Quote:
Yes and no. Mostly no. If powerset A outperforms powerset B, it does so whether people perceive it to do so or not. If super reflexes gets hit less often than Energy Aura, it does so whether people perceive it to do so or not.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Balance is a mater of perception.
|
The perception of balance is governed by two things. The first is the belief that the game should be balanced based on the player's criteria, whether it actually is or not. The second is whether or not based on that criteria the player judges the game to do so.
The problem is everyone's criteria are different and their judgment radically different, and those perceptions on average change over time. So you can't specifically target them, even if you wanted to. The game has to be balanced based on objective criteria, and then player perceptions have to be managed relative to that.
Generally, the best way to do that is to create meta balancing metrics that are mostly independent of the objective fundamental ones that factor in enough of the prevalent perceived criteria for balance, and attempt to balance those *enough* to whether the perception of balance changes.
In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, you balance your game objectively, and then you manipulate your players into believing their personal criterias form the basis for that balance, when in fact they do no such thing. Or another way to put it is that game balance is not a matter of perception, game design is partially a matter of manipulating perception.
[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.)
Here's something else:
I'd dump defence as a concept and split it in two non-stacking parts - dodge and block. Dodging would represent avoiding being hit by an attack, and thus could be countered by making the attack more accurate. Blocking would represent intentionally taking the attack, but stopping it completely from doing any damage, such as one would block with a shield. This would be unaffected by accuracy, but susceptible to penetration.
I'd stagger defences such that players with both dodge and block stats would first try to dodge, and if the dodge roll fails would then attempt to block. If that failed, they would then take full damage according to damage resistance. This way, you couldn't use Targeting Drone to more accurately penetrate a forcefield and you couldn't use a very slow, very powerful attack to better hit a fast-moving target.
This, of course, means that attacks would have two stats instead of just one. Conventional accuracy would determine how likely the attack is to hit a dodging target, while penetration would determine how likely an attack is to punch through a block. You can, thereafter, have some attacks that are great for hitting small, fast targets but not that good for penetrating armour and also have some attacks that are great for punching through heavy armour but not so good at hitting nimble targets.
I would then institute glancing blows and shock damage. An attack would have more than just the two binary states of "hit" or "missed," it would be able to score a "glancing blow" which deals partial damage based on a sliding scale, and also diminishing secondary effects. Similarly, an attack would have more than just the two states of penetrating or bouncing. It could penetrate partially and impart a portion of its damage and secondary effects on the target on the other side. The trick here is that a character with both block AND dodge would only have to block the portion of a glancing blow which landed, which would naturally reduce its penetration.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Yuppers. All it takes to see this is to design a full on replacement mod for a game and it becomes very very clear balance is a itch.
|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Over the years I have figured out why this is too. Having designed and run my own game, I have had to deal with threads just like this one before, or with players who are sure they know more about balance in the game that I wrote.
The problem is that players are bias. No matter how much they don't want to be, or swear they are not, they still are. That was a really long way of saying I agree with you. Also when I have serious suggestions, I do not post them on the boards. I PM them to the devs. Now after all of that, you know giant sharks jumping out of the water attacking swimming and low flying heroes would be awesome! Come on, admit it.  |
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
I wouldn't retro this game, but if I had the opportunity to design combat mechanics for a brand new game, I would redo the whole concept of "defense" and "resistance" entirely. The biggest fundamental flaw defense has in City of Heroes in my opinion is that attack types are conceptualized around how the attacker delivers the damage, and not on how the defender could avoid that damage. And that's backwards, because as attackers our attack types are not things we really have any control or decision over. But as defenders, we have lots of choices over how we defend against attacks, from how we build our defenses to which ones we decide to use in combat.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Here's something else:
I'd dump defence as a concept and split it in two non-stacking parts - dodge and block. Dodging would represent avoiding being hit by an attack, and thus could be countered by making the attack more accurate. Blocking would represent intentionally taking the attack, but stopping it completely from doing any damage, such as one would block with a shield. This would be unaffected by accuracy, but susceptible to penetration. I'd stagger defences such that players with both dodge and block stats would first try to dodge, and if the dodge roll fails would then attempt to block. If that failed, they would then take full damage according to damage resistance. This way, you couldn't use Targeting Drone to more accurately penetrate a forcefield and you couldn't use a very slow, very powerful attack to better hit a fast-moving target. This, of course, means that attacks would have two stats instead of just one. Conventional accuracy would determine how likely the attack is to hit a dodging target, while penetration would determine how likely an attack is to punch through a block. You can, thereafter, have some attacks that are great for hitting small, fast targets but not that good for penetrating armour and also have some attacks that are great for punching through heavy armour but not so good at hitting nimble targets. I would then institute glancing blows and shock damage. An attack would have more than just the two binary states of "hit" or "missed," it would be able to score a "glancing blow" which deals partial damage based on a sliding scale, and also diminishing secondary effects. Similarly, an attack would have more than just the two states of penetrating or bouncing. It could penetrate partially and impart a portion of its damage and secondary effects on the target on the other side. The trick here is that a character with both block AND dodge would only have to block the portion of a glancing blow which landed, which would naturally reduce its penetration. |
That first error begat the second error: creating the fuzzy distinction between positional and non-positional defenses. And then the stacking rules. And then the damage/defense mismatches.
Attack mechanics are one of the things that honestly City of Heroes has done a great job in teaching me how not to do them, at all. Nothing of CoH attack mechanics would survive to see another game if I was asked to design combat mechanics.
Here's a mechanical element I would create that doesn't exist in CoH. When you're attacking a high defense target, the only thing you can do is pop tohit buffs (inspirations, Aim, etc) or swing wildly until you get lucky and connect. Think Paragon Protector in MoG. I would allow the attacker to trade speed for accuracy: attack slower, but increase the chance for the attack to hit.
[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.)
Quote:
I agree with this, I am not sure how many others will though, or if they do understand what they are agreeing with.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Yes and no. Mostly no. If powerset A outperforms powerset B, it does so whether people perceive it to do so or not. If super reflexes gets hit less often than Energy Aura, it does so whether people perceive it to do so or not.
The perception of balance is governed by two things. The first is the belief that the game should be balanced based on the player's criteria, whether it actually is or not. The second is whether or not based on that criteria the player judges the game to do so. The problem is everyone's criteria are different and their judgment radically different, and those perceptions on average change over time. So you can't specifically target them, even if you wanted to. The game has to be balanced based on objective criteria, and then player perceptions have to be managed relative to that. Generally, the best way to do that is to create meta balancing metrics that are mostly independent of the objective fundamental ones that factor in enough of the prevalent perceived criteria for balance, and attempt to balance those *enough* to whether the perception of balance changes. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, you balance your game objectively, and then you manipulate your players into believing their personal criterias form the basis for that balance, when in fact they do no such thing. Or another way to put it is that game balance is not a matter of perception, game design is partially a matter of manipulating perception. |
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
something, something, PVP, something. Been there, done that.
"Whatever you think you can do or believe you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace and power in it."
Quote:
To my understanding, that's just the studio's attempt to simulate two dissimilar concepts within the same overall mechanic. Positional defence models dodging, the concept of not being hit by an attack, and at the start it existed pretty much to give SR and nothing but SR a point. Typed defence is what I'd call "block" - the concept of taking damage but being able to stop it from hurting you. That's why Rock Armour grants physical defence - it's like hitting a rock, in that you deal no damage unless you can penetrate to the person underneath.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That first error begat the second error: creating the fuzzy distinction between positional and non-positional defenses. And then the stacking rules. And then the damage/defense mismatches.
|
That's primarily why I'm proposing two separate systems to model two separate things and, crucially, such that both players and developers can control both aspects separately. A Shield Tanker, for instance, wouldn't have to worry about enemy accuracy at all, since he'd WANT to be hit so he could deflect the attack. What he'd have to worry about is enemies who hit so hard they can either punch holes in his shield or otherwise knock the shield out of his hands, which is how you typically see these types of characters defeated in movies.
Now, one can argue that blocking is more than just how thick you shield is since an enemy can always shoot above your shield and hit you in the head, thus some kind of skill roll is necessary to determine whether you can get your armour in place correctly, but considering most armour-based sets don't suffer from this, I'd say it's not an issue. Invulnerability, for instance, presents a character who is covered in invulnerable skin, thus this character doesn't nee to worry about blocking at all - he has armour facing in all directions. A character under a forcefield similarly has armour in all directions, it's just a question of how strong that armour is.
THEN you can have a point to having this "false hit points" absorption mechanic they were talking about in relation to Bio Armour. You could have a shield cast on you that has a certain armour rating around it, but also has hit points of its own. For every attack it takes, whether it penetrates or not, the shield takes damage. When it goes down, you lose that portion of your armour.
That sort of thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Here's a mechanical element I would create that doesn't exist in CoH. When you're attacking a high defense target, the only thing you can do is pop tohit buffs (inspirations, Aim, etc) or swing wildly until you get lucky and connect. Think Paragon Protector in MoG. I would allow the attacker to trade speed for accuracy: attack slower, but increase the chance for the attack to hit.
|
I actually have to commend World of Tanks for getting their accuracy mechanic down pat. Moving makes you less accurate while stopping makes you more accurate, but also easier to hit. Small, fast targets are insidiously hard to hit because all cannons in that game have slow reload times and most are single-shot. In fact, the bigger and more devastating your cannon is, the slower it reloads, so when you're firing at, say, 5 shots a minute and you're aiming at a fast target darting across terrain and you miss... That's pretty much it unless someone else can pick up the slack.
A long time ago, someone (I think it was Jack Emmert, but I could be wrong) wanted Tankers to be the kind of heavy-hitters Johnny Butane wants them to be, but for this to be counter-balanced by them having horrible accuracy. It's somewhat reflective of the big, slow bruisers in comic books and in most games, but in this game, missing just sucks and there's very little you can do to offset it.
Unless you can take careful aim, and this is something I wanted to suggest, myself. Allowing us to "charge" or "aim" our attacks longer in return for a bigger hit would be an excellent way to deal with problems of poor accuracy, especially since there's not a lot players can do about it aside from a small handful of tools.
Quote:
|
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.
|
the solution to slower and better aim is just give everyone a fast recharging power that gives you aim.
2 second activation, +25% to hit for 1 second.
Lets you get the accuracy bonus if you are willing to spend the time with each attack
More and more AE exclusive updates.
...
I use it for it's purpose 
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara
Quote:
How does that make people hate you though?|
Originally Posted by ShadowMoka
More and more AE exclusive updates.
... I use it for it's purpose |
Admittedly, some of my own suggestions would likely be more "half hate me, the other half not so much"
But, still had a couple Im sure would have many growling. ^_^
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
A lot of people want AE completely removed from the game because of farmers. In my opinion, DFBs and ITFs are barely any different in farming. Only difference is people won't accept a leecher in DFB/ITF.
|
Originally Posted by BrandX
How does that make people hate you though?
Admittedly, some of my own suggestions would likely be more "half hate me, the other half not so much" But, still had a couple Im sure would have many growling. ^_^ |
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara
Quote:
Fixed.
|
Originally Posted by Fyndhal
something, something, something, dark side.
 |
@Roderick
Quote:
I'm sorry, but how is your suggested AT any different than getting rid of Tanks entirely? Oh, you can say "It's a combined tank and brute" but that's just semantics.|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
I wish I could say it amazes me that combining two ATs with identical team roles (do damage, attract attention) is more offensive to you than getting rid of an AT entirely (Blasters)
|
Your suggestion gets rid of six archetypes and offers alternatives to four of them. It's a lazy way to balance things.
I could still play this game if I couldn't play blasters. I'd lose Secular Energy, but I don't play him terribly often right now anyway.
But turning all tanks into brutes? That would destroy any interest I had in playing them.
Quote:
Of course, being MY cutscenes, they'd be long... epic... melodrama... |
Originally Posted by Megajoule
Quote:
|
Even better! Invent a new cutscene system like the movie CLUE - you randomly get one of three possible cutscenes (or maybe base them on your team's actions through the arc)!
And JUST to encourage the screaming mass of seething hatred...
... you can't skip past them.
Wow, I'd be like the most loathed dev since the game was founded...
Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite
Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)
Quote:
For story arcs, this isn't bad at all.|
Originally Posted by Dark_Respite
Of course, being MY cutscenes, they'd be long... epic... melodrama...
Even better! Invent a new cutscene system like the movie CLUE - you randomly get one of three possible cutscenes (or maybe base them on your team's actions through the arc)! And JUST to encourage the screaming mass of seething hatred... ... you can't skip past them. Wow, I'd be like the most loathed dev since the game was founded... Michelle aka Samuraiko/Dark_Respite |
For TFs/Trials that get repeated often, it becomes bad. At least imo. I'd love some more cut scenes in story arcs!
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MajorDecoy
I'm sorry, but how is your suggested AT any different than getting rid of Tanks entirely? Oh, you can say "It's a combined tank and brute" but that's just semantics.
Your suggestion gets rid of six archetypes and offers alternatives to four of them. It's a lazy way to balance things. I could still play this game if I couldn't play blasters. I'd lose Secular Energy, but I don't play him terribly often right now anyway. But turning all tanks into brutes? That would destroy any interest I had in playing them. |
Technically this is a forum game of, if you were a dev, what would you do to make all the users Hulk Smash Mad. He has a clearly winning post if it it infuriates you
Half XP if exemplaring.
Much much less inf for everyone, on a much much less dramatic curve, and many more ways of having your inf taken away.
Round of nerfs for melee mez protection (and round of nerfs for KB-inflicting critter attacks.)
Round of nerfs for containment, Tanker damage, Scrapper damage, possibly Brute damage.
I like the 1% chance of permadeath: you could turn it off, though, but then you'd get 10% of the rewards. Take THAT farmers!
And I'd do something to flatten out the difference between 40% and 45% Defense, or 80% and 90% Resistance. The last 5% counts as much as the first 40%? I call bull... err, beef by-products on that .
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
Technically, this is a forum game, if you were a developer, what changed would you WANT to see made that you're pretty sure others wouldn't. There are a million and one ways to troll players, that's not interesting. What's interesting is hearing all the things people genuinely want to see that are still completely unworkable due to how much they'd upset other players.
|
Originally Posted by Late2Party
Technically this is a forum game of, if you were a dev, what would you do to make all the users Hulk Smash Mad. He has a clearly winning post if it it infuriates you
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
That's a very crude way to attempt to approach the mechanic, but it doesn't generate the desired results in a number of respects not the least of which is that the delay is fixed relative to the cast time of the attack it boosts and it doesn't offer a way to improve the benefit from its fixed value. Basically, it doesn't scale.|
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
the solution to slower and better aim is just give everyone a fast recharging power that gives you aim.
2 second activation, +25% to hit for 1 second. Lets you get the accuracy bonus if you are willing to spend the time with each attack |
It also buffs things that should not be buffed by this mechanic, like damage auras.
[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.)
Quote:
It should be preserved as a warning to future generations |
Originally Posted by Alpha-Six
i would lock this thread and bury deep deep in the archives where it would never be seen again!
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Probably a lot less hypothetical than the OP intended.
|
Originally Posted by Fyndhal
something, something, PVP, something. Been there, done that.
|
[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.)
Adding to the list:
Turn the things that irritate about invasions up to 11.
- Create a new group that does a lot of self buffing. (Think mix of, oh, Romans and Nemesis.)
- Crank up the "drop" times - if you stand still for 3 seconds, I hope you like playing at x8...
- Pre-buff, they're very resistant and somewhat hard to hit.
- On death, they do the carnie end drain mechanic (autohit, guaranteed 50% END loss.)
- ... with a twist. (And can cut your END bar down 50%.)
- Plus they have sappers.
- that also gut your recovery.
- And marksmen-like mobs with *lots* of cold attacks to hit your recharge.
- Of course, in groups they buff their defense.
- And have very effective healing mobs that spam an AOE clear mind.
- That stacks.
I'd be nice, though, and leave an AOE vulnerability...
- and completely nonexistant resistance to knockback. Brawl sends them back 50 feet.
... after which more spawn.
Oh. And they'll happily spawn under covered areas, in buildings, even in SG bases.
So, who wants an invasion?! >.>
Quote:
Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. I agree with everything you've said here in general, especially the bit about predictability and the last paragraph.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's not what I was thinking. It would perhaps be better to state that I have thought of ways to make the AI not do obviously stupid things, and not act consistently predictably.
For example, having the critter AI ignore taunt breaks the intent of taunt. But having taunted critters that have no melee attacks at all run up to the tanker when taunted is idiotic. In fact, running out of the county when the thing you're primarily attacking is itself a melee character is equally idiotic. It makes more sense to run thirty feet and then turn and start shooting again. "Smarter AI" as I am thinking of it doesn't mean "figure out the best way to frustrate the player." Its more of "always act with (apparent) purpose." Why move closer if it doesn't help your offense? Why continue to run if the attackers can't hit you? Why watch the players kill something right in your line of sight? Why stand all in one place? Why patrol in a straight line without ever looking behind? The problem is people think addressing these issues would require massive computational resources, but I don't think they do. I think you can leverage the principles of emergent behavior to engineer simple AI that generate complex results when perturbed by situational changes. |
To add to it, I'd like to see some personality show up in AI. Yeah, for the most part, enemies shouldn't be doing stupid things. But you know, some people are stupid, even highly trained people (a friend of mine who was in the Navy on an aircraft carrier once described how he was shown a training video showing people running towards a fire on the deck instead of away from it, as an example of how people can act irrationally under pressure). And sometimes having your enemies do something stupid or crazy is interesting. Just not if they always (or even often) do it. I think personality quirks like this would result in some of that emergent behavior. Having some kind of automated dialogue to go with it would prevent it from people thinking "this is a bug", if the guy just randomly taking off yells "Oh god, we're all going to die!" or the guy rushing into melee with his rifle yells "Raaaargh, I will shoot you in the FACE!" or something.
Just so you know, when I said "it's often the sort of thing people come up with when they want to make smarter AI", I also meant that I've heard game developers say it. To be fair, I've never worked on AI before, but it's odd to me that most (as far as I've seen) game developers, when they are talking about good AI, think "what would a smart player do here" and not "what things might a sentient being do if they were in the situation that this critter is in?" My goal with AI would be to try to keep the game interesting and engaging, but for a lot of people, good AI means trying to beat the players.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
Quote:
I wouldn't mind this myself. Even the SG base invansion, if the base defenses worked against the invansion.
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Adding to the list:
Turn the things that irritate about invasions up to 11. - Create a new group that does a lot of self buffing. (Think mix of, oh, Romans and Nemesis.) - Crank up the "drop" times - if you stand still for 3 seconds, I hope you like playing at x8... - Pre-buff, they're very resistant and somewhat hard to hit. - On death, they do the carnie end drain mechanic (autohit, guaranteed 50% END loss.) - ... with a twist. (And can cut your END bar down 50%.) - Plus they have sappers. - that also gut your recovery. - And marksmen-like mobs with *lots* of cold attacks to hit your recharge. - Of course, in groups they buff their defense. - And have very effective healing mobs that spam an AOE clear mind. - That stacks. I'd be nice, though, and leave an AOE vulnerability... - and completely nonexistant resistance to knockback. Brawl sends them back 50 feet. ... after which more spawn. Oh. And they'll happily spawn under covered areas, in buildings, even in SG bases. So, who wants an invasion?! >.> |
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Mission briefing - Cutscene
Mission one - Cutscene
Boss fight - Cutscene
Repeat for three more missions, with the players doing practically nothing.
Yeah, that would be super annoying.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City