I was just thinking, in CoH, more knock, if memory serves me correctly, turned knock up into knock back. I'd just like to see higher knock up :)

Tannim222 wrote:

desviper wrote:

I'm a big fan of knockback (less so with knockup). It's just so fun to send baddies flying!!

But I don't really understand the system here. So the knockback is scaled with the damage?

So if the damage is minimal, will they be knocked down, or simply unaffected?

Knock effects have their own value which determines the strength of the knock. If the value is reduced by defense vs control effects or resistance to the knock damage type, then the result if he knock is reduced. Every knock effect has a threshold determined by a formula based off the knock value. If the knock value is reduced beyond that threshold, the knock has no effect.

For example if a Knockback has an 8 meter displacement and it is reduced to where it would be less than a meter (again example only), the knockback has no effect.

Nice!

This should help with the angst over a blaster style AT knocking the targets away from the melee AT’s. Less chasing the targets. Great idea!

Don't suppose the knock back also generates some damage, does it? Something similar to the old HERO system vs the opponent toon only getting pushed back and falling down.

Atama wrote:

Redlynne wrote:

Catherine America wrote:

Coming out of hiding like my pseudo-homonymous namesake...minus the existential, galactic threat, of course.

Quick digression here, but I'm seriously in awe of how awesome your forum handle and avatar are for you.

I’m a big Captain America fan and apparently a bit of a Catherine America fan too.

*big grin*

ooglymoogly wrote:

Don't suppose the knock back also generates some damage, does it? Something similar to the old HERO system vs the opponent toon only getting pushed back and falling down.

Knock back does not generate additional damage.
We had considered it but ultimately decided that it may be best not to lest using our alternate activation to switch knock down effects to knock back end up causing issues where if you aren’t using knockback for the additional damage the perception would be you are doing it wrong.

Now if you happen to be on a roof top or ledge and knock back a target over the edge, they will take falling damage.

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

Tossing baddies around (especially off ledges) is half the fun of playing a superhero. I love it.

My favorite thing ever in SW:TOR, was playing my Jedi Guardian and using the Force to lift someone off the ground, then fling them backward over a railing to their death. I could do that all day.

Key question. How hard can you KB a baddie? As I recall from punting Hellions in AP we could KB them 160yds without extensive KB slotting. Will there be something similar in COT?

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

Halae wrote:

warcabbit wrote:

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

Well lookit that! Swanky.

But can it be plaid?

warcabbit wrote:

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

I'm sure I've seen something like that somewhere before...[youtube]Kghu4A4u7AY[/youtube]

StellarAgent wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Halae wrote:

warcabbit wrote:

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

Well lookit that! Swanky.

But can it be plaid?

It's my understanding that you have to be going ridiculously fast to get to plaid.

Some say you have to be going ludicrously fast in order to go to plaid.

warcabbit wrote:

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

Cabbit? Look at me... yes...

warcabbit wrote:

Cath? This is for you.
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Xzvcslt_8g/Wz0ICe2iqoI/AAAAAAAAKI4/Y4ELU6u5Uyw3K1W6z-E-W-QctwnTUN1pgCL0BGAYYCw/h441/2018-07-04.png[/img]

Yes pleeeeease!!!

Redlynne wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Now if you happen to be on a roof top or ledge and knock back a target over the edge, they will take falling damage.

Trick question ... if you get enough "loft" on a KnockUP ... will the target also take falling damage when they "splat" onto the ground at the end of the fall ...?

I picture it like: dude's on a ledge, you knock him up 20 ft and back 5 ft, off the ledge. So it's the 5ft back not the 20ft up making the falling damage.

McNum wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Redlynne wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Now if you happen to be on a roof top or ledge and knock back a target over the edge, they will take falling damage.

Trick question ... if you get enough "loft" on a KnockUP ... will the target also take falling damage when they "splat" onto the ground at the end of the fall ...?

Depends on the state of the target at the time of impact with be ground. If the Knock Up effect is checked as active - nope no falling damage.

Chances are if the attack has any damage component with the knock up from a higher level attacker on a much lower level target - the target will be defeated by the level lens magnifying the damage. It will magnify the Knock Up too, which will launch the poor sucker too, perhaps high enough to take falling damage but it won’t matter by that point.

I do so want to launch someone so high that he never comes back down. Preferably with a small twinkle in the sky.

I assume that there's no impact damage from a knock up if they hit a ceiling? I mean a 5 meter launch in a 3 meter room is 2 meters of ouch.

If they won't do fall damage from a high enough KU itself then I seriously doubt they will implement a new system for calculating those impacts.

TitansCity wrote:

I really like this news :D As the controller class was my favorite, i will probably enjoy the Operator :)
But i wonder :
1. are inspirations existing in the game so as to lower or erase the control effect like it was in CoH ?
2. Can a contro power untoggle a power from an ennemy (in PVP or PVE) ? (as it makes a power unusable, i think it untoglle a power. do you confirm that ?)

I did not see an answer to this. I am curious myself if this will be the case. This was one aspect I loved in CoH. Being able to pop an inspiration for a heal or becoming immune to control effects for a period of time as a Tank. Nothing is more maddening than being controlled for however long, not able to do one's job, and end up dying because control is...rampant. And seeing that control in this game can and will remove any and all defensive abilities will probably make me think twice about playing Tanks. Inspirations were a salvation from this in CoH and thus, should be present in CoT too.

Another issue is ending up with 'Flavor of the Month' classes. I've seen this in GW2, Blade & Soul, SWTOR, and Neverwinter. Where a certain class becomes the star class to play because it is the best at everything because of power creep from buffs while other classes are nerfed because 'metrics' say they exceed expectations by 1 - 2% percent of the benchmark set by the developers. Most notable FOTM class was the Marauder/Sentinel for their smash/sweep ability in the Rage/Concentration allowing them to do 50 to 60k damage to 5 players within 8' radius. That lasted for 3 years until SWTOR developers decided, after much rage, ranting, screaming, and unsubbing by players, they needed to 'tone' it down.

I fear that the control class can and will end up there if the developers are not careful. I've read through how this all works; however, that is theory and to some extent tested. However, when this hits live in CBT, theoretical rarely meets the application of said abilities eye to eye when it comes to players applying these powers. Nothing is more frustrating to see a majority of the enemy comprised of controllers or nothing but controllers on both sides. No one wants to participate in that scenario where Tanks and certain DPS classes are easily manipulated by control powers rendered impotent and eliminated because "will power" is overcome by a power that stun locks their abilities to defend themselves. I believe and it is true in SWTOR, that some high tiered defensive powers can be used while "controlled" that aids in their defense. This should be the same here. Taking away defenses, even for a few moments, through control abilities in PvP will see said individuals defeated during that time period without so much as a chance to act. That. Is. Not. Fun.

What I hope is that with control powers is that if said controller has control over one and/or decides to control another that the former controlled is able to break the control because they are no longer the focus of the controller and able to activate a defensive ability to make them immune to said control effects (or resistant to said effects) and act. This should be intrinsically true when it comes to PvP and to a lesser extent in PvE. However, I get the impression that the Controller is being moved from the support role to main line of the battle. This may not be what you're saying, but from my perspective, it sure looks like it.

Tannim222 wrote:

Players ever like it when nerds come through

I'm getting closer and closer to starting a thread that consists of only Tannim's best autocorrect quotes. :-)

The process is called Analytics. In an MMO you will find that there is more then one metric and many metrics interact with other metrics. If a dev changes a process to tighten one metric it can have an adverse affect on another. There are times when this becomes necessary but they should be few and far between.

Most of the time what you can adjust to meet the standard of the metrics is what characters are capable of and sometimes that does take into account skill floors and ceilings.

MMOs use charts and graphs in analytics all the time. Some big companies have their own game data analysts. Some have to do it as part of their job while also working on other areas of development.

Different character builds don't need to be equally good at everything. That's PvP thinking, and even in that context it doesn't need to be the case. In my opinion, having played Overwatch for like a month now, PvP equality like that, even in a game where you only have like 3 powers you can do, is still unachievable.

For one thing, no character in PvP exists in a vacuum. Your powers might be a hard counter to one opponent, but you might also get shut down by another. It's the rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock effect. And even in that context, Winston is strictly worse than D.Va, if you ask me. I could go into details about that if you want later.

In the context of a game that's primarily supposed to be an MMORPG, I personally say that the classes can have a range of overall powerfulness that goes from "not terribly powerful, maybe the weakest in the game, but still able to contribute on teams" to "the most powerful easy-mode build in the game" and people can still have fun. Some builds are more fun top play because they're less powerful. When you're soloing or whatever, you might want to do that for fun.

PvP and PvE are two very different beasts when it comes to class, level, powers, etc. I personally would tell the devs not to worry about PvP imbalances too much, because the perceived "Best" build is what all the competitive PvPers will play anyway, even if it's only 0.001% more effective on paper.

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Note ai bever usednthe word balance. It is often misunderstood. [b]When players typically talk balance they think in terms of equality or parity in certain respects. When devs use the term it is best understood as the bounds (upper and lower) of performance. If there ends up being ways that under or over perform, adjustments are necessary for the over all health of the geme[/b]. Not everyone gets it right either and I don’t presume we will be perfect. But we will do our best to make this game fun to play and keep it that way with an eye on the big picture of it the game that most players don’t often grasp.

Balance is the expectation of the player. When they do not perceive balance they see either overpowered or under-powered. Achieving parity regarding powers allows for player skill to come to the forefront. Using a baseline that has high and low specifications that allows powers to work within these perimeter of these specifications is the reason for 'constant and necessary adjustments.' If these upper and lower specifications are never changed, one will continue to make adjustments becoming a perpetual problem of chasing the rabbit. The goal should be to close these benchmarks where the distance between them is ever tightening so that those fluctuations and variations are reduced and eventually limited. While there will be spikes; however, the predictability of these can be identified and proactively addressed without adjustments that can change the scope of the class in question. This is how balance/quality is achieved, through constant monitoring and improvement of the process to close the gap where variations are clipped where they consistently fall within the performance benchmarks.

The way the current 'adjustments for buffing or nerfing' go in the MMO world it is either nerfed into the ground or over buffed. Taking into account of how players use these abilities should be part of the process and added into the paradigm for improving the process. I have always said that the reason we see how developers react to the metric information, they do not take into account of the player's skill. If one or two classes are 'over-performing' they base it on the powers and do not take into account the skill being used to employ said ability. SWTOR = Stun Wars. Why? They cannot adapt the game to the players after they've learned the mechanics and know how to use them to get the most out of a class. So what is their answer? Stuns and Mezzes. Slow down the player's toon. I've seen this in every MMO I've played except one. Care to guess which one?

You really need to apply a quality control system that is built around improving the process that takes into account all the factors currently utilized and including player skill which can be mapped using data that shows how a class functions looking at the high performance through the low performance. Then you can produce a median performance specification that should line up with the median specification of expected performance. Fine tuning will allow for minor adjustments where needed. This is done in any production/manufacturing environment where quality control is essential for producing a quality product on a consistent bases. Players are no different from buyers seeking quality products. Player's quality is balance. Parity should always be the goal not a buzzword. It is achievable with the properly designed process improvement controls. Believe it or not, a game design company really should have an Operations Manager/Team that can do that producing graphs, charts, and predictions of outcomes based on the refined data. Well qualified OM skilled individuals who are production/manufacturing oriented are qualified to work to improve the process no matter whom they work for.

Those who want balance, don't generally get the idea of an MMO or talk of balance but what they really mean is, "Make me more unbeatable compared to everyone else!"

While not CoT related, as we don't have enough to go on, so I'm just showing examples of balance arguments often seen.

"My melee non flier can't beat the ranged flyer, because I can't reach them!" Duh.

"My Fire Melee/Fire Armor who has no cold resist is getting beat by every Ice Melee/Fire Armor!" Duh again!

"Sure, my Fire Armor has max fire and cold resist, but that Regen heals all damage equally! That's unfair!"

"My Lethal Scrapper can't kill that max lethal resist tanker!"

"I can beat anyone! Why do you all run away from a one on one match? HAHA I'M THE BEST! I can't be beat!" "I'll go up against you!" "Okay! Wait a minute, you're an Elec/Thermal, I don't fight those."

"Haha! I'm the best there is at PvP! No one can beat me!" "Okay I'll take you on." "Hold on, let me alt, this character isn't as good against your build as my other one."

Want balanced one on one PvP? Then you need identical characters.

For team play, you should be able to get a more balanced set up, if people aren't all going the route of all DPS Melee versus a team of Tank/Healer/DPS :p

Then there's such things as better bonuses and such. Which, hey, it's an MMO, people should have the option to build for better stats and everyone is equal in that department to doing as such, there's just a lot who think "If I'm not willing to do such and such content, it's not fair." or "It takes me much longer to get that gear in this way easier path!"

"That Support character is buffing their team to be more awesome! I don't have a support character on my team to buff me! This is unfair! Where's my parity! My scrapper should be equal to that Support character in terms of team buffing, if that support character can survive and dish out the same damage I do!"

That's parity you speak of, and it makes no sense. It's people wanting their character to be the best with the easier time of it. "But I like playing support! I just hate being the weakest, because they target me for easy kills!"

Yup. Go play pong :) There's some equal pvp :)

Fireheart wrote:

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

I've seen this in every MMO I've played except one. Care to guess which one?

I guess you missed the Energy Melee nerf, where, to slow the characters down, they changed all of the animations. Amimation-time is one aspect of character performance that we players could not compensate for.
My fast-punching high-energy 'Boxer' became Mister ka Meh ha Meh ha...

Be Well!
Fireheart

I put away my Energy Melee at that point. I'd have rather had a damage nerf than that animation change they gave us and I LOVED LOVED LOVED MY PINK ENERGY FISTS!

Brand X wrote:

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Note ai bever usednthe word balance. It is often misunderstood. [b]When players typically talk balance they think in terms of equality or parity in certain respects. When devs use the term it is best understood as the bounds (upper and lower) of performance. If there ends up being ways that under or over perform, adjustments are necessary for the over all health of the geme[/b]. Not everyone gets it right either and I don’t presume we will be perfect. But we will do our best to make this game fun to play and keep it that way with an eye on the big picture of it the game that most players don’t often grasp.

Balance is the expectation of the player. When they do not perceive balance they see either overpowered or under-powered. Achieving parity regarding powers allows for player skill to come to the forefront. Using a baseline that has high and low specifications that allows powers to work within these perimeter of these specifications is the reason for 'constant and necessary adjustments.' If these upper and lower specifications are never changed, one will continue to make adjustments becoming a perpetual problem of chasing the rabbit. The goal should be to close these benchmarks where the distance between them is ever tightening so that those fluctuations and variations are reduced and eventually limited. While there will be spikes; however, the predictability of these can be identified and proactively addressed without adjustments that can change the scope of the class in question. This is how balance/quality is achieved, through constant monitoring and improvement of the process to close the gap where variations are clipped where they consistently fall within the performance benchmarks.

The way the current 'adjustments for buffing or nerfing' go in the MMO world it is either nerfed into the ground or over buffed. Taking into account of how players use these abilities should be part of the process and added into the paradigm for improving the process. I have always said that the reason we see how developers react to the metric information, they do not take into account of the player's skill. If one or two classes are 'over-performing' they base it on the powers and do not take into account the skill being used to employ said ability. SWTOR = Stun Wars. Why? They cannot adapt the game to the players after they've learned the mechanics and know how to use them to get the most out of a class. So what is their answer? Stuns and Mezzes. Slow down the player's toon. I've seen this in every MMO I've played except one. Care to guess which one?

You really need to apply a quality control system that is built around improving the process that takes into account all the factors currently utilized and including player skill which can be mapped using data that shows how a class functions looking at the high performance through the low performance. Then you can produce a median performance specification that should line up with the median specification of expected performance. Fine tuning will allow for minor adjustments where needed. This is done in any production/manufacturing environment where quality control is essential for producing a quality product on a consistent bases. Players are no different from buyers seeking quality products. Player's quality is balance. Parity should always be the goal not a buzzword. It is achievable with the properly designed process improvement controls. Believe it or not, a game design company really should have an Operations Manager/Team that can do that producing graphs, charts, and predictions of outcomes based on the refined data. Well qualified OM skilled individuals who are production/manufacturing oriented are qualified to work to improve the process no matter whom they work for.

Those who want balance, don't generally get the idea of an MMO or talk of balance but what they really mean is, "Make me more unbeatable compared to everyone else!"

While not CoT related, as we don't have enough to go on, so I'm just showing examples of balance arguments often seen.

"My melee non flier can't beat the ranged flyer, because I can't reach them!" Duh.

"My Fire Melee/Fire Armor who has no cold resist is getting beat by every Ice Melee/Fire Armor!" Duh again!

"Sure, my Fire Armor has max fire and cold resist, but that Regen heals all damage equally! That's unfair!"

"My Lethal Scrapper can't kill that max lethal resist tanker!"

"I can beat anyone! Why do you all run away from a one on one match? HAHA I'M THE BEST! I can't be beat!" "I'll go up against you!" "Okay! Wait a minute, you're an Elec/Thermal, I don't fight those."

"Haha! I'm the best there is at PvP! No one can beat me!" "Okay I'll take you on." "Hold on, let me alt, this character isn't as good against your build as my other one."

Want balanced one on one PvP? Then you need identical characters.

For team play, you should be able to get a more balanced set up, if people aren't all going the route of all DPS Melee versus a team of Tank/Healer/DPS :p

Then there's such things as better bonuses and such. Which, hey, it's an MMO, people should have the option to build for better stats and everyone is equal in that department to doing as such, there's just a lot who think "If I'm not willing to do such and such content, it's not fair." or "It takes me much longer to get that gear in this way easier path!"

"That Support character is buffing their team to be more awesome! I don't have a support character on my team to buff me! This is unfair! Where's my parity! My scrapper should be equal to that Support character in terms of team buffing, if that support character can survive and dish out the same damage I do!"

That's parity you speak of, and it makes no sense. It's people wanting their character to be the best with the easier time of it. "But I like playing support! I just hate being the weakest, because they target me for easy kills!"

Yup. Go play pong :) There's some equal pvp :)

How very dismissive of you. You obviously do not understand "process of continual improvement." Which, I might add, was the point of my post. Please, start reading on W. Edward Deming and his 14 points of quality control. Afterwards, delve deeper into process improvement and the methods to achieve it. It is what I instruct all my business students to do at the college I teach at. Then you might be so dismissive as to the context of what I wrote.

Brand X wrote:

Very likely dismissive. You didn't offer anything as to how to balance and wrote just like every other PvP Balance poster.

No, I did not. I offered; however, a tool to use and a methodology in how to achieve it. I'm not going to assume I know the extent or details of said abilities when I've not seen them, have access to them, or the data that they deliver. Using the prescribed method of process improvement through statistical controls through verifying the data, working in the known parameters (high/low and median performance values) the ability to properly adjust these abilities where they are consistently at the median value with very low spikes or peaks above or below the median performance value is achievable through the process of improvement. Process improvement is an every changing and on going method that works to refine the output of said product's quality (in this instance, said ability's performances). It isn't one time effort and let it run for months. It is one right after another until you have reached and maintained the goal of consistency of output.

Brand X wrote:

Your quality control will show the same thing. You can't make the team buffer equal in DPS to the DPSers, and then expect the DPSers to go "Well, what about us? Why do we do the same DPS, but don't buff the team to make them better?"

Wrong. The balance of powers takes into count the various classes and how the interact with and against one another. That must be part of the statistical controls and analysis. Again, through the process of improvement you can predict how each class will work within the team function. Each class has its place. The Triad (Tank, DPS, Support) are integral to one another, even more so when you involve PvP. How these abilities compliment and should enhance one another. And to achieve that is through statistical analysis as prescribed by process improvement controls. The analysis can show which class is under-performing in a team setting and you can adjust to improve that based on the statistical analysis.

Brand X wrote:

Maybe my way of continued improvement is teaching the players they can't have it equal and still be totally different. Tanks take less damage than others. Support toons will do less damage than those who's only job is to DPS.

You are assuming I'm talking about "All classes being equal." I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about balance of classes in respect to one another. Will a Tank do high alpha damage compared to a Glass Cannon class? No. Should one expect that? No. However, can said Glass Cannon sustain the type of damage a tank can? Absolutely not. Where these two meet, along with support is the sustained damage, controls, and damage handling. The balance is there between them in their performance. When one holds more of that, then there is an issue that must be addressed. I made mention in my original post concerning what SWTOR's Marauders/Sentinels did with their AoE attacks (Smash/Sweep). Each doing an accumulative amount damage between 50 to 60k in an instance applied to 5 toons in an 8m circle. That far exceeded the ability of healing support class to overcome. That meant instant death to those involved. Over half the team gone with the rest following shortly there after. It took the developers 3 years from launch to figure out this was a problem. Thus FOTM was born as all PvP players jumped on the ban wagon for these classes.

Now SWTOR developers "figured out" that Tank's shielding wasn't working against critical damage. Now they are fixing that. Really? Almost 7 years later? After launch...1.2 hit the ground and Sage & Sorcerers were nerfed into oblivion relegating them to healing and nothing else because their damage capabilities were so reduced they were almost unable to solo PvE content for leveling. Why? Because people cried, whined, and complained about them being OP. When the real issue was players did not know what their interrupt was for and did not know how to handling them. For the most part, they left them alone "because" they were light armor wearing DPS, how much damage could the do? They found out and cried. This is the track record of every MMO I've played from CoH through D&D.

All of this could and can be avoided with the proper process and statistical analysis controls for process improvement. I wish I could use draw to show you what I mean by "balance between them." Basically, have a triangle, each point: DPS, Tank, and support. Draw an oval around one another with each one meeting equally in the middle. When these are equal in scope and size, you have balance. When one is greater than the other, you have imbalance. Statistical analysis can show you this and through that analysis you can see what ability(s) are under-performing and over-performing based on the median performance value (the median benchmark/specification). This is irrefutable in terms of quantitative analysis methods. Qualitative analysis should never be part of this process because it is based on subjective data; whereas quantitative analysis is based on objective data.

Brand X wrote:

However, please enlighten me to how you would make it so the Support Characters can go "You know, in a 1 on 1 fight, I now feel like I do as much damage as a DPSer and just as tough as a tank, while being able to debuff the others to being way weaker than me, just like I kept asking for." and everyone else be "YAY! BALANCED!"

As a primary tank player, the toughest opponent is and should always be a tank. A good tank player that knows their defenses and abilities should be able to take on 2 to 3 DPSs/Support before succumbing to their damage. That's not over-powered or over-performing, that is the job. 1 DPS/Support player trying to defeat a Tank should find itself in a long drawn out fight that will end up with their defeat IF they are both equally skilled in play and there is balance between them. Again, this balance is that both perform optimally at the median performance value of their class. The tank's ability to deflect, absorb, or stop damage will allow them to defeat a single DPS/Support in a melee fight because the DPS/Support does not have the ability to shrug off the damage over a period of time. Why? Because a tank is built for that, standing toe to toe with mobs/veterans/elites/champions/bosses. [b][i]DPSer is not as tough as a tank even implying one is subjective reasoning[/i][/b]. In PvP in SWTOR my Jugg was able to handling 3 to 4 DPS pounding on me while I kept them busy for my teammates to kill them. In team play this is essential. A DPSer or Support cannot, in truth, fulfill the role of a tank. A tank has damage mitigation that far exceeds any DPS or Support class' ability. A tank with a pocket healer is nigh impossible to kill in PvP, most certainly in PvE (at least in SWTOR, Neverwinter, GW2, and DDO, and most certainly was the case in CoH.)

Brand X wrote:

You offered nothing except quality control. I wouldn't call that quality, unless you think making some players happy and then changing it every patch is good quality, so maybe the next patch, the DPS are like "YAY! Now I'm top DPS and tougher than a TANK!"

Your being dismissive here and you're basing your opinion on not reading in context of what I stated. I suggest you go back and read exactly what I stated earlier and what I just stated here. And...you're trolling.

Brand X wrote:

Mind you, I'm not even against these classes being able to build to such points with their augments and refinements and proper power choices, but I remember the CoH forums. I remember the CoH pvpers. Most of them whined and whined and whined. Hell, they were dumb enough they couldn't even figure out, "I can keep my one on one fight from being interrupted by going to arena instead of an open pvp zone, and just expect people coming into the zone to know what's happening."

I addressed the issue between PvP/PvE and gave examples of what happens. This is why I stated and will never change my opinion on, PvP and PvE should always be separated and never should the two cross in terms of abilities and powers. COH had enhancement sets that had 2 functions, one for PvE and one for PvP. If they were able to do that here, the developers should do the same. PvP abilities that work in PvP that will not work in PvE and vice versa. Then, you'll never have any issues with PvE turning on PvP players because abilities were nerfed causing severe problems in PvE because PvP players cried, whined, and moaned about certain classes being over-powered and the developers agreed, thus nerfing into the dirt said classes. This is a never ending cycle that no game, except GW2, did something to remedy. The failure to do so is inexcusable in my book.

Brand X wrote:

That's the player base mentality.

No, that is yours and yours alone. Your qualitative approach here is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It is an opinion based on your personal experiences. You cannot and do not speak for the whole.

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

How very dismissive of you. You obviously do not understand "process of continual improvement." Which, I might add, was the point of my post. Please, start reading on W. Edward Deming and his 14 points of quality control. Afterwards, delve deeper into process improvement and the methods to achieve it. It is what I instruct all my business students to do at the college I teach at. Then you might be so dismissive as to the context of what I wrote.

So what exactly where you trying to argue, if they have one? How they actually do it?

It seems to me like you are trying to tell MWM how they should do it, rather then just trying to find out how they will do this and then try to adress any faults you find.

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

The answer is not to "stay within the upper and lower performance levels, the answer and goal is to reach the median performance level consistently. Consistency of performance promotes quality, in this case, performance. It is an ongoing process of improvement.

While I agree with the quality improvement methodology and proper use of analytics to drive appropriate corrections. I do not think you are applying it to game theory or human systems behavior correctly.

No game like this should ever want or drive towards consistency of performance. Because players will be able to build their characters how they want, that is the antithesis of consistency. And in PvP, there are skills involved based upon knowing your enemy, and choosing the correct powers at the correct times that goes above and beyond the builds of the respective characters.

Accordingly, I think Tannim's definition of balance as keeping performance between upper and lower bands is far more appropriate because it takes into account the variations of the human element; which are not only far more important than in a manufacturing environment, but are far more desireable than in a manufactuing environment as well. Conversely, in a manufacturing environment (since you introduced Deming into this discussion), the impact of human variation is one of the things you actually try to drive out of the system.

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

However, I will say this, not including human variance and/or influence in the analysis is a monumental mistake. Because these abilities are used in accordance to developers' expectations or they are used in a manner they did not account for. It is this element that affords important information that the developers can now use in part of their analysis. I cannot tell you the number of times I've read developers stating on the forums when discussing nerfing abilities, "We didn't dream that players would be able to do this or that." Well, we're about to Close Beta Trials. Guess what, they're about to get information they'll need to see exactly what their work has brought to them. Human variance and performance output of their toons.

Not to get off topic here, but as I'm typing this, we just had a sizeable rumble (earthquake...4.0 or so) second time today. Hm...I wonder if we're about to get a big one. Nothing like rocking and rolling in your chair not designed to do that. LOL

I hope the big one never comes!! and these lesser rumbles release all the pressure they need to. Talk about putting things into perspective.

But back to the discussion. I'm not saying that human effort isn't required for quality assurance. I'm saying that your application is inappropriate to the medium we are discussing because of the following postulate:

"In a system in which humans are components, the performance of the system is determined by the motivations of the humans in the system" So no matter what processes are in place, the motivations of the humans determine the performance regardless.

Thus, in a QA environment, you are counting on your humans to want to increase quality, reduce deviation and improve consistency. So empowering and motivating them to do so results in better performance naturally.
However, in an MMO, your human components are competing against each other and against the world you have designed. Human skill, competitive drive, desire to roleplay and subject-matter zealotry will all be the driving factors towards the balance between characters, no matter what the develop[rs do to balance the builds. The only way to create consistency in such an environment is to make all the builds identical and remove player choice in how they are played. But that would be a failure of an MMO if it did that.

Ghost-Spectre wrote:

No, that is yours and yours alone. Your qualitative approach here is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It is an opinion based on your personal experiences. You cannot and do not speak for the whole.

See, again. It's not about the whole. It's about the majority. Tell me of one MMO with PvP in it, that the forums and player base in game didn't go on and on about how the PvP was balanced and fair.

I can't even find that in B&S and the game was made around PvP.

Hell, give me one MMO that just the majority of the players, not all, just the majority, went on and on about the balance and fairness of the MMOs PvP.

I've never played in one, but I haven't played all MMOs, so maybe it's out there. Maybe it exists. It's not GW2 though, as going to their forum shows, people complaining. So, what's this MMO that the player base is actually fair in their critique of PvP and don't blame the mechanics when they lose?

If you believe one can balance PvP, then there is no reason one can't balance PvE and PvP stats and keep it simple, instead of requiring people to have multiple builds.

Could someone explain again why MWM is spending resources on implementing PvP when there are loads of MOBAs out there with their cookie-cutter (i.e. "balanced") characters?

Ah, it's nice to dream of PvE crowd control untrammeled by the demands of the impossible-to-please PvPers...

CallmeBlue wrote:

Could someone explain again why MWM is spending resources on implementing PvP when there are loads of MOBAs out there with their cookie-cutter (i.e. "balanced") characters?

Ah, it's nice to dream of PvE crowd control untrammeled by the demands of the impossible-to-please PvPers...

If by resources you mean dev time, yeah we spend it on systems and mechanics design keeping PvP and pve in mind.

We have actually incorporated PvP metrics in our pve design including an npc pawn rank that simulates what a player character is capable of performing metrics-wise. Once that was out in place, it drove all other metrics. So the there isn’t any additional time “lost” in spending making separate systems or mechanics for pvp.

Eventually we will have to have some special stuff in place for pvp yes. We have some separate systems for rewards and such we can implement, ways to provide a fair combat environment (as fair as PvP can be anyway) for an open world pvp phase of the game.

The question of why we are doing this...well there are a couple of reasons.

We know from past experience that a decent segment of the player population will want pvp. Adding it later will only result in a bad pvp game.

Making it arena-only ends up a large mistake as well. The game isn’t designed around arena combat. As said, there are better games for that out there. And trying to take a game designed differently and trying to make it work in like an arena combat game makes for bad design.

PvP was promised in an early interview and to early supporters of the game. We try very, very hard to avoid walking back on a promise.

Taking the game world map, making a copy of it is a trivial task and something we have to do for many pve systems. Adding a code that flags player characters to attack one another is trivial. Which means providing s copy of the game world where pvp is enabled isn’t difficult and not a drain on our resources.

The other types of pvp games mentioned can’t do something that we can do, provide the massive-multiplayer part of MMO to pvp.

And there are MMO players who enjoy that type of game.

In the future we will need to devote more resources to pvp. This is true of any aspect of the game. We will have to trwcknand gauge metrics which are unique to pvp that we won’t have any analog for in pve. We will have to create methods of taking portions of those metrics and seeing where they do overlap with pve metrics.

We will have to gauge the player experiences and responses to both pve and PvP. And again develop ways to see how they over lap.

And then we have to rebalance when necessary. And yes, it Requires additional resources to do this.

As I said earlier, it is something we would end up having to do eventually anyway. We might as well at least set the foundation right for us to be successful at this in the future.

And in that future, considering the successful aspect, men’s we will have funding to actually pay devs for outing in their time and hiring more devs to put in that time.

While I have little interest in PvP and would, in a world that catered only to my preferences, prefer a PvE experience unburdened by PvP considerations, I think the following two reasons are the best justifications for MWM's approach to this:

Tannim222 wrote:

We know from past experience that a decent segment of the player population will want pvp. Adding it later will only result in a bad pvp game.

PvP was promised in an early interview and to early supporters of the game. We try very, very hard to avoid walking back on a promise.

I think that highlights two principles that make me trust MWM's philosophy on most topics.

CallmeBlue wrote:

Lothic wrote:

CallmeBlue wrote:

Ah, it's nice to dream of PvE crowd control untrammeled by the demands of the impossible-to-please PvPers...

As a suggestion you might want to actually [b]read[/b] (or re-read it if you just glanced over it) MWM's write-up for how control powers will work in CoT. It genuinely sounds like it'll be well balanced for both PvE and PvP and I say that as someone who enjoyed how control worked in CoH but realized its "binary" nature was a fundamental flaw in its design.

What makes you think I haven't done both, and thought about the problem to boot?

The framework *sounds* broad enough to cover a variety of gameplay experiences, but how it works in practice will depend entirely on the numbers that are used to power it. Like others in this thread, I am inclined to believe that the result will be mushy crowd control, but of course that's just a guess.

MWM could assign numbers to make crowd control just like in CoH, or they could make it useless like in most MMOs. They really can't do both at once. Intermediate solutions will end up with some variety of "mushiness;" if people's comments are any guide, this approach will please nobody.

Crowd control with teeth was one of standout features of CoH. It's a feature that isn't available anywhere else right now. Why sacrifice that to please a tiny fraction of the player base that can go to 100 different games for its outlet?

I am not overly concerned over the fear that controls will “feel mushy”.

In PvE against the most common enemies they will have virtually the same impactr. Just less total duration but still more than most games provide to crowd controls.

Against more difficult targets, which includes player characters, I believe crowd control effects will have a greater impact than the old game did. The secondary effects were largely mitigated by tougher tagets and you had to surpass the magnitude threshold to have any effect at all.

Now you have more impact while stacking control effects and still have that sense of satisfactikn when targets are fully controlled.

I am along time fab of masterminds and controllers but one
thing that bugs me is that auto powers can be turned off completely they should provide some sort of benefit even suppressed completely. I have 2 step- nephews, one nephew and one grand nephew who have physical problems and playing the game may be at least a little extra challenging.
Things like fire and forget defenses and masterminds help those of us with physical difficulties to keep up. Me I use 36" TV as a monitor as my keep up item with my glaucoma.

Super M. wrote:

All of this is awesome and all....

But I really need more details on Force Control, and the created objected interactions. =P

My Kingdom for an in-process skill list Tannim. ;)

All in due time. Actually finishing out a tag-line description of all launch powers is on my to do list.

Super M. wrote:

Im currently vibrating so hard, I assumed Im gaining super speed. That or I've had too many Starbucks frapps in a 24hr period....

[youtube]gXAB32j_86w[/youtube]

@Lothic - Yes. Yes that exactly.

Tannim222 wrote:

Super M. wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:

Super M. wrote:

All of this is awesome and all....

But I really need more details on Force Control, and the created objected interactions. =P

My Kingdom for an in-process skill list Tannim. ;)

All in due time. Actually finishing out a tag-line description of all launch powers is on my to do list.

Does that by chance include Tertiaries?

Right now the only launch Tertiaries are those that are made from the launch sets. I’m trying to get approval for 2 separate ones which have nothing to do with whole sets.

And please note that even though I’m getting tag-line descriptions of all launch powers, it may not be used for any updates to info - that is out of my hands. It is something I have coming up on my extensive to do list.

Thats understandable, but whoevers hands that call IS IN....Just give'em some big 'ole puppy dog eyes on behalf of the public, would ya? ;)

(Thanks again for your great communication and hard work)

.Foresight wrote:

I'm not sure why there is so much toxicity around the charm mechanic. It sounds awesome. I didn't read anything that suggested enemies with this ability would be common, so I'm not sure why people are acting like they'll be in every instance.
I wouldn't mind being charmed with no indicators, but even with just an indicator informing you that you're charmed should be enough for players to realize they should stick to their simple attacks until it wears off to avoid blowing your allies away. To further develop it it would actually be interesting "fully charmed" players just lost control of their actions and auto used abilities on random ally targets.

Yeah I never really got the idea that "PCs getting routinely Charmed by NPCs" was going to be a thing in CoT. If it happens roughly as much as it did in CoH (which was virtually once in a blue moon) then that'll be perfectly fine.

Honestly I played CoH for thousands of hours over 8.5 years and I think the total amount of time [b]any[/b] of my characters were [b]ever[/b] Charmed by NPCs could be counted by a handful of minutes tops.

Dark Cleric wrote:

Thinking about this, it really does make sense to give little to no sign when you become charmed until you see that you are attacking an ally. My reasoning for this is that the enemy that charmed you used an action to charm you; if you know right away and just don't do anything that negates the purpose of that 'attack', making the charm useless. Might as well be a hold effect instead. The purpose of the charm is to somehow help your 'new ally'. Now, obviously you can argue that the few seconds that you stop attacking are 'helping' your new ally, and I concede that point. I just think for the ability to have its intended results, (and since this won't work like WoW where you lose control of your character) you can't know when you are charmed until you see it through attacking an ally. Just my 2 cents.

This is a pretty spot on assessment. The control effect is supposed to affect the behavior of the player through learned response. Otherwise players would immediately simply avoid the charmed powers - essentially on a user level acting like a hold effect. There will be an indicator (icon on your screen, hit effect on your character) which indicate a charm effect, it is the determining which powers are affected which aren’t directly given to the player.

This is intentional to drive behavior. You’ll figure your lower tier powers may work but exactly which ones above them becomes risky. Perhaps it may help if you consider charm to be akin to “being confused”.

Lothic wrote:

{EDIT: Looks like Dark Cleric and Tannim basically beat me to this but at least the following post more or less mirrors their ideas about it]

TheInternetJanitor wrote:

Even though the end result of mind control is similar between games the way it is presented and communicated to players is tremendously important.

I understand your point but one could make the argument that if it's "instantly absolutely obvious" (via whatever means) that your character has been Charmed that you, as the player, could also instantly take steps to mitigate that effect. For instance knowing that activating your powers might have a decent chance of unintentionally hurting your teammates while Charmed you could simply stop pushing your power buttons until you are no longer Charmed. By "knowing" that you are Charmed you have effectively reduced its overall impact on you and your team by not doing the things that actually makes the Charming a "bad thing" to begin with.

So what I would suggest is perhaps based on the situation that some kinds of Charms might be of a type that the player would be made instantly aware of but that other kinds of Charms be left completely mysterious to the player.

For instance if the source of the Charm is like some kind of telepathic body/mind control then perhaps the victim can be made "aware" of it and allowed to react accordingly. This could simulate the character's attempt to "fight against" the mind control by doing their best to avoid hurting their teammates. On the other hand if the Charm is based on some kind of terror/fear effect (i.e. The Scarecrow) then I would actually argue that the player should NOT be made aware of the effect because they would [i]legitimately[/i] be completely Confused into thinking their friends are their foes. At that point there's really no "excuse" for why the player should stop wildly attacking their friends.

The issue here Lothic is those descriptions are aesthetic. You can have all manners of visual options to apply to your control powers. Two players can have the same charm power and have them look completely differently.

Once you begin to think of charm power are meant to “confuse the target” the behavioral play becomes more understandable.