Discussion: EB's, AV's, and Challenge in Missions

I suppose if people want "challenge" then its time to pull out mobs who swing the "mighty" cheat codes.

Mobs who have mag 100 mez attacks (Remember the old Longbow Nullifier?)

Mobs who have auto hit unresistable damage

Mobs who are immune to mez

Mobs who can drain 100% of your endurance with auto hit attack.

None of which sounds really "fun" IMHO but that is where I think "challenge" is going to go.

I think there's been plenty of good suggestions for creating difficulty without resorting to something that make alot of people gnash their teeth, stomp their feet, and proclaim unfair. :P

While we're talking about Elite Bosses, can we discuss their immunity to mez? They are even more immune than AVs, who can at least be mezzed when their purple triangles are down. I don't know what it takes to mez an EB but I know that when I'm on a Dominator there is no real point in trying even with Domination up. So how about a fix for EB mez resistance to make them more fun to fight for Doms and Controllers, before we start stacking them in even greater numbers all over the place?

SOrta on topic. In regard to the new difficulty system (+x/set for x players). I like it, it works well. But

Back with the old 5 option system, Relentless would put you to +2, bosses, and Avs. The thing is..the AV would NOT spawn at +2. Anything up to a team of 3-4, would get a +0 or +1 AV. This was reaaaaally good! I often teamed in a duo or trio, on relentless, and a even con AV was tough going, but doable. A +2 av? The difference between a tough and fun fight, and debt and get pissed off.

Therefore..can we have an option to select AV/Hero diff, in addition to the level of the mobs?

The Serious Incident Reponse Unit.

They monitor the health of various vip's and if they detect any sudden interruptions to vital signs they port in and start shooting. Can add this to a difficulty setting.

There's been so many replies in here that I can't remember them all, so I don't know if this has been suggested or not. What I would like to see in missions, from a mostly-solo perspective, are fights along the lines of Lord Winter encounter. At certain damage levels, the EB would become unattackable by either turning on a force field device or ducking into another room or something along those lines. He could then call for help that, upon its defeat, would either unlock the next room or drop the force field and allow you to resume the fight.

Having the EB call for help at those points would also give us the opportunity to replenish our Inspiration supplies by defeating the help and leave us in a good position to take the fight to him when they're all gone.

One thing that I can think of off the top of my head to make things more challenging in missions is to stop NPCs from running away far. Let them stand and fight. I can understand if they run a short distance, but there is no reason they should run so far that they disappear from my target.

Here are some ideas, some of which have been mentioned already, others of which are new.

1) The "team of bosses." I use "boss" in the generic games sense here, meaning "a unique and powerful enemy," rather than the specific CoH rank "Boss." As Dr. Aeon's OP pointed out, a team of unique opponents is potentially challenging as well as interesting. One thing I particularly like about such setups is that they remind the player that this game is a world not just of enemy factions, but of individual heroes and villains, even when those characters aren't necessarily the centerpieces of the story.

Examples of this kind of setup that work fairly well include the Civic Squad mission from Westin Phipps, the first mission of Episode Five of "Who Will Die," and the multi-arc finale of "Shining Stars," with the Shining Stars and Hearts of Darkness all facing off against each other. The "Who Will Die" episode shows that this can work with even fairly powerful enemies, so long as the player has some backup, whether teammate or NPC. The Shining Stars fight demonstrates an interesting gameplay aspect of such fights: it's possible to have a debuff or buff-oriented character in the enemy group, which is a significant change from much of the rest of the game.

2) The "support" boss. Here, while the boss is the main "bag of hit points" in the fight, it isn't a direct threat. The boss may not even attack at all. Rather, it is accompanied by or summons help, probably lower-ranked, and may buff them or debuff the player character. I've been told in the AE forum that such setups can't work in this game (though, unfortunately, not in such polite terms) because, essentially, "enemies are too easy to defeat." I think the point here is meant to be that the minions can too easily be picked off. In any case, as that negative feedback should indicate, this is a delicate balance, but it potentially allows for interesting variety in gameplay.

The only example of a fight like this that I can think of in official content is the confrontation with Harbinger in the task force featuring her. For those unfamiliar with it, Harbinger constantly summons exploding Ghouls while emitting a powerful slow aura. For a mission that is not designed exclusively for a team, things like the damage dealt by the exploding Ghouls and the power of Harbinger's slowing aura would need to be toned down drastically, but it gives some idea of how a fight like this might be set up.

For a more elaborate example, I'll describe the AE arc where I first attempted something like this. I had an Archvillain with much of the debuff-heavy Trick Arrow powerset, as well as some Archery attacks surrounded by a group of Lieutenant enemies, all with Phalanx Fighting and Against All Odds from Shield Defense. The idea here was that the overlapping Phalanx Fighting of the Lieutenants would provide defense to the otherwise unshielded AV while weakening characters in melee range. There were meant to be several ways players could complete the encounter: simply fight the AV, brute-forcing through the debuffs and defense (the option most took); use holds or stuns to shut down the Lieutenants' support/debuff powers; separate the AV from the Lieutenants, etc. While this example was hampered by the limitations of AE (notably the fact that Custom Critters apparently do not use the Phalanx Fighting power), it provides some indication of the potential variety in scripted leader/support fights.

3) Alterable environments. Here, the emphasis is on the conditions of the fight. Players may choose to do things "the hard way" or "the easy way." Examples existing in the game usually involve things like an option to bring along an ally (as in numerous missions with straightforward allies or the more nuanced version seen in Max's Dark Astoria arc) or to take control of turrets (as in the ITF). In my experience, players tend to ignore the option for help and simply rush the enemies. And, of course, let's not forget the so-called "gadget fight" with Reichsman in the Kahn and Barracuda task forces, one of the most-hated encounters among players, bar none. All this suggests more thought is required when placing aspects of the fight's dynamics within the player's control.

A better comparison here might be the fight against the Giant Shivan in the new tutorial. While villains are slightly buffed during this encounter, heroes are slightly weakened, based on the earlier choice to save or kill Blue Spectrum. Perhaps an earlier step in a mission could give the player an option of "buff my defense, weaken the boss's damage, or grant me three allies." Rather than requiring the player to play within certain mechanics, which the Reichsman experience suggests is a source of frustration, this allows players a choice, as well as encouraging them to know their characters' weaknesses and compensate for them.

4) Choice of missions. The earlier suggestion about an "archvillain version" of missions got me to thinking about an idea I'd had a while back. While it sounds as if such seemingly identical missions cannot be made to work, there are still some interesting uses for mission choices. Notably, they can provide for additional story options and the possibilty, again, of playing to a character's strengths, or even a player's interest, through offering two different options with similar endpoints. This idea isn't strictly limited to "Challenge in Missions," but it has its applications there.

An example might prove useful. Imagine that the player character has just completed a mission that has left him with a clue pointing to either the Freakshow or Nemesis as the culprits in a robbery. When the character returns to the contact, the contact says, "All right, $name. We need to investigate both these leads right away! Which one do you want to take?" The player then receives the options, "I'll investigate the Freakshow" and "I'll investigate Nemesis," with the contact investigating the other lead. Once the selected mission is complete, the two branches of the story merge again.

With regard to the subject of this thread specifically, a contact could offer a choice to "clear out the enemy base" or "defeat the enemy leader." From a story perspective, these could have similar impact, but one is more challenging from a gameplay point of view. Don't discount the possibilty, too, of a choice like, "I'll capture Reichsman" (a tough boss) versus "I'll capture Hopkins" (a weaker one). Finally, one of the very differently-titled missions might feature a complex boss fight, while the other might feature a simple one. In conclusion, there are plenty of options offered by the potential for selecting one of two missions that I don't think are being exercised at the moment.

That's all for now.

I skimmed through and didn't see this exact idea come up, though some were similar. Kheldians get a bonus based on the archetypes of their teammates. What if the EB got a bonus based on the AT of the players he is fighting against? When faced with more tankers, the EB does more damage. When faced with more controllers, the EB gets some status protection, etc.

I think a good example of a difficult, non EB fight would be the mass of Dopplegangers at the end of the first half of Posi. It's unique, and it's challenging. Has less to do about mounds of HP to overcome and more about tactics and strategy.

What about the opposite of the Max arc? You get the option to do (for example) three prior missions to take out major allies (EB/AV) of the enemy prior to your assault, or you can cut to the chase and have them all show up in the major enemy's base at once. A soloist can choose to take them down in sequence, while a tricked out full team can take them on all at once.

Perhaps the contact could give you intel about the allies: "Your Big Enemy's ally Magic Boss X uses mystic power to drain your resistance and defense. Ninja Boss Y makes it rain caltrops. Immortal Boss Z seems to have virtually unlimited health." Then you could choose who to take out early based on your group's strength and weaknesses.

This would take some balancing, reward-wise, but seems doable.

The most fun challenges for me are ones that demand playing with strategy a little bit. Battle Maiden's an example. Reichsman in Barracuda would be another, if it weren't reliant on specific ATs to carry things out. A few things that I've liked as examples, with maybe a little bit of what could be changed or added:

---

Every once in a while during a boss fight, the boss will retreat, and there will be a phase of other attackers, or traps that go off, requiring a change of strategy. Like I said, we've seen this a little in the team content that's recently been added to the endgame. Malaise in MoM and Battle Maiden in Apex both do this (and Reichsman sort of, though he doesn't leave).

However, rather than just changing enemies, there's also the possibility for "traps", maybe? Take Battle Maiden's blue-death patches, for example. For a challenging bit of content for even solo players, have the boss teleport out, then a 15-second or so phase of dodging a large number of patches that move quickly.

---

Another, using the Barracuda example, it's neat in theory, but horribly unfun in practice because of the AT requirement (and Reichsy's really high HP making the fight just tedious when you do actually do it right), but the idea of having to jump away from the fight to deal with an incoming threat by clicking a glowy or activating a temp power can be fun as well.

Marauder's a better example of how to make this work, but is still a little too cut-and-dry. As an example what I'd change would be to have gates randomly open and shut on their own at random points, with the Acids offering an "instant close" to one that's open. The much hated Trapdoor was, in my opinion, another great example of how to do this right, though the nerfing of "alternative strategies" was annoying.

---

The last idea I'd suggest, though I don't know how feasible it is in a tech way, are mobs that don't necessarily wait for players to be "ready". I'm not necessarily talking ambushes here, but something sort of similar. The idea, in my mind, would be invisible, phased out enemies that would attack if a character went for some unspecified period without using a power.

That way it wouldn't really be some of the "endless ambush" missions in Praetoria that can get bothersome when you're having to deal with other enemies, but would still force players to stay active and keep up their guard.

Unlike ambushes, though, these enemies would attack more or less without warning. An ambush has a text alert and then you see them running down the hall at you. The idea here would be more of a Stalker-NPC that appears suddenly right behind you and hits with something. Or is that too mean?

---

Anyway, s'what I got.

Expanding mid mission rewards used in the Trials (The 60 thread drop once you defeat a specific enemy) triggered to give experience/inf when specific objectives are completed.

That way people won't have an alergic reaction to fights that end with a conversation (thus preventing rewards) and allow for fights that have the enemy dissappear at a certain health, trigger a mid fight ambush, then return at full health and maybe more support.