How to Prepare for Future Content
By
Arilou,
Posted on: 2011-02-12 20:58 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
No, it's not clear, because that's not what I'm saying in the slightest. Please avoid constructing straw man arguments in the future.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
When you said that the STF and LRSF shouldn't be the baseline for new content, you are in effect saying that our enemies should not be getting any stronger
|
In case you need your logical fallacy pointed out to you, let me say this: There is a wide gulf of possible difficulty levels between +0x1 level 50 content and +4x8 epic TFs. Just because I don't want the latter does not mean I want the former. Please avoid false binary fallacies in the future whenever possible.
Quote:
| Given your documented history of not liking to turn your difficulty settings up, and being upset that you occasionally get +1 enemies in your missions, it is entirely logical to come to the conclusion that you want players to get stronger while enemies remain the same. |
I very much want enemies to increase in power. Just in the same way as they have been increasing in power from level 1 to level 50. Their hit points increase, their damage increases, the variety, strength and effects of their powers increase and, given good design and planning, their overall difficulty increases. This is met by my increase in power by being given more abilities, greater stats and more options. Balance is maintained while we all increase in power together. THAT is what is logical to extrapolate from my words.
Quote:
| I wasn't rephrasing so much as I was interpreting what was said, and taking into account the previously stated stances of the person who said them in my interpretation. |
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.
|
Think I can sum it up into;
TL;DR
+0 Enemies with options to increase difficulty good
+4 Enemies forced at all times bad
That about right Sam? 
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
Not just. Enemy difficulty comes down to more than just enemy con. It comes to enemy powers. Both the Rogue Vanguard and the War Walkers factions have already demonstrated that you can give really nasty powers to enemies and make them a far greater challenge than enemies of the same level who don't have these powers, and to me that is a good way to move forward. For instance, hitting me with a level 50 fire axe that instakills me is cheap, not strong. Hitting me with an orbital cannon that instakills me, however, that I can buy.|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Think I can sum it up into;
TL;DR +0 Enemies with options to increase difficulty good +4 Enemies forced at all times bad That about right Sam? |
Additionally, game mechanics can play a part in making encounters more difficult than base content. As the other thread has demonstrated, stacking ambushes can make things a LOT more difficult than just straight-up spawns, and as the Ramiel arc demonstrates, missions can be designed to be difficult without throwing purple con enemies, necessarily.
The question here, however, doesn't appear to be whether Incarnate content should be more difficult or not - only a fool would insist it shouldn't be when the 1-50 content gets more difficult with every level range. The question is HOW much more difficult it should be. Developers seem to have take the stance that it should be "prohibitively" difficult, such that it the step up in difficulty is significantly steeper than that of regular level progress, and the trend seems to be to keep that difficulty curve the same.
On this point I'll have to disagree, as I have no problem with the difficulty curve being higher than the 1-50 game, which by level 50 is admittedly pretty easy, but not as high as the elite-branded challenges of the game. There is, after all, room between A Hero's Epic and the Tin Mage TF for content to be somewhere in-between.
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:
Actually the Ramiel's arc only demonstrates that missions can be tough solo. I've never seen it be even vaguely difficult on a team, nor have I even heard of such being the case. Every time I've had difficulty on an alt, I've recruited 1 or more people (never need more than one, I just sometimes get more when I ask), then the missions become utter pushovers. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Additionally, game mechanics can play a part in making encounters more difficult than base content. As the other thread has demonstrated, stacking ambushes can make things a LOT more difficult than just straight-up spawns, and as the Ramiel arc demonstrates, missions can be designed to be difficult without throwing purple con enemies, necessarily. |
Given that we'll be seeing more than the +1 level shift (or so the rumors go I believe), that +4 business will get chopped down a fair amount. Honestly having them use the level difference as a mechanism allows for the incarnate ability level shift to cut through it, and I think that's a good thing.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
I don't actually agree. Well, I guess I don't disagree, but I think there's more to it.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
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.
|
On what I'll dangerously refer to as a "well-balanced team", the stats of even-level, non-AV foes make them trivial to disable and destroy for level 50 characters. Layered combinations of debuffs, controls and applied damage (which can be buffed) can cripple them to a radical extent, and ally buffs can mean the NPCs are rendered nigh-impotent against the players. The devs could reply by giving the NPCs lots of resistance to effects and buffing their stats, but increasing their level does this implicitly. I agree that there are probably some undesirable side effects of this, such as the rapid "roll-off" of the effectiveness of Mastermind pets, but the general approach has some value.
Fundamentally, +0 NPCs who aren't at least AVs just aren't that challenging to a player character team with a good mix of buffs, debuffs, controls and DPS, almost without regard to what powers the NPCs have. To have much of a chance, the foes need higher stats.
I think the core question is what is the assumption about a player team? If we assume the team has this well-balanced mix of capabilities and we want to ensure they face some higher level of challenge, then adding levels to their foes makes some sense.
It seems to me that some of the angst here is really about that team composition assumption. If a team that's not well-balanced comes along, they're going to have a potentially much harder time of it. Who's the baseline? Pretty clearly, the devs seem to be aiming for a high water mark on the performance scale. (Despite this, some players are still mowing their way through the Apex and Tin Mage TFs.) Also pretty clearly, setting the bar high in that way is not popular with everyone. Is that a problem? I don't know. I know I generally like what they're doing, because I'm in the high-performing group of players.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Well, you highlight some particular problems with the way buffs stack in this game, in that enough buff/debuff can negate a lot of potential challenges. I don't presume to offer a solution to this, but it strikes me as a core problem that needs to be addressed, rather than just jacking difficulty up to where small stat changes have a huge effect.
Furthermore, I postulate that difficulty is a question of enemy composition. The Sewers Trial handles challenge by presenting enemies as a constant +2, but has most of them be boss rank. Not necessarily easy, but not necessarily DEVASTATING, either, and it has the benefit of being less insulting to my intelligence. Being torn apart by minions has a much more humbling effect than being taken down by bosses. Bosses, at least, we can respect as being strong, but Minions really shouldn't be.
Involve bosses. Involve elite bosses. Make up some new rank in-between that and AV. Hell, involve AVs in larger number. Or, hell, even rename the things so they're not minions.
My opinion on the matter stands - jacking up enemy levels is a cheap solution to adding a greater challenge, and I prefer to see more creative ways used to do this.
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:
Unlike levels 1-20 of praetoria, I'm fine if the 50+ Endgame Content ramps up the difficulty. It is endgame content afterall.
|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
I don't actually agree. Well, I guess I don't disagree, but I think there's more to it.
On what I'll dangerously refer to as a "well-balanced team", the stats of even-level, non-AV foes make them trivial to disable and destroy for level 50 characters. Layered combinations of debuffs, controls and applied damage (which can be buffed) can cripple them to a radical extent, and ally buffs can mean the NPCs are rendered nigh-impotent against the players. The devs could reply by giving the NPCs lots of resistance to effects and buffing their stats, but increasing their level does this implicitly. I agree that there are probably some undesirable side effects of this, such as the rapid "roll-off" of the effectiveness of Mastermind pets, but the general approach has some value. Fundamentally, +0 NPCs who aren't at least AVs just aren't that challenging to a player character team with a good mix of buffs, debuffs, controls and DPS, almost without regard to what powers the NPCs have. To have much of a chance, the foes need higher stats. I think the core question is what is the assumption about a player team? If we assume the team has this well-balanced mix of capabilities and we want to ensure they face some higher level of challenge, then adding levels to their foes makes some sense. It seems to me that some of the angst here is really about that team composition assumption. If a team that's not well-balanced comes along, they're going to have a potentially much harder time of it. Who's the baseline? Pretty clearly, the devs seem to be aiming for a high water mark on the performance scale. (Despite this, some players are still mowing their way through the Apex and Tin Mage TFs.) Also pretty clearly, setting the bar high in that way is not popular with everyone. Is that a problem? I don't know. I know I generally like what they're doing, because I'm in the high-performing group of players. |
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
I think people are jumping the gun by declaring the BAF too hard. Yes, it's hard now, but we also haven't got much experience running it. Plus, on live we'll eventually have more incarnate powers, and if they're half as game-changing as the level shifts from Alpha (or just plain have more level shifts), we might find the BAF too easy.
Just from what we know*, Judgement will give us free AoE attacks. We don't know what they'll be like exactly (unless that leaked Ion Judgement link you can see on Live is accurate), but if every single member of the raid group has another AoE, those Mk-VIs and 9CUs that ambush us during the AV fights might become much easier to deal with.
*Or what I know. Some people seem to know of more dev-given info than I do.
Issue 16 made me feel like this.
Warning: This poster likes to play Devil's Advocate.
The inherent problem with "wait until you have more Incarnate powers and it'll be easier" is two-fold.
Firstly, this runs into the "Controllers get good at level 32!" argument, which tends to ignore that they're pretty bad before then. 31 levels of pain don't tend to be worth the payoff, at least not for me. I prefer gaming that's fun the whole way through, not horrible most of the way and fun at the end.
Secondly, we're talking about CURRENT Trials. If the developers keep to their apparent difficulty level, then by the time we can do these Trials easily, they'll have added new ones where we'll suck once again.
This is a fundamental question of intended level of difficulty, not just the level of difficulty we're seeing right now. And the intended level of difficulty feels too high for me, at least a baseline.
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:
Stacking of buffs and debuffs is a topic that could (and has) spawned numerous hotly-debated threads, but there's actually a separate thing that I mentioned there. For example, you can layer separate buffs of +def, +DR, +regen, +damage, +recharge and combine them with -toHit, -DR, -recharge, holds and other mezzes, aggro control...|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Well, you highlight some particular problems with the way buffs stack in this game, in that enough buff/debuff can negate a lot of potential challenges. I don't presume to offer a solution to this, but it strikes me as a core problem that needs to be addressed, rather than just jacking difficulty up to where small stat changes have a huge effect.
|
Addressing these layered capabilities alone, without even getting into the heights to which we can stack any one capability, means that we can pretty rapidly overwhelm +0s. Addressing ether on a broad scale represents what I see our devs as likely to implement as a ED/GDN-grade bloodbath. (ED/GDN was a long time ago, but what they did in I13 PvP doesn't inspire my confidence.) Just the risk of that makes me very adverse to seeing them go down that path, not (just) because I don't look forward to potential nerfs, but wide-scale ones make me nervous because of this game's age and seeming reliance on a long-term loyal subscribers.
If they don't reduce us down, they need to consider buffing the foes up. I agree that they could do that with things like more bosses or EBs instead of (just) foe level, but I also see setting some mission to only spawn bosses (for example) as no worse a "perversion" of the con rules than making stuff over level. At that point, it really seems to come down to personal perceptions of which violates the game's norms more.
I will say, though, that "rank inflation" rather than "level inflation" would be easier on MMs, and would allow for more dynamic range with the difficulty slider.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
Doesn't seem to have made the ITF much more difficult than it would be without them. With the amount of debuffs your average team can throw around even the EBs in the ITF tend to get neutered and destroyed pretty rapidly. |
Originally Posted by UberGuy
If they don't reduce us down, they need to consider buffing the foes up. I agree that they could do that with things like more bosses or EBs instead of (just) foe level,
|
I use the ITF as an example because it's the only thing I can think of offhand that actually has EBs regularly spawning in normal mobs.
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:
Better to start hard and become easy than to start easy and become trivial, especially for an endgame system.
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
The inherent problem with "wait until you have more Incarnate powers and it'll be easier" is two-fold.
Firstly, this runs into the "Controllers get good at level 32!" argument, which tends to ignore that they're pretty bad before then. 31 levels of pain don't tend to be worth the payoff, at least not for me. I prefer gaming that's fun the whole way through, not horrible most of the way and fun at the end. Secondly, we're talking about CURRENT Trials. If the developers keep to their apparent difficulty level, then by the time we can do these Trials easily, they'll have added new ones where we'll suck once again. This is a fundamental question of intended level of difficulty, not just the level of difficulty we're seeing right now. And the intended level of difficulty feels too high for me, at least a baseline. |
Issue 16 made me feel like this.
Warning: This poster likes to play Devil's Advocate.
I find this to be an interesting post and, to maximize efficiency for this content, I agree with the OP.
That being said, I am somewhat curious where the truth really lies mainly with my own style of play and my main character's build and my approach to my builds on all of my characters (as it is the same for all).
I do not have any set bonuses on any characters.
I use standard IOs and my 50s are fully slotted with level 50 standard IOs.
I never liked the way you settle for what the sets offer in their enhancements in order to get the global bonuses.
And I never have enjoyed the crafting process in this game very much.
I recently put together a frankenslotted build in Mids and learned how I could improve my numbers that way.
For me, it was mostly a case of having roughly the same bonuses (plus a little bit better) plus better accuracy and less slots needed in some powers (to gain equal-or-better bonuses) and more slots spread around to other powers.
I like the result, however, I started collecting things to craft that build... and I just find it ridiculously unfun to try and manage the inventory in order to craft for an entire build.
So, I put that on indefinite hold.
More precisely...
As an Electric/Electric/Electric Blaster with only level 50 standard IOs...
Is this simply not good enough?
I tend to believe that the player can overcome the build and all of that. And I honestly have never felt that I'm missing a single thing for building with only Standard IOs (I just felt like I was maximizing the numbers I wanted and forgoing any additional global bonuses).
The problem is... Accuracy has always been an area I tended to not focus on.
I'll generally have one accuracy in my powers. Never two.
Now, maybe with Build Up and Aim I don't need to worry so much.
However, I also tend to not fight +level opponents. I just find it less fun.
(Well, usually +1, I suppose)
With +4s... My drains are probably pointless. My holds go way down in reliability and effectiveness (Firing two holds to lock a boss down will likely become a game of hitting them with three holds and hoping that two of them worked... but then they'd probably be free of it before I had enough time to defeat the other boss or whatever).
So, no big deal... I'm a blaster... I'll focus on doing my damage.
As an Electric Blaster... Am I just a lower-damage squishy not able to contribute very well?
Of course, I tend to be in and out of melee and use /Elec's heavy hitting melee attacks.
Is that not going to work so well in the new content?
Are things really that much more difficult or is it not really that bad, if you know what you're doing and push your buttons timely and efficiently enough?
You see... I still haven't even run a single Apex or Tin Mage yet!
While I do not tend to run TFs and such (I like smaller team fun and role-playing), I do not avoid TFs and I occasionally want to go out and do some. I tend to put together TFs that'll stay in-character and all, because I find it so much more fun.
So, I just haven't gone about looking or putting together anything for the two Incarnate TFs yet, hehe.
I do, however, have my rare alpha slot, so I've not hidden from all of this.
I am a bit surprised, myself, that I've not done the Apex and Tin Mage yet, hehe.
Well, for anyone who bothered to read this rambling free-form thoughts-to-type post, I am just curious what your thoughts are on just how big and bad the new content really is for such a player and/or if sticking with level 50 Standard IOs is a negative towards doing such content.
Don't worry, no matter what anyone says, I will be doing it this way and I'm not intimidated about it or anything. I am honestly just curious if the people who tend to maximize things for efficiency believe sticking to standard IOs is a problem and so on.
As for all the back and forth about people's idea of fun and not fun... I just believe that my way of play is no greater and no lesser than anyone else's.
I may excel at some things that others don't and they may excel at some things that I don't... neither is better nor worse.
It's just a game. Have fun.
@Zethustra
"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Quote:
I wonder if scaling rules can't be retweaked in some fashion. We know that stacked buffs and debuffs as those seen on larger teams can trivialise content, but at the same time we know that a single player is rarely capable of the same kind of stacking. So while large-team content may call for some kind of offset, backtracking suck offset to soloable content could cause... Problems.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
Addressing these layered capabilities alone, without even getting into the heights to which we can stack any one capability, means that we can pretty rapidly overwhelm +0s. Addressing ether on a broad scale represents what I see our devs as likely to implement as a ED/GDN-grade bloodbath. (ED/GDN was a long time ago, but what they did in I13 PvP doesn't inspire my confidence.) Just the risk of that makes me very adverse to seeing them go down that path, not (just) because I don't look forward to potential nerfs, but wide-scale ones make me nervous because of this game's age and seeming reliance on a long-term loyal subscribers.
|
I remember that once, a long time ago, team size actually affected level SIGNIFICANTLY. I recall being on large teams that spawned enemies +4 to the mission level, and that was even before the difficulty slider settings addition. I wonder if some kind further adjustment can't be done.
Now, I know what you're thinking - isn't that just what setting enemies to +4 is anyway? Well, yes and no. Yes, in that it is, but no, in that it wasn't a good system even then. I keep wondering if some kind of limited buff-stacking control can't be done, but only on larger teams.
Then again, like you, I'm not a fan of calling for nerfs and seeing another wide-scale character readjustment, even if I'm sure it won't affect me much at all just like ED didn't.
However, consider that part of the worry the developers had about adding an end game system was power creep, in that as we approach our hard caps, performance starts deviating WILDLY and becomes difficult to manage. A 90% resistant tank needs enemy damage to go up by 900% just to bring him back to base level, at which point anything else is going to get creamed into soup. Hence the cheating mechanics to avoid that.
But at the end of the day, there's only so much the developers can cheat. After a certain point, I still feel they'll have to think laterally and do something more than just straight-up enemy boosts. And I don't want to go the WoW route with turning all percentages into "ratings."
Quote:
| I will say, though, that "rank inflation" rather than "level inflation" would be easier on MMs, and would allow for more dynamic range with the difficulty slider. |
I remember a friend of mine who plays other MMOs talking about "elite mobs," as he called them, many of whom were blessed with x4 hit points, or x2 damage or some such. While I wouldn't want to see that as such added to City of Heroes, it does not rule out the possibility of introducing bosses with stat boosts.
Again, it may seem like I'm suggesting another type of cheapness (and I am), but at least it's not insulting cheapness. If it says "BOSS" under it's name, I have a somewhat easier time accepting that it should be strong than if it says "MINION." Besides, bosses tend to look the part, whereas minions not always do.
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:
They do take a whole lot longer than the other mobs, though. Also, note the one big spawn of "monster" EBs is loaded with under-level ones.
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Doesn't seem to have made the ITF much more difficult than it would be without them. With the amount of debuffs your average team can throw around even the EBs in the ITF tend to get neutered and destroyed pretty rapidly.
|
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
This is what struck me, as well. I can imagine a whole spawns of even con ones, or indeed even +1 EBs, might be a much more credible threat.
|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
They do take a whole lot longer than the other mobs, though. Also, note the one big spawn of "monster" EBs is loaded with under-level ones.
|
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:
EB's would disproportionately affect certain classes (controllers and dominators, mainly, although most of the good ones probably can lock down an AV)|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
This is what struck me, as well. I can imagine a whole spawns of even con ones, or indeed even +1 EBs, might be a much more credible threat.
|
What you give with one hand you take away with the other.
"Men strunt �r strunt och snus �r snus
om ock i gyllne dosor.
Och rosor i ett sprucket krus
�r st�ndigt alltid rosor."
Quote:
Not really. I've never seen a standard IO build played by a halfway competent player that I wouldn't invite on a second team if I had run with them before. I feel the same about SO builds, in fact I still use SOs myself while I'm leveling jus for the convenience of being able to hop down to the vendor and pick some up rather than deal with craftng time or none being available at the moment. | I am honestly just curious if the people who tend to maximize things for efficiency believe sticking to standard IOs is a problem and so on. |
I really only maximize level 50 characters that I enjoy playing more than the others. To that end I have 2 scrappers, a brute, a defender, and a blaster that vary from a few IO sets to heavily IOed. And I never IO them all at once, I do it gradually as I feel like spending the time on it.
So, no, I don't feel that you need to be completely IOed to the gills to participate in end game stuff.
Quote:
| This is what struck me, as well. I can imagine a whole spawns of even con ones, or indeed even +1 EBs, might be a much more credible threat |
All boss or all EB spawns would be okay for damage dealers and debuffers, but anyone who relies on control powers will feel pretty useless. So, just upping the rank of enemies will probably prevent people who prefer playing controllers from feeling like they're really contributing much.
Besides, after they cracked down on all-boss AE missions, it'd be pretty hypocritical if they turned around and did it themselves.
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. |
Control effects... I knew I was forgetting something. This, then, bumps into another problem I've had since time began, which is the binary nature of control effects in this game. You can shoot something with a rifle five times, and each time will make it more hurt, but you can't hold something five times and make it "more held." It's either held or it's not, and control effects don't last long enough to build up over time.
I've always wanted to see some way to introduce targets that can't be held with one or two or three application of a hold power, but could still eventually be held, and not while relying on fast-recharge holds, but on some kind of system that lingers even when the active hold has worn off. That's unlikely yo happen, however.
We have ourselves a conundrum. +4 enemies shaft Masterminds, boss-only spawns shaft Controllers. This is why I say there needs to be a better solution, perhaps one that re-examines longstanding problems with the general game systems.
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:
I don't really think it's about the team composition, but about the individual characters/players themselves. I've done TFs on very lopsided teams and as long as the individual characters weren't built horribly (the mythical Emp Defender with all 4 travel powers, etc) they've always worked out in the end.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
It seems to me that some of the angst here is really about that team composition assumption. If a team that's not well-balanced comes along, they're going to have a potentially much harder time of it. Who's the baseline? Pretty clearly, the devs seem to be aiming for a high water mark on the performance scale. (Despite this, some players are still mowing their way through the Apex and Tin Mage TFs.) Also pretty clearly, setting the bar high in that way is not popular with everyone. Is that a problem? I don't know. I know I generally like what they're doing, because I'm in the high-performing group of players.
|
8 Tanks? May not be the fastest TF but boy howdy nobody is gonna die.
8 Controllers? You mean these guys aren't supposed to just stand there and die?
8 Defenders? Oh man I can't see anything past my buff display!
etc etc etc
Speaking of team composition, I remember accidentally getting my team-mate killed on my Brute because I unwittingly aggro-capped myself and about ten enemies peeled off and attacked him with not a damn thing I could do other than "kill faster," which I don't think I did fast enough.
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:
Seconding this. The difference between a generic SO/IO build and a set IO build are noticable, but for 99% of the game's content it's not needed. I only have 1 character that actually has sets slotted, in fact, and all her IOs are lvl 50 - I'm not worried about losing set bonuses when exemplaring because they're not needed for that content. I know this because I DID that content without set bonuses. The only place I need to worry about the is high-end level 50 TFs and (assumedly) the new Incarnate TFs and content.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Not really. I've never seen a standard IO build played by a halfway competent player that I wouldn't invite on a second team if I had run with them before. I feel the same about SO builds, in fact I still use SOs myself while I'm leveling jus for the convenience of being able to hop down to the vendor and pick some up rather than deal with craftng time or none being available at the moment.
... So, no, I don't feel that you need to be completely IOed to the gills to participate in end game stuff. |
BUT. My level 48/50/etc characters with generic IOs do just as well in that content, they just can't ignore 20 Romans spamming defense debuffs like my kitted out character can. The sets make things easier, and if you were interesting in pushing for things like soloing AVs (I'm not) I suppose they might be necessary, but for the vast majority of content they're just nice to have, but not at all necessary.
Quote:
I still want to make an 8 Sonic/Sonic defender team with all the members dressed as Angels, led by the Conductor of the Mid-Harmonic Chorus. Judgement from on High, Hallelujah, mutha-***** |
Originally Posted by Atomic_Woman
I don't really think it's about the team composition, but about the individual characters/players themselves. I've done TFs on very lopsided teams and as long as the individual characters weren't built horribly (the mythical Emp Defender with all 4 travel powers, etc) they've always worked out in the end.
8 Tanks? May not be the fastest TF but boy howdy nobody is gonna die. 8 Controllers? You mean these guys aren't supposed to just stand there and die? 8 Defenders? Oh man I can't see anything past my buff display! etc etc etc |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
Not so mythical, I've seen it numerous times. It's not as common as the Emp with all 4 powers from the Medicine pool though. |
Originally Posted by Atomic_Woman
(the mythical Emp Defender with all 4 travel powers, etc)
|
I've also seen an Emp with the Presence pool, that one confused me a little. I could maybe see it on all Defender TFs where the Empath tanks....but it was level 17 at the time and didn't have the badges from Posi or Synapse.
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. |
When you said that the STF and LRSF shouldn't be the baseline for new content, you are in effect saying that our enemies should not be getting any stronger, while it is quite clear that we ARE getting stronger.
Given your documented history of not liking to turn your difficulty settings up, and being upset that you occasionally get +1 enemies in your missions, it is entirely logical to come to the conclusion that you want players to get stronger while enemies remain the same.
I wasn't rephrasing so much as I was interpreting what was said, and taking into account the previously stated stances of the person who said them in my interpretation.
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.