I must apologize for the misleading title but I don't actually mean everyone and I don't actually mean immune. Allow me to explain:
One of the things about CoX was choice. Every AT had choices for Primaries, Secondaries. Sometimes you really appreciate your choices (like an Ice Tank up against any sort of Ice-based foe) and sometimes you curse the fates (like running Dark anything vs a Sapper). The comics are filled with characters that are strong or tough or powerful and many threads have been started about vulnerabilities. But how about those extra resistances to change things up a bit?
I feel that the game might be more fun (that's our goal right?) if each character had some small resistance to their original source of power. Fire-based characters get some Fire resistance and so on. Now I know that Tanks were like this anyway but I mean EVERYBODY. I see nothing wrong with even so-called squishies having some resistance to the source of their own power. It's in-genre and it makes sense.
On the flip side, everybody should be affected by something. Tanks and other melee-types generally had (with a couple of exceptions) a pile of KB resistance. Getting more was very simple too. However I feel that some foes, like GMs, should be able to slap even the sturdiest characters around a bit to keep things interesting. It's like watching the Justice League animated series. You KNOW the enemy is a bad-ass if he can send Superman backwards. Making it harder for the beloved Tank to do his traditional job in these rare instances will motivate the players to try new strategies and not always fall into the same old routines.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Thematically, it only makes sense. It never made sense that my Fire/Fire/Fire blaster could eat fireballs for breakfast, but not b able to shrug off attacks from hellions bosses.
//////************************************************************************\\\\\\
This summarizes my hopes and dreams for CoT. Check it out if you'd like.
Its been brought up a lot before. The idea of a fire using hero being able to resist fire or ice resisting ice.
While an argument for certain damage types to be resisted can be made it ignores the basic game makeup. The idea of attack sets and defensive sets or combination sets.
It also ignores the diverse nature of the animations for sets we will be getting but that is something else entirely.
Basically resistance is a function of your defensive set and the attacks you choose are not inherently related. If you want to throw fire and be resistant to fire take the sets that do so (or the gear that does it).
I would be open however to a single one time bonus choice at character creation that provides a small resistance to a damage type that was unenhancable, similar to the origin powers from CoH, most were forgotten after a few levels. This allows a player to choose a conceptual resistance to start the career off with until they flesh out their powers. Just saying I resist fire because I use fire is not interesting to me.
Even if you got an Inherent resistance based on the Specification you choose, its bound to be very little to really help out. :/
If it was anything more than 5% in resistance, it could throw the balances off a bit in some of the Classifications... Stalwarts for one.
err, I hope im using the right terminology.
Im assuming Classifications are Primaries, and Specifications are secondaries.
I'm also assuming when someone mentions Masteries, its like saying Classifications?!?!?!?
I'm also assuming that this will follow Hero Side builds, more that Villain side..
..since a Brutes Primary was Attack powers... and now in CoT, Brutes Primary will also be like a Tanks Primary.. (which is Defense).. and Attack powers for Secondaries. So, we dont really have Brutes...
...just Shades of Tanks that have Ubber Defense (but low Damage) to Lousy Defense (Ubber Damage).
So, in a way, you can build a Blapper that has some Resistance/Defense, but is primarily a Damage dealer.
So... you can Choose a Primary (defense for Stal-Warts, which has a Tankish build), and (attacks for StalWarts) powers from 2 Secondaries.. or something to that effect.
Just Allot of guessing... I dont work for MWM. :/
Hmmm... Stal-Warts, is that someone who works in the horse Stalls, and gets warts on his hands from shoveling huge piles of Dung. hey, i gotz'ta remember it somehow. ;)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/lkLqmm5.png[/img] ;D
As islandtrevor72 points out, this idea, or variations on it, have been brought up previously. As the OP states, such resistances are baked into the power set, if deemed appropriate. Beyond that stage, such a feature would either involve numbers too small to make any noticeable difference or become a min-maxing / FOTM playground with potentially unfortunate implications for game balance.
Someone "mopping up the ring with Superman" is usually a case of [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect]the Worf Effect[/url] rather than the result of interesting game play.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
I would just like to point out as an example that shooting a gun doesn't make one resistant to bullets.
Spurn all ye kindle.
True, but you might know allot more how the rapid fire works and how to avoid it better than others would. ;D
Ehh, that's not so much Resistant, but better Avoidance (i believe CO uses that term instead of Defense?). :/
"Incoming fire has the right of way."
I don't think there's anything else that anyone can be taught about bullets.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
I agree 100%.
Also consider that we are supposed to be getting access to a diverse array of Tertiary powers - maybe there could be some low-level resistances going featured in those selections to choose from if you so desire? (kind of like the "armors" from the various Ancilliary pools from CoH - although how these would interact with the bigger Defensive sets would likely require a bit of testing)
[img]http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/4625626/matrix-bullet-o.gif[/img][img]http://gifatron.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/fresh_prince_amazed.gif[/img] Sugoy ;)
Matrix clip is the perfect example of what folks are saying about resistances being part of defence sets. Neo wasn't able to dodge those bullets because he was shooting a gun.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Super Reflexes, keeping orthopaedists in business since 2004.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
+1 Character chosen damage resistances by player
+2 Character chosen damage type by player.
+3 PvE/PvP design that is based more on Paper/Rock/Scissors/Lizard/Spock and less on "You are paper. You resist paper. Get used to it"
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Funny, I was in a P&P game where this counterexample came up this week:
My hero has a problem, when he overheats he has to vent that heat by throwing fire around, if he doesn't, he explodes. Thus cold attacks actually help me and fire attacks harm me.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
And chiropractors.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
I think if there is a certain secondary set that focuses on adding advantages to your resistance it would be quite popular, as most players would want to be a tougher. Not sure how it would work in the overall maintaining of game balance, though I must admit, when my 50 Rad\Rad Defender was in the Terra Volta Reactor, I always made the case that I should have been a GOD in that room. My Debuffs should of been lethal, and my Buffs should of made my fellow heroes surge with the power of the Greek gods! Though I suppose it would of been more so true if the power set was named "Radiation Manipulation" Instead of just "Radiation" huh?
Love is like a Rhino, short-sighted and hasty; If it cannot find it a way, it will make a way.
-Flavor text on Crash of Rhinos.
For the most part, yes. That is one of those things that is, or should be, defined during world building. Often, but not always, generating is a different power from manipulation. Sometimes the lines are a little blurred. Should a bolt of lightning stun/neutralize/incapacitate Iron Man or provide the suit with 400% power? Especially in computer games, where everything is strictly defined by necessity, it's safe to assume characters will not receive any such power boosts unless it is scripted into the story.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Would of been pretty badass though if it had done that.
Love is like a Rhino, short-sighted and hasty; If it cannot find it a way, it will make a way.
-Flavor text on Crash of Rhinos.
Anything supposedly "player chosen" like this would invariably lead to people choosing ONLY the combos that minimized their disadvantages and/or maximized their advantages. In effect it'd become no choice at all and only something you've gimped yourself over if you were "dumb" enough not to make the "obvious" choice.
To be clear I wouldn't mind if these kinds of things were hardwired to specific powersets in CoT. I'd even accept restricted degrees of character concept choice that are firmly tied to specific powersets (i.e. I'd let a Fire Blaster choose between having a +5% DAM bonus versus Ice targets or a +5% RES bonus when attacked by Ice, not both). But as soon as you start allowing these kinds of things to become full freeform "player choices" that are not bound to specific powersets then the impulse to min/max will take over and render this whole concept either semi-pointless and/or unbalanced at the very least. Case in point if you were playing an Invulnerability-based Stalwart and had the option to "choose" to have extra Psi defense via something like this when would you ever NOT take it?
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
"I boost my resistance to ALL attacks by Fifty percent, and then level and do missions to get another 50 percent increase." Yeah, I suppose that would make things rather pointless. Some adaptability would be nice in order to make room for more customized characters but allowing players to choose between never being downed again or something else I'm not sure anyone would pick the "something else"
Love is like a Rhino, short-sighted and hasty; If it cannot find it a way, it will make a way.
-Flavor text on Crash of Rhinos.
People have been suggesting these kinds of "advantage/vulnerability" systems for games like CoT for a long time. I can even agree with the generic idea that having characters with unique strengths and weaknesses fits perfectly within the superhero comic book genre.
But sadly I strongly suspect if that kind of thing were ever applied to a "MMO game" in a freeform manner (in other words letting players directly choose any kind of bonus or weakness they wanted) the ONLY outcome of that would be the classic min/max response that 99.9% of MMO players live by.
Sure there might (might, mind you) be a handful of people willing to select significant weaknesses (and/or useless advantages) that actually gimp their characters for the sake of "character concept". But we all know the vast overwhelming majority of players would quickly cast concerns about character concept aside in favor of exploiting the "best" choices that would make their characters as powerful as possible.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I still do not see where telling a person their CHARACTER has to choose their damage type/resistance (not on a per power basis as most people are used to in CoH). I'm not being purposely obtuse, I truly am not seeing the validity of the argument.
PvE content should be rounded out around all the damage types. Sure one boss my be super badass punching guy.. but there's no reason for all of them to be.
PvP content would be rounded out by the nature of PvP.. when one thing becomes popular people will create an alt to compete (this is GOOD for the game).
If you see most of your enemies using rock then you should want to gravitate toward water. In a forced damage type system this just means certain damage types/frameworks will gain popularity and create disparity in the performance of other damage types. In a system where players can choose (a permanent character choice) their damage type the gravitation to/from Rock/Paper/Scissors/Lizard/Spock is going to encourage theme players to create what works for their character (which is what theme players want and what is happening anyhow with dedicated frameworks), and it encourages PvP players to create Alts (which often doesn't happen for the sake of Min/Maxing one character) which is added revenue.
What is the functional difference between choosing the Range DPS role electricity set and choosing the Ranged DPS role framework A and choosing electricity as your damage type for that framework?
I am willing to accept that this is not the game's plan and it's too late to change it, but the idea that it creates disparity instead of solving disparity is still a skeletal equation
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I made a thread some time ago about customizable powers, and how I felt they could be implemented to make a character truly feel customizable. The idea was essentially that as you leveled up, your character was awarded slots. (Much like Enhancement slots) And you could essentially tailor each of your powers as you saw fit. As each power was given a new added effect for each of the slotted extras, additional costs were added as well. Extra damage could merit a bigger endurance expenditure + A longer recharge time, to represent a bigger build up of force and a longer time being winded. More extreme abilities could merit much bigger costs, Reduced End recharge, reduced movement, reduced tohit, ect. This could in effect help to even out those who would seek to gain infinite resistance. Sure, you can slot to gain 100% resistance to a certain damage type with your Rock armor power, but the cost of turning that power on, and keeping it maintained would be extensive. Though this could also be abused in some respect, maybe say the max effect you can improve in a power is 50 percent? And the cost for keeping switched on powers (As many defensive powers were) active could be very high. 'My Super punch deals 150% damage! but it sucks away all my endurance and negates my recharge for x time." Plus you would have to level to near max level in order to slot enough additional effects to make your power as resistant as possible. Just a thought...
Love is like a Rhino, short-sighted and hasty; If it cannot find it a way, it will make a way.
-Flavor text on Crash of Rhinos.
The fundamental "problem" with allowing the amount of freeform freedom you're suggesting here is that it leads (via demonstratable evidence based on earlier failed attempts of MMOs trying to offer this) towards scenarios TOTALLY dominated by min/max conclusions. In your desire to allow for more (as you put it) rock, paper, scissor, lizard, spock diversity all you're actually going to get is unavoidable extreme FotM-ism. With your kind of character build freedom people will simply be "free" to maximize the tendency to find the system's absolute min/max limits.
Even though it may not be intuitive it turns out that game systems which better control/confine player choices to specifically balanced class structures (i.e. hardwired powersets) are actually more workable and more diverse in the long run. With "structured amounts" of build freedom instead of "limitless amounts" the game avoids spiraling down towards min/max dead-ends that mandate players adopt cookie-cutter builds in order to avoid total gimpness.
Bottomline having TOO much build freedom in games such as this is actually worse than the amount CoT (in particular) is going to be giving us. CoT is going to be structured the way it is because the MWM folks are aware of the mistakes of the past in these areas and are smart enough to avoid them.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Good post in general, but I think this is particularly well said.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Defining the system I describe as freeform (which generally refers to powers choice, not character choice) is a misnomer. I am simply not, in any way, advocating for a freeform system.
I'm advocating a system in which:
Choices that are cosmetic are regularly available.
Choices that are weighted have parity
Choices that are systemic are dev controlled
Damage type is a weighted choice. Every character will still have to choose a damage type with their framework. The difference is that the framework in the CoT system will only allow one or few damage types per framework.
Every player will (presumably) have some way to build resistance to particular damage types. The difference is that the resistance in the CoT system will only allow one or few damage resistances based on your framework.
Free Power selection across frameworks is not a weighted choice, as it is not something every build would do. Your framework SHOULD define HOW your powers work, but why it should also affect weighted choices in your mind has not yet been defined or explained. I am not owed any explanation but your definition as "unbalancing" is still flawed.
There is no possible way to make a FoTM based on the system described. Unless and/or until frameworks represent all damage types (which has already been announced that they likely will not) then someone WILL be getting the short end of the stick based on their framework choice.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
And likewise you have not effectively demonstrated why decoupling "damage type selection" from specific hardwired powersets represents some kind of discrete advantage for players. If there are enough powersets covering all of the possible "damage types" why would players benefit from that excessive amount of freedom to mix-n-match damage types independently from powersets?
Again the only thing I see that leading to is providing an additional vector for min-maxing because people will eventually determine the "best" damage type that goes with a particular powerset and you'd be "stupid" not to use that cookie-cutter FotM combination.
By providing another avenue with which to further explore the "best" min/maxing combinations you would actually allow for an entirely increased magnitue of FotM-ism. By allowing players to find the "best" damage type that works with the "best" powerset players will be driven ever further towards cookie-cutter "do it this way or you suck" scenarios.
There will ALWAYS be cases where certain powersets technically "outperform" other powersets. But they are balanced by and against uniquenesses in individual powersets, not by damage types. Allowing players to make powerset X be ice-based instead of fire-based doesn't effectively "solve" anything but it does open the doors for people to link the "right" damage types to the most appropriate powerset - the very definition of a min/max death spiral.
Your main claim seems to be that your scheme will allow people to "hop around" different damage types trying to out do each other (mostly in PvP presumably). I'm simply pointing out that once the min/maxer mindset finds the "best" varation there won't be any more "hopping around" - people will zero in on the MOST effective build combination and drive it into the ground until the Devs have to nerf it somehow.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I am not advocating any kind of "Mix and Match". Pick one. That's it.
Perhaps that's where the disconnect is coming from.
You will get 3 framework pools to choose from (announced)
A Primary framework based on role
A Secondary framework (with limited availability)
A Tertiary framework (To be announced)
With the first two frameworks weighted choices could be presented to provide for character diversification. You choose Primary Framework of MeleeDPS1 doing Vital (Chemical/Bio) damage and a Secondary Framework Controller2 doing Physical (Blunt/Piercing) damage.
MDPS1 is completely defined by devs
Controller2 is completely defined by devs
Tertiary Framework is completely defined by devs
You get your Poison using guy who uses vine whips to hold his enemies in place.
The argument that MDPS1 HAS to be physical damage or else it causes imbalance is flawed fundamentally. While I am willing to concede that this is in fact the system CoT chose to pursue.. that does not make it more balanced than the alternative. I still do not concede that damage/resistance type choice would cause ANY imbalance to combat.
PvPers DO tend to stick to one build that is king. Which is why NO build should be allowed to be king. And if a FoTM pops up then it should be correctable by the playerbase making different choices. PvPers don't spend $ on alts usually because only ONE damage type has fewer resistances than others. This is what damage choice would FIX. And MAYBE (*fingers crossed*) get hardcore PvPers to look at rolling alts if they absolutely need that win ratio (which indubitably cost $). And even if they switch to Rock instead of Spock that is no garuntee that they will win (as it is in MOST PvP scenarios).
If RDPS1 (the framework) is over/under-performing.. it should be brought into balance. But the same way Davie can use RDPS1 with Particle (electric/dimensional) damage and 3of3 slots to resist all physical (Blunt/Physical) damage Jamie can do the same but decide to use all Vital (Bio/Chem) damage with resistance spread out with 1 slot in 4 of the damage slots. The situation usefulness of either character is no longer based solely on what Framework they choose but is now based on how that particular character responds. RDPS1 already exists and performs as RDPS1.. changing the damage type is to provide situation based combat advantage and also to expand on roleplay concept.
- -
EDIT: We are talking about superheroes. Made popular by the comic book genre. It is almost impossible to really offer a super-hero game that is going to create each framework for the various kinds of superpowers present in the superhero genre. I do not expect a "magnetism" powerset, I do not expect a Sonic Screaming set, I do not expect a shoot pixie light from my fingers powerset, I do not expect PLENTY of things to exist in the game. Devs DO have an opportunity to provide for these builds' existence with a simple choice of damage type selection alongside framework selection.
The coolest characters are the ones that are original (how many times can you rebuild Jean Grey and Wolverine?). This, more than anything (even parity) is why I feel that dedication to damage/mitigation type selection would take the game from "maybe" to "absolutely" for so many of my friends whose builds don't fit the mold of what the frameworks will likely EVER offer. How much $ would be made in making a Armor set made of Psychic energy attacks when only 2 people use it.. How much for electric/light armor?... its a pittance.. but aggregate together .. ALL those displaced builds become playable when you separate damage choice from framework choice. Together that's a VAST number of characters (and players) who are now included that previously were not.
IMHO this addition (Yes, post launch *le sigh*) well worth the small investment if I do say so myself.. It's only one tier of choice of code that already exists. Programmers I've spoken to have explained the entire process to me. Damage types will already exist, resistance types will already exist and both will be calculated on the combat data server already. Nothing new to be done there. The character/account server would only need to pick what is a singular choice and break it into three parts. Part A is framework and Part B is damage type and Part C is damage resistance. They must all exist at the same level (character level NOT powers level). This weighted choice would affect combat but as long as every character gets the same weight (1 damage type per framework and 4 slots of resistance to put in Five-3 tiered, resistance type slots for instance).
They've already announced one weighted choice (Mastery Choices) so it's not as though the devs disagree with the math that says "weighted choices don't break balance". The same weighted choice could (and in my opinion should) be extended to damage type.
Crowd Control Enthusiast