Q&A with Consultant

[Galactus55]

I always wondered, could we have the option to choose at each level up whether we want another power or more enhancement slots instead of having the choice made for us? I hated how I *had* to take yet another attack power which I wouldn't use on my Blaster character instead of getting more slots to make the powers I actually used more effective. Maybe it would break the game mechanics to implement that, but it would be more fun to play IMO.

As long as you have a good Tank.
A glass super cannon will get the job done.
For little while anyways it might pull the enemy if he doesn't defeat it.

[broxen]

Yeah, they will - and then complain that power costs are too high and accuracy has been nerfed again

In all seriousness, those cases aren't the problem. The problem is where one-accuracy in a power is "good-enough" for almost every case (and for the times it isn't you pop an inspiration) and so there's *no reason* to slot any other way. If adding one accuracy increases hit rate by 10%, but a damage enhancement adds 25%, then obviously slot the damage. If not slotting for endurance means you'd have to wait 10 seconds every minute to recover, the damage is still better.

Jester's thoughts here echo my sentiments. Give me interesting decisions to make, or I'll end up simply googling the best enhancement configuration and going with that, which isn't really fun at all.

Hopefully everyone understands that we are committed to making a game that's fun to play, but it is also inevitable that some things that we think are going to work, well, they won't work the way we think they will. We just have to be transparent about it.

This is great! I think everyone can see that commitment.

We have math set in place now.

Can you discuss specifics?

[GladDog]

I remember that Invul tanks were slotting 5 damage and one endurance reducer once they got Invincibility, since they got such a huge accuracy bonus (at first it was 7.5% per mob in melee range - all you needed was 4 bad guys in range to equal an accuracy SO). And then once they discovered Perma-Unstoppable, they 6 slotted with damage. Endurance recovery was boosted by 70%, endurance reduction was no longer necessary! Since they slotted Hasten to make P-U work, their powers recycled plenty fast.

I'm just pointing this out because the mechanics of Invuls were broken twice and had to be patched up, because of things that the devs had not considered.

And Fire Tanks... I won't even go there.

[Nephthys]

I remember that Invul tanks were slotting 5 damage and one endurance reducer once they got Invincibility, since they got such a huge accuracy bonus (at first it was 7.5% per mob in melee range - all you needed was 4 bad guys in range to equal an accuracy SO). And then once they discovered Perma-Unstoppable, they 6 slotted with damage. Endurance recovery was boosted by 70%, endurance reduction was no longer necessary! Since they slotted Hasten to make P-U work, their powers recycled plenty fast.

I'm just pointing this out because the mechanics of Invuls were broken twice and had to be patched up, because of things that the devs had not considered.

And Fire Tanks... I won't even go there.

The "problem" is that there are TONS more players than devs. Hundreds of thousands of hours of player number crunching time that a dev team just can't hope to match. This is why players will always come up with tactics and builds the devs never thought of or tested.

I ended up quitting CoH because Cryptic's response to this was to nerf new tactics they didn't like into the ground, rather than roll with what players found fun and find ways to balance it if it's broken.

[broxen]

I ended up quitting CoH because Cryptic's response to this was to nerf new tactics they didn't like into the ground, rather than roll with what players found fun and find ways to balance it if it's broken.

To be fair, sometimes there are broad implications that the community will overlook out of passion for their "nerfed" playstyle. Sometimes, it's just balancing, but the community overreacts. You see this constantly in games like Overwatch and Rainbow Six Siege whenever they tweak a popular character's stats or abilities.

Seems that often times changes the community likes are hailed as fixes, and changes they don't as "nerfing"

I think that for R6 Siege, Ubisoft has handled this well by openly discussing the data that drives those changes. e.g. Tachanka rarely gets selected, and has a low win percentage when he does, so we're going to make him more appealing and test it out. Etc. There will always be people upset, but you can never please everyone.

If SoH can borrow from that design philosophy in any way, it should make changes easier on the community.

[JestersGhost]

I think that for R6 Siege, Ubisoft has handled this well by openly discussing the data that drives those changes. e.g. Tachanka rarely gets selected, and has a low win percentage when he does, so we're going to make him more appealing and test it out. Etc. There will always be people upset, but you can never please everyone.

If SoH can borrow from that design philosophy in any way, it should make changes easier on the community.

Communication and transparency.

Nothing kills a game community quicker than the feeling it's "us vs them" between players and devs, and communication and honesty is how to fight that.

Obviously, so far, SoH is doing a fantastic job of this, that's why we're all supporting it so strongly. It's great that they're willing mine us for enemy group or costume ideas. That helps us feel like we belong.

It'd be nice if mechanics was another of those areas. I don't mind waiting for things to settle a bit, but it's something that will affect the whole playstyle and feel of the game. Admittedly, it's also the thing I enjoy most, as a coder and amateur game-designer, so there's obviously some bias there

[Wulfman]

I ended up quitting CoH because Cryptic's response to this was to nerf new tactics they didn't like into the ground, rather than roll with what players found fun and find ways to balance it if it's broken.

To be fair, sometimes there are broad implications that the community will overlook out of passion for their "nerfed" playstyle. Sometimes, it's just balancing, but the community overreacts. You see this constantly in games like Overwatch and Rainbow Six Siege whenever they tweak a popular character's stats or abilities.

Seems that often times changes the community likes are hailed as fixes, and changes they don't as "nerfing"

I think that for R6 Siege, Ubisoft has handled this well by openly discussing the data that drives those changes. e.g. Tachanka rarely gets selected, and has a low win percentage when he does, so we're going to make him more appealing and test it out. Etc. There will always be people upset, but you can never please everyone.

If SoH can borrow from that design philosophy in any way, it should make changes easier on the community.

You make several valid points here...but I think the "nerf" danger is in things like ED. I saw 25-33% of the members of some established SGs leave the game forever because a balancing effort effectively destroyed years of effort.

[Codex]

Wasn't the nerfing / balancing of CoH characters the direct result of the upcoming PvP? I know a lot of PvE players were disgusted with the changes and left the game because they felt CoH was taking away things that made the game fun for them.

[JestersGhost]

You make several valid points here...but I think the "nerf" danger is in things like ED. I saw 25-33% of the members of some established SGs leave the game forever because a balancing effort effectively destroyed years of effort.

Yup, get things right the first time is really really useful for retaining subscribers

[broxen]

You make several valid points here...but I think the "nerf" danger is in things like ED. I saw 25-33% of the members of some established SGs leave the game forever because a balancing effort effectively destroyed years of effort.

Yup, get things right the first time is really really useful for retaining subscribers

Well yes, there's this, but sometimes it's not possible to get it right the first time.

I think the biggest​ problem with the CoH changes was lack of communication before the change. We needed to see more "hey, we've identified this issue and we need to fix it" instead it felt like suddenly there were changes in Test and the messaging was just "this is gonna fix all these issues" The community was like, "what issues?"

Communication would have helped here. I think they got better at that later on.

[Consultant]

Hopefully we are going to do a better job communicating. But as a mater of philosophy, exploits need to be fixed. The players having fun in unexpected ways? That's kind of of an extra feature, not a bug.

I wish I knew someone I could ask, but I doubt that costume contests were expected as a long-term source of fun for players. and yet they were. When something like that happens, we should embrace it.

[JestersGhost]

Hopefully we are going to do a better job communicating. But as a mater of philosophy, exploits need to be fixed. The players having fun in unexpected ways? That's kind of of an extra feature, not a bug.

I wish I knew someone I could ask, but I doubt that costume contests were expected as a long-term source of fun for players. and yet they were. When something like that happens, we should embrace it.

Part of the difference I think is social - exploits fragment the community, costume contests build it. Accidental or deliberate, things that bring people together are always good.

Random question, but have you done any research on things like city planning and pedestrian flow? Sure we're flying and teleporting rather than walking, but I imagine the principles may apply for helping people naturally congregate where you want them to in communal areas.

[broxen]

But as a mater of philosophy, exploits need to be fixed.

This right here.

I don't think The Devs of CoH ever intended for things like this video to happen: https://youtu.be/qpq_FmAt_VU

And while that kind of gameplay may have been fun for that group, it's not conducive to a healthy game, longevity of play, or fun experience for other players that may be impacted.

[JestersGhost]

I don't think The Devs of CoH ever intended for things like this video to happen: https://youtu.be/qpq_FmAt_VU

Obviously they didn't, but I wouldn't class that as an exploit - that's juts bad math

Yes, I will quite happily say that could have been predicted and calculated, given the numbers and mechanics, before one single bit of code was written.

[Galactus55]

But as a mater of philosophy, exploits need to be fixed.

This right here.

I don't think The Devs of CoH ever intended for things like this video to happen: https://youtu.be/qpq_FmAt_VU

And while that kind of gameplay may have been fun for that group, it's not conducive to a healthy game, longevity of play, or fun experience for other players that may be impacted.

I thought that was awesome play. I don't have a single problem with that. Looked like fun to me. What was the negative impact?