City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Removing Heal Decay & Travel Suppression from PVP

Antoinette

By Antoinette,
Posted on: 2011-07-12 11:08 in CoH and CoV General Discussions

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostOfEliPorter View Post
People still get **** on in those situations. Now they have a smaller chance to escape since inspiration use gets punished.
Notice I did say "tried." I do not in any way think they succeeded, but I do think they abandoned what used to be suggested, "get a team," with these overbearing systems.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
Agree with the rest of your post but not this. If your opponent is able to evade you then you have not been victorious. Survival is something that should be rewarded, not discouraged.
I guess what I mean is, if the opponent has decided to completely disengage.

Yes, a tactical withdrawal to heal, recover endurance, recharge some powers or simply avoiding the big attacks (build-up or aim), is smart and should not be penalized.

I think I might go so far to say a base run is a defeat.

Dark Bard, Zoobait, Debacle
jmsb
Por vezes d� vontade...
chucknorriss
speak american godamnit

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromatic View Post
Heck, you should get that victory if you forced your opponent to turn tail and run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
Agree with the rest of your post but not this. If your opponent is able to evade you then you have not been victorious. Survival is something that should be rewarded, not discouraged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromatic View Post
I guess what I mean is, if the opponent has decided to completely disengage.

Yes, a tactical withdrawal to heal, recover endurance, recharge some powers or simply avoiding the big attacks (build-up or aim), is smart and should not be penalized.
I think these would be alleviated with objective based PvP. Then, a tactical withdrawal, even a turn tail and run, is only a failure if your opponent manages to complete whatever the objective is during said withdrawal/retreat.

Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromatic View Post
I guess what I mean is, if the opponent has decided to completely disengage.

Yes, a tactical withdrawal to heal, recover endurance, recharge some powers or simply avoiding the big attacks (build-up or aim), is smart and should not be penalized.

I think I might go so far to say a base run is a defeat.
I disagree. If your enemy has decided to go back to their base then you could argue that you've fought them off to a standstill. But in no way have you defeated them.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison View Post
I think these would be alleviated with objective based PvP. Then, a tactical withdrawal, even a turn tail and run, is only a failure if your opponent manages to complete whatever the objective is during said withdrawal/retreat.
This. More objectives would bring interest even without other changes, just because it would be something different.

Now, to the original point of the thread...

(TL;DR version of the rest of this post: yes, please.)

I hate heal decay, and hate travel suppression. I rarely PvP'd before i13, but would go in and play some and have a good time more often than not every now and then. I'd lose more often than I won, and did participate in a few "fite club" matches with melee vs melee (which taught me that suppression or no, if you manage to kill someone solo as a melee character, your opponent did something "wrong" - that's true both pre- and post-i13). After i13 I actively avoid zones.

I won't say that a lack of travel suppression made it a "faster pace" as much as it made it "not annoying as hell". Inspiration use, most (but not all!) buffs, heals, attacks, being hit... it seems like breathing gets suppressed post i13. And it's not like it helps at all, because as mentioned above if you attack someone they're suppressed, but so are you. All it does is penalize you for doing things to help yourself or your teammates, if you're teamed - spreading everyone out for no good reason whatsoever. This actually increases the value of range - and +range set bonuses/powers.

Throw in the other i13 changes of base resistances being added to everybody, diminishing returns, and heal decay and all PvP roles except damage and disruption are removed: you simply need to be able to see your target and keep enough damage on them - while they can't run away because you're both moving at the same rate thanks to the suppression changes - until they either phase/hibernate or die.

Issue 13 brought a lot of things that PvP players asked for - including dual builds, which players never had a chance to try the old system with before these changes were made - but did too much, too fast, without regard for the consequences or concerns presented about a slower, progressive approach to see what did and didn't work. Rolling back parts of it - such as heal decay and travel suppression, two options that are rarely if ever deliberately used in the arena where players can choose to have them or not - may find a happy medium that works with minimal tweaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle View Post
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillig View Post
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
I disagree. If your enemy has decided to go back to their base then you could argue that you've fought them off to a standstill. But in no way have you defeated them.
I'd have to disagree with that disagree

First a standstill doesn't have one running while the other is still up for the fight, but more importantly than that...

The opponent running is the most classic of comic book defeats, usually with a "You win this one, but I'll be back!" or some such. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Is it smart to run when you're in jeapordy of losing? Probably, yes, but you have still been bested.

I agree that objective based PvP would be a far better model to stage super hero/villain conflicts over, especially as 'super' as a lot of our characters are. You may never take down that Tank, but if you get away with that bank heist and the cash, you win! That same Tank may not do enough damage to take out the same bank robber, but if he can keep the villain from running out with the cash

As an example let's use a bank robbery PvP scenario. The villain drops cash when they're hit (using the same tech from being able to steal codes in the PvP zones to represent cash deposits). There are only so many in the bank, so once the hero takes them all away from the villain- they lose, or if the villain leaves the bank with no cash deposits, that withdraw would be a loss and end the scenario as well. The strategy in how long you should stay, how many blinkie cash deposits can you get away with, and when the best time to cut your losses and leave with what you have, or risk losing it all. The more the villain gets out with, the better the rewards (special drops, inf, whatever) The more the hero prevents them from taking (collecting from the villains, or just having them leave with nothing) is the measure of their success. If the Hero runs out for whatever reason, the scenario ends for them as well (the villain would be the assumed victor and rewards would be doled out). So in this case, for the villain anyway, running could garner a lesser, but still valuable success if they get away with any of the cash doohickies).

So no, running away shouldn't incur a penalty per-se in that scenario, and may even be a winning move, but doing so just to get away should make a withdraw like that a loss.

"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
Well yes. But here's the thing; every player has the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to select those powers. Meaning that if they are unable to keep up with faster players IT IS THEIR FAULT ENTIRELY.

This is just a case of players wanting to have the cake and eat it too.
Funny. I saw many arguments just like this concerning Stamina. The Dev's still caved in and made Fitness inherent. If they make the changes that you want them to make for PvP, then I fully expect them to revoke inherent Fitness as well.

There I was between a rock and a hard place. Then I thought, "What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Toon View Post
Funny. I saw many arguments just like this concerning Stamina. The Dev's still caved in and made Fitness inherent. If they make the changes that you want them to make for PvP, then I fully expect them to revoke inherent Fitness as well.
By removing TS and HD, you expect them to remove inherent fitness on the same grounds? What?

[U][URL="http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=251594"][/URL][/U]

 

Posted

Oh. My. God. The teleporter sent me back in time.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanservice View Post
Neat! I did not know that. However that's just one more power to add to my silly list of 'Needs' now.
The temp phase shift from Warburg can last a very long time when used sparingly/when you really need it.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery-Enforcer View Post
By removing TS and HD, you expect them to remove inherent fitness on the same grounds? What?
Since I was against inherent Fitness in the first place, and some one wants TS and HD removed because, and I quote...

Quote:
But here's the thing; every player has the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to select those powers. Meaning that if they are unable to keep up with faster players IT IS THEIR FAULT ENTIRELY.
Yes, I expect the Devs to remove inherent fitness. because "every player has the freedom of choice to select those powers." That was true from the start. Just because you and 9000 (random number pull form somewhere) other people thought that you couldn't live without Stamina meant diddly squat from a power choice stand point.

This situation is not really any different. Except that it is restricted to (lol)PvP.

There I was between a rock and a hard place. Then I thought, "What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Toon View Post
This situation is not really any different. Except that it is restricted to (lol)PvP.
Which is a bit like saying earthquakes are not really any different from rainstorms, except that they happen on the ground instead of in the sky.

 

Posted

Its clear to me that the people arguing against this suggestion clearly have no clue what they're talking about (fanservice in particular) i'd hazard a guess to say that you are one of two things 1)post i13 PvPer, who never really experience PvP pre the retarded changes and just argues against these changes for the sake of being bad 2)A srs bzns fiteklubber who believes you should never pop insps, run from fights use accolades etc, and therefore if TS was removed and people could suddenly use TACTICS again to EVADE near death situations in zones it would render your terribly built fiteklubbing toon; useless. whichever one of the two (or maybe combination of both) that you are, the end result is the same: you are bad and any change made to PvP your bad status would just get worse.
lmfaorofllololbadbad gtfo kid.

@Psycho Jas

 

Posted

Please keep the verbal PvP out of this thread. It's been a fairly clean discussion and doesn't need the usual ad hominem attacks.

50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM

Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulTouch View Post
Its clear to me that the people arguing against this suggestion clearly have no clue what they're talking about (fanservice in particular) i'd hazard a guess to say that you are one of two things 1)post i13 PvPer, who never really experience PvP pre the retarded changes and just argues against these changes for the sake of being bad 2)A srs bzns fiteklubber who believes you should never pop insps, run from fights use accolades etc, and therefore if TS was removed and people could suddenly use TACTICS again to EVADE near death situations in zones it would render your terribly built fiteklubbing toon; useless. whichever one of the two (or maybe combination of both) that you are, the end result is the same: you are bad and any change made to PvP your bad status would just get worse.
lmfaorofllololbadbad gtfo kid.
Mods, please get rid of stuff like this from this thread. It's been clean so far and we don't need to old idiocy seen in pwnz forum or past discussions about tatics and changes to pvp rearing their silly heads in here.

Thanks.

EDIT: Back on topic: I still suggest that heal decay needs to go away completely. I would not mind TS going away also but recommend that it be toned down: ex: no TS when using INSP, melee gets no TS, etc.

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!

 

Posted

I like heal decay.
In newer PvP games that people may come from, they will know that having countless healers makes your team win. It doesn't involve tactics or a proper PvP-specced character - it only matters that your healer can heal you whenever you are attacked. I have actually SUGGESTED Heal Decay to games that I have done testing for. People will hate it, but it evens the playing field to a team that has less healers. Heck, I even had some people agreeing with me - others not so much because they had never experienced this before. Wouldn't mind a toned down version however, I don't agree it should be removed completely.

Travel Suppression can go. It is just annoying plain and simple. Slows me down in PvE, slows me down in PvP. I can't be like The Zars and just chant "Kill kill kill, kill" as I slowly walk across the desert. I'd prefer to be on horseback and charge in right away.

@War-Nugget
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavicle View Post
CoH players are stupid and incompetent compared to WoW players.
As was said in Gran Torino, "Your world is nothing more than all the tiny things you've left behind", let CoH be one of those things. Don't forget, forgive.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by War-Nugget View Post
I like heal decay.
In newer PvP games that people may come from, they will know that having countless healers makes your team win. It doesn't involve tactics or a proper PvP-specced character - it only matters that your healer can heal you whenever you are attacked. I have actually SUGGESTED Heal Decay to games that I have done testing for. People will hate it, but it evens the playing field to a team that has less healers. Heck, I even had some people agreeing with me - others not so much because they had never experienced this before. Wouldn't mind a toned down version however, I don't agree it should be removed completely.

Travel Suppression can go. It is just annoying plain and simple. Slows me down in PvE, slows me down in PvP. I can't be like The Zars and just chant "Kill kill kill, kill" as I slowly walk across the desert. I'd prefer to be on horseback and charge in right away.
Have you ever played a healer in City of Heroes PVP?

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycantropus View Post
I'd have to disagree with that disagree

First a standstill doesn't have one running while the other is still up for the fight, but more importantly than that...

The opponent running is the most classic of comic book defeats, usually with a "You win this one, but I'll be back!" or some such. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Is it smart to run when you're in jeapordy of losing? Probably, yes, but you have still been bested.

I agree that objective based PvP would be a far better model to stage super hero/villain conflicts over, especially as 'super' as a lot of our characters are. You may never take down that Tank, but if you get away with that bank heist and the cash, you win! That same Tank may not do enough damage to take out the same bank robber, but if he can keep the villain from running out with the cash

As an example let's use a bank robbery PvP scenario. The villain drops cash when they're hit (using the same tech from being able to steal codes in the PvP zones to represent cash deposits). There are only so many in the bank, so once the hero takes them all away from the villain- they lose, or if the villain leaves the bank with no cash deposits, that withdraw would be a loss and end the scenario as well. The strategy in how long you should stay, how many blinkie cash deposits can you get away with, and when the best time to cut your losses and leave with what you have, or risk losing it all. The more the villain gets out with, the better the rewards (special drops, inf, whatever) The more the hero prevents them from taking (collecting from the villains, or just having them leave with nothing) is the measure of their success. If the Hero runs out for whatever reason, the scenario ends for them as well (the villain would be the assumed victor and rewards would be doled out). So in this case, for the villain anyway, running could garner a lesser, but still valuable success if they get away with any of the cash doohickies).

So no, running away shouldn't incur a penalty per-se in that scenario, and may even be a winning move, but doing so just to get away should make a withdraw like that a loss.
While I like your idea from a conceptual perspective, it just would not work in gameplay terms. The reason for this is because you're saying 'losing', and 'being in jeopardy of losing' are essentially the same thing. That just cannot work - the obvious reason is that having 'losing' and 'being in jeopardy of losing' as synonyms is circular from a definitive point of view. (How can being in jeopardy of something be the same as the very thing you're in jeopardy of?) But the less obvious reason is that you're assuming several things: That the player 'running' is doing so to evade defeat, as oppose to luring an overconfident opponent into a trap. That the opponent 'running' is going to help a friend who is in more trouble. That the opponent 'running' is attempting to dictate the pace of the battle...and has no intention of breaking combat with you. All of these things are indicative of the danger of implicating a system that tells players why they are doing things. Put simply: you don't know the motivations of other players and it would be inappropriate to dictate them to them this way.

Also - where do you draw the line in determining pseudo-defeat? How far do they have to run? How much health do they have to lose before they're in jeopardy of losing?

I think the current system - of defeats counting as defeats and nothing else - is much better in that regard. It just makes more sense that you only truly defeat someone when you defeat someone. And while I like your idea for conceptual reasons, the whole "i'll be back!" thing from comics can easily be replicated by respawns/the hospital.

Interesting chat. Sorry I missed it before.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
While I like your idea from a conceptual perspective, it just would not work in gameplay terms. The reason for this is because you're saying 'losing', and 'being in jeopardy of losing' are essentially the same thing. That just cannot work - the obvious reason is that having 'losing' and 'being in jeopardy of losing' as synonyms is circular from a definitive point of view. (How can being in jeopardy of something be the same as the very thing you're in jeopardy of?) But the less obvious reason is that you're assuming several things: That the player 'running' is doing so to evade defeat, as oppose to luring an overconfident opponent into a trap. That the opponent 'running' is going to help a friend who is in more trouble. That the opponent 'running' is attempting to dictate the pace of the battle...and has no intention of breaking combat with you. All of these things are indicative of the danger of implicating a system that tells players why they are doing things. Put simply: you don't know the motivations of other players and it would be inappropriate to dictate them to them this way.

Also - where do you draw the line in determining pseudo-defeat? How far do they have to run? How much health do they have to lose before they're in jeopardy of losing?

I think the current system - of defeats counting as defeats and nothing else - is much better in that regard. It just makes more sense that you only truly defeat someone when you defeat someone. And while I like your idea for conceptual reasons, the whole "i'll be back!" thing from comics can easily be replicated by respawns/the hospital.

Interesting chat. Sorry I missed it before.
Thanks for the compliment

No, I agree with the system being unable to objectively gauge that in current PvP, which is why I advocate for more 'objective based' PvP, like the scenario I suggested, that can take that into account. 'Straight-forward' PvP is fine, but I think that, with it currently being all there is, isn't enough in my opinion. Super hero/villain conflicts need to be both dynamic and reflect the nature of the genre.

If Castle and co. focused on how to package PvP, instead of just changing how it worked (though having the ability to seperate between PvP and PvE system wise was a worthwhile endeavour) I think there'd be more attention being paid to it now, by players and Dev's alike.

"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycantropus View Post
If Castle and co. focused on how to package PvP, instead of just changing how it worked (though having the ability to seperate between PvP and PvE system wise was a worthwhile endeavour) I think there'd be more attention being paid to it now, by players and Dev's alike.
I completely agree. RPVP events are always popular, despite the horrible PVP system.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
Yeah that's actually my fault. I bumped the thread in question being a ******** yesterday and it got deleted due to necroposting. Castle basically said that he had a system to reinvent COH PVP but only some of his changes actually made it through to the real game. Hence why we have this jumbled mess right now.
*sigh*

Not sure if I'm more disappointed in you for bumping it or with the community team for deciding the thread needed to be deleted as opposed to simply locking it. Regardless, glad the conversation in this thread has been mostly civil.

 

Posted

I'd LOVE it if they removed HD and TS. I quit PvP'ing in I14 due to those two and also diminishing returns but DR is a different discussion. All of my PvP toons except two were support/disruption builds so I13 killed my zone fun. I like that the arena has options to undo the changes but, to me, the chaos of zone play is much more enjoyable.

Elec/Cold Troller AV/Pylon/GM/TF/SF Soloing Antics
everytime...he gets me everytime.... DAMN U BOOMIE -- _Ilr_
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zamuel View Post
*sigh*

Not sure if I'm more disappointed in you for bumping it or with the community team for deciding the thread needed to be deleted as opposed to simply locking it. Regardless, glad the conversation in this thread has been mostly civil.
I am sorry to have disappointed you father.

I bumped it because I was asking Castle a question. If i'd made a thread about it then i'd be "calling out the devs". (Which is a ridiculous rule given that they post here frequently.)

 

Posted

I just wish the devs would look at how many arena matches are set without travel suppression and heal decay.

The Kronos has a hold n00b!