Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AM
QuoteAw, c'mon ... I'm not THAT BAD at making Feature Requests™ ...
It was only meant in jest 
I know.
Besides, we make every pretense of competency around here ...
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMBuffing 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMThere 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMHowever, 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).
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMI 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMI 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMRegarding 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AM[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. Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMAnother 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMAs 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 from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMQuoteAnd 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 from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMQuoteFor 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.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMI 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%.
Quote from: brw316 on Nov 15, 2022, 01:06 AMThat 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.
