I think we need to get away from the fantasy mmos. Games like WoW and Everquest are based on DnD which was based on The Lord of the Rings. As awesome as Tolkien's writings are, The Lord of the Rings has absolutely nothing to do with superheroes. For CoT to succeed it must be based on the superhero genre. It can't be a WoW clone with flying. One of the most interesting aspects of the superhero genre is the idea that an otherwise invincible hero may be taken down by something as innocuous as a piece of rock or fire. I purpose that we allow players the option to take on a weakness in exchange for a powerful bonus to their stats.
Some examples:
When taking ongoing fire damage, their is a chance to become afraid and flee the battle for a few seconds. In exchange the player gets 10% damage resistance to cold
Take 10% more damage from magic and do 15% more damage with magic
When afraid, receive a 50% damage debuff for 10 seconds and do 20% more damage to afraid enemies
Electrical damage has a chance to cease regeneration for 5 seconds in exchange for 20% more regeneration
Would you take one of these Faustian bargains?
Id want a mega weakness, like superman. For instance I take 500% damage from fire, but my resistance to all other damage is increased by 100%. Or I have 25% less movement speed but I do more damage.
Big weaknesses would be tough in an mmo, but if they are optional I dont see much harm. Just make sure enemy groups have a variety of attacks so people dont only fight the types they dont have weakness to.
I feel this would also encourage team play. A defender could help me fill in my glaringly weak areas ect.
How would one set these, would they be a mastery?
I, personally, probably wouldn't take such a bargain. Maybe I would if one type of damage was obviously lacking in the game (e.g. toxic)...but then again, who wouldn't. This could be especially troublesome for non-tanks. A partisan/corr has more to lose with a 50% extra fire damage than a gladiator/tanker.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
I would be interested in a system where you may purposely introduce a weakness to boost your other resistances.
Let’s say the system is, you may have a total of 100% to resistances, as a collective. Introducing Weaknesses, as in a negative resist, will enable more available space for other resistances. Resistances that reach beyond 100% will result in an “absorb” effect, as in a heal.
For Example: (Leaving out Crowd-Control Resistances for now to keep the example short)
0% Crush
0% Slash
0% Pierce
10% Fire
[color=#FF0000]-50% Cold [/color]
0% Earth
0% Spirit
0% Energy
[color=#7FE817]132% Darkness[/color]
A total of 142% in Resistances, with room 8% extra room. While at the expense of receiving 50% extra damage against Cold-based attacks, I reduced fire damage by 10%, and Darkness completey. Darkness will also grant a 32% heal-effect to the player. Without the negative Cold resist, I would only be limited to a total of 100% in resistances.
Numerous combinations to create! You could create an average medium of everything, or choose to sacrifice a resistance to boost another, or sacrifice all/most resistances for a heal-effect of a single resist (or even more if a player dares to).
Some of you may be wondering that it would be dangerous to allow players to receive such heal-effects. Well, that's part of the thrill. You may find a weakness with one of your other attacks, or you'll have to create a different approach. As in call for backup, run away, utilize debuff effects, or give-in - it's not a fight you can win.
A Player should never be able to maximize all stats with proper limiting factors set. For example, to prevent players from switching bonuses mid-fight to counter enemies instantly - you must be required to be a certain distance from all other NPCs or Players. You may retreat to an alley-way or restroom to change (I'd like to see that concept implemented for changing-costumes).
+1
cause for some reason I only get one :p
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
Even if this wasn't a system available to every character, I'd like it as a special feature for a couple of new defensive or buffing powersets, such as an adaptable bio/tech or arcane/elemental theme. For example, certain types of tech-using tanks or ranged magic users might alter their defenses to fit the situation (+fire but -cold, +electric but -smashing), even to the point of turning one specific damage type into +health, +absorb/shield points, or reflected damage (caught bullets thrown back at attacker, etc).
CoH had a very basic (but offensive) scheme where the dual pistols powerset could toggle on one of several bonus effects to add to all attacks. It didn't include the weakness concept, but that's a natural extension of the idea.
As Lothic has pointed out several times in other posts, the likelihood that such a system could be implemented without becoming a min-maxer's wet dream is quite small. It could also have all kinds of unintended consequences for future content and unplanned interactions with existing power sets. And this is just the PvE side of the equation. I'm all for providing options, but I agree with Lothic that this would very likely introduce far more difficulties than benefits.
In any event, most such strengths and weaknesses tend to be intrinsic to the power sets. For example, power sets that provided resistances against the likes of energy drain, psionics, or a particular element like fire were often weaker against smashing and lethal damage.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
First, I VERY much agree with the general sentiment of the OP. CoH started the Superhero genre as distinct from WoW and the rest of the Sword and Sorcery genre, we need to follow the lead of CoH and move forward from there, not back-peddle by borrowing from irrelevant and incompatible genres like Champions and DCUO did.
Second, I was going to say exactly what Darth said--there was the idea of weaknesses built in to CoH a bit--as a Fire tank I was well aware of the weakness to Ice in the new DA content--but it was not customizable, and they were relatively mild weaknesses that could be largely compensated for. I would of course support further development of this iconic Superhero convention if it were possible without being game-breaking. But that's the rub- IF.
I should also point out that, while Iconic, weaknesses were mainly plot devices. Superman became SO powerful in the Silver Age that if he didn't have weaknesses, there wouldn't be much for the writers to write about. And Spider-Man's loved ones and his vulnerability due to them led to lots plot opportunities.
Also, eventually the writers decided to have Superman learn magic a way to resist magic (which affects him just like anyone else) and in many future timelines he has become so powerful that Kryptonite doesn't bother him much. So this is kind of like the built-in weaknesses that could be compensated for in CoH. They didn't have a HUGE effect on actual game play, but they were a nice tip of the hat.
Personally, while I think a core aspect of the Superhero MMORPG genre is feeling POWERFUL, I also find an undefeatable hero with no weakness quite boring and the most banal form of Mary Sue/Marty Stu-ism. But, then again, that's just my opinion and if someone else has a ball with it, more power to them and who cares what I think :P.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I don't think such a system would be a PvPers wet dream as much as a PvEers wet dream. PvPer, unless they stick to just 1 on 1 dueals, won't beable to pick who they fight against. PvEer can choose not to do content they're weak against.
I do see a place for a Perks/Weaknesses system in an MMO, I'm just not sure CoT will be that place.
Not to overplay the whole nocturnal emission analogy, but the whole game is kind of one big group wet dream (I... disturbed myself with that one), so as long as it's workable within the game, bring on the somnolent pleasures!
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Darth Fez already graciously summarized my general thoughts on this matter at least as far as they apply to computer-based MMOs. I think it would be relatively hard to make a feature like this work in a game like CoT without it becoming just a means to gain big benefits while minimizing the risks (a.k.a. min/maxing). People like ZigZag and desviper have already commented here that they would use such a feature to "help me fill in my glaringly weak areas" and "Maybe I would if one type of damage was obviously lacking in the game (e.g. toxic)...but then again, who wouldn't" respectively. These motivations clearly have nothing to do with roleplaying "character concepts" and everything to do with maximizing metagame combat capabilities.
Now I actually agree with the OP's point that CoT is going to be a "superhero-based" MMO game (not just a fantasy clone) and it would in fact be great if we could adopt one of the staples of the superhero genre which is the concept of "weaknesses". The concept of characters accepting weaknesses (or disadvantages) actually works fairly well in the "pen-n-paper" RPG world. But the main reason it works there is that the human GMs running those games can easily adapt the rules and circumstances of his/her game world to account for any kind of min/maxing the players wish to try. Computer-based MMOs simply aren't flexible enough (yet) to make this kind of thing work the way it's intended - it would remain too easy for players to find ways to make the supposed "disadvantages" effectively meaningless.
I would offer the OP a slightly different counter-suggestion to see what the true motivation of this proposal is: In keeping with the standard way most "weaknesses" work in the superhero genre I would ask why we would need to have weaknesses balanced by "powerful bonuses" under this system? Why not allow people the freedom to give their characters specific weaknesses (i.e. Green Kryptonite for Superman) that have no real "upside"? As far as I remember Superman gets no obvious advantages while under the effects of Green Kryptonite. It'd be in keeping with how most superhero weaknesses work but let's be honest here - except for the most hard-core roleplayers no typical "MMO player" would ever accept that scenario. Ultimately the OP's suggestion is to provide a new avenue for min/maxing - there's nothing strictly wrong with that but it also doesn't really have much to do with superhero weakness in the dramatic character concept sense either.
To reiterate I'm not necessarily against the classic idea of having "weaknesses" be included in a superhero-based MMO. I'm just not really sure it's completely workable, especially if it's quickly morphed into a simplistic system where you can select from among the least harmful hardwired stock disadvantages in order to gain the most useful in-game advantages. As Empyrean pointed out the basic idea is fine but the real trick here is "IF" it could be made to work as intended. That's a pretty big IF.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
After reading Lothic's post, it occurred to me that having the weaknesses be mild and hardwired in to the powerset as CoH did (Fire is weak to Ice, Ice is weak to fire, Inv is especially strong against S/L but weakest to--what was it--energy? And so on...) may have been the safest way to tip the hat to the classic concept of weaknesses to bring in the flavor without letting it get out of hand.
You did have to address those weaknesses in your build or you ended up with, for example, the dreaded "Psi-hole". I can tell you from my main being a Fire Tank, I could compensate for the weakness to ice, but, especially in higher-level content, I sure as hell couldn't ignore it.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Yes having "workable weaknesses built into powersets" was essentially CoH's answer to this concept.
When considering the question of having built-in weaknesses it's worth pointing out CoH's great "experimental attempt" to give us a hardwired weakness that had no real upside and the playerbase's reaction to it: Kheldians and their weakness to negative energy. Back when Kheldians were first introduced their weakness to negative energy attacks was fairly significant. While it was completely in keeping with the classic concept of having a "superhero weakness" the entire idea was instantly and loudly rejected by the playerbase. Nearly everyone hated having a "weakness with no upside" even though again it was completely reasonable in a superhero-based game. As fate would have it the Kheldian weakness to negative energy (and vulnerability to Voids and Quants) was nerfed back so hard that it basically became insignificant. This case made it clear that most players didn't like being forced to accept "classic superhero weaknesses" even while playing a superhero MMO.
Now I can accept the idea that there are some reasonable superhero concepts that rely on the idea of being weak to some things while stronger against others. Maybe you want to play a lava-based dude who has extra-powerful fire attacks but may be extra-vulnerable to ice or water attacks. In those cases I could see where getting bonuses with some attacks could be offset by accepting weaknesses in other areas. The problem comes with how these would be generally used. As implied by my mention of the Kheldians I suspect far too many people would abandon any consideration of selecting "appropriate" ad/disad combos and go straight for the "best" min/max combos that have nothing to do with character concept.
Bottomline from the Devs' point of view how would you ever motivate players to select "reasonable" weaknesses and bonuses that may fit character concepts but may not be the most optimal from a game mechanics point of view (especially if they involve scenarios where characters have weaknesses with no direct upsides)? What would keep this system from simply getting abused to the limits?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I too like the idea of having the weaknesses hard-wired into the power sets. It gave you the option to try to choose something that could be crazy powerful against most stuff, but stupidly vulnerable to something or you could go for the average route. Willpower was a perfect example of going the average route. It had good resistances against most stuff and good defenses against the stuff it couldn't resist. Stone had insane defenses against everything but Psi, which would drop you in a heart beat. Then IO's came along and gave people the option of trying to fill those holes as best as they could.
My Elec/TW fully IO'd Tank for example had 90% Resists to S/L, E, & Psi, 79% Resists to F, I, 58% Reisists to NE, and 15% Resist to T. Without those IO's it would have been 90% Resist to E, 84% Resist to S/L, 59% Resists to F,I, & Psi, 50% Resist to N, and 0% Resist to T. So giving us some hard-wired weaknesses that we can possibly try to improve upon as the game progresses would be a great idea. That was one of the things that kept me playing. Always trying to figure out how to tweak a power that everybody considered weak and make it something that was actually viable.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Good points both of you and I exactly agree with Static. If CoT can come up with something better, then great. If not, CoH handled it well.
One specific comment--I played an all-human PB to 50+ and my problem with their special weakness was that they were so well balanced that, while versatile, you had to fight in many cases to make your build feel AS strong as most other AT's, and so that severe, often one-hit weakness seemed excessive. If it had just been the same weakness but of a lower degree of intensity, I personally wouldn't have minded it for the flavor it added. And of course it became over-nerfed later as you said.
One general comment--I don't think you can ever motivate people to be reasonable (humans are occasionally reasonable, but at least as often not) without making things so extreme that it may as well have been pre-determined because the unreasonable choices are just crazy to make, which sounds frightfully difficult. Due to this, a choice-based weakness system would be, as you've said, problematic at best.
Which brings me around again to thinking that the key is making it BARELY significant so that the flavor exists in game, but even maximum abuse of it only gives a very slight advantage. And of course min/maxers will always take absolutely any .o1% advantage possible (which I won't personally do if it goes against concept), but, if they don't end up being that much more powerful than me--enough to make them happy but not all that functionally significant--then I say let them have their fun.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I agree with Static. Improvements over COH would be fine but I still want game to be as much like COH as possible ... or I won't play!
Jade Indigo
Although my posts in this thread might imply I totally hate "min/maxing" I actually don't. I realize that practically every player of every MMO will attempt to figure out how to "game the system" to make their characters as cool as possible and I'm certainly no stranger to doing that myself.
Where I draw a line between "reasonable" min/maxing and something like this "trade weaknesses for bonuses" suggestion is the overt, single-purpose, instantly-abuseable nature of this. Trying to figure out the best combinations of enhancements to make your powers work the best was a core character-building activity in CoH and there was no obvious single answer to how that worked. On the other hand this "trade weaknesses for bonuses" suggestion would likely only have a relative handful of possibilities that would quickly be recognized as the obvious "best" choices for particular ATs/powersets and would be destined to become a semi-mindless means to get undeserved bonuses without any significant drawbacks.
Min/maxing that takes work and dedication to figure out is fine in MMO gaming - min/maxing that becomes a mindless exercise of choosing the right click box and then forgetting about it is far less desirable.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
In a way, CoH had this to a certain extent. They just did it by making the baseline, unprotected state "weak", and then let the various defensive powers make you no longer weak to things. Because many of the defensive powers targeted specific types of attacks, you could purposefully create a weakness to one or more element/positional attack type by not taking certain powers. As a bonus, you then had more powers to spend on other things.
Of course, people usually took all their defensive powers, because it generally was a good idea from a min-maxing gameplay perspective. There were some cases that would come up though; if your concept for an invulnerability tank required your character to be absolutely immune to physical damage, taking the physical resistance passive was very helpful in simulating this. Many tanks felt durable enough with ~80% S/L resistance (or less, if they passed on Tough), so opted for other powers instead in order to be more well rounded. The reason for this could be either role-playing based (your character is extremely durable, but not immune to physical damage) or min-maxed based (you think you are already sufficiently durable against S/L foes, and want the extra power to plug holes). As well, by having layered, stacking shields of various effectiveness, you could create a wide range of durability in certain cases depending on how dedicated you were to defense; in Invuln's case, you had Temporary Invulnerability, Unyielding, Tough, Resist Physical Damage. The first two were semi-mandatory from an effectiveness standpoint (I mean, nothing was ever really mandatory, but you were severely gimping yourself for concept if you passed on those), but the last two were optional based based on concept or build goal, and could be used to move a character from "really tough" to "effectively immune to physical damage".
I believe an additive system, where you choose powers to make you strong against certain things, is better from a gameplay perspective than a punitive system where you weaken something to become strong against something else. It ends up being logically equivalent, but I believe people like the optimization process more where they are building their character up through their choices.
the thing about the inherent weaknesses in the defensive sets of CoH was they were not [i]actually[/i] weaknesses; they were a lack of protection. An invulnerability user did not take extra damage from psi attacks, just the full damage. I hope we would continue along those lines in CoT.
Also, because it is bothering me, fiery aura was not weak to cold damage. Both Fire Shield and Temperature Protection granted cold resistance. It was small, but it was there and unlike the toxic resistance granted by Healing Flames they were not temporary bonuses. Fire's defensive hole was a lack of Knockdown protection.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
On your first point, I agree and would also like to see lack of defense--or less defense-- rather that rather than an extra damage penalty.
On your point about Fire, well... it's semantics. A fire tank was not totally defenseless and was tougher against Ice than Blasters or Masterminds, that's true, but they were RELATIVELY weak against Ice, and significantly so. You had to take more powers to end up with significantly less protection from Ice. And I can tell you from experience, pimped out with defense and what have you, it MATTERED quite a bit how much of the incoming damage was flagged as Ice. I guess if I sacrificed other things for all of the additional Ice protection possible... but that would never make sense in general game play.
So, no, you're right, not defenseless, but weak compared to their other defenses. So I guess it depends if you're calling a "weakness" something you're completely defenseless against or just relatively weak against.
Now, whether this was more of a problem than their total lack of KB protection is debatable, but I personally never had trouble getting a comfortable level of KB protection, while I always had to remember to pay attention to incoming Ice damage.
Anyway, the first sentence of this post is all that really matters-- and I agree with you completely. The rest of my post is just me splitting hairs on a dead horse with you :).
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I listed in my character creation prototype that players could choose 5 slots of resistance types for the 5 types of damage (Thermal, Particle, Physical, Supernatural, or Bio). 3 slots in the same damage type makes a character close to immunity. How you spend those defense slots would be up to you. This system works a layer UNDER that of standard dodge/defense/shield.
In a game where players can choose their damage type it becomes paramount that they also be able to design their defenses to avoid forced FoTM
Crowd Control Enthusiast
What if such a system were imbued into equipment pieces? Let’s say the least common damage-type is “Toxic”, therefor, less research has been found to influence this in a positive or negative direction. So they become a rare piece to acquire. This in turn may also add an economy-influencing factor into the game.
When dealing with resistances, you must not only consider the space you have available of your resistances, but you must consider the available space you have to equip these items for their enhancement. So a player could possibly introduce -800% Toxic resistances, however they would have little-to-no room to equip a new item, preventing them from even benefiting from all the extra resistance storage space available.
Then you have multiple things to consider when “Templating”
1) Available Item-Slot Space
- A flat number that cannot be changed.
- Perhaps allow players to spend extra-enhancement-item slots here. Sacrifice something that could be invested into skills for better resistances.
- Placed patterns upon creation that determine available space. Example: Tanks have the most melee resistances space but less elemental resistance space available, Casters may have more elemental resistances space but less Melee resistances space, Hybrids have something in-between.
- A combination of the above?
2) Available Resistance Space (Malleable depending on what items you have imbued.)
3) Item-Rarity
Personally, I would like to see both systems of having a Weakness and Buffs provided from Skill-lines. Buffs alone usually only lead to either neutral or better damage if they do not have a malice effect that could push something into a negative; otherwise it’s just a gain-gain-gain effect. With both systems, you could add strategy to your game-play. “Okay, rather than investing too heavily into Fire resistance, I can compensate with Buffs and free up space elsewhere.”
Also consider, in a game where you could customize your costume to your heart’s desire, why shouldn’t I be able to alter my resistances and stats to my desire? Why should I be bound to the predetermined rule sets of my elements? Maybe I want to be a Fire-user that is vulnerable to fire and immune to ice. I’d like to see something different than the traditional route of MMORPGs. Which usually only provide enhancements, otherwise you’re at the 0% neutral. Most of those games, from what I’ve seen, allow players to maximize almost everything without any real compromise such as a Weakness other than money and time-investment.
Who is to say what damage type would be most prevalent, used or resisted.. both are player choices.
If alot of players use rock then the next player will use paper. If alot of players use paper the next will use scissors. It will flux but at least then players realize their choice is better served if they choose based on their character desires instead based on PvP desires.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Altering resistances and stats to your desire is pretty much approaching the very definition of a 100% Freeform game system. Effectively every computer-based superhero game (including Alpha-test era CoH) has attempted various forms of that with relatively little if any success - at best it leads to compromised solutions that really aren't true Freeform in nature and at worst its logical conclusion leads to unbalanced chaos.
If you can figure out a way to make something like this truly playable within the confines of a static MMO framework then you'd be amongst the first to do so.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Folly- Unless I'm missing something, what you described sounds like basically Fantasy Sword and Sorcery Gear and Mods or Upgrades, just called "equipment" and "research (a term which I think both Champions and DCUO already use)" and "Templating".
Folly and Jay- To re-state what Lothic has been saying, while relatively simple freedom looks good and very attractive on paper, both experience and research in various fields--from game design to artificial intelligence, biology, and physics--shows that simple free systems reliably follow a certain pattern. They quickly degrade into total chaos followed by the slow formation of a generally unpredictable but stable system of equilibrium with emergent properties.
Now that sounds kind of fun on the surface, but there's one problem--will the system and emergent properties that it eventually settles into actually be any FUN to play? There is no way to predict--maybe, maybe not--and at that point it's too late in the game development process to fundamentally change it anyway, so you're stuck with the random luck of the draw.
This is why games tend to be basically small pockets of "freedom" within a lattice of "structure". And that works pretty well as a way of having your cake and eating it too. Not total freedom, but a good bit. Not total control over the end result for the Devs, but enough overall pre-determined structure to help ensure that it ends up being a game at least close to what they originally intended.
Looks to me like CoT is cautiously going for just a hair more freedom than CoH, and moving forward slowly so things don't go too far in a bad direction before they catch them, and I think that's a good, logical next step for a spiritual successor.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
Templating and Gearing are processes almost all MMOs adapt. Equip an item or use a skill, receive a bonus. Shape your character to your play style by equipping a certain combination of items and/or skills. The only think being requested is, to intentionally weaken yourself in order to take on other possibilities. I have yet to find a game that allows you to push yourself into a negative value. Most games allow you to neglect values to stand neutral, but that is not nearly as devastating and interesting as taking on a weakness to push another value.
The closest thing to that I have found in some games is varying weapon speeds. Use weapon with a fast swing-speed to hit more often, but deal less damage. Use a weapon with a slow swing-speed to hit less often, but deal more damage per hit. Sometimes abilities have varying reuse times, slow reuse times were usually left for the most potent of abilities.
In City of Heroes, you could alter an ability in various ways. First by obtaining it, next by incorporating extra enhancement slots as you leveled , then by inputting enhancements themselves. You were bound by space, an enhancements level, and how effective an enhancement could be. What if you placed an enhancement that gave negative 15% of (bonus), however you were allowed to boost everything else higher? Whether that be it's recharge time, accuracy, endurance cost etc. "Okay, I'll place 10 slots into this ability, a few of them will be recharge increase. Now I only have some space leftover for other enhancements, and more room for higher enhancement values in that ability, and I have less enhancement-slot space allocated in other abilities. I can perform a Supernova once an hour rather than once every fifteen minutes, however it's effect will be much more drastic on the receiving end." So 15% Recharge (-, -, -), other abilities may be allowed to push further than their usual limit. So possibly 15% Damage (+, +, +, +, +, +), depending on the allotted space and maximum values you may have total altogether. What if instead, you could pour points into this skill. Then move sliders to determine how your skill would work depending on how many points you had available. For example, you have trained 7 points into this skill. You could distribute 7 points across, or pour 7 points into one skill. Moving a slider into a negative direction of, at most, 7, will give you that many extra points. This way you could only plunge so far depending on your skill investment.
- 7 . . . . . . 0 . . . . [5] . . 7 Damage
- 7 . . . . . . 0 . [2] . . . . . 7 Accuracy
- 7 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . 7 Recharge
.
.
7 points spent, I could choose to raise my recharge time to receive extra points to spend elsewhere. So if I wanted 5 extra points, in addition to the 7 points I invested, I could move the Recharge slider to -5. What if resistances worked in that manner? Invest pointing points creates your cap in both the negative and positive directions. Negative allocations enables more positive ones. So if I invested 48 points into resistances, that's negative or positive 48% I can reach. Extending caps requires skill investment.
Breaking the resistances into categories could make it more difficult to just invalidate common resistances with ease. As mentioned above, Toxic may be considered a least common damage-type so everyone would reduce it to boost everything else. Well if you could only reduce that resistance and boost only certain others then the effect may not be as detrimental. Such as "Elemental" (Heat/Cold/Earth/Toxic), "Soul" (Dark/Energy/Spirit), "Physical" (Crush/Slash/Pierce), and "CrowdControl" (Knowckdown, Hold, Sleep, Stun). Reducing "Toxic" resistance will only allow you to boost those within the realm of Elemental resistance. Perhaps eliminate CrowdControl and make an abilities side-effects part of the damage-type it belongs in. Such as a Fire's Hold spell duration will be influenced by your Fire resistance. So let's say a level 50 player may only invest 100 points into their Resistances and they decide to distribute it like so: 50 Physical resistances, 30 into Soul, then 20 into elemental. Lots of freedom with limitations still in place.
Risk taking is part of the development process. I’m here providing suggestions of what I’d like to see in an MMO, what I would want to play. I want to see balance in indifference, not balance in mirrors. Fun? I absolutely would think so. I have found some of the most thrilling experiences in games are the ones you can become the most vulnerable in. It makes you rethink your strategy.
Again, with proper limiting factors in place the “Weakness” compensation system can’t be exploited to enter total freedom, becoming a god. You most likely won’t be able to equip eight layers of shirts on your costume; the same idea could be applied to a resistance system concept.
Let’s say I absolutely despise a certain player, let’s just call him Drayvar for the example, and decide to create a setup specifically to counter that person.
~
“Okay, I should now absorb all of his Dark damage.”
(Begins hunting for Drayvar)
(I run into a villain, Felador the Fire Mistress)
(She obliterates me)
(Begins the search for Drayvar again)
“So we meet again Drayvar!”
(Drayvar attacks, all of his blows are ineffective)
(Drayvar uses a grappling spell, and then flees the fight. The spell lasts for the maximum allotted time.)
(Other Villains appear, while I’m frozen in place)
~
Bottom Line: You can obtain such power, for a price.
So we seem to agree that allowing free-form altering of resistances (and defenses) leads to min/maxing. So maybe this is another thread, but what about the absorbing idea here, even just a specific power that heals from a sort of damage? E.g. A fire shield with a power "Siphoning Flames" (i'm terrible at naming powers) that would resist x% fire damage and heal x% or y% of health.
I was always disappointed when I found Kheld "absorption" didn't actually do anything more than resist energy.
[hr]
[color=red]PR, Forum Moderator[/color]
[url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/desvipers-creative-impulsivity]My Non-Canon Backstories[/url]
Avatar by MikeNovember
i am afraid that if you creat weakness the PvP system will be based on discover the weakness of that char..... it will destroy PvP system and can ruin the game.....PvP in champions is ridicuous and make people quit... as i daid in other threath.... i hope this game eats CO on breakfest!!!!
In an small group arena and duel-scenario scenario, yes a weakness can ruin gameplay since you are bound to the rules of the arena or duels.
In open-field PvP however, there should be numerous ways to counter a weakness since you are not bound to the rules of arenas.
I said a team would help alleviate it, not that I would use a system like this to fill my weaknesses on my own.
The more options the better. I like the idea of having great weakness in some areas in exchange for great power in others.
I don't get mad, I restructure the laws of quantum physics and resolve the situation with temporal engineering.
What stops MMO players from figuring out how to best minimize any chosen so-called "great" weakness in order to basically get a boost like this risk free? Human GMs in pen-and-paper RPGs can prevent players from exploiting these kinds of tricks - sadly I don't believe the inflexible programmed code of an MMO could do the same.
I too generally believe more options are better... as long as they don't devolve into mindless exercises such as "selecting the obvious optimal min/max weakness combo that works best for whatever AT/powerset your using".
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Having carefully implemented weaknesses would promote a rock-paper-scissors system.
While one line can be superior to another, that line can be countered with another line, and that line can be countered by the original. Everything should have a counter - in the cases where there is not promotes a min/max system.
You are assuming a system exactly like CoH. If there are no in set weaknesses like in CoH and you simply choose or dont choose one then it is never going to be an issue of picking the best buff as compared to your already existing weaknesses.
Example 1- I play a dodgy type tank. I choose no weakness or buff. So my powers work equally well vrs all damage types.
Example 2- I play a dodgy tank. I choose the "Minor flame weakness". I dodge attacks from fire 10% worse and dodge one other type of damage 10% better.
If the devs make the damage types equally common I see no problem with this. Even if not so what if I choose not to fight fire elementals because I know of my weakness, I did similar things in CoH as well. (avoiding psi damage with my invul tanks as a common example)
I'm thinking of this is terms of this being a feature where a person would pick a so-called "weakness" and then make sure they would only play content that would strongly favor staying away from any source of that particular weakness thus getting the "advantage" without really facing the downside.
Not only would that be accomplishable in PvE (i.e. you choose to be weak to ice damage so you avoid any critters that cause ice damage) but I would argue that it would actually be fairly easy to avoid in PvP as well (i.e. you bring your ice-weak alt into PvP and start fighting people who are throwing ice at you. The obvious simple "counter" to that is you go log onto another alt who is NOT weak to ice).
So no it's not a "rock-paper-scissor" situation when you can simply switch alts to avoid any intended risks/downsides.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Sure there's no real problem with things like Invul tanks avoiding Psi damage because that weakness is inherent in the powerset. That's a balance mechanism built into the powerset - if you want to play an Invul tank you can't avoid that limitation.
What we're talking about here is the player getting to not only choose the specific weakness they want to supposedly "suffer" from but then also choose the playstyle that helps them effectively mitigate that weakness. The net effect is that you get an advantage that's totally controllable by you without any downside.
For example let's say you know there's a particular type of damage that either hardly ever comes up or only comes up in a few missions/zones you know about. You could easily be motivated (by your meta-knowledge of the game) to pick that "weakness" knowing that you can easily avoid ever having to suffer from it. Or maybe you happen to know a certain place that's great to farm so you pick the best advantage (regardless of the associated weakness) to maximize your ability to farm in that one place. At these points you've simply exploited the feature not for "character concept" but to maximize your efficiency without suffering the appropriate balancing effect.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
As for PvE, it's normal for players to pick their fights to their advantage. Finding an area of land-bound monsters with little-to-no ranged attacks is a glorious situation for a flying ranged-type caster.
It is certainly not easy to avoid such gameplay in PvP (unless you only play in Arenas and pick your fights assuming your opponent is not aware). In PvP, the situation is cyclical. You might log an alt to face one player, then another player will find you are weak to their damage. Also, it can be a slight good thing to have players alt-ing characters more often. That slows the overall climb of ranks as opposed to those who stay dedicated to one character.
Mind, what I presented earlier was to have it optional to implement a weakness if you chose to do so in order to raise another value. Obtaining extreme values should require some form of investment. As I proposed earlier of having players train into a particular resistance pool, the heavier of an investment the more taken away from other abilities and stats the player could benefit from.
I'm not against the generalized MMO concept of "choosing to prioritize in one area of character development while accepting that other areas will suffer because of that". I'm simply against features that could (relatively easily) allow characters to exploit advantages without suffering from significant disadvantages to "pay for it".
Let's take for example a fairly extreme scenario: Let's say there's a way for one of your characters to get +50% fire damage bonus but would have to accept a +50% ice damage resistance debuff for it. With a character like this you're going to be "highly motivated" to never face PvE critters (or other PvPers) who could throw ice damage at you while at the same time you'd be "highly motivated" to only attack fire-vulnerable targets. My argument is that with some good meta-knowledge of the game it would be far too easy to accomplish this.
It doesn't take much to figure out where the critters you want (and want to avoid) are in PvE and again it wouldn't take much to have multiple PvP-ready alts who could collectively cover for each other's weaknesses by being ready to relog at a moment's notice. Basically if you CHOSE to put your characters into situations (PvE or PvP) where they are vulnerable to their chosen weaknesses that's your fault, not the game's because again the game would provide far too many opportunities for you to figure out how to make your so-called “weaknesses” insiginificant.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
You may have a weakness minority, but there sure will be players out there specialized in those fields looking for you. Of course you are motivated to avoid those characters once you recognize them, that's where players can get creative: teaming up, running away, using buffs to compensate, or focusing on controlling them. It becomes a game of knowing how to react to such situations. It also helps lower the typical "cookie-cutter" and "flavor of the month" occurrences that happen so often in games.
[i]A new class is launched into the game.
The masses flock to playing the new class.
A minority specializes in strengthening their resistances specifically to counter that class.
New class players start to diversify. Either tweaking their resistances (which would open up counters for other classes), team up, play something else, or attempts to avoid the situation.[/i]
A constant power struggle, where nobody is ever truly on top. With a Weakness, countering another player or monster wouldn't have to just be bound to your power selection choices - you could also counter by selecting resistances against theirs. Which would always leave room for a completely different player or monster to counter that.
Over time, the developers could easily determine which line needs improvement, or what power should be implemented next, [u]if[/u] there is ever a case where a certain Damage-type becomes a common Weakness.
I envision this idea of "weaknesses for advantages" being quickly incorporated to serve the "FOTM" beast. Let's assume the game launches with some kind of "weaknesses/advantages" system. People will quickly figure out which weakness/advantage combos best serve to min/max particular AT/powerset combos. The net effect will be that FOTMs will likely become even more extreme with these combos, not less. The fact that the weakness/advantage combos would be chooseable and controllable by players is what would drive this.
This won't encourage constant diversification or rock-paper-scissor styled "power struggles" - it'll only add to the desire to beeline towards the very best cookie-cutter FOTM builds because with the right weakness/advantage combos they'll work even better.
You imply that the cookie-cutter choices of weakness/advantage combos merely MIGHT become a problem the Devs would have to occasionally tinker with. I suspect it would become a tedious whack-a-mole problem that the Devs would have to be constantly policing because they would be constantly exploited by the playerbase. This is an agent not of control but of greater extremism as far as character balance is concerned - it'll only make semi-unbalanced concepts even more so.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
You highly underestimate the players' ability to stomp out cookie-butter builds, if granted the tools to do so. It's a cycle that never ends - there is always someone there with the counter solution.
Without the "Weakness" system - it's exactly the same situation, except you have less counter options available. Players will, as you say, "min/max" and build the "FOTM" spec, then there is no viable counter except playing a completely different class. Allowing the tools to alter your resistances could serve as another option without making your class completely obsolete.
I don't deny that the cookie-cutter build cycle never ends or is remotely stoppable by the Devs. I'm just not really sure that "speeding up" the FOTM cycle (by giving the playerbase a new "tool" to make typical FOTMs even more overpowered) is a viable solution for containing the situation to within acceptable, balanced limits. *shrugs*
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Let me ask you a question, Lothic. Does Superman avoid tangling with Kryptonite, or does he not? Avoiding your weakness is not min/maxing, it is playing smart. Or did I misunderstand your comments?
I don't get mad, I restructure the laws of quantum physics and resolve the situation with temporal engineering.
I would argue that Superman's weakness to Kryptonite is built-in to his Krypton "powerset" to balance out his otherwise god-like powers, not because he thought it would be a cool Weakness/Advantage combo to have. What "advantage" does Superman get from being vulnerable to Kryptonite? Does he get some kind of +5% bonus to hitting unicorns I've never heard about?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
It's a video game, not everything needs an explanation.
[i]If you wear armored plate, should it slow your movement speed?
If you flew next to a plane wearing a jet, should you be vacuumed into it's turbine?
If you selected a Fire/Ice specialization combination, should your damage be neutralized the moment they were both introduced onto an opponent?
If you choose a Water/Electricity combination, should your damage be enhanced?
If you happened to "bump into" another player, should it damage them?
If you high-fived your group mate when you have super strength, should it break their arm?
[/i]
We create our own races and stories upon creation. Asking for a little more wiggle room for customization. Maybe I want create an animated teddy-bear that has +5% bonus to hitting unicorns at the price of -5% cuteness of kittens.
[i]Imagination[/i]
So if things like this don't need an explanation why do weaknesses like this need advantages to "make them worthwhile" to take? Why not just have a system of weaknesses that would allow for the "customization" you're asking for? The classic superhero example has already been mentioned: Superman was vulnerable to Kryptonite but did he "trade" that weakness for some kind of amazing bonus we don't know about?
Until you can answer why you'd only accept a character weakness if you got a "good enough bonus" in return I'm going to naturally assume the only point to this suggestion was to have a new system to min/max to the hilt.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Id say no superman didn't do it, the player playing him did.
Nicely put.
Vulnerability is a subject that pulls viewers into connecting with the characters more. If Superman was completely flawless, then he probably wouldn't be as loveable of a character.
It's an incentive to poke holes in your character. Nobody is ever going to intentionally weaken their character in an MMO for no benefit, unless it's to tease another (such as wearing no armor), or they cannot afford to fill the gaps.
It also follows a “equivalent exchange” kind of rule. It doesn’t have to be this way – it was just a suggestion of mine.
As I keep bringing up the same point, it shouldn't possible to min/max and beat the system - there should always be a counter out there lurking about with the tools available. In a PvE scenario, having diverse enemies of varying resistances could be a possible counter.
No, Superman doesn't avoid it. Players would. Superman's a hero, so he goes in even when he knows the risks. Does he try to minimize his exposure (wear a special suit) when he knows it's around, yes, but he doesn't back off.
Players are not heroes. If CoH AE taught you anything, they try to play purely to their strengths :p
Superman [i]adjusted his play style[/i] to minimize the effects of this weakness, according to your response.
There is nothing wrong with adjusting play style to get around vulnerabilities. Which could be anything up to the player - avoiding, teaming up, using buffs or debuffs, controlling your opponent etc.
The thing is that in CoH Invulnerability TANKER power pool had its own weakness.... that was NO PROTECTION to Psychic atacks!
So, we already had weaknesses in CoH, as well as some other power pools...
Every power set had some advantages and disadvantages, so there's just no reason to add another layer of them, on top.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Guys, we're talking about a new-game with City of Heroes' inspiration. Not a complete replica of City of Heroes.