If you were a dev...

No, I don't want to play CO ever again.



I thought we players were in for a lot of trouble when Scrapyarders were introduced in the game. They don't stay clumped up. They run off in different directions and circle back on you. So, basically, they don't just stand there and take it, nor do they become perma-runners.

But for some odd reason, only a very few of the ranged critters since I6 got that AI code; and certainly not a whole faction like the Scrapyarders.

The problem is no matter how cheap and crappy it seems, someone somewhere has it in their build and LOVES it.

The title of the thread is amusing, and has been fun in places. Consider though that this is a question the devs have to deal with every time they make any change in the game, good or bad. I bet "Man that would really piss people off." is said as often or more than "They are going to love this!"

Developers are in a crappy spot. The discussion I had with Ogi concerning Incarnate powers is a good example. When we were first testing these powers people were really angry that they would not get their level shifts all the time. Imagine the crap storm if they didn't even get the power all the time!

The Devs have this balancing act they have to do that really is as much about not pissing us off as it is about keeping us happy.

I would like to know also. Because honestly other than the advanced math you use, this is the only thing you have ever said that makes no sense to me.

Toggles have more value because we pay a constant cost in endurance to use them. Why should something that has no cost, other than selection, should give greater benefit?

And I would quit.
Because the monthly sub cost produces a lot of the content in this game - take that away and the game becomes stale..looking at 1 MAYBE 2 issues a year.

Originally Posted by Paladiamors I love you, I Burnt the Toast!

I hated Scrapyarders because of all their AoE burn patches! Ninja MMs need not apply!


sheesh they killed my ninjas quiiiiick!

I can see it in a way.

Passives are just that passive...they are "who you are" as a character. Superman can't turn off his invincible-ness (yes, yes, kryptonite and all that)...so in that sense I can see why passives should be stronger than toggles.

Toggles are something you "add on" to the character I guess. *shrugs*

She has, in another thread. It was a good argument.

Originally Posted by Paladiamors I love you, I Burnt the Toast!

Do you have the link. I don't doubt she has a good argument, it is Arcanaville. It just seems...unbalanced is all.

This is so true.

Personally I agree with almost all of that. The last one is the only one I dislike. I always like haveing more options, even if I don't use them.

Also, I had thought Zwill was going to get rid of post count. I like reg date, because it allows some of us to walk down memory lane together. I am not a fan of post count though, it too often is used as a tool in arguments. "He has a ton of posts, he must know what he is talking about" or the other side "You have so many posts, you think you know everything."

Tomorrow Memphis_Bill you should start a thread for us to list things that would make the players love us if we were Devs. I think it would be even more interesting where that would go, and I bet it may even get more heated.

Brand X inspired me!

17. The Fighting pool and the Leadership pool would give the same benefits to all ATs

For the t9 attack instead of the Gun Kata from Equilibrium you could go with the Pistol Whip Kata he did in another part of the movie.

That's a good question. But let me ask you a question in return. Do you actually have a choice?

You seem to be saying why should the passive offer more benefit than the toggle, because if it does you'd choose to run the passive instead of the toggle. But that actually doesn't represent reality. In reality, assuming you have both powers (more on that in a minute) you have no choice but to run the passive: its always on. The only choice you have is whether you run the toggle or not. You do not get to choose between running the passive or the toggle. You can only choose to run either the passive, or the passive and the toggle. And the passive plus the toggle is always more, so in fact you always get more when you burn endurance than when you don't.

But, you might say, you could choose to not take either power. The choice could occur when you are constructing the build. But in that case, the question then is: is that be a real choice? There are four possibilities: take neither, take the passive, take the toggle, or take both (looking at the simple case of one passive and one toggle: the logic applies to more complex situations as well).

Lets look at the simple case of Super Reflexes (simple because for each positional type there's one passive and one toggle offering defense to that type, and the values are the same for all three types and for passives and toggles). We'll assume SO slotting for discussion purposes. The slotted passives are about 8.8%. The slotted toggles are about 21.6% (for scrappers, brutes, and stalkers). The combined total is about 30.4%.

So the four choices are: take nothing and get nothing, take the passive and get 17.6% mitigation, take the toggle only and get 43.2% mitigation, and take both and get 60.8% mitigation. Value-wise, the difference in survival is proportional to the inverse of those numbers: you either take 100% of incoming damage, or 82.4%, or 56.8%, or 39.2%.

The passive only choice causes you to take 45% more damage than the toggle only choice. If we are assuming you don't take both (if you take both, see above) the choice is take almost 50% more damage, or take the toggle with its endurance costs. And this assumes no power pool defenses stacked on top. Is that really a legitimate choice?

When we look at sets with passive and toggle powers doing similar things in the same set, it seems to almost *never* be a legitimate choice to take the passive only. Specifically *because* the passive is so small it only has real value when stacked onto the toggle. But notice that's an inversion of reality. In reality the toggle is stacked on the passive, not the other way around. Because you can't turn the passive off. When you have the passive, its always on. The only choice the player has is to turn the toggle on, or turn the toggle off. They can't choose to turn the passive off. They can choose to take the toggle only, but rarely the passive only, because the passive is simply too small.

If the choice doesn't really exist as a practical matter, its worth looking at the situation where you have both again and see what the real choice is. And using SR as our example again, we can note something very interesting. The differential difference between toggle on and toggle off is *huge*. With the toggle off, you have 17.6% mitigation and take 82.4% of incoming damage. With the toggle on you have 60.8% mitigation and take only 39.2% of the incoming damage. That's a difference of a whopping 210%.

In a build that has both the passive and the toggle, the difference between running the toggle and not running the toggle is over double the damage (in this example). That's why detoggling is so catastrophically dangerous. That's why players don't often toggle-manage. The toggle is numerically larger, and then the way stacking works in this game that numerical value gets amplified when it comes to defensive and resistive toggles (the situation is more complicated for regenerative toggles, but a more complex version of this argument applies to them). When the difference between running and not running the toggle is that vast, even *that* is not much of a choice.

Even the devs say we shouldn't directly compare two different powers in different sets, because individual powers are designed for the sets they are in. That's why we can't compare the endurance costs and strength of RTTC and Focused Senses, say. But that's actually true even *within* the powersets: each power was designed to fit within that set: comparing one to another within the set as if they were separate individual options is equally wrong. The correct thing to do is to look at the powerset as a whole and ask what options it really presents to the player.

If you really wanted to present *valid* build options to the player, then the all passive route would have *most* of the strength of the set. Then the toggles would have the rest. So you could get 75% of the strength of the set, for example, without toggles, and the last 25% would cost you more. That way, you end up with escalating costs and diminishing returns. Instead, the all passive option is basically for fools, and the only real option is all toggles or everything. And in terms of endurance, once you've decided to take all the toggles there's little point in passing on the passives, so long as you can fit them.

But the idea is that you only pay endurance if you want the *best* performance. Right now, you pay endurance if you want *any* real performance. Because the passive-only option is usually farcical.

Similarly, if you want to present a tactical choice to the player - run or don't run the toggles - the difference between the two options can't be astronomical. If it is, then the endurance cost becomes a lesser issue. It becomes more a case of "can I afford to have very little protection?" If the answer is yes, you can turn the toggle off. If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter what the endurance cost is: you have no choice but to run it. The choice is pretty binary because the difference between toggles on and toggles off is night and day.

If the difference were lower, then the question would be more reasonable: do I accept only being at 75% strength, or do I burn endurance and get 100%? That's a valid tactical option. Do I accept only being at less than half strength, or do I burn endurance and get back to 100% is much less reasonable a choice.


If you are comparing the endurance burn vs strength of a passive vs a toggle, you're doing exactly what the devs say not to do. And yet they do it, specifically for the case of both powers being in the same set. But there's no reason to make that distinction. In both cases, the powers are being compared out of context. The real question is are *all* the powers in a powerset designed correctly for the powerset as a whole? And that question cares nothing about the numerical balance between two powers in isolation. The question is what role do those powers play in the powerset. What choices if any do they present to the player? And in more cases than not, strong passives and numerically smaller toggles presents better choices, given how this game is currently implemented (in terms of powersets and mitigation stacking). The way toggles and passives are currently designed, they only present the *illusion* of choice, but its obviously an illusion because almost no one takes that choice seriously, except for conceptual reasons totally disconnected from performance completely and therefore outside the scope of discussing the numbers.

If this was a points-based power system where we could pick any power from anywhere, it would be really important to make sure every power choice was balanced against each other. But we don't have that choice. We don't get to choose between RTTC and Focused Senses. If we pick Willpower, we're locked out of the second choice; if we pick Super Reflexes we're locked out of the first. That choice doesn't exist. But in a real sense, we don't get to choose between Focused Senses and Agile either. Once we pick Super Reflexes, we've picked a set designed around both powers. We can choose to dump one if we want, but we have to accept the consequences of that decision if we do. And for most situations, dumping the toggle has consequences that make the choice not very reasonable.

Its a question of thinking about powersets holistically, and not as separate independent pieces. Because those pieces were never actually independent pieces.


You can't change this dramatically and suddenly, but if I was in charge would I try to steer future powersets in this direction? Maybe.

I was gonna post something similar, but you did a much better job ;P

I'd keep Hail of Bullets in the set, but I'd lower the radius, and it'd be the sets PBAOE. Doesn't have to be tier 9 level either. But worth the animation time still.

Hmmm...I see that for Tanks/Brutes and Stalkers/Scrappers and it looks like the Scrapper/Stalker hybrid might out damage the Tanks/Brutes at the damage cap, but generally the Tanks/Brutes would do more damage.

Keep the Brute mechanic of Fury, which already lets them get close to Scrapper levels of damage, then lower the Scrapper damage o.O

This attitude annoys the bejeezus out of me (currently a tier 9 premium player who cannot even post on the archetype board that I helped to shape in the early days).

The VIP community (in a general sense) should do more to embrace the Premium players of the game and encourage them become (or remain) a part of the community. Not gate themselves away from the "masses". The often hostile attitude towards Premium players has been one of the biggest turn-offs to lurking the boards since I came back to the game.

I haven't not iced much of it. Perhaps it is just veiled and I over look much of it. Or perhaps when you say bad I think or HGL where it was really bad.

I agree with Zyphoid. There really isn't a monolithic "VIP community" in this regard; one block of people who all generally think one way or the other. We frequently dissent and argue over exactly what free/premium players should and shouldn't have access to. Personally, I agree with you, that VIPs should embrace free/premium players more, make them feel welcome in the game.

Paragon Studios is trying to walk a fine line between making enough free to encourage free/premium players to spend money in the Paragon Store, but provide enough incentive to VIPs to encourage people to upgrade to a $15/month subscription. (And for that matter, continue to provide incentives for VIPs to spend additional money on Paragon Points to purchase stuff past their monthly stipend.) We players like to pretend like we know what is and isn't obvious that free/premium/VIPs should and shouldn't have access to in order to maximize the studio's profit, but the harsh truth is that only they have the mined data on what people are spending money on and they are in the best position to make authoritative decisions based on actual data.

Obviously, this doesn't mean that they will reject all of our input, but it also does mean that sometimes they will do things that don't necessarily make sense to us but that there is a compelling business case for based on data to which we do not have access. The mark could be overshot on either side--providing so much free stuff that people start dropping their VIP subscription, or providing not enough free stuff so that people don't bother wasting their time playing on a gimped account and choose some other game.

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.

I'd cut it down to 20% (same as Quicknes, but without the runspeed), and make it a toggle (so it doesn't require a crazy build manufactured for perma-Hasten to keep it up all the time). Then take the end cost of the crash, double it, and divide by 120 to get the End Per Second cost (keeps the end cost the same, if you slot for max End Reduction, increases it for anyone who doesn't 3-slot it).

Hasten as it is, is crazy. A pool power shouldn't be better than a Primary or Secondary. Other powers would be adjusted for the same reason: Jab would be buffed to be better than Boxing (Boxing is at about the right level for a T1 pool attack, IMO), Air Superiority would be adjusted down (Currently the best attack in a power pool? Probably.), and probably a few others, both up and down.

I'd also give all pools the travel power adjustment; ie, first 3 powers at 4, fourth power at 14 (one power prerequisite), fifth power at 14 (two power prerequisite). Not all pools would get the new power at T5 - I'd add a thrown weapon as T3 to the fighting pool, leaving the requirements for Tough and Weave where they are right now.

Why not? It's hideously overpowered at the moment. A Pool Power which outstrips most Recharge buffs in the actual Powersets, available at level 4 to everyone. Most Recharge powers you get in sets are only 20% (but they are always on). It's 75% of the buff Empathys Tier 9 gives, you cast it on yourself, and it's available across the board at level 4. If I'm soloing my Dark/Time Hasten is actually better than Chronoshift (even if I'm teaming it's still godly because it will hugely increase the amount of uptime Chronoshift and Farsight have for the whole team)

That's borked, even if I am insane. If I was a developer (and the game wasn't 8 years old) it'd be first in line for the nerfbat without question. I've been expecting it to be since i5 or so (but don't think it would be now, it's become institutionalized)

As to the question as why you'd nerf something rather than up enemy difficultly it's because that creates an arms race, and the longer it goes on the more chance there is that other characters who didn't take the overpowered powers get left behind and unable to compete, even at +0x1. There has to be a median level which things aspire to, some can be slightly over, some will be slightly under but outliers should be buffed / nerfed as appropriate to approach it.

I'd then emigrate to Easter Island or somewhere to avoid the imminent nerd-death that would chasing me once I had nerfed it.

I knew it would be a strong argument. One day I would love to know what you actually do for a living. I am convinced that you are a Vulcan who has had plastic surgery for the ears, but how is it you have managed to fit into a society of such lesser beings?

I hope you know I am kidding. I see your point, but as it is not a point based system and you are right we never really get a choice then each power does not have to be balanced in the exact same way.

However it is the system we have, the one that has succeeded, and the one that history has prove any drastic change to this system hurts it bad.

Like ZM's suggestion about DR in PvE. Because I do not PvP I have never looked closely at how the devs implemented it in PvP. What I [b]do[/i] know for sure is those who PvP hated it, even the ones who are personal friends and I know are reasonable people irl hated it.

If it hurt PvP that bad, I can only imagine the damage it would do to try to implement it in the PvE game. Just the fact that it was used in PvP first would be enough to sink it, how it worked would not even matter to most people. It would just be "They are balancing the game around PvP!" they would be wrong, but sadly as a good friend once told me "For most people, perception is reality."