT Archvillain, but there should be some Archvillains she can take IF SHE SPECIFICALLY BUILDS FOR FIGHTING ARCHVILLAINS. The freedom you have to build to be able to take an Arch foe also means that you can build to NOT be able to take on big hard targets because you chose to specialize elsewhere, like aggro management and meat shieldery.
[ QUOTE ]
If min/maxers are just seeking a challenge, why don't they challenge themselves with running arcs with the added difficulty settings like being debuffed and having the enemies buffed? Or having their enhancers deactivated? I'm sure with those settings, EBs would become as challenging as AVs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some do. But some want to face something that challenges even their best stuff.
I beleive there should be content in the game that challenges the very best AT their very best, even though that means I personally will never be able to solo that content.
[ QUOTE ]
Recluse and States have no reason to dwarf players in power levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? Or more precisely, should there be ANY inidividual foes in the game that are even conceptually team content, even if they happen to normally possess a human form? If there are any, then why not States and Recluse?
Thanos, Doom, and Magneto are often portrayed as being 'team content' for the best of the best, including the Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Avengers. I don't see that being out of place here.
[ QUOTE ]
Either every AT and combo gets a fair shot at soloing an AV, or no one should.
[/ QUOTE ]
I beleive every AT and powerset combo should have a fair shot at soloiing an even-level Archfoe. I do NOT beleive they should all have a fair shot at soloing EVERY even level Archfoe.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1: and 2: Again, why should the developers cater to (referring back to my anecdote) the guy who chooses to leverage an advantage the developers didn't intend to give him to gain a reward higher than everyone else just because he made that choice?
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think the developers should reward exploiting (small e), which is what this would be.
But I do think that someone who went out and collected SOs should be rewarded with better performance, and consequently be able to solo content, that someone who doesn't bother should. I am a casual player myself, and If I don't take time to collect IOs or HOs or SHOEs, I should not be able to complete 100% of the content in this game on the hardest difficulty.
It's one thing to say, "I don't want to feel outclassed and disrespected by the game content" and another to say, "no one should be able to face any challenge I cannot face, despite any disparities in our builds, playstyles, or skill".
The same principle applies to reading the forums for build advice, learning by trial and error, or even calling for help from total strangers.
[ QUOTE ]
Your ill/rad Controller that you put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on for rare IOs, doesn't deserve to be able to tackle an AV that my WP/SS Tanker, who I've put hundreds of hours into and spent 3 billion inf on rare IOs for can't defeat, just becuase developers like to crap on S/L damage and because debuffs are way more potent than they really should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your Tanker may not be able to take on THAT Archvillain, but there should be some Archvillains she can take IF SHE SPECIFICALLY BUILDS FOR FIGHTING ARCHVILLAINS. The freedom you have to build to be able to take an Arch foe also means that you can build to NOT be able to take on big hard targets because you chose to specialize elsewhere, like aggro management and meat shieldery.
[ QUOTE ]
If min/maxers are just seeking a challenge, why don't they challenge themselves with running arcs with the added difficulty settings like being debuffed and having the enemies buffed? Or having their enhancers deactivated? I'm sure with those settings, EBs would become as challenging as AVs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some do. But some want to face something that challenges even their best stuff.
I beleive there should be content in the game that challenges the very best AT their very best, even though that means I personally will never be able to solo that content.
[ QUOTE ]
Recluse and States have no reason to dwarf players in power levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? Or more precisely, should there be ANY inidividual foes in the game that are even conceptually team content, even if they happen to normally possess a human form? If there are any, then why not States and Recluse?
Thanos, Doom, and Magneto are often portrayed as being 'team content' for the best of the best, including the Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Avengers. I don't see that being out of place here.
[ QUOTE ]
Either every AT and combo gets a fair shot at soloing an AV, or no one should.
[/ QUOTE ]
I beleive every AT and powerset combo should have a fair shot at soloiing an even-level Archfoe. I do NOT beleive they should all have a fair shot at soloing EVERY even level Archfoe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just for the record, I am bout 2 inches away from falling in love with you right now.
On another note, I missed the comment about challenge ratings. Its true that content is harder if you debuff yourself or negate your enhancements, or so on. Its eqaully true that content would be harder if I intentionally designed a gimped build and then played with it. But part of the challenge (a big part) is specifically in designing the best built you can and using it to take on the biggest challenge you can find. Now and then it can be novel to run without enhancements just to make yourself think outside the box, but as a modus operandi, it defeats the point.
[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to find any sense of accomplishment in winning over adversity that conceptually has no reason to be there,
[/ QUOTE ]
The issue here is that conceptually, in the minds of the creators of the game, that adversity DOES have a reason to be there (presumably).
The fact that you can write a bio justifying your power levels as well or better than they can (for instance) has nothing to do with the fact that the Phalanx are designed to be uberly powerful numerically to a level 50; they created the concepts, so they get to define them.
They may not define them to your personal satisfaction, but in a field of 150,000 players, any opinion is likely to be in the minority.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Granted, but as Butane notes above, using a McGuffin for every single boss fight would fast approach the point of rediculousness. Comic writters have long since realized this and dispensed with any need for consistency in the power level, and even gross capabilities of characters (any long time Doctor Strange fans such as myself will be familiar with the phenominon where something which is done easilly in one issue will later be described as theoretically impossible and visa-versa; magical time travel is a good example). Instead the comi writters use whatever works best for the narrative. the AV/EB scaledown is essentially the 'writters' of CoH doing the same thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I've suggested turning some AV fights into multi-EB fights (any team that would mow through multiple EBs would also mow through a single AV, most AVs are easy already).
But honestly if this power scaling thing is so acceptable, why not reverse it? Have a mission or two where you fight the entire freedom phalanx and they're all lieutenants, because in this issue of City of Heroes you're the star? Obviously that'd be ridiculous and not exceptionally fun, but that's pretty much how some people such as myself see the current AV mechanic. It's ridiculous and silly in the majority of places its used. A team shows up and all of the sudden Mr. Natural Manticore can take freight trains to the chest?
I can and do beat these jokers into the pavement, but it doesn't change the fact that they're numerically superior for no reason whatsoever. It's hard to find any sense of accomplishment in winning over adversity that conceptually has no reason to be there, and makes me feel less super given the time and effort overcoming said adversity took.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many archvillains are easy for a tema to steam-roll but not all. Very powerful archvillains, such as those found in the end-game task-forces, or possible through the AE, can confound poorly put together teams. Downgrade them to EBs and those same teams would flatten them.
I would argue that drawing extra EBs depending on how many characters are in the party, aside from all practicla consdierations, is an even bigger and less believable mcguffin than givign every single archvillain uber-duper power boost of some kind. It might work reasonably well for "teams", but what about the lone bad guys? If you went to take on Nemesis, and found him having a beer with his friends Tyrant, Countess Crey, Doctor Vazilhok, and Vanessa DeVore, in teh middle of his secret pbacse while implimenting his plan for world domination, do you honestly think your first reaction would be "that is a highly likely sequence of events and I see nothing out of place here at all; lets kick some [censored]?" Even for teams of archvillains like the Praetorians or the Arachnos head haunchos, it would quickly begin to stretch credulity if they are hanging out with half of their team-mates every single time you and your friends show up to grease them.
[ QUOTE ]
See, I fundamentally disagree with your number 4 assumption. Not all builds are eqallyt good at soloing. ANd frankly not all builds are equally good, period. IF you didnt do the research and/or analysis to figure out which ones were better (or if you chose to build a sub-optimal character anyway) then you do not get the same performance as someone who did. If you want that performance, roll a better character.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point that there shouldn't BE drastically better characters based on things players can't control like what power set contains massively overpowered debuffs and what set contains attacks with an overly resisted damage type.
Tell me, what would a dev say if someone asked to TRIPPLE the damage of Tankers?
Or if someone suggested making Blasters as survivable as Brutes?
They would say 'no' because that would be overpowered. There would be little reason to play any other AT. They would become the optimal AT.
That is what you are preaching. That flys in the face of all the balancing effort the devs have put into the game. You're saying it's OK for a handfull of combos to better for no reason other than a mathamatical quirk or because eliminating that outlier would create other problems.
That isn't rewarding hard work or skill with better performace. That's rewarding someone who followed a build guide someone else wrote and either farmed for a lot of hours or bought inf to obtain IOs.
[ QUOTE ]
and you can't blame me if, as one of those people, IM not keen to see my hard work rendered irrelevent.
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't "work hard" at all. You pushed buttons in a video game, George Jetson.
And I pushed buttons too. As many as you, for as long as you. And I pay the same fee every month as you too. So why should you get rewarded because one combo and AT is better than another? Why am I wrong for picking something different?
You likely have no more skill at this game than I do. I could roll the same AT and combo as you and within a short time devise a AV soloing build based what players who've gone before me have discovered. With my network of friends I could have him leveled up and outfitted with IOs in short order. Suddenly, your "work", is rendered just as irrelevent.
But just as I don't crawl inside glitched geometry just because it's possible, I don't build a character with no real concept behind it just because that outlier is better.
And just the same as that hangar glitcher I kicked from my server, I don't think it's fair to the vast majority of players, including anyone else who builds for something other than pure performance, that such outliers exist. And I'm especially disgusted that anyone can have a feeling of entitlement or superiority because they choose to take advantage of them.
***
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm done with this line of the discussion. You've made me very mad, and not for the reason you likely expect.
You've made me stand up for the devs, defend them and even compliment them in these little exchanges. That makes me feel so dirty I can't describe, especially since when the sun rises tomorrow, they're still going to continue to deny me the things I've spent two and a half years fighting for.
.
[ QUOTE ]
The issue here is that conceptually, in the minds of the creators of the game, that adversity DOES have a reason to be there (presumably).
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly if they *want* to give story reasons why the Freedom Phalanx is so much better than everyone else so be it, but as I have asked several times already: What does that accomplish?
Does that add fun somehow? Does someone here like being their lackeys? I want challenge, I want some AVs, but the specific point here is that certain characters are crapping on the fun of some players for no reason that I can see aside from laziness on the developer's part or some hidden love they have for their in game avatars which defies good business sense.
I want challenging encounters, I want AVs, but if you're going to put characters in the game that by all appearances are essentially the same as 90% of the players I've met in game, I don't want them showing me up at every turn like some sort of terrible author insert from a bad MA arc.
Infatum on Virtueverse
[ QUOTE ]
Many archvillains are easy for a tema to steam-roll but not all. Very powerful archvillains, such as those found in the end-game task-forces, or possible through the AE, can confound poorly put together teams. Downgrade them to EBs and those same teams would flatten them.
[/ QUOTE ]
We went over this earlier but...
Aeon in the STF *should* be an AV because of his device. Wretch and the other flunkies should be heavily supported EBs.
Recluse at the end of the STF *should* be an AV because of his Web, his henchies on the other hand should be aggro linked EBs that are tied to the flier and have powerful backup themed to their branches of arachnos.
Romulus at the end of the ITF *should* be an AV because of the nictus infusion, but when he is with Requiem they should be heavily supported EBs (and should actually be linked to their support).
I can provide other examples if you like, but again if they have a decent story excuse, fine, if not EB them and ramp up the spawn with generic EBs and other goodies so it's actually a challenge.
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that drawing extra EBs depending on how many characters are in the party, aside from all practicla consdierations, is an even bigger and less believable mcguffin than givign every single archvillain uber-duper power boost of some kind. It might work reasonably well for "teams", but what about the lone bad guys? If you went to take on Nemesis, and found him having a beer with his friends Tyrant, Countess Crey, Doctor Vazilhok, and Vanessa DeVore,
[/ QUOTE ]
I was never implying additional named EBs would be used. My original suggestion was to add generic EBs to each group that didn't have one and use those instead. Most late game groups either have EBs already, or have bosses that would be very challenging if upgraded to EBs.
Infatum on Virtueverse
[ QUOTE ]
But honestly if this power scaling thing is so acceptable, why not reverse it? Have a mission or two where you fight the entire freedom phalanx and they're all lieutenants, because in this issue of City of Heroes you're the star? Obviously that'd be ridiculous and not exceptionally fun, but that's pretty much how some people such as myself see the current AV mechanic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, that would ROCK for a level 50 mission.
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly if they *want* to give story reasons why the Freedom Phalanx is so much better than everyone else so be it, but as I have asked several times already: What does that accomplish?
[/ QUOTE ]
What does it accomplish for Superman to be (presumably) on a higher tier of power than anyone else can reach in DCUO? It's just a byproduct of his concept and his history (DCUO will go on to make me eat my words by making Kandorians and Daxamites player races).
Manticore likely conceived of this universe (along with Rick Dakan and Jack Emmert, I think) to feel like a long-established hero universe just like DC and Marvel. As such there are powerful established icons like Captain Marvel/Statesman or Recluse/Doom. They are conceptually team content from the ground up.
Now I agree that not everyone who is an icon in this world needs that status. I can easily see Manticore and Back Alley Brawler for instance, being EBs or even topping out before level 50. Heck, if Batman were in this game, he should be outclassed by a Gaardvord in terms of physical combat: I'm sure any of them could take Killer Croc.
But in any case, I'm sure there are people in the game (out of 150k, pprobably every conceivable opinion is reflected) whose experience would be diminished if they felt like the signature hero of the universe were just some chump they could easily take down solo. That's actually beside the point, kind of.
The point is YOU don't like it. Even if every one of the other 150,000 people were united in one voice against you, you'd still not like the fact that you are overshadowed by Statesman. That's fine.
MY point is:
1) There is always going to be a critter that has bigger numbers than you; they are NEEDED.
2) Since those are going to exist, there is no reason to exclude the Signature Heroes from that status UNLESS doing so would improve the game significantly. I have yet to be convinced that this is the case.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
I think perhaps we're using two differnet definitions of "hard work" so let me clarify. Something is not "hard work" because its difficult. Most real jobs that people really get paid for that are hard work are not terribly difficult. YOu dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to stack boxes in a warehouse or type 200 page documents as a clerical secretary. But that doesn't meen those things aren't hard work. What makes them hard work si the amount of time and energy they consume. In this sense gearing up a top tier character in an MMO is also hard work - it requires a large investment of time and effort. I happen to think there's more skill involved than you give credit for, but you're right in that the same internet that makes such games possible ensures that, as with the dockworker or the secretary, its not rocket science, at least for somoene willing to do the research. But how much skill it requires is almost competly beside the point.
Although for teh record, I have observed in my long gaming carrear that while following an online guide can make a good player great, and while testing and fine tuning that advice can make a great one truly superlative; no amount of fake virtual cash or time spent in research can make a mediocre player good. That takes practice and the ability to learn. If you need proof of this you need only turn to the plethora of fire/kin controlelrs with 2 billion dollar builds who nonetheless manage to suck out loud.
Also, I'm sorry that disagreement upsets you so. I've enjoyed the entire conversation myself. That said, I am glad, ironicaly, that we agree on one thing at least: that nothing is likely to come of it.
There are people in this game who want to min/max their character and still be pushed to their limits.
There are also people who want to play casually, but at their peak, feel equal to the signature characters.
It's not going to be easy, and it may not be possible, to satisfy both camps with the same content. That's one reason there is are reputation contacts, which is an innovative compromise.
I do NOT think that an empath/electric with randomly chosen powers, run by a 13 year old casual player for whom this is their first MMO, who has only SOs, who never reads guides/seeks advice/visits the forums and whose powers and slotting were literally randomly chosen, should be able to solo the ITF on max difficulty by "face rolling". They should, however, be able to complete 80%+ of the solo content given out by their own Contacts on Heroic without faceplanting 5 times per mission.
By the same token, there should be challenges that kill Buffer Overrun 6/10 tries (if attempted at max difficulty), and which forces them to stop and think and devise tactics.
No matter what, if you are attempting to please both camps, yu are going to have characters in the game who vastly outclass the best level 50s. I don't think the game's writers (which now includes the players) should be barred from writing stories where the PCs are challenged to overcome being outclassed by the equivalents of Thanos or Darkseid.
And it doesn't bother me personally if the game canon and mechanics put Statesman and Recluse on the level of Superman and Thanos while I can 'only' aspire to be Wonder Woman or Storm.
Can we all agree that:
1: Encounters intended to be challenges for OCD minmaxers should be labelled as such.
2: Such encounters should exist.
3: It's okay for at least Statesman and Recluse, if not their sidekicks and pals, to be above the level that PCs can reach, and on the same level as P.L.O.T device characters like Superman or Thanos.
4: Casual players should be able to solo 80%+ of content their Contacts give them on heroic without faceplanting 5 times per mission if they at least stay awake at the keyboard.
5: The game should have more time invested in making challenging content more chjallenging in variety of ways other than the 'bag of hit points' method.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!