And the mask comes off.

[Taceus Jiwede]

All MMO's have a system like ED in place.  Unless CoH is your first MMO (Which I know for some it is) there is no reason to really be all THAT surprised about ED when they added it.  It was a bit of a strange diminished returns system but that's all it was.

[Power Gamer]

All MMO's have a system like ED in place.  Unless CoH is your first MMO (Which I know for some it is) there is no reason to really be all THAT surprised about ED when they added it.  It was a bit of a strange diminished returns system but that's all it was.

Yeah, yer right but it was DIFFERENT.
"And I don't like things that are different"
Mr. Plinkett

j/k

[FloatingFatMan]

All MMO's have a system like ED in place.  Unless CoH is your first MMO (Which I know for some it is) there is no reason to really be all THAT surprised about ED when they added it.  It was a bit of a strange diminished returns system but that's all it was.

ED wasn't the problem, the lies were the problem.

[LaughingAlex]

ED wasn't the problem, the lies were the problem.

They probably should have just been honest that they didn't want people ignoring all the buff sets, debuff sets and CC because they were capping defense and only using kins and empaths, or only using damage enhancements or spending all day raiding hamidon.  The devs, from what someone told me, wanted people to experiment more instead of just building only a very small portion of potential character combinations.  If they were more honest that they felt people were ignoring all the options and they were putting ED in to make people try other things, well.....

[Teikiatsu]

I've been a game designer, coding for a UO shard for a lot of years, and I can tell you the situation from the point of view of the developers:

They designed a game, tried to balance it, with a reasonable balance between risk, reward, and fun. The amount of work that you have to do before players start really testing it, is huge. By the time that you really get a good idea of how things work out, a lot of stuff has been built and used by a lot of players. So, you kind of have to guess how the game will play out, how things will balance, etc.

This being pretty far back in MMORPG history, they didn't have all that many examples to look at, so they had to guess. Guess how players will play, guess how players will select powers and slot them and use (or not use) them (remember how long it took them to fix Fear powers, and I think that they've only fixed one Phase power).

Now, a year or more into the game, they see that.... they guess well on some things, and not so well on others. The game is doing okay, but there are some clear balance issues. Basically, they did not anticipate, or want, Tanks herding 200 Wolves and jumping into Dumpsters. Leaving aside the aggro and target caps that they put in, they never wanted Tanks to be able to do that, defensively. Or Blasters to 1-shot most mobs by 6-slotting with Damage, 6-slotting Hasten, Aim, and Build-Up, and always being at the damage cap. So, the game was not playing the way that they thought was good.

Now, at this point, they absolutely have to change some things. Some options are:
1: Their own vision of how the game plays. Frankly, they did this to some degree, but I agree with them that accepting Tanks who can go AFK in the middle of 100 even-con mobs is not acceptable game balance.
2: Some major game design changes, such as the more mobs are attacking you, the more likely they are to hit you (you can dodge a couple of guys shooting at you, but you can't dodge 100 with the same level of ability), or some other way to limit defenses. And then they'd have to do something about the damage-capped Blasters. And about Controllers. And about... forget it. Too many changes, and you get back to the starting problem: you're guessing how things will work.
3: Powerset balances. This actually did happen, it was called the GDN (Global Defense Nerf). I agreed with it also, and you can see that even now with just SOs, characters can still be built to play at +6/x2 (maybe even higher), and IMO that is clearly enough defense considering how they wanted the game to play.
4: Slotting balances, otherwise known as ED. I don't really agree with the "drop off a cliff" curve that they used, but the concept is the best thing that they could have done, for one simple reason: it forced the players to slot powers more like the Devs expected the powers to be slotted when they balanced them. Given that the design and balance of the powers took months if not years, and it would take months if not years to rebalance powers so that the game plays with more balance in risk-reward-fun, and it takes a lot less time to put in ED, clearly some form of ED was the best solution.

I know that players at the time were all like "But why do we have to play the game the way YOU want us to play it!!", but that misses a major point: The reason that you have to play the game the way the Devs envision it, or at least be strongly influenced to play it, is because that's how the Devs designed the game and balanced the NPC threat, the rewards, the missions, etc. ED is a lot smaller change than re-balancing everything else around the realization that min-maxing with 5-6 Damage SOs, or Resist SOs (with Stamina 6-slotted). The game at the time was unbalanced, and even most of the players who complained about the solution at least were willing to admit the problem. What they did not see was that from the Dev side, putting in the solutions that the players wanted were more of a gamble, and a lot more work. It didn't make sense for them to do a lot of extra work with less expectation of a successful balancing adjustment, when they could put in the relatively-simple ED.

And if they had explained this clearly at the time, I think that it would have ended up pretty much a non-issue.

I don't deny any of that, but considering this is a superhero game and the idea is to be powerful I'd ask why they couldn't have done any or all of the following instead:

1) Don't change the existing villain difficulty, but make them worth less XP
2) Make spawn groups bigger
3) Make newer villain groups tougher and/or more accurate
4) Buff the under-performing sets

I can see the reasons behind ED, mechanically speaking.  But business-wise I didn't like being treated like an idiot, and from an RPG perspective I didn't like to see superheroes drained of their powers for no reason besides they were too super.

[FloatingFatMan]

They probably should have just been honest that they didn't want people ignoring all the buff sets, debuff sets and CC because they were capping defense and only using kins and empaths, or only using damage enhancements or spending all day raiding hamidon.  The devs, from what someone told me, wanted people to experiment more instead of just building only a very small portion of potential character combinations.  If they were more honest that they felt people were ignoring all the options and they were putting ED in to make people try other things, well.....

The whole thing was a complete and utter PR disaster, and following it up with the Purple Nerf just made things worse.  ED, the technology, was needed.  But when it came out it was incomplete... They only did half the job and gutted everyone's toons and didn't give players the other half, which was IO's, for several years later...

[Jorge Firebomb]

I thankfully wasn't very high level when the ED nerf came along, despite playing from launch. I think I was in my 30s on my highest level character. I was just very bad at focusing on one character and leveling, so I had a lot of low level characters and mostly just did missions with friends who were even lower level than I was, so I spent a lot of time mentoring and not really earning XP. From my perspective, the ED nerf barely registered, as I had never had Hami-Os or six resist IOs in temporary invulnerability or anything like that. I think that the introduction of IOs and sets should have happened at the same time as the ED nerf, because I think once the sets were available the game was in a much better spot than before ED.

It's a shame they weren't able to properly communicate the changes to the players, and an even bigger shame that the IOs and sets were not implemented at the same time as ED. At least if the game comes back in maintenance mode, you won't have to worry about any sudden, poorly-explained nerfs.

[Thunder Glove]

I'm kinda glad I missed the whole ED kerfuffle.  I didn't start until very late Issue 16 (only a few weeks before Issue 17 landed), so I missed ED by years.  I never played a version without it (and, in fact, I couldn't have, since the first Mac version also was several years after ED).

Living in a post-ED world, my characters have never felt weak or useless (and, in fact, I felt more powerful with mid-game CoH characters than I've ever felt with endgame characters on any other MMO - one of the reasons I miss it so), so I wonder what those pre-ED days were like.

[blacksly]

I don't deny any of that, but considering this is a superhero game and the idea is to be powerful I'd ask why they couldn't have done any or all of the following instead:

1) Don't change the existing villain difficulty, but make them worth less XP
2) Make spawn groups bigger
3) Make newer villain groups tougher and/or more accurate
4) Buff the under-performing sets

I can see the reasons behind ED, mechanically speaking.  But business-wise I didn't like being treated like an idiot, and from an RPG perspective I didn't like to see superheroes drained of their powers for no reason besides they were too super.

1: That doesn't address the BALANCE issue between the uber min-maxed characters and the normal ones. Believe me, some characters back then were pretty weak to play with. Making mobs worth less XP would hurt everyone, but the min-max builds would survive it a lot better than the average builds.

2: That also doesn't address the same issue. Make spawns bigger and the weak-average characters get hurt, while the uber characters just say "thank you for giving me more mobs to herd to the Blaster who will Inferno them in one shot".

3: They certainly could have added mobs like Cimerorans, but it leaves those mobs with hurting the weak characters more. It also still allows characters to avoid the newer mobs and focus on killing Praetorians, Nemesis, or whatever they already could handle.

You see, the problem with solutions 1-3 is that not all characters were of the group that was so powerful that it was playing the game in ways that the Devs did not wish to see. A lot of characters were not doing that, and back then a lot of sets were pretty weak, for whatever reasons. Since then, your solution #4 has been implemented a lot, but back then SR sucked, Ice Armor did also, I think that Dark Armor was still in the suck category, most Blasters were terrible except when used on herding teams (after the Smoke Grenade fix), etc. You couldn't implement solutions to just make the mobs harder, or you would hurt the newbie players more than the min-maxing power gamers.

Now, #4 is certainly something to do. But it basically ignores the problem, because it doesn't do anything about the overpowered characters herding and nuking 200 mobs at a time. So it's a good point, but it's a completely different issue from the balance problem between the min-maxed character and the average-weak ones. At the time, some version of ED seemed like the best solution. I don't think too many players, even those with game design experience, agreed too much with the exact type of diminishing returns used, and nobody liked how it was described and justified by the Devs, but it was not overall too bad a solution. And I can even get behind releasing it while still working on the other part of the balance (adding IOs), because of how long it took to create the IO system.

[Teikiatsu]

1: That doesn't address the BALANCE issue between the uber min-maxed characters and the normal ones. Believe me, some characters back then were pretty weak to play with. Making mobs worth less XP would hurt everyone, but the min-max builds would survive it a lot better than the average builds.

2: That also doesn't address the same issue. Make spawns bigger and the weak-average characters get hurt, while the uber characters just say "thank you for giving me more mobs to herd to the Blaster who will Inferno them in one shot".

3: They certainly could have added mobs like Cimerorans, but it leaves those mobs with hurting the weak characters more. It also still allows characters to avoid the newer mobs and focus on killing Praetorians, Nemesis, or whatever they already could handle.

You see, the problem with solutions 1-3 is that not all characters were of the group that was so powerful that it was playing the game in ways that the Devs did not wish to see. A lot of characters were not doing that, and back then a lot of sets were pretty weak, for whatever reasons. Since then, your solution #4 has been implemented a lot, but back then SR sucked, Ice Armor did also, I think that Dark Armor was still in the suck category, most Blasters were terrible except when used on herding teams (after the Smoke Grenade fix), etc. You couldn't implement solutions to just make the mobs harder, or you would hurt the newbie players more than the min-maxing power gamers.

Now, #4 is certainly something to do. But it basically ignores the problem, because it doesn't do anything about the overpowered characters herding and nuking 200 mobs at a time. So it's a good point, but it's a completely different issue from the balance problem between the min-maxed character and the average-weak ones. At the time, some version of ED seemed like the best solution. I don't think too many players, even those with game design experience, agreed too much with the exact type of diminishing returns used, and nobody liked how it was described and justified by the Devs, but it was not overall too bad a solution. And I can even get behind releasing it while still working on the other part of the balance (adding IOs), because of how long it took to create the IO system.

1) People will always find a way to min/max.  That's a game within a game to some players.  And how one person min/maxes does not impact another player's PvE experience
2) Fair point, but so could multiple tanks and multiple blasters after ED.
3) That goes back to idea #1.  Sure they could go back, but get slower advancement.

[Nyx Nought Nothing]

1) People will always find a way to min/max.  That's a game within a game to some players.  And how one person min/maxes does not impact another player's PvE experience
2) Fair point, but so could multiple tanks and multiple blasters after ED.
3) That goes back to idea #1.  Sure they could go back, but get slower advancement.

1) ED reduced the difference in performance between min/maxed and average characters; the other solution that comes to mind would've been drastically reducing enhancement values. And yes, unless everyone solos having certain character builds' performance be many times greater than another player's does affect PvE experience on several levels.
2) By a greatly reduced margin.
3) Sort of sabotages the whole superheroic game experience. Reducing the difference between optimal and average builds was a much better solution overall.

ED was an example of how to go about doing the right thing the wrong way. In the end i think it greatly improved the game despite being poorly handled in the beginning. i was more irritated that only Controllers received any compensation for the multiple pet nerf. The "well Controllers are a pet class and Defender's aren't" justification always sounded like bullshit to me since Controllers were always more about control than pets and not every set even had pets. And while i'm at it i could also go into everything wrong with the design of Petrifying Gaze even before it also got hit with the global control nerf. Seriously, even at shutdown it was still the overall worst primary set power from a performance standpoint. 

[pinballdave]

1) ED reduced the difference in performance between min/maxed and average characters; the other solution that comes to mind would've been drastically reducing enhancement values. And yes, unless everyone solos having certain character builds' performance be many times greater than another player's does affect PvE experience on several levels.
2) By a greatly reduced margin.
3) Sort of sabotages the whole superheroic game experience. Reducing the difference between optimal and average builds was a much better solution overall.

ED was an example of how to go about doing the right thing the wrong way. In the end i think it greatly improved the game despite being poorly handled in the beginning. i was more irritated that only Controllers received any compensation for the multiple pet nerf. The "well Controllers are a pet class and Defender's aren't" justification always sounded like bullshit to me since Controllers were always more about control than pets and not every set even had pets. And while i'm at it i could also go into everything wrong with the design of Petrifying Gaze even before it also got hit with the global control nerf. Seriously, even at shutdown it was still the overall worst primary set power from a performance standpoint. 

Oh the pre-GDF/ED nerf days, when our all Defender SG strongly suggested each teammate take recall friend so that the most number of Fluffies could be teleported up to the next floor. I don't see anything over-powered at all to have half a dozen fluffies running around.

[blacksly]

And while i'm at it i could also go into everything wrong with the design of Petrifying Gaze even before it also got hit with the global control nerf. Seriously, even at shutdown it was still the overall worst primary set power from a performance standpoint. 

Heh, maybe (I actually doubt it, I think we can find some worse stuff if we really look hard), but even if so, it's only because Poison was only available as a secondary set. Because Paralytic Poison was the exact same power, but took longer to activate.

[Nyx Nought Nothing]

Oh the pre-GDF/ED nerf days, when our all Defender SG strongly suggested each teammate take recall friend so that the most number of Fluffies could be teleported up to the next floor. I don't see anything over-powered at all to have half a dozen fluffies running around.

i was on a team fighting Jurrassik before ED (the instanced Monster version, not the open world GM), and my five Fluffies locked him down with no other sources of holds on the team. Dark Miasma with 4-5 Fluffies in tow was sometimes a little broken.

Heh, maybe (I actually doubt it, I think we can find some worse stuff if we really look hard), but even if so, it's only because Poison was only available as a secondary set. Because Paralytic Poison was the exact same power, but took longer to activate.

Ah, i only played Poison a little bit, but it seems odd to put an ST hold with no other secondary effects of any kind in a buff/debuff set. Especially when every single control set had some sort of damage and/or debuff secondary effect in their ST holds.

[HEATSTROKE]

Im still flabbergasted that with the IO system wherein you can easily shore up weaknesses and become extremely overpowered AND the Incarnate abililties..

people are still talking about ED like it just happened.. just mindblowing to me..

[BraveStar]

Im still flabbergasted that with the IO system wherein you can easily shore up weaknesses and become extremely overpowered AND the Incarnate abililties..

people are still talking about ED like it just happened.. just mindblowing to me..

LOL I was reading this and thinking something similar. Didn't IOs and particularly sets pretty much reverse everything ED did? I was never one to worry much about the exact numbers (maybe I should have), but it seemed to me that a character loaded up with sets was miles more powerful than one with SOs.

[MWRuger]

LOL I was reading this and thinking something similar. Didn't IOs and particularly sets pretty much reverse everything ED did? I was never one to worry much about the exact numbers (maybe I should have), but it seemed to me that a character loaded up with sets was miles more powerful than one with SOs.

Probably, the difference is that it was a lot harder to do than just six slotting damage. I don't think the Devs were against people having monsters, I just don't think they wanted them to be so easy to get and they wanted it to take a lot longer.

[silvers1]

The biggest problems with ED/GDN were:

1.  Bigger impact on some archtypes than others - tankers got hit the most.  While I could see a slight reduction in defense as needed,
the change was way too hamfisted.  And I never could see why they thought reducing my tanker's DPS was a good thing, he already hit like
a limp noodle before the change.

2.  Neither change should have been made before the introduction of IO sets.   When you see your primary character gutted, there isn't much incentive to keep playing.  I think the introduction of CoV hid the fact that they lost a lot of good players.  And definitely a lot of the good will of the player base.

3.  I didn't like that the devs never recognized that messing with tankers PRIMARY powerset was of more significance than with defense sets on other archtypes.  Even pvp was a joke in beta,  I spent more time retoggling my defenses than actually fighting.   Never tried pvp afterwords on live.

[JennSpace]

The biggest problems with ED/GDN were:

1.  Bigger impact on some archtypes than others - tankers got hit the most.  While I could see a slight reduction in defense as needed,
the change was way too hamfisted.  And I never could see why they thought reducing my tanker's DPS was a good thing, he already hit like
a limp noodle before the change.

2.  Neither change should have been made before the introduction of IO sets.   When you see your primary character gutted, there isn't much incentive to keep playing.  I think the introduction of CoV hid the fact that they lost a lot of good players.  And definitely a lot of the good will of the player base.

3.  I didn't like that the devs never recognized that messing with tankers PRIMARY powerset was of more significance than with defense sets on other archtypes.  Even pvp was a joke in beta,  I spent more time retoggling my defenses than actually fighting.   Never tried pvp afterwords on live.

1. Maybe that's because of Invulnerability but I had a tanker and I didn't see much change, I was able to solo anything before and I kept being able to solo anything after ...I just teamed with some heroes for missions that would have taken me 3 hours to solo. That they made changes, as long as I'm able to do what I want to do in the game then I don't mind so much but I feel others that were hit harder by the changes!

2. Me I kept on playing because of passion but I've been eating comic books for nearly 20 years so I understand how we must have lost a ton of players that were not, let's say, as fanatical about super heroes! 


3. Haha, the only pvp I ever did in CoX was to go to Bloody Bay and wreak havoc inside inside the red side base XDD but that's not really pvp, rather a semi-story arc in a pvp zone! OH WAIT, I once fought a brute with my tanker and the fight never ended...  With Kinetic Melee and Invulnerability, I was virtually invincible in close combat. But the vilain had too much hp and we both had the ability to heal ourselves so we just called it a draw like in boxing.

[Nyx Nought Nothing]

Anyway... It's my opinion that post Invention System the game's enhancement system was pretty close to ideal in how it worked, although if i was doing a remake i'd probably make TOs, DOs and SOs function more like IOs and just make it so they never get completely outleveled. No matter how far above the enhancement's level a character is it still provides the minimum boost instead of zeroing out.