Announcements

Over Labor Day Weekend, our repository server gained sentience and walked away.

It's back and said it just went for a walkabout and didn't mean to cause any distress. What is interesting though, is it will neither confirm nor deny the existence of these "motorheads" we've heard about.

Thank you all for your concern, and batteries.

The motherboard manufacturer sent a replacement part and we have put the repository server back together. We are back up and running and will now continue our regularly scheduled programming. (please pardon the pun)

Discuss: What We Can Do - Powers

804 posts / 0 new
Last post
DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

All combat in CoH required the roles of the Holy Trinity to complete it just didn't require each role to be filled by a specific character. You still needed to control the encounter, survive the encounter and win the encounter.
The examples you provide just changed how a team went about filling those roles. Instead of having one specialized tanker that controlled the crowds the team either boosted another AT to fill that role(defenders/controllers/corruptors were good at this), split the mobs into more manageable groups each team member could handle on their own (all brute/scrapper or even stalkers used this methode), or they used pets as sacrificial lambs (MM's/controllers/dominators and anyone who took mastery pets).
Instead of relying purely on the traditional healers to survive an encounter CoH had a very robust buff/debuff system to supplement or replace those heals and all characters had a way to self heal and self buff.
Finally, every character was able to output damage and with the buff/debuff system few mobs could not be put down by even a team of the lowest DPS characters.
Like I said in the very part you quoted, the flexible combat system in CoH didn't require the traditional Tank, Healer and DPSer but it still required those tactics.

The thing that really broke the holy trinity -- and it did break it -- for CoX was that it added either one or two more fundamental aspects to the trinity (depending on how you count it): "mez" taken all together would be just one, but really you can split that into mobility control (immobilize, hold, and to a lesser degree stun), which is about managing the tactical aspects of the combat map, and attack *rate* mitigation (stuns/holds). Because compared to most other things I've seen, CoX's mez against mobs was in most cases ridiculously effective (in a good way) -- in that it worked worth a damn at all. And both sides of that are orthogonal to the holy trinity, but complement it well by affecting aspects of the "combat equation" that a strict trinity doesn't address.

Example: incoming damage is "damage per second". A tank's job is to manage aggro, but having all the love wouldn't help anyone much if they didn't *also* have the ability to mitigate that flow of damage by a pretty hefty amount. So they're reducing the incoming DPS by whatever factor, *as well as* keeping it focused on one spot that is then easier for the healers to work with. But damage per second is really *attacks* per second multiplied by damage per attack. Classical debuffs reduce the "damage" part of that in some way, but holds and stuns reduce the "attacks per second" part (as do some of the more unusual "debuffs" such as to-hit/accuracy, which reduces the number of *successful* attacks per second). So they aim at a part of the equation that otherwise ends up being mostly untouchable.

And as a general rule of thumb, the *most* effective way to get things done, outside of teams focused extremely narrowly on min-maxing some aspect and driving it to a limiting point of the system (FRADx8 being able to hold AVs through the triangle-up phase, etc.) was to take a broad mix of things because almost everyone was already "multi-purpose" in terms of what parts of the equation they affected... but also tended to see various forms of reducing returns when you stacked too much on one part and ignored others.


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Understood. To be clear, we aren't making the game as action oriented as CO either. Especially from early on. As levels and difficulty increases, there could be more encounters with avoid the area effect (if you choose). You could also choose (if it is a common damage type) tomtske the hit - which will also build Momentum.
Primarily, we're removing hard-rooting of powers. Which opens up freedom movement for the player. It doesn't matter if your target is moving around, (not a common thing) if you have them targeted, they can't dodge - it comes down to the hit-roll. You the player won't have to be in constant motion if you don't choose to in general.
We're taking into consideration ease of play with this, we really are. At the same time, we recognize that the taming world has changed since 2004, heck, since 2013, significantly, and we want to take just amcouple of steps away from extremely out dated design, and when possible, step things up.

As I explained once, a long while back, to Cabbit: the concern isn't that powers can be unrooted. The concern is whether "player mobility" becomes an *expected* part of the equation without any effective means of mitigation. In CoX it wasn't, for the most part, as a side effect of rooted attacks. But much like the fact that they were bad at math, the unintended consequences turned out to be pretty important for at least one sizable class of players. And at least one other not-entirely-trivial class, although they had at least somewhat more options.

But let me give you a concrete example from a place where CoX *did* use this mechanic: the Tin Mage task force. See if you can find out how many people simple never bothered with it because it either frustrated the hell out of them on early play-throughs (half of my household) or never bothered in the first place (all of the rest but me). And I'd be honestly curious how many pet-focal builds (*especially* MMs) avoided it (that would cover 'me') simply because even decent-AI pets are morons when faced with anything that the game devs didn't think to write into their AI, and updating that sort of AI without breaking things horribly (either over- or under-powered) is a nightmare. Unless you're going to give us scriptable minions, in which case I will cheerfully shut the hell up about any such worry because it would be ridiculously awesome (but, in fairness, also ridiculously difficult to balance for gameplay).

Now, "my household" is by no means a statistically well-distributed group, and I'm not claiming that it is. And CoX had plenty of options that *required* that you be mobile during combat, even with the rooted attack style... plus you often needed a *thoroughly* competent tank, not just an acceptably competent one, to keep the nastier baddies (goodies?) pointed sufficiently safely away from the squishies that they could stand mostly-still. Some things like Fulcrum Shift really required that a class that could otherwise be just about anywhere had to be *very* aware of positioning for limited parts of a fight, and most combat AoEs were more *effective* if at least one or both of "you" and "the tank" (ideally both) could position well.

But if it is ever a significant and widespread enough factor that you would consider something like CO's approach of limiting several of the most powerful attacks in the game by rooting you while you throw them, as a tradeoff for that level of potency? There are folks who are going to have a lot of trouble unless they have an effective and "nearly free" way of not having to worry about standing in the fire, at which point it becomes something akin to Stamina (and often Health) in the first several years of CoX: a required part of anything but a very specialized build, at which point why is it worth having separate?


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

Then you have no concept of the people involved. I wasn't speaking about 'aimed' targeting at all. And, for example, CO doesn't have it. But it *does* have "you have to move around during combat", and it is one of the reasons they don't play that game, despite having a lifetime sub to it.

Dodge, evade and block should be based on the characteristics of the character not the agility of the player.

But I sincerely hope the game is not designed for people who don't want to move during combat.

I hope there will be things we will have to avoid. There should always be fire we should know not to stand in. And I do hope that positioning and facing will be important in calculating dodge/block/evade and/or damage.

In fact, I would like to see accuracy affected by movement as well.

One of the things that has bugged me since I played my first MMORPG is that a ranged attacker is just as accurate running and shooting at a running target as he is standing still shooting at a stationary target. That has never made sense to me.

Rather, I would propose the following:

  • ranged attacks lose accuracy when the attacker is moving.
  • ranged attacks are more accurate against stationary targets and less accurate against moving targets
  • melee attacks should be more accurate against moving targets, which I hope will be just one of the factors why opponents would remain engaged with tanks instead of running past the tanks to get at the ranged and support units.

None of this has to involve player's twitch skills, because accuracy is a number-crunching characteristic of the character, not the player. Notice I said moving, not actively dodging attacks. But it does make a sort of tactical judgment whether to stand still and make oneself easier to hit from ranged attackers and harder to hit by melee opponents, or move to be harder to hit by ranged attacks but easier to hit by melee opponents. And ranged characters will want to stand still to deliver their attacks to be more accurate, but will have to make a risk decision if someone approaches within melee range. Do I kite or not? I like this kind of deeper decision-making.
And, of course, all these factors can be modified and mitigated through masteries, augments and refinements.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

The thing that really broke the holy trinity -- and it did break it -- for CoX was that it added either one or two more fundamental aspects to the trinity (depending on how you count it): "mez" taken all together would be just one, but really you can split that into mobility control (immobilize, hold, and to a lesser degree stun), which is about managing the tactical aspects of the combat map, and attack *rate* mitigation (stuns/holds).

I covered mez in the post you quoted from when I said 'robust buff/debuff system'. The mez's in CoH were a debuff that supplemented or replaced traditional healing. The Holy Trinity mold wasn't broken in CoH because you can't break it within that combat system. To break the trinity you need a different combat system that isn't based around controlling the incoming damage, surviving and outgoing damage.
Side scrolling platformers and the simple avoidance defense, RTS resource management combat, the Simon says Quicktime event combat or the kill count combat of FPS's are examples of systems that don't have the trinity at it's core.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 47 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
HuckleberryDodge, evade and
Huckleberry wrote:

Dodge, evade and block should be based on the characteristics of the character not the agility of the player.
But I sincerely hope the game is not designed for people who don't want to move during combat.
I hope there will be things we will have to avoid. There should always be fire we should know not to stand in. And I do hope that positioning and facing will be important in calculating dodge/block/evade and/or damage.

I hope that there will be the occasional effect we will have to avoid just to mix combat up a little (and this seems to be what the devs are alluding to), so I don't mind a little extra maneuverability with our characters in combat - but I feel positioning and facing having an effect on your defense could venture too close to the "action MMO" area of the pool. Not saying they are bad mechanics - after all having to worry about relative positioning works for STO ship combat - but for this game I'm not sure it would be a good fit.

Quote:

In fact, I would like to see accuracy affected by movement as well.

Didn't CoH have something like this for a while in travel power ACC penalties? It did not go over well if I recall correctly.

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 36 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

But part of the reason CoX succeeded is that they were bad at math and didn't manage to make the game balanced the way the originally intended. They did find a balance, but it wasn't that one.
-
Since I know for a fact that CoT has several folks who are very good at math (in particular the sort of math involved), best cross fingers that they don't forget the "what makes you feel super" part...

Much harder to catch lightning in a bottle on purpose than by accident, but let's hope MWM can pull it off :D!

I always did feel that part of what made CoH so special was that the Developers were a bit naive and idealistic.

But, then again, MWM is an indie startup studio, and City of Titans is a crazy-assed project that no one with any sense would attempt.

By God, they might just pull it off...

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 min 15 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Might I suggest you change

Might I suggest you change the name of Burning to "Energy" so all the energy types are represented.
To the unimaginative, Burning stops with Fire.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 min 47 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Might I suggest you change the name of Burning to "Energy" so all the energy types are represented.
To the unimaginative, Burning stops with Fire.

But it can encompass more than energy too - the DoT can be also represented by acid and cold for instance.

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
The thing that really broke the holy trinity -- and it did break it -- for CoX was that it added either one or two more fundamental aspects to the trinity (depending on how you count it): "mez" taken all together would be just one, but really you can split that into mobility control (immobilize, hold, and to a lesser degree stun), which is about managing the tactical aspects of the combat map, and attack *rate* mitigation (stuns/holds).
I covered mez in the post you quoted from when I said 'robust buff/debuff system'. The mez's in CoH were a debuff that supplemented or replaced traditional healing. The Holy Trinity mold wasn't broken in CoH because you can't break it within that combat system. To break the trinity you need a different combat system that isn't based around controlling the incoming damage, surviving and outgoing damage.
Side scrolling platformers and the simple avoidance defense, RTS resource management combat, the Simon says Quicktime event combat or the kill count combat of FPS's are examples of systems that don't have the trinity at it's core.

Then don't call it "the trinity".


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

Cyclops
Cyclops's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 min 15 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/10/2015 - 17:24
Yeah, but "Energy" sounds

Yeah, but "Energy" sounds better than "Energy n' Stuff."

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 36 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Yeah, but "Energy" sounds better than "Energy n' Stuff."

I don't envy their job coming up with descriptors. Burn seems to work even for ice. Everyone knows the phrase "freezer burn" or maybe that dry ice can "burn" you.

It'd be cool to have a "burn" charachter with ice graphics and then use augments/Mastery/whatever to get some slow in there. Very thematic.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

I hope that there will be the occasional effect we will have to avoid just to mix combat up a little (and this seems to be what the devs are alluding to), so I don't mind a little extra maneuverability with our characters in combat - but I feel positioning and facing having an effect on your defense could venture too close to the "action MMO" area of the pool. Not saying they are bad mechanics - after all having to worry about relative positioning works for STO ship combat - but for this game I'm not sure it would be a good fit.

I was thinking about this a bit earlier. Remember in CoX how we would run the warehouse to gather up all the mobs and then run behind the corner of a container for them to bunch up on us?
That is taking position and facing into account. Positioning, obviously because it bunches up the opponents, but facing also because targeted attacks against one of the opponents in that bunch would affect more opponents if they were all in front of your character.

So what I was thinking about with facing is that evade/dodge/block would be most effective vesus targets in front of you and less effective against targets behind you. So if you were able to bunch four opponents in front of you, great. But if three were in front and one was behind you, that probably is still perfectly acceptable. However, if you turn to attack that one who is behind you, you would be turning your back on the other three, which opens you up to taking more damage from them. No twitch gameplay, but certainly you have to pay better attention to the map and to whom you are targeting.

Other MMOs have facing. One of the biggest that MWM has used as an example of what combat in CoT might be like is FFXIV. I think facing will also be important for stealth, sneaking and surprise attacks. Heck, even WoW has facing. Backstab is a rogue skill in WoW and Rift and others that requires attacking an opponent from behind. We'll see how it will be in CoT.

[Edit: I would hope that solid form protection powers would be immune to the extra damage from backstabs, just by the nature of the protection]


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

Then don't call it "the trinity".

Seriously, this is what you want to pick a fight about? What to call it? Instead of addressing, refuting or understanding the points I made, you want to argue nomenclature.
You don't get the context in which I am making these statements, you just got a bug up your arse that I made them.
I have explained my position, twice, about how CoH gives you more ways to tackle the roles in the trinity. Go back to post 204 to get the context of my position.

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I covered mez in the post you quoted from when I said 'robust buff/debuff system'. The mez's in CoH were a debuff that supplemented or replaced traditional healing. The Holy Trinity mold wasn't broken in CoH because you can't break it within that combat system. To break the trinity you need a different combat system that isn't based around controlling the incoming damage, surviving and outgoing damage.
Side scrolling platformers and the simple avoidance defense, RTS resource management combat, the Simon says Quicktime event combat or the kill count combat of FPS's are examples of systems that don't have the trinity at it's core.

The important thing wasn't if the holy trinity was really broken....it just felt like it was broken. Maybe running 8 Controllers was still "the holy trinity" in some way...but boy it sure didn't feel like it! :D

(Damn I miss running all Controller teams)

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Cyclops wrote:
Cyclops wrote:

Yeah, but "Energy" sounds better than "Energy n' Stuff."

Burning is stuff that burns, including scorching wind, liquid-type stiff (boiling water / acid), to fire, electricity, lasters, radiation, and so on. This will make more sense as to why as more information comes out and you see the range of customization.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Seriously, this is what you want to pick a fight about? What to call it? Instead of addressing, refuting or understanding the points I made, you want to argue nomenclature.
You don't get the context in which I am making these statements, you just got a bug up your arse that I made them.
I have explained my position, twice, about how CoH gives you more ways to tackle the roles in the trinity. Go back to post 204 to get the context of my position.

Yeah, no. The trinity was broken because it refers to each role only capable of being filled by a specialist. No characters in a trinity ever fill multiple roles, and if they do, it's normally suboptimal to have 2 jack of trades instead of the two specialists. The thing with CoH was that unlike most games, each class had TWO specializations. So technically, you could satisfy a trinity with two characters. Or hell, even one because the mobs were so comparably weak next to players... The only time one might even need to think about following the traditional trinity would be against giant monsters, and those could even be solo'd by the right character as well.

CoH functioned more on a pentagram because mez was so fleshed out and functional that it became it's own dynamic entity, and buffs/debuffs really can't be considered tanking, and buffed passive damage prevention is definitely different than active healing playstyle wise, psychologically, and socially. You had five or so points to cover in a normal group, and in the center the target goal was "survive the alpha strike" and then cleanup the mobs. You could complete this with just a tanker. If the tanker survived the alpha strike, he could probably endure the fight and deal with the mobs in due time. After all, most tanks had damage mitigation, enough damage to handle a group of minions, and most came kitted with self heals and higher base regeneration. You could summon pets into a group to absorb the alpha strike, then have the team burst everything down while the mobs were recharging. You could even hide around a corner and set 8 stacks of caltrops, and 8 stacks of rain of arrows if you really wanted. And that worked, because the alpha strike was handled through burst damage and using AI's interaction with damage patches to spread out the alpha strike long enough to wipe the enemies out.

So CoH didn't even need every point of it's pentagram covered. One could get away with three points. Pick any three, and it was a good team. Pick just two, and it could work, but you had to put in more effort. Somehow getting a team with only 1 role filled was almost impossible.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
harpospoke wrote:
harpospoke wrote:

The important thing wasn't if the holy trinity was really broken....it just felt like it was broken. Maybe running 8 Controllers was still "the holy trinity" in some way...but boy it sure didn't feel like it! :D

True, that was basically what I was saying in the first post I brought it up.
Here it is again so maybe, just maybe, this can be dropped.

Brainbot wrote:

The Holy Trinity is entrenched in MMO players minds and it becomes the fallback when they encounter something different. It took over a year before the larger player mass of CoH understood that Tanker, healer, dpser was not the only way to do things and right up until the doors shut people were still trying to enforce their idea of optimal team make-up and specific tactics on tougher trials. That is just the nature of co-operative game play. Also, keep in mind that just because there was flexibility for team make-up in CoH, most tactics still relied on a Holy Trinity concept, you just didn't need the very best in those roles to succeed.

The same growing pains that CoH had in its flexible playstyle options will happen in CoT with it's greater flexible playstyle options. Once that is over people will begin to experiment and learn more and that kind of stuff will not be as common.

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
Great update! This is what I

Great update! This is what I hoped a super hero game would have (more open customization for powers)....but I would like to make a suggestion to further enhance the system ....namely with an emphasis on origins and custom power selection AND weaknesses.

First off, in mainstream comic universes the origins of powers played a HUGE role in a character.

Magic, Science, Money, and so on....each one being weak to another naturally....

Then, within each origin set, there are trade-offs in terms of raw strength (such as superman being VERY powerful....but having extreme weakness to magic AND kryptonite.....where as someone like batman has a lower raw strength, but higher utility and few direct weaknesses).

What about incorporating this into the design for CoT?

Basically, upon character creation, allowing us to pick origins (first layer of build-in weaknesses and top power level...such as supernatural having a very high power ceiling, but direct weakness to magic) and within that having open reign on the powers a character can create (as well as giving the character additional levels of personal weaknesses they will encounter while playing ).

So selecting max super strength within a natural origin might give you a 5 out of 10 in terms of raw power in the world....but it comes with only minor negative debt (which you select from a range of negatives). Where as selecting max super strength of a supernatural / alien origin gives you a 10 out of 10 in terms of raw power.....but it comes with a HUGE negative debt (requiring you to pick something like extreme weakness to fire, ALA the martian manhunter).

Think along the lines of older RPGs, where you were able to select ANY special ability ....but each one came with a point value and you needed to select an equal number of negatives to account for it.

Then, also open up the game beyond the "classes" designed by the team.....with an open enough (and robust enough) power creation system (and an origin system / power level selection)....characters would naturally fall into "classes" by way of the combination of these limitations.

So...yea, you could make a character with top of the charts damage and very high invulnerability threshhold....but you would be forced to select equally powerful weaknesses that the game would throw back in your face (meaning your superman character would need to depend on others to outright save you from a mid boss that spawned with your kryptonite).

((Note, all of this "choose a positive" and "choose a negative to balance" could be applied directly to a power creation system.....giving players just a huge list of effects -like earlier elder scroll games- and visuals falling within the origins system.....and then players would be able to mix and match to create stuff that works for them)).

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

Yeah, no. The trinity was broken because it refers to each role only capable of being filled by a specialist. No characters in a trinity ever fill multiple roles, and if they do, it's normally suboptimal to have 2 jack of trades instead of the two specialists. The thing with CoH was that unlike most games, each class had TWO specializations. So technically, you could satisfy a trinity with two characters. Or hell, even one because the mobs were so comparably weak next to players... The only time one might even need to think about following the traditional trinity would be against giant monsters, and those could even be solo'd by the right character as well.
CoH functioned more on a pentagram because mez was so fleshed out and functional that it became it's own dynamic entity, and buffs/debuffs really can't be considered tanking, and buffed passive damage prevention is definitely different than active healing playstyle wise, psychologically, and socially. You had five or so points to cover in a normal group, and in the center the target goal was "survive the alpha strike" and then cleanup the mobs. You could complete this with just a tanker. If the tanker survived the alpha strike, he could probably endure the fight and deal with the mobs in due time. After all, most tanks had damage mitigation, enough damage to handle a group of minions, and most came kitted with self heals and higher base regeneration. You could summon pets into a group to absorb the alpha strike, then have the team burst everything down while the mobs were recharging. You could even hide around a corner and set 8 stacks of caltrops, and 8 stacks of rain of arrows if you really wanted. And that worked, because the alpha strike was handled through burst damage and using AI's interaction with damage patches to spread out the alpha strike long enough to wipe the enemies out.
So CoH didn't even need every point of it's pentagram covered. One could get away with three points. Pick any three, and it was a good team. Pick just two, and it could work, but you had to put in more effort. Somehow getting a team with only 1 role filled was almost impossible.

This right here. When I said it "broke the holy trinity", I didn't mean it broke "DPS vs. health pool races". Only that it broke *the trinity* -- the notion that tank/heal/DPS was the only way to play. And yes, naming it matters in this case, because if you abandon the DPS mechanic that drives things you'll have something entirely unlike CoX... but if you stick to the trinity, you'll have something that missed a big part of what made CoX not be Just Another Everquest.

On a separate but related note, one of the obvious things that made MMs so awesome for solo play is that you could inflict an alpha strike on the enemy, and several (most?) of the primaries could do it as an AoE because your minions followed the same basic logic as the mob AI: hit it fast and hard at the start of the fight. Bonus points if you could pull nasty tricks like opening the fight with summoning a pair of stun-pets into the middle of the group. :)

Mastermind Stealth: Leave No Witnesses


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

DeathSheepFromHell
DeathSheepFromHell's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 15:08
Brainbot wrote:

[ Post edited to remove the quoting of the first attempt, because the forums seem to do incredibly stupid things with nesting quotes, etc. ]
[ Addressed to Brainbot ]
You seem to think I was disagreeing with this somehow. I wasn't -- I was pointing out the things that made it work the way it did, and how they related to the classic trinity. In particular, what parts of the "equation" they affected, which matters a great deal from a design perspective.


Developer Emeritus
and multipurpose sheep

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

Great update! This is what I hoped a super hero game would have (more open customization for powers)....but I would like to make a suggestion to further enhance the system ....namely with an emphasis on origins and custom power selection AND weaknesses.
First off, in mainstream comic universes the origins of powers played a HUGE role in a character.
Magic, Science, Money, and so on....each one being weak to another naturally....
Then, within each origin set, there are trade-offs in terms of raw strength (such as superman being VERY powerful....but having extreme weakness to magic AND kryptonite.....where as someone like batman has a lower raw strength, but higher utility and few direct weaknesses).
What about incorporating this into the design for CoT?
Basically, upon character creation, allowing us to pick origins (first layer of build-in weaknesses and top power level...such as supernatural having a very high power ceiling, but direct weakness to magic) and within that having open reign on the powers a character can create (as well as giving the character additional levels of personal weaknesses they will encounter while playing ).
So selecting max super strength within a natural origin might give you a 5 out of 10 in terms of raw power in the world....but it comes with only minor negative debt (which you select from a range of negatives). Where as selecting max super strength of a supernatural / alien origin gives you a 10 out of 10 in terms of raw power.....but it comes with a HUGE negative debt (requiring you to pick something like extreme weakness to fire, ALA the martian manhunter).
Think along the lines of older RPGs, where you were able to select ANY special ability ....but each one came with a point value and you needed to select an equal number of negatives to account for it.
Then, also open up the game beyond the "classes" designed by the team.....with an open enough (and robust enough) power creation system (and an origin system / power level selection)....characters would naturally fall into "classes" by way of the combination of these limitations.
So...yea, you could make a character with top of the charts damage and very high invulnerability threshhold....but you would be forced to select equally powerful weaknesses that the game would throw back in your face (meaning your superman character would need to depend on others to outright save you from a mid boss that spawned with your kryptonite).
((Note, all of this "choose a positive" and "choose a negative to balance" could be applied directly to a power creation system.....giving players just a huge list of effects -like earlier elder scroll games- and visuals falling within the origins system.....and then players would be able to mix and match to create stuff that works for them)).

We aren't including an origins or strengths / weakness system for CoT.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 51 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

Mastermind Stealth: Leave No Witnesses

Bah! Mind Controller with a little stealth: "Everyone went crazy and arrested themselves!"

Be Well!
Fireheart

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

We aren't including an origins or strengths / weakness system for CoT.

How come? Creating one strong system of strengths and weaknesses to wrap into a power customization system is easier to handle than trying to tackle a large range of different classes and subclasses.

Open up the powers like costume customization (and even add some support for volunteers to create new power pieces)....and then focus the extra effort on balancing the strength / weakness system to keep any one meta from dominating.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 51 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Because that would force them

Because that would force them to go back to the beginning and re-do everything.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

Yeah, no. The trinity was broken because it refers to each role only capable of being filled by a specialist.

Your definition of the holy trinity is very narrow and forgets its origins. You stop at 'Tank, heal, and DPS' without looking at what those roles mean. For clarity, it's something to take the damage, something to do the damage and something to limit the damage. 'Something' to take the damage can mean a single Tank, a team of Defenders buffing each other into Gods, a MM's pets or just plainly a mishmash or characters taking on a manageable part of the mob. Same goes for doing the damage or reducing it. The Holy trinity refers to roles not a specific number of players. Limits in game mechanics and imagination has made only specialists feasible in those roles but as technology advances so do the paths to success. The core roles don't change in this kind of combat system just the option in how to fill them.

Stalker wrote:

CoH functioned more on a pentagram because mez was so fleshed out and functional that it became it's own dynamic entity, and buffs/debuffs really can't be considered tanking, and buffed passive damage prevention is definitely different than active healing playstyle wise, psychologically, and socially. You had five or so points to cover in a normal group, and in the center the target goal was "survive the alpha strike" and then cleanup the mobs.

Putting a hybid engine in a car doesn't make it an airplane. Changing how you fill a role doesn't change the role.

Stalker wrote:

CoH functioned more on a pentagram because mez was so fleshed out and functional that it became it's own dynamic entity, and buffs/debuffs really can't be considered tanking, and buffed passive damage prevention is definitely different than active healing playstyle wise, psychologically, and socially. You had five or so points to cover in a normal group, and in the center the target goal was "survive the alpha strike" and then cleanup the mobs.

A mez is a debuff. A debuff is damage reduction. I am not arguing how they play comparatively or how they feel emotionally, that's a matter of opinion which is not measured in right or wrong. But what they do is fill the reduction role.

AxerJ
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 19:10
Looking very good with the

Looking very good with the artistic design - I really appreciate how you designed the flying animation, nice, subtle, and awesome (just be sure to include an option to not "lead with our fist" while flying plz). Great looking powers so far, I really like how you guys are designing them! Subtle is good, and you guys are going that direction, it seems. No need for too many extra particle effects around the character. Also, not sure if it's been said, but the arrows could use some speeding up. Fast arrows. You guys rock! Keep on making a great game!

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Because that would force them to go back to the beginning and re-do everything.
Be Well!
Fireheart

It sounds like their system is already planned to be open customization.... so it isn't scrapping that idea....instead it is just scrapping whatever pre-made skill trees and whatnot they have planned and dumping it all into one big open pool system (with level progression of powers revolving around the total "positives value" a power can have).

If you add cross-power weaknesses / strengths...then it also involves going into the scripts driving the power types and adding another condition to them (that is if you hard code that weakness into the type of power...like fire being weak to water, instead of letting it be handled by customization weaknesses).

Basically....yea, they would need to do some redesigning and open the lid on the power design ....but it would save them a lot of work in the long run (and make the entire thing a lot easier to add to....since you are just constantly adding to the total pool, instead of treating it on a class by class basis).

If you balance the positives vs weakness point system (based on damage, utility, type, and so on) then you have balanced the entire game. No classes, no skill trees, no huge glut of stuff to manage....just one clean "powers system".

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
We aren't including an origins or strengths / weakness system for CoT.
How come? Creating one strong system of strengths and weaknesses to wrap into a power customization system is easier to handle than trying to tackle a large range of different classes and subclasses.
Open up the powers like costume customization (and even add some support for volunteers to create new power pieces)....and then focus the extra effort on balancing the strength / weakness system to keep any one meta from dominating.

Origins are open to imperpretation of the player due to the wide range of customization of powers. Animations are one of the most difficult parts of design to get right. Customized animations like we're doing is even more complicated.

Stengths and weaknesses are rife with multiple problems, particularly in a system like ours where players will have access to a wide range of powers between primary, secondary, tertiaries, masteries, temporary, augmentations to powers and multiple builds which allow for easy mitigation of weaknesses. As well as customizing difficulty settings being able to minimize the impact of weaknesses.

A good strength and weakness system is something which requires a hands on apporach otherwise in the grand scale of a game such as this, it carries little meaning. Itt also can end up more burdensome over time to manage both the wide-range of player character access to powers, and when new strengths / weaknesses are added, having to re-evaluate the entire scope of the strength/weakness system and combination of powers.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:
DeathSheepFromHell wrote:

You seem to think I was disagreeing with this somehow.

Why can't people just say 'Oops, I made a mistake' instead of trying to re-write history.

You don't tell someone they are wrong then try and point out why they are wrong if you agree with them. Sorry Sheep, I'm not buying it.
Don't worry Devs's. I'm done with this conversation and won't be replying to any more nonsense about the 'Trinity'.

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

particularly in a system like ours where players will have access to a wide range of powers between primary, secondary, tertiaries, masteries, temporary, augmentations to powers and multiple builds which allow for easy mitigation of weaknesses. As well as customizing difficulty settings being able to minimize the impact of weaknesses.

I think it comes down to the ultimate goal of the design....is it to create a believable hero existing in a universe? To create a system that allows people to create their own ironman...or batman...or superman?

Or is it for a player to have a "toon" that can clear content?

I have a feeling it is steering towards the 2nd from what you have said (especially multiple "builds"??? IMO the only time characters should have "builds" is if their origins and power types align with that type of flexibility....such as an iron-man character who has an advantage in being able to more easily strip off their current power set for another one, their powers originating from being an inventor or wealth or magic and with a "detached object" advantage or something like that....).

The concepts you bring up, design wise, seem to be more "gamey" than designed towards a super hero sandbox. Where stuff becomes shallow....so the difference between an archer and a person shooting energy beams from their hands is just about the particle sprites and animations.....((when each COULD hold an immense range of advantages or weaknesses, depending on the choices of the player)

There is SOOOOO much that could be done with the themes of super heroes and power designs.....reskinning an attack is such low hanging fruit. I have a feeling the game play is going to center on bashing through waves of enemies in "missions" like CoX too :/ Again, there is SOOOOO much room to expand beyond that....and it only really requires a bit of design work to make happen.

Like today I was designing a cold effect for my game. Instead of just having "cold effect does X damage and slows movement" (which it does), I also broke it off to affect just a few different categories of entities. Plants are killed quickly under the cold....if a target is wet, it freezes instead of just slow + damage....robots are normally immune to cold, but if wet they will get the cold effect (not frozen)....and if you stand next to a fire you get a "warm" buff for 15 seconds letting you avoid the "cold" debuff of damage + slow (so you can pass through the cold, or remove the cold effect from you while inside the cold).

This kind of thing wasn't hard, in each area just required a few extra lines and if / then statements to account for the different conditions.....but gameplay wise these types of interactions add up fast (and allow for a MUCH wider scenario of challenges than just "kill bad guys").

And that isn't even dealing with the possibilities you could have with the range of super heroes powers and origins.

If you don't treat player characters like "toons", and instead just create a system that treats them as if they were actually heroes....then you would find a much wider possible game play experience rise out of CoT.

Planet10
Planet10's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 03/23/2016 - 17:21
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

I have a feeling the game play is going to center on bashing through waves of enemies in "missions" like CoX too :/ Again, there is SOOOOO much room to expand beyond that....and it only really requires a bit of design work to make happen.

Part of the problem is that MWM hasn't revealed the design concepts completely, nor have they explained why certain decisions have been made beyond "there have been multiple rounds of debate" type things.
It sounds like vulnerabilities are not being baked into character creation at the surface level, but that doesn't mean there won't be any sort of balancing. We don't know yet one way or the other.

The standard "it is a simple two lines of code" or "this can be designed in 15 minutes" doesn't do justice to the process. Designing one power or a theme is easy. Designing a system is complex. You have to pay attention to the rock-paper-scissors effect. You have to consider secondary effects like DoTs, Mez, Debuffs. Then consider the collection of get out jail free type powers. And you have to consider maintenance of the system once the game goes live and you start introducing new Specializations and powersets. What constitutes a tweak of vulnerabilities vs rebalancing the entire system.

There is nothing that pisses me off more in a video game than when a company completely rewrites a powerset for a class (or all powers for all sets). The character you played for X hours no longer exists because the company determines that they can't scale appropriately (or whatever playability reason) to compensate for power creep.

Since MWM is decoupling powers from aesthetics, it doesn't make much sense to base the vulnerabilities around what essentially boils down to an aesthetic. If I were to guess, there would be a scaled group of powers in each bucket that would by default be more effective against its counterpart in another bucket. It wouldn't be a straight 'X counters Y' type of scenario, but a situation where X1 would be +10% more effective against Y and X2 would be +15% more effective against Y, etc, etc. Something along the lines of Superman being semi-susceptible to magic vs having a N-invulnerability to kryptonite. Plus that system gives the player the opportunity to adapt or respond to a threat instead of getting Tootsie Popped.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
particularly in a system like ours where players will have access to a wide range of powers between primary, secondary, tertiaries, masteries, temporary, augmentations to powers and multiple builds which allow for easy mitigation of weaknesses. As well as customizing difficulty settings being able to minimize the impact of weaknesses.
I think it comes down to the ultimate goal of the design....is it to create a believable hero existing in a universe? To create a system that allows people to create their own ironman...or batman...or superman?
Or is it for a player to have a "toon" that can clear content?
I have a feeling it is steering towards the 2nd from what you have said (especially multiple "builds"??? IMO the only time characters should have "builds" is if their origins and power types align with that type of flexibility....such as an iron-man character who has an advantage in being able to more easily strip off their current power set for another one, their powers originating from being an inventor or wealth or magic and with a "detached object" advantage or something like that....).
The concepts you bring up, design wise, seem to be more "gamey" than designed towards a super hero sandbox. Where stuff becomes shallow....so the difference between an archer and a person shooting energy beams from their hands is just about the particle sprites and animations.....((when each COULD hold an immense range of advantages or weaknesses, depending on the choices of the player)
There is SOOOOO much that could be done with the themes of super heroes and power designs.....reskinning an attack is such low hanging fruit. I have a feeling the game play is going to center on bashing through waves of enemies in "missions" like CoX too :/ Again, there is SOOOOO much room to expand beyond that....and it only really requires a bit of design work to make happen.
Like today I was designing a cold effect for my game. Instead of just having "cold effect does X damage and slows movement" (which it does), I also broke it off to affect just a few different categories of entities. Plants are killed quickly under the cold....if a target is wet, it freezes instead of just slow + damage....robots are normally immune to cold, but if wet they will get the cold effect (not frozen)....and if you stand next to a fire you get a "warm" buff for 15 seconds letting you avoid the "cold" debuff of damage + slow (so you can pass through the cold, or remove the cold effect from you while inside the cold).
This kind of thing wasn't hard, in each area just required a few extra lines and if / then statements to account for the different conditions.....but gameplay wise these types of interactions add up fast (and allow for a MUCH wider scenario of challenges than just "kill bad guys").
And that isn't even dealing with the possibilities you could have with the range of super heroes powers and origins.
If you don't treat player characters like "toons", and instead just create a system that treats them as if they were actually heroes....then you would find a much wider possible game play experience rise out of CoT.

With characters having access to multiple builds, we're providing players with options. Instead of the game narative enforcing reasoning behond how and why the character's powers operate, the player gets to decide the whys. As a player, you can decide if your character can change somemof what they do or not.

I'm sorry you feel that players being able to customize the look of their powers is a low hanging fruit. The extent of customization we're aiming for has yet to be done in an mmo. Where you can choose different emanation points, animations, props, particle effects and colors. Your powers are as much a costume as your character appearance.

Each power set will have different mechanics which impart their own strengths and weaknesses, whether it is dealing with damage types differently, require different actions by the player, whether it is an attack set doing damage over time, or burst damage, to leveraging our Momentum mechanic, and so much more.

When players can customize aesthetics of powers and within the same set of powers you can have a power use fire particles or water, it is unwise fo use the aesthetics to drive game play mechanics.

Now, please understand, I love table top games, and good systems with plenty of nobs for players to tune can be really fun and engrossing, especially when handled by a good game master well. The nature of the game's design required some unconventional approaches to handle mechanics with opening up a huge range of character customization.

The scope of the game imparts a lot of agency to the player; deciding their character's origin, customizing the character's look, the look of their powers, how their decisions affect their character's alignment, the reputations their character has, seeking missions rather than always them being handed to the character. Being able to figure out if there is more than one way to enter the that building. Being rewarded for being careful or blasting your way through.

We do have want your chracter to have their own story, and for it to feel like your own. Yes, the design carries with it some contraints, practically all games have them. One major factor is that the game we make be familiar to those whk played City of Heroes, and while we honor that game and hold it as inspiration,'to make enough decisions to move forward in design that while familiar, plenty of it is new.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

I think it comes down to the ultimate goal of the design....is it to create a believable hero existing in a universe? To create a system that allows people to create their own ironman...or batman...or superman?
Or is it for a player to have a "toon" that can clear content?
...
The concepts you bring up, design wise, seem to be more "gamey" than designed towards a super hero sandbox. Where stuff becomes shallow....so the difference between an archer and a person shooting energy beams from their hands is just about the particle sprites and animations.....((when each COULD hold an immense range of advantages or weaknesses, depending on the choices of the player)
There is SOOOOO much that could be done with the themes of super heroes and power designs.....reskinning an attack is such low hanging fruit. I have a feeling the game play is going to center on bashing through waves of enemies in "missions" like CoX too :/ Again, there is SOOOOO much room to expand beyond that....and it only really requires a bit of design work to make happen.
...
And that isn't even dealing with the possibilities you could have with the range of super heroes powers and origins.
If you don't treat player characters like "toons", and instead just create a system that treats them as if they were actually heroes....then you would find a much wider possible game play experience rise out of CoT.

Ivory, we just finished discussing strengths and weaknesses over on this thread starting at post #455 and going to #517

I agree with you entirely and think that this was a missed opportunity. But from what we've been told, it is far too late in the development process to do anything about it now without delaying it even further.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 59 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Ivory, we just finished discussing strengths and weaknesses over on this thread starting at post #455 and going to #517
I agree with you entirely and think that this was a missed opportunity. But from what we've been told, it is far too late in the development process to do anything about it now without delaying it even further.

I actually agree with you and Ivory that having the things you guys are talking about here would be interesting/cool in a computer-based MMORPG. Unfortunately I also accept the explanations Tannim222 has offered for why those things will not (and even should not) be in CoT.

Bottomline as I've said before the only way you can currently make a system of "strengths and weaknesses" work well in a superhero game setting is to have the dynamic/adaptive control of a HUMAN GM to maintain the balance and FORCE weaknesses to be significant. If you give players the choice over their own strengths and weaknesses and ALSO give them the choice on how to play the game they will ALWAYS min/max their choices towards the extremes of making their strengths universally useful and their weaknesses pseudo-insignificant.

Perhaps in the future where games like this can have some serious AI baked in which will force players to confront their weaknesses then I'll be more inclined to be on "your side" of this suggestion.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 22 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Perhaps in the future where games like this can have some serious AI baked in which will force players to confront their weaknesses then I'll be more inclined to be on "your side" of this suggestion.

But then it'll be about gaming the AI i.e. playing the ref...

It doesn't end.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
The trinity came from

Brainbot, where are you getting your Holy trinity definition from? Pen and Paper? Everquest? The most common point of reference is WoW in the MMO industry. That's why we keep insisting you're using an inaccurate definition. When people talk about the Holy Trinity, they USUALLY mean WoW's. When other MMO's say they use a class trinity, they mean the 3 rigid class roles established in world of warcraft, because it's the giant success story that everyone tried to emulate and proliferate off of.

I understand there are more obscure definitions like a soft trinity, but saying "trinity" doesn't usually mean soft. It usually refers to the WoW staple of Holy Trinity. I'm trying to just wrap my head around what you're saying, so help me out here. This time, without car-plane analogies. Plain english please.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 8 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
For what it's worth, I wouldn

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be against putting in the nobs to allow people to switch builds, etc, as described, but then putting that behind some kind of IGC or real money pay wall. And I know some people think that's Pay to Win, I don't care. In a cooperative PvE game like this, I don't have to lose if someone else pays to win, because I can always team up WITH that person and do the PvE stuff I love doing. Or I can choose to only PvP against opponents I feel I'm evenly matched against, i.e. people who can't swap builds on me. You could make that a whole weight class of it's own. You could even, for all I care, make build swapping a thing that only the VIPs who are paying subs get to do. I'd be fine with all of that. I'd also be fine with not having the build swapping at all, quite frankly. I can make a toon for soloing and a toon for teaming if I have to, no problem. If people complain that their toon isn't as good at one thing as they are at the other, tell them "That's intentional." and ignore their pleas for more flexibility. That too is a valid approach.

People will always find a way to complain that they're not powerful enough or that they don't have enough options, and it's up to the devs to know where to draw the line and say "No, you can't have that."

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Im personally against the

Im personally against the ideas or origins giving weakness and strength that gives a whole nother layer of thinking to my character design out side the roleplaying aspects of it.

Have a nice day!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 59 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:
Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Perhaps in the future where games like this can have some serious AI baked in which will force players to confront their weaknesses then I'll be more inclined to be on "your side" of this suggestion.
But then it'll be about gaming the AI i.e. playing the ref...
It doesn't end.

If this hypothetical game AI would NOT let you avoid your weaknesses in this scenario then in this case it would be the end of it. Ironically a competent "artificial" ref would likely be less "gameable" than even a real human one. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

Brainbot, where are you getting your Holy trinity definition from? Pen and Paper? Everquest? The most common point of reference is WoW in the MMO industry. That's why we keep insisting you're using an inaccurate definition. When people talk about the Holy Trinity, they USUALLY mean WoW's. When other MMO's say they use a class trinity, they mean the 3 rigid class roles established in world of warcraft, because it's the giant success story that everyone tried to emulate and proliferate off of.
I understand there are more obscure definitions like a soft trinity, but saying "trinity" doesn't usually mean soft. It usually refers to the WoW staple of Holy Trinity. I'm trying to just wrap my head around what you're saying, so help me out here. This time, without car-plane analogies. Plain english please.

The concept of the "trinity" in mmo game design will find its roots in old school D&D as a particular plat style emerged. From there a MUD inspured by D&D further went into this early trinity game play. It wasn't until EQ came about that the trinity in an MMO as we understsnd it today, tank, healer, dps truly came anout.

Tanks managing aggro and soaking damage, healer keeping tanks standing, and dps wearing doen the target. Some of the early raids were multi-hour commitments with tank-healer rotations (so healers could restore mana,'cool downs ro expire).

WoW definitely nabbed the same concept,'but did somin typical Blizzard fashion, they refined and improved upon it.

CoH broke the mold in the sense that there wasn't a requirement of the rigid roles and perform similar functions. Controllers truly broke this mold with long-lasting mez effects (and some) putting out sufficient dps with the appropriate buffs / debuffs. Once a target is controlled,'you've managed to control the aggro, and reduce incoming damage making healing less of a requirement.

It is one of the reasons why you don't find a heavy mez-based class in many other games today. Balacing design around strong,long lasting mezzes can be extremely difficult.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
I liked CoH's take on it, was

I liked CoH's take on it, was relaxed and not stressing but if you wanted to do harder things you could tackle it many ways, like Fire/Kin heh.

Have a nice day!

SheckyS
SheckyS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 02/07/2014 - 13:48
I just want to say, I love

I just want to say, I love this idea of separating the look from the function. I argued for a similar system back in the beta for Champions Online but it was too late by then and so they never took up the idea. But this kind of system allows players to do all kinds of fun things and it means that right from the start, they can choose what powers look like and create the character THEY want. I hope that, along with the animation, you will allow players to choose things like colors and styles, too.

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Your definition of the holy trinity is very narrow and forgets its origins. You stop at 'Tank, heal, and DPS' without looking at what those roles mean.

I would submit the entire reason it's called "the holy trinity" is because it was a very narrow view. CoH changed that.

Volron
Volron's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 04/14/2017 - 20:07
Wait, so...what's the

Wait, so...what's the argument here?

Some of it I understand, like the synergy of power sets, AT's with one another, and possibly with the terrain (yes, I bring up terrain :P). I get that. But the other??? What's this about "toons" and "heroes"??? I don't get that.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

Brainbot, where are you getting your Holy trinity definition from?

Because this is a fair question I will explain in detail where I am coming from and the reason why I used the term 'Holy Trinity'

The Holy Trinity was originally used to describe the perfect party design for small D&D groups, Fighter, Mage, Cleric. More specifically it was used to show the limitations of OD&D's 'role design' combat system compared to BD&D and later AD&D's more expressive 'roles'.
For those that don't know, D&D started as an alternate fantasy rule set for a game called 'Chainmail' which in turn was one of the first codified set of rules for miniature battles.
In RPG origins the word 'Role' meant combat capabilities because that was all an RPG was then, a combat system. As players and creators began to change the interpretation of 'Role' from combat to playing a 'character' and the rules began including alternatives to combat, a rift began to form between players that continues to this day. Players who defined themselves by what they could do and those who defined themselves by who they are.
The combat system in modern dice RPGs, while more advanced, still follows the same principles that Gygax and Arneson were describing as a limitation with their 'Holy Trinity' comments.

We can skip over early computer RPGs such as MUDs and games like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy because limitations in computers of the time forced them to stick purely to a combat simulator concept. It should be noted that even in those early computer RPGs party's still followed the 'Holy Trinity' concept. We can also skip RPG's that didn't have a combat system like Zork or HGTTG and go to the MMORPG era when the 'Holy Trinity' was again revisited publicly.
As a bit of history, the term MMORPG was invented for Ultima Online to replace the dated term 'Graphical MUD' or 'GMUD'. It was an expansion of the MMOG term that many developers liked to throw around after NSFNET began to lose its grip on the internet and online gaming's popularity increased.

While UO was basically a free for all PVP game other early MMO's were not. Games like Nexus and The Realm had many features outside of PVP and even included very good Mez and Buff/debuff mechanics. It was about this time you started hearing 'Holy Trinity' again because people at large were mystified by computers and didn't realize programing limitations. People wanted to role play characters instead of just fill combat roles and when games didn't comply they did it on their own.

After that first iteration of MMOs a new breed came out. Games like Everquest, CoH, Lineage, Guild Wars, and of course WoW.
While many consider WoW as the place where the Holy Trinity of MMO's became popular that isn't true. It began with Everquest. That game had 4 overall Roles, Damage takers, damage dealers damage prevention/healer and utility. Utility was primarily an out of combat Role and so isn't a part of the trinity.
Those roles were clearly defined and tactics were set as a key to success and there was a variation in those roles. People started ignoring the variations to success and chose to highly specialize in each role. This is when players who did not want to specialize re-purposed the Holy Trinity term as a way to explain that the variation could succeed as well as the specialized with some small changes in the games combat system. Those arguments fell on deaf ears for the most part and later games focused on the simple tried and true mechanics that Everquest had for their combat.
Even CoH's initial interviews and press described character classes using a trinity formula.

WoW quickly became the king of MMOs and other MMOs scrambled to find a way to capture a portion of the shrinking player base available. Some games tried to copy WoW's formula and double down on specialized roles, some tried including new game mechanics like twitch blocking/dodging and some, like CoH, tried to offer flexible options in combat as the games progressed. The core of their combat systems did not change, just how focused it was on requiring specialization.

While this was going on WoW fans took the term 'Holy Trinity' and narrowly defined it, just as their game did. They treated this new definition as if it was always the case because many were uninformed of its origins. Due to the sheer number of fans WoW had, the Tank,heal,dps specialization definition became popular. WoW even invented a derogatory opposite to the 'Holy Trinity' with the term 'Tank/Mage'. This was in response to any who wanted more flexible options in combat. Now, as the trinity is viewed with more disdain again, even WoW is trying to offer alternatives to specialized roles with new classes, new content and by tweaking mechanics in the game.

Now despite what Tannim and others are trying to say, Mez's and buffs/debuffs were never a separate role, they have always been a part of the take damage and reduce damage roles. From the origins of those roles in D&D all the way up to modern MMORPGs holds, buffs and debuffs were another tool that could be used.

Currently the notion of tank,heal,dps as the definition of the 'Holy Trinity' is relaxing again because while developers want to present a new experience they understand that people have expectations when it comes to MMO combat so they speak of other ways to fill those roles but in doing so show that the original roles still exist.

There you have it. What was originally intended to show that the current highly specialized thinking would only be a temporary growing pain back in post 204 has been turned into a dissertation on the evolution of the term. All because people got hung up on terminology that ultimately doesn't matter.

You don't have to agree with me or adopt my understanding of the term but the least you could do is realize the context in which I was spoke and not get hung up on the one inconsequential aspect.

Nyxz
Nyxz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/09/2015 - 03:37
@Brainbot Excellent read.

@Brainbot

Excellent read.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot, while I underetand

Brainbot, while I underetand your point of view, the issue here is that the holy trinity became highly specialized - tank damage relied on a character taking damage and controlling aggro - which made healing absolutely necessary to keep the tank standing while dps did its job.

While controls do "tank" in a sense, they do so without the aboslute requirement of needing heals for much of the content of Ciryof. If you have suffiecent controls, all you need is suffcient dps and aren't relying on a tank to soak damage and keep standing via heals.

I remeber entire raids in EQ hinging upon tanks and healers rotating in and out in to keep the dps going. Someone was always actively taking damage while someone mese was always a tivemy heing.

There is a fundamental difference between how the game plays when this very specific play style isn't necessary.

When you reduce the trinity to its most basic concepts, I absolutely agree with your assessment. The huge difference is how specialized the game play became and how differently a gsme like coh played because while yes, it still used the basic concepts, it wasn't reliant on the specialized tactics.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Lost_in_Thought
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/09/2013 - 15:35
Ivory wrote:

In response to Volron:

Ivory wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
Or is it for a player to have a "toon" that can clear content?

If you don't treat player characters like "toons", and instead just create a system that treats them as if they were actually heroes....then you would find a much wider possible game play experience rise out of CoT.

In this context, I believe that the difference comes down to min / maxing a character versus creating the character that you would like to play. Certain power combinations may (and unfortunately will probably) be more powerful than others, though it may not fit with your characters concept. These balance issues will be something the Devs are going to have to monitor and balance through the life of the game. Overall, it is something that WILL happen as some people aim to optimize everything and ignore the story to get to end game content.

With that being said, I believe that the more "heroic / villainous" mechanics will be found in the alignment system, not the power / specialization system.

Now for something a bit more on topic, Tannimm222 noted in another thread that the list that was posted was incorrect, as it was pulled from an early list. Can we still expect five sets per classification? I understand the conflict with some of the naming, and as has been stated it will make more sense as we receive more information at a later date, however, I am concerned if fewer sets are planning on being released at launch.

Concerning Themes and Props -- Will it be possible to choose a different prop / theme for each attack?

As an example: A character chose Force ranged and chose laser beams as the theme. For single target attacks, this works out well, but it looks a bit odd for area attacks (unless the laser sweeps or ricochets), but this character would rather throw a laser grenade (let's assume from a gadgetry like theme). Is it possible to assign a different theme to a different attack within a single power set or are themes set for an entire power set?

Example Two: Using the same laser beam based character, would we be able to assign different colors to each attack, such as a light damage attack is green and emanates from their hands, versus a heavy damage attack that is red and emanates from their chest. Will we be able to assign colors and emanation points on a case by case basis such as this?

Finally, will it be possible to set a power set to "invisible"? In this case, I am referring to reducing the visual effect to zero, or at least to something very minimal?

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
I personally hate Min/Maxing,

I personally hate Min/Maxing, I want to live through the character in some experiences and games while other i want them to be organic and develop naturally with out trying to make sure ever second of their life is powered to the fullest. That's just stressing me out. X3

Have a nice day!

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 30 min 53 sec ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Tannim222 thank you for

Tannim222 thank you for constantly taking the time to come here and answer/respond to all of these questions. It really helps all us excited folks immensely.

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim222 thank you for constantly taking the time to come here and answer/respond to all of these questions. It really helps all us excited folks immensely.

The Dev's rock!

Have a nice day!

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Tannim222 thank you for constantly taking the time to come here and answer/respond to all of these questions. It really helps all us excited folks immensely.

The Dev's rock!

Have a nice day!

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Brainbot, while I underetand your point of view, the issue here is that the holy trinity became highly specialized - tank damage relied on a character taking damage and controlling aggro - which made healing absolutely necessary to keep the tank standing while dps did its job.

No, the issue here is applying a term in reverse to quantify an opinion.
The tank/healer/dps definition of the 'Holy Trinity' that people are arguing came from the unforgiving combat mechanics of WoW. Everquest did not use the term to define specific roles but to define the method to achieve success.
CoH did not break that definition because that definition came about after CoH.

You talk about your experiences in EQ raids but don't talk about how the players defined what classes were the asccepted choice for those raids. EQ offered many different ways to succeed, some harder than other I agree, but it was the players who took the path of least resistance. It was very common for raids to exclude or deride anything but a Fighter in the tank role even though other classes could succeed in different ways.

Tannim222 wrote:

When you reduce the trinity to its most basic concepts, I absolutely agree with your assessment. The huge difference is how specialized the game play became and how differently a gsme like coh played because while yes, it still used the basic concepts, it wasn't reliant on the specialized tactics.

I have said this very thing right from the beginning. Yet everyone is hung up on the current WoW definition because, showing my age here, young people are incapable of understanding that something can exist longer than 10 years.

While everyone is arguing nomenclature they keep missing the original point and context. Even you continue to make it about what it is called instead of accepting the point I was trying to make.

You can define the trinity in 'tank/heal/dps' if you want but it does not change the history of the term, the way I was using it or the point I made. To me all you are doing when you stick to that narrow and currently fading definition is missing what the term means at its core.

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:

Im personally against the ideas or origins giving weakness and strength that gives a whole nother layer of thinking to my character design out side the roleplaying aspects of it.

It would be deeper than just a surface level "pick one of 5 origins and each one has built in weakness".....instead, it would be a list of origin attributes to customize the characters origin (and their limitations). This origin would then be the key aspect which the power creator would be limited by.

For example....you are creating a new hero...

You can select from some pre-established "general origins" (which are just pre-sets with some advantages /disadvantages), or you can go full customize and begin honing in your origin and selecting from advantages / disadvantages (needing to balance them out).

Advantages like

Wealth
Inventor
Genetic Alteration
Extreme Body Training
Extreme Intelligence
Alien Technology
Alien Biology
Future Tech
Modern Tech
Weapon Master

Each one would influence what types of powers you could ultimately make (for example, a wealth modern tech user would have a lower maximum threshold than alien or future tech, along with a lower range of effects available (Batman)....but having super intelligence + being an inventor + wealth would open up the range a bit more (Ironmans different suits).

You could select as many of these as you like....but each one has a value assigned to it ...meaning you also need to pick a corresponding total negatives attribute.

Tires Easily
Vulnerability to (___)
Rage
Low Intelligence
Fear of (___)

Stuff like that.....some of which would limit the powers you could ultimately make (fear of fire means you can't use fire powers).

All of this would set the stage for the power creator. For example, perhaps wealth lets you make more powers more frequently (provided they have "Equipment" attribute attached to them, allowing you to switch these out.) Or make a lot of powers that will fit with you....but they gotta be small in terms of effect (Batmans toolbelt). Ideally these would be attached to actual pieces of equipment a player creates (costume items). So even a magic user could create a bracelet of super strength they use now and then (((And then during missions, since some things are tied to each character and their powers....you can easily remove them and hide their lasso in the room next to where you captured them. Or place a collar on them to keep them from using attached powers. Different events would impact heroes very differently. Put a collar on batman? He laughs.)).

Ultimately, the design goal with something like this is to create a system where you have Red Arrow hesitating to use his big nuke arrow ....because dang it those are expensive! And he only has 1 for this mission! Then later getting into a fight with Batman "Well, not all of us were born rich!"

Or Spiderman having a few invented powers with his web slinger....but he isn't making new suits of armor all the time, and mostly he uses his genetic alterations and extreme strength.

Or Zatana who has some pretty strong magic.....but is actually very frail and gets taken out easily.

Or Superman who is a POWERHOUSE.....well, unless he runs into magic or kryptonite (extreme weakness to match his extreme powers).

This design philosophy is more close to traditional RPGs where they weren't afraid of telling a player "yea, you are fucked". Where the game isn't designed so "everyone should be able to solo top tier missions!".

It is more this uneven field where everyone has their OWN strengths and weaknesses they bring to a team. Yea, maybe your batman character can't bring the pain like Superman....but he is amazing as sneaking in and bypassing security with his gadget powers (created with his wealth and higher intelligence).

In comics, heroes getting jealous of others is a normal part of the worlds. Where the "normals" sit back during an alien invasion pew pewing a couple things from the sky while the Hulk destroys the mothership....."what are we supposed to do? we don't have super powers!!!". But in the end they come in and save everyone because they also don't have an extreme vulnerability that just sent the Hulk into a rage against their own team.

So you gotta create a system that allows for this customization BEYOND just "I can spawn additional projectiles at different locations with a different particle effect -flex-"

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
All I see in that is

All I see in that is "limitations to creativity" it turns it into "I can't create my vision due to origin limitations and what they ALLOW me to take"

Also would limit props you are able to use cause it "makes sense".

Have a nice day!

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:

All I see in that is "limitations to creativity" it turns it into "I can't create my vision due to origin limitations and what they ALLOW me to take"
Also would limit props you are able to use cause it "makes sense".

The limited props would be depending on your character. Superman doesn't use props.

I don't understand how this limits creativity?? You would rather just everything do about the same with pre-established skill trees where you can edit a couple attributes of an attack (oo i made it an area attack! with 3 arrows! and RED!!)....instead of having a large open power system where all you deal with are the upper limitations? But within those you can make whatever fits your idea for your character? Be it an equipment, a natural power, whatever?

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

dell56v wrote:
All I see in that is "limitations to creativity" it turns it into "I can't create my vision due to origin limitations and what they ALLOW me to take"
Also would limit props you are able to use cause it "makes sense".
The limited props would be depending on your character. Superman doesn't use props.
I don't understand how this limits creativity?? You would rather just everything do about the same with pre-established skill trees where you can edit a couple attributes of an attack (oo i made it an area attack! with 3 arrows! and RED!!)....instead of having a large open power system where all you deal with are the upper limitations? But within those you can make whatever fits your idea for your character? Be it an equipment, a natural power, whatever?

First off Superman WOULD use a prop in CoT because a prop dictates how the power is animated even if it is a eye beam or punch. Secondly, I think the direction they took was the better long term one when it comes to supporting a larger crowd then some who want super specified micromanaged things.

Have a nice day!

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:

First off Superman WOULD use a prop in CoT because a prop dictates how the power is animated even if it is a eye beam or punch.

I don't understand? Why would you tie all the animations to props? You tie a prop animation to a prop (swinging a sword). You don't tie an eye beam to a prop (since there being goggles there or not is irrelevant).

If you want to get fancy, I guess you could dictate the origin location and select from a range of animations. So the player places (or picks from a list) the origin points available on a character AND the animation. Balance wise you just need to keep the animation lengths the same (have them in different classes, animation length being a slight advantage of disadvantage. 2 second animation up to 15 second....selecting a 15 second animation means you could fit more power into the attack as it would act as a large negative).

Eye beam? How about just a beam....and you pick the animation of holding up a staff and select the staff head for the point of origin for the beam to come from?

It is more work to set this up....but WAY less work once it is established. Right now it seems like they are trying to create a large body of different types of attacks (with some variation)....instead of creating a wider open system that would save them work in the long run.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Lost_in_Thought wrote:
Lost_in_Thought wrote:

Concerning Themes and Props -- Will it be possible to choose a different prop / theme for each attack?
As an example: A character chose Force ranged and chose laser beams as the theme. For single target attacks, this works out well, but it looks a bit odd for area attacks (unless the laser sweeps or ricochets), but this character would rather throw a laser grenade (let's assume from a gadgetry like theme). Is it possible to assign a different theme to a different attack within a single power set or are themes set for an entire power set?
Example Two: Using the same laser beam based character, would we be able to assign different colors to each attack, such as a light damage attack is green and emanates from their hands, versus a heavy damage attack that is red and emanates from their chest. Will we be able to assign colors and emanation points on a case by case basis such as this?
Finally, will it be possible to set a power set to "invisible"? In this case, I am referring to reducing the visual effect to zero, or at least to something very minimal?

Yes, it is possible to have multiple props, but there will be limits (*specifically 2 due to limits contraints of character data) in the number of props, possibly animations based on the type of power, and the combinations selected.

There won't be a zero fx setting in the power creator itself, though some with minimal settings and of course opaqueness of color selection to a degree, depending on the base fx.

This may have differences in pvp.

There may be settings on the client-side menu settings to limit fx.

*edited for the sake of clarity*


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
We're on the same page now at

We're on the same page now at least. The contemporary meaning is definitely a softer guideline as you are saying. I will yield that. However, the evolution of a term has nothing to do with the ignorance of youth. It a very unfair statement to claim so. It's ordinary linguistics that changes a word's meaning. Nothing more. As you've said though, this isn't worth 'discussing' any further.

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 36 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

In fact, I would like to see accuracy affected by movement as well.
One of the things that has bugged me since I played my first MMORPG is that a ranged attacker is just as accurate running and shooting at a running target as he is standing still shooting at a stationary target. That has never made sense to me.
Rather, I would propose the following:ranged attacks lose accuracy when the attacker is moving.ranged attacks are more accurate against stationary targets and less accurate against moving targetsmelee attacks should be more accurate against moving targets, which I hope will be just one of the factors why opponents would remain engaged with tanks instead of running past the tanks to get at the ranged and support units.None of this has to involve player's twitch skills, because accuracy is a number-crunching characteristic of the character, not the player. Notice I said moving, not actively dodging attacks. But it does make a sort of tactical judgment whether to stand still and make oneself easier to hit from ranged attackers and harder to hit by melee opponents, or move to be harder to hit by ranged attacks but easier to hit by melee opponents. And ranged characters will want to stand still to deliver their attacks to be more accurate, but will have to make a risk decision if someone approaches within melee range. Do I kite or not? I like this kind of deeper decision-making.
And, of course, all these factors can be modified and mitigated through masteries, augments and refinements.

I don't agree with this at all, especially as a possible function of the game's design or system. Moving around while directly involved in combat can be a personal play-style choice, and it certainly was a personal choice in CoX because one could just as simply stand in one spot and hammer attack powers over and over and over ad nauseum. Even after movement suppression was included in the game, I would still bounce around in CoX (as much as one could), be it on my blapper or my 'troller or my brute or whatever. I shouldn't be penalized by the game for my choice of play-style.

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Either your idea alludes me

Either your idea alludes me in meaning or it is what I understand it to be. I feel there is a ground of understanding not being met :\

Have a nice day!

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Stalker wrote:
Stalker wrote:

We're on the same page now at least. The contemporary meaning is definitely a softer guideline as you are saying. I will yield that. However, the evolution of a term has nothing to do with the ignorance of youth. It a very unfair statement to claim so. It's ordinary linguistics that changes a word's meaning. Nothing more. As you've said though, this isn't worth 'discussing' any further.

At this point I would have liked someone, anyone, to admit they had a knee jerk response and took things out of context but I will take what I can get.
Like for example, my knee jerk response is to explain how ignorance of youth (as you put it even though that wasn't really what I was saying) contributes to changes in language, in depth. But in doing so I would be missing your point about natural linguistic evolution.

Stalker
Stalker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 05/21/2014 - 20:28
Fair enough. Hug time?

Fair enough. Hug time?

Stalkers don't die: They simply... Disappear.

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

In fact, I would like to see accuracy affected by movement as well.
One of the things that has bugged me since I played my first MMORPG is that a ranged attacker is just as accurate running and shooting at a running target as he is standing still shooting at a stationary target. That has never made sense to me.
Rather, I would propose...

I don't agree with this at all, especially as a possible function of the game's design or system. Moving around while directly involved in combat can be a personal play-style choice, and it certainly was a personal choice in CoX because one could just as simply stand in one spot and hammer attack powers over and over and over ad nauseum. Even after movement suppression was included in the game, I would still bounce around in CoX (as much as one could), be it on my blapper or my 'troller or my brute or whatever. I shouldn't be penalized by the game for my choice of play-style.

I've read a lot of illogical arguments in these forums but this one takes the cake. But maybe you're not being illogical, maybe I just did a poor job of explaining it.

Let me try again.

You state that moving about during combat is a personal playstyle and shouldn't be affected by the game's design or system. Let me pose a couple of very simple and basic examples of existing game design and systems that by their nature affect character movement:

You are a tank. Your job in this instance is to keep the attention of the big boss so that the big boss does not hurt your more squishy teammates. The boss has some very large cone-shaped AoE attacks. Most players would jump into the boss's face and turn him so that his cone shaped attacks aren't pointed at your teammates and then try to keep the boss stationary so your melee-oriented teammates don't have to chase it around all over the battlefield. (you can substitute a mass of lower level opponents instead of a boss if you so choose, which you would want to keep gathered in a tight bunch for all the same reasons) Now, tell me is this an example of a game system or playstyle that you are opposed to? and if you were one of those melee teammates and your tanker has the boss stationary, would you run around if you didn't have to just because that's your playstyle? ...and if you would, how could you justify to your teammates why you chose to run around instead of attack?

Let me pose another example for you:
So let's suppose you are playing a Ranger Hunter (a Blaster in CoH) and you have a bunch of melee types chasing you, so you try to kite them.
In CoH, you were rooted when you fired off a ranged attack. You didn't have a choice. But in CoT, we are going to be able to fire off ranged attacks while moving. What I would propose is to introduce a choice. Not a penalty, a choice. The choice I am adding is the tradeoff between standing still to fire off a more accurate attack, and thereby risk a melee attack, or to keep running and fire off less accurate attacks. And there's even a third choce now. You could choose not to kite at all and take the double bonus of a stable firing stance at a stationary target. I sure hope we are faced with a mixed assortment of enemies such that each of those three choices could be the most favored at different times.

Now let me pose a more advanced example that only exists after we allow movement to play a role in accuracy.

Let's say you are a melee type like the brute you mentioned and you are streetsweeping solo. You are faced with mob of three opponents. One is a melee type, one is a ranged damage dealer and one is a mezzer/healer. Different people will choose different targets, but I think the smarter players will try to go after the mezzer/healer first. But if you run past the melee opponent to get to to the support unit, you will be more vulnerable to a hit from the melee opponent because you are moving. But guess what? The ranged damage dealer and the mezzer will have a harder time hitting you because you are moving. That was a choice you made in an instant as your brain performed the battle calculus necessary. So you run up to the mezzer/healer and start attacking it. The AI of the opponent chose not to run from you and the melee opponent catches up to you. Now that you are stationary in the mezzer's face, you are easier to hit by the ranged damage dealer, but the melee opponent is back to its default accuracy setting. Now let's make it even more interesting. let's say that you didn't turn the mezzer and instead left your back facing the melee opponent who just ran up behind you and starts wailing on your backside. Your dodge/block/evasion abilities are less effective against that melee opponent because you chose to turn your back to it. You could have run a step past the mezzer/healer so that when the melee opponent caught up to you, you would be facing both of them. That's another choice that makes the combat more interesting.

You read a statement that movement should affect accuracy and your mind goes right to thinking we are penalizing your playstyle. I say we are adding depth to everyone's playstyle and making it more interesting and less rote. Rote is the enemy of fun and interesting. I like battle calculus.

But remember also, that I'm not talking about twitch gameplay, I'm just talking about the factors that go into the "to hit" diceroll. ... and possibly the "to crit" dice roll as well...


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
That topic is cute and all

That topic is cute and all but I believe the dev's already have their plans. So no one should get too up n arms.

Have a nice day!

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 36 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
In fact, I would like to see accuracy affected by movement as well.
One of the things that has bugged me since I played my first MMORPG is that a ranged attacker is just as accurate running and shooting at a running target as he is standing still shooting at a stationary target. That has never made sense to me.
Rather, I would propose...
I don't agree with this at all, especially as a possible function of the game's design or system. Moving around while directly involved in combat can be a personal play-style choice, and it certainly was a personal choice in CoX because one could just as simply stand in one spot and hammer attack powers over and over and over ad nauseum. Even after movement suppression was included in the game, I would still bounce around in CoX (as much as one could), be it on my blapper or my 'troller or my brute or whatever. I shouldn't be penalized by the game for my choice of play-style.
I've read a lot of illogical arguments in these forums but this one takes the cake. But maybe you're not being illogical, maybe I just did a poor job of explaining it.
Let me try again.
You state that moving about during combat is a personal playstyle and shouldn't be affected by the game's design or system. Let me pose a couple of very simple and basic examples of existing game design and systems that by their nature affect character movement:
You are a tank. Your job in this instance is to keep the attention of the big boss so that the big boss does not hurt your more squishy teammates. The boss has some very large cone-shaped AoE attacks. Most players would jump into the boss's face and turn him so that his cone shaped attacks aren't pointed at your teammates and then try to keep the boss stationary so your melee-oriented teammates don't have to chase it around all over the battlefield. (you can substitute a mass of lower level opponents instead of a boss if you so choose, which you would want to keep gathered in a tight bunch for all the same reasons) Now, tell me is this an example of a game system or playstyle that you are opposed to? and if you were one of those melee teammates and your tanker has the boss stationary, would you run around if you didn't have to just because that's your playstyle? ...and if you would, how could you justify to your teammates why you chose to run around instead of attack?

As it is my playstyle and therefore choice to bounce around, I would chose to not to do so if involved with other players. Just because I like to play actively does not necessitate that it is the only way for me to play. Generally speaking, I wouldn't engage in gameplay that would intentionally affect another person's experience in a negative manner. Even if I inadvertently did so, and someone told me, I would make an effort to not engage in the behavior again, as long as it was reasonable. I don't want to get into debating what determines 'reasonable', but I do realize and understand that it varies from person to person and that we should make an effort to accommodate each other within those means.

Huckleberry wrote:

Let me pose another example for you:
So let's suppose you are playing a Ranger Hunter (a Blaster in CoH) and you have a bunch of melee types chasing you, so you try to kite them.
In CoH, you were rooted when you fired off a ranged attack. You didn't have a choice.

This isn't entirely true. A player would generally be rooted in animation, but PvPers found out that you could essentially 'jump-cancel' animations and you'd be able to stay mostly agile with Combat Jumping. The reason I point this out is because I specifically mentioned in my previous post about staying mobile even after travel suppression was implemented.

Huckleberry wrote:

But in CoT, we are going to be able to fire off ranged attacks while moving. What I would propose is to introduce a choice. Not a penalty, a choice. The choice I am adding is the tradeoff between standing still to fire off a more accurate attack, and thereby risk a melee attack, or to keep running and fire off less accurate attacks. And there's even a third choce now. You could choose not to kite at all and take the double bonus of a stable firing stance at a stationary target. I sure hope we are faced with a mixed assortment of enemies such that each of those three choices could be the most favored at different times.

Call it what you will, it's still a penalty. Currently as it stands, people don't have negative values if they move and attack simultaneously. With your suggestion, there would be one simply based on the fact that they're moving and attacking. They are being penalized for their movement. What if they're playing a speedster? It's now not just a matter of choice of playstyle but also concept being penalized.

Huckleberry wrote:

Now let me pose a more advanced example that only exists after we allow movement to play a role in accuracy.
Let's say you are a melee type like the brute you mentioned and you are streetsweeping solo. You are faced with mob of three opponents. One is a melee type, one is a ranged damage dealer and one is a mezzer/healer. Different people will choose different targets, but I think the smarter players will try to go after the mezzer/healer first. But if you run past the melee opponent to get to to the support unit, you will be more vulnerable to a hit from the melee opponent because you are moving. But guess what? The ranged damage dealer and the mezzer will have a harder time hitting you because you are moving. That was a choice you made in an instant as your brain performed the battle calculus necessary. So you run up to the mezzer/healer and start attacking it. The AI of the opponent chose not to run from you and the melee opponent catches up to you. Now that you are stationary in the mezzer's face, you are easier to hit by the ranged damage dealer, but the melee opponent is back to its default accuracy setting. Now let's make it even more interesting. let's say that you didn't turn the mezzer and instead left your back facing the melee opponent who just ran up behind you and starts wailing on your backside. Your dodge/block/evasion abilities are less effective against that melee opponent because you chose to turn your back to it. You could have run a step past the mezzer/healer so that when the melee opponent caught up to you, you would be facing both of them. That's another choice that makes the combat more interesting.

This combat scenario seems unnecessarily complicated based on your enjoyment of battle calculus. See below about 'interesting'.

Huckleberry wrote:

You read a statement that movement should affect accuracy and your mind goes right to thinking we are penalizing your playstyle. I say we are adding depth to everyone's playstyle and making it more interesting and less rote. Rote is the enemy of fun and interesting. I like battle calculus.

Again, I can't disagree more with this. 'Fun' and 'interesting' are personally determined, and your version of 'fun' isn't my version of 'fun'. And you are penalizing my playstyle with this system suggestion, even if you refer to it as 'depth' or 'choices'. You'd actually be stifling people, people such as myself. And here's why:
People would generally adopt a playstyle that would best suit their chances for survival or increase success with minimal effort, or in this case, not moving while attacking, because otherwise would introduce a negative value into their combat calculations and potentially miss more. People tend to gravitate towards the things that give them the best results with the least amount of work because no one, for the most part, likes missing their target or feeling like their personal contribution to the team is less than desirable. There would be a strong chance, as it generates the best results in regards to just potentially hitting the target, that the same people would just not move at all. Because it is the "best" choice math-wise, which really doesn't make it a choice at all. It doesn't add "depth", it makes combat rigid and unengaging. They'd just likely stand there and facetank mob after mob. Now, I can't personally say that such team-play would be 'fun' or 'interesting' because it sounds boring as hell to me. Let's just stand around and smash our various powers. No thank you. But, as stated previously, the definition of 'fun' and 'interesting' varies and it clearly doesn't line up with your version.
That being said, I actually do like number crunching. Mids was amazing. I had very high performing characters, along with a lot of my constituents, but I didn't force people to play with my math or play my fun.

Huckleberry wrote:

But remember also, that I'm not talking about twitch gameplay, I'm just talking about the factors that go into the "to hit" diceroll. ... and possibly the "to crit" dice roll as well...

Understood.

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
Since damage types will be

Since damage types will be implemented in some form I imagine that provides an avenue for strengths/weaknesses based on power choices. Some defences and some attacks will be more/less potent on particular villains, as it was before. Provides variety but also is mostly invisible so can be roleplayed around, if needs be.

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

desviper
desviper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/10/2014 - 00:55
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Yes, it is possible to have multiple props, but there will be limits (*specifically 2 due to limits contraints of character data) in the number of props, possibly animations based on the type of power, and the combinations selected. >

Am I reading this as "you can have a maximum of 2 props" or ""...2 props at a time"? because that'd be dissapointing :/ No 11 weapons swordsman. Or Even rifle, sword, and pistol.

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"

Please have Scaling decals!

Avatar by MikeNovember

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Cobalt Azurean wrote:
Cobalt Azurean wrote:

Again, I can't disagree more with this. 'Fun' and 'interesting' are personally determined, and your version of 'fun' isn't my version of 'fun'.

I guess it just comes down to this. Fair enough.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Phararri
Phararri's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 09/13/2015 - 20:08
DCU was looking into

DCU was looking into experimental serums, a grapple based power set. Makes me wonder if any of the successors are planning on grapples. I may have to snoop or ask around.

As a child, I thought my name was handsome, cause that is what everyone called me.

warcabbit
warcabbit's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/06/2012 - 17:39
Very humbly, the reason we

Very humbly, the reason we don't have some of the systems Ivory proposes is that we're simply not good enough at designing systems to get something that satisfied us, while maintaining the flexibility we wanted, with the follow-through in missions and content it would imply.

Maybe on our second or third game, maybe on the second expansion for CoT, we will be. But right now, we just couldn't come up with one that satisified us.
And if it didn't satisfy us, it wouldn't satisfy you.
So we had to put it aside. It wasn't an easy choice - a lot of people wanted something like it. But when we started counting out the implications, we just couldn't say that it was something that we could be sure would work, but we _could_ be sure it would affect the entire game if we put it in.

We hope to do better, but sometimes you have to say you can't do justice to an idea.

Project Lead

Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
warcabbit wrote:
warcabbit wrote:

So we had to put it aside. It wasn't an easy choice - a lot of people wanted something like it. But when we started counting out the implications, we just couldn't say that it was something that we could be sure would work, but we _could_ be sure it would affect the entire game if we put it in.
We hope to do better, but sometimes you have to say you can't do justice to an idea.

You just need a strong game designer to lay out how it works. The stuff I'm talking about isn't overly complicated (and some of it are things you are already doing, just applied in a slightly different way with less flexibility....same work being done).

The thing about this type of design is it SAVES the dev team work.

And not just in terms of power sets for the player...but this type of design philosophy can be carried into the full game world too (taking a HUGE load off of the dev team). For an MMO and super hero game where customization and player interaction is a key draw, you should be aiming at making legos (again, not just in costumes and power design, but also how missions and enemies are created).

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 4 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

For an MMO and super hero game where customization and player interaction is a key draw, you should be aiming at making legos (again, not just in costumes and power design, but also how missions and enemies are created).

^_^
I'm not sure if you've dived deep enough into the archives here to find out, but from early on the devs have been planning to use the same tools they're using to make the world and missions in the base-building and mission architect features of the game. It's not the full game world, but I expect enough players will have fun making new missions that the amount of playable content will keep going up.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
Avatar courtesy of Satellite Nine.
If you can't see an image I've posted, please let me know!

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Online
Last seen: 10 min 43 sec ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
As one of the people who

As one of the people who advocated for those system, up to the end of preproduction, I can assure you, this isn't a matter of not having experienced game designers, nor lack of having strong coding, systems design, and more.

It is matter of doing away with one of the core features of character customization flexibility. We woudl also have to go back and rework much of the combat mechanics.

The examples you cited, such as fire being weak to water, enforces appearances to drive game play. It affects everthing cromwhat thencharacter wears to how their powers look. A character being weak to magic means that magic particle effect animations carry weight in game play.

Just because you like the leather texture for spandex instead of the metallic can have inadvertant effects on new players' exeprience inadvertsntly.

Selling costumes, textures, fx, and animations can be viewed as paying to win becausemof the effects on game play they have.

All our powerr sets would beed to be redeisgned. The associated mechanics. The choice was to keep the aesthetics seperate from mexhanics was a concious one, not a matter of weak designers. But of ones with a slecific design scope and making scope work effectively. Now you can take amset like Burning Melee and make a martial artist with fiery fists, someone with fairy wand casting explosive runes, another person with ansuler soaker spewing boiling water, or someone with a pet shoukder dragon breathing scorching winds without the underlying mechanics for how the set functions being changed.

That being said, we have some hooks into the system where in the future we can experiment with letting players change some things related to partial mechanics and relfecting different effects.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Ivory
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/30/2017 - 21:33
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

The examples you cited, such as fire being weak to water, enforces appearances to drive game play. It affects everthing cromwhat thencharacter wears to how their powers look. A character being weak to magic means that magic particle effect animations carry weight in game play.

Automatic weaknesses are more of a suggestion than a hard rule....since in a customizable system you would be able to remove those weaknesses (everything ultimately revolving around the strengths and weaknesses values balancing after the customization of attributes).

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 51 sec ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
However, we've known for

However, we've known for Years that there would not be origins or dis/advantages in this game. Those systems cannot be applied now. Not unless you want to redesign the whole game. I'd like to actually play this thing in a year, please? The argument is moot.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 59 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Ivory wrote:
Ivory wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
The examples you cited, such as fire being weak to water, enforces appearances to drive game play. It affects everthing cromwhat thencharacter wears to how their powers look. A character being weak to magic means that magic particle effect animations carry weight in game play.
Automatic weaknesses are more of a suggestion than a hard rule....since in a customizable system you would be able to remove those weaknesses (everything ultimately revolving around the strengths and weaknesses values balancing after the customization of attributes).

If we had a game where there were hardwired "automatic" weaknesses baked into powersets and/or asethics (i.e. fire being weak to water) and then you ALSO allowed players to choose customizable strengths and weaknesses I assure you that 99.9% of the playerbase would ALWAYS choose the combinations that would erase/mitigate the hardwired weaknesses regardless of character concepts.

What's the point in cluttering up the game with bunch of extra "pluses and minuses" if nearly every player will just game the system (via min/maxing) to reduce the supposed weaknesses involved to insignificance?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 36 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Being, like Tannim, someone

Being, like Tannim, someone who would prefer to have at least somewhat of a weakness/strength system, I can honestly say at this point that I'm glad that MWM is choosing not to have it.

MWM has made choices. These choices were based on building a new game in the spirit of CoH but taking things further. They made choices based on the things that they and other players said they truly treasured about CoH. These choices created systems that didn't leave good leeway for a strength/weakness system, which, while desirable to some people, wasn't something anyone was talking about as a treasured component when it came to CoH.

It might be easy to say "but a strength/weakness system is EASY! You just bippity boppity boo and tada!", but we don't know a lot of detailed information about CoT and it's systems yet (with good reason), so if you were brought into the fold of MWM and saw what they have, I bet dollars to doughnuts you'd find, as they have said, it would take a significant re-design that would cost a lot more time--and I KNOW most of us here aren't even slightly willing to give up that kind of time for this particular system.

Aside from all this, it's a done deal. They've already stated repeatedly we're not going to have it. So all argument is academic at this point. Which is fine if you enjoy academic argument. And it seems very many on these boards do :P.

Now, if you'll remember, Paragon Studios said we'd NEVER get power color customization, and we'd never EVER get Ancillary Pool power customization--and we did get the first and would have gotten the second if the game had been left on for one more update. So, in the future? Who can say. One day some form of such a system could be retrofitted to the game--but I would advise against any breath-holding in the meantime.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

If we had a game where there were hardwired "automatic" weaknesses baked into powersets and/or asethics (i.e. fire being weak to water) and then you ALSO allowed players to choose customizable strengths and weaknesses I assure you that 99.9% of the playerbase would ALWAYS choose the combinations that would erase/mitigate the hardwired weaknesses regardless of character concepts.
What's the point in cluttering up the game with bunch of extra "pluses and minuses" if nearly every player will just game the system (via min/maxing) to reduce the supposed weaknesses involved to insignificance?

The point you are missing is not how well balanced the weaknesses are to the strengths, but whether the strengths and weaknesses are appropriate to the powerset. Even if there were absolutely no weaknesses at all and only strengths associated with the choice of character origins, that would still not invalidate the point we are trying to make. By arguing over whether or not players will or can mitigate their weaknesses you are avoiding the entire purpose of the conversation. Now, before you go all defensive on us and argue for the point of arguing as you are wont to do, please read this paragraph again.

Now I am going to humor you and entertain your argument anyway.

I don't find your argument to be valid. Here's why.

I submit to you that the entire idea of different classes inherently adds strengths and weaknesses that players will game to make their character not only play the way they want it to, but also to minimize the weaknesses and accentuate the strengths.

Here are some examples:

  • Blaster. Strength: high ranged damage. Weakness: squishy and susceptible to melee attacks
  • Tanker. Strength: High defense and hit points. Weakness poor attack damage and limited ranged abilities.
  • Scrapper. Strength: High close range damage output. Weakness: Low ranged damage output.
  • Controller. Strength: Ability to lock down the enemy. Weakness: Squishy. Low total damage output.

By your argument, we should not have different classes because different people will game the system to minimize their weaknesses and accentuate their strengths. So, are you proposing that we all play the same class?

And what about masteries, augments and refinements? Should we do away with all those, too, because surely they will be used to mitigate weaknesses of character builds and accentuate strengths.

These absurd suggestions are the natural extension of the justification you provided for not having a strengths/weaknesses system in place and are the reason why I find your argument to be invalid.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

However, we've known for Years that there would not be origins or dis/advantages in this game. Those systems cannot be applied now. Not unless you want to redesign the whole game. I'd like to actually play this thing in a year, please? The argument is moot.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Agreed!

Have a nice day!

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

However, we've known for Years that there would not be origins or dis/advantages in this game. Those systems cannot be applied now. Not unless you want to redesign the whole game. I'd like to actually play this thing in a year, please? The argument is moot.

Agreed!

Yeah, Tannim222 made that quite clear in the Valiance thread.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Huckleberry, you darn well

Huckleberry, you darn well what he means. And if you don't I would be surprised.

Have a nice day!

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:

Huckleberry, you darn well what he means. And if you don't I would be surprised.

Then perhaps you can tell me what you think Lothic means.

All MMOs, and all RPGs in general have been about min/maxing. To admit otherwise is to be negligently blind. The inherent challenges demand improvement in both tactics and character builds.

What I am saying is that just because something can be factored into min/maxing is not a valid reason to discount it.

I include here the assumption that the game developers would not insert something that would be too unbalanced. I also admit that balancing games is a full time job for any game management team, so inserting another layer of stats just makes balancing that much more complex. But complexity of game balance was never mentioned in Lothic's argument.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
But you accused him of making

But you accused him of making an arguement that all classes should not have weak points when he was only saying not to make a power cancel another. Outside of a tank's resistance or some reflex that is. Theres no need to add the whole fire and water type system becuase then every one will be crippled by what they want to pick in case theres people who just make counter characters for the sake of countering. And yeah mbobile isnt the best for me to try and type this out haha..

Have a nice day!

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 59 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

I submit to you that the entire idea of different classes inherently adds strengths and weaknesses that players will game to make their character not only play the way they want it to, but also to minimize the weaknesses and accentuate the strengths.

Again your decent into digging up hyperbolic strawmen will not help your case here. I have never suggested we should get rid of classes, masteries, augments, refinements or any other game mechanic that would serve to define our characters as individuals. Don't be silly with this.

Contrary to your claims I'm actually NOT against having a superhero game that has a workable system of strengths/weaknesses. Again I'll cite arguably one of the greatest RPGs ever created (Champions/Hero system) as a game that used the concept of gaining extra build points by accepting weaknesses as the entire foundational basis of building characters. The reason it has worked so perfectly as a game system for the last 35+ years is that players are motivated to not only maximize their strengths but they are also forced to suffer from their weaknesses. Why play a game where a player can create a Superman (who is supposedly vulnerable to Kryponite) who can manage to all but avoid ever encountering it in the game? All benefits - no risks.

The simple problem I have with your proposal is not with the strengths... it's the weaknesses. If you could tell me today that CoT has figured out a way to make absolutely sure there would be some way to ensure that players could not effectively weasel their way out of not having to suffer the effects of their chosen weaknesses at least part of the time then I'd be completely on board with what you're saying. Sadly I don't think you can give me that assurance.

I'm not going to go "all defensive" on you about this. I'm simply telling you that without some ACTUAL checks and balances no system of strengths/weaknesses in a game like this will work as you envision. The system works in the table-top Champs setting because you have a human GM that won't let players get away with "gaming" the game. Until a computerized MMORPG can do the same we are left with doing what the Devs of CoT are apparently planning to do - not waste their time with a concept that would never work as intended.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Dark Ether
Dark Ether's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:26
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

However, we've known for Years that there would not be origins or dis/advantages in this game. Those systems cannot be applied now. Not unless you want to redesign the whole game. I'd like to actually play this thing in a year, please? The argument is moot.
Be Well!
Fireheart

There are many threads that I've been close to posting something like this in reply. No game is going to have everything that everyone wants, and it would be foolish to even try.

There are a lot of things that CoH didn't have that we are going to get, and yet many who 'really want CoH alive again' are demanding things that *they* want without looking at an overall picture, including what's already developed and what the dev's vision for the game is and has been, as well as what delays that might lead to and how much rework may be necessary. Very few things are a matter of click and it's done and nothing else was affected by that.

Here's my take:

1. I want the game.
2. I want the game relatively soon.
3. I don't expect everything I want to be in it.
4. I realize things will be added as the game progresses.

(insert pithy comment here)

dell56v
dell56v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/30/2014 - 08:39
Yeees Dark and thats one

Yeees Dark and thats one thing i continue to appluad is the devs clear view of what they planned and not suffering from gamers who assume to know what is best, too many good game series are destroyed by this...

Have a nice day!

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 24 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
dell56v wrote:
dell56v wrote:

But you accused him of making an arguement that all classes should not have weak points when he was only saying not to make a power cancel another. Outside of a tank's resistance or some reflex that is. Theres no need to add the whole fire and water type system becuase then every one will be crippled by what they want to pick in case theres people who just make counter characters for the sake of countering. And yeah mbobile isnt the best for me to try and type this out haha..

I think making counter character just for the sake of countering is perfectly acceptable. Why would you imply it is not?

I'll be honest with you here. The biggest flaw I see in implementing strengths and weaknesses (which no one has brought up yet by the way) is in group content.
If there is a mission that is against a lot of fire-based characters, it will be difficult for a plant-based character to solo and if it is a raid, it would be hard for a plant-based character to get an invite. If this were the real world, that would be fine, because that character would deliberately avoid those enemies on purpose. But in a game, how would a game designer deal with this?
I suppose it could be the same as having some content blocked off behind reputation or alignment gates, but it means that it would be one more factor to consider in the game and mission designs. The developers would have to make sure that there is no concentrated enemy type or damage type so as to make it viable for all characters.

Furthermore I feel that strengths and weaknesses could be taken advantage of in the mission architect to design missions for farming experience. This was already being done in CoX and I expect it will be done in CoT as well, no matter how balanced the developers try to make things.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 59 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Lothic wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

All MMOs, and all RPGs in general have been about min/maxing. To admit otherwise is to be negligently blind. The inherent challenges demand improvement in both tactics and character builds.

The problem is not that this would represent another opportunity for min/maxing. Min/Maxing is not inherently bad. The problem is that this particular version of min/maxing would be so hardwired and obvious that literally EVERYONE would game the system the EXACT same way to end up with the same results. If you have almost everyone take strength/weakness combo #3 to counter some other strength/weakness effect number #5 then where is the customization diversity? If almost everyone is choosing the best cookie-cutter scenario why bother in the first place?

Your mistake here is not that you want a new mechanic to offer players some min/maxing options. The specific problem here is that there would never be enough options in this system to make it unique or statistically meaningful. Maybe if CoT offered like 10,000 different strength/weakness combos then there would be enough diversity in the system to make it possible to have players truly choose unique options. As it stands we'd likely only get a few dozen at most and from such a small pool of choices the only ones players will choose are the 2 or 3 that are the obvious min/max winners. Your goal to provide a new mechanic for player customization suddenly becomes "Did you choose A or B?" because those are the only 2 that 99% of the playerbase will default to.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Pages