Inherent Fitness
By
Afterimage,
Posted on: 2010-10-29 23:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Okay, lets normalize endurance costs based on how much damage a power does. It'd be perfectly balanced out of the box, right?
WRONG.
There are 2 ways you could do it, and they would BOTH break things horribly. You can't do it just for defenders, because everyone else would complain (and rightly so), so you'd have to do it across ALL ATs.
You could ignore buffs completely and base the endurance cost off each ATs damage scale. So, you'd have defenders getting a buff, while blasters and scrappers would get penalized. A Defender would use 45% less endurance, while a scrapper or blaster would use 12.5% MORE.
That seems fair on the surface, until you look at brutes. If damage buffs are ignored altogether, that means Fury would not be factored into a brute's end costs. Brutes have a .75 damage scale. So you would have an AT that deals similar or better damage than a scrapper, while using 37.5% LESS endurance.
On the flip side, if you factored in all damage buffs to the final end cost of the power (aside from the amount of extra CPU cycles it would take to determine how much end it costs when you cast it), suddenly Fulcrum Shift becomes a griefing tool.
You would have to have ALL damage buffs affect it, or NONE. That means that when you enhance a power's damage, you are increasing the end cost as well. If you have 100% damage enhancement and only 40% end reduction in a power that power is using 60% more endurance than it was before.
Looking at the effect of a Fulcrum Shift. Say a brute's Foot Stomp costs 20 endurance at base value. The brute's damage scale would reduce that to 15 endurance, which would then be increased by whatever damage enhancement is in the power, PLUS any other buffs you're receiving (double-stacked Rage would add another 160%!) So, with JUST the enhancement of the power combined with Rage you have a power that is using close to 60 endurance per cast. If a kin comes along and pushes you up to 600% damage buff, your Foot Stomp is going to cost you 90 endurance to cast.
That's what would happen if they started basing end costs on how much damage is done, and is probably exactly WHY it isn't done that way.
End cost is based on the power itself. Damage scales are what affects how much damage various ATs deal with it. It shouldn't be screwed with because the alternative is much much worse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Stop reinventing the wheel. Endurance is fine right now with stamina, a worthwhile build with good choices and good slotting. Now we have a few more power choices and the earlier game is less a chore.
If you're having trouble with stamina on a character that is adequately slotted it is pretty much your bad choices that are causing this. You are what needs fixing 
Hehe. I take all 4 fitness powers on nearly every hero/villian i make, for 2 reasons.
1. Stam. It's just too nice to pass up.
2. I don't have to slot swift/hurdle/health (well, sometimes i will, in the case of tanks and scrappers for better staying power.)
I've never yet, in 40 alts, been in a situation where I wanted a power but couldn't train it, well, maybe with my peacebringer, ok, once. But i'm ALWAYS scrounging for slots. Fitness was a god send for me. 3 decent out of the box powers that pertty much never needed slots and fit pretty much all my concepts.
Now it's gone... or it will be... i'll have 40 alts with at least 3 powerschoices i'll need to make and NO SLOTS to make whatever i pick worth using... unless i do MASSIVE reworking/twicking, frankinslotting of them all...
Belive it or not... this accually is kind of scaring me off a bit from making my return.... (i've been away a few months...) I'm a bit OCD with my creations... I'd have a real hard time just retooling a few and not all of them... that's my plan.... but... eh.
I'm happy for the people who are happy for this. (belive it or not). But this is going to be a real headach for me...
@KingSnake - Triumph Server
@PrinceSnake
My common sense is tingling... ~ Deadpool
If you can't learn to do something well... learn to enjoy doing it poorly...
You have to respec to take advantage of the change. So, if you don't want to take advantage of inherent fitness, then never respec your characters again.
[U][URL="http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=251594"][/URL][/U]
Oh look, yet another thread where Ultimo whines about the AT damage modifiers.
I wonder why the mods haven't locked/deleted the thread in order to follow their own rule:
Quote:
| Do not engage in Lobbying on the Official Forums. Lobbying is continually bringing up the same topic repeatedly in numerous different threads or as an off-topic post in official threads to get developer attention. This form of posting is not permitted. We recognize you may be passionate about a specific subject, however this sort of posting is non-constructive and will not be tolerated. |
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
*snipped for specificity's sake*|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Quote:
You're also right, the thread is somewhat pointless, all I wanted to do was say I wasn't crazy about how they decided to address some of the problems with endurance management. |
At this point the thread has gotten to the point where people are just responding to the first few posts. The above is from the top of page 5.
We have established:
- That the majority of players are, at the very least, okay with the Fitness pool becoming inherent.
- That the majority of players do not wish to see any other action taken towards Endurance/Recharge/Damage/etc., citing many worthy "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios.
- That the majority of players disagree that endurance is unmanageable.
- That Ultimo_ (having said so himself) is of a minority of players who wish that the game had a slightly different design.
I propose that we either push the thread direction towards possible solutions/options that could make the game more appealing to players of Ultimo_'s opinion, or (perhaps the better option) we let the thread drop. Clearly, what needed to be said has been said, and at this point we are either talking in circles or taking unnecessary shots at someone who has conceded in his argument.
@Winter. Because I'm Winter. Period.
I am a blaster first, and an alt-oholic second.
Quote:
Squishies get Acrobatics, Melee get Weave. While those paths can benefit from additional slotting they both are useful with a single end redux as situational toggles. Those are basically going to be my default power picks.|
Originally Posted by KingSnake
Hehe. I take all 4 fitness powers on nearly every hero/villian i make, for 2 reasons.
1. Stam. It's just too nice to pass up. 2. I don't have to slot swift/hurdle/health (well, sometimes i will, in the case of tanks and scrappers for better staying power.) I've never yet, in 40 alts, been in a situation where I wanted a power but couldn't train it, well, maybe with my peacebringer, ok, once. But i'm ALWAYS scrounging for slots. Fitness was a god send for me. 3 decent out of the box powers that pertty much never needed slots and fit pretty much all my concepts. Now it's gone... or it will be... i'll have 40 alts with at least 3 powerschoices i'll need to make and NO SLOTS to make whatever i pick worth using... unless i do MASSIVE reworking/twicking, frankinslotting of them all... Belive it or not... this accually is kind of scaring me off a bit from making my return.... (i've been away a few months...) I'm a bit OCD with my creations... I'd have a real hard time just retooling a few and not all of them... that's my plan.... but... eh. I'm happy for the people who are happy for this. (belive it or not). But this is going to be a real headach for me... |
Or you can just never respec ever again as someone said.
Not being OCD myself, I'm not sure if if either solution is tolerable to you - but at least OCD is the first argument against inherent fitness I've heard that isn't completely deranged. Kind of funny that insanity is the least insane argument presented so far...
Quote:
Getting ready for class, so I'm afraid I'll have to be brief. Rebalancing endurance would indeed be a big task. I've never said otherwise. If you're going to adjust it for damage, you have to adjust it for everything so it's fair across the board.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Okay, lets normalize endurance costs based on how much damage a power does. It'd be perfectly balanced out of the box, right?
WRONG. There are 2 ways you could do it, and they would BOTH break things horribly. You can't do it just for defenders, because everyone else would complain (and rightly so), so you'd have to do it across ALL ATs. You could ignore buffs completely and base the endurance cost off each ATs damage scale. So, you'd have defenders getting a buff, while blasters and scrappers would get penalized. A Defender would use 45% less endurance, while a scrapper or blaster would use 12.5% MORE. That seems fair on the surface, until you look at brutes. If damage buffs are ignored altogether, that means Fury would not be factored into a brute's end costs. Brutes have a .75 damage scale. So you would have an AT that deals similar or better damage than a scrapper, while using 37.5% LESS endurance. On the flip side, if you factored in all damage buffs to the final end cost of the power (aside from the amount of extra CPU cycles it would take to determine how much end it costs when you cast it), suddenly Fulcrum Shift becomes a griefing tool. You would have to have ALL damage buffs affect it, or NONE. That means that when you enhance a power's damage, you are increasing the end cost as well. If you have 100% damage enhancement and only 40% end reduction in a power that power is using 60% more endurance than it was before. Looking at the effect of a Fulcrum Shift. Say a brute's Foot Stomp costs 20 endurance at base value. The brute's damage scale would reduce that to 15 endurance, which would then be increased by whatever damage enhancement is in the power, PLUS any other buffs you're receiving (double-stacked Rage would add another 160%!) So, with JUST the enhancement of the power combined with Rage you have a power that is using close to 60 endurance per cast. If a kin comes along and pushes you up to 600% damage buff, your Foot Stomp is going to cost you 90 endurance to cast. That's what would happen if they started basing end costs on how much damage is done, and is probably exactly WHY it isn't done that way. End cost is based on the power itself. Damage scales are what affects how much damage various ATs deal with it. It shouldn't be screwed with because the alternative is much much worse. |
I'm an old Champions (p&p) player. All the powers were built on points, and the active cost of the power (its cost after advantages were added) determined the endurance use. Thus, if I had a power worth 60 points, it used 6 endurance, regardless of whether it was 12d6 or 6d6 with lots of advantages, or a defensive power like a force field.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Oh look, yet another thread where Ultimo whines about the AT damage modifiers.
I wonder why the mods haven't locked/deleted the thread in order to follow their own rule: |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Winterminal
*snipped for specificity's sake*
At this point the thread has gotten to the point where people are just responding to the first few posts. The above is from the top of page 5. We have established:
I propose that we either push the thread direction towards possible solutions/options that could make the game more appealing to players of Ultimo_'s opinion, or (perhaps the better option) we let the thread drop. Clearly, what needed to be said has been said, and at this point we are either talking in circles or taking unnecessary shots at someone who has conceded in his argument. |
The problem with just raising the base Endurance recovery rate is that it doesn't address the issue that Stamina is a "must have" power. Those without it will still have exactly the same Endurance issues relative to those with it, and those with it will still continue to push for more recharge and higher damage powers until they exceed their recovery. You haven't solved the problem, just changed the ratio from a factor of 5 seconds until you run out of End to 7 seconds until you run out of End.
Perhaps a workable solution would be to raise the base Endurance recovery of all ATs, but then lower Stamina by an equal amount. Then the gap between those who have Stamina and those who don't, and between those who 3 slot stamina and those who don't, will be reduced. But to do that would reduce the usefulness of Stamina. One of the selling points of Stamina is that it can dramatically increase the amount of damage you are capable of doing the more slots you put into it. Since Endurance slotting is on the same schedule as everything else, that means Stamina must have a very high base rate, so the slotting can increase the rate accordingly.
In other words:
No Stamina = 0
Stamina = 3
Stamina 1 slot = 4
Stamina 2 slot = 5
Stamina 3 slot = 6
There is no 1 or 2, you jump from 0 to 3 just by picking up the power. Raising base recovery won't solve that, and neither, really, will lowering Stamina's rate. The best you could do is put a -End modifier on Stamina that is not enhanceable, so if you just get Stamina it's 1/3 of what it is now, and you have to 3 slot it to get the effect of Stamina with 1 slot.
Personally, I feel that all this change is going to do is turn Stamina from a "must have" power to a "must slot" power. You will get it for free, but the powergamers are still going to insist it must be 3 slotted. Or even 4 slotted to add a Performance Shifter. The gap will still be there, but at least now it will be about half what it was. Again, Endurance management and the use of other Endurance efficiency powers will be able to take the place of 3 slotting Stamina, but they will be able to build on a base of more Endurance to start with.
Honestly, if the other Endurance management powers were as powerful as Stamina, then Stamina would not be as popular as it is. And even in the case of Quick Recovery, which are directly comparable as more powerful, it is still accepted that you should take BOTH. Again, you can never have too much Endurance recovery, no matter how much you have, you ALWAYS will be wanting more.
As for Defenders having greater Endurance requirements than Blasters, given than a Defender can achieve an average 0.85 relative damage scale with a 30% Res debuff, and Rad and Kin Defenders can achieve far greater than this, I would hardly say this is the case. Rather, a Defender's ratio of damage to End cost is not static, as with a damage dealer, but depends on its Buff/Debuff Set choice. ATs that depend on Buff/Debuff sets thus tend to vary in their End costs based on Set.
The devs could deal with this by making sets that have less offensive buffs have more End efficiency tools, and those that have more offensive buffs have less End efficienty tools, but in all honestly it seems as if the devs' intention is exactly the opposite. Rad and Kin, which have the highest offense, also have the highest End efficiency. In addition, while it seems on the surface Vigilance was meant to address this, and give Defenders more End efficiency overall, once again those sets with a defensive specialization will have teammates with higher HP, and thus less End efficiency.
It seems, in fact, as if the devs want those Defenders that are team-oriented and defensive to have issues maintaining enough Endurance to use their attacks. Or at the very least, they intend for ATs and builds with a defensive slant to have more trouble monitoring End, since they will have less trouble monitoring HP. (Brutes, certainly, would become far more powerful if given more End efficiency)
Quote:
From your opening post:| I wasn't lobbying for anything. I started a thread to say I don't care for the changes to Fitness. Others brought up my "crusades" to balance things, and it became the topic of discussion. |
Quote:
| Part of the reason for this is that the ATs and Power Sets are not balanced for endurance use. As an example, consider the Defender and Blaster power sets for Energy Blast. The Defender version does less damage, but uses the same endurance. Certain ATs suffer more than others for this (eg. Tankers and Defenders). |
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
IMO this part is actually a better example Billz
|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
What they should have done, and it would be a half measure as well, in my estimation, is simply raise the global recovery rate. That is, EVERYONE would recover endurance faster. Those with Stamina at L20 would recover it EVEN FASTER than that, perhaps to the point of not needing to worry about endurance unless faced with sappers or very long fights.
It hasn't gone live yet, but I hope they'll reconsider this. |
Quote:
Except, of course, advantages can halve endurance cost, or even make it zero, if you want to spend the points. It's sort of similar to how CoH players can slot endurance reducers.|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Getting ready for class, so I'm afraid I'll have to be brief. Rebalancing endurance would indeed be a big task. I've never said otherwise. If you're going to adjust it for damage, you have to adjust it for everything so it's fair across the board.
I'm an old Champions (p&p) player. All the powers were built on points, and the active cost of the power (its cost after advantages were added) determined the endurance use. Thus, if I had a power worth 60 points, it used 6 endurance, regardless of whether it was 12d6 or 6d6 with lots of advantages, or a defensive power like a force field. |
And you can put points into increasing your endurance pool and/or recovery rate. Spending points on +rec in the Hero System is very similar to slotting Stamina. Spending points on getting more endurance in the Hero System is very similar to acquiring +max end accolades and set bonuses. Of course even better is that you can buy separate pools of endurance and recovery for powers so that you don't have to spend your own to use those abilities. There is no real equivalent to that in CoH beyond using pets, and even those cost endurance to summon.
Even with the standard guidelines regarding what and how much players can spend points on the Hero System pretty much requires the GM to participate in character creation and to approve characters before they're played. There are so many ways to min/max and game the rules that GM oversight needed to maintain balance. Having a GM on hand to approve each player's power selections and slotting is not even a faint consideration in an MMO.
Incidental note: You do recall when you were insisting that your FF/EB Defender couldn't defeat two even con minions without running out of endurance, right? You insisted that you would be almost out of endurance after defeating one minion. A bunch of people did the math in the forums and couldn't figure out how that was possible even with unslotted powers. (Math, something not completely foreign to the Hero System.) Then some of us created FF/EB Defenders in accordance with your assertions and still couldn't replicate the results you claimed. Entire enemy groups kept being defeated before running out. That's one example of what i was referring to when i said that in the past you've been so far from correct that you weren't even wrong. "I can't defeat two even con Rikti minions without using up all my endurance and then having to run or die." That's hardly an exaggeration unless exaggeration is a code word for a lie.
That's why i think there's something rotten in Denmark. The Hero System has formulas that link damage and endurance costs, along with ways of modifying the ratios. So does CoH. Frankly, there are so many similarities between the Hero System and CoH game mechanics that i simply can't understand how someone can claim to have been designing and playing various game systems for almost forty years, but be unable to adapt between such similar equations and values. (Ignoring for a second that RPGs were first created in 1974, making it unlikely you were designing playing RPGs for more than 35 years (at most) unless you were one of Gygax and Arneson's wargaming buddies.) When you compare the sheer variety of p&p systems and diversity of associated costs for using their various skills/aspects/powers/spells that you would presumably have tried out to have the past you claim it's hard to comprehend why CoH endurance management is so incomprehensible and crippling to you. To me it was almost intuitive when i started playing CoH because it was so similar to Champions in many of the basic game mechanics.
Anyway...
A few more thoughts for the thread:
Inherent Fitness will be very nice.
Endurance usage in the game now isn't terrible difficult to manage if you take the time to learn how it works, or ask someone else for advice.
There are a lot of people on the forums who can and will help if you're willing to listen and understand, or at least listen and use their advice even if you don't understand.
Most of the people posting in this thread are nicer and more tolerant than i.
i like cheese.
i'm going to stop hectoring Ultimo_ in this thread and just stick with the reading and popcorn from here on out.
Go. Hunt. Kill Skuls.
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
I will not be taking most advantage of this, as I simply hate the respec system
My newer alts will be happy with the change
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
As a Defense Cap player I don't see these changes make much of a difference. I'm still going to slot endurance and Health the same way, so I might get 2 - 3 more slots available and 3 more powers to pick up.
Mostly for me I might pick up a travel power and add a stealth IO into it and some other powers which I can frankenslot maybe.
I think these changes have more of an appeal for a player who really is just running on concept builds or Theme builds. This now gives those players a bit more wiggle room for power picking to flesh out some concept toons a bit more.
If anything I think it might help out Masterminds, since I think the biggest complaints I have seen, felt and read about were on the MM forums about stamina issues.
Other then that I find the debate amusing as the world crumbs down around us.
1. Why Soft Cap is Important : http://dechskaison.blogspot.com/2011...important.html
2. Limits: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Limits
3. Attack Mechanics: http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Attack_Mechanics
4. Rule of Five: http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Rule_o...e_Law_of_Fives
Quote:
The problem with your thesis is that its provably false. Even with the massive edge in DPE that Blasters possess over Defenders, Defenders are never at higher risk of defeat on average over Blasters, and Defenders are never leveling slower than Blasters. This was all but stated during Issue 11 when Blaster defiance was revamped, and I believe I can make the case that in retrospect, evidence has suggested this statement to have been true for essentially the entire existence of the game.|
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
You ask for an example, so I refer you back to the Blaster/Defender. If they both slot their attacks the same way, the Defender will still run out of endurance before the Blaster. If the Defender uses some of these methods you mention, he will be at an even greater disadvantage relative to the Blaster. If he slots more endurance reduction, he loses damage or accuracy. If he slows his attacks, he reduces his damage output even further, and becomes exposed to more damage. Having less health in addition to everything else, he faces greater chance of defeat.
|
Of all the archetypes, it has *only* been Blasters that have consistently been looked at because of performance issues which we now know is code for essentially "leveling speed." Only Blasters gained an inherent because of specific lack of performance (neither Scrappers, Tankers, nor Defenders gained their inherents over a perceived performance problem directly, and Controllers gained Containment to *even out* performance between high and low levels). We can place two data points with almost 100% certainty: Blasters were never outperforming Defenders on or around Issue 11, and Blasters were never outperforming Defenders on or around Issue 5.
In fact, its very likely that one of the very first posts I ever made on the forums exposed this problem inadvertently. During the "City of Blasters" period I conducted an analysis of server populations over a period of time that caused me to conclude that Blasters were never 50% or higher of the population of characters at any combat level, which was the assertion at the time. Moreover, the data suggested that Blasters started off at their most popular (about 40% of all characters logged in) and quickly dropped off to less than 20% of all characters logged in at high levels (40+). I suggested at the time that the reason was because Blasters were simultaneously the most commonly created archetype, but also the hardest to level. As it turns out, both conclusions agreed with the Issue 11 information regarding Blasters and defiance, and the population statistics released around Issue 12 regarding created and played archetypes. Which means there is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that Blasters have never been able to leverage that DPE advantage over Defenders from release to Issue 11, and possibly to today.
This is probably why the devs have consistently suggested that Defenders were one of the most "balanced" archetypes in the game. Their internal datamining, I would now guess, places them the closest to the average statistical leveling of the playerbase as a whole, and has the fewest primary/secondary combinations that either significantly overperform or significantly underperform, at all levels and under all teaming conditions.
About the only DPE problem Defenders have - or had - was probably at lower levels while solo prior to Vigilence, and certainly before inherent fitness. But relative to Blasters? Defenders have never had a DPE problem relative to Blasters.
Which brings me to:
Quote:
| All characters are expected to overcome the same challenges, but some ATs and power sets are at a disadvantage when doing so. |
In fact, I'd say that on a normalized basis, Blaster DPE is too low relative to Defenders and Corruptors (their comparable analogs from a DPE perspective), and relative to Scrappers Tanker DPE is too low, Brute DPE is a bit too high, and Stalker DPE is too low. Blasters are not designed to manage endurance relative to survival. They are actually designed to basically drop dead when they run out of endurance, because they are designed primarily with offensive mitigation only. Defenders, on the other hand, *are* designed to manage endurance between powering offense (which generates progress) and using defenses (which keeps them alive). Defensive powers are in effect conversion powers: they convert the blue bar into the green bar. On the other hand, Offensive powers are *pacing-balanced* - they ask the Blaster to balance time against the green bar while generating the maximum amount of offense within that time. Adding endurance management on top of that equation is actually asking for trouble, which is why Blasters have been perpetually in trouble.
This is a critical design issue that I don't think even the devs fully acknowledge, because, ironically, they have a similar view you do towards endurance: that its intended to be treated as an across the board balancing mechanic that can be allocated "fairly." But actually, it can't: at least, not with a quantitative measure of fairness. Instead, the best you can do is use quantitative measures to predict which archetypes need to have completely different approaches to incorporating endurance management into their design. The equations for determining Blaster endurance balance are actually totally different from the ones for Defender balance, or Scrapper balance, say.
Quote:
| It's funny, you know. If my "past crusades" were so off target, why did so many of them result in changes and additions to the game? |
PS: the HERO system is not quantitatively balanced. Its not even close. Its qualitatively balanced in a manner that good human GMs can manage. I was almost hoping that Cryptic would foolishly implement a variant of the HERO system in CO like so many people wanted, just so I could prove how absolutely broken that system is. Its a great PnP system, don't get me wrong. But if a computer has to run it, its broken beyond repair. In its defense, the HERO system *knows* this, and warns GMs where most of the dragons are in the system. This is what makes it so hard to translate "open" PnP game systems into computer games, especially MMOs where balance is more critical than in single player games.
[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:
So you're saying that it is fair for either A) A Fire/Kin controller to use 45% less endurance, when no one who knows anything about the game would call them "low damage", or B) a Fulcrum Shifted Foot Stomp to cost 90 endurance (out of 100)? |
Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Getting ready for class, so I'm afraid I'll have to be brief. Rebalancing endurance would indeed be a big task. I've never said otherwise. If you're going to adjust it for damage, you have to adjust it for everything so it's fair across the board.
|
The reason endurance costs are not calculated by damage dealt are because if you ignore damage buffs, some power combinations get extremely broken, namely those that can boost their own damage to high levels. But if you factor in damage buffs, scrappers, brutes, and blasters get horribly shafted. A brute could conceivably end up paying 675% endurance cost, meaning their end bottoms out after 2 attacks, and a scrapper or blaster would double their end cost every time they hit Build Up, and would be using 12.5% more end to begin with.
More to the point, since you admit that it would be a big task (huge undertaking is probably more accurate), why would you ask the devs to completely change something that is working acceptably in favor of something they would have to spend the next couple YEARS balancing? If you want the way endurance actually works to change, you will be accepting that we will get little or nothing content-wise for at least a year and a half. (time estimates here are pure guesswork, but I suspect they aren't too far off the mark)
Quote:
| I'm an old Champions (p&p) player. All the powers were built on points, and the active cost of the power (its cost after advantages were added) determined the endurance use. Thus, if I had a power worth 60 points, it used 6 endurance, regardless of whether it was 12d6 or 6d6 with lots of advantages, or a defensive power like a force field. |
I'll give an example: I once created a character with Desolidification that could only be affected by objects made of wood. He also had fire powers that could affect normal space. See the problem there? I could easily destroy the only thing that could hurt me and be impervious to anything else. The GM of that campaign, quite logically, told me there was no way in hell he was letting me play that character. A computer cannot make a decision like that, if the program says it can be done, it has no choice but to allow it.
Using the HERO system as an example of something "balanced" is sheer folly. The system itself isn't even in the same area code as balanced, without a human GM to decide what can and can't be done, the potential for powergaming is limitless.
I already mentioned it, but if damage dealt became the metric by which endurance consumption was measured, powers like Fulcrum Shift and Fortitude would become griefing tools, because you could cause someone's endurance to bottom out against their will with something that is supposed to be a buff.
Currently, I have a Rad/Sonic defender that can solo AVs with relative ease. The only thing preventing him from soloing GMs is hist end use/recovery ratio. I can survive the fight, but I can't attack for long enough to actually kill it before my end bottoms out. My build isn't that great, and if I can almost do it, imagine how easy it would become for someone who actualy has a good build.
Blaster and Defender attacks use the same amount of endurance because they are the exact same power. It is the damage scale that determines how much damage it does. Say Ice Blast deals 100 damage at scale 1.0 (which is the baseline for ALL powers), the endurance it uses is calculated by that metric, and that metric alone. Now, a Defender will deal 55 damage with that power, because their damage scale is .55. A Blaster will deal 112.5 damage with the same power because their damage scale is 1.125. The end cost is teh same for both powers because they are the same power. Same deal with scrapper, stalker, tank, and brute powers. Any attack they all share will use the same amount of endurance across all 4 ATs, but the damage actually dealt may vary quite a bit. It is working exactly how it was meant to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
the massive % of the population that takes Stamina disagrees, and the devs know it.|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Stop reinventing the wheel. Endurance is fine right now with stamina, a worthwhile build with good choices and good slotting. Now we have a few more power choices and the earlier game is less a chore.
If you're having trouble with stamina on a character that is adequately slotted it is pretty much your bad choices that are causing this. You are what needs fixing |
If you take Stamina, and you say everything is fine without Stamina, get stop taking Stamina instead of being a hypocrite.
But yes, the early game is less of a chore now due to free stamina. Yay.
Whining about everything since 2006.
Ammo switching for Dual Pistols was my idea:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=135484
Quote:
Erm, they DIDN'T say everything was fine without Stamina. If you read it again, you will see they were saying everything is fine WITH it and good slotting choices. |
Originally Posted by Vel_Overload
the massive % of the population that takes Stamina disagrees, and the devs know it.
If you take Stamina, and you say everything is fine without Stamina, get stop taking Stamina instead of being a hypocrite. |
Basically, they were saying that if you have Stamina and still have problems, the problem is you and not the game. Which I agree with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
As far as I know, they still haven't said exactly how this will be implemented, so there's no need to argue about it.
It sounds nice, but I just hope it's not another situation where they hand us a lemon, and then we're expected to make lemonade. It could so easily be a universal nerf. We just don't know yet.
Hopefully it will help new toons feel more "super", (since this is a super hero game), and less like an 80 year old granmaw. I remember back in '04 when a lot of people found out you had to get to 14 just to fly, they just quit. Or were rooted every time you attack and therefore can't "run-n-gun". They went out and got clobbered by some Hellion slammers and said "screw this." It doesn't feel very super for a good chunk of the gameplay. If the devs can find a way for us to feel more super at low levels, without being OP, I say go for it. It might help new players want to stay.
Quote:
Actually, I have seen a couple places where they have described exactly how it will work.|
Originally Posted by Skyster
As far as I know, they still haven't said exactly how this will be implemented, so there's no need to argue about it.
It sounds nice, but I just hope it's not another situation where they hand us a lemon, and then we're expected to make lemonade. It could so easily be a universal nerf. We just don't know yet. Hopefully it will help new toons feel more "super", (since this is a super hero game), and less like an 80 year old granmaw. I remember back in '04 when a lot of people found out you had to get to 14 just to fly, they just quit. Or were rooted every time you attack and therefore can't "run-n-gun". They went out and got clobbered by some Hellion slammers and said "screw this." It doesn't feel very super for a good chunk of the gameplay. If the devs can find a way for us to feel more super at low levels, without being OP, I say go for it. It might help new players want to stay. |
From a Q&A session I believe (sorry that I cannot link it for you).
What they have not revealed (as far as I know) is WHY this is being done. Most people (myself included) have speculated that it is being done to assist newer players in getting into and staying in the game after their initial experience. The first 20 levels can be quite a turn-off depending on how quickly you learn the ropes and which AT/Combination you choose.
BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF
Quote:
I have a few idea's as to what i'll do. Not respecing sounds good at first, but, they are introducing the incarnet system... i'm having a hard time imagianing not wanting to twick my builds when they introduce a game changing system like that... so, respecing, at least the guys i play the most, will prolly be a nessisity. And, when dealing with someone with OCD like behavor (I take Zolft, i've been diagonesed...LOL) once you do one.... |
Originally Posted by Le_Count
Squishies get Acrobatics, Melee get Weave. While those paths can benefit from additional slotting they both are useful with a single end redux as situational toggles. Those are basically going to be my default power picks.
Or you can just never respec ever again as someone said. Not being OCD myself, I'm not sure if if either solution is tolerable to you - but at least OCD is the first argument against inherent fitness I've heard that isn't completely deranged. Kind of funny that insanity is the least insane argument presented so far... |
Eh. I'll deal.
@KingSnake - Triumph Server
@PrinceSnake
My common sense is tingling... ~ Deadpool
If you can't learn to do something well... learn to enjoy doing it poorly...
Simply put.
You keep crying about defender issues with end, yet seem to keep ignoring that defenders have an inherent in place that helps them manage their end called Vigilance. You also seem to ignore that several defender have thing in place in the primary to help them with the endurance
Defender Primary powers that aid end recovery.
HeatLoss
Recovery Aura
Transference
Accelerate Metabolism
40% of defender sets have the ability for the defender to recover end to Himself AND the team.
Blasters.. ZERO percent.
Defender have none in their secondary.
Blasters do have an advantage here. They have three over defenders. Consume, Powersink and Drain Psyche.
However defender Epic pick that up as well with Powersink available in two epics. Dark Consumption and even Hibernate.
Blaster do get hibernate in Epic Pool.
SO the defender depending on the set has the advantage of having Vigilance which helps them defeat foes FASTER by providing a damage buff when solo, PLUS the ability to debuff foes defeating them faster... because contrary to YOUR belief debuffs DO defeat foes
(Put three defenders on a team and put three blasters on a team and see which team shreds foes faster)
And they get a end use discount when on larger teams AND some of them have the ability to increase or recovery their OWN endurance.
And this is STILL not even talking about slotting for end reduction, use of IO's to further that.
And PLEASE dont talk to me about the HERO system... Horribly horribly broken system. Ive been playing it since the BEGINNING...Yes the ORIGINAL in 1981.... I still have all the books and all my characters..
And that system was HORRIBLY HORRIBLY broken back THEN...
Also that game has no character classes at all.
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skyster
As far as I know, they still haven't said exactly how this will be implemented, so there's no need to argue about it.
It sounds nice, but I just hope it's not another situation where they hand us a lemon, and then we're expected to make lemonade. It could so easily be a universal nerf. We just don't know yet. Hopefully it will help new toons feel more "super", (since this is a super hero game), and less like an 80 year old granmaw. I remember back in '04 when a lot of people found out you had to get to 14 just to fly, they just quit. Or were rooted every time you attack and therefore can't "run-n-gun". They went out and got clobbered by some Hellion slammers and said "screw this." It doesn't feel very super for a good chunk of the gameplay. If the devs can find a way for us to feel more super at low levels, without being OP, I say go for it. It might help new players want to stay. |
They actually have said how it will work. The entire fitness pool will unlock for you at level 2. You will be able to slot it just like you can know starting at level 3 the first level you get enhancements.
This will will help all entry level players. Especially those like tanks brutes scrappers and stalkers which often have toggles to run to help them do their job that they would often put off.
It makes it easier for people to pick powers that are usually very important to the set instead of having to WAIT because they want to get Stamina by level 20.
It will allow many player to round out some of their character. My storm controller never took O2 Boost because it couldnt fit in his build. Now I will be able to heal my Jack Frost.
My Peacebring was built in concept that he had light powers and I always wanted the invisble pool to because he could bend light around him. Now I can take that.
My Fire/Fire tank might be my first Dual Build.. I can make a more tanky Build like I have now and I will finally pick up Rise of the Phoenix, Temperature Protection and the New Consume as well..
I am mos excited about this because most of my toons will be getting some improvement even if marginally so.
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
Quote:
Not really. It's only as broken as the GM allows it to be. You can make the craziest overpowered stuff you can imagine in it, but if the GM says "No, I'm not going to let you do that.", that's the end of it. |
Originally Posted by Airhammer
And PLEASE dont talk to me about the HERO system... Horribly horribly broken system. Ive been playing it since the BEGINNING...Yes the ORIGINAL in 1981.... I still have all the books and all my characters.. And that system was HORRIBLY HORRIBLY broken back THEN... |
It's a good system in and of itself, but there's no way you could translate it to a computer game because a computer can't tell you that some off-the-wall overpowered thing you did isn't allowed. A computer sees that it is possible and allows it, because it has no capacity to make a judgment call on things like that.
The fact that a human is making the decisions of what is and isn't allowed is the balancing factor of the HERO system. Since it's impossible to translate the HERO system to a computer program, using it as an example of balance where a computer game is concerned is just asinine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Sure it may not be a "big" lie but rather a slight exaggeration. That does not change the fact that it is still a lie.
By admitting you exaggerate then stating you never lie you just lied.