Author Topic: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools  (Read 2125 times)

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« on: November 12, 2022, 09:14:57 am »
Something that has always rubbed me the wrong way about Masterminds and the Leadership pool is ... you would think that Masterminds would be predisposed towards making decent "leaders" (since they have an entourage of Pets most of the time, particularly in combat). Yet the way that Cryptic Studios (and later, Paragon Studios) handled the matter of Leadership toggles on Masterminds was ... USE THE COOKIE CUTTER.

Masterminds have "weak(er)" multipliers for their secondary powerset and pools, relative to their counterparts (Defenders and Controllers) ... which in a broad brushstrokes view made some sense from a 30,000ft viewpoint of "global modifiers" ... but as a One Size Fits ALL solution winds up going against the grain for two specific pools ... Leadership and Presence.

Thematically speaking, Masterminds ought to be especially well suited towards being highly skilled in what the Leadership and Presence Pools represent conceptually.



My question for staff is ... do you concur that Masterminds ought to have better multipliers used in their Leadership and Presence Pools than they are given for all other Pools, simply as a matter of conceptual consistency with the context of the Archetype and what those Pools actually DO?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

brw316

  • Developer
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Inf: +8/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2022, 09:40:26 pm »
When I was given the heads-up that Redlynne wanted to discuss some thoughts on Masterminds, I braced myself for a two thousand word essay full of data points. This is not quite what I was expecting  :D Keep in mind, nothing that follows is a definite as balance changes are ran through the ringer at the staff level for consensus. I'm genuinely interested in seeing how this conversation develops!

To your point, I do not disagree that Masterminds should have naturally higher values for leadership conceptually. The only issue that I have with this is a concern over homogenizing builds by increasing the modifiers too much. Right now, I'm not sure where the balance point lies. I think that 1.25 is too high as that encroaches on Defender values, but the current 0.75 is way too low. Napkin math suggests 1.125...better than Corruptors/Controllers, but less than Defenders. NOTE: at this time, I'm inclined to think that any potential buffs would only apply to Maneuvers, Assault, and Tactics. I am firmly against henchmen becoming valid targets for Vengeance unless buffs provided were tailored to the rank of the pet (similar to Soul Extraction's varying pet generation).

The Presence pool is an interesting one. Conceptually? Yes, Masterminds should probably have higher modifiers for some powers in that pool. As MMs are actually well-suited for aggro control when built correctly (and when henchmen are kept on a tight leash), I could see increasing the Taunt duration in Provoke (or the MM Taunt mods globally instead). Similarly, I could also see Pacify possibly seeing a duration increase; however, Placate duration is a constant that is AT agnostic so I'm a little on the fence about that one. I'm a little unsure about Invoke Panic and Intimidate . The AT mods for the Fear durations are already fairly average, only surpassed by Controllers. I'm interested to hear your reasoning for why the Presence powers should see a buff for MMs and where you think we should go.

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2022, 09:40:22 am »
When I was given the heads-up that Redlynne wanted to discuss some thoughts on Masterminds, I braced myself for a two thousand word essay full of data points. This is not quite what I was expecting  :D

Aw, c'mon ... I'm not THAT BAD at making Feature Requests™ ...

Keep in mind, nothing that follows is a definite as balance changes are ran through the ringer at the staff level for consensus. I'm genuinely interested in seeing how this conversation develops!

Point One ... GRANTED.
No promises of ANY KIND are assumed or inferred.

But a conversation has to start somewhere.
Begin with the concept and discuss the merits of the concept.
If the concept is found to have validity, you can move on to questions of implementation and the contours of changes.
For the benefit(s) of Staff, understand that I am approaching this from a direction of "making tweaks" to the already existing structure of the legacy coding (modify a database field here and there) rather than a wholesale "urban renewal" of systems (throw out everything and start with a clean sheet of Notepad app).

So more of an "adjust and fine tune" rather than an effort at "refactoring from scratch" is the direction I would prefer to take this conversation.
Limited and confined/contained changes (that can be tested and evaluated easily!), rather than expansive ones that break the game balance wide open (after which it is never to be found again), is the way I want to approach this.



Also, might I impose upon you brw316 to cast the same critical eye towards my other Mastermind proposal ... Masstermind ATOs ... since that would seem to me to be another case of an "easy database fix" that could merit your consideration.








To your point, I do not disagree that Masterminds should have naturally higher values for leadership conceptually.

Good.
Alignment of perception begins ...

The only issue that I have with this is a concern over homogenizing builds by increasing the modifiers too much.

For what it's worth, I have the same concerns.
Increasing the modifiers too much would "damage" the value of other Archetypes in relative terms.

Right now, I'm not sure where the balance point lies. I think that 1.25 is too high as that encroaches on Defender values, but the current 0.75 is way too low. Napkin math suggests 1.125...better than Corruptors/Controllers, but less than Defenders.

Counter-proposal.

What about making the global multiplier for Leadership a x1.0 for Masterminds (Maneuvers, Assault, Tactics, Vengeance, Victory Rush) ... which I believe would put them "on par" with Controllers (I'm not well versed with Corruptors or Dominators, so I'll take your word for where those values are set as precedents) ... but my opening bid here is an "on par with Controllers" modification to output performance. This would mean that Defenders "still remain better" (so Masterminds don't suddenly become "the best" option for this Pool in an unchallenged way), upsetting the legacy game balance established in favor of Defenders.

However ... in addition to adjusting the global multiplier ... you also adjust the endurance costs for all the Leadership powers for Masterminds. If that is also controlled by a multiplier, I'm thinking in terms of "change x1.0 into being x0.8" on Leadership Pool endurance costs for Masterminds (basically, a -20% global reduction in endurance cost).

That combination of "a bit more throughput at a bit less cost" would seem to me to be a more reasonable compromise that doesn't wind up stepping on the toes of other Archetypes (by overshadowing them), while at the same time making Leadership an "easier" (or "cheaper" if you prefer) Pool for Masterminds to "manage" due to their extensive experience in leading a pack of Pets, when it comes to the endurance budget. Such a configuration ought to avoid the concern you've (very rightly!) raised about making Leadership "too good" for Masterminds, while still putting them into a "somewhat advantageous" position relative to other Archetypes in a way that is consistent with the Mastermind concept as a matter of First Principles.

That would be my opening bid on the matter of what to do about the Leadership Pool for Masterminds.
Your opinion?

NOTE: at this time, I'm inclined to think that any potential buffs would only apply to Maneuvers, Assault, and Tactics. I am firmly against henchmen becoming valid targets for Vengeance unless buffs provided were tailored to the rank of the pet (similar to Soul Extraction's varying pet generation).

Agreed.
Pets would NOT become valid $Targets for Vengeance.
No changes there.

Victory Rush would still require FOE $Targets, as normal, so Pets do not apply here either.








The Presence pool is an interesting one.

I initially wasn't going to bring it up at all and just focus on the Leadership Pool ... but then as I kept mulling over the ideas, I realized that the same conceptual framework applied to the Presence Pool as well, hence why I included it in this topic.

Part of the problem is that the Presence Pool was really ... neglected ... for most of the lifespan of CoX under Cryptic and then later Paragon Studios.
You really have to go out of your way to make the Presence Pool "work" for almost any build, and that's really a shame.
The Presence Pool barely gets "up to par" with full slotting, which is a LOT of effort to go to for an entire Pool that does no damage and only offers soft controls.

Conceptually? Yes, Masterminds should probably have higher modifiers for some powers in that pool. As MMs are actually well-suited for aggro control when built correctly (and when henchmen are kept on a tight leash), I could see increasing the Taunt duration in Provoke (or the MM Taunt mods globally instead).

Counter-proposal.

What if Provoke was changed ... to be Auto-Hit in PvE for Masterminds only?
Use the precedents of Tanker Taunt coding in terms of Auto-Hit for mobs but still requires a To Hit check against Players in PvP (just like Tankers).
Being able to dump the need for Accuracy enhancement in Provoke for Masterminds would be huge.

Alternatively, a more "uniform" (or simpler) response would be to just adjust the global accuracy modifier for Masterminds for the entire Pool ... again, the purpose is to reduce (but in this case, not eliminate) the need to slot Accuracy into the powers of this Pool. The throughput result is that Masterminds are "more consistent" with their use of Presence Pool powers, rather than making Masterminds "deliver more throughput" in terms of durations. By reducing the "need" for Accuracy in these Pool powers, you increase the potential availability of slotting for duration increase, endurance reduction and recharge reduction as a matter of weighting in demand for enhancement.

Another possibility, which could be combined with the "better Accuracy" approach (so not mutually exclusive), would be to reduce base recharge times on Presence Pool powers so Masterminds can use these powers "more often" than other Archetypes. Again, rather than adjusting the durations of power efects, Masterminds would simply be able to use them "more quickly" so as to be able to better manage the ebb and tide of evolving combat situations over time. Note that such a change would be consistent with a potential goal of being able to stack durations of Presence Pool powers during longer engagements, to better manage "traffic flow" of particularly hard $Targets through improved uptime (same duration, shorter recharge) and potential overlapping of durations before they expire.

In other words, I agree with your concerns of not making the Presence Pool an "IWIN!" button ... while at the same time wanting to improve the Pool when taken by the one Archetype that conceptually ought to be "best" at using the Pool.

And yes ... before you ask ... I am suggesting that as part of a global reduction in recharge times ... Unrelenting ought to be included as a part of that global modification of the Pool for Masterminds.
Again, I wouldn't want to provide "too much" of a reduction in recharge time for Unrelenting, but letting Masterminds have "more uptime" relative to other Archetypes with this specific "capstone" Tier 5 Power of the Presence Pool makes a lot of sense to me, particularly if applying a global recharge modifier adjustment to the rest of the Pool like I'm proposing here.

Your opinion?

Similarly, I could also see Pacify possibly seeing a duration increase; however, Placate duration is a constant that is AT agnostic so I'm a little on the fence about that one. I'm a little unsure about Invoke Panic and Intimidate . The AT mods for the Fear durations are already fairly average, only surpassed by Controllers.

Pacify ... would be better served with a recharge reduction, rather than a duration increase, in the context of the Mastermind Archetype.
Being able to use a single target Placate effect "more often" so as to be able to "spread it around" to multiple $Targets more quickly would be a greater advantage to the Mastermind Archetype than simply boosting the duration of the effect, I'm thinking. Such a move would also not upset the "constant that is AT agnostic" factor that you (correctly!) cite as a precedent that should not be messed around with lightly.

For the Fear powers (Intimidate and Invoke Panic) ... I'm again thinking that a reduction in base recharge times would be a better buff than increasing the durations. Allowing Masterminds to use these powers "more often" relative to other Archetypes would enable them to "spread the love/hate/ FEAR" more rapidly (and evenly!) across spawn groups, rather than reaching for the duration modifiers to make these powers last longer. Having shorter recharge times would also make overlapping durations an easier prospect while also enabling more rapid deployment of these powers against different and disparate $Targets for better "steamroller" deployment during rapid advances in position.

Also, as an edge case side effect of such a change in recharge times for Masterminds, this would mean that Presence Pool powers "operate differently" for Masterminds than other Archetypes when it comes to slotting of The Haunting set and its proc for summoning Ghosts(!). Depending on slotting (and the speed of engagements), this could potentially mean that Masterminds with Presence Pool Fear powers wind up with "better uptime" on Ghosts than other Archetypes would ... which again feels "right" to me as an emergent behavior consequence of such a change with respect to the purpose built Pet Herder Archetype.

See? I'm thinking about edge cases too, so you don't have to do all the work considering the ones I've neglected to think about!








I'm interested to hear your reasoning for why the Presence powers should see a buff for MMs and where you think we should go.

Here's me hoping that I haven't wasted your time or bored you with my responses.
Yes, I'm writing far more now than I did initially with the invitation to discuss this topic, but that's because I'm now needing to explain and educate with respect to what I mean with what I'm saying, in addition to needing to erect safeguards against misunderstanding/misinterpretation of intent and direction, so apologies for the additional verbosity.

In my experience, when it comes to trying to convey ideas and concepts like this, it is often best to be as clear as possible about your stances of This Not That to prevent wild goose chases off in unhelpful directions of assumptions and possibilities. Clarity can often times serve better than conciseness, when communicating through pure text like this (a very limited bandwidth communication channel).

For your benefit, brw316, I will reiterate that my default position is one of (fine) "tuning and tweaks" rather than wholesale revisions that rapidly go beyond the pale and are almost impossible to test and judge for game balance (if the adjustments are too far reaching in their implications). Additionally, I also tend towards a posture of buff the minimum while holding the maximum in which low end performance parameters are intended to be targeted for buffing while the top end sees (and feels) no meaningful adjustment in throughput. That way you "narrow the band" of performance (minimum gets better while maximum does not change) without upsetting the overall game balance already established at the top end ... because that top end performance is where Players and their characters tend to "wind up" at eventually ... and once you destabilize that top end game balance performance profile, it's almost impossible to get back to it.

Anyway, hope that helps you with considering this proposal (and my other one concerning Mastermind ATOs that I posted previously).
« Last Edit: November 14, 2022, 09:52:43 am by Redlynne »


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

brw316

  • Developer
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Inf: +8/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2022, 01:06:42 am »
Quote
Aw, c'mon ... I'm not THAT BAD at making Feature Requests™ ...

It was only meant in jest :D

Just to lay it out for you...

Buffing the Leadership and/or Presence pools in the way that you have outlined will require us to create a new version of the pools that would only be available to Masterminds. The way that powers are constructed, adding archetype-specific modifiers to base power properties (End Cost, Accuracy, Recharge, etc) is not possible. AT-specific mods come into play for a power's targeted effects through the use of the archetypes' class tables.

There is a two-phase power pool revamp coming (the first bit will be in Issue 5), so this conversation is actually quite timely. However, the idea of building out an archetype-specific version of a pool set (or two) seems a bit much and could be a hard sell. I'm eager to entertain the discussion and see if there is some common ground on the core ideas even if implementation may differ.

Quote
Counter-proposal.

What about making the global multiplier for Leadership a x1.0 for Masterminds (Maneuvers, Assault, Tactics, Vengeance, Victory Rush) ... which I believe would put them "on par" with Controllers (I'm not well versed with Corruptors or Dominators, so I'll take your word for where those values are set as precedents) ... but my opening bid here is an "on par with Controllers" modification to output performance. This would mean that Defenders "still remain better" (so Masterminds don't suddenly become "the best" option for this Pool in an unchallenged way), upsetting the legacy game balance established in favor of Defenders.

However ... in addition to adjusting the global multiplier ... you also adjust the endurance costs for all the Leadership powers for Masterminds. If that is also controlled by a multiplier, I'm thinking in terms of "change x1.0 into being x0.8" on Leadership Pool endurance costs for Masterminds (basically, a -20% global reduction in endurance cost).

That combination of "a bit more throughput at a bit less cost" would seem to me to be a more reasonable compromise that doesn't wind up stepping on the toes of other Archetypes (by overshadowing them), while at the same time making Leadership an "easier" (or "cheaper" if you prefer) Pool for Masterminds to "manage" due to their extensive experience in leading a pack of Pets, when it comes to the endurance budget. Such a configuration ought to avoid the concern you've (very rightly!) raised about making Leadership "too good" for Masterminds, while still putting them into a "somewhat advantageous" position relative to other Archetypes in a way that is consistent with the Mastermind concept as a matter of First Principles.

That would be my opening bid on the matter of what to do about the Leadership Pool for Masterminds.
Your opinion?

I did a quick comparison between the leadership pool and the Tactical Training powers found on the Soldiers and Widows to ensure there wasn't too much overlap in values. I think that from a conceptual standpoint, this counter-proposal is a reasonable ask.

Quote
Counter-proposal.

What if Provoke was changed ... to be Auto-Hit in PvE for Masterminds only?
Use the precedents of Tanker Taunt coding in terms of Auto-Hit for mobs but still requires a To Hit check against Players in PvP (just like Tankers).
Being able to dump the need for Accuracy enhancement in Provoke for Masterminds would be huge.

Alternatively, a more "uniform" (or simpler) response would be to just adjust the global accuracy modifier for Masterminds for the entire Pool ... again, the purpose is to reduce (but in this case, not eliminate) the need to slot Accuracy into the powers of this Pool. The throughput result is that Masterminds are "more consistent" with their use of Presence Pool powers, rather than making Masterminds "deliver more throughput" in terms of durations. By reducing the "need" for Accuracy in these Pool powers, you increase the potential availability of slotting for duration increase, endurance reduction and recharge reduction as a matter of weighting in demand for enhancement.

I think the Taunt mods for Masterminds need to be increased regardless. Currently, masterminds have a 0.5x modifier to all taunt mods by base. While this keeps in line with other Ranged/Support archetypes, Masterminds were originally intended to be a more tanky class. Having such an innate disadvantage at aggro control flies in the face of this original intent and suggests that mistakes were made when the class was originally created. Considering how highly Taunt Duration is favored in the Threat formula, their abysmal damage mods, and terrible debuff mods, an MM is at a severe disadvantage against any other archetype in terms of Threat Generation and Aggro Control.

Regarding the possibility of an Auto-Hit? I don't see any issues with this. Taunt powers for Brutes, Tankers, Dwarves, Widows and Scrappers are all auto-hit, so normalizing Provoke actually brings it in line with other offerings. Such a change would likely be global and impact all ATs. That being said, an increased accuracy does not sound unreasonable for Masterminds in PVP and could prove an interesting dynamic in team matches.

Quote
Another possibility, which could be combined with the "better Accuracy" approach (so not mutually exclusive), would be to reduce base recharge times on Presence Pool powers so Masterminds can use these powers "more often" than other Archetypes. Again, rather than adjusting the durations of power efects, Masterminds would simply be able to use them "more quickly" so as to be able to better manage the ebb and tide of evolving combat situations over time. Note that such a change would be consistent with a potential goal of being able to stack durations of Presence Pool powers during longer engagements, to better manage "traffic flow" of particularly hard $Targets through improved uptime (same duration, shorter recharge) and potential overlapping of durations before they expire.

[I wish I had a /thinking emote to insert here]

Another interesting proposition. For comparison, AoE Taunt recharges are normalized at 10 seconds for all versions of Taunt, Provoke included. Duration is the key difference between each. Brutes, Tankers, and Peacebringers have a 20 second duration Taunt while Black Dwarf Antagonize and Provoke are reduced to 8 seconds. However, those other ATs have substantially higher modifiers for their Taunt effects (1.0x for Brutes/Tanks, 0.85x for Khelds). I know that I keep bringing up duration, but it is the most important consideration for aggro management. Were we to increase the Taunt mod for MMs and reduce the recharge on Provoke by...let's say 20%...it would allow for MMs to keep their durations up at approximately half the rate of the other ATs. This would allow them to act as a primary tank on a team that doesn't feature a Brute, Tanker, or Kheld and grant them superior aggro control than any other "support" AT. I don't dislike it.

As far as reducing the recharge on the other powers within the pool...I still have some reservations. It is already possible--albeit expensive--to perma-Fear a boss using the powers in the set as-is. I'm not sure that allowing MMs to do this more easily is the best balance decision, though it makes thematic sense. I would need to think on this one more. I really like the idea of Fear becoming more prevalent as it is an underrated status effect, but I'm just not sure on this.

Quote
And yes ... before you ask ... I am suggesting that as part of a global reduction in recharge times ... Unrelenting ought to be included as a part of that global modification of the Pool for Masterminds.
Again, I wouldn't want to provide "too much" of a reduction in recharge time for Unrelenting, but letting Masterminds have "more uptime" relative to other Archetypes with this specific "capstone" Tier 5 Power of the Presence Pool makes a lot of sense to me, particularly if applying a global recharge modifier adjustment to the rest of the Pool like I'm proposing here.

Your opinion?

The knee-jerk reaction is likely to be HELL NO! from most everyone simply due to the fact that this is a tier 5. Although, after giving this some thought, I believe the idea has merit. The overwhelming majority (somewhere in the realm of 75%+?) of a Mastermind's damage output is in its pets, so the 16% damage bonus is comparatively negligible. The 20% recharge not only acts as a not-insignificant buff to the secondary powers (which are significantly worse than other support classes), but also allows for the "TankerMind" to effectively "heal" faster for 30 seconds by summoning its pets more often. And then there's the Heal over Time aspect which, while nice, is also 2% per second for 30 seconds on the archetype with the lowest health pool of any class. Color me intrigued.

Quote
For your benefit, brw316, I will reiterate that my default position is one of (fine) "tuning and tweaks" rather than wholesale revisions that rapidly go beyond the pale and are almost impossible to test and judge for game balance (if the adjustments are too far reaching in their implications). Additionally, I also tend towards a posture of buff the minimum while holding the maximum in which low end performance parameters are intended to be targeted for buffing while the top end sees (and feels) no meaningful adjustment in throughput. That way you "narrow the band" of performance (minimum gets better while maximum does not change) without upsetting the overall game balance already established at the top end ... because that top end performance is where Players and their characters tend to "wind up" at eventually ... and once you destabilize that top end game balance performance profile, it's almost impossible to get back to it.

You are speaking my language, Redlynne. Your position seems to mesh well with my own and with our staff in general. While nerfs will likely happen over time, our goal is for them to be few and far between. Our focus is always on elevating underperformers to close the power gaps without disturbing the top.

Quote
Also, might I impose upon you brw316 to cast the same critical eye towards my other Mastermind proposal ... Mastermind ATOs ... since that would seem to me to be another case of an "easy database fix" that could merit your consideration.

I figured that I would save this for last :) I read through the post and have no rebuttals. The reasoning is sound and if it opens up some additional build diversity, I'm in 100%. That being said, I would not expect to see MM ATOs expanded into their secondaries. While I understand Ignicity's point, the majority of the pets listed are pseudopets and I would not consider them eligible for the ATOs. Off the top of my head, I could see an argument for Dark Servant and Tornado...and that's about it.

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2022, 10:46:38 am »
Quote
Aw, c'mon ... I'm not THAT BAD at making Feature Requests™ ...

It was only meant in jest :D

I know.  ;D

Besides, we make every pretense of competency around here ...  8)

Buffing the Leadership and/or Presence pools in the way that you have outlined will require us to create a new version of the pools that would only be available to Masterminds. The way that powers are constructed, adding archetype-specific modifiers to base power properties (End Cost, Accuracy, Recharge, etc) is not possible. AT-specific mods come into play for a power's targeted effects through the use of the archetypes' class tables.

And unless I miss my guess, there are two basic ways to implement such a change.
  • Pure internal update where there is a character database update during server downtime to edit all Masterminds en masse with these Pools to redirect their function calls to the New Version™ of the old Pool.
  • In-game Respec is required to update characters individually to the new paradigm pointing towards the New Version™ of the old Pool.
So what I'm presuming at this point is that such an update is not IMPOSSIBLE ... but it could be potentially MESSY (and therefore possibly problematic to implement). At that point the conversation would switch from "WHY do this?" into one of "HOW do this?" for Staff to resolve ... which is also (quite fairly) beyond the bounds of this specific conversation (since it is the follow up conversation).

Right now, I'm simply interested in discussing the WHAT and WHY of any possible changes to be made, while leaving the details of the HOW question to people who are far more knowledgeable and qualified (and experienced!) at that task than I am.

There is a two-phase power pool revamp coming (the first bit will be in Issue 5), so this conversation is actually quite timely.

Well there's a first, at least.
Every other time I've offered ideas like this to Dev Staff of games ... it's Never The Right Time™.

We aren't working on that.
We aren't thinking about those issues.
Nice thought, but there's no room in the (almighty) SCHEDULE to even take up the idea ... so ... thanks, but no thanks.

It has always felt like "NOW" was not the right time ... EVER.
Until now.

This response ... more than anything else that you have said thus far, gives me HOPE.

Even if I can't "catch the wave" and ride it all the way in to the beach sand ... just the very idea that THIS TIME(!), I might have "caught the wave" at the right time (for once!) ... fills me with Hope and Happiness that this conversation is happening at all.

Still not assuming any promises or commitments on your end, because there are a LOT of layers and approvals to get through before such things could even be considered yet as possibilities.

However, the idea of building out an archetype-specific version of a pool set (or two) seems a bit much and could be a hard sell. I'm eager to entertain the discussion and see if there is some common ground on the core ideas even if implementation may differ.

My understanding (from talking to the Paragon Studios Devs at the Player Summits in 2011 and 2012) was that the Pools were designed and set up to be "Universal" in the sense that you just pulled an Archetype's Global Modifiers and plugged them into the universal parameters used in Pool Powers. Specific Archetypes were NOT INTENDED to have an "Archetype Advantage" with specific Pools that went beyond their Global Modifiers. That way, the programming structure could be defined as a Set & Forget so the database people wouldn't have to be overwhelmed by a proliferation of data fields making exceptions for Archetypes everywhere (defeating the purpose of Universal Pools common to everyone).

Very much a Reusable Code mindset.

And for what it's worth, I agree with you that Duplicating Out a "copy" of a pair of Pools so as to make "exceptions" for how those specific Pools work for a particular Archetype does seem like a Heavy Lift as an ASK.
It would definitely require Developer Time in order to implement ... and given the "spaghettified" state of the City of Heroes programming and database, an option potentially fraught with danger (could easily break something else!).

Step 1: Does it MAkE SENSE? (Y/N)
Step 2: CAN it be done? (Y/N)
Step 3: SHOULD it be done? (Y/N)
Step 4: HOW would it be done? (okay kid, this is where it gets complicated...)
Step 5: DO it? (Y/N)
Step 6: TEST and Evaluate it. (more complexity and investment required!)
Step 7: APPROVE it? (Y/N)
Step 8: PUBLISH it? (Y/N)

The process is NOT one of these flowcharts:



Right now, I'm mostly worried about Step 1 ... while also trying to lend a sympathetic perspective towards the rigors needed for Step 2.
After that ... everything I'm talking about in this conversation is quite beyond me for Steps 3-8 (since those are all Dev Staff internal discussions).

I did a quick comparison between the leadership pool and the Tactical Training powers found on the Soldiers and Widows to ensure there wasn't too much overlap in values. I think that from a conceptual standpoint, this counter-proposal is a reasonable ask.

Interesting.
I hadn't considered a cross-comparison with Soldiers of Arachnos and their multipliers ... but now that you mention it, such a cross-AT balance check makes perfect sense.

Nice to hear that even when put to this test comparison, the notion of putting Masterminds "on par with Controllers" in terms of throughput still remains a reasonable ask.
Checkbox ... marked.

I think the Taunt mods for Masterminds need to be increased regardless. Currently, masterminds have a 0.5x modifier to all taunt mods by base. While this keeps in line with other Ranged/Support archetypes, Masterminds were originally intended to be a more tanky class. Having such an innate disadvantage at aggro control flies in the face of this original intent and suggests that mistakes were made when the class was originally created. Considering how highly Taunt Duration is favored in the Threat formula, their abysmal damage mods, and terrible debuff mods, an MM is at a severe disadvantage against any other archetype in terms of Threat Generation and Aggro Control.

Your reasoning is sound and I readily accept your perspective on this matter.

Regarding the possibility of an Auto-Hit? I don't see any issues with this. Taunt powers for Brutes, Tankers, Dwarves, Widows and Scrappers are all auto-hit, so normalizing Provoke actually brings it in line with other offerings. Such a change would likely be global and impact all ATs. That being said, an increased accuracy does not sound unreasonable for Masterminds in PVP and could prove an interesting dynamic in team matches.

The difficulty here is that the Taunt powers for Brutes, Tankers, Kheldian Dwarves, Widows and Scrappers are all included in either their Primary or their Secondary powerset (and in the case of Kheldians, in their shapeshift into Dwarf Form). Those are all powers that are "built in" to the Archetype.

The Presence Pool, by contrast, is designed to be a "universal" pool that gets used by everyone, without favoritism (aside from the different Global Modifiers and how they impact things).

The difficulty is that if you're going to be modifying things like (base) recharge times for powers for a specific Archetype (Masterminds), at that point you really do want to create a "parallel Pool" that is substantially a copy/paste of what all the other Archetypes use, but with the desired changes implemented into the new database entry and just reset the function call pointer for the Mastermind Archetype to call the new duplicate Pool with the changes implemented into it. The cleanest way to achieve the goal would be to create a limited "exception Pool" in parallel to all of the already existing ones and use a redirect to make it all happen.

For various reasons, it might be simpler to test such an implementation using the Leadership Pool first (and even then, only adjusting 2 parameters on the toggles only for Masterminds) to determine if such an implementation is even feasible (or does it BREAK THE WORLD!!!). If the test is successful, you can then experiment with doing something similar to the Presence Pool and see how it goes.

When taking baby steps, you TEST to VERIFY.

[I wish I had a /thinking emote to insert here]

Yet more proof (as if we needed it...) that I'm a BAD INFLUENCE ON YOU PEOPLE.  ;D

Another interesting proposition. For comparison, AoE Taunt recharges are normalized at 10 seconds for all versions of Taunt, Provoke included. Duration is the key difference between each. Brutes, Tankers, and Peacebringers have a 20 second duration Taunt while Black Dwarf Antagonize and Provoke are reduced to 8 seconds. However, those other ATs have substantially higher modifiers for their Taunt effects (1.0x for Brutes/Tanks, 0.85x for Khelds). I know that I keep bringing up duration, but it is the most important consideration for aggro management. Were we to increase the Taunt mod for MMs and reduce the recharge on Provoke by...let's say 20%...it would allow for MMs to keep their durations up at approximately half the rate of the other ATs. This would allow them to act as a primary tank on a team that doesn't feature a Brute, Tanker, or Kheld and grant them superior aggro control than any other "support" AT. I don't dislike it.

This is a mildly famous phrase that Developers use when talking about how the mechanics of their games do what they do ... or are at least SUPPOSED to do what they do.

Working As Intended.

The fun thing about that three word phrase is ... it can mean VERY different things to different people.
Allow me to demonstrate.

WORKING as intended.

Working as INTENDED.

Say the phrase out loud to yourself with the different emphasis in stress and you'll begin to sense the differences of interpretation that can be going on when saying that phrase.

A lot of the time, when Developers say "Working As Intended" they mean the former ... that the mechanic is "working" ... in the sense that the game doesn't crash to desktop or other Bad Stuff™ happens with it. In other words, the programming isn't encountering a fatal crash of some kind (or other non-fatal error that causes problems elsewhere, such as a memory leak and so on).

However, when Players both hear and say "Working As Intended" they're usually referring to the latter interpretation. The fact that the mechanic "works" (and doesn't cause the game to crash) is just assumed ... but what is being questioned is the INTENT behind the game mechanic operating the way that it does. It is perfectly possible to have a game mechanic that "works" in implementation, but the "intent" behind it taking the form that it does is somehow broken.

The way this conversation is going, I'm starting to get the feeling that this ... mismatch ... of interpretation in "Working As Intended" is at the root of what we're talking about here with respect to Masterminds and the Leadership+Presence Pools.

Both Pools are "WORKING As Intended" from a programming standpoint when it comes to reuse of code and the application of global modifiers.
What is busted is that both Pools are NOT "working as INTENDED" from a gameplay concept standpoint, because the global modifiers are "too globally applied" in these specific instances.

Like the Murphy's Rules poster on the wall says ... Logic is the process of arriving at the WRONG conclusion with confidence.

How the Leadership and Presence Pools work for Masterminds is logically consistent with the way that Pools were originally designed and intended to function and operate.
The problem is that the Mastermind Archetype does not fit into that universal framework exactly the same way that the other Archetypes do from a baseline conceptual starting point.

Every other Archetype is a soloist first and foremost ... with varying degrees of team friendly built into them that they grow into.
Masterminds are flat out GIMPED from the get go if they're solo (without Pets). The Mastermind Archetype is intentionally designed to "be a team!" from Level 1 onwards ... with varying degrees of how large that team gets to be over time.
That breaks the pattern of precedent that all the other Archetypes are set up with from character creation (before even reaching the Tutorial).
No other Archetype besides Masterminds are deliberately designed to "be a team" as early as the Tutorial after character creation.

That fundamental shift in the underlying baseline assumptions has consequences ... particularly if you're applying a One Size Fits All solution uniformly to everyone, because Masterminds a just so fundamentally made using a Different Cookie Cutter than everyone else.

In other words, you've convinced me that the "parallel Pool entries" in the database is the best overall solution to this particular question of how to make a limited number of exceptions for the Mastermind Archetype with respect to the Leadership and Presence Pools. Among other things, such an implementation has the lowest opportunity to "harm" other Archetypes through errors of implementation.

As far as reducing the recharge on the other powers within the pool...I still have some reservations. It is already possible--albeit expensive--to perma-Fear a boss using the powers in the set as-is. I'm not sure that allowing MMs to do this more easily is the best balance decision, though it makes thematic sense. I would need to think on this one more. I really like the idea of Fear becoming more prevalent as it is an underrated status effect, but I'm just not sure on this.

And this is where the granularity of details starts coming into play, along with my rant above about Intent behind game mechanics working the way they do.

From my perspective, I'm of the opinion that the "Taunt Supremacy" of Tankers and Brutes (and by extension, Kheldian Dwarves) ought to remain unchallenged.
If Tankers and Brutes have a x1.0 Taunt multiplier and Kheldian Dwarves have a x0.85 multipier ... then I would reason that any adjustment to Masterminds should not exceed the x0.85 multiplier used for Kheldian Dwarves.

Putting the Mastermind global modifier "on par" with a Kheldian Dwarf ... feels reasonable.

And yes, I completely get what you're saying about Taunt duration being a high priority in the Threat calculator used by the AI to determine targeting.
However, my INTENT behind what I'm asking for and proposing here is to find a way to not make Masterminds "just another copy" of what everyone else is doing.
My INTENT is to reach for ... similar outcomes, but by different means ... if that makes sense to you.

When it comes to gameplay, the ... tempo ... of what a Player is doing can have a really dramatic impact on the gameplay experience.
To give you a very simplistic example of the kind of thing I'm talking about ... consider two types of Hold powers ... long duration+long recharge and short duration+short recharge.

The long duration+long recharge Hold isn't something that can be used frequently (see: long recharge), so it can't be incorporated easily into a repeating attack chain.
Additionally, while the long duration is "nice to have" it isn't always going to be realized in full. A 20 second Hold on a $Target that gets defeated in 10 seconds or less is substantially being "wasted" in effect ... much like a large/long Damage over Time that doesn't get to apply all of its damage ticks. At the Game Balance decision making phase of things in the spreadsheet, you have to "pay for" that overkill factor ... whether it gets used or not ... and if it is typically winding up not being useful, you're functionally paying for wasted power. For examples of this in other contexts, think of "corpse blasting" with Gravity Control: Propel or even Energy Melee: Energy Transfer ... where by the time the damage finally lands, your $Target has already been defeated (but you still had to pay the full endurance and animation time cost of the attack to deliver no useful damage whatsoever). Powers that take too long to be usefully employed tend to wind up getting relegated to the "Break Glass If..." category, where they just sit in power trays waiting for a need to be used.

By contrast, the short duration+short recharge Hold is something that can be used frequently (see: short recharge) and can much more easily get incorporated into a repeating attack chain.
Although this version of a Hold might need to reapplied to extend the duration on a single $Target, having the OPTION to use it on different $Targets more rapidly over time means that it can be "spread around" much more easily than the alternative above. As the situation and circumstances change, the short duration+short recharge Hold is more ... responsive ... in availability for application, creating a very different (and more "active") feel for the power and how it should be employed.

One BIG HIT ... or lots of little hits.
The one BIG HIT can only be used against one $Target at a time ... but the lots of little hits can be "spread around" between a collection of $Targets in a way that the one BIG HIT cannot.

At its heart, this is a case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other" where you're wanting to converge on similar outcomes but do so by different means.



So just to REALLY blow your mind ... how about this as an option?

You see that Containment mechanic used by Controllers over there?
Yeah, what if we "borrow" that concept and apply it to Masterminds (kinda sorta maybe)?

Modify the Mastermind Presence Pool Taunt power such that if an affected $Target already has a Taunt effect on it (regardless of source!) then when the Mastermind casts their Presence Taunt the duration is x2 (cannot duplicate from same caster).
Basically "Containment-lite" for Masterminds Taunting via the Presence Pool.
Couple that with a shorter recharge time, so as to be able to get to that x2 Taunt duration effect "faster" and ... I think you've got what you're looking for.

Taunt early.
Taunt often.
... kind of like the advice for voting, wouldn't you say?

Thoughts?

Quote
And yes ... before you ask ... I am suggesting that as part of a global reduction in recharge times ... Unrelenting ought to be included as a part of that global modification of the Pool for Masterminds.
Again, I wouldn't want to provide "too much" of a reduction in recharge time for Unrelenting, but letting Masterminds have "more uptime" relative to other Archetypes with this specific "capstone" Tier 5 Power of the Presence Pool makes a lot of sense to me, particularly if applying a global recharge modifier adjustment to the rest of the Pool like I'm proposing here.

Your opinion?

The knee-jerk reaction is likely to be HELL NO! from most everyone simply due to the fact that this is a tier 5. Although, after giving this some thought, I believe the idea has merit. The overwhelming majority (somewhere in the realm of 75%+?) of a Mastermind's damage output is in its pets, so the 16% damage bonus is comparatively negligible. The 20% recharge not only acts as a not-insignificant buff to the secondary powers (which are significantly worse than other support classes), but also allows for the "TankerMind" to effectively "heal" faster for 30 seconds by summoning its pets more often. And then there's the Heal over Time aspect which, while nice, is also 2% per second for 30 seconds on the archetype with the lowest health pool of any class. Color me intrigued.

Yes, I've often times encountered exactly that reaction.
The immediate response is to dismiss the notion out of hand before examining the implications ... but then when you do (examine the implications), you discover that the results are not what you were expecting.

Looking at the problem through the wrong perspective/lens/prism tends to do that.

However, when you game out the actual results of what such a change would do (like you just did) ... the "yield" curve is quite dramatically different from what it would be for any other Archetype, so the expectations based on what the change would do to any other Archetype does not "usefully map onto" what the same change would do for the Mastermind Archetype. Once again, Masterminds wind up feeling a lot like they're living in a "class by themselves" simply because the Archetype is so radically different in structure and fundamentals than any other Archetype.

The mere fact that you yourself went through the cycle of OH HELL NO! knee jerk to "wait a minute, what if..." to realizing "actually, you know..." when taking a look at the implications objectively and then actually winding up "intrigued" by the possibilities speaks volumes about you and your value to the Dev Staff here at Rebirth.

Or to quote Bryce Lynch from Max Headroom:
"There are no experimental failures. There's only more data."

Quote
For your benefit, brw316, I will reiterate that my default position is one of (fine) "tuning and tweaks" rather than wholesale revisions that rapidly go beyond the pale and are almost impossible to test and judge for game balance (if the adjustments are too far reaching in their implications). Additionally, I also tend towards a posture of buff the minimum while holding the maximum in which low end performance parameters are intended to be targeted for buffing while the top end sees (and feels) no meaningful adjustment in throughput. That way you "narrow the band" of performance (minimum gets better while maximum does not change) without upsetting the overall game balance already established at the top end ... because that top end performance is where Players and their characters tend to "wind up" at eventually ... and once you destabilize that top end game balance performance profile, it's almost impossible to get back to it.

You are speaking my language, Redlynne. Your position seems to mesh well with my own and with our staff in general. While nerfs will likely happen over time, our goal is for them to be few and far between. Our focus is always on elevating underperformers to close the power gaps without disturbing the top.

Well, I am trying to be helpful and insightful ... rather than just wanting to waste your time.
Plus it's helpful to know where people are coming from, especially if they're trying to point you towards some place you've never been to.

I figured that I would save this for last :) I read through the post and have no rebuttals. The reasoning is sound and if it opens up some additional build diversity, I'm in 100%.



That being said, I would not expect to see MM ATOs expanded into their secondaries. While I understand Ignicity's point, the majority of the pets listed are pseudopets and I would not consider them eligible for the ATOs. Off the top of my head, I could see an argument for Dark Servant and Tornado...and that's about it.

Oh I'm in complete agreement.
Diversifying Mastermind ATOs to Mastermind Secondaries would be a MUCH heavier lift than just diversifying them to the personal attacks in Mastermind Primaries.

Mastermind Primary powers diversification for Mastermind ATOs ... relatively straightforward.
Doing the same for Secondary powers ... eh ... I'm nowhere near as gung ho at that prospect (relatively lukewarm to cool on the idea, actually).

Best possible outcome would be to diversify to Primaries and then PAUSE to see the community reaction.

I would put diversifying into Secondaries to be more of a "nice to have" but ultimately not necessary outcome.
Diversifying into Primaries though ... that NEEDED to be done by Paragon Studios over a decade ago!

So definitely not the same weighting of desire on those two options.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2022, 10:55:46 am by Redlynne »


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

Draggynn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Inf: +20/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2022, 12:45:04 pm »
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that, but I'm not crazy about the idea of powers being slightly tweaked from 1 AT to another.  That already happens with some of the melee ATs offensive and defensive sets, and the userbase is pretty used to looking things up in MIDS, so maybe it's an unnecessary concern.  I am a fan of simplicity though and intuition and knowledge about sets being transferable.  The places where the rules aren't followed in the game already annoy me (mostly places where things are determined by pseudopets and so AT modifiers aren't a factor) and so I'm not a fan of adding more instances where this is the case.  I just think the more caveats there are where things operate differently than players expect make the game seem more complex and less accessible.

Masterminds being the AT that I can least make myself play, I have no idea how much they're in need of tweaking or not.
@Draggynn: Storm Summoning Psychic Defender and Badge Hunter, formerly a resident of Virtue
See my collection of commissioned art: https://www.deviantart.com/drag-gynn

brw316

  • Developer
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 17
  • Inf: +8/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2022, 09:09:41 am »
Just dropping in to let you know that I haven't forgotten you or this topic,  Redlynne. I just got busy IRL and haven't had the chance to sit down and give you the response you deserve!

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2022, 09:44:48 am »
Just dropping in to let you know that I haven't forgotten you or this topic,  Redlynne. I just got busy IRL and haven't had the chance to sit down and give you the response you deserve!

No problem!

One of the things I've been dreading is the prospect of needing to pull info out of Mids Reborn (since City of Data is no longer hosted anywhere) in order to provide a Before/After comparison of the proposed changes at a granular database fields level for further discussion. Doing that would take away from my time to play (just reached Level 39 last night on Redlynne and have a few more flashbacks to run before unlocking XP to advance into the 40-44 block of content) ... so this pause in the discussion has worked out quite nicely for me.  ;)


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2022, 02:46:31 pm »
As threatened discussed via Event Herald in the last couple of days, here are some proposal ideas for "customizing" the Leadership and Presence Pools for Masterminds, done to provide a cross-comparison for evaluation.

All legacy information is being pulled from the Mids Reborn (latest update, verified today) for reference, hence the presentation in that format. All proposed changes are highlighed in BOLD for ease of visibility. If there is a discrepancy between in-game values and those being represented in Mids Reborn, you'll need to reconcile those differences through appropriate channels.




Leadership > Maneuvers
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ToggleToggleToggle
Accuracy:111
Activate Interval:2s2s2s
Cast Time:3.83s3.83s3.83s
Effect Area:SphereSphereSphere
End Cost:0.780.780.65
Auto-Hit:
Level Available:444
Max Targets:255255255
Notify Mobs:NeverNeverNever
Radius:60ft60ft60ft
Recharge Time:15s15s15s
Target:
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(in PvP/Non-resistable by Players)
Effect does not stack from same caster
2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(in PvP/Non-resistable by Players)
Effect does not stack from same caster
2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.63% Defense(All) for 2.25 seconds
(in PvP/Non-resistable by Players)
Effect does not stack from same caster

NOTE:
According to Mids Reborn, Masterminds are already on par for Defense Buffing with Maneuvers with Controllers and Guardians.
0.78 / 1.2 = 0.65




Leadership > Assault
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ToggleToggleToggle
Accuracy:111
Activate Interval:2s2s2s
Cast Time:3.83s3.83s3.83s
Effect Area:SphereSphereSphere
End Cost:0.780.780.65
Auto-Hit:
Level Available:444
Max Targets:255255255
Notify Mobs:NeverNeverNever
Radius:60ft60ft60ft
Recharge Time:15s15s15s
Target:
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:15% DamageBuff(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Taunt) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Placate) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed
11.25% DamageBuff(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

45.41% MezResist(Taunt) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

45.41% MezResist(Placate) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed
15% DamageBuff(All) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Taunt) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Placate) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed




Leadership > Tactics
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ToggleToggleToggle
Accuracy:111
Activate Interval:2s2s2s
Cast Time:3.83s3.83s3.83s
Effect Area:SphereSphereSphere
End Cost:0.780.780.65
Auto-Hit:
Level Available:444
Max Targets:255255255
Notify Mobs:NeverNeverNever
Radius:60ft60ft60ft
Recharge Time:15s15s15s
Target:
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:10% ToHit for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

51.9% ResEffect(PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

69.2% (346ft) PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.25 second Confused (Mag -5.19)
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

112.5% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Players)
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Terrorized) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed
7.5% ToHit for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

38.93% ResEffect(PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

51.9% (259.5ft) PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

45.41% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.25 second Confused (Mag -3.89)
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

84.34% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Players)
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

45.41% MezResist(Terrorized) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed
10% ToHit for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

51.9% ResEffect(PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

69.2% (346ft) PerceptionRadius for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Mobs)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

2.25 second Confused (Mag -5.19)
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

112.5% MezResist(Confused) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable by Players)
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed

60.55% MezResist(Terrorized) for 2.25 seconds
(Non-resistable)
Effect does not stack from same caster
Suppressed when Mezzed




Leadership > Vengeance
Leadership > Victory Rush
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Recharge Time:300s300s240s

NOTE:
Propose to make only a single change to both Vengeance and Victory Rush for Masterminds, reducing Recharge Time from 5 minutes to 4 minutes. All other parameters remain unchanged from legacy coding.
300 / 1.25 = 240


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2022, 04:25:56 pm »
As threatened discussed via Event Herald in the last couple of days, here are some proposal ideas for "customizing" the Leadership and Presence Pools for Masterminds, done to provide a cross-comparison for evaluation.

All legacy information is being pulled from the Mids Reborn (latest update, verified today) for reference, hence the presentation in that format. All proposed changes are highlighed in BOLD for ease of visibility. If there is a discrepancy between in-game values and those being represented in Mids Reborn, you'll need to reconcile those differences through appropriate channels.




Presence > Pacify
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ClickClickClick
Accuracy:111
Attack Type(s):Ranged_AttackRanged_AttackRanged_Attack
Cast Time:1.85s1.85s1.85s
Effect Area:CharacterCharacterCharacter
End Cost:6.56.55.2
Auto-Hit:NoneNoneFoe
Level Available:444
Max Targets:000
Notify Mobs:AlwaysAlwaysNever
Range:60ft60ft60ft
Recharge Time:60s60s50s
Target:FoeFoeFoe
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:8 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

4 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Players)
8 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

4 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Players)
10 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

5 second Placate (Mag 3) to Target
(to Players)

NOTE:
Stalker Placate is Auto-Hit: Foe as well as Notify Mobs: Never.
By switching Notify Mobs to Never, it becomes possible to use Placate pre-emptively before initiating combat without necessarily drawing aggro onto the Caster, setting up additional situation dependent ambush opportunities ... such as being able to pick apart spawn groups when necessary via "delayed reactions" to mob notifications.
6.5 / 1.25 = 5.2
60 / 1.2 = 50




Presence > Provoke
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ClickClickClick
Accuracy:1
Attack Type(s):AOE_Attack
Cast Time:1.85s1.85s1.85s
Effect Area:SphereSphereSphere
End Cost:000
Auto-Hit:NoneNoneFoe
Level Available:444
Max Targets:555
Notify Mobs:AlwaysAlwaysAlways
Range:60ft60ft60ft
Radius:15ft15ft15ft
Recharge Time:10s10s8s
Target:FoeFoeFoe
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:8.24 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Mobs)

4.12 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Players)
8.24 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Mobs)

4.12 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Players)
8.24 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Mobs)

16.48 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(when Taunt, to Mobs)

4.12 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(to Players, requires ToHit check)

8.24 second Taunt (Mag 4) to Target
(when Taunt to Players, requires ToHit check)

NOTE:
Auto-Hit: Foe and requires ToHit check formulation uses Tanker Taunt precedent.
Tanker and Brute Taunts remain unchallenged in terms of duration of effect.
The 2x Taunt duration "when Taunt" condition for Masterminds is directly analogous to the effects of Containment and/or Domination, making repeated use of Provoke on the same Target(s) more effective if they have already been Taunted (by the Caster or by others).
10 / 1.25 = 8




Presence > Intimidate
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ClickClickClick
Accuracy:111
Attack Type(s):Ranged_Attack, Psionic_AttackRanged_Attack, Psionic_AttackRanged_Attack, Psionic_Attack
Cast Time:1.85s1.85s1.85s
Effect Area:CharacterCharacterCharacter
End Cost:10108
Auto-Hit:NoneNoneNone
Level Available:141414
Max Targets:000
Notify Mobs:AlwaysAlwaysAlways
Range:60ft60ft60ft
Recharge Time:30s30s20s
Target:FoeFoeFoe
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 1) to Target
(30% chance when Fear, to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

19.56 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

7.45 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players, if Domination)
Ignores Enhancement & Buffs
Suppressed when Mezzed
10.43 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

10.43 second Terrorized (Mag 1) to Target
(30% chance when Fear, to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

15.65 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

5.96 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players, if Domination)
Ignores Enhancement & Buffs
Suppressed when Mezzed
13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 1) to Target
(30% chance when Fear, to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

19.56 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

7.45 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players, if Domination)
Ignores Enhancement & Buffs
Suppressed when Mezzed

NOTE:
Reduced recharge time for Masterminds will enable more frequent power use and easier stacking of Fear effects relative to other Archetypes.
Copy/paste Controller pool version for use by Masterminds in terms of effect durations.
10 / 1.25 = 8
30 / 1.5 = 20




Presence > Invoke Panic
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ClickClickClick
Accuracy:0.9
Attack Types:Melee_Attack, Psionic_AttackMelee_Attack, Psionic_AttackMelee_Attack, Psionic_Attack
Cast Time:2.11s2.11s2.11s
Effect Area:SphereSphereSphere
End Cost:181813.5
Auto-Hit:NoneNoneNone
Level Available:141414
Max Targets:101010
Notify Mobs:AlwaysAlwaysAlways
Radius:20ft20ft20ft
Recharge Time:60s60s45s
Target:FoeFoeFoe
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

19.56 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

7.45 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(Non-resistable by Players, if Domination)
Suppressed when Mezzed
10.43 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

15.65 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

5.96 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(Non-resistable by Players, if Domination)
Suppressed when Mezzed
13.04 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs)

2 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

4 second Terrorized (Mag 2 to Target
(to Players)
Suppressed when Mezzed

19.56 second Terrorized (Mag 3) to Target
(to Mobs, if Domination)

7.45 second Terrorized (Mag 2) to Target
(Non-resistable by Players, if Domination)
Suppressed when Mezzed

NOTE:
Reduced recharge time for Masterminds will enable more frequent power use and easier stacking of Fear effects relative to other Archetypes.
Copy/paste Controller pool version for use by Masterminds in terms of effect durations.
18 / 1.333 = 13.5
60 / 1.333 = 45

Question:
Why does this power not benefit from Containment like Intimidate does by having an additional 30% chance to proc a Fear (Mag 1) if the Target (Mob or Player) is already affected by Fear? Could this be an error/oversight by Paragon Studios deserving of a correction for all Archetypes more broadly to bring this power more in line with other precedents (such as Intimidate, shown above)?




Presence > Unrelenting
Legacy ControllerLegacy MastermindProposed Mastermind
Power Type:ClickClickClick
Accuracy:222
Cast Time:2.11s2.11s2.11s
Effect Area:CharacterCharacterCharacter
End Cost:000
Auto-Hit:CasterCasterCaster
Level Available:141414
Max Targets:000
Notify Mobs:AlwaysAlwaysAlways
Recharge Time:600s600s450s
Target:CasterCasterCaster
Line of Sight:TrueTrueTrue
Variable:FalseFalseFalse
Effect:2% Heal to Self for 30 seconds

+20% Enhancement(RechargeTime) to Self for 30 seconds
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs

20% (0.33 End/sec) Recovery to Self for 30 seconds

16% Damage Buff(All) to Self for 30 seconds

50% Heal to Self for 0.5 seconds
2% Heal to Self for 30 seconds

+20% Enhancement(RechargeTime) to Self for 30 seconds
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs

20% (0.33 End/sec) Recovery to Self for 30 seconds

16% Damage Buff(All) to Self for 30 seconds

50% Heal to Self for 0.5 seconds
2% Heal to Self for 30 seconds

+20% Enhancement(RechargeTime) to Self for 30 seconds
Ignores Enhancements & Buffs

20% (0.33 End/sec) Recovery to Self for 30 seconds

16% Damage Buff(All) to Self for 30 seconds

50% Heal to Self for 0.5 seconds

NOTE:
Base recharge time reduced from 10 minutes to 7.5 minutes for Masterminds, enabling them to use Unrelenting more often than other Archetypes. No other changes requested or necessary.
600 / 1.333 = 450




I know that brw316 already implicitly understands this ... but the above is merely a proposal for consideration of merits, made in good faith (by me) as an opening "bid" with respect to the topic of discussion. This is the "put your INF where your keyboard is" moment when it comes to evaluation and refinement of nuances and unforeseen consequences of making changes along the lines presented.

Furthmore, NO PROMISES OF ANY KIND are to be presumed or inferred by the continuation of this conversation.
At best, this is merely an Analysis Of Alternatives that is entirely optional with regards to interactions with Staff.



We now return you to your regularly scheduled Nemesis Plot, already in progress ...   ???
« Last Edit: November 26, 2022, 04:33:15 pm by Redlynne »


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.

Redlynne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Inf: +7/-2
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Masterminds ... Leadership and Presence Pools
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2022, 11:20:52 am »
Incidentally, if anyone needs access to a link to the Issue 24 City of Data site ... well, it's only available through wayback machine records (the site is no longer maintained).

This is the LINK that I use to get to most of that information (there are some gaps in the archiving) when absolutely necessary.
Just in case anyone maintaining the Rebirth Wiki would like to update the external links to City of Data referenced in the wiki.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.