Originally Posted by Socorro
Some people like perfection in their hobbies. I play piano, and I spend a considerable amount of time making songs I already know pretty well even better. Is that a waste as well...?
|
A knockback solution.
Some people like perfection in their hobbies. I play piano, and I spend a considerable amount of time making songs I already know pretty well even better. Is that a waste as well...?
|
If CoH is your hobby, then it should be about being amazing even without always aiming for perfection. You can only do something perfect so many times before getting bored with it. It's why I occasionally play an AT or set I'm not used to, because even then I'm decent.
From a game balance perspective, it does temper damage getting out of hand. But then you'd then lose much of your feeling of being mighty by defeating lots of foes relatively quickly.
|
When I say these things, I'm thinking of games like Devil May Cry and God of War or even Darksiders where pretty much everything you do clips a while bunch of enemies in the general direction in which you're aiming. No one single attack is the be-all end-all of are effects, but the feeling of cutting through veritable hordes of enemies remains when you can effectively take them all on and still win without having kill them one at a time.
The problem is - and I agree - that a disparity exists between those who can only hit a single target and those who can hit multiple, specifically because there's a very low threshold - two or three targets - where AoEs become functionally better than single-target attacks. I still say, however, that it's possible to get rid of this disparity without getting rid of AoE. Get rid of single-target, instead
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.
|
The problem is - and I agree - that a disparity exists between those who can only hit a single target and those who can hit multiple, specifically because there's a very low threshold - two or three targets - where AoEs become functionally better than single-target attacks. I still say, however, that it's possible to get rid of this disparity without getting rid of AoE. Get rid of single-target, instead
|
Or increase the rewards of beating hard targets. Beating a boss, EB or AV should give *alot* more exp/inf/salvage/recipes than beating minions/lts. Even something as simple as giving a couple of merit rewards for each EB killed would raise the value of ST-oriented sets.
|
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.
|
Or increase the rewards of beating hard targets. Beating a boss, EB or AV should give *alot* more exp/inf/salvage/recipes than beating minions/lts. Even something as simple as giving a couple of merit rewards for each EB killed would raise the value of ST-oriented sets.
|
3 (well 3.125) times more invention salvage
3 times more recipes
Plus a significantly increased chance for shards
I'm not saying those numbers cant be tweaked, but I already choose groups that tend to give more bosses based on their current rewards.
We don't want to tip the balance too far the other way, so any increase should be careful and maybe step-wise
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
We don't want to tip the balance too far the other way, so any increase should be careful and maybe step-wise
|
Take, for instance, the Knives of Artemis. Their description says that there are fewer than 100 of them world-wide, yet we can sometimes take out more than 100 in a single mission if the map is large enough. And by "we" I mean "I," as in solo. An 8-man team can probably take out 100 within a few regular rooms. If these girls are supposed to be highly-trained deadly assassins, then why not make them an entire faction of nothing but bosses? I get why this was done back at Launch when Jack Emmert was stomping his foot and insisting that bosses shouldn't be soloable, but these days they are anyway.
Suppose the Knives only ever spawned single bosses? No minions, no lieutenants. Just bosses, all of them named. Or how about the Warriors? These guys shouldn't be all that popular of a cult, and they keep naming themselves after Iliad heroes. Shouldn't they be all bosses, just a bunch of few but really strong men and women?
Contrariwise, take something like the Ghouls. Wouldn't it make sense for these guys to be almost entirely just minions? They're a zombie apocalypse, more or less (yes, I know the story), but still, wouldn't it make sense to fight hordes of smaller ones most of the time?
I know it's possible to make up all ranks of enemies for all factions, but should all factions have similar numbers of all ranks in regular spawns?
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.
|
I don't think bosses themselves are the issue, but rather that all enemy groups have almost the same spawning patterns - either many minions, or fewer minions and more bosses.
Take, for instance, the Knives of Artemis. Their description says that there are fewer than 100 of them world-wide, yet we can sometimes take out more than 100 in a single mission if the map is large enough. And by "we" I mean "I," as in solo. An 8-man team can probably take out 100 within a few regular rooms. If these girls are supposed to be highly-trained deadly assassins, then why not make them an entire faction of nothing but bosses? I get why this was done back at Launch when Jack Emmert was stomping his foot and insisting that bosses shouldn't be soloable, but these days they are anyway. Suppose the Knives only ever spawned single bosses? No minions, no lieutenants. Just bosses, all of them named. Or how about the Warriors? These guys shouldn't be all that popular of a cult, and they keep naming themselves after Iliad heroes. Shouldn't they be all bosses, just a bunch of few but really strong men and women? Contrariwise, take something like the Ghouls. Wouldn't it make sense for these guys to be almost entirely just minions? They're a zombie apocalypse, more or less (yes, I know the story), but still, wouldn't it make sense to fight hordes of smaller ones most of the time? I know it's possible to make up all ranks of enemies for all factions, but should all factions have similar numbers of all ranks in regular spawns? |
Why not solve the KB problem with an IO? I've always admired the way the Theft of Essence proc neatly solved the painfully high END costs of Dark Regen without actually changing the power or breaking anything else. Add a new IO set to the game, maybe travel (10-50) so anyone can stick it in Sprint. Have one of the enhancements in the set be a Global that reduces KB to KD in all powers the character uses.
Of course, now it occurs to most that F2P players won't have IOs... damnit. Maybe Null the Gull is the better way to do this.
I don't think bosses themselves are the issue, but rather that all enemy groups have almost the same spawning patterns - either many minions, or fewer minions and more bosses.
Take, for instance, the Knives of Artemis. Their description says that there are fewer than 100 of them world-wide, yet we can sometimes take out more than 100 in a single mission if the map is large enough. And by "we" I mean "I," as in solo. An 8-man team can probably take out 100 within a few regular rooms. If these girls are supposed to be highly-trained deadly assassins, then why not make them an entire faction of nothing but bosses? I get why this was done back at Launch when Jack Emmert was stomping his foot and insisting that bosses shouldn't be soloable, but these days they are anyway. Suppose the Knives only ever spawned single bosses? No minions, no lieutenants. Just bosses, all of them named. Or how about the Warriors? These guys shouldn't be all that popular of a cult, and they keep naming themselves after Iliad heroes. Shouldn't they be all bosses, just a bunch of few but really strong men and women? Contrariwise, take something like the Ghouls. Wouldn't it make sense for these guys to be almost entirely just minions? They're a zombie apocalypse, more or less (yes, I know the story), but still, wouldn't it make sense to fight hordes of smaller ones most of the time? I know it's possible to make up all ranks of enemies for all factions, but should all factions have similar numbers of all ranks in regular spawns? |
[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.)
The best example I can think of for different spawning patterns is Lost/Rikti
Go into their missions set for 2, you will almost always find solo bosses.
Go into most enemy groups set for two and you never see a boss.
there are different patterns out there, but we could use more variety.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
I'm not sure how that specifically addresses the AoE disparity. Keep in mind that many of the top AoE performers are also very good single target performers (for example, Fire Blast). Its not true that the things good at AoE are completely bad at single target: most things are decent at single target, and some things have good AoE on top of that.
|
Fire Blast being an excellent single-target set as well as an excellent AoE one - which I agree with, by the way, that was the only Blaster I ever had fun with - isn't so much a problem with AoE as a concept as it is a problem with set balance in allowing such a set to exist while simultaneously not ensuring that all other sets can measure up. When you make a game where some sets have AoE and others focus on single target, having a set which focuses on both is breaking your own rules.
Of course, I agree with you on a fundamental level - with AoE attacks cloning their damage over their entire AoE range, they have too wide of a performance gap and they cascade into excessive effectiveness VERY fast. When you deal more damage the more enemies you shoot at, it's natural for people to WANT to shoot at more enemies. This, then, becomes a problem with a no-brainer solution - AoE rules. Until caps, disincentives or mitigating factors are introduced to not just limit the scope of AoE, but redesign it such that it is self-limiting, AoE will be king.
Years ago I might have disagreed with you on the notion that AoE is evil, but it is. It's the obvious best choice for practically every challenge the game tosses at us, especially the "toughest" ones with larger teams. I firmly believe - as you do - that this shouldn't be repeated in the future, not because AoE isn't fun, because not having AoE isn't fun and it makes the game a nightmare to balance so it's fun for everyone. I don't want to see this game or future games become any less about fighting hordes of enemies - that's what's so great about City of Heroes - but this needs to be done in a system that doesn't leave approximately half its players out in the cold.
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.
|
I'm speaking specifically of power balance. An AoE attack pays a very high cost in endurance and recharge for not a lot of on-paper damage, because an AoE attack is expected to multiply its effect by hitting multiple targets. Deny that power its multiple targets, boil the encounter down to a single target only, and then face said AoE power against it. What was once a great power because of its superior range and large target cap transforms into a liability because it costs too much for what it does.
Fire Blast being an excellent single-target set as well as an excellent AoE one - which I agree with, by the way, that was the only Blaster I ever had fun with - isn't so much a problem with AoE as a concept as it is a problem with set balance in allowing such a set to exist while simultaneously not ensuring that all other sets can measure up. When you make a game where some sets have AoE and others focus on single target, having a set which focuses on both is breaking your own rules. |
In many MMOs powers have DPS ratings because the game can actually tell you, if you use that power continuously, what level of damage you can expect from it. We can't do that in CoH because recharge and the mechanics of attack chains makes that almost impossible.
All this feeds back into AoE in CoH: Fire blast isn't just good because it has AoE, its good because it has multiple AoEs. Its also good because it has multiple single target attacks and most have good DPA so they can be chained more effectively. (Its also good because of the balancing decision to make dot damage itself a secondary effect, which is a separate issue).
However, the lack of global cooldown is also another one of those things that makes combat in CoH significantly more "action-oriented" than you would expect from an MMO not focused on "twitch" combat. We can't just put our best attack on auto and periodically use other powers because in City of Heroes that would be extremely pathetic output. So its another thing very dangerous to futz with, because mucking with it can dramatically reduce the entertainment level of combat in CoH.
[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.)
I understand that Knockback is important to some power builds, I like it quite a bit on my Pistol blaster. But as the player of a Tanker, I also dislike Knockback because it's an enormous pain in the butt for a melee powerset to deal with. Especially in team play.
I know why Knockback shouldn't be removed, but why not an option to change it to knockdown or knockup? The affected target is still temporarily disabled, but they aren't hurled across the room in a way that scatters mob packs and makes tanking, melee, and further AoE use impossible.
Well, there's a quick answer to "Why not knockdown", how strong of a reason you consider it is up to you:
KnockDOWN is achieved by reducing the magnitude of a knockback. Changing a knockback power to knockdown puts it below the protection threshold of more targets. If something has Mag 4 protection, You need mag 4 to even budge it. To compare, it's like suddenly changing a Controller's hold to be Mag 2. It suddenly doesn't work on a lot of stuff.
Why not knock UP? Well, it doesn't quite share this problem with knockdown: A VERY high Knockup magnitude still lands the enemy relatively close to where they were lifted from, while still overcoming protection. Below a certain threshold, the Ragdoll system doesn't even kick in, and instead it uses the same knock mechanics that player-knocking uses, which for a knock-up, will ground you exactly where you were lifted from unless you were in some kind of airborne lateral movement.
There's still a reason: It would look doofy. Some powers shouldn't knock up, not based on what they do, visually. Gale, Force Bolt, Nova, all 3 would look strange if they hurled enemies straight UP instead of away. I can't think of others, and maybe they don't exist, but it's a legitimate concern for the developers, even if the players consider it irrelevant. (See: No emotes with a weapon/shield out because of clipping, No Pink Ice because Ice_Is_Not_Pink_in_Paragon.txt was passed into law.)
The final reason is that you actually do sometimes want to move an entire spawn over THAT way, and that should not be the sole province of players with Force Bubble and Hurricane.
Mission Arc: Metatronic Mayhem (Id 1750): A tale of robots gone wrong, rogue robots gone right, and madmen gone every which way but loose.
Properly used the gripes against kb are by people who are lazy and don't want to have to move even a short distance to attack a mob in melee. That being said improperly used it can be a pain. Everyone has encountered one of those tankers with hand clap that uses it gleefully whenever they get enemies built up and launches the mobs in every direction.
It's kinda like AOE immobilize. AOE immobilize used at the right time is both a damage mitigation and a way to keep mobs clustered. Used at the wrong time it makes people with rains/slicks/kd powers want to kill you.
Personally I've encountered way more people who think they are a blastroller, spam AOE immobs, and forget to actually control or support than I have encountered people who use kb badly consistently.
However, the lack of global cooldown is also another one of those things that makes combat in CoH significantly more "action-oriented" than you would expect from an MMO not focused on "twitch" combat. We can't just put our best attack on auto and periodically use other powers because in City of Heroes that would be extremely pathetic output. So its another thing very dangerous to futz with, because mucking with it can dramatically reduce the entertainment level of combat in CoH.
|
Lack of global cooldown and the need and opportunity to use multiple powers is, I think, one of City of Heroes' greatest strengths in combat. One of the things I hate the most in gaming is unnecessary redundancy. Why do I need five attack which all do the same thing that I can only ever use one of at a time, when one will do? And, really, the answer is "I don't need that," as anyone who bothered to optimise an attack chain will instantly realise - you don't need powers you don't have to use in order to achieve constant proactivity, and you generally don't take powers that you don't need when you can take others that bring you a tangible benefit.
I'm one of the idiots who still takes and slots all powerset powers just because I like having them, but the point remains - being reduced to the productivity of just ONE power negates the point to having more than one power, or at least more than one power per application. In City of Heroes, you NEED more than one power per application because of recharge times, hence why we can afford to have redundant powers (Energy Punch, Barrage, Bone Smasher) and still benefit from them all. It's when we DON'T have enough redundant powers to achieve an attack chain that we truly suffer, which is what sinks the single-target damage of sets like Assault Rifle and Electrical Blast.
If a global cooldowns and one-attack-only system is to be in place, then the choices we get need to be reduced DRASTICALLY and also diversified A LOT. There'd be no real point to having melee attackS, when you will only ever just pick the one best melee attack and use that.
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.
|
This, however, is NOT something I want to, um... "Futz" with. I've played quite a few other MMOs after I first started with City of Heroes, and the question which immediately came to my mind in every single one of them was "Why the hell would I need a second attack? Why, when I can put my basic attack on auto and have a secondary attack which recharges as fast as it's available, do I EVER want another damaging attack, other than to replace the one which I already have with a better version. This, of course, begs the question of why I'd bother enhancing a power that I'm just going to replace, but that's a gripe for another time.
Lack of global cooldown and the need and opportunity to use multiple powers is, I think, one of City of Heroes' greatest strengths in combat. One of the things I hate the most in gaming is unnecessary redundancy. Why do I need five attack which all do the same thing that I can only ever use one of at a time, when one will do? And, really, the answer is "I don't need that," as anyone who bothered to optimise an attack chain will instantly realise - you don't need powers you don't have to use in order to achieve constant proactivity, and you generally don't take powers that you don't need when you can take others that bring you a tangible benefit. I'm one of the idiots who still takes and slots all powerset powers just because I like having them, but the point remains - being reduced to the productivity of just ONE power negates the point to having more than one power, or at least more than one power per application. In City of Heroes, you NEED more than one power per application because of recharge times, hence why we can afford to have redundant powers (Energy Punch, Barrage, Bone Smasher) and still benefit from them all. It's when we DON'T have enough redundant powers to achieve an attack chain that we truly suffer, which is what sinks the single-target damage of sets like Assault Rifle and Electrical Blast. If a global cooldowns and one-attack-only system is to be in place, then the choices we get need to be reduced DRASTICALLY and also diversified A LOT. There'd be no real point to having melee attackS, when you will only ever just pick the one best melee attack and use that. |
Another effect I wish we had the tech for, but it requires both engine tech and UI tech *and* retraining players to think about it and use it, is the ability to "charge" AoE powers. Suppose that when you fire an AoE, it takes X seconds to "recharge." But that just allows the power to be used again. Its damage would be only some small base value. If you allowed it to continue to "charge" its damage would increase if you didn't use it. So frequent use = small damage per use, infrequent use = larger damage per use.
I think I have a trick that could make that actually happen in an effect sense. But the UI feedback would be not as good as I would like, specifically in the power tray itself. I've often thought about if that would help AoE balance, though.
[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.)
Why not solve the KB problem with an IO? I've always admired the way the Theft of Essence proc neatly solved the painfully high END costs of Dark Regen without actually changing the power or breaking anything else. Add a new IO set to the game, maybe travel (10-50) so anyone can stick it in Sprint. Have one of the enhancements in the set be a Global that reduces KB to KD in all powers the character uses.
Of course, now it occurs to most that F2P players won't have IOs... damnit. Maybe Null the Gull is the better way to do this. |
Check out the Repeat Offenders network of SGs! You'll be glad you did.
KNOCKBACK IS DEH DEVIL!
Just kidding! There are three kinds of players in CoH with regard to knockback.
|
Outside of Solar Flare (or any other PBAoE attacks whose sole purpose isn't to send everything flying), I can't honestly think of anything that should have its knockback completely removed. I will say that I, in general, find knockdown to be preferable in most situations, but that is to be expected of someone whose most-played archetype is Tanker, I suppose.
There is something wrong with a superhero playerbase that hates knockback
One of my favorite things in any superhero comic, movie, or game is seeing enemies get knocked back. If only in this game they divoted walls and sent allies tumbling when they hit them. By the way, just this week, I got my first 50... and energy/energy Blaster. ...I think that supports both sides of the argument |