Global hedge against OP broken builds and Nerf Hammers?

General
1

Many well known ARPGs oftentimes have the following chain of events: Players discover a an unusually strong synergy between several hero skills, passives, and items. The synergy in question trivializes almost all other builds. The developers nerf some of the skills and the items in the next patch. The result is that the “overpowered build” no longer exists. However, as a side effect, the remaining 95% of the players who were using a part of the affected skills/passives/items and were having “regular,” non-overperforming builds are now left with a wet noodle.

While the above is fine for people who enjoy finding new ways to “break a game” after each patch, others enjoy the “R” in the aRpgs, that is to play the game in a certain desired way that is still viable and can negotiate top level content. For example, players who want to have an army of minions to do the work for them, won’t be thrilled to learn that that “meta” is to bash enemies with a hammer while teleporting around every 2 seconds and gulping a potion every 2.7 seconds.

There is a simple solution that hedges against unexpected OP builds and makes nerfing unnecessary. It is placing global caps on things. In Grim Dawn, some time back (I haven’t played in a while) there was a cap on how much casting speed and movement speed one can stack. This idea can be expanded further in several ways:

  1. Maximum number of HP a mob can lose per second/per hit is X (hedges against one-shoting bosses and talking about “Shapers per second” that lead to not very welcome subsequent game design changes).

  2. Maximum shared number of HP mobs can lose from an AoE per second (similar).

  3. Cap on movement/cast speed/attach speed (self explanatory).

  4. Maximum number of HP that can be healed per second.

  5. Many games already have caps on resistances; this can be expanded to other parameters as well.

The result will be that numerous builds will be viable, with no need to ban OP builds. Once a build reaches a cap, it can’t get any better that what it is in that direction. Depending on where the caps are placed, numerous play styles and builds will be equally top tier that this will allow players to enjoy they “R” in ARPG-ing.

Thoughts and comments?

2

I think I agree with #1, 2 & 3, probably not on #4 & there’s already diminishing returns on protections. I think caps are probably a good thing as long as there’s a reasonable degree (such that one could hit the cap but you’d need to invest enough affix slots/passives/skills to get there that it leaves you weaker everywhere else).

3

Although I understand the reason why you want to implement such restrictions, I am not a fan of it. To me ARPG’s is so great, because there are not a lot of restrictions. This make ARPG’s so awesome. To me it would be a huge turn off, with so many restrictions. And to be honest, it not that bad in Last Epoch to compare it with something like Path of Exile, due to a lot fewer multiplicative stats you can get. And I dont think a build in ARPG, should ever reach a cap, where it can’t get better. The whole point of ARPG, (in my opinion), is that you can always improve your character.

Edit: The best way I see, to counter fit “OP” builds, is trough the trading market (When that eventually comes). If everyone play the same build, the prices of those items the build require should also be that much more expensive. So if you played a less popular build, you could achieve a lot better items for the same cost, that would upweight the build itself, not being as good.

3 Likes
4

@Marc: the purpose of the idea is not to “counter OP builds” but to deal with the unintended consequences that come after the developers counter the OP builds. I am proposing a counter to the counter. The restrictions I am proposing result in much less restrictions to gameplay compared to otherwise.

Trading is a feature that I don’t understand. It detracts from gameplay and makes the game feel like a job, thus removing the “R” again. In Diablo 3, the game was saved from death after the trading got eliminated. Crafting/lottery system that allows players to compensate for the RNG is much better and more time efficient.

5

Mate the restrictions itself is not what I am most against. Like if they put some “insane restrictions” into the game, that no matter how you build your character, you should not be able to hit. That’s tottaly fine, to prevent bug abuse, and unintended mechanics. But to make builds hit a cap, when they are minimaxing, just to make every build equally good, is just a bad gameplay. You can’t make something like that. Nothing in ARPG’s will be equally good. There will always be something better than others - which is fine. That’s just how it is. And I don’t see how it is less restrictions the thing you are suggestion?

And for trading, I guess there are a lot of various opinion of that. To me, trading is one of the most fun thing to do. I see trading as the gameplay to, and not as you describe it “destracts from gameplay”, I really enjoy it. What makes me want to chase even more after good items.

But we could discuss this for days - since there is not right or wrong. It just a subjective opinion, on how you like the game.

1 Like
6

Hello !

Some thoughts about (and around) your ideas.

I admit it’s always the main fear i have with a Hack & Slash, the metaslave system (D3 & full sets). Like you, i want to play sometimes the build without be nerfed because of the dominant builds. But, it’s not that simple obviously.

Diablo 2 (with LoD) remains my favourite Hack & Slash because of the smart difficulty (you had to win against a hard game but you could play a lot of different things), but that was before the prominent endgame based system (the story is often an introduction to start your builds) in multiplayer context. The good point of D2-like was you “just” have to complete the game to be satisfied, not doing as good as another player (but who cares ? :slight_smile: ).

Regarding the expectations of the different types of players, we have to wait for the releases ot the other endgame modes they have planned.

Meanwhile, in another topic, i’ve made a proposition for exploring an alternative capped system, not a really developed idea (Difficulty). That would have permit the crazy opti-players to go to the OP builds (and ladder) in classic modes and would offer another area for players that just want to play builds they want, without the need of respec points. However, Rawsuicide has pointed out (judiciously) that the implication in the progress of your character will prevent it to be a pertinent solution.

Your solution could be really effective (less options of Max, less differences) but, in a endgame system (so, not like a D2-like), you need to have the maximum of freedom because you have an unlimited time to get better with your character (craft, arenas, monoliths for instance), as you don’t have end… at all.
In this context, the caps are just restrictions of the factors implemented (and generally, others elements become essential, so you normalize a part of your game).
The caps are, imo, interesting when you don’t have other factors in the same category (like often resistances). Yet, in LE, to deal with resistances, you have Shreds. :wink:

So, If we have a common endgame environment, some builds will be probably really strong (before adjustments) but LE appears more balanced than other H&S (the difficult crafting helps / loot and OP sets or legends, the system of limited skills…).

To end, right now, even with a poorly built character and a mediocre gear, you can do monoliths and arenas (not that much, sure, but more than 1 or 2). Is it really important to be at the same level of Monoliths or Arenas ? It’s exactly the same mode, you don’t “miss” anything (except the performance). Hence, you can do whatever you want to. That’s the advantage of the “repetitive” endgames.
That’s why the PoE maps in Endgame (don’t know if it’s still the system) was more frustrating for non-opti builds because of the will to finish it.
So, nerfs can be done smoothly as it’s not a full meta game (imho as usual).

7

I am glad to see some thoughtful comments here. My goal to put this issue in the open is met. Now, for the sake of clarity, I reviewed my original post and nowhere I found arguments about making all builds equal. Responding to an argument that does not exist may only confuse future readers.

My proposal is aimed at eliminating the need to nerf by utilizing just a few lines of code. Nerfing is always harmful because it is not limited to the “offending” buld but hits hard all builds that use the affected items or skills. And who said that caps can’t be adjusted as time goes on?

As Path of Exile was mentioned, actually this is the game which gave me this idea. Not long ago, some people needed validation and bragged about “shapers per second” in terms of DPS. As a result, the developers of already a very grindy game (Grinding Gear Games, lol) made it supergrindy by buffing bosses and enemies (i.e. global player nerf) and made them do more damage. By the very end of the last season, I made a build and an approach that given a proper season length would be able to negotiate all content as Solo Self Found and try to reach level 99-100 if patience persists. Lo and behold, a day before the current season, the developers came with a nerf so hard that after trying I decided that my time is better spent elsewhere.

There was zero need to nerf builds of the caliber of mine. A global cap as the one mentioned above would have limited the power of the overperforming builds without harming the rest.

8

And that’s why I think it’s probably a good idea to have some form of cap on stuff to prevent dps getting out of control like it did/is in PoE. It’s also as much about giving us a cap on power creep (due to changes, bug fixes, new skills/affixes being added as well).

Edit: Additionally, how do you balance an encounter so that it’s interesting and challenging for both a 100k dps build & a 5-10m dps build? That’s the kind of challenge that the PoE devs have because power “creep” has been ongoing for ~7 years.

9

Hello !

I perfectly understand the philosophy behind your suggestion. I have to say (maybe, i wasn’t enough clear) that i’d be personnaly inclined to be on your side but i’m not sure it’s the best for LE community of players (well it’s Beta, future will maybe rule in your’s favour). The endgame is about crafting so items dropped won’t need nerf (or you still can craft). Moreover, the skill system is points related and it’s often a combination of nodes that make the build OP. So, even it could imply nerfs, it shouldn’t harm the other builds because of the possibility to spread the nerf with small quantities of change. But, it could happen of course, you’re right.

I’ll just take the points of your proposal in a multiplayer/endgame system (the point of view of theorycrafters could help to confirm/disconfirm what i’ll say, i’m an empirical player ^^) :
1 & 2 (and cast speed) are caps of damaged done. The limitations is that you can’t have an agressive DPS build anymore (that implies lower defense systems). So it means that everyone will go to a similar global balance. Hence, a drop of diversisty in the global approach of your chara leveling. I’m afraid of a defensive perspective that will slow the rythm of the game (grind with tanky characters, low DPS).
3) Movement is a defensive “skill” in fact. It can compensate a medium defense or just assure you to play safe against specific affixes (or if you’re summoner). Mechanically, you’ll induce some necessary choice (movement skill, more tanky patterns). It may be a problem.
4)5) The defense will go to huge protection (i mean armour/ ward) and huge pool of life. And if you do he same with these latter, you go back at your first issue. In the same vein, tanky classes will really benefits from it.

If you extend these points to other parameters, you basically make the game harder from a player perspective. I’m personnaly fine with that. However, i think it’s perfect if it’s a story game only, less relevant in an endgame system (“equality” system don’t encourage some players to push their build, especially with repetitive modes that imply “performances”). So, unless we change the type of contents, i’m not sure how it will be perceived.

So, to sum up, i like your idea but i’m afraid of these consequences with an endgame content (and maybe classes / style of play balance). If i’m wrong about the implications, i’m in :slight_smile:

@Llama8 The management of very different DPS is rally complicated inded . Maybe an affixes-related (the resistance caps, the immunity of monster to some damages, etc…). We could even imagine mobs with less life but able to neutralize some type of skills in their aura or that stops a random skill like anti-magic power (or things like that).

10

I disagree, just because there’s a cap on damage doesn’t mean that you can’t have aggressive DPS builds. It would also mean that more builds would be capable of hitting the damage cap → more builds though there would be fewer outliers (very high dps/low tank or very low dps/high tank). It would mean that once you hit the damage cap you then get more defenses so you’d have fewer glass cannon builds.

I really don’t think that immunities are the way to balance difficulty, as that’s just a brick wall to builds that focus around whatever the particular mob is immune to. High resistance to a specific element would be far better to give damage-type builds a wake up call.

11

All position here are right. Caps definitely make sense to prevent an op imbalance of very specific builds. These caps have to be implemented that way nobody would ever notice when not playing a broken build. Having caps everybody reaches in moderate time will lead to the situation that is described by @Dagde.

The best would be nobody ever notices these caps because normaly nobody would reach them.

And when the game moves further the caps can be adjusted to fit better geared characters. This is something the devs can adjust when they feel players would reach them.

1 Like
12

Blockquote

This! And less than OP builds will not be trashed after having key elements nerfed.

13

Don’t nerf hammers ! I think they’re great weapons Kappa

14

@nllsq @XLVI_carpo It’s a great idea but is it viable in the long term perspective ? The cap level is, by essence, not unlimited. So how to manage this moving line during the cycle of life of the game ? (maybe it’s a false problem, i do’nt know).

15

Parts of this speech loosely apply here (don’t blame me if you hate it :)):

By increasing viability you decrease the number of bad builds. This could potentially be a very good thing to keep players on avg. I think intelligently done caps make sense. They just can’t be straight jackets or anywhere near that kind of influence.

I sympathize with both sides on this one.

16

Thanks for the vid ! I’ll watch it (if i manage to understand what he says :smiley: ).

Pillars of Eternity has an endgame system ? I’m not en expert of it, but i thought it didsn’t. In this case, no problem as it’s a story-driven system (D2 pattern, not endgame like LE). So yes, it’s perfect.
If it has, how dis they manage their moving caps system ? Because i think we barely all agree that it could work theorically (but the method to make it smart & effective seems way more complicated in an endgame environment).

17

Good points.

As seen numerous times in ARPG life cycles, developers nerf after announcing that a build or a skill or an item “overperforms” in a way not originally intended. Thus, developers can place adjustable global caps at the greatest values they are willing to accept as “intended.” That’s a far cry from keeping builds “average.”

18

I agree with you. And your global definition/method seems reasonable and logical to me.

When i talked about management (sorry if it wasn’t clear), i meant the practical data needed to analyse it properly and the feasibility of such a system (i didn’t form an opinion because, well… I just don’t have enough knowledge to have a relevant one).

I just guess that other H&S makers have thought about it. Maybe the reason for not doing it is just a technical/efficacity matter (just a personal conjecture).

19

I while back I submitted a comment to Ferrari to suggest that they stop making cars and start making bicycles. I pointed out the advantages–they are better for the environment, help people stay in shape, don’t hurt people as badly when they crash and are produce much less noise pollution. I never heard back. It was very frustrating.

20

No caps. This game does not need caps. It is very apparent when I skill does more damage than it should and the devs will later nerf/fix/balance it. No one in the leaderboard is there because they found an op dps build. There all there cause they built strongly into a well balanced defense or found a way to stack 90k ward. Again. No caps. There not needed in this game. Just continue to balance the skills.

2 Likes