Arcanaville

The game was fine for eight years without an issue 23.

That question is never really a valid question. It presupposes that the only reason to change anything is if you can prove its broken, or alternatively the devs should make a list of all the things they don't think are perfect so the players know in advance which of them the devs might decide to change five years from now in 2017.

That is the implication, is it not? That the devs should have said in 2007 that they were not really perfectly happy with the proc system, which was based on much more primitive mechanics that existed at the time, and that perhaps one day, in 2012, they might decide to experiment with changing it.

Or maybe its more than that. Maybe what the devs were supposed to do was say in 2007 that they were not exactly perfectly happy with the proc system, whereupon the players would get to say "well, if you want to change it the statute of limitations starts now, and if you don't change it within the year, I'm sorry but we're not going to allow you to do so." That way we would all know we were safe now.

Maybe the devs have been seeing problems for years, like how procs work in AoEs compared to single target attacks, and how they work in hyper-accelerated powers compared to conventional levels of recharge, and have wanted to make this change for a long time, which is why they were added to the store bought IOs first as a trial when the technology became available to add them. And maybe the devs aren't allowed to talk about things in development that may or may not actually get released because that always causes problems, and so they couldn't say they were unhappy with the previous proc system until they were certain it was going to be replaced.

I say maybe, but of course I don't really mean maybe.

So far, I haven't found a level my Staff/SR Brute sees poor performance on, from 1 to 34. I tend to run Soul most of the time, which allows me to run Staff's AoEs all the time, which ends up pumping out a lot of damage overall because I don't have to ration endurance. On Staff/Ela I would probably run Soul until I got to Power Sink and then switch to Mind for the recharge buff. I do that when I find I have a tray full of blues, which tends to happen over time because I don't use many blues when I am running Soul. I will switch to Mind for the recharge boost while popping blues until they run low, then switch back to Soul.

At some point I realized I wasn't giving the AoEs enough targets and switched from x1 to x2, and things improved because Staff is using so much AoEs at low levels killing five doesn't take that much longer than killing three. Soul means I can keep all my toggles up simultaneously and still attack at full speed ("all" in this case is Focused Fighting, Focused Senses, Evasion, and Combat Jumping which is a lot of defense for the earlier half of the game).

The only bad news is if people are right about the set being subpar at the level cap Staff Fighting is going to propel me there faster than I've gotten there in a long time.

Oh darn.

The tohit buffs, on the other hand, cut through all defenses. As in they can easily shred Elude when stacked even a little, much less in a crowd.

Having determined that Staff Fighting has better AoE than nearly every other melee set it can tolerate quite a bit of lower performance in single target. The argument that this is balanced is based primarily on the fact that the offensive output of sets should be compared against the actual PvE balancing criteria the game follows. The standard benchmark is running solo base difficulty missions, aka the three minion spawn. However, the devs have also stated in the past that the balance metric for strong characters at higher levels with stronger slotting is probably closer to the equivalent of +3 x three minions. That implies, based on current difficulty slider functionality, a difficulty somewhere in the range of +0x2 and +3x1, which represent approximately the same difficulty apportioned in different spawn generation ways.

Its thus not AoE which is preeminent, like so many players have suggested in the past, or single target which is preeminent, as the trend now seems to be, but the overall offensive output when compared to spawns of approximately that size and strength. And since the difficulty slider is under the control of the player, single target focused sets and AoE focused sets should be compared across the range of spawn sizes indicated above, to ensure that they have some opportunity to perform within the same range as everyone else does.

The recharge capped AoE flooded cases is about as relevant to this game's balancing metrics as the pop a full tray of inspirations case is to balancing defensive sets.

I can, therefore, say that Staff appears to be, in the absence of a better analysis to the contrary, reasonably balanced against its peers without having to resort to a qualitative judgement of its bonus features. And all evidence I have says Staff's AoE attacks allow it to maintain reasonably high performance in a significant range of situations at every level including incarnate content. And I can say I have not yet seen any evidence of a numerical analysis which comes remotely close to the burden of proof necessary to contradict that assertion. If the set has issues, I'm very certain at this point they are subtle enough to not be trivially computable in this way.

This fact bears repeating: single target and optimal AoE calculations are interesting metrics, but there's no such thing as underperforming on single target damage in actual fact any more than there is such a thing as underperforming in cold resistance. What matters is defeating critters in combat, in the variable situations they present themselves in. That's always an amalgam of single target and AoE damage output.

I wish people were required by the forum EULA to stop asking this question.

I understand what you're saying, and you're correct.

You could also be incorrect. I can imagine a way to pitch the idea that the AE should be revamped, and as part of that idea it should become a place, like Pocket D, rather than just a bunch of buildings scattered throughout the game. As a place, certain things start to make more sense. For example, it could become our version of the Power Station: a place where we could test powers and respecs, inventions and incarnate powers, in a try before we buy atmosphere. It could be a place that had standard fixed environments players could experience separate from the instanced missions currently available. It could be a place where authors could hook up and communicate. The AE could even one day absorb the arenas, allowing for more flexible PvP environments and rules. You could reinstate pre-I13 mechanics if you wanted to. After all, its the AE: anything is possible.

Making the AE a place, and a very big place comparable to Pocket D, could allow for expanding its role in the game and getting another shot at tapping its potential. Form follows function: think about all the ways we might want to leverage the AE, and then design a space that can accommodate that.

Its probably a hard sell. But not an impossible sell. You just have to find the right hook, and the right pitch. I don't think I have the magic pitch myself for this at the moment, but I can see an avenue to attempt it.

Last I checked, that wasn't "fixed." Not sure the devs think its broken either.

At this point, I believe I've gone far beyond the minimum required to point out the flaws in your analysis. If you believe I've overlooked something, you will need to be much more specific, because at this point I feel I'm doing someone else's homework for them.

The assertion that Staff has worse AoE than SS has been definitively disproved. With that, the assertion that Staff is only a "second tier" AoE set is similarly destroyed. And with that, the notion that Staff is an underperforming set is also objectively disproved in this case. I believe the burden of proof is now on the people attempting to state otherwise, and I consider that burden to be very high. If its getting to the point where people believe these assertions are trustworthy enough to abandon the set, then clearly I've become far too accommodating of bad analysis lately.

Burnout doesn't recharge pool powers, so Pool Burnout would only recharge the buff Burnout, but the buff Burnout wouldn't then be able to recharge the pool burnout.

The bigger problem is two players burnout buffing each other repeatedly, which would require a lockout switch of some kind. In second place are stackable recharge powers that could wildly accelerate a burnout-like power even if it doesn't insta-recharge.

Until someone actually *proves* Staff's performance is bad under more than marginal conditions, this is only a hypothetical problem I don't think you should spend more than a few milliseconds worrying about.

As I recall, the forums did an excellent job of being totally wrong about Kinetic Melee's performance as well.

I'm actually alarmed that you think that: that when presented with irrefutable evidence that your calculations generated the exact opposite of the correct conclusion, you still believe they were correct because a completely different set of calculations now appears to support your conclusions under a completely different set of situations.

Furthermore, while discussing powersets in a vacuum can ignore set synergies that might be important, generalizing one powerset combination into a judgment about the entire set is something that I have to state categorically is objectively incorrect.

If you want to say "SS/Fire/Mu is a higher damage farming build than Staff/Fire/Mu" go right ahead. But when you generalize beyond that, those generalizations have to be held to a far higher standard, a standard this analysis doesn't come close to reaching.

Do you still want to stick with your original calculation's conclusions:

Because at the moment, it seems like you're doing an excellent job of proving SS Brutes and Tankers will outperform Staff under exactly one condition: ultra high recharge farming builds with at least two additional 10 target cap AoEs outside of the set at or near the level cap.

Nemesis Yacht.


Nemesis Bought.


Nemesis Overwrought.


Nemesis Blind Spot.

Nemesis Distraught.


Nemesis Train of Thought.


Nemesis Trot.


Nemesis forgot?


Nemesis Long shot.


Nemesis Plot!


Nemesis Haught.

Here you go, devs, all of you huddle up here.

To amplify, it was explicitly stated at the Freedom preview that phasing was intended to streamline the low level experience, and reduce the amount of instances which were initiated at a low level, to reduce the impact premium players could potentially create on high population servers.

Also, some of the phasing tech cannot be replicated with instancing, because they are explicitly intended to alter the environment of Atlas in response to player actions. For example, Matthew/Dana Habashy.

Triumphant Insult doesn't have a chance to fire issue per se. It might be a quick low-hanging fruit thing for Synapse to change, or it might need to be adjusted on a separate pass through the procs for effect balancing. Depends on how much time Synapse has.

Thanks. But separate from making an actual case, I was also trying to illustrate one way to approach this sort of thing. Some people have their own speaking style that works for them: they should stick with that.

For those that don't, and aren't sure how to approach something like this, my advice is:

1. Write down what you want to say, and rehearse it in a mirror so you are comfortable saying it. DONT rehearse in your head. It doesn't work. Your lips have to be moving and your voice audible for rehearsal to work. If you aren't doing it and can't hear it, its not going to help. Trust me. Another reason for rehearsing: people speak faster and mumble when they get nervous. Want to know how fast to talk? Watch the evening news. They *train* those people to talk at that speed, because that's the speed that people find most comfortable to listen to. And believe me: it may seem like a natural voice until you try to replicate it, and discover they are speaking at 2/3rds speed.

2. Stick to a few simple points. A lot of people tend to overestimate how long their time will actually last. It tends to always feel faster when you're speaking in front of an actual audience. Another reason for rehearsing: time it. My presentation above clocks in at two minutes forty seconds with my normal presentation speaking voice. That's just about right for a three minute presentation.

3. Have a progression. Start somewhere, get somewhere. Pick some way to make it seem like the points have a distinct and natural order. Mine go from the general to the more specific, and end with a punch line.

4. Inject some passion. You have to care about what you're saying, and appear to care.

BUT

5. Don't argue with nobody. Many people can only make a case by argument. So they will invent an opponent and try to argue against this imaginary foe. "I think it should be Skyway. You might think Steel is a better choice but you're wrong because..." Unless you're really good at it, this doesn't work. Be positive. Debates only work when you have a real live opponent. Arguing with one in your own head doesn't play well.

6. Leave something to the imagination. You want to engage your listeners. You want them to not just listen, but THINK about what you're saying. And it can get easy to drone out on an endless chain of speakers. The way I do that is, I build to a finish, then start asking questions. I have my own ideas about how those things should go, but its far more useful to my cause to have the devs on the panel thinking about how *they* would do those things. Because once they do, I have them hooked.

7. Wrap up. Summarize. Three minutes doesn't seem like long enough to need a summary, but just some ten second "why I'm here" thing can be useful. It'll be one of the last things your audience hears, and possibly the only distinct thing they will remember. Make the last fifteen seconds count, by giving a simple summary of why they should pay attention to you. My idea is great because blank.

8. I usually end with a thank you. Alternatively, if you have a special touchdown dance, crumple up your notes and spike them and then do that. Oh, did I remember to say bring notes? Bring notes. Bullet points written in BIG TYPE that you can see without squinting.


This isn't about being artificial "polished." Its about the fact that people can only judge your ideas if you can get them out of your head. If it gets stuck in there because you freeze, or you skip parts because you get nervous, or you accidentally say something entirely unrelated because you get distracted, it doesn't matter how good the idea is. Give yourself every opportunity to get your idea out of your head and into the devs' heads.

Remember, you don't have this guy helping you:

At that point its obvious SS has the potential to beat any other set because it now has the potential for a full or nearly full AoE chain, but conversely I find it difficult to accept the position that evaluating Super Strength with its one AoE and two other AoEs added is an evaluation of Super Strength itself. Its really more the case that you added SS to those two AoEs, not the other way around.

I will concede that Super Strength can, in some cases, beat Staff in AoE damage in environments where the majority of the AoE damage is coming from outside those sets. But the statement "SS has better AoE damage" would still be, at best, highly misleading in that situation.

As to the actual calculations, I probably won't have the time to validate them until the weekend.

Predicting how the players are going to value IO sets is not a science. Look at crushing impact over the years. But while I think its possible Castle was at least thinking about Dark Regeneration when the Theft of Essence set was being created, its far more likely that ToE's proc is +End for the simple reason that +health and +end tend to be associated with each other a lot in the invention system. cf: Numina's Convalesence +regen/+recovery, Panacea Chance for +HP/+End, Miracle +Recovery. Notice also how often health-related and endurance-related set bonuses appear side by side in sets.

You're not from around these parts are you.


Underperform what?

Entropic is definitely one worth reexamining - although its not *immensely* low, just pretty low. There's a couple of 2% chance to stun ones that seem quixotic and might be typos: Debilitative Action and Unspeakable Terror.

All content in an MMO is subject to change. This is and has always been true. There are no exceptions regardless of what other people think are *supposed* to be exceptions. I know this. I accept this. I choose to spend money on this game - and other games - knowing full well and accepting that risk.

Everyone else must make their choice. They can choose to accept that choice or they can choose to reject that choice. If they have the time and energy, and plan on very long time horizons they can try to change that choice with the understanding any such attempt will require enormous effort that will go unrewarded for long periods of time with no guarantee of success. But regardless, everyone else must make their choice, and no one can make it for them. That's the bottom line. They can also discuss it, complain about it, and editorialize about it. But the choice will remain the same regardless.

And MMO companies understand not everyone will accept that choice. A rejection of that choice by some people is not unexpected.

Do we know that? Killing Tyrant doesn't eliminate the entire Praetorian system any more than killing the president lets you take over all of America. That's sort of the "Return of the Jedi" version of imperial decapitation, but it rarely works out that way (and I know it didn't work that way in the Expanded Universe either, before anyone mentions that).

Surely there are going to be people who thought Cole had the right idea but executed it wrong and will try to preserve the imperial system, whether it be on the ruins of Praetoria or within Primal Earth itself.

From a gameplay perspective keeping those two factions around may not be practical. But I see no story-based reason why they suddenly dissolve once Cole is defeated. Heck, the Fifth Column is proof that even when the war is over, the war isn't over, and even within the Fifth Column itself the Council took over the organization, and then the original leaders of the Fifth retook it over again. Taking out the leaders doesn't actually mean anything unless most or all the minions capitulate simultaneously.

And I cannot imagine why all those resistance terrorists/freedom fighters are going to just stop fighting their good fight suddenly. They were willing to risk their lives to overthrow Cole. Why wouldn't they try to do that to Recluse? And are you certain they would consider all of Primal Earth's "good guys" to actually be good guys?

I don't doubt you see things that way. The fact that you imply you're absolutely certain most other people see it in the exact same way is the particular point I was commenting on. Maybe sales will go up or remain the same because more people think the changes are entirely reasonable. Maybe people are not as easy to manipulate as that, or if they are maybe its possible you've been manipulated into thinking the way you do if it really is that easy.

Being certain about the value of things to a lot of people when valuation is a highly subjective thing is not something an objective observer can ever be.