#UniteThePVPPlayers: Balancing Legends

they just need to fix the dps from weapons combos.. first thing

Chillcat, do you know why I think so? not otherwise? Becase is that just us ''players'' who worry about PvP.
And if we could change the PvP, probably right now it would look much different..
But unfortunately, we can't change PvP because it is not our duty, we can just add something from each other, and only hope that the developers will listen.

Actually, all of these posts created about PvP changes, I could compare to strike.
Honestly, this forum until bursting at the seams of threads, type Fix the PvP.

Whats the point of creating posts about PvP and ''zero'' cooperation with Developers?

Days when i have seen Developers (collaborated with players, added something from each other) about PvP, passed ages ago. I do not see a point here to creating PvP threads when Devs do not cooperate with own community, and they just read our posts.

The only thing I can say is we must be patient. PVP will get some attention in due time.

Yes, but without exaggeration, how long patient can be?

Completely agree with PVP just being a small fraction of the game. Also agree that PVP players need to realize that. And also, players in general need to realize that the business comes from the group of players who put in an average amount of money per month while not thinking much about the game nor gaming the heck out of it - the guys who pay for legendary out of convinience but just have the weekend to play. Because these guys overpay in relation of service bought/service used.

However, that does not mean that "half the game is broken" is a wrong statement. Apart from PVP being 95% in ruins, a large part of PVE is damaged, bugged, "infected" as well. Just recently the markers for briefings and investigations do not stop emitting sounds when collected, e.g. - and game crashes (PS4) have become more frequent with the current GU as well. I'm guessing the "technical issue" that forced the earlier maintenance has to do with one of those problems.

To answer your initial question:
2. No, legends should not be equal. They have different prices, and thus the more expensive ones should be a lil more powerful. Every other approach is bad for business. (I'm not saying though that the devs managed to balance legends based on the pricing scale - they didn't ). Give the more expensive toons a small advantage, but: if a bad player is behind such a more expensive toon, still allow that toon to be torn into pieces with Harley or Robin by an experienced player. So what they need to do is just scale done the "ubar" moves/powers - or "hide" them behind ridiculous long combos to keep them away from the button smashing apes

Seems to be a pretty straight forward topic so far. Here's what I have out of the feedback. Thoughts?

DRAFT Conclusions:

1. Over-arching desire is to have all Legends balanced with an equal potential to win but not by making all the Legends the same (and therefore boring). For example, Robin should have an equal chance of winning against Shazam if used by two equally skilled players. Not sure how to accomplish that exactly. Looking at it in the reverse with two equally skilled players, Robin should not be an automatic loss against Shazam
2. Legends with the greatest difficulty to master should reap the greatest reward in terms of effectiveness during a match (not referring to drop rewards)
3. ATM, there is no strong driver to introduce role powers in to Legends but there is a significant dependence on Immunity. With a greater adjustment to balance (per 1 and 2 above), there is a willingness to reassess the necessity for Immunity
4. Plenty of suggestions in this thread for tactical improvements from cooldown tweaks to health adjustments: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/dcuo/index.php?threads/balance-legends-initiative.233845/

There's a split on point 2 as some feel as though balance should be across all skill level characters to not leave new players at even more of a disadvantage simply because they don't no how to use the more complex characters yet, and others feel as though the more complex playstyle need to reward that complexity with a slight advantage.

On point 3, no. There is no way even after balancing legends to remove immunity and not have it wreck legends. There's just no feasible way of working around that.

On point 2, I was pondering that and what if the distinction came down to a mix of dmg out and vulnerability. In the Robin vs Shazam example, Robin would have lower damage potential because it's simply a starter legend with low complexity and easy combos, but that lower damage potential is offset by much smaller vulnerability windows and maybe higher health. Net effect, you can't do big burst damage but you're harder to kill. In reverse, Shazam would have much higher damage potential (as it already does ), but the higher damage potential is offset with bigger vulnerability windows and medium amounts of health.

On point 3, of course any thought of removing immunity would only be considered after higher priority balancing is completed AND thorough testing is done. Definitely not a given, and much more acceptable to keep it in Legends as roles don't exist.

Honestly Robin is much more complex than Shazam. It has never made sense as to why he is the hero starting character. He requires a lot of good clipping and jump canceling to pull his best counter punishment off.

Shazam and Black Adam are currently the most defensive characters. Even if they got a longer cooldown on their breakout they would still be at worst slightly more defensive than Robin since he only has dodge for survivability and they have breakouts with shields.

Balance between legends is typically measured with a legend's survivability, like with shields, access to dodge, health, etc., and damage potential, mainly safe damage, which should be minor if at all, and counter punishment. The difference off opinion is whether there should be a balance between those no matter how hard it is to use the character, or whether characters that are harder to use should get slightly more of one or both of those characteristics.

On point 3, even considering it is a waste of time as at that point legends would already be ideal. Why take something in it's ideal state and change it?

Pvp hasn't always been based of counter punishment, so that wasn't a factor when they decided to make robin (heros) and harley (villains) the free characters

Fair enough on point 2. If survivability is the guide post of measurement, (putting my specific example aside) it seems logical to me that characters that can do more damage should have the higher survivablility risk and the opposite would equally apply.

But is it really a given that the more complex legends to master produce more damage? To your point, Shazam (or Black Adam) produce huge numbers but they're not complicated to use. So if we pursue a give-and-take model, the "easier" Legends should be doing lower damage but be harder to kill. In the reverse, the harder Legends should have higher damage potential but with lower damage resistance to match. It's a different take on saying complex Legends should reap the rewards but not for the sake of being complex but because the more complex combos/loadouts should reap greater damage. Does that align with other's thinking?

On number 3, agreed to not fix what ain't broken.

I'm not saying that legends are balanced with complexity in mind right now, I'm saying that the community seems to be of two mindsets on legends balancing, specifically in regards to point 2.

One, the side I personally side with, is that all legends reqardless of complexity or required skill level. This is primarily with the idea that new players shouldn't be at a disadvantage simply because they don't know how to use the more complicated legends yet.

Two, that characters should be balanced so that more complex characters end up being slightly stronger than simpler ones. The idea being that players are rewarded and encouraged to increase there skill level and learn to play the more complex legends.

I get the logic behind both, but I feel at this point encouraging new players to join is a higher priority. If the PvP community does start to thrive at some point it might be worth looking at the second idea instead, but that is my thoughts on the matter at the moment.

Legends existed before immunity ever showed up. It got along just fine.

True enough. That's exactly why I'm proposing Immunity re-evaluation after balancing is complete. Reassessment for validity is the goal, not the removal. If it's still needed, then so be it.

In a purely objective view, immunity is not actually "needed." I can say that as a fact because Legends existed before immunity, and no one was asking for anything even remotely like immunity when it was introduced.

The true question is if immunity is fun. It's a purely subjective question with people strongly for and against. That's why you will never get a definitive answer on this topic no matter if it's brought up now or at some vague time in the future.

You're in denial if you truly believe DCUO isn't dying.

Agreed, so what I would propose is to balance first to acceptable levels. Once that's done, test with and without immunity to validate which provides the better PVP experience. We go with whichever result is more fun during the testing.

In you personal opinion, do you think Legends is more fun with immunity or without it?

Valid question to which I have no answer. Truthfully, I'm terrible at hitting the blues so my PVP style tends toward fighting without it because that's consistent with my skill level, which I would assess as slightly better than average. Leveraging immunity is just a skill I never really got the hang of with any consistency, so it's not a really a question of more fun with or without it. I really don't even think about it in the heat of the match. Needless to say I wouldn't be volunteering for FNL any time soon with the current setup (if they still ran FNL that is), but I enjoy a good match regardless of the winner.

Another way to answer is I enjoy matches that have longevity, regardless of how that longevity is achieved. Short matches are the most telling descriptor of why PVP is in such a bad state, IMO.

Okay, so immunity is not something you really focus on then. How about counters; do you find counters fun?