How to Prepare for Future Content

Success? They pretty much broke any ranged pet when they introduced Demons and haven't made a change since.

Actually, the game was never balanced against even-level enemies. The TF's were always having you fight at least +1 or +2 enemies towards the end, sometimes more. (Rommie is level 52 minimum, for instance)

Would it be okay with you if we leveled up as they did?

Not saying you're for, against, or that it's even your idea to have content that levels with you Sam - but one game that did that completely ruined it for me. There's a Scroll about it, but it's gone to Oblivion by now. I never felt weak and I never felt powerful in that game. I never had anything to compare myself in combat that was drastically different.

Personally, I like the way they have it set up better, which is they start at a higher point and we're the pups. It's incredibly dangerous for us to be going through these new challenges, and the stark contrast between them and us is very apparent. When we get stronger, the closer we get to the Omega Incarnate power the more we will know just how powerful we have become.

"Levelled up with you" is a metagame concept, that's my basic point. What we're fighting is numbers, and not even clever numbers, at that, just bigger numbers. I said it before and I'll say it again. Make a simple Blood Brother slugger level 60 and THAT will be a challenge to a level 50 character (at that point, your powers are 3% effective and you have 5% chance to hit him), but exactly the WRONG kind of challenge.

I've griped about enemies like Malta, the Soldiers of Rularuu and even the War Works robots before for being cheap, but at least they're cheap while still respecting the rules, i.e. they're still my level or whichever level I set them to, it's just that their DESIGN makes them greater threats thanks to their nasty POWERS. Being level 54 does nothing but say that this enemy is out of my league, and I fail to see how that applies to a Malta TacOps.

Consider the Purple Patch and the arguments around that. Back at Launch before I1, people were fighting enemies 5, 6, 10 levels above them with quite a bit of success, simply because level scaling was far less severe. This made a complete mockery of the conning system - that being white con enemies, yellow con enemies, red con enemies and purple con enemies - requiring the invention of the bastardized term "deep purples" to denote enemies much higher level than the base. Normally, the conning system would handle that by giving you a base colour and swapping colours up from that. But when even the lowest minion you're fighting is purple, the conning system does not apply.

To quote Kids Next Door's spoof of DBZ: "His power level is off the charts! Must... Get... Bigger... Charts..." If we are indeed supposed to be suddenly rebalanced against +4 enemies, then one would expect the conning system to have been extended, at the very least with shades of purple or some other indicator. But it hasn't been, and I doubt it ever will be. Why? Because no matter what some players may insist, we are not balanced against and intended to fight enemies 4 levels above us. This is outside the scope of the system, and as such makes for a cheap way to add challenge which simply takes less time and effort to implement.

Simply throwing down high-conning enemies is a ham-fisted approach to adding challenge, because it's not interesting or unique, it's just the same enemies with higher stats. It also opens up teething problems, such as Mastermind henchmen conning -6 to enemies, at which point they may as well not even exist for all the good they do, as well as certain effects which are designed to be small but meaningful becoming irrelevant, such as low-level defence buffs from powers like Tough Hide or Cloak of Shadows.

Furthermore, this introduces the problem of accuracy, more specifically the problem of requiring to-hit buffs. "Slot for more accuracy," people say, ignoring the fact that the lower your to-hit is, the less accuracy actually means because it's a multiplicative effect. According to Arcana's guide, you have a 39% chance to hit an enemy 4 levels above you, necessitating around 140% accuracy slotting, which thanks to ED is not achievable via accuracy slotting unless you intend to slot not a whole lot else in your powers and grab the Accuracy Very Rare. And even then I'm not sure you'd get that high. This, then, necessitates to-hit buffs which not every powerset combo has, most notably including Dominators, if memory serves.

I have no problem with challenging enemies if it's done right. +4 enemies is not doing it right. It's a crutch which bastardises the entire system and throws power balance into a tumble dryer. Add to that the fact that the fiction behind this is badly uninspiring, notably lacking new enemies who could be a credible threat of such magnitude, and I see this as nothing more than developer godmodding. Yes, it can be beaten. Yes, one can prepare for it. It's still a cheap, lazy, cop-out way to provide higher-level challenges. We didn't need the Incarnate system to fight +4 enemies. The difficulty setting was fully capable of doing that beforehand.

*edit*
And something else to add, as well: character concept. There have been many arguments about "concept vs. performance," but even back in the old days, one could still always build for "enough" performance in part of his build and devote what's left of it to things that aren't necessarily optimal. Redundant travel powers if the character was envisioned to have them, Presence powers to denote a scary character even if he does not necessarily need more copies of Taunt and Confront, Darkness Mastery on a Dark/Dark Scrapper despite Body Mastery being what you need for higher accuracy and so on and so forth. Being prepared to fight level 54 enemies simply requires a more optimised build with a greater part of it being devoted to mechanics and a lesser part being devoted to concept, if anything remains at all. This is one of those things that has kept me out of most other MMOs - that my characters are meaningless abstract constructs existing as nothing more than tanks for their numbers. City of Heroes has generally been very good at making people invested into their own concepts and characters in the past, and I can only hope this continues.

But the reason I say this is I intentionally built my characters to fight enemies my level, as opposed to cranking the difficulty up, not because I couldn't build better but because I needed the excess performance to invest in concept-appropriate powers. I have no intention of changing that.

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.

That's maifestly untrue: Ever since Romm there's been an emphasis on different strategies (that rommy is brute-forced moreoften than not nowadays is a result of us becoming more powerful) BM is a perfect example: She's far smaller a number than Reichsman, but she has some abilities that makes the encounter play differently. The same is true for the STF (LRSF less so, although even there the supporing abilities of the Freedom Phalanx make it a somwhat diferent fight)

The BAF is similar what with the sequestration warnings, the towers, etc. etc.

EDIT: And of course, the new TF's are based on TEAMS. Yeah, you don't have a to-hit buff (unless you picked up Tactics) but hopefully SOMEONE does. (and if not, get a different team)

True, but that then steps into "perfect team" territory with requiring not "just team-mates" but specific team-mates with specific powers. It's like back when AV regeneration was upped significantly and every team was asking for a Radiation Defender or Controller to debuff said regeneration. One thing I've heard City of Heroes players praise the game for was that you could just put a team together with any composition and it would work, allowing people to play what they wanted, instead what they were required to play.

When I say "this is clearly designed by a different development team," I say this because just about anything in relation to this system is something I can quote people for praising the opposite of in the past. It feels like Positron and his team are designing an entirely different, largely unrelated game to stick on top of the existing game, and I'm simply not a big fan of that.

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.

As with past content I've joined in or lead, I plan on doing an All Scrapper run for this BAF Trial. Now that would be a far cry from "perfect team" status.

So you'd think

Seriously, though, I know it's probably possible, especially given your Scrappers. My above assessment came with the caveat "to get back up to 95% to-hit," which you probably won't be able to do on an all-Scrapper TF. Or you may be able to do it, I don't know. Depends on what boosts Inventions Sets provide and how many level shifts you have.

Which is something I have to wonder, as well. Presumably, we won't have all of 10 level shifts since level 60 enemies don't exist in the game. However, one can infer that we'll have at least four, taking us up to the maximum level of scales available in the game. My question is "what then?" When the cheap and cheesy way to add fake challenge is gone, will the developers not be forced to create actually decent content, as opposed to relying on jacked-up enemy levels? Or will they simply invent level 60 enemies and go with that?

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.

Actually, I wrote the last two posts venting off steam from spending three hours on Beta Test trying to put together a random PUG team (not just a powergamer forumite team, which was tests 1-4) to test out the BAF for the seventh time, in an effort to produce a bit more data and feedback.

The thing that really drove me emotionally bonkers was trying to hand-build a league and queue. More frustration than fun for me. Others might be fine with it - more power to them.

In the process of testing, while providing copious feedback and possible suggestions to adapt and implement an end-game raid-type system for additional inclusivity, I started asking myself whether I really felt it was personally fun to grind repeatedly for a reward - something I avoided the 800lb gorilla for when it was new, and came to CoH for something different.

CoH's drive for loot and endgame development has been causing a great deal of cognitive dissonance for me personally. And I eventually hit a stage of crisis - possibly more than a little denial in there facing the possibility that I might have to stop my subscription, CoH and Paragon Studios has inspired that much brand loyalty - worked it out that it was currently not very fun for me, and figured out a solution I could live with in the process of venting.

It's a little unfortunate that it took the OP's post of "preparing" for future content to spark it off. Sorry about that. But hey, it's the general discussion forums, it can probably tolerate a few swerves of subject.

I'm better now. CoH might move towards more inclusivity and content that I can anticipate, thus justifying my subscription - and my criteria for 'move' is really very loose, some producer's letters, a few announcements that there might be other stuff coming up. My patience is generally glacial (until three hours of doing nothing much broke it good. )

Or it might not. In which case, I have come to hit acceptance that I can stop CoH (meaning cancel its subscription - wow, never done that before, first time for everything), go do other stuff, and come back or not as the case may be.

It's just that once you stop and move on, it takes quite a bit to entice you to come back. We'll see.

Well BM really is still just a brute force thing. All it requires is that the players move from her cheap "I WIN!" button power. Outside of that it is just brute forcing. Honestly, Recluse is probably the closest to requiring a specific strategy.

I'd also say the towers in the BAF falls under "game is cheating" that Sam said. From what I heard it basically magically kills tanks and cuts through them like a hot knife through butter, ignoring resistance (and thus the rules).

I went through pretty much the same thing. However, to me, the mere fact that I considered it and actually looked for other games I could be playing was very, very scary. Not because I'm afraid to play other games, but more because I don't like feeling that way about a game I like.

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.

What rules? They deal a new damage type. It's no differen than invuln having a psi-hole, onlyit applies to all tankers. (and not just tankers) and thus require some different tinkering.

BM *isn't* a brute force thing precisley becuase of the mechanics (she has a very good DOT patch that forces you to move around) yes, in a sense it's a brute force thing in that it requires you to get her HP down to zero, but then again, this IS a superhero game, where ultimately, everything comes down to punching

One of the things I've always liked with COH is the wide variety of powers and tricks enemies throw at you. The DEV's seem set on expanding that.

EDIT: And oh, what exactly would you consider NOT to be a brute-force encounter?

Wow. This is the sneakiest I Quit post ever!

I don't know but I do find some of the mechanics used in the BAF to be rather cheap. There should be better ways to do things.

It pretty much makes some sets (*cough* SR *cough*) useless.

Well, duh, there are always better ways to do things

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

To be honest, I've always had that problem with "exploding" enemies (and worse: objects like crates and stuff) admittedly I play Nec (arguably one of the squishier sets) but every time I kill a sky raider generator I have to resummon.

BM is brute force. You do nothing special but move around to avoid her attacks and then beat on her.

Honestly the only encounter in game that I might consider not straight up brute force is Web Recluse. You have to destroy the towers to get to him. BM is just "beat on her, avoid her attacks. AKA EVERY AV EVER"

So....I7 LRSF?

When that was just one SF, it was fine. When it was just that and the STF, it was fine. After all, these were supposed to be the pinnacle of challenge not meant for simple players, but for the best of the best. And I was fine with that.

I just wish all the Incarnate stuff didn't take that as a baseline.

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.

So, YOU should get stronger, but your enemies should NOT get stronger?

That's like saying Superman beating up normal human muggers all the time makes for a good story.

The idea of an "end game" is that it is meant for those that have already done everything else. It's kind of intended for the people that are already as powerful as the game will allow them to get.

The fact that it's as accessible as it is is already an anomaly among MMOs. Most MMOs don't even let you get to the end game until you're already geared up and as tough as you will ever get. This end game doesn't even require gear to participate in.

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.

Stalkers were broken before the new content was a twinkle in the devs eyes.

I'd like you to quote me when I said that in those exact words. Because I can bet you dollars to doughnuts that your "rephrasing" of me is completely fictional.

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.

And have become only more broken since. I wonder if we can convince Neuron to back up a bit and fix them again?

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.