Elite Bosses and Arch-Villains in Dark Astoria

Originally Posted by Dispari I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.

That is the case for the rest of the game as well. The Notoriety Contacts say it specifically:
"I want to fight enemies at their full power, not as Elite Bosses".
In the cases of EB to AV scaling, AV is the 'real' one.

Except in DA where there are no AVs because we're supposed to be that powerful, even if you happen to be on a Defender who can't stand up to an AV.



.

I won? Hardly. I never win.

I'm willing to bet if anything happens at all, the devs blow off the thread except for the people asking for the aggro cap increased and then up the HP modifier or double Gauntlet's taunt radius or something.



.

Perhaps. But you said:
So yes, just as you're having that at least looked into, so should this be. Maybe the devs will decide our fragile Incarnate egos must be protected from mildly challenging fights, and maybe the devs will decide on changes other than the ones you want. But that wasn't the point you'd been making so far in the thread, which was that it's WAI and should not be examined at all.

Also, if Tankers in fact do get damage buffs, can I demand you apologize in every thread you've ever pulled the "this is vaguely analogous to my tanker buff argument, so you must concede that point if you support this one" card? ;P

No, it really doesn't. Unlikely far-fetched scenario is unlikely and far-fetched.

It's a non-argument that you can't back up other than with selfishness.

I am a soloist. And duo/trio player. And iTrial runner. And badger. And a whole lot of things more. And I want to have the option to bash on AV's solo or duo if I feel like it.

It wouldn't diminish DA in any way for you or anyone else. Except in your own head, maybe. Your 'principle' is nothing but petty childishness.

All I see here is wishful interpretation on your part. No dev statement anywhere backs up this interpretation of DA's content.

You'd be mistaken. The perspective shift is that you are, for many functional purposes, level 53. It would be that you can summon immensely powerful allies from sheer willpower. It would be that your character can cast a wide area nuke, no matter what their AT. It would be that you can have immense defense and DR buffs, be extremely well protected from mez, have boundless endurance, or Empathy-level regeneration buffs, not just for you but nearby allies, no matter what your AT.

Those are quite explicitly the mechanics representation of being an Incarnate, and those are just the ones we have so far. More are coming.

Remember, in Mender Ramiel's arc, your future self fights AVs. Not EBs. Not bosses. AVs.

So, which Incarnate powers do you need for the Archvillains in DA to turn into Elite Bosses? None. An empty alpha slot is, apparently, enough to completely outclass enemies that would be tough anywhere else? That doesn't hold up, to me, not at all.

The actual mechanical effects of Incarnate abilities really DO make us dramatically more powerful. We don't need the game to fake it by downranking the enemies. A level 50 AV against a 50+3 Incarnate is already a curbstomp fight compared to the same AV against a 50 non-Incarnate.

Edit: And turning them into an EB, even when I'm willing to fight AVs, is both patronizing and unsatisfying.

Exactly.

No, no. I get where Johnny's coming from (or I think I do). It's a pretense of power. I've lurked these forums a long time. A LOT more than I've posted, but I think there's an important point here that the Dev's are starting to explore and I... personally... want to encourage.

Having a single entity that can stand up to us in the "I" (incarnate) game shouldn't happen, where masses of 'them' (NPC's, etc) can, reverse the tables, and challenge, the perspective of the "I" game.

Why should the minions not be made underlings and the lt's made minions? Because we WANT the reward of minions. On the other hand, we WANT challenge to overcome and feel powerful over because we're Incarnates. This level of progression (or sense thereof) is important. Don't misunderstand the desire to overcome opponents, with a desire for 'lack of challenge'. Challenge can be achieved with (skilled) less challenging foes in numbers without utilizing blatantly overpowered individual foes, you have to overcome. If you ask me, they explore this in the "Talons of Vengance" as a group. There's a LOT of DeBuffs and such in the group, and when you face them it's in higher numbers than normal. I prefer this to a "Bag of Hit Points" at the end of the mission to add gravitas to it.

I'll ask you this. If they changed the 'title' tag from AV's to EB's, without changing anything else, would you 'feel better'? That's what they're jockeying about now with the Incarnate content. Listen to what I'm saying- this is important and what they're 'fishing' for. I bet everything they're working on a system that takes groups of NPC's into account instead of individuals, as the new power to 'overcome'. It's NOT about the one overpowered NPC, it's about the mass of NPC's that attack your personage. It's a change in perspective, going from 'being one of the mob' to 'being what the mob needs to overcome'.

Like before being an "INCARNATE" when a mob of us 'overcomes' an AV, those NPC's now look to find mobs to 'overcome' us "THE INCARNATES".

I wasn't kidding when I've said we became the new AV's. the 'old' AV's and NPC now have become the mass of players that have to overcome US. That's the point of the INCARNATE content from what I can tell... and if you ask me, it's BRILLIANT for those reasons alone. I just think it takes some time for the MMO industry and it's overall base to wrap its head around.

To pull two of the oldest posters that I've followed, that have had extremely different viewpoints, together. I present this philosophy that takes two different players I have disagreed with (and agreed with, and admired, as players) over the years.

Johnny_Butane wanted the power-trip fantasty. Samuel_Tow wanted more than that, because story was important. Now I shall add a third, less tangible answer that has to be addressed:

The 'super hero' genre wanted it, because it was part of the legacy of what it means to be a SUPER hero.

(This has been handled in varying degrees with various 'artists' in the studio before and since, and is best left to a different forum)

I-22 DEFINED IT (as far as I'm concerned). PERIOD. IT HAS BEEN THE BEST UPDATE THE DEV'S HAVE MADE, TO DATE, BECAUSE WITH THE DIFFICULTY SLIDER, IT APPEALS TO BOTH (and with that statement uphold the EB-AV argument as well because it's valid-and EITHER WAY (hero or villain, because I believe either of my 'main's' could survive and overcome a -3 AV if I wanted to try it- though have only gone against EB's because I want the story more) IT'S AWESOME!!!ELLLEVENTYONE)

So I go against Johnny's desire to not allow AV's because I wouldn't mind seeing what my level 50+3 MM would do against an level 50 AV. Would it be any tougher than the level 54 EB. I chose my Scrapper to face? Maybe, but I think there should be the option to try if I want and Sam overcoming all odds and being the hero he wants, is exactly what he wants, but 'within the system' to solo a level 50 while playing a level 54? I think he has a right to try. (Really not trying to call out names here, but these two have very strong feelings about what it means to be "super" that I agree with even though they sometimes find themselves on different keys of the board, so to speak")

So. If anything. I completely support Johnny's ideals while conceding the idea of "why not making them AV's for those who want it" also legit.

However, I love ALL inclusiveness and wouldn't mind seeing solo versions of the TF's and iTrials for my solo characters. No, I don't see why there should be 'team specific' content if there's no acceptance of 'solo/small team' content at the end of the day, so that supports Johnny's argument.

But I was up late last night, and up late again tonight and still adjusting to the 'spring forward' effect... and rather punch drunk with sleep deprivation so what do I know other than this is how I feel?

Basically, I agree with everyone, but here are my reasons why everyone's argument is legit.

We have that mechanism in force in DA. Tsoo that used to be bosses are minions. That doesn't mean there are no Tsoo bosses. That's where this "down ranking" idea doesn't hold water at all. There are still threats to us as Incarnates. They are simply Incarnate-grade threats.

If some of these EBs really, truly aren't supposed to be as great a threat to us as an AV, that's fine. That scenario exists in the pre-incarnate game, too. There are foes who are only EBs, ever. I don't buy that the story suggests that every named "boss" (by game convention, not CoH rank) in Dark Astoria makes sense to be that wimpy.

Look at it this way: The standard game has bosses, EBs and AVs. Let's say an EB is 5x as strong as a boss, and an AV is 10x as strong as an EB. (The exact numbers don't actually matter, bear with me.) There are bosses in DA. Why is it that the most strong anyone in DA has managed to become is 5x stronger than a boss? If people who would be AVs are only EBs, why aren't the strongest foes under EB either 10x weaker (down-shifted EBs) or 50x weaker (downshifted bosses) than an EB? Why are there an bosses in DA at all?

The answer is that these foes are not EBs because the devs are scaling it as if we'd become that more powerful.

Defender AV Soloer right here. I enjoy AVs. I like challenging things, things that make me feel like I have earned either the power to beat them as they are or the skill to handle them or both.

If there were no Incarnate trials, I think this might have something to it. But there are, so I don't think this is the case. I just don't think they're creating that kind of design dichotomy between the two.

Now this is a legitimate argument because it addresses the 'appearances' of making underpowered AV's.

However, if I may posit, that'd end up in a 'power creep' problem that ED and Issue 6 sought to avoid.

The EB vs AV argument could in this case, be made as an avoidance of such power creep. Otherwise, when Batallion and the next 'threat' appear, it would require a new categorization to apply to the conning system. Folks have already balked the currencey systems in this game (inf, merits, salvage, shards, threads, etc)... How do you think they'd react to a new conning system?

Yeah.

So they adjust how we view the conning system works at the Incarnate level.

Make sense?

I'm really not trying to be snarky. I really think this is the adjustment in perspective they're trying to achieve in the 'next level' of play. Otherwise, why would we face against a team of 6+ BOSS level characters as a single mob in a mission?

I also think it's the correct choice, and advise them to stay the course in this regard.

When we're 50(+5-6) or whatever in this system... I'm sure the AV's will be the new bosses while EB's will be the new Lt's in the 'solo system'... Where in the iTrials of that era level we fight against level 54 (+3-5's). It'll scale, it's just in how it's percieved.

But therein lay the argument between the 'group' content and the 'solo/small-team' content.

Keep in mind, I'm not against the concept of the AV settings, especially if 'solo/small team' settings are included in what is currently considered trial/TF content.

What's good for the goose, and all that...

Anyone has arguments, the old Posi TF should be more than enough proof that it can be done.

Just pointing out that we do have Monster and Giant Monster class enemies, as well as those that have their own class, Hamidon being the obvious, and the Tutorial Monster cons as a 'Monstrosity'.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that more powerful enemies can fall under these categories.

If we just dress up the old AVs as EBs and have new AVs put in their place, we're not truly getting more powerful, we're just getting new enemies.

We're more than 7 years into the game, and halfway into the Incarnate slots, and the rank system hasn't broken down yet. If the Battalion baddies need to be stronger than Praetorian baddies, that's easy: they can be higher level.
There's a few problems with having significant enemies spawn as EBs, even when players are willing to fight AVs. For one thing, it makes the fight trivial. Not "He was a strong foe, but I prevailed thanks to my Incarnate might", just "he was a pushover, I could've done that without Incarnate powers at all". To me, that's not satisfying.
In a similar vein, EBs just do not live very long against Incarnate-level DPS, so what should be a climactic encounter ends before you even get a good look at their costume or powers.
It's also a problem because ranks are relative: these guys are barely stronger than the nameless bosses I've been fighting dozens of.
And it's again a problem because it just feels disappointing. I possess ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER, which I have painstakingly gained, risking bodily harm and even the loss of my free will, in order to face challenges against which I would otherwise have no hope of prevailing, and those challenges are failing to materialize.

Maybe that's were he's coming from, but then he should come out and say that instead of being petty with his "I couldn't have my toys, so you can't have yours!" argument he's throwing around.

I agree. The thing is that the masses of 'them' aren't a challenge, can't stand against me as it is. They just melt away.

I did that arc (all of them actually) on a brute/corruptor duo. We were +3 so we made them +3. We were already at x8 cause that's standard for us. We skipped the whole Malta part and knocked out the Praetorian because we didn't want the help (that was actually in character for my partners character too, since he was running the arc). Despite all the in story warnings over how hard it would be, it wasn't. Fun? yes. There were a lot of people to smack around and it was new, so it was fun. But challenging? No, not at all. I didn't even notice the EB at the end was an EB untill I encountered another one in a later mission. Anticlimactic? Yes. Very.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. I just want to have the option to make it more challenging. It doesn't take anything away from the current situation. You can still put your difficulty at -1 and carve a path through greys while cackling maniacally if you like.

No I wouldn't. I couldn't care less what they're called or what rank they have. That's not the point at all. I just want something to fight that doesn't melt when I look at it funny. It's anticlimactic and boring. Having a lot of them at once just makes it less boring. They still die at about the same speed.

Have a mob of AV's try to overcome me! Now you're thinking!

CoH has always been about a large groups of enemies. And standing as a few against many. That's nothing new. The game if full of those events. The final fight in the first and third mission, lag hill, the final mission, all of it actually, the end battle of the LGTF, Assault on the Malta base in LRSF, Eden Trial. All great events were a small group of us fights a massive horde of enemies AND some big baddies to anchor the whole thing on so the battle isn't over in seconds (/petpeeve maybe if people did less pulling and more mindless charging they'd experience it as such /petpeeve).

Great! Why are we even arguing?

Oh right.

Again, this is so nonsensical.
I think there are very few people who want 'team specific' content just for the sake of it being team specific, or to spite the soloers or whatever.

The thing about the iTrials and that sort of gameplay is that it uses mechanics and sets challenges that simply cannot be done by a single (or very small group of) players. They REQUIRE the cooperation between a group of players. That is why people want and play those things. Because it's a different type of gameplay. If you made them into a single player version, hey whatever, but then they aren't trials anymore but simple missions (or arcs) just like the DA stuff. You'd have to take out the mechanics and tone down the challenges because they're physically impossible for a single player to complete.

While all the devs have to do to turn a 'solo mission' into 'group content' is, well, nothing at all! The game makes everything standard accessible for groups up to 8 people and scales stuff accordingly. Except in Dark Astoria were for some reason EBs don't scale up to AVs.

I just got off my 7th night shift in a row a couple of hours ago and haven't gone to bed yet. So if my post seems incoherent, I'm going to blame it on that.

Sure thing. Just wait five years like and endure a cavalcade of trolling and insults like I have.


I don't really want Tankers to get "damage buffs". I've got three already that bump into the damage cap. No benefit in putting more water into a full bucket.



.