Pyromantic
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
-
Quote:Edit: you have a legitimate complaint here. I haven't always been clear in the distinction I'm making, even to myself.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Here's the thing - you have no definition for what "challenge" means, and the way people at large tend to use it, it means exactly zilch. You can't say there is no increase in difficulty, but there is an increase in challenge, since challenge in context means the same thing, and outside of context means something that makes no sense in this context. If you're talking about "the price of admission," as it were, which is the TIME invested in planning a build and acquiring the resources to make it happen, then yes, that raises as you increase the difficulty. The mere fact that some people make that investment on their own as part of their status quo does not change the fact that, from the viewpoint of a non-optimising player, it IS extra time spent preparing for the earning of extra reward.
Perhaps it can be put best this way, in terms of what I am getting at.
Challenge exists independent of the player/character that is attempting the activity. A +1 minion is more challenging than a +0 minion. There may be essentially no change in the likelihood of defeat for a particular player/character, which I would call difficulty. In this sense, one does not necessarily have a clear relationship to the other. Heroes can usually take on certain enemies routinely with little or no chance of death; following this is a fairly narrow range of activity in which defeat is fairly common but not assured; beyond that you tend to faceplant every time.
My original point on this subject is that people usually talk about risk as difficulty in this sense, but it really doesn't mean anything as a balance point for reward. It amounts to some extra time spent offsetting debt, hospital trips and so on, but there isn't any risk because there's nothing else to lose. You can take those defeats and wrap them up into time, but that still leaves the challenge of the encounter as a significant factor in measuring rewards.
Question: when you speak of factors such as annoyance as part of the cost of an activity, I can see that as a consideration from a player perspective, but should it in any way affect reward mechanics from a design perspective? I mean, I really hope the devs aren't saying "yeah this activity gives good rewards, but it's annoying as hell so that's ok."
The point has been missed. Whether that's my fault for not being clear enough or yours for not reading carefully enough I really cannot say. Probably a bit of both.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Do you realise that this paragraph said exactly nothing? The solution you see is to re-examine the problem and find a solution. Well, I agree. And I don't mean to be a jerk here, please understand, but that's the problem I have with the entire tone of the thread. It states a lot of vague but true facts and does nothing with them.
I see three answers to farmed content:
1) Restrict the content.
2) Leave it alone.
3) Examine the reward structure.
In my experience most arguments devolve into the first two. I'm looking for the third. I don't take this as given by the player base in any sense; people have disagreed with it already in this thread.
If the devs have any solid data that certain activities are giving disproportionately high rewards, I'd be shocked if they aren't already figuring out how to address it. From the list I'd say (2) is not going to happen and (1) is highly undesireable.
That's the first point. However, among those who agree that (3) is the response we want there is a lot of disagreement over how to do it, so the second major point is that enemy group composition should be applied as a contextual variable in determining the rewards an enemy gives. To me, this is something different than where suggestions on changes to rewards usually go. Sure, the system considers context like relative level to characters and size of team, but none of that examines the composition of the group an enemy spawned in. As players are given more tools to customize those groups in terms of size of variety, the lack of this consideration is becoming increasingly problematic.
In a general sense, I was hoping forum readers would contribute their ideas on what factors should come into play for assigning rewards.
In terms of specific systems I'm still in a brainstorming phase. What I'm thinking about is a measurement of variation within the roster a group spawns from which is used to modify rewards given by defeating an enemy in the group. -
Quote:My understanding of your original post was that the cost to the game in allowing certain activities is a sense of player choice, and that players need to decide if they are going to engage in and/or allow the process to continue. Essentially, I take that to mean that players need to police their own activities in order to do what's good for the game. If I'm mistaken in that, can you please reframe so that I can understand?Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
You quoted me significantly out of context to the point I don't know what I was saying
Immediately, this is where we disagree. If a character is capable of soloing on heroic or on invincible with practically no "risk" (i.e. the impact of player defeat is negligible) should they receive the same rewards over time? My answer is no, since one has an additional barrier to entry. If two activities provide exactly the same reward but one is substantially easier then there is no tangible benefit to approaching more difficult activities. The next logical thing to ask is how much more rewarding over time these activities should be, and I believe it should be noticeable but not compelling enough to feel punitive on characters that must solo on lower settings.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
It all comes down to time, actually.
Note that this is already the case in the game, and if anything I believe the discrepancy is currently too high. Again though, this is inherently subjective.
I specifically stated rewards over time when looking at the grey vs. purple example.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
From your example, you seem to assume that smashing hordes of greys is as quick as smashing hordes of purples, and therefore it could be argued that they should provide the same reward per enemy. This is false, because purples are a lot SLOWER to kill than Greys, and so provide a much higher reward. Risk, for the most part, factors into reward to keep things that are TOO easy or TOO hard from becoming lucrative, because both are incredibly boring and inciting your playerbase to try them is bad business.
I do not believe difficulty should be defined in this manner. A character may see essentially no more risk against 3 +1 minions compared to 3 +0s, and so in a sense there is no difference in difficulty. In another sense however, there is a barrier to entry, an increased challenge that comes with the requirement to deal with +1s. This is intentionally a somewhat trivial example on purpose, since practically any mature character with reasonable effectiveness in soloing qualifies.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Yes, activity difficulty SHOULD be given some importance, but a lot of examinations of it fail to separate difficulty from time delays. A difficult activity is one which you try to do but often fail, resulting in either you having to start over, thus wasting time, or resulting in you able to proceed, but with a penalty, thus again wasting time on having to make up for this penalty.
Edit: consider this analogy. Is it more challenging to lift 40 pounds as opposed to 20 pounds? The answer is a pretty clear yes, since you need more strength to lift the higher weight. That doesn't mean there is any increased risk. For the most part a person is capable of lifting the weight or not.
I see this as a valid variable in considering reward. If a player has more assets (skill, enhancements, powers, whatever--more "strength") to apply they should be rewarded for it. However, that reward should be modest enough that players without that strength are not unduly punished.
I mentioned comm officers earlier. What you're talking about is creating a discrepancy between actual challenge to the players and the way the system measures the challenge. In this case, the discrepancy was m a s s i v e, considered an exploit of the grossest kind. That is not the same as rewarding activities that are genuinely more challenging, and points to an issue in the system.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Unlike simple time sinks, however, difficulty is a variable time sink which has both the potential to yield MUCH faster rewards if you're lucky or good, and much WORSE rewards if the universe hates you. It is theoretically possible to examine a perfect difficult activity which always takes exactly as long as a comparable easy activity and then, yes, under those theoretical circumstances I would agree that the difficult one should have the higher rewards. But in practice, every difficult activity ends up being slower to actually do, thus giving difficult activities is a serious gamble, because more often than not, it incites players to find ways to minimize the risk, thus making it easier and faster, yet still consummating the large reward.
What's more, increasing rewards based on potential danger is an even bigger pitfall. We've seen countless exploits of enemies who give greater rewards because they are potentially very dangerous, but practically very harmless with the right approach. This, in a nutshell, is what the old Architect Comm. Officer farms were - farms of an enemy designed with extra reward because it COULD be dangerous, but ends up being an experience snack cake because of how not dangerous it could be and how easy that is to achieve. There's a reason a lot of people cheer at the sight of Comm. Officers in random Rikti spawns.
The actual issue here is that the reward system for defeating enemies has always made certain contextual assumptions that no longer need to be true. Comm officers presented that extra bit of challenge when sprinkled into a typical Rikti spawn, but placed into an entirely different context they become a target that makes xp-seeking players giddy. The solution as I see it is to examine player activities that abuse the reward system to determine its failings, and introduce mechanics that consider context when looking at an enemy's experience value.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, or what particular statements I made led to it if so, because we completely agree that fun should not be a balancing factor in rewards. Hence my statement that "because it's more fun" is never a satisfactory answer to "why aren't I getting lots of stuff?". "Because this activity isn't intended to give you lots of stuff" is, but should be used sparingly.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
And you're never going to balance around what's fun and what isn't. This isn't even about personal preferences about what fun actually is, it's about how you're going about balancing these things to begin with. If your players approach the game from a "let's have fun" angle, then you can just view rewards on the basis of how much fun players will have with them and how best to stagger them. Ideally, that's how a rewards system SHOULD work. But players don't approach games that way. They don't think "I like doing this, what rewards I can get for it?" but rather "I want these rewards, what do I have to do to get them?" As such, fun doesn't really enter into it because fun isn't why people do the activities. They do them for the rewards. You have to, therefore, balance based on the value of rewards and the cost of earning them, which is what I said to begin with.
Granted, while some people will numb their minds in the most profitable activity possible, regardless of how dull, there is a certain extent to which most players will got make sure they are getting the best rewards they can while STILL having fun. In my experience, however, reward speed is a far, far more important metric in people's minds than fun. As long as it's not horribly, mind-numbingly, soul-suckingly boring, it's all the same anyway. After all, everyone's been playing the game for five years and we're all tired of everything, as common wisdom goes.
Ideally, activities should be designed as interesting as possible, so that people would WANT to play them, or at the very least not want to SKIP them, but the value of rewards they give should be balanced based based on the cost of doing the activity. All activities should, in the end, be equally worth doing, within reason. At the very least all activities even remotely intended.
When you say "all activities should, in the end, be equally worth doing, within reason," what qualifies for the "within reason" part? I disagree with the notion, as I believe challenge (and I'm speaking about genuine challenge, not a reward exploit) should come with rewards. Put another way, would you prefer a system that measures time in an actual sense? That is, if there were some way to check whether players were actively engaged (i.e. trying to accomplish the goal) in performing a reward-giving task, should they simply receive those rewards at set intervals of time regardless of their progress?
I'm genuinely curious, since my goal is to get a sense of what players think the rewards system should look like before making any attempt to restructure anything. -
Been busy with other things so I haven't had time to keep up with the thread until now. I have been pondering things since last time though, and there are a number of things I'd like to respond to, so please bear with me.
I rearranged some of these quotes so that the more related responses are together.
Quote:Please keep in mind that the main reason I started the thread was to describe general thoughts about the reward system. The most specific conclusion that I feel ready to reach at this point is that as content in the game becomes more varied and more customizable, the reward system needs additional detail in order to keep up. This is more an attempt to open discussion on what should be considered in the reward system. The following distinction is extremely important: I am looking at the reward system from a design point of view, not from a play point of view. Consideration of a player's (appropriate/clever/exploitive/mis-)use of the reward system is solely for the purpose of informing its design.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm afraid you made a lengthy and at times interesting analysis, but failed to draw any actual conclusions on it aside from what has already been proven as fact.
Clearly time is a consideration in the reward system when looking at merits. My points on this topic were:Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
What's more, "time vs. reward" is already a metric which is not just being considered, but practically applied to the actual game.
1) risk is a poor metric for looking at rewards; indeed, usually when people are talking about risk they're actually talking about time already. The "risk" is a simple consideration of how much time is going to be wasted from player defeats and so on.
2) time is useful, but not sufficient from a design perspective, since we should also be looking at challenge. If time was the only metric being considered then every activity would ideally provide the same reward over a unit of time, from a design perspective. That simply isn't the case. Consider the difference between smashing hordes of greys and hordes of purples; one is clearly easier than the other, and we want the second to provide greater rewards over time since difficulty is a barrier.
This was actually touched on later in the thread by Tonality's thoughts on figuring out what a team is capable of handling. Actually, in a very vague sense this has been applied to merit rewards as well, since a few merit activities receive a difficulty bonus beyond what the time would point to. I don't feel it has been sufficiently applied to rewards earned for enemy defeats, which is without question the most crucial element of the reward system in the game.
I'm not sure what to say here, except that if players are expected in any way to consider "what's best for the game" in their own activities we have a real problem.Quote:Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
...they still end up paying a steep cost at the end of the day. It's a player's individual choice.
There was a time I would have agreed with the 'army list' idea, but I have since changed my mind for two simple reasons:Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Rather than create some complicated formula to reward diversity in enemy composition, they should just apply an 'army list' style menu to MA. So any scenario you create will be mostly minions, with fewer lieutenants and only a sprinkling of bosses. This creates a more balanced reward environment without restricting player creativity in creating new enemy factions.
1) I don't think it's very practical. The current system practically requires custom groups that are not intended to contain a full assortment of enemies for use as unique bosses and so on. If we limit the primary (or mass-spawning) groups in this fashion, you still have to manage and restrict all the objectives placed. It's probably doable, but I think it's somewhat unwieldy, and I think it likely to have holes to be exploited.
2) More ideologically, why? I mentioned this before but the question needs to be restated: Is the issue with the content itself, or with the rewards associated with that content? There are certainly justifications for having all-boss, or all-fire-using, or all-whatever groups from the standpoint of creativity, and in many cases they aren't that far from what you can find in developer content. If the basic idea of the content is fine, then why try to restrict that instead of examining rewards?
Players have historically shown an extreme willingness to investigate and discuss data and systems that are not immediately available to them in game. Indeed, that's probably the biggest reason we have access to the amount of data we do now. Rewards are fundamental to any game of this nature, and I for one believe it is prudent--perhaps vital--that we actively participate in shaping the future of reward structures.Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
I don't see a ton of utility in player discussions of this topic, operating as we are entirely in the dark regarding the formulas the Devs operate with.
I'm not sure how I can be neglecting something if I specifically addressed it in my OP. Simply put, if the answer to "why is this activity worth less rewards than that other thing we could be doing?" is "because this is more fun!", will that ever be satisfactory? I would say absolutely not. What would be satisfactory is "this is more fun for me, at this time and it's not intended to provide rewards commensurate to that other thing." I believe I said before that if two activities show great disparity in the numerical rewards associated with them, there better be a good reason.Quote:Originally Posted by Smurch
You're neglecting (for lack of a better term) intangible rewards, which you kind of hit on right there yourself. Perhaps Immeasurable Rewards should be a better terms since, technically, all rewards in the game are intangible. But I digress.
When you said "a sense of accomplishment", that is, itself, a reward.
There's quite a number of these kinds of rewards. One of the examples you used before, Challenge Missions, aren't usually about the phat lewt or the XP or any other in-game reward.
Until the human element is added in, any theorycrafting is simply just numbers. Where the rubber meets the road is in the mind and imagination of the players actually in the game, and that's where theorycraft usually breaks, because it presumes that the "tangible" or fungible rewards are, in fact, the universal and singular goal of all players. Which is rarely the case. Most players have a variety of goals.
I feel confident saying there are currently (and to be fair, have always been) activities in the game that are grossly out of whack with other activities when it comes to the rewards they are intended to give. While the new sk system addresses some of the issues, it certainly does not address all of them.
I never stated it happens in any meaningful numbers. The "backlash" I'm referring to is merely to illustrate that not every player will follow this rule, and I've used myself as an example. In broad terms, I expect the player population gravitates towards high-reward activities with alarming frequency.Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
When?
I don't remember any previous wave of "exploits" that resulted in players staying away from increased rewards. The devs eventually patching it, yes. Players saying "oh heavens, I'm earning too much ______ for this!", no. Or at least not in meaningful numbers.
You or I may demur, but 'most people' will keep hammering anything that overrewards until the devs make them stop.
To connect to discussion above, examination of these activities is thus extremely useful in figuring out where the reward system tends to be lacking. The fact that eleventy-billion Katies were run for every Positron was a serious problem the devs wanted to address.
The player base as a whole would be foolish not to expect changes to any activities that are run with disproportionate frequency for the purpose of maximizing rewards. I for one would rather open the discussion on the criteria that should be informing these rewards before this happens.
Thank you for posting these ideas Martin_Rudat.Quote:Originally Posted by Martin_Rudat
How about if we had a lookup table (derived from live data, refreshed occasionally) which we could feed in team size and spawn composition and get an estimate of 'challenge' to a random team.
We also have another lookup table (produced in the same manner) that we can feed in team composition and spawn composition, and get a second estimate of 'challenge'.
We take some combination of the two measures of challenge and adjust reward (XP, insps, salvage, etc...) for defeat of the spawn accordingly.
I think it is fair to include some degree of how well-tuned a particular team is to the enemies they're facing in the adjustment, as a team of the appropriate makeup for a particular type of enemy essentially faces no real challenge. On the other hand, the act of assembling an appropriate team, picking the right powers, or choosing the correct enemies to face is in itself worthy of reward.
What would be an appropriate measure of 'challenge', though? Is it likelihood of defeat of the whole team, how many defeats a team, on average, will suffer during the removal of the spawn, time spent to defeat the spawn, ... or perhaps some weighting of all the various factors?
I mentioned the idea of a character's suitability to a task being part of the reward calculations in the OP, though I had an issue with it for reasons that I found difficult to nail down. At this time I think I can describe them a little better. In particular, there is a subtle--but important neverthless--difference between making the content itself more difficult and making yourself less effective. I don't think we ever want to be in a situation where players wish to make their characters or teams less suited to the task in order to gather more rewards. There is also the danger of this data becoming an implicit admission that certain sets of powers are just better than others, but suffer from reduced rewards to compensate.
Ideologically, I believe players should see increased rewards if they pick activities they are highly suited for, but that the discrepancy of these rewards is currently too high. Obviously, this is subjective.
I think looking at the group dynamic of enemies serves the same purpose in quantifying challenge without ever needing to reference player potential directly. In particular, enemy groups that produce a variety of damage types; mix melee, ranged and aoe potential; use debuffs, controls, summons and the like; vary in rank and so forth inherently present a greater challenge than those with more limited variety. I'm working on some specific ideas to quantify this but they're not ready for public analysis yet and I was hoping to begin the discussion from a more abstract perspective anyway. -
Quote:That is one of many things that motivated me to think about rewards in a general sense and put the OP together. For anyone saying it's too long, the post is the result of several days of thinking about the issue and organizing my thoughts around it. I probably could have made it shorter and kept most of the critical points, but the most important idea was to look at rewards with a broad, theoretical approach. If some people lose interest in it along the way, I understand that is going to happen. In those cases I'm hoping it's something that people may return to avoid thinking about it for a bit.Originally Posted by Columnist_Freak
So what you're saying is, instead of limiting the ability to farm nothing but bosses for rewards...
We should evaluate the reason why all bosses give greater rewards, and if that reason is justified?
....
One idea is that the value of rewards earned from a boss defeat should perhaps be reexamined, since the limiting factor of the number of bosses per spawn is largely gone. Beyond that, though, is the idea that the rewards from a boss defeat (or anything else for that matter) should also consider context.
Example: If you have a group of several minions and an lt that total 1000 xp, and you add a boss that is worth another 1000 xp, have you increased the challenge of the encounter and the time necessary to defeat it enough that it is worth twice the reward? Should it be worth more than 2000 xp? Less?
Now suppose you start with one copy of that boss (still worth 1000 xp) and add a second one. Again ask the same questions: does the increased time and challenge involved in the encounter match with doubling the reward?
In each case the answer to these questions is largely aesthetic, but the most important idea here is that the answer doesn't have to be the same for each. The increased challenge from adding another boss will vary on the context of the original group. I believe the game's reward system could be greatly served by taking this into account. And of course, I am not suggesting this be limited just to enemy rank.
This is not a small change. Doing so would require a great amount of consideration, discussion and testing to determine what additional criteria should be looked at for assigning rewards and how to weigh them relative to one another. I just think that 1) now is a good time to do so; and 2) we need to start by thinking about rewards in a very general sense. -
Quote:Not exactly. I'm kind of taking that as a given.Originally Posted by Nethergoat
so wait, does all that boil down to "players will by and large go where the best rewards are?"
Because I've been beating that drum for years now.
It's not always true of course. In some cases there is a backlash effect. At this time I tend to stay away from certain content because often (not always, but often) it is "exploited" content, and I want to maintain a sense of accomplishment in levelling characters. One great example is that I have actually been on teams in which people refuse to sk me because I "dont' need it", even though I tell them I'd rather play within the general level range of the team.
If the player base gravitates towards the most rewarding activites, then I want to open the discussion more on how the rewards for those activities are determined and how much discrepancy there is between earning rates depending on what you choose to do (and how much discrepancy there should be).
Suppose enemy Y is worth Z xp. Generally speaking the xp reward when that enemy is defeated is split between teammates and then modified by the size of team and relative level of the player. Should we introduce more variables in determining the size of that reward? Should the AT and/or power sets of the character matter? What about the number of those enemies defeated recently? Average level of teammates (this is going to change anyway)? Anything else?
In particular, I am pointing towards variety of opposition, especially within the context of the group that enemy spawned from, as a variable I think should be investigated.
In order to accomplish this, I think it's necessary to first consider the more general factors that should inform rewards rates (re: the discussion on risk, time or challenge vs. reward), the systems by which people can (and will, and in some cases should) manipulate their rewards, and the particularly tricky relationship between content and its associated rewards. -
Quote:I'm cautious of the term "best rewards". Perhaps "most rewards" is slightly more accurate.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
So, in other words: people should be able to do whatever they want to do, but the best rewards should be reserved for things that are difficult to the most people, and variety is one way to measure that breadth of difficulty?
I can get behind that.
Otherwise, yeah pretty much. So much argument about the state of the game seems to boil down to: "If you go do that stuff over there, you get way better rewards than doing this stuff over here. We should stop people from doing that stuff over there."
To me it makes a lot more sense to look at the rewards people are getting from this stuff over here and that stuff over there and figure out why they're so different.
I don't want to close people off from doing certain content in the game, even if they choose to do that content over and over. There are plenty of things in this game I have a spent a lot of time doing over and over. Generally that's great, since I was doing it because it was fun for me, though if it starts to get to the point where I'm sick of it but feel I can generate a lot more rewards doing it than anything else in the game then there is a real problem.
And yes, variety within the mission is probably a good variable to look at when determining its challenge, one that I think has been ignored for too long. It's not the same as saying people should have reduced rewards for repeating that content. -
Quote:Early on in the development of AE, I believe rewards were going to be kept minimal. While at one point I wish that had remained the case, I think my mind has been changed. I for one would be against an across-the-board drop in AE experience rewards, given that it is actually quite easy to create content in AE that offers greater challenge for the rewards earned than the rest of the game.Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Good analysis.
I had the same insight a while ago regarding variety producing challenge. My conclusion was that perhaps AE rewards should be reduced overall, with increased rewards for playing missions selected at random rather than ones specifically chosen by the player. This didn't go down too well, for obvious reasons. I think an algorithmic scaling of variety of challenge to reward would be, if not unexploitable, at least less so.
Of course, the cynical TL;DR is NERF AE AND FARM MISSIONS LOL, but I think you're onto something more interesting.
I would describe the tl;dr version of my post as something like this:
- Restricting content is generally a very bad idea. If people want to make an AE mish with all bosses, let them.
- Telling people not to run the same content over and over is also a very bad idea. If people want to squish the same custom group over and over, let them.
- If people want to skip level ranges and play at higher levels, maybe we should let them do that, too.
- Having different segments of content in the game give disproportionate (meaning either too high or too low) amounts of reward is bad for the game as a whole.
- People should be able to engage in more difficult content to earn rewards faster. However, we should try to measure actual difficulty as best we can.
- If there is a perceived problem with content and rewards associated with it, it probably makes more sense to look at the reward system rather than police the content.
Oh, and this part is kind of important, so EVERYONE LOOK HERE!!!: I am NOT looking only at AE. Quite the opposite in fact, given that pretty massive changes to a player's ability to adjust other content is on the way. I am also NOT against the proposed changes to difficulty settings. Again, quite the opposite.
I'm not sure if this post is directed at me or the response above. If it is directed at me, I honestly have no idea what any of it means. Could you explain how this is related to specific points in my post?Quote:Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
Yes its a great idea to ruin other peoples fun and chase away paying subscribers.
Did I miss something?
:edit:
BTW, I think the AE should give 1/16th exp
:edit:
Hypocricy at its finest?
Irony?
Two faced?
You cant think like that?
It doesnt work both ways.
While I understand the pessimism, given recent and future changes to such areas as sidekicking and mission difficulty, I believe now is exactly the time to discuss the game's system of rewards.Quote:Originally Posted by Zamuel
You make a lot of valid points Pyromantic. The biggest problem is an aspect of "too late" to all this. In other words, you've presented something with thought but since this is now and not 5 years ago there will most likely be too many complaints and gripes about it. -
(Yes, this is long. I've broken it down so I don't consider it a wall of text, but be prepared for some reading.)
XP, AE, SK--OH MY THE ACRONYMS!
I believe most players that have been around the game for a while have seen a signficant shift in the way progress is achieved and measured. Some complain, some take advantage, some shrug their shoulders and keep playing, some say "deal with it", some say "yippee!", some quit, some ignore large portions of content, and some have stopped reading this post already since they don't care. The expanding options in the game and past/future changes to reward systems have unquestionably changed the way the game looks; it is most certainly not the same as it was several years ago. This is of course to be expected if City is to avoid stagnancy. However, I often feel that many discussions (read: complaints/calls for changes/dismissal of those complaints etc.) miss the larger point of what rewards mean to this game.
Let's take a second there: rewards are kind of important are they not? The game is structured around levels, so experience is probably the first in-game reward people think of, but of course there are a huge variety of rewards people can find. After experience you probably think of influence, followed by recipes, salvage, enhancements and other "drops", though we can continue from there to prestige (for those people who care about and/or use bases), temporary powers, and even rewards from RMT and other out-of-game activities such as booster packs and veteran rewards. While not all of these rewards can be or are meant to be tied to levelling speed, most all of them can be tied to character potency. I believe it is a critical point that short-term gameplay experience is meant to be supplemented with a long-term sense of accomplishment, improvement and change.
Perhaps my search fu is weak, but it seems many discussions (and yes, I'm looking at you AE) dance around the subject of rewards without really ever looking at it. I believe this is a mistake, and as such I feel it is worthwhile to discuss rewards in a broader sense without focusing on any particular source of content in the game or particular change to the system.
DISPROPORTIONALITY OF REWARDS, OR THE "IT'S MY $15" ARGUMENT
Let's get this out of the way right now. This is a multiplayer game, and the actions of one player--and most certainly the collective actions of a significant block of players--can and do affect the experience of others. A fairly easy example is the market, where major shifts in the population's activity and associated rewards can have a huge impact on prices. Other influences may not be felt as directly and yet be at least as significant, such as datamining on experience earned.
When a selection of activities has a substantial disparity in the value of rewards earned, there better be a good reason. There are many cases of players pursuing activities with the full knowledge that they won't "get as much" doing them, often for the challenge and subsequent feeling of accomplishment (or bragging rights), such as AV or pylon soloing. Since these are not "intended" to be regular activites with commensurate rewards, there is no issue. On the other hand, I know of no convincing argument that progressing through regular story arcs, repeatedly taking radio/paper missions, going through an AE arc with a variety of maps and enemies, and repeating an AE mission with a single type of critter should have highly disparate rates of rewards associated with them, but it should be clear that they do to varying degrees.
I sometimes wonder if the time has come to allow players to make characters at higher than first level. This is, of course, not unheard of in MMOs. One could certainly make the argument that the option should be tied to a veteran status or simply reaching high level through a prior character, and perhaps certain tangible or intangible rewards should be associated with starting at 1st level (such as a badge...cue Frank singing "I did it my way"). It seems worth considering at this point, so that we can completely eliminate the desire to use powerlevelling to get to the "good" levels.
REWARD METRICS, OR ASKING "HOW MUCH STUFF WILL I GET?"
It's difficult to talk about rewards without trying to measure them in some way. While one could try to discuss the relative value of experience, influence, prestige and so on, this is likely to be highly personal and likely fruitless. Rather I will focus on how players customize their experience to get the particular rewards they want.
When the subject of rewards comes up, most people try to weigh it against risk. This seems ridiculous to me, since there is essentially no risk at all. No one is going to come to your house flashing firearms and badges (the government agency kind, not the "I squished lots of toxic tarantulas" kind--though that might work too) and drag you out to the street because you failed your mission. In a less silly example, you don't risk your current level of experience or your enhancements, or have your character deleted (unless we're talking about risk of moderator wrath vs. reward, which this term is pretty clearly not mean to apply to). Even accolade bonuses or future content that are tied to the successful completion of your activities can practically always be reached some other way.
Players may take on more difficult content with the possibility of the occasional faceplant because they know the short-term losses of debt or recovering from a defeat are outweighed by the generally increased rate of rewards. Time vs. reward is thus a much better metric than risk. Players don't ask "what will I have to give up if I'm unsuccessful?", they ask "if I do this thing over a sufficient period of time will I get more than doing that other thing instead?".
From a theoretical standpoint I believe challenge vs. reward is a better metric than either risk or time, though much more difficult to quantify. This becomes increasingly true as players are given greater power to customize their experience. The argument is often made that all-boss AE missions come with greater challenge, so there's nothing wrong with getting greater rewards for your time as compared to other content. Difficulty settings, whether what exists on live now or the proposed I16 version, really provide the same function. While some people ignore the time aspect--leading to such misconceptions as "the best enemies are always the ones worth the most xp" or "confuse steals xp"--challenge is perhaps the most important variable people adjust in order to increase their rewards.
MANIPULATING REWARDS, OR "WOOHOO! LOOK AT THAT XP FLY!"
The ability to customize your experience with the intent of increasing rewards is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is the creation of huge discrepancies between the actual value of an activity's challenge and reward system's assessed value of that challenge. This is nothing new; players have been doing this for as long as the game's been going, though it is probably more visible now than ever before. There are many methods of doing so.
One of the easiest examples is when the burden of challenge is shifted from one character or group of characters to another. Sometimes this is done with consent, such as the use of bridging, and sometimes it is nothing more complicated than unannounced afk's amounting to leeching. The proposed super sidekick system is likely to heavily mitigate this.
Another method is to fight enemies that are easier for you than for the player population as a whole. This is usually done by matching up certain statistics between a character and their enemies, in either direction, such as damage types to defense, mezzing to mez resistance, ranged/melee preference and so on.
A very important method that is rarely if ever discussed is consistency of challenge. In many cases players are not even aware this is what they are doing. This has been around to some extent for a long time, but an example that has come into high profile through AE is the all-boss/lt/whatever mission. Other content has a mixture of these enemy types. Minions may deal their damage early on but be quickly wiped by area powers. Lts frequently go down in another wave, followed by bosses. It may be rare to see very clear delineations between these "waves", but the challenge faced by the team tends to be more staggered through the fight. With all enemies being of the same class, the number of them tends to remain stable longer, allowing the team to take more advantage of their area damage. Similarly, with only a single critter type to face in every group the opposition is predictable. Consider a large group of carnies with a disproportionate number of illusionists against a team with little mez protection, or seneschals against masterminds vulnerable to area attacks. With a single enemy type the opposition is predictable from one group to the next. The consistency of challenge throughout the course of a fight and through a mission is not talked about nearly as much as the ability to tailor the general stats of that opposition, but it may be equally as significant in explaining the reward rates associated with these missions. Perhaps more so.
PLAYER CAPACITY TO CUSTOMIZE CONTENT, OR "WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?"
Giving players the option to select and customize their content is not only a good thing, but it's inevitable in a game that continues to expand. The important thing is maintain a diverse selection of content that is appealing to the player base as a whole. As I have already suggested, outliers in reward earning rates tend to be the enemy of variety when it comes to content; players should never feel that they are unduly punished because they enjoy particular story arcs, zones, enemy groups, ATs, and so on.
In many cases when players create AE missions to fit certain criteria they are creating content quite similar to what already exists in game, whether their goal is to manipulate reward rates or not. There are plenty of examples of "core" content which contain a very limited selection of enemies on ideal maps--these have become the famous farmed missions over time. Even when the new difficulty settings are introduced it will not be that different from what players do already. They use anchors to make the game consider the team size different from what it will actually be; a less referenced but equally valid example is the clearing of larger enemy spawns in hazard zones. The power to customize content in these ways is a good thing; very simply, players should be able to participate in activities they enjoy as much as possible. That's pretty much why we play, I would think.
When people express dissatisfaction with the disproportionate rewards received from certain activities, they often wish to police the content itself. This tends to have limited success.
Some suggest restricting AE to certain level ranges, restrict the number of levels you can gain there, or require veteran badges to access it. Why take characters away from a major source of content?
Some suggest banning AE missions that only use a single critter type. Is it really unreasonable to have such a mission? Requiring custom groups to have at least one minion, lt, and boss isn't realistic given the current mechanics. Though one could require that the primary custom group selected for a mission meet this criteria, it would still be necessary to regulate the placement of groups in custom objectives.
In the past, people suggested limiting the number of times a mission could be started to prevent farming. This is a moot point now of course.
In these cases and many more, the suggestion to police content is often unwieldy and counterproductive. If reward earning rates are the issue, why not look at the system of calculating rewards instead?
There is a danger in this of course. When blasters were seen to be underperforming, no one suggested we just give them an experience boost. At least, I don't think anyone did. However, this makes apparent the importance of differentiating between content problems (blasters get their behinds kicked more often than other people) and reward problems (I earn stuff a lot faster fighting group A than group B).
VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF...EXPERIENCE?
Do you earn the same amount of experience each time you defeat a particular enemy? The answer is obviously no. If damage was done to that target from a source outside your team or from confused enemies, you receive a reduction. If you have teammates, the experience is split between you. Is there anything else we should be taking into consideration? Perhaps.
As I mentioned above trying to quantify challenge when examining reward rates is difficult at best, and may have undesireable consequences. If you're playing a fire armour tanker, should you receive less rewards from defeating fire-using enemies than, say, an invulnerable tanker? It was less challenging, right? My instinct is to say that's a horrible idea, though I'm not completely sure I could explain why. Perhaps because the strengths and advantages of a character should always be treated as such.
In general, however, homogeneity in content is a likely sign of manipulating the reward system. Should variety be a factor in determing rewards? I believe that this is, at the very least, worth investigating. In many cases it may be difficult or impossible to measure in any automatic sense. If you complete missions from several different contacts or that contain different enemy groups, should you be compensated for it? Actually, you are to some extent already through story arc bonuses.
What about variety within an enemy spawn? This is one metric that I am coming to firmly believe should be experimented with. When a spawn is generated, the variety of enemies that are selected from in its creation can be examined and an experience modifier applied to each of its members. Among variables that could be considered are: access to all of minion, lt and boss ranks; selection of principal power/damage types (if the enemies all select from fiery assault, fiery melee and fire blast, that isn't real variety, but toss in assault rifle and ice control and there you go); melee/ranged preference and so on. Could such a system be manipulated? Of course, but it could provide a more accurate assessment of real challenge than a system looking at a critter independent of its companions. We've already seen that a comm officer is more dangerous (and should be worth more experience) sprinkled in to a normal group of rikti than appearing en masse.
SO WHAT SHOULD WE LOOK FOR IN THE FUTURE, OR "WILL MY BLASTER SUCK MORE THAN EVER?"
I kid, I kid. I wouldn't have said that blasters "sucked", but they were shown to lag behind the curve. If players are given the power to dramatically increase their spawn size on a regular basis, we may see the balance of power skewed in different directions than in the past. In particular, the ability to deal area damage and survive substantial damage over a period of time may become more of an advantage than it currently is.
AoE is already called the king of PvE, though its impact does tend to be diluted over a team. That is, if you have a ST specialist and an AoE specialist on a large team, they both benefit from the efficiency the AoE specialist brings against large spawns, a benefit that is severely limited or nonexistent against current solo-sized groups. The ability to routinely face large groups in solo/small-team play without the need for herding, anchors or similarly artificial devices may heavily skew reward rates in favor of certain ATs and/or powersets from what they are now.
Just as before, this doesn't mean players shouldn't be given this control, nor does it mean we should reexamine all powersets for ways to give them more AoE damage. What it does mean is that reward rates may need to be adjusted to compensate. For example a greater percentage of rewards could be moved to the completion of mssions and story arcs to help those who defeat smaller size groups along the way. Issues such as this will become apparent through beta and continued datamining, but I believe they are issues that are likely to appear.
WHAT THE FUTURE THEREFORE HOLDS, OR "UUHHH...WHAT WAS THE POINT AGAIN?"
When people see problems with changing activities in the game, the kneejerk reaction is to police those activities. Really, though, we need to keep in mind that the system of rewards--and the ways that system can be manipulated--are integral to our understanding of such shifts in the player population. Often, the best solution is to consider how players are compensated for their accomplishments than to change what they're allowed to do. One thing is for sure: the options for content in this game are continuing to expand, something which should be in the best interests of the game's players and longevity. -
Quote:We appear to be at completely cross purposes here. I am not suggesting you slot kb sets. I am pointing out that a pet's powers have a list of permitted sets themselves, and just because a pet power takes a certain set doesn't mean the powers it uses will inherit those enhancements. I am simply using drones as an example.Originally Posted by Fuzz_JDC
avoiding KB (i think that was clear). Can't guarantee that EVERY foe will be held and it'll annoy people if it so happens the foe you KB happens to be the one they are attacking.
nothing seems wrong (nothing is wrong with reason) just didn't make a whole lot of sense.
If you go to your enhancement management screen and hover over battle drones, you will see knockback as one of the set categories allowed. If you then click the "show detailed info" button, you will see a drone's basic powers listed including laser burst. Click on that, and you see its info, which includes some energy damage but no knockback. That laser burst power itself also has a bunch of enhancement set categories that it accepts; unfortunately it just isn't displayed in the game, but as far as I'm aware knockback sets aren't on that list. This means that the drone pretends it doesn't have any enhancement from knockback sets when using laser burst.
Suppose you were level 50 and had the following enhancements slotted in battle drones:
- kinetic crash: accuracy/knockback (50)
- blood mandate: damage/endurance (50)
- nucleolus exposure (50)
- invention: endurance reduction (50)
- damage SO (50)
When a drone uses laser burst it will look at these enhancements to see what enhancement values it actually gets. The kinetic crash is from a knockback set and laser burst doesn't take those, so the attack won't receive those enhancement values. All pet attack powers should inherit pet damage sets so it will get the damage and endurance enhancement from the blood mandate. The nucleolus exposure, endurance common IO and damage SO are not part of invention sets and should be inherited by all the pet's powers that can use them, including laser burst.
In the case of dark servant, some of its best powers don't have tohit checks. That means those powers may not have accurate tohit debuff sets listed as allowed enhancement set categories. Just because fluffy itself takes those enhancements doesn't mean that the powers it uses does. In that case slotting clouded senses may not do anything at all for some of its best powers.
edit: this also means that those two IOs you have slotted from lockdown won't apply to anything except petrifying gaze, as that should be the only one of fluffy's powers that takes hold sets. When you're looking at pets with a wide variety of powers like this you need to be very careful how you're enhancing it. Hamis are often a good option as they aren't part of sets and the enhancement values apply to everything. Tohit debuff (not accurate tohit debuff) sets should be really safe since they apply to just about everything fluffy does. I don't have access to test at the moment, nor do I have the resources to mess with my dark servant's slotting on live. I've been hoping someone that does would chime in with some definitive answers.
It would be nice if this information was more readily available in game, but it's not. Players aren't always getting the enhancements they think they are on pet powers, whether because the system isn't working the way they think it is, the set inheritance doesn't match their expectations, or simply because of a bug.
The best case of the last one that I know of us was carrion creepers from plant control. The actual functioning of the power was a convoluted set of pets that summon pets that use powers. While the carrion creepers power itself accepted certain enhancements, a break in this inheritance chain meant that those values weren't being applied to anything the power was actually doing. This has since been fixed. -
That was the thought. It's an easy way to take advantage of the best of both powers, nuking the pet that I want when I want to get the best soul extracted.
There are some other nifty little synergies between these sets that I've spotted that make me want to try it, and I get the feeling it's an extremely rare combination.
I have a project on the go right now but this very much looks like my next one. -
Quote:May be a non-issue; I'm really not sure. Not sure if my question is clear either.Originally Posted by Fuzz_JDC
that's extremely conflicting.
Suppose, for example, you were to slot drones with some knockback sets that included accuracy, and then some common damage IOs. Not all the drones' powers deal knockback, and those that don't shouldn't inherit the enhancements from knockback sets. That means that some of its powers will not benefit from accuracy slotting at all.
Dark servant may or may not have this issue with accurate tohit debuff sets. I just don't know the answer, and I'm hoping someone who has tested it can do so. Failing that I got my own bot/dark up to dark servant recently so I could fiddle with it, though it would be a lot easier if I had access to the test server.
.....XDQuote:Originally Posted by Fuzz_JDC
maybe? I 'tried' to get whatever pyro was talking about
If anything I suggested doesn't make sense or seems wrong, please feel free to comment on it. Always interested to get different points of view so that I can improve my own builds.
I guess the main issue I saw was that set slotting seemed too far away from the enhancement slotting I would use if I wasn't worried about sets at all. Obviously there's a trade-off in there where you can sacrifice some enhancement values for set bonuses that ultimately improve the build, often far beyond what you could do with SOs, commons, or frankenslotting, but I don't feel your previous builds accomplished that.
I think a lot of the changes look good, but I see a couple of examples of my point still.
First is protbot. The only meaningful set bonus you're getting out of 6-slotting sovereign right is the 3-ish% def bonus to melee (and consequent s/l bonus). If you did a little frankenslotting and were able to work in a single level 50 def IO, that would amount to nearly 2% def to all* for you through the protbot's shield power, as well as improving the bonus provided to your bots. What you did with drones and a-bot looks good, getting solid bonuses, but I'd try to rework it a little so that protbot gets the extra room it needs to slot for defense.
*: I don't have the numbers in front of me so I'm going by memory.
Fearsome stare really needs the following in considering enhancements: enough accuracy to be effective, followed by as much recharge and tohit debuff as you can. You don't have enough accuracy set bonuses to do away with slotting the power for acc, so I'd work some in. You could use an accurate tohit debuff set, frankenslot a little, find an extra slot for it, or as a quick fix replace the tohit debuff/end IO with a lysosome. Losing 2% damage buff is trivial for a MM.
Don't have much more time at the moment but I'll take a good look at the whole build later.
As a final question though, what kind of budget are you looking at? Some of the sets you've included are very expensive, while at other times it feels like you're going for sets because they're cheap. -
A friend of mine has a petless MM that he likes pulling out every once in a while. I know I couldn't stand it myself, but there's been a weird little subculture of them since CoV came out.
According to paragonwiki dual pistols has been confirmed as a blaster set for Going Rogue. Presumably it will be a corruptor set also. Personally I'd just shelve the concept until then. -
Been thinking about trying necro/traps recently, and I have a question about detonator. Will it leave a body that I can then use with soul extraction? I assume so but I have no experience with the power. If so, it seems like a nifty little combination, since it can sometimes be a bit tricky to get the pet corpse you want at the time you want it to use soul extraction, and these two powers have the same recharge timer.
-
Personally there are a lot of things I would do differently. I don't really get any sense of what set bonuses you're going for, and in many cases I think you've sacrificed extremely important enhancements in favour of set bonuses that don't contribute much.
On slotting the primary pets: The purple set, def aura and resist aura all look good on the surface, but I don't see much reason just to slot one set of each into each pet. The protbot in particular is well worth slotting outside of pet sets with some defense, which will help you (both directly and through the other pets) a lot more than a couple of percentage points of resist bonuses. As such I would do something like the following: Split the purple set up between protbot and a-bot. The 2 and 3 piece bonuses are generally a lot better than the 4-6 ones for a MM, and I'd rather double them up. If you go with 3 pieces of soulbound plus a nucleolus in protbot it's easy to fit in 2 def common IOs. The other 3 pieces can go into a-bot. From there you can also fit the two aura IOs into the a-bot and/or drones. This gives you a lot more freedom on remaining set bonuses. Could place 6 blood mandate into drones for example for the nice def bonuses, or pick up a mixture of health/recovery/def from the early bonuses of various sets.
The slotting in tar patch provides very little recharge, which is far more important than anything else in this power. Personally I'd put 3 recharge in it and call it a day.
Similarly, darkest night really should be maxed out on tohit debuff. The cloud senses proc isn't going to do very much damage in there, and I don't see the set providing enough to make up for the use of 3 tohit debuff commons, for example.
IMO, fearsome stare should be thought of as a tohit debuff power and slotted as such, rather than fear. You can stack a lot of this on bot/dark and I think you're missing the opportunity.
Along the same lines, recharge is probably a lot more useful than anything you're getting in howling twilight. Acc and dam are basically wasted and slow is of marginal use; nor are the set bonuses doing much.
Why a single BotZ in SS? I'd switch it to the -kb IO or 3 slot for the def bonuses.
I'd slot electrifying fences as an attack. Definitely would not spend inf on a single purple for immobilize duration. There generally won't be much alive when it expires unslotted anyway, and you can always use it again. Both fences and static discharge would get a fairly sizeable bump out of damage procs also, so at the very least I'd work the posi's blast proc into static.
(Side note here: you currently have assault bot active under totals, meaning the soulbound proc is being included in damage and hit calculations. This can be misleading, so make sure to check the numbers without this.)
On a final note, I'm uncertain about the set inheritance on fluffy but you may need to be careful. Some of its best powers do not require hit checks and may not inherit clouded senses for the tohit debuff. I'm hoping someone can confirm one way or another. -
Remember that damage buffs work off base damage, so if you're using 95% worth of enhancements, the difference between assault and not is 241.25% versus 230%. That means the difference in damage output that you're actually seeing is roughly 4.7%. It's actually less if you take into consideration the damage buffs from pain, which is why I eyeballed it at about 4%. If you feel that's worth more to you than other options by all means stick with it, but as our initial discussion was looking at the damage potential of the power I wanted to make sure the actual numbers are out there.
I personally love provoke, though it is a pretty substantial shift in playstyle that may or may not work for everyone. While thugs comes with a bruiser that can handle aggro, the ability to pull aggro off your other pets is very effective. Bodyguard mode will effectively split damage between a lot of targets that can easily handle it thanks to all the regen from your secondary; this tactic turns a very squishy MM into an extremely sturdy individual.
Keep in mind also that hasten helps not only with gang war but other important powers such as painbringer and world of pain that are not perma.
Ultimately, of course, the most important thing is that you're happy with and enjoy your build. -
Hello again; I'm the individual that was discussing this with you in game before the server maintenance. Since we were rushed for time, I think the best place to start is for me to explain my position on leadership, and assault in particular, a bit better.
The logic goes like this:
1) Leadership is a good power for teams.
2) Masterminds have lots of pets, so they're like teams even when soloing.
3) Hence, leadership is good for masterminds.
Makes sense right? NOPE! It's based on a faulty premise of what makes leadership effective; in fact, the number of entities (characters, pets, whatever) being buffed by leadership isn't actually the important part. I think an example with simplified numbers explains it best.
Suppose you have a brute that puts out 100 units of damage, and we give him a 10% damage buff on top of that. Now he's putting out 110 units of damage. Simple enough.
Now suppose we have a mastermind with 5 pets, each of which put out 20 units of damage for a total of 100. We provide the mastermind with a 10% damage buff that applies to all his pets. Each pet now deals 22 units of damage, for a total of 110. That's the same as the brute. The fact that the mastermind has 5 pets is completely irrelevant; the argument that masterminds get more out of the buff because it's being applied "5 times" is meaningless.
What actually makes assault good on teams is the efficiency of power selection. If a character uses one of their 24 powers to give himself a 10% damage buff while soloing, that's one thing. If that character is on a team of 8, it's only one power out (8*24=) 192. Alternatively, if 8 players use one of their 24 powers to give the team a 10% damage buff, that's 80% for everyone. You're going to notice that.
MM pets are typically going to be looking at 220% damage minimum from enhancement and supremacy. Adding 11.3% isn't overly noticeable; less so in a situation like thug/pain where you already have additional damage buffs. You're probably looking at a net increase of about 4%. Is that worth it? Up to you to answer.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking the leadership pool. It's quite good actually, and there are good reasons to take it. A lot of MMs don't have endurance concerns approaching those of other characters for example, and assault does just fine with a single slot. Also, going for tactics is a very reasonable strategy as some MM pets are routinely looking at +4s or higher and could use the tohit buff. I simply think it's important to dispel the myth that MMs somehow get more out of assault than other characters, when generally they get less.
To go back to our in-game discussion then, the debate over taking the personal attacks has been going on since day 1 of CoV. In general I believe an AoE attack like empty clips is a solid choice to increase your overall damage output, whether for team or solo play. There are a number of other options I would consider also, such as:
1) Provoke. Love this power on MMs. Bodyguard is sexy.
2) Fighting pool. Tends to stack nicely with PPP toggles.
3) Hasten. More gang war + more pain buffs = good. Indeed, I expect this power would provide you with waaaay more effective damage output than assault, as well as a lot of other benefits.
4) Other attacks from your primary, PPPs or other pools. Air superiority isn't bad as an attack and provides a heck of a lot of mitigation.
5) QoL and utility powers.
If it were me, I'd dump the leadership pool, pick up provoke and hasten asap, and consider empty clips depending on how many PPP powers I expected to take. -
Put those anchor tells to good use! When someone asks you to fill for their team, say "sure, no problem, but I'm not leaving when the map is set. I'm staying on to help spawn magmites." I did this when trying to get the badge, and it did genuinely appear to get the job done.
Since the Hollows revamp, this badge is definitely a lot harder to get, though it may become easier with I16. I did attempt to do it through the Cavern trial at one point also, but found it difficult to generate interest in sticking around afterwards for them. -
In terms of skippable powers, opinions will obviously vary to some degree, but I'd put them into these basic categories:
Powers you will pry from my cold dead hands:
<ul type="square">[*]Seeds of confusion. One of the best AoE controls in the game without a doubt, thanks to its excellent duration:recharge ratio and the value of confuse. Like stuns and holds, confuse provides complete mitigation, but can also act to increase xp/time.[*]Carrion creepers. Draws quite a lot of aggro away from you and puts out some impressive damage. It's one of those powers you take as soon as it's available and devote all available slots till you're up to 6.[*]Roots. AoE immobilizers are often take em or leave em, and you may expect this to be even more true in a set that lacks stuns (since they are often combined), but the damage of this power far exceeds its peers. Treat it as an AoE damage power that also happens to generate containment.[*]Strangler. Just because single target holds are always good. I have seen a few niche builds that can justify skipping or delaying the power, but I don't think I ever would.[/list]
Powers that aren't essential, but are really nice:
<ul type="square">[*]Entangle. Very typical for a ST immobilize power. It does the job nicely if you want a reasonable amount of ST damage, and there are times having a mag 4 immobilize is very handy.[*]Vines. Also fairly typical for an AoE hold. Some people find them superfluous, but I definitely consider it a useful addition to any build.[*]Fly trap. Not fantastic as controller pets go; in fact the general consensus is that it falls pretty squarely at the bottom of the heap. Still, it's a little extra damage and aggro draw that you don't have to manage, and it's pretty handy to have around for tougher targets.[/list]
Powers that make me go 'meh':
<ul type="square">[*]Spore burst. AoE sleeps are occasionally beneficial, though last time I checked this didn't share the aggro-free nature of the equivalent from mind control. I'm sure one can find uses for it, but sleeps are of limited value in the majority of situations and the heavy AoE nature of plant doesn't help.[*]Spirit tree. I've seen people praise this power on occasion, but I just don't see it being worth a pick. In your case, being empathy makes it even more suspect.[/list] -
Here it is. I mentioned some of the things you should keep in mind when looking at it. A lot of the slotting is based on being level 50; you will notice for example that creepers doesn't have much recharge slotted, which is something I wouldn't have done without all the recharge bonuses making it perma anyway. Squeezing in both tough and mind over body really does help my aggressive play style, though I had neither through most of my levelling and didn't find it to be a problem.
While recharge was my number one priority, I was completely satisfied having enough for permahasten/AM/creepers, so in my second pass at the build I gave up a few percentage points to work in some ranged defense. It's not a lot but it does help, and stacks very nicely with RI when I feel I need it.
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear already, ignore the order the powers are listed in. I just plugged everything in as convenient. I only had to watch the order of the APP powers to get the slotting right.
Edit: I should add that, while this build has a very substantial investment, you can get something fairly close by replacing most of the purples (though I would still use the confuse set as it isn't really that expensive). May not be able to keep some of the buffs permanent, and you may have to adjust the slotting for some powers, notably creepers, but it wouldn't lose a huge amount.
Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/
[u]Click this DataLink to open the build![u]
Level 50 Magic Controller
Primary Power Set: Plant Control
Secondary Power Set: Radiation Emission
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Speed
Ancillary Pool: Psionic Mastery
Hero Profile:
Level 1: Strangler -- BasGaze-Acc/Hold(A), BasGaze-EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(3), BasGaze-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(3), BasGaze-Acc/Rchg(5), UbrkCons-Dam%(5), HO:Perox(7)
Level 1: Radiant Aura -- HO:Golgi(A), HO:Golgi(46)
Level 2: Entangle -- TotHntr-Dam%(A), Decim-Acc/Dmg(34), Decim-Dmg/EndRdx(36), Decim-Dmg/Rchg(36), Decim-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(37), Decim-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(37)
Level 4: Roots -- Posi-Acc/Dmg(A), TotHntr-Dam%(17), Posi-Dmg/EndRdx(23), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(23), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(25), Posi-Dam%(25)
Level 6: Radiation Infection -- HO:Enzym(A), HO:Enzym(7), HO:Enzym(9)
Level 8: Seeds of Confusion -- CoPers-Conf(A), CoPers-Conf/Rchg(9), CoPers-Acc/Conf/Rchg(11), CoPers-Acc/Rchg(11), CoPers-Conf/EndRdx(13), CoPers-Conf%(13)
Level 10: Accelerate Metabolism -- RechRdx-I(A), Efficacy-EndMod/Rchg(15), P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg(15), Efficacy-EndMod(17)
Level 12: Enervating Field -- EndRdx-I(A), EndRdx-I(46)
Level 14: Boxing -- Empty(A)
Level 16: Tough -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(A), HO:Ribo(33), ResDam-I(34)
Level 18: Vines -- BasGaze-Acc/Rchg(A), BasGaze-Rchg/Hold(19), BasGaze-EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(19), BasGaze-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(21), HO:Endo(21)
Level 20: Lingering Radiation -- TmpRdns-Acc/EndRdx(A), P'ngTtl-Acc/EndRdx(33), RechRdx-I(34)
Level 22: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 24: Health -- Mrcl-Rcvry+(A)
Level 26: Carrion Creepers -- Posi-Acc/Dmg(A), Posi-Dmg/EndRdx(27), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(27), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(29), Posi-Dam%(29), ExStrk-Dam%(31)
Level 28: Stamina -- EndMod-I(A), EndMod-I(31)
Level 30: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(31), RechRdx-I(33)
Level 32: Fly Trap -- ExRmnt-Acc/Rchg(A), ExRmnt-Acc/Dmg(37), ExRmnt-Dmg/EndRdx(40), ExRmnt-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(40), ExRmnt-EndRdx/Dmg/Rchg(43), ExRmnt-+Res(Pets)(43)
Level 35: Super Speed -- Zephyr-ResKB(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(36)
Level 38: EM Pulse -- BasGaze-Acc/Rchg(A), BasGaze-Rchg/Hold(39), BasGaze-EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(39), BasGaze-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(39), HO:Endo(40)
Level 41: Mental Blast -- Apoc-Dmg(A), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(42), Apoc-Acc/Rchg(42), Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(42), Apoc-Dam%(43)
Level 44: Indomitable Will -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(45), RechRdx-I(45), RechRdx-I(45), Ksmt-ToHit+(46)
Level 47: Psionic Tornado -- Ragnrk-Dmg(A), Ragnrk-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(48), Ragnrk-Acc/Rchg(48), Ragnrk-Dmg/EndRdx(48), Ragnrk-Dmg/Rchg(50)
Level 49: Mind Over Body -- TtmC'tng-ResDam/EndRdx(A), HO:Ribo(50), ResDam-I(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- ULeap-Stlth(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Containment -
[ QUOTE ]
Hum, what is the dmg cap for tanker by the way?
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage caps (and other caps also) -
In regards to looking for free power selections, I would absolutely consider maneuvers and choking cloud to be optional.
Maneuvers really does need some additional defense or consistent use of tohit debuffing to make any substantial difference. This could be done with set bonuses or a def-based APP shield. Without those I really wouldn't bother.
Choking cloud can be a very good power under the right circumstances. It is often cited as a critical power in the success of fire/rad, since fire control lacks some of the long-battle control that most other sets have and the cloud combines extremely well with hot feet. Plant/rad is certainly capable of maintaining extended control without cloud and doesn't have much reason to get into melee. As such I consider the power very optional, though I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion if you decide to keep it.
For a travel power, I use SS which effectively saves me a power in the prereq and allows me to stack for invis. While the lack of vertical movement would normally frustrate me to no end, I find the raptor pack from the first safeguard followed by the purchaseable pack from the shard after 40 makes this a non-issue. Without SS I wouldn't expect the stealth proc to do very much for you. If you're set on hover/fly I wouldn't pursue this avenue.
Fly trap isn't fantastic and some people do decide to skip it. I found its main use is helping deal with EB/AVs and other tough single targets. To me it certainly seems to cycle powers better than it did before the pet recharge/power usage changes, so keep in mind it may be a little stronger than older criticisms suggests, but it certainly lags behind other controller pets.
It isn't quite true that no other APP opens an aoe power at 41; stone mastery has fissure, which is quite strong but suffers from a short range. If you find from my earlier suggestions that you can free up a power or two there are some real gems available, such as ice mastery for the pair of aoe powers or psi for mez protection.
If you're interested in seeing my build let me know. Do keep in mind though that it is (a) a level 50 respec build that looks fairly different from what I levelled with; and (b) it cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 billion. -
While you can use sets to create substantial defense, it requires a considerable investment in slots and influence. I would begin by tightening other areas of your build and strategy.
The first thing I would do is take EF on both characters. It has a quick animation so it isn't a problem to set them both up. The additional damage debuffing will provide that extra mitigation for anything that isn't controlled, and the resistance debuff is well worth stacking for quicker defeats. Personally I would take RI on both also for similar reasons.
Seeds is a truly excellent power and will remain useful throughout your career. Make sure it is well slotted for accuracy and recharge (confuse duration is sometimes useful but certainly lower priority) to keep it as consistent as possible. Another option is to combine a stealth IO with SS to provide you with effective invis. If that isn't an option, you could try to work grant invis into the build. This allows you to pick an ideal position from which to activate seeds and get the entire group.
Are you up to creepers yet? Once you are the power will draw a lot of aggro away from you. Make sure to get lots of recharge into it and alternate between the two characters so that one is always up.
A couple of other thoughts. Taking both immobilizers is fine; I have both on my plant/rad. Roots in particular is excellent, doing a lot more damage than equivalent powers in other sets, so it should be well slotted as an aoe damage power.
Not sure if I would take choking cloud. The ability to have two running makes it more tempting as they will overlap nicely, but plant/rad really lends itself to playing from range.
Similarly, stacking assault and tactics is pretty tempting. However I don't see much benefit in taking maneuvers unless you routinely use RI or generate significantly more defense in the build.
As a final suggestion, it may be worth taking a different APP on each. While I remember from your other thread that you like to maintain a consistent power selection it certainly wouldn't hurt to mix up the damage types a little. -
1. Some people will say so. There is a damage cap, which is 400% for controllers. A few of the "damage-oriented" ATs have 500%, and brutes are 850%. You start at 100%, and generally get roughly 95% more from enhancement. For controllers, FS provides an initial buff of 40% plus 20% per target (I believe; Mids is showing 25% but that doesn't seem right. May have to confirm in game). That means FS can put you at the damage cap with one application, but not everyone.
Siphon power, as mentioned, is still quite useful as a debuff and for additional buffing when dealing with a strong individual enemy. Keep in mind also that a grav/kin skipping siphon power will have to take 3 out of 4 of the following powers: Crush, Lift, Gravity Distortion, and Repel. GD is pretty much a given but Repel is rarely taken and you may or may not want both of the other 2 grav powers.
2. It's decent but not essential. The only time I think a team would object to the power's absence is if it was specifically looking for that power to deal with kb problems. I don't believe I've ever seen it come up as a point of contention in game.
3. It will depend on your playstyle and slotting as to how much you miss it. It is certainly doable; my earth/kin did not have any difficulty without stamina after transference. -
Looking at the build I find it a little difficult to determine what goals you are trying to accomplish. It seems you are going for a lot of endurance and recovery bonuses with damage where convenient, but then I don't understand choices like multistrike when you aren't really developing the defenses. It also seems that you are trying to work with a budget, taking some of the more inexpensive sets at times, but then you have a purple set included.
Stone melee has some really nice ST damage potential, but it would benefit a lot from having some more recharge. Have you planned out your attack chain? That is typically one of the most important steps in developing an AV solo build. From there you can determine how much recharge you will need in each attack, and how much global recharge will be necessary. Endurance consumption is also likely to be an issue, so you'll need to look at your complete chain and the cost of the toggles to see whether it is maintainable, and whether or not you will need extra help such as conserve power. If you're not familiar with it, you may want to investigate Arcanatime to see its effect on the actual length of an attack chain. (I can find a link if you need it.)
How focused do you want the build to be? As great a power as fault is, it won't help you very much with AV soloing. What do you intend to be your primary means of survival? Are you developing your defense, health and regen, some mixture of the two? You might be ok as is; I really couldn't say. But I'm quite certain there are opportunities in the build to develop these more.
My suggestion at this point is to nail down some of these general goals to help direct your objectives for the build. -
Yes, because if someone presented a solo fire/kin build that had 3-slotted stamina, numina unique, miracle unique, and another 20% recovery in set bonuses (which, in total, is practically dead on equal with 3-slotted SB) everyone would be screaming about how gimped the build was, and how it would never survive without more recovery. The idea that more recovery than this is needed for the character to be not only viable, but effective, is something I cannot understand.
That said, I agree that the proposed power selection would need some tweaking to take better advantage of the available picks. However, as the OP has decided to change their plan, it really doesn't matter.
As for plant, the OP asked about the tier 9 pet and how effective it is. The answer is "not very". It, well, kinda sucks. It's not completely awful, and I have it on my plant/rad, but it's probably skipped far more often than any other controller tier 9 pet. That said, it doesn't matter. The damage potential of the set comes from elsewhere.
Roots is one reason. It deals substantially more damage than other AoE immobilize powers, and is well worth slotting and using as an attack. Carrion Creepers is another reason, especially with the recent fixes to its enhancement inheritance through the subpets. Together these create a solid damage set, and Seeds of Confusion is one of the best controls around considering its duration:recharge ratio, safety and increased defeat speed.
Point being, two plant/rads should make a very effective duo, and won't have to wait till 32 to develop the damage.