IO Change: Blessing of the Zephyr
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2010-03-25 13:24 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
I don't use IOs anyway. 
Edit: WOAH WOAH WOAH! Hold the phone! Three months later, and I just now realized I forgot to say it, but. . .
*ahem*
FIRST POST AFTER A RED NAME!
This is a great move, it's about time this got balanced, thanks devs!
Quote:
Good.
| Players in the beta have pointed out that this change ought to result in the cost of the recipes being reduced, and that is something we are considering. It has also been pointed out that this change should necessitate a freespec be granted with I17, which we will be doing. |
Be well, people of CoH.
Hmm I wonder if adding 2-3 more IOs to the set ( perhaps some other exotic pieces like minor defense debuff resistance or something other wise new ) would be a good way to allow the extra defense to be 'reclaimed' by being the 4-6th set bonuses.
Probably not going to happen, but it would be neat.
I am an ebil markeeter and will steal your moneiz ...correction stole your moneiz. I support keeping the poor down because it is impossible to make moneiz in this game.
Castle,
I doubt it's easily done, so it might not be in consideration, but what about the salvage requirements for these IOs?
BotZ are the only IOs (other than purples and a couple of the very best procs) that require multiple pieces of VERY expensive, rare, salvage to create for each IO.
While I certainly agree that the set bonuses are currently too good, I had always just considered the high merit costs and high salvage requirements as part of the balancing factor for how good the set bonuses were, but with those being slashed....
6000+ levels gained and 8 level 50's
Hello, my name is Soulwind and I have Alt-Itis.
Gasp!
Really, I'm ok with this change. I only have the two none-kb, on one character, so I won't suffer much of a reduction. And if the availability increases at all, I will better off then now.
I do wish that the set had either been brought into line before it was added to the game, or fixed some time ago before people got too accustomed to the bonuses and spent lots of inf trying to get them. Still, if something is unbalanced it does need to be fixed. at least you're handing out a freespec and looking into the possibility of making the cost of the sets more in-line with similar sets.
Positron: "There are no bugs [in City of Heroes], just varying degrees of features."
Quote:
Great, much appreciated!|
Originally Posted by Castle
Players in the beta have pointed out that this change ought to result in the cost of the recipes being reduced, and that is something we are considering. It has also been pointed out that this change should necessitate a freespec be granted with I17, which we will be doing.
|
I remember when BotZ was introduced, it seemed odd to have what were normally 5 and 6 piece set bonuses only requiring 2 and 3 pieces, especially since none of the enhancements were unique.
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:
I also agree with this. If the set will no longer be granting extraordinary bonuses, it really shouldn't require extraordinary salvage requirements.
|
Originally Posted by Soulwind
Castle,
I doubt it's easily done, so it might not be in consideration, but what about the salvage requirements for these IOs? BotZ are the only IOs (other than purples and a couple of the very best procs) that require multiple pieces of VERY expensive, rare, salvage to create for each IO. While I certainly agree that the set bonuses are currently too good, I had always just considered the high merit costs and high salvage requirements as part of the balancing factor for how good the set bonuses were, but with those being slashed.... |
Positron: "There are no bugs [in City of Heroes], just varying degrees of features."
Quote:
I have to second this.
|
Originally Posted by Soulwind
Castle,
I doubt it's easily done, so it might not be in consideration, but what about the salvage requirements for these IOs? BotZ are the only IOs (other than purples and a couple of the very best procs) that require multiple pieces of VERY expensive, rare, salvage to create for each IO. While I certainly agree that the set bonuses are currently too good, I had always just considered the high merit costs and high salvage requirements as part of the balancing factor for how good the set bonuses were, but with those being slashed.... |
Simply because I am one of those that play a character I make for -fun-, and not to build the most uber version of it that I can, this affects me not one whit. Never did use any BoTZ in my builds. Travel powers get -one- slot. But, I do have this question, Castle...
Why wait -this- long to make a change in it? Hasn't BoTZ been around for at least two issues? Plenty of time to see that "oops. Silly overpowered bonuses. Let's fix that." Instead of waiting all this time to "fix" it.
I can see -that- fact making a lot of people angry. And also, just one freespec won't do it. Specially if you've five of those sets in your build.
Quote:
I figure they're unrealistically optimistic about us players at times. Plus bigger fish to fry.|
Originally Posted by mercykilling
Why wait -this- long to make a change in it? Hasn't BoTZ been around for at least two issues? Plenty of time to see that "oops. Silly overpowered bonuses. Let's fix that." Instead of waiting all this time to "fix" it.
|
edit: Oh, and it seems no matter what the devs do someone gets mad. Talk about a "no win scenario" type job. You're dumbing down the game, you're making it too complicated, why haven't you done this yet, why did you do that first, we needed attention first, etc. I think someone's sig has something about if the devs gave out free money there'd even be complaints to that @_@
Well, I've got a couple of characters who will likely end up taking advantage of that freespec to adjust slotting a bit. That being said I'm not really surprised you're changing it, those are VERY powerful for the investment required.
Also, it's a long shot but given this would it be possible to reconsider the position of Sprint powers not being able to take Universal Travel IOs? Maybe make it so that Sprint takes them and the Prestige Sprints don't if the balance is still a concern?
Quote:
Cost to build an IO isn't something that has any bearing on how well it performs. |
Originally Posted by Soulwind
Castle,
I doubt it's easily done, so it might not be in consideration, but what about the salvage requirements for these IOs? BotZ are the only IOs (other than purples and a couple of the very best procs) that require multiple pieces of VERY expensive, rare, salvage to create for each IO. While I certainly agree that the set bonuses are currently too good, I had always just considered the high merit costs and high salvage requirements as part of the balancing factor for how good the set bonuses were, but with those being slashed.... |
This is a maxim in the industry which basically says, you cannot balance items by counting on their rarity or expense, and that was essentially what went wrong in this specific case. That said, I'll talk to the recipe guys and see what they think about altering the costs, but I would not expect them to change.
Quote:
He answered this in the OP:| Why wait -this- long to make a change in it? Hasn't BoTZ been around for at least two issues? Plenty of time to see that "oops. Silly overpowered bonuses. Let's fix that." Instead of waiting all this time to "fix" it. |
Quote:
| This was mentioned by players way back when the set was first introduced, but at the time it was felt that the situation would be manageable. Time, however has proven that to be wrong and, as a result, we have had to take this step. |
Be well, people of CoH.
This is a great step in the right direction as far as communicating with the players.
I'll accept the change as the set was a bit OP, but I'll be using a respec or two to fix some characters.
EDIT: I'm using my friendly but serious face for these next statements. In the future, if players tell you in beta that something is going to be exploited, please listen. Regardless of any moral implications, even good natured folks don't tend to pass up easy perks.
Quote:
To be perfectly honest, I was busy with other things and trusted others to be on top of this. Recently (about 2 months ago,) I've had more time to "take stock" of where things are at than I have for the last year, and this was one of the biggest issues I found. We discussed it internally, and ultimately made the decision to make this change.
|
Originally Posted by mercykilling
Why wait -this- long to make a change in it? Hasn't BoTZ been around for at least two issues? Plenty of time to see that "oops. Silly overpowered bonuses. Let's fix that." Instead of waiting all this time to "fix" it.
|
No one is ever happy with a nerf, but I can understand the reasoning behind this change. Thanks Castle for volunteering to be the messenger on this one.
We don't complain when a long standing under-performing power or AT is buffed. We shouldn't complain when a long standing over-achieving outlier is nerfed, except to say to the Devs, "We told you it was too much! ".
This also was the case when the unintended KB protection was finally removed from Hover. The fact that it's been in the game for a long time is no guarantee that any outlier, mistake, or exploit is protected from going bye-bye.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
From the BETA Patch Notes:
Decreased the 2 piece set bonus from this set from +3.125% Ranged Defense, +1.563% Energy and Negative Energy Defense to +1.25% Ranged Defense, +.625% Energy and Negative Energy Defense.
Decreased the 3 piece set bonus from this set from +3.125% AoE Defense, +1.563% Fire and Cold Defense to +1.875% AoE Defense and +.938% Fire and Cold Defense.
This set's bonuses were significantly decreased as the 2 and 3 piece set bonuses were far too powerful allowing players to easily stack 5 copies of these buffs for minimal slot usage.
So, why are we making this change? Frankly, we screwed up by making the set bonuses too good and too easy to stack. This was mentioned by players way back when the set was first introduced, but at the time it was felt that the situation would be manageable. Time, however has proven that to be wrong and, as a result, we have had to take this step.
Players in the beta have pointed out that this change ought to result in the cost of the recipes being reduced, and that is something we are considering. It has also been pointed out that this change should necessitate a freespec be granted with I17, which we will be doing.
Ill be paying attention to this thread and will try to answer any further questions that come up.