Combat
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Quote:I'm not suggesting that pets exhibit this behavior at all times. Rather, I'd like the ability to toggle the behavior on and off.Originally Posted by Paladiamors
Eh, I would rather have to tell my minions what to attack. I wouldn't mind having them auto-attack my initial target, but that'd be a quality of life improvement, and I would NOT want it to be a constant thing. If I need something dead right then, attack-target gets the job done, and its not really hard to retarget to another dangerous target. If I were to want any quality-of-life improvements, it'd be for my Spec Ops to not use CC on an already CC'd target, in order to save the cooldowns.
And one benefit of greying out control powers is that it would give a little bit of control. While it wouldn't make your pet smarter, you could use select "Damage Powers Only" after a CC so that they wouldn't waste it.
One other I was thinking about would definitely be unfeasible, but it would be cool if we could do it. Basically, it'd be awesome if MMs had the ability to 'become' one of their henchmen for greater control. I could see it working if they teleported the MM to the spot of the henchmen and used the costume change/grant temp power/grey out tech to make the MM look like and have all the powers of one of their henchmen. Of course, it would be even better if doppelganger tech could be used to simulate the player character while they are controlling a minion. Unfortunately, there would be a lot of design hurdles to do anything like that. -
So I have one level 50 MM and a level 36 currently sitting on their rears. They are painful to play, largely because pet AI is crazy. The worst is repeatedly spamming the stay command having it not work.
Anyway, I've though of some things I would like to see (if the Pet AI is every fixed so that these things don't drive them bonkers):
A true stay command: Pets would be hit by a 500 magnitude immobilize.
Options to select type of attack: If it is possible, use the new mechanics to disable/add powers to channel the types of attacks a MM would get. Some options:
Short (melee+) / Medium / Long Range
Single Target / Mixed/ AoE
Damage Powers / Buffs / Controls
etc.
Basically, using of the these options would "grey-out" powers from the pet's use that don't belong in that category. For instance, selecting Long Range / AoEs would cause Assault Bots to lead with missiles everytime, or /Controls would limit Mercenaries to only the control powers. Like other commands, these could work on any group of henchmen as well. Alternatively, these commands could be locked behind the selection of the level 6 and 32 equips (training would allow mercenaries to use more advanced tactics, better computers would make robots smarter, etc.)
I'd also like to see the following added to all mastermind sets:
Pet Summon: Instantly teleports all pets to your location
Pet Hold: Freezes a pet (mag 500 hold), preventing them from moving or attacking. This would be useful in preventing mass aggro when not desired/necessary
Pet Autotarget $target or $name: Almost certain this is completely impossible but it would be nice if I could simply have pet's automatically attack my target without continual use of attack commands, or to have the pets target certain mobs (Sappers) automatically without an Attack command.
Just some random thoughts I had while I wondered why I never play my MM -
Quote:How do you know that devs ignore numbers? Do you contact them regularly and know on a first-name basis?Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
LOL, you are doing nothing but trying to be obtuse about this that is clear.
You are not even trying to put forth your "idea of merit to save staff" on what is needed and sticking to that, you are here to trash staff by lying saying it is an underperformer then throwing up a bunch of numbers to "look" good. Something Arcana and other numbers people have already destroyed.
If you have a case for it to be buffed make it to the devs and be done with the lying and stuff about the set being an underperformer on any metric other than the absolute max in a min/max perspective. Anything else is disingenuous as just about everyone here can see through it and the devs ignore that kind of approach.
Considering that numbers apparently have been enough to convince devs in the past (according to Arcanaville), I would say that this is as good a method as any. You can argue that my analysis is not perfect or correct, and that would be a valid argument, but you can't argue the method as a means of persuasion.
Of course, it was a mistake to post anything on AoEs, especially considering the limited time I had to try and work on it (not enough to check for errors). But I cannot devise a method where staff is as high in AoE output as it is low in single target. Numerically, I cannot find anyway that they are better than 4th, with or without added powers, at almost any level of recharge, and most I've tried have them between 7th and 9th.
Is it good at AoE? Yes.
But I don't think it compensates for having all-round low single target damage. -
Quote:But more damage also increases the potential for an attack to defeat a target, in that it will allow lighter attacks to reach a high enough damage point to become an alternate. Also, light attacks generally have such a low recharge time (I'm considering a light attack an attack with base recharge of 3-5 seconds) that they usually be ready regardless of recharge, but may not always have enough damage to be worthwhile as an alternate.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
During those periods of time you're not in combat either: +DMG also has no effect.
It does not. You assume the "optimal" attack chain is the one that generates the most damage over an unbounded amount of time. More recharge than that just makes attacks recharge and become available before the chain "needs" them. But having powers recharge faster than the "optimal" chain needs them means you're more likely to have alternate attacks available other than that nominally projected by the "optimal" chain. And that means you increase the likelihood that you can reduce overkill by selecting the lightest attack that will still kill the target. -
Quote:If your "facts" are the anecdotal evidence that Staff can solo at +4/x8, then technically the opinions prove different.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
I don't have anything against your suggestions, but your suggestions have been made under the false hyperbole that the set is an "underperformer" when the facts prove different. That is the issue.
Theoretically speaking, staff is one of the lowest performing non-legacy sets. Personally, I think the most balanced melee set is probably Claws, and would to see sets balanced around that as a medium (with the least balanced sets being Ice and TW at different ends of the scale). I think that single target should be more tightly balanced than AoE because it is key from levels 1-50 and there are relatively few options to improve it (and because it can be determined more easily than AoE). Also, because it is a weapon set, it should be held to a higher standard simply because the impact of redraw.
Are their sets worse than Staff? Sure. And those sets are legacy sets that desperately need a buff (I'm speaking specifically of Ice Melee and Energy Melee, and probably Battle-Axe or MA as well). For a new weapon set, it should be slightly above the average set by non-weapon legacy sets. -
Quote:My metric at least could be analyzed for faults.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
The only value-less metric is all that garbage you put after that sentence. It is clear now what your motive is and it has been exposed by those willing to argue numbers and your essentially useless personal metric.
There is always one or two outliars when dealing with these issues, it's just one or two more people for the devs to utterly ignore since the motive is so heavily tainted. This is nothing more than total object failure.
"It's fine for me, I can solo at +4/x8" simply cannot.
BTW, the single target numbers should be infinitely more valid than any AoE analysis barring human error.
I honestly cannot understand why you are so angry with my suggestions. I haven't personally attacked you, I haven't pissed in your Cherri-Os, and I'm not trying to ruin something for you. Heck, these suggestions are mostly for a set that I don't even play since I stopped playing my stalker. Nothing I've proposed would make Staff overpowered or take considerable amounts of developer time. In reality, the main change I've suggested wouldn't impact balance much at all, and mainly make Staff's forms more equal. -
Quote:Even if we accept that Kinetic's actual in-game performance will be lower than than those numbers due to knockback, the devil is in the details.Originally Posted by Mazey
Your analysis puts Staff at 4th from the bottom as single target and 5th from the top for non-tanks at AoE (as anyone in their right mind can see kinetic isn't better at AoE than staff).
That's sounds like an almost exact balance to me.
Staff is 4th from last in single target, but AoE is less significant, because a set can make up for lack-luster AoE (by adding up to 5 AoEs [Burn,Mu/Leviathan,Spring Attack] from outside sources), but not for lack-luster single-target. Heck, you could 'almost' make the case that even Dark Melee could be a great AoE set just by adding /Mu and /Fire.
This will mostly impact the 40+ game, but I have no problems with Staff before that. In fact, I've already said it might be an ideal leveling/exemplaring set. The other problem is that Staff will not scale at high magnitudes of buffs because of the low base numbers compared to other sets, but I doubt that's a balance concern. -
Quote:I'm guessing that you are criticizing my single target metric because I just posted it. If so, I'll respond to your criticisms:Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Opinion based on actual experience is far more valid than metrics based on a lousy model.
Just a few stupiditys in you model, without going into detailed maths:
1) It's for scrappers only. We know Staff is worse on scrappers, since they get a bigger bonus for BU than the other ATs, loosing it hurts them more than other ATs. They are also more dependant on big hitters.
2) It's an utterly stupid attack chain. Only a moron would use that in regular play.
3) You are using the worst form.
4) You are ignoring the influence of the secondary powerset. Some of those affect damage you know...
5) You are ignoring running out of endurance. That hurts DPS you know...
6) You are ignoring survivability. Being dead hurts DPS you know...
1. I ignored the affect of BU on damage. This probably makes Staff appear better than it actual would in gameplay. Also, these numbers are the base ones for the powersets (ALL of the melee damage sets unless I happened to miss one, not just scrapper sets). Also, scrappers are not more dependent on high DPA attacks than Brutes or Tankers, and arguably are less dependent than Stalkers.
2. The attack chain I used is a reasonable one for the amount of recharge. It probably will put out more damage than any other Staff chain at that level of recharge, and these chains are supposed to represent the maximum level of damage a set will put out at a reasonable amount of recharge. I could, theoretically, add in other powers, but that would have made Staff seem less competitive.
3. FoM is the worst form. I used Form of Body because not using it would have made the set look less competive.
4. I'll do an analysis later on how the secondaries have an impact.
5. I suppose I could show EPS as well later when I have time
6. These chains all promote survivability to same roughly the same degree. An analysis that included survivability would have to take into account the interplay between every secondary, power pool, and patron/epic pool power that increased survability, something I don't what to do.
Because a large amount of the time no FoM stacks will be active. IE travel, any long downtime between mobs, using EotS or SS as the last attack against a spawn, etc.Quote:Originally Posted by ArcanavilleWhy would a large amount of play have no buff at all?
Effective damage output isn't a good term because it could be confused with DPS. I'd prefer to just say effective kill-rate.Quote:If you are going to bring discrete effects into the discussion, once again you have to be fair. +15% damage doesn't necessarily always increase effective damage output for the same reason +15% recharge doesn't necessarily always improve attack speed; in this case its because critters have discrete amounts of health and any amount of damage dealt higher than that is wasted. +X% damage doesn't always reduce the number of attacks required to defeat the target for this reason.
You cannot dismiss one while highlighting the other.
Anyway, the issue with your analysis is that recharge has to deal with both problems. If it increases damage by enabling a better attack chain or reducing gaps, the increase in damage may not result in a faster kill-rate just like if +damage was added. I didn't consider the affect of quantized kill-rates for two reasons:
1. Usually, single-target DPS is most important against hard targets. Therefore, the quantum nature of attacks will because less impactful against the primary single target threat (AVs and EBs), and will only have a minor impact on bosses.
2. Because it affected both forms of buff, I considered it a wash. -
Quote:Anecdotal evidence has no validity. I could make the same argument with Ice Melee, a set that severely needs a buff.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Opinion based on actual experience is far more valid than metrics based on a lousy model.
"In my experience Ice Melee kills things crazy fast at +4/x8."
And you could not dispute it, because it is opinion. Opinion which might completely ignore the fact the the Ice Melee build in question is Fire/Ice/Mu, has a 30 billion influence build + T4 incarnates, etc.
There is simply no way to relate one person anecdotal experience and say that it will apply to all Staff Fighters. It is even worse than used a flawed metric.
If we assume that the recharge buff continues through Sky Splitter/Eye of the Storm, it still wouldn't average out to be significantly better than a LotG. The only possible scenario where that would occur is long-term fighting without using either SS or EotS. In an attack chain like PS-SR-PS-SS, the buff would average out to 8.9655% if we assume the recharge lasts through SS, but only 3.0172% if SS instantly eats the recharge bonus (haven't tested it, so I'm not sure which behavior occurs). Even with the former, the buff would only take about 1.6 seconds off SS with no recharge. And remember, a large amount of play will not have any buff from FoM at all.Quote:Originally Posted by ArcanavilleIt averages out to significantly more than a LotG proc which people pay a significant amount of influence for. So the value of that recharge is, as judged by the playerbase, significant.
And verses the argument that because people build for recharge that makes it less valuable at higher levels, that would be tantamount to saying that each LotG you buy makes the next one less valuable. Almost no one should buy and slot four or five, because those must be practically worthless. That doesn't happen either, because recharge isn't really a diminishing returns thing in the normal sense (there's a more complex discussion about the effects of fixed cast time that make it somewhat diminishing, but that's a different effect entirely).
The fact that it fluctuates on a time scale of a couple of seconds is something almost no player is capable of noticing. When we discuss regeneration we talk about it like its continuous, we don't say +75% regeneration cuts the tick interval by 0.833 seconds. But that's what it does (assuming slotted Health).
But of course, FoM doesn't exist in isolation. The problem is the other forms arguably contribute more to offense and defense than form of mind does. Form of Soul's +regeneration and Form of Body's +resists will likely increase survivability more for all armor sets except perhaps regeneration (because of its clickiness), and it is unlikely that +recharge will help attack chains more than +damage because of the relatively tiny amount of +recharge it gives. This is because attacks chains increase in damage in step-wise fashion with increasing amounts of +recharge, but linearly with increasing amounts of +damage. So unless higher recharge allows for a better attack chain (or reduces gaps significantly), it will not improve damage. -
Quote:You are using a value-less metric. Without qualifications for recharge/outside powers/IOs, we cannot simply say "it is balanced." Because any set combination can defeat mobs at that difficulty with enough investment, it really means nothing. Without knowing the build and the speed at which it actually defeats mobs, it is impossible to compare it to other sets. At this point, you are arguing opinion, not fact.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
Subpar- Not measuring up to traditional standards of performance, value, or production.
Not accurate in terms of the set in view of the way it holds up vs +4 X8 pre-incarnate spawns when looking at killing speed. It's not even subpar when looking at the average single target damage.
Perhaps you meant something else.
And it is fairly subpar when it comes to single target damage. Even counting bonus damage, its best attack is roughly equivalent to Chop from Battle-Axe (1.11 to 1.06). After that, it has a pretty large drop-off.
Comparing roughly equivalent chains on a theoretical melee class with a 1.00 melee damage scale and no fury/crits (numbers taken from CoD, dividing scrapper powersets by 1.05 to account for criticals):
BA: Swoop>Gash>Cleave>Chop (95% enhancement)
2.1633 DPS
BS: Hack>Head Splitter>Hack>Disembowel (95% enhancement, 10% -res from Achilles)
2.2659
Claws: Follow-Up>Focus>Shockwave>Slash (95% enhancement, 70% from follow-up, 3.3% from Achilles)
2.4248
Dual Blades: Blinding Feint>Sweeping Strike>Ablating Strike>Power Slice (95% enhancement, 70% from blinding feint)
2.4007
Dark Melee: Smite>SL>Smite>MG (95% enhancement, 50% from Soul Drain [Roughly comparable to one target every 36s or 10 targets every 90s])
2.6786
Electrical Melee: Chain Induction>Havoc Punch>Jacobs Ladder (95% enhancement)
1.6989
Energy Melee: Bone Smasher>Energy Punch>Barrage>Bone Smasher>(ET/TF) (95% enhancement)
2.2637 (ps: Energy needs a buff pretty badly)
Fiery Melee: Incinerate>GFS>Incinerate>Cremate>FS (95% enhancement)
2.3058
Ice Melee: Freezing Touch>Ice Sword>GIS>Ice Sword (95% enhancement)
1.7841 (also needs a buff)
Katana: Golden Dragonfly>Gambler's Cut>Soaring Dragon>Gambler's Cut (95% enhancement, 10% -resistance from Achilles' Heel)
2.3690
Kinetic Melee: Concentrated Strike>Smashing Blow>Body Blow>Quick Strike>Smashing Blow>Body Blow (95% enhancement, 40% from Power Siphon [averaging 4 stacks of PS while active, ~45-50s recharge])
2.3847
Martial Arts: Storm Kick>CAK>Storm Kick>Cobra Strike (95% enhancement)
2.2984 (worse for non-scrappers)
Spines: Ripper>Throw Spines>Impale (95% enhancement, Quills)
1.5709
Staff Fighting: Precise Strike>Serpent's Reach>Precise Strike>Sky Splitter (95% enhancement, FoB [4% +damage on SR, 9% on 2nd PS, 15% on Sky Splitter])
2.021
Stone Melee: Seismic Smash>Heavy Mallet>Stone Fists>Stone Mallet>Stone Fists (95% enhancement)
2.4569
Street Justice: Rib Cracker>Shin Breaker>Heavy Blow>(SC/CU) (95% enhancement, 10.8% -resistance from RC and Achilles' Heel)
2.2261 (considerably better for stalkers)
Super Strength: Knockout Blow>Haymaker>Hurl>Punch>Haymaker (95% enhancement, double rage [160% +damage, total damage divided by 5/6])
2.8328
Titan Weapons: Rend Armor>Crushing Blow>Follow Through>(AoD/TS)>Crushing Blow (95% enhancement, 14.1 -resistance from Rend Armor and Achilles' Heels)
3.1616
War Mace: Clobber>Shatter>Jawbreaker (95% enhancement)
2.6591 (fairly high recharge requirement)
So, in order:
1. Titan Weapons
2. Super Strength
3. Dark Melee
4. War Mace
5. Stone Melee
6. Claws
7. Dual Blades
8. Kinetic Melee
9. Katana
10. Fiery Melee
11. Martial Arts
12. Broadsword
13. Energy Melee
14. Street Fighting
15. Battle-Axe
16. Staff Fighting
17. Ice Melee
18. Electrical Melee
19. Spines
In other words, if we made a scrapper for each set with no offensive bonuses outside of the set and damage enhancements (and the recharge to run the chain), and those scrappers each tried to down a Pylon, they'd have times of:
Titan Weapons: 7:07
Super Strength: 9:31
Dark Melee: 11:18
War Mace: 11:35
Stone Melee: 15:29
Claws: 17:05
Dual Blades: 17:36
Katana: 18:09
Fiery Melee: 20:42
Martial Arts: 21:03
Broadsword: 22:43
Energy Melee: 22:51
Street Fighting: 23:00
Battle-Axe: 30:20
Staff Fighting: 56:42
(Ice, Spines, and Electric would not have enough DPS to defeat a Pylon with those chains without help)
Note, these times are not completely accurate, because I got the DPS by simply multiplying the DS per second by the scrapper level 50 melee_damage mod (62.562) and then multiplying by 1.1 for the 10% critical chance. Because scrappers get a higher modifier for buffing +damage, Super Strength, Claws, Dark Melee, and Kinetic would actually do better. On the other hand, any power that didn't have a full critical effect would do less. I would estimate the error of this calculation to be around 5-10% because of those changes.
If those numbers seem low, it is because they are mostly sub-optimal chains (I tried to keep recharge between 190 and 250%, significantly lower than some of my chains), and this ignores the additional +damage from procs/incarnate powers. Just adding reactive could reduce a lot of those times substantially. The times are fairly close to what we would expect from old Pylon times. -
Quote:It's funny that you say that, because that was one of arguments I've made in this thread several times.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
I'm a teacher of Physics and Maths, but I am wise enough to know that Arcana understands this game much better than I do, and wouldn't even consider a challenge.
But consider this: the effects of FoB and FoS can be reproduced with inspirations. But there is NO WAY to reproduce the effect of FoM. That recharge is over-and-above what can be achieved in any other way. It's value is in it's uniqueness, not it's magnitude. However, it doesn't particularly benefit it's own powerset. It's value depends ENTIRELY on what other powers you have. Thus, any metric which fails to consider primaries, secondaries, and pool powers is going to fail [emphasis mine].
I completely agree, by the way, and its one reason balance in CoH is so hard to define. Even in within the same AT/powerset combination, a build can be completely different depending on pools, IOs, and even incarnates in the later game. For instance, a DM/SR Brute with Presence, Flight, Leadership, and Stealth and no IOs or APPs/EPPs is completely different from a purpled out DM/SR/Mu Brute with Medicine, Fighting, SJ, and Leadership with along with Spiritual/Degenerative/Spiritual for incarnates.
Its one reason I think we shouldn't simply compare base powersets, but include some of impact from outside influences. Basically, we want to keep powersets within a range of power, with even base characters able to handle difficulties of 0/1 and even the most ridiculous character unable to solo iTrials. SS is probably the hardest set to balance because it truly isn't amazing without outside influences, with mediocre DPA attacks and only one AoE. But combine its +dam with either high DPA attacks (Gloom/Burn) or extra AoEs, and it becomes a monster.
However, I think the nature of FoM limits its practical in-game use. Its magnitude is such that it won't make more than a couple of seconds of difference on anything but the longest recharge powers. By combining a variable effect with a low magnitude, its usefulness is handicapped. I think it would be best served to either make the magnitude large enough to be truly interesting, or make it constant (even if it would have to be reduced down to something like 10%).
FoB just seems to be deliberately weaker than necessary in order to prevent the potential unbalancing effect of to much +dam. However, I think it can be argued that a small increase at this point would not make Staff OP, especially since a lot of potential problems with +dam would be partially prevented by the re-draw in the set (eg, Gloom, Mu Mastery). Comparing Staff to other powersets, FoB doesn't really make up for the loss of BU (in burst situations, not average contribution), and it provides much less benefit than the powers given to other sets without BU. One solution would be to just grant BU along with the various forms (which could also give Staff Stalkers the other forms).
And I'm fine with arguing with Arcanaville and being wrong. I've learned more about the game by losing arguments with Arcana than ever would have by talking with the average forum-goer. I gain nothing by being intimidated by another person's intellect, but I can benefit a lot from making mistakes. For instance, I never even tried to numerically judge a powersets AoE before this thread, and now I at least know something about it. -
Quote:You misunderstand my repeated attempts at analysis. I'm not trying to find things to support my view, but trying to fix the inaccuracies of my methods. And even if I found one suitable to you, the same claim could be made. And most of the time I openly admitted that the methods I used were created hastily and with errors. So far, I am missing information I would need to create a more accurate AoE predictor, and don't have the time or resources to investigate Bruter/Tanker/Scrapper set in-game at all levels of recharge.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Probably eaten by the forum grues by now.
You keep suggesting people are asking for some "complete proof" as if the critiques so far have been unreasonable, but you haven't acknowledged basic fundamental errors in your analysis which generate wildly incorrect results. You seem, if anything, to believe they should be overlooked as being irrelevant to the point of the analysis. But as you point out, rarely is an analysis absolutely perfect, so the critical goal of any analysis should be to build credibility that the conclusion generated is a safe one. Usually, that's done by being conservative, and when erring always attempting to err on the side *opposite* that of the conclusion. You very obviously don't do that; instead you reach for the conclusion by first assuming its true, and then looking for numbers to support it. You still haven't told me what a player with nothing but Explosive Blast looks like under your revised AoE metric, and whether your analysis generates a reasonable result for that situation. You still haven't justified how having just one AoE for SS and Stone somehow translates into those two sets having more "AoE potential" according to your metric than many sets with provably higher AoE.
By not acknowledging, much less attempting to fix any of these anomalies, it seems you're metric-shopping: it looks like you're going to continue to invent metrics until you find one that generates the results you want.
As to the difference between your impressions and your analysis, you started by saying the set was more or less ok, perhaps with some issues, but as the thread progressed you started conflating "second tier" with "underperforming" in many contexts, and attempted to claim there was a strong numerical basis for that assertion. It is at that point that your numerical analysis became fair game for review and critique.
It should also be noted that I have NEVER said that Staff's AoE was underperforming. My claim was solely that the single target attacks was limited by low DPA, regardless of attempts to create an AoE metric to prove that the single target deficiency was not necessarily balanced by a greater amount of AoE. And regardless of how awful my attempts to find a good AoE metric have been, the single target damage deficiency shouldn't be in question. If it is, I definitely show a lack of single target damage at various levels of recharge, or at least more readily show that than AoE damage. -
Quote:To the contrary, even people happy with the set's performance don't necessarily like the difference in magnitude between the difference Forms.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Guess you aint herd the maxim "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Tinkering with things that people are happy with is always a bad move.
In this case, I think that, based on your personal playstyle, and unfamiliarity with the interaction with various defense sets, you are massively overrating FoS in comparison to FoM, or FoB's resistance buff.
Any you critique of Arcana's analysis will make a good companion piece to Homer Simpson's deconstruction of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Remember, my actual play experience has mostly been on a stalker, without the benefit of FoS and FoM. My analysis of the impact of FoS vs the other abilities has mostly come from commentators in this thread, ex:
Quote:...yes, the forms besides soul are essentially worthless in my opinion. They might be good for a laugh and the +tohit bonus in particular has some real applications, but for my money it's soul all the way Quote:In the early levels the set is a ton of fun, probabaly the greatest time i've ever had on a low level toon due to form of soul to let me completely ignore my blue bar.
As for the comment about Arcanaville, I'm not trying to say I'm smarter or right more often than Arcanaville, and I'm certainly not more popular on these programs or as great a contributor. None of that, however, guarantees that my opinion is incorrect or that changes I've suggested would not improve staff or its balance in relation to other sets.
(Also, its funny you mention Einstein's Theory of General Relatively, as I actually have a fair amount of background in physics but none at all in statistics) -
Quote:Can you link your arguments so that I might attempt to copy/dissect them?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Yes it has, because its been reached many times in the past. I don't know what you're representing that requirement as in terms of unknown variables, but proper, rigorous analysis has demonstrated powersets to be underperforming in the past. Specifically for offensive sets, in the case of Broadsword, for example, or Archery. Or the non-domination-boosted offense of the entire Dominator archetype. I successfully made the argument three separate times for three separate versions of Martial Arts.
Your analysis just seems to mash numbers up, and you seem to believe there's nothing between mash numbers up and omniscience. More conservative and accurate analyses have been done in other situations that were sufficiently compelling to be considered probative.
After all, part of the reason my arguments may have been flawed could be a lack of experience or examples to draw from. After all, the title of the thread was "my impression", not "A complete mathematical analysis of how Staff Fighting is underpowered".
Remember, I haven't had 100s of hours of gameplay on the various forms of Staff in order to test comparisons. ALL I have is data analysis. Asking me to provide a complete proof in such a short of amount time practically WOULD require me to be omniscient. -
I'm trying to learn German in anticipation of possibly working/studying there in a year or two. I probably will be living with relatives (by marriage, not blood) when I do eventually travel there, and also might have an opportunity to stay with my German-speaking aunt and uncle over the summer. Currently, I only speak English and some rudimentary Spanish from two years of high school classes. I may travel to Austria as soon as winter this year (from the US) for a musical festival with the orchestra I play in, so I may get a chance to practice early.
In that wake, I've been trying to learn vocabulary and grammar, largely from short-stories translated in English and German, and subtitled movies. But I've decided to try and use CoH as a learning tool by creating a character on the Zukunft server. Many of you will know that server as that one near the top of the list (low population) with (German Language) next to it.
I decided to make a Plant/Fire Dominator because I feel that will be a nice change of playstyle and keep me safe enough to read the text even the deficiencies of a student. I named that Dominator, "Student," one of the advantages of a foreign server being the availability of generic English names. I made her a Praetorian because I have never completed the Praetorian missions, and because they probably will contain more 'conversational' style dialogue than either blue or red-side.
In order to get a more complete experience, I will be using a text reader to get a feel for the pronunciation of words. For example, try the sentence "Wilkommen bei der Kräfteabteilung, Rekrut." on this website's "Try-It!" tab. For those wondering, that is first message you get in the Praetorian tutorial, and basically just means "Welcome to the Powers Division, Recruit". When I need a translation, I'll use either Google Translate or a German-English dictionary.
For some reason, it seems to be more natural with some foreign languages than English, though that could simply be an unfamiliarity with the language disguising how bad it would actual sound to a native-speaker.
Anyway, I'll try and share my experiences with you, and hopefully the combination of an interactive environment, text/speech in German, and possibly teaming will allow me to more quickly and completely absorb the language. -
Well, since I actually *LIKE* that the game allows most characters to act like superheroes, I probably wouldn't participate in the game-killing nerf-fest. However, I probably would:
Spend 1-2 Issues solely on fixing the story. Issue 2X would fix continuity, spelling/grammar errors, and other technical problems associated with game stories. Issue 20X+1 would redo all of the early story-arcs, Hero and Villainside, to be both unique and decently well written (read: interesting). Old trials would be re-scripted so that they are similar to the new ones but able to be run with 1 team.
Delete SOs, DOs, and TOs from the game. IOs would no longer need salvage to craft, only influence/infamy/information, and would drop from levels 1 onward. They would come in 2 forms: attuned and normal. Attuned IOs would be functionally level-less, and could be made by using "Attuners", rare salvage that would also be available on the market.
Spend I2X+2 revamping the IO system. Recipes would still drop based on level range, but power-level would not be determined by the level a recipe dropped at. I would probably create a sliding scale system, with the least valuable effects stronger than the most valuable. No bonus would be less than 2.5%, except secondary defense buffs. Certain effects would be removed entirely, probably mez resistance and knockback protection (in some PvP sets).
Effects like debt protection would be as powerful as 25-50%. Certain effects, like damage, would become stronger but type-oriented. For example, Positron's Blast might give 10% damage buff, but only to energy.
A ton of new IO sets would be added, and a lot either completely revamped or removed. All sets would have 6 IOs. Purple sets would be added for almost every major type of set. Mez IO sets would probably be merged into 1 type of set, but each IO would affect every type of mez. A lot of the new sets will be based around interesting mechanics, like a set full of procs or a set will greater than purple enhancement %s but negative set bonuses (or the opposite, a set with incredible set bonuses but worthless enhancements). Other new options could include side-specific IOs, level-focused IOs whose set bonuses worked best in a certain level range (ie 20-40 range), origin-enhanced IOs, etc.
I2X+3 would be powerset rebalancing, focusing entirely on "underperforming sets". Most of these are legacy sets that were badly designed, and need serious breakage of the cottage rule. This would include the introduction of new mechanics (like Gravity), giving underused powers the Clobber treatment, giving alternate animations for powers with very low DPAs or long animations (ex: Barb Swipe). All of the blaster secondaries will receive a serious looking at.
I would mostly forget about the new story arcs, and return to the game's roots. This would mean a lot of new stories about Vahzilok, Clockwork, Outcasts, Trolls, and other lesser used groups in the mid-low levels. These groups would receive new units, costumes, and backstory where appropriate to make them interesting enough to merit new story-arcs. Same for higher levels, mostly focusing on making legacy groups more interesting rather than adding new groups.
I'd also do pretty major revamps of legacy zones such as Boomtown, Perez Park, and others, making some Villain-exclusive. Most major would be the Shadow Shard, which would be the end-game zone. Tons of new story, enemy types, and QoL improvements for the Shadow Shard. -
Quote:At that point, my arguments towards you were in the general sense, not the specific. You can use your argument to fight ANY calls for a buff. If that is a case, and I accept your argument in the general term, it means that buffing is intrinsically bad. That isn't an acceptable idea to me, so I disagree with your general idea, regardless of whether Staff is a specific set that qualifies for the criteria.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
You fail to define what you mean by "ridiculously". So far, all you have suggested is that Staff does marginally less damage that some other melee sets.
Again, you use an argument that could be applied to ANY set.Quote:In my opinion, some variation in performance is both inevitable and desirable. It is the price we pay for creative freedom.
I have played MMOs where they tried ever so hard to make things balanced. They are boring and restrictive (and still fail).
I never have. I would rather a game be fun than be balanced. Isn't that why most people play CoH? To have fun?
Unless it's an e-sport things don't have to be finely balanced, and even than, balance is an unobtainable illusion.
You also make a point that is not logical. Balance and fun are not either/or propositions, regardless of your personal experience. An 'ideal' game would be perfectly balanced AND have enough different playstyles to support a maximum level of fun. In a real world, we cannot reach perfection in either, but not because fun and balance are at polar ends of a spectrum.
You also fail to notice that I did not ask for 'perfect' balance.
Quote:Originally Posted by CombatBalance is bad if it simply reskins different powersets. Balance is good if it prevents abuse and/or underperformance.In that post, I was specifically referring to a variety of sets, most specifically Devices, that are considered to be both 'tactical' and underperforming. I did not mention staff in that argument, though I did mention PBs, Stalkers pre-buff, Blasters, Ice Melee, and Devices. Staff may or may not fit that mold but the argument is valid regardless. You argued that those sets do not need and/or will never need a buff because some people like them. Therefore your argument is that if 'some' people like a set, it doesn't need a buff. That argument is not a true argument.Quote:Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
And, so far, you have failed to provide any evidence that Staff cannot in any way "get the job done". I KNOW IT CAN, because I have played it. I've also played Titan Weapons, and that can get the job done too. It may or may not produce more DPS, but I don't look closely at the numbers and it's not enough to notice otherwise. What I do notice is that Staff is MORE FUN than Titan Weapons, since it gives more choices, and isn't such a pain to micro-manage endurance.
Now, let's shift back to the specific. Let's look at exactly what I'd like to happen:Quote:You might not be "trying" to kill play-styles, but killing play-styles is the inevitable consequence of your agenda. Equality is the enemy of diversity. [emphasis mine] Look what happened to PvP in the name of "balance and equality".
- Buff Form of Body so that it has the same magnitude bonus as Form of Soul
- Buff Form of Mind so that it has the same magnitude bonus as Form of Soul (maybe consider revamping some of the effects to make it more useful)
You cannot claim that I am eliminating playstyles for Staff with that proposal. If anything, that would increase the versatility of staff by making the forms more balanced and equally useful.
Now, about the idea that "Equality is the enemy of diversity."
...
No. That cannot be applied in real life and it cannot be applied here. Completely ignoring how that sounds from a real-life perspective (bad), it doesn't work in a video game in the specific or general case.
The greater the imbalance in power between two sets, the less choice we have between those two sets. Take Ice Melee and SS. SS is arguably the most popular melee set in the game, and has been for almost the entire lifespan of the game. Ice Melee is very similar to SS, if SS didn't have Rage. Ice Melee is one of the rarer sets to see in-game in my experience.
A lot of people might want to play Ice Melee, but do not because of the power imbalance. Ice Melee might present a lot of fun or interesting abilities that SS lacks. But people choose SS because power defeats choice.
The reason we buff and nerf in this game is to try and create the greatest number of options for people. A lot of people never played Energy Aura before it was buffed, simply because it was considered weak. A lot of people didn't Stalkers because they were thought to be weak. When /Regen was crazy OP, it overshadowed the other options so much that it was definitely one of the most popular.
Eliminating balance concerns almost always increases choice, in that people feel less pressure to play a certain set or avoid a certain set because of performance fears.
And as for the PvP argument, one could argue that the I13 change actually resulted in a less balanced playstyle that more heavily favored highly specific builds while changing the playstyle for everyone regardless of balance changes. So one could argue that PvP became worse BECAUSE it became less balanced. -
Hasten, or a rotating auto-queue (done either by bind/loadfiles or making each movement key switch auto powers).
-
Quote:Like I said, I don't expect the actual performance drop to be major (indeed, it may buff most procs enough to be a net gain).Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
It isn't zero to 15% though. It's going from 90% to 81% chance to successfully proc. Right now it's very, very possible for either AS or the subsequent attack to miss. And, as you note, a reasonable attack chain is shorter than ten seconds so it's only relevant half of the time in the first place. It's a minor reduction to something that is honestly a much more minor factor in current stalker builds than most people realize.
However, I hate this sort of mechanic with a passion. I was willing to put up with the silly 95% chance to tohit cap, because I have to deal with it on my other powers anyway. I was even willing to count the 10 second rule because most attack chains would basically make it an auto-proc every other chain. But make the proc random on top of that? Nuh-uh. That sort of percentage means that I'll have a 50-50 chance for a the proc to fail at least once per about 5 chains. Which means I'll be annoyed unnecessary failure very, very often.
It's something where I have to wait and see what the devs do. If they remove the 90% cap and the PPM change aren't incredibly invasive, I might reconsider and switch back to my stalker. But until then I'll focus on other projects.
Like I've said before, the level of proof you are asking for has never been a requirement for any underperforming set in the history of the game, to my knowledge. It involves variables that simply cannot be known without in-game experimentation or developer knowledge. All of which you probably know.Quote:Originally Posted by ArcanavilleAnything is possible, but that assertion has yet to be demonstrated by any analysis I've seen so far.
On a simpler level, it is fairly easy to easy that Staff's single target is limited by its low DPA attacks. It is much harder to prove that Staff's AoEs are below or above average because AoEs simply involve more variables. Using only the usable data in front of me, it is impossible for me to say that Staff is average or above average because its single target damage is so low without any ability to prove that the AoE is inversely high. Especially since any set can get so many AoEs from outside sources, but few strong single target attacks. -
Quote:See post #191Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
You're the one who told me earlier in the thread that you could think of exactly three places in the entire game where you fight more than one boss at once and one of the ones that apparently sprung to mind was in Mercedes "Who?" Sheldon's arc. The thing I find hard to believe here is that you actually care as much about peak performance as you've been saying you do. If you're mainly running content where having sustained aoe isn't meaningful, how can you turn around and say you care deeply about a 10% reduction in stalker's guile's proc rate? You won't need to respec at all, just put the procs where they'll be best, double check with the PPM formula if you're really concerned, and there you are. One of them will some day become marginally less effective while most of them will probably be moderately buffed. It's a wash.
Maybe we're very different, you and I, but when I play my old characters it is for variety as my builds have steadily gotten better over time. If I don't even remember my slotting rationale for some dusty old defender yet I'm bringing it out anyway for a task force, I don't expect its performance to be already optimized for the current issue. That doesn't make it less fun to play.
I don't dislike the change solely because of a fairly substantial loss of damage (possibly made up by an increase in other procs). I dislike it because the randomness is just spiteful and unfun to me. The proc already has a 10 sec cooldown, and added another to it makes it both annoying and potentially threatening. Say I'm fighting a tough boss/EB/AV, and need one Sky Splitter critical to defeat the critter, but have low life. If I miss AS and/or have the proc fail, I not only waste the attack, but have to make a decision whether or not to continue using regular attacks or use Sky Splitter without a guaranteed critical, and in the meantime the foe that should be dead has enough time to get in extra attacks that could kill me.Quote:Originally Posted by Combat
I've remarked on this before, but I dislike randomness in my characters if it is not absolutely necessary. I disliked the HO change solely because it randomized a character than I enjoyed because of his consistency. Even with a 90% chance to succeed, the proc change would make the character far less fun to play just because of the 14.5% chance to fail for no good reason (assuming that that target needs to be hit for the proc to work, which would make the chance for the proc to actually off to be 95%*90%=85.5%).
Maybe for some people, it wouldn't be annoying, but to me it would seriously impact the feel of the game. Random annoyance =/ fun in any way for me. Indeed, the main reason I became a mids junkie was because I wanted to design a character that didn't have random weaknesses to large portions of the game, in many case sacrificing actual performance for consistency. Oddly, I don't really mind the inconsistency of procs if they a low chance to fire, but having a 90% chance makes it so that I am annoyed when it doesn't proc.
Simply put, the change has more effect than the numbers because it will force me to change my playstyle. Random chances for failure are NOT fun for me, and I don't want to make the transition from no-chance to 15% chance. -
Quote:Sure, if you ignore single target damage Staff is a good set. It does above average, but not spectacular AoE, at a steady, safe rate. But my experience in the game is that the only real difficulties/time-stops are the tough mobs like Bosses, EBs, and AVs. Strangely enough, single target is now arguably more important on large teams and leagues than AoE, a reversal of the old standard.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
Here is the deal though mate. Staff is NOT underperforming under "ANY" metric except the min/max single target vacuum based perspective. Even the numbers people have posted support this fact. It is a average damage set overall and DOES NOT "suffer" from slow spawn killing, that is vacuum based made up stuff vs actually seat time in the game period.
The reality is there are only a few people that measure a set based on that narrow min/max pylon based perspective and the devs are not included in that group.
And this is not about having played the set but about the perspective of a min/max view going in and coming out that is the real issue here. That is a personal issue not powerset based issue.
In my experience, low single target (and it is low) + good/above average AoE = slow unless you have bosses turned off. I know because I have characters that fit the description, such a Spines scrapper. In general, low single target damage does reduce damage output, because there are only so many minions/lts in a spawn.
Also, I'll repeat the fact that my suggested fix has other advantages than powerset balance. It also helps staff's strengths and should make it more fun to play enough for those that already find it fun. -
Quote:You misunderstood. The 'vacuum' I was referring to is the comparison of Staff by itself without reference to other sets. At this point in the game, virtually any set can defeat mobs at +4/x8 with sufficient investment (and course, don't discount the effect of the secondary). Therefore the question is not whether a character can play at that level but at what speed and level of investment. It is quite possible that Staff is underperforming relatively without underperforming absolutely, in that it still will be "good enough," but still below average for a melee set.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
The vacuum you talk about is not, it is from actual seat time in the game. On the other hand you and a couple of others are going nuts over your vacuum based equations that just do not match up with the player base actually playing the set in the game.
I have nothing against advocating for changes that are needed. I just don't see the merit since I have been mowing down level 50+ +4 X8 spawns in AE and the new Dark Astoria on BETA since January and others that bought the set are doing the same.
If the devs feel that the set is underperforming then they will give it bump, I just don't think they feel anything near what two or three forumites with outliar views are saying. Not even close.
(and by the way, I HAVE played Staff to a fairly high level) -
Quote:The false conclusion in that premise is that I would only gain enjoyment from that character. If I play another character, than I don't have any risk from the PPM change. Therefore it makes more sense to play and invest in another character knowing that the annoyance of the 90% cap will make that character considerably less fun. It will also save having to respect around the new rules, assuming I could level the Stalker to 50 and get him incarnated before the PPM change.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
You'd also get 6+ months of continued enjoyment of a character you claim to like, with no guarantee that it will actually be any worse after that time. Isn't that the point of the game? It seems odd to me to consider whether a character will be "worth it in the long run" since the only value you can possibly derive from a city of heroes character is the fun you have playing it.
And since I still occasionally play many of my 50s, I generally see characters as investments, and I get annoyed at unneeded changes in playstyle. If you consider that the game has been around 8 years, is it really so odd that I don't want to play for 6 months and have a less fun character at the end? After all, the conceivable lifetime of a character is limited only by the lifetime of the game, and I don't want lose the potential for fun playing a character after that 6 months. -
Can't find a glowie on a large outdoor map? Say the map wants you to search for crates:
/bind ANYKEY,"target_custom_name crate"
This will target glowies. The same command can be used for NPCs if you need to find them. If you don't know the name of your target, guess or look on Paragon Wiki.
This makes certain Praetorian missions 100x easier to complete. Simply Fly/SJ/SS around and click your bind till you find that hidden objective. -
Quote:If it is reduced by 95%, the target will have 95% resistances. No other effect in the game reduces resistance.Originally Posted by Reppu
... So even if the 7.5% is reduced by 95%, it's still a 7.5% Damage Increase? Okay, I didn't know that. By all means, educate.
Therefore, the debuff would reduce damage by 0.375%
Say you used a 100 damage attack. The resistances would reduce it to 5 damage. The resistances after the resistance debuff, however, are reduced to 94.625%. Therefore, the attack would deal 5.375 damage after resistance debuffs.
5.375/5=1.075, or a damage improvement of 7.5%