Combat
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Quote:How much +defense and +resistance is worth x amount of lost damage?Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
I think when you come to staff, you have to have this in mind: it is a DEFENSIVE melee set. Do not choose it if you want to do the max out damage, and do not pair it up with a defense set that has an easy time hitting defence and/or resistance caps.
This even works on an intuitive level: which would you expect to do the most damage - a huge sword or a wooden pole?
Can't tell me? Then don't try to balance around those. Again, where does Kinetic Melee lose strength because it has gobs of -damage? Where does Dark Melee lose strength for having a great heal (which just happens to be in an attack better than any in Staff)?
Every set has perks. They aren't balanced around them, and shouldn't be. Staff's perks are the forms and the +res/def from Sky Splitter and Defensive Sweep. I've made this point a few times before, but balancing around intangibles is a mindset more fitting in I0 than I22, and simply caused powersets to be gimped or OP for no reason.
That may have been true in I0, when we still had a holy trinity. We no longer do. Every AT is a damage AT, and have been balanced around for at least 5 years now. The idea that a tankers damage is irrelevant is simply not true, and wouldn't fly with most tanks or the developers. Remember, everyone has to solo, and you need damage to solo.Quote:Doing damage is not the job of a tanker. How much they do is irrelevant. As already pointed out, Stalkers have Assassins strike for heavy hitting, and Brutes are less dependant on big hard hitting attacks.
One of the changes I'd like to see to Staff is an increase in strength for Form of Body and Form of Mind. The question isn't whether 15% recharge is useful, but whether it ever is good to validate not using FoS. And unfortunately, it isn't, especially considering that using the set's best AoE and hardest hitting single target attack removes that buff, and a 4% or 9% recharge buff is simply not useful in isolation.Quote:You are again failing to grasp the utility of +15% recharge.
But if all you can see are damage numbers, as I already said, the nice thing about paid for sets is you don't have to pay for them if they don't do what you want.
He wasn't referring to crowd control, but instead Storm Kick giving 10% defense to all but psy, which allows sets like SR to softcap as soon as they get SOs. That def is much more valuable than defensive sweep's because it applies to all types of attacks, and better than Sky Splitter because defense is worth about twice as much as resistance per point.Quote:With so many mobs resistant to CC? I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with MA, but people like other options, not all of which should be muwr dmg. -
I am laughing out loud at the idea of 1 inf kills being exploitable. Do the math, and realize that 1 inf is not something possible to exploit. Let me put it simply: even if your T4 Ion Judgement recharged in one second and hit max targets continually, you still would be getting less than 40 inf a second. Ir would be physically impossible giving max targets limits to make this as rewarding as killing even a single even level minion every few minutes.
I literally would donate every single enhancement, recipe, and scrap of influence to a person that could come up with a legitimate way to exploit 1 inf drops. And I'm not exactly poor.
Anyway, I think people are viewing influence as money. But influence is simply a reward for doing something in game, not gold. Sure, we use it the same way, but this wouldn't be a way of forcing people to farm hellions. Instead, it would just show that even the lowest of the low are still worth something. Therefore, current gray mobs are "worth nothing", and less superhero-ey.
And yes, I'd support a badge or other token for doing small-time good deeds. -
Quote:But in this game, influence =/ dollars. Influence is a reward for doing something that helped the world (infamy = the opposite). Getting even 1 inf for defeating a hellion would say "hey, this isn't worth much, but it means something".Originally Posted by DarkGob
Yeah, no. I know it seems like it can't be exploited if it's just 1 inf, but I'm sure someone would find a way.
Even assuming it couldn't be exploited, I'd still say no. Heroism is its own reward. Superman doesn't stop muggings because he gets a dime every time he does it (which he doesn't, by the way), he stops muggings because he's a nice dude and despite his nigh-godlike abilities (depending on the writer), he's not above helping an average person. Victims already thank you when you save them, if you're really a hero that ought to be more than enough.
Whereas now, it the message is "ignore these guys, they con grey."
It's won't have an effect on game balance, but it would be a nice way to highlight the difference between the superhero experience vs "the other guys". -
Quote:I think that aside from KB, a good AoE metric can be found. I believe that something involving the damage per cycle, combined with max targets, and maximum % of effectiveness given from area (and the max targets) could be a good start. And while deduced metrics never perfectly replicate game conditions, I think it is fair to say that the rankings I gave in #110 are mostly accurate and how the playerbase would generally rank the base sets before APPs/EPPs/Spring Attack/Incarnates.Originally Posted by Mazey
The problem is that there isn't a good metric for AoEs, at least, not one that can be found through deduction from the base numbers.
There are just to many variables involved, and the act of actual fighting with AoEs devolves into something akin to chaos. A thorough statistical analysis might be able to produce a metric that accurately weights things like area vs. target cap and how much knockback reduces AoE effectiveness for the average player, but such things are impossible to simply deduce and, as such, any deduced metric is inherently flawed. -
Now, this seems a little silly. Why would you reward people for fighting mobs that are completely unable to fight back?
But I'm not talking about giving the same as even greens. I'm talking as little as 1 exp and inf per kill.
Why?
Because when I am playing my purpled/incarnated 50 and I stop to defeat a purse-snatching Hellion in AP, it would make me feel happy to get even the 1 inf. A reward for doing small things, even when I could be defeating demi-gods.
Wouldn't you feel awesome getting that 1 inf for the in-game equivalent of rescuing a kitten from a tree? Sure, it's not much, but 1 is more than nothing. -
Quote:I haven't tried to prove the staff is terrible. Most of my assumptions (see the SS comparison) were made at date points that specifically favored staff.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
More specifically you're trying to trade in its "extra stuff," which you've repeatedly valued at exactly zero, for more of one particular sort of number. It ain't going down like that.
By the by, not once did I say people should ignore performance for fun. I said staff's performance is great and you're trying to talk people out of having fun with essentially no justification whatsoever.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the scientific method, but here's how it typically doesn't work: you don't start from a position that you're sure is true and try to produce evidence to that effect. When an experiment falsifies your hypothesis you check the experiment and then modify your hypothesis. This continual drive to find new ways in which you can claim staff is terrible is more akin to a Monsanto EIS: E-Z-Gro can't be responsible for this sorghum blight because our fourteenth attempt to exonerate it looks pretty good if you squint.
You don't understand why I dislike balancing around perks. I don't think Staff's specialties should be a reason why for it underperforming. I have never said that I wanted staff to lose its perks, I just think that they shouldn't be considered.
I'm NOT trying to find new ways to discredit Staff. I am trying to find an acceptable metric that people agree with, which produces the expected values for other sets as well. Arguably a good AoE performance metric is not a bad thing, and I am trying to find ways to create one, regardless of where Staff ends up. Also note that the SS comparisons were only in response to Arcana.
Also, you seem to have a lack of understanding of the scientific process.
My hypothesis is that Staff will underperform under certain metrics. I test those certain metrics, and report my conclusion. That conclusion does not have to be the same as my hypothesis, and hypothesis are supposed to be biased towards one outcome or another. I'm not specifically choosing metrics to make Staff look bad, but testing in a variety of metrics. I'd decide to add Area of Effect in to make Staff look bad, and it can be argued that the relatively large cones of staff would actually be helped by this sort of analysis. -
Quote:I think we sort of agree. I just think that "it doesn't matter because it is fun" is like "we don't need mecha armor because we have enforcer". I'm not trying to take away its "fun" to make it perform better, I'm just trying to improve it slightly in ways that will make it more numerically appealing. In my opinion, a set should be both fun and numerically compelling.Originally Posted by UberGuy
There's a limit to this. If something underperfoms too much, it should be improved, regardless of how fun it is. Whether something is fun is subjective, but things like how fast it levels are not. Some spread in performance is acceptable, but at some point, the devs have to decide that outliers lay too far afield and need to be brought closer. They've done this many times in many different ways.
We can't just look at whether something looks cool or feels neat. It also needs to perform comparably, but not identically to other characters, for some measurable metric. The devs tend to look at leveling speed, but they sometimes listen to other arguments.
Note that I am not convinced Staff needs anything. But if I thought it did, "it's fun anyway" wouldn't dissuade me from asking to having it looked at. People having fun with it shouldn't have to "buy" their fun at the expense of too much performance. -
Quote:I think the important variable would be the size of the average mob hit box (the area, not the volume). If the average mob covers an area of X ft, I think the safety zone for "max effectiveness" would be between 2X and 4X. Does that seem like a good estimate to you?Originally Posted by UberGuy
Right. That's what I was referring to in my closing sentence. If your area is too small to fit your actual target cap in the effect, then the area ends up dominating.
Basically, there's some size that's the absolute minimum size required to fit your target cap in the attack. But even if you can fit your whole target cap in the effect, there's still the question of how likely that is to actually happen. So an attack with an area just big enough to fit its target cap in standard-sized critters in it probably still shouldn't get its full target cap as its rating. As area grows over that required to fit the target cap in, it becomes more and more probable that you fit the max in the effect*. As you say, many melee powerset attacks never actually grow that large, so they don't benefit strongly from this effect. Something like FootStomp is getting big enough relative to its target max that it probably should count close to all of them. Shadow Maul, not so much.
* Some things, like Judgement powers, can hit so many targets they only should count at full strength under the assumption of high difficulty settings or team/league play.
Anyone know what the size of a hit box is? -
Quote:I questioned that as well. I'm guessing that the knockback of Repulsing Torrent is the main detractor for in-game performance. It isn't as bad as many seem to think, because it deals about as much damage as Eye of the Storm w/o bonus damage (1.2), with a faster animation (2.224), and recharges faster (12 seconds). Kinetic also has the added advantage of considerable +damage from power siphon. Burst has a lower recharge than EotS (15), but is worse for non-stalkers because of lower damage and higher animation times.Originally Posted by Mazey
Here's my criticism:
Your metric puts Kinetic as better AoE than staff. Yet Kinetic only has 2 AoEs, longer recharge times, less damage and knockback. -
Quote:Target caps are important for PBAoEs and large cones, but smaller cones that represent a majority of melee AoEs are mostly unable to use a higher target cap. If Shadow Maul were raised to a 15 target cap, it wouldn't become 3 times as effective.Originally Posted by UberGuy
I think your AoE factor has to max out at the target cap. At its maximum contribution, something with a target cap of 5 has to max out at half of the maximum contribution of something with a target cap of 10. Area above and beyond that adds nothing.
So I think that your factor needs to involve multiplying the DPC and max target, and then scaling down from that maximum for attacks with smaller radii or smaller arc of effect.
Say you have two identical damage, identically shaped, very large spherical attacks, (a) with max target of 10 and (b) with a max target of 5. Attack (b) with its max of five should be about 1/2 as strong as (a) with its max of 10, because both are so large it should be easy for them to saturate their caps, and (a) can hit twice as many targets.
Now as radius and arc shrink, the less likely we fit every foe in the effect. So if both (a) and (b) have the same small radius, then neither may be likely to saturate, but (b) still can't beat (a). At best it will break even with (a), because they will both start saturating all the targets they can fit in their area.
So that tells me that it's not area that matters most, it's target cap, and area is a scaling factor on how likely an attack is to actually hit that cap.
But I think my numbers did take into account target caps, so I would get exactly the result you are expecting. I didn't account for that in my reply to Arcanaville, so I'll change that. You are right, however, that the maximum effectiveness of extra size should be proportional to the target cap. -
Quote:See post #110. Note rankings.Originally Posted by UberGuy
To be blunt, the claim is completely ludicrous. That your analysis concludes that tells me, point blank, that I shouldn't believe anything you say about any powerset comparisons using that analysis as your foundation.
I'm not saying Staff won't out-perform Stone (again see the rankings after I apply those slight changes and accounted for damage buffs, -res). I'm saying that you should show that Stone's AoE is horrible in comparison. If it is demonstrably different, it should be easy to prove.
And while stone was more highly ranked than most people would expect, other rankings were pretty much right. DM and Energy were last, Electric/Spines/Claws first, which is exactly what we'd expect, and corresponds more with player experience that DPC would account for. -
Quote:This is why I hate discussing AoEs. They are 100 times more numerically hard to judge than single targets.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I should point out your original contention was that Staff was a "second tier" AoE set just behind TW, Claws, and SS. And I pointed out that with the errors in the SS analysis, that left only two by your reckoning that were definitely better.
Now you've invented a different metric, but its really difficult to judge it because:
1. What that metric says is that all other things being equal, an AoE with a target cap of five and a radius of 20 is twice as good as one with target cap of five and radius 10. On what basis do you justify that metric's calculations?
2. I'm not sure I'm even judging the actual metric you used, because I cannot generate the numbers you show with any variation of the metric you post above.
3. I can say that any metric that shows Super Strength's one single AoE being 50% better than all three of Staff's AoEs is obviously broken. As we've gone over already, even if you believe the best way to judge the sets is by piling AoEs from patron pools into them, this new metric you're presenting here says that SS *without them* is *50% better than Staff*. That's simply numerically impossible.
The problem is this metric hasn't been sanity checked for reasonable results in simple to check situations. If they can't be relied upon in areas we *know*, they cannot be trusted in areas we don't.
To be honest, I believe you believe in Footstomp so much, you're looking for metrics that emphasize its strengths. There's no justification whatsoever to multiply target cap and radius. But if you think there is, an interesting exercise (which I can't do: as I said I can't make your formula work to generate your numbers so there's something wrong somewhere) would be to perform the calculation for Explosive Blast. Just Explosive Blast all by itself. Where would a blaster that only had that one AoE place in your list?
Anyway, I'll explain how I got my numbers step-by-step.
Battle Axe:
Whirling Axe- 1.05 DS, 2.904 animation, 14s recharge, 10 targets max, 8' radius, 360° arc.
Max DPC= DS/(Animation+Recharge)*Max # of targets= 1.05/(2.904+14)=.62116
Area of Effect= pi*r^2*(arc°/360)=(8^2*pi)*360/360= 201.06
Prating= .62116*201.06 = 124.891
And to answer the question
There are several reasons why any AoE calculation has to include Area of Effect:Quote:What that metric says is that all other things being equal, an AoE with a target cap of five and a radius of 20 is twice as good as one with target cap of five and radius 10. On what basis do you justify that metric's calculations?
1. The developers use area in their AoE formula, as you know, but do not include target cap, so they obviously consider AoE area to be important.
2. Ease of use corresponds to AoE effectiveness, because without considering area of effect Headsplitter is one of the greatest AoEs in the game. The extra time it times to line up a small cone will make it less likely to reach its potential than for a large PBAoE.
3. I will continue trying to adjust for the fact that there is a maximum benefit a set can gain from a large radius. After all, a 200' radius power will not be 4 times as effective as a 100' radius power. That maximum will probably have to take in the maximum number of targets and the size of the average mob hit box. I tried to do that afterwards by multiplying the effectiveness of small cones by 3/2 and decreasing the effectiveness of large PBAoEs by 2/3 (and large cones by 1/2). Combining this arbitrary change with the an average amount of +damage for each set leads to the ranking in the previous post, which matches up extremely well with player judgment.
4. Even without accounting for the changes I made in my previous post to the formula, most sets fall where we'd expect them to fall. Electric, Spines, and Claws all were ranked high, and the bottom consisted of Dark, Energy, and Martial Arts. This seems to lend credence to formula because it seems to correspond well with player experience. -
Quote:I've adjusted my efforts when I've made a mistake. After realizing the reason for Katana and Broadsword being equal (GD's DS and animation being the same value), I adjusted and fixed that.Originally Posted by UberGuy
No, you aren't. You're being asked to show things that can't be picked apart easily. Because so far, that's what you've done, as far as I can tell.
I get that you've put a lot of work into these posts. They're long and detailed. I, personally, am not claiming you've not made an effort. But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that everyone who disagrees with your work needs to provide proof that Staff is not subpar. But that's not what everyone is saying. We're pointing out flaws in your work. It's your thesis that Staff is sub-par, and you're putting out the documentation you claim that shows that. When your documentation contains errors, it's not suddenly beholden on anyone else to produce documentation saying that Staff is fine. All we're doing saying that you aren't successfully showing that staff is not fine.
I don't have a metric I want you to use. I just know that the ones you have used have had problems, the presence of which undercut my willingness to trust the conclusions you drew from them. (To be specific, your original DPA ordering that showed Broadsword equivalent to Katana on ST DPS, and now the latest list showing Stone Melee with better AoE than Staff.)
You asking people like me to prove that sort of info is wrong is, in my opinion, akin to demanding someone break out a proof when you assert the sun is green or February has 47 days. We're not going to bother, we're just going to conclude you're wrong and move on, and we're going to advise other people not to give your claims a lot of credence.
To be blunt, no one has disproved Stone doesn't have better AoE than Staff. No one has found flaws in the second thread about Staff vs SS for AoE. No one has shown that my AoE set rankings are wrong, except in the ways I already said they were and tried to account for. And now people are no longer pointing out flaws, just making assumptions and generally just ignoring my points, using circular reason as a main argument.
If you take into account +damage, and make the adjustments I suggested, the AoE rankings would be:
1. Electric
2. Claws
3. Spines
4. TW
5. Tanker Fiery
6. Kinetic
7. Staff
8. Dual Blades
9. SS
10. Fiery non-tankers
11. War Mace
12. Katana
13. Ice
14. Stone
15. Broadsword
16. Battle Axe
17. Street
18. Martial Arts
19. Energy
20. Dark
Which is a good estimation of how the playerbase views the sets. The only variable would be the additional AoEs, which would help non-weapon sets and sets with large amounts of +damage (aka: SS). -
Quote:I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that I have done far more to prove my points than anyone has to show that staff is "fine." I'm being asking to go far beyond what should be necessary, and what has ever been necessary. Would you like me to do an in-depth analysis for every level of recharge against spawns of 1, 3, 5, 10, and 16 of the sets both base and with the addition of extra AoEs?Originally Posted by UberGuy
Combat, look in the mirror. You didn't make bold statements while showing nothing. You're being quoted as making bold statements that are ludicrous on their face. Sure, you then go on to point out that you understand that the method has flaws, but then seem to try and say it still is "good enough" to make your point. And yet, it throws in front of us things that anyone with a lick of sense knows are false. We're supposed to be comforted that this is good defense of your position?
I'm sorry, but whether or not Arcanaville has shown a rigorous proof of her claims, she has definitely not shown an obviously flawed proof in defense of them, while you have, twice now, actually. At this point, I find her claims more compelling than yours.
My method is wrong, suggest some other standard. DPC? DPA? Number FX particles?
I'm not asking you to prove that staff is fine. I'm asking you to prove that your assumption is correct. If you believe Staff is better at AoE than Stone, show that having 2 small cones and one 10' AoE will hit more targets and do more damage than a 15' AoE with a shorter recharge time. However, it is thoroughly appropriate to ask for evidence you to prove your points, since I have to rigorously defend anything I post. It has a lower burden of proof, but not a non-existent one.Quote:Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
I don't care whether you respect me or not, I'm going to continue to point out that you're wasting your time with this futile quest for unwarranted buffs. You're now asking me to prove that staff doesn't need buffs, so thoroughly have you convinced yourself of the self-evidence of your position. Take a step back and note how bizarre that is.
So if I instead spent all my time praising every set, more people would enjoy the game? Great!Quote:The reason why I care is illustrated succinctly on the previous page: you're beginning to see some success in your efforts to convince people who by all accounts don't even care about pylon times that they should give up on characters that they enjoy. While your spurious arguments have no chance of convincing Synapse to buff the set, they do have a chance to sour people on an aspect of the game that they've been enjoying. Cool, man!
Blasters are fine, just go and enjoy them! Before last issue, Gravity was fine, so people so have gone an enjoyed it! Stalkers have always been fine, so go and enjoy them! Pet AI is just dandy, go and enjoy it! When a set is underperforming in comparison to similar sets, it is worth the effort to try and show that underperformance.
My end goal is make the sets more balanced, and thus more enjoyable. I believe that is worth the potential to dissuade people, especially considering the fact that some other posters have found dissatisfaction in the same areas and have complained, ie the "Tanker Staff is Awful" thread.
Considering the fact that according to you I having such an impact that many people are abandoning the set, and that my metrics have been met with "Nuh-UH!" from everyone not named Arcanaville, I think it is fair to say that I might have an impact. My suggested changes are as simple as adjusting a number in a spreadsheet, and probably fairly easy to test for balance.Quote:What is it that you hope to gain here? Do you honestly believe that whipping up new metrics by which to condemn staff each time the previous set is knocked down is going to be persuasive to the devs? Do you really think that they're reading this thread and shifting people away from issue 24 design so they can satisfy your nebulous demands?
Basically:
1. Adjust FoB and FoM to be the same magnitude as FoS
or
2. Adjust the recharge time on Serpent's Reach and/or Sky Splitter and the damage/endurance accordingly.
Doing either small fix would go a long way. -
Quote:Unlike Arcana, I have NO reason to respect your opinion. You've contributed nothing. Show me why Stone melee ISN'T better than Staff, or quiet down. Simply making bold statements without proof is exactly the behavior you are accusing me of doing, but the difference is that I have submitted my reasonings to the world. Anyone can tell exactly how I got to my rankings.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
"9th in overall aoe" by a standard that you yourself admit is pertinent to nothing. You call stone melee better at aoe than staff. That's absurd. It doesn't matter how many numbers you throw at the wall if none of them stick.
The problem with the method is that I can't know how much I should modify each type of AoE without doing testing. However, it is a more accurate way of testing than simply assuming a certain number targets per activation or expecting perfection with every AoE. Simply put, it is easier to hit targets with a PBAoE than a cone. It is easier to hit targets with a wider cone than with a narrower one, and easier with a longer one than a shorter one. If you disagree with that, than I'm afraid we've been playing a different game. -
Super Personality is probably the presence/leadership pools, density control probably kinetics.
Super willpower might have evolved into a variety of things, including fitness, willpower, and maybe some of invulnerability. -
Quote:While Arcanaville is one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, I haven't seen her vigorous mathematical proof that Staff is fine. And while I admit my math is rarely (if ever) as accurate, I've done my work showing it is. 9th in overall AoE (out of 19), and ahead of only Electric and Spines in single target (the number 1 and 2 AoE powersets before +dam and outside AoEs factor in).Originally Posted by Issen
But according to Arcana, Staff isn't underperforming. But then I wasn't aware that Titan Weapons or Street Justice were now the baseline for melee sets.
-
Quote:I've heard that a lot in this thread, and it is an opinion I am frankly puzzled by.Originally Posted by I Burnt The Toast
Gonna have to agree with Arcanaville on this one.
Is staff the best DPS set out there - nah. Is it the worst - nah. But you know what...it is a lot of fun and I have had no troubles/qualms with my staff/nrg scrap. I say ... Screw the numbers and play what makes ya feel good
"I think Staff numerically underperforms, but doesn't begin to show that until higher levels. Can we change some of the powers to make it a little better at the high end?"
"Screw the numbers, just have fun"
How is that a valid answer to a numerical complaint? If the numbers are changed without cottage ruling everything, the set will still mostly play the same way. It won't hurt your fun. To be frank, as much as it is great that a powerset is fun to a lot of people, that shouldn't stop the devs from trying to balance that set, whether it is over or underachieving.
And to me, fun is often a factor of easiness to play, and at low levels staff is absolutely basically works like a Mac. It succeeds because it is easy and simple to use, largely because the relative strength of its AoEs and the power of FoS. It is kind of like Willpower for the early levels, because it makes everything easier, but it doesn't have the raw numbers to be a top (or above average set) in the late-game. That said, even bottom dwelling melee sets can do ridiculous things, and staff still maintains a niche by offering survability in ways other sets can't. Personally, I don't the damage should suffer for that, just like DM isn't penalized by having -tohit in every attack, or Kinetic having -dam when using power siphon. -
Quote:I haven't seen your proof that Staff is better than "nearly every melee set". If you are just saying "SS is supposed to be a good set, Staff is better at it a lot of the time," I could understand, but other sets would be better than SS in those situations as well.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
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.
I see a set that has one decent AoE, roughly comparable to "Whirling X" AoE most powersets get, one weak 5 target cone with decent area (ie, Slice, instead of Headsplitter), and one strong 5 target cone over a decent area. Nothing gamebreakingly powerful, compared to the rest of the melee sets. Objectively looking at what each set brings to AoE, I don't see that Staff stands head and shoulders over most sets, but rather is just above average. I think size should be considered when talking about AoEs, so I'll use a metric of DPA/(Animation+Recharge)*Max # of targets*Radius to try and judge the set's AoE potential. I'll call that a "P" rating, for potential. Adding the those together gives a good idea of the set's AoE potential, combining damage and ease of use. A more accurate measure would also include factors like +dam buffs, -resist, etc, but this will serve as a decent simplification.
Battle Axe: 183.14
Whirling Axe- 124.89
Cleave- 13.722
Pendulum- 44.52
Broadsword: 210.63
Slice- 35.04
Whirling Sword- 160.57
Headsplitter- 15.02
Claws: 906.90
Spin- 281.72
Eviscerate- 38.70
Shockwave- 586.48
Dark Melee: 55.52
Shadow Maul- 19.27
Dark Consumption- 9.32
Soul Drain- 26.93
Dual Blades: 247.80
Typhoon's Edge- 165.89
Sweeping Strike- 30.21
One Thousand Cuts-51.6
Electric Melee: 971.77
Jacob's Ladder- 17.097
Thunderstrike- 75.67
Chain Induction (treated as a 15 radius PBAoE power with 6 max targets)- 387
Lightning Rod (treated as a 20 radius PBAoE with 16 targets)- 491.97
Energy Melee: 120.83
Whirling Hands: 120.83
Fiery Melee: 311.27 for non-tankers, 817 for tankers
Breath of Fire- 71.21
Fire Sword Circle- 240.03
(Combustion for tankers)- 505.79
Katana: 244.27
Flashing Steel- 39.47
The Lotus Drops- 189.25
Golden Dragonfly- 15.55
Kinetic Melee: 625.60
Repulsing Torrent- 485.22
Burst- 140.38
Ice Melee: 247.65
Frost- 47.10
Frozen Aura- 200.55
Martial Arts: 150.96
Dragon's Tail- 150.96
Spines: 1331.58
Spine Burst- 435.58
Quills (treated as 8ft PBAoE with 0 animation, 2s rech)- 141.12
Ripper- 33.42
Throw Spines-721.47
Staff Fighting: 317.42
Guarded Spin- 36.92
Eye of the Storm- 239.15
Innocuous Strikes- 41.34
Stone Melee: 405.49
Tremor- 405.49
Street Justice: 131.489
Sweeping Cross- 20.08
Spinning Strike- 111.4
Super Strength: 451.24
Footstomp- 451.24
Titan Weapons: 825.32 (average of with, w/o momentum)
Defensive Sweep- 59.87, 73.57
Titan Sweep- 59.19, 65.34
Whirling Smash- 636.98
Arc of Destruction- 59.35, 59.35
War Mace: 266.60
Whirling Mace-133.22
Shatter- 19.75
Crowd Control- 133.63
So, by this method, the AoE effectiveness of the sets goes:
1. Spines
2. Electric
3. Claws
4. TW
5. Tanker Fiery
6. Kinetic
7. SS
8. Stone
9. Staff
10. Other Fiery
11. War Mace
12. Dual Blades
13. Ice
14. Katana
15. Broadsword
16. Battle-Axe
17. Martial Arts (higher with Eagles' Claw)
18. Energy
19. Dark
Now, I can already tell where this analysis is incorrect. It overvalues large cones, undervalues small ones, and probably is a little generous for 15+ radius PBAoEs. If we adjust the settings so that smaller cones are worth something like 3/2 their Prating, large cones and LR 1/2th, and 15ft PBAoEs 2/3rds, and then account for +damage, I think we will begin to see the traditional set rankings emerge. Either way, the size of the AoE is important when we try look at sets, because the ability to hit targets easily directly corresponds with an increase in damage over time. It would take experimental evidence to determine exactly much certain types of powers are under/over rated from this type of analysis, but I still think it shows how the sets rank when you factor in the added difficulty of hitting targets with an attack with smaller area of effect.
I don't think this is the case. First, because +recharge is fairly common as buff, is easy to get through IOs, and can come in fairly large quantities just from basic enhancements and Spiritual/Agility. Secondly, because every set has access to a variety of additional AoEs powers, making it useful to balance the sets with the possibility of supplemental AoE.Quote: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.
This seems to be a way of saying that the game is too complex to mathematically determine, and that the effort to do so is not worth it. I disagree with that, and it seems like the only plausible evidence you would accept is thousands of data-logs from hundreds of different combat levels facing a large variety of enemies with variable resistances and powers, showing a wide-scale lack of damage in a large portion of combat in comparison with a majority of current melee sets.Quote: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.
That is unreasonable. Excuse if I am making a strawman out your argument, but NO set should require that much proof to change. While I cannot show the average DPS of staff given the infinite variety of playstyles and situations, I can show that it's potential isn't as high as other sets, and I can do so fairly easily simply by comparing potential expected DPS. With AoEs, I can show that the relative advantage of having 3 AoEs is less important when you take in account the relatively low DPAs of those AoEs in combination with the added difficulty of maxing out a short range cone. With single target, I simply have to show that the DPA of the single target attacks is not equivalent to what most attack sets get. Now, it may be more in-game applicable if I tried to show how the damage set puts out would affect the average spawns at certain levels of difficulty, but in general these metrics are good enough to show problems -
Quote:I wasn't talking to you, and I'm not going to insult you despite the derisive nature that your comment could be taken by me. The only reason that I posted my first AoE analysis was because you wanted a more in-depth reasoning for me saying SS is better than Staff at AoE. Regardless of how much I like you as a poster, this is the second time the thread has been derailed from my responses to you (MA build being the first), so I am going to try and focus on the original gist of my spiel.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
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 problem seems to be that you misunderstood me saying that Staff is a second-tier AoE set as a way of saying that Staff is a bad AoE set. I didn't mean it that way. All I meant is that extra AoE powers are more plentiful in APPs/EPPs than strong single target attacks, Gloom being the main exception, and that Staff couldn't maximize that fact with +dam or gain the same level of performance with the AoEs contained in the set.Quote: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.
In fact, the "second-tier" isn't supposed to be derisive, but praise for the set. It means that Staff is clearly better at AoE than most of the sets in the game. Being in the same category as Dual Blades, Electric, and War Mace doesn't mean you are bad in any way.
But even sets like MA can take advantage of extra AoEs to dramatically improve their AoE damage. In this way, potential AoE performance is more balanced than potential single target performance. AoE performance also has the added problem of being much harder to theoretically determine than single target damage, which makes it a metric vary hard to judge with experimental data.
We have both experimental and theoretical data that Staff is underperforming in single target scenarios. This normally would not be a problem, because nearly half of all sets are going to below average by definition. However, it can be argued that Staff deals too little AoE damage to make up for its lack of single target damage, which is likely to be below all but 1 or 2 sets.
Any argument Staff is fine despite this is balancing using the perks of the set as a justification. This isn't wise because perks are entirely impossible to mathematically balance. How much -tohit is Form of Soul worth? How much does staff gain for its perks in comparison to Kinetic Melee debuffing enemy damage?
Until you create a formula that balances the relative strength of every possible perk in represent to the damage potential of both a set's single-target and AoE damage, we should never use perks of a set to justify a deficiency in gameplay. They are just extras, and should be ignored when speaking about set balance in all but the most extreme examples. -
Quote:You are /Fire. Anything with an AoE will be decent with /fire. Will you you be the best? Probably not. But you shouldn't suddenly find yourself dealing low damage, especially AoE. Despite the sudden change, my objections to Staff are not it's AoE damage, but a lack of high DPA single target attacks and the lack of use of FoB and FoM.Originally Posted by McCharraigin
Dag nab it. Reading this about Staff makes me want to abandon my Staffer, and be highly suspicious of any new melee sets the Devs may be planning...and I was enjoying my little Staffer very much....why is it the fun to play sets have to be terrabad in performance???
If it is for balance purposes, I say Bah...and...if this is the case, when are you going to release to us, for the sake of balance of course, an extremely ugly, eyesore of a melee powerset which is uber to play in the higher levels????
No way do I want to get into the high levels only to find I am hitting like a kitten.
:Sigh:
Well, hmmm, tell me, how does a Staff/Fire Brute do in the upper levels?? /Fire has Blazing Aura, Burn and Fiery Embrace..do these help shore up the kittenish damage I have been reading about in this thread?
Lisa-Scowling a mighty Lisa scowl which could be a power in itself
Drawbacks of SS taking Mu:Quote:Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
I'm not sure how you can reconcile this statement with your tendency to ignore the cost of taking all these others pools, building to the various recharge levels and so on. You can't look only at the benefits of your favored position while setting aside its drawbacks and expect that to be considered a serious analysis. I'll also point out that contrary to your earlier denial your stance has come down to arguing in favor of SS/FA/Mu against staff fighting alone. If you really don't have a SS/FA/Mu yet you might want to go roll one, you seemed enamored with it.
No Physical Perfection
No Gloom/DN
... concept?
Advantages:
Double to Triple the AoE output
2-3 potential purple sets
Decent pet
You sound like it is a gut-wrenching decision to select the best choice of APP/EPP to match up with a powerset. Outside of concept, it really isn't. Really. SS has one great AoE and the potentials to make any other attack much better, doesn't have a huge number of powers to take in the late game besides FS. Unless you have some odd tendency to start randomly filling out pool powers in the late game for concept, there is very little reason why you WOULND'T take these powers to help.
And you need to read more carefully, as I also explored the possibility of adding only one other AoE, which would work out best with /Fire or /Soul, either of which would allow SS to maintain acceptably high levels of damage. /Leviathan would also work admirably, though I avoided it mainly because the attacks had lower DPAs than comparable /Mu attacks.
And just so you are aware, the +recharge numbers were not chosen to help SS. They were the minimum numbers for Staff to run its AoE chains. It should also be noted that in the most optimal situation for Staff I used NO +recharge and gave SS no extra AoEs.
All of this is rather besides the point, as I never really intended this to become about Staff's AoE (after all, my Staff character doesn't even have the advantages of IS or the other Form buffs). The only reason AoE was mentioned at all was because the idea that Staff was a top level AoE set and that its AoE ability was enough to justify its low single target damage. I don't think it does, because it's AoE is only "good," not so mind-blowingly awesome that I could care less about single targets.
In addition to its inter-powerset balance disparities, I think it has fairly major intra-powerset problems. For instance, the fact that FoB and FoM are both considerably less useful than FoS, just from the magnitudes of the respective bonuses. I think the bonuses would be better if all 3 maxed at about 33%, which would both help the problems I mentioned and give the powerset some variety (and no, it doesn't count as real variety if one option is clearly superior). I also think that the same technology used to give players access to the various forms should have been used to grant BU power to each AT, probably one of the 62.5% +special variety (and that Stalkers should have been given access to the forms as well).
I stated in my first post that I would be playing Staff because it is has a niche, but having a niche doesn't mean a set is balanced. Instead, it means that the set is unbalanced at one particular section of the game, and should be treated as a bonus, not as justification for lower performance in other areas. -
Quote:The thing is, I also evaluated SS + 2 AoEs and Staff + 2 AoEs, at a similar level of recharge. SS looked to deal 21.19 DPS with just FS, EF, and BL, and Staff was dealing 20.76 with EotS, IS, EF, and BL.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
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.
And while it IS silly to think that the majority of set's AoE might come from outside the set itself before adding in APPs and PPPs, it simply is not unreasonable past-35. Almost every build I've seen from a set with one or less (DM) functional AoEs tends to supplement that with powers outside of the build. Some do it by adding /Fire, /Dark or /Elec, some with Spring Attack, and quite a few by taking Mu or Pyre Mastery.
Because player tendency is to add those AoEs to SS, it is fair to count them. If a player asked me whether his SS/X brute or Staff/X brute would deal more AoE damage at level 50, I would say SS. But the second test was merely meant to be a control, like the first one was for Staff. I wanted to show that the way I was calculating produces the expected results: Staff is better with no help and SS is better with everything going for it. This analysis, however, ignoring many factors that could help SS, such as the improved damage of damage auras, burn, and spring attack. It is also extremely generous to believe that staff will always be able to maximize its cones.
I think it is silly to talk about powersets as if they exist in a vacuum in isolation from the benefits of other powers. Is Willpower as good at survivability with Tough/Weave/CJ/Maneuvers? Is DA as tough as granite without getting to the softcap through IOs + pool powers? Can Illusion still do its thing without perma-PA?
Yes, we should potentially talk about the sets performance in the absence of those additions, but we shouldn't pretend that those additions don't exist. Ideally, you'd try to balance so that performance is balanced before and after additions such as pool powers, IOs, and APPs. Making statements that only reflect the nature of sets before those additions is as silly as comparing those sets only after those additions. Oftentimes, it is not powersets themselves that are gimped or uber, but the way those powersets interact with primaries, secondaries, IOs, and pool powers. -
Quote:First, the -res debuff is only 10% for tankers (I didn't see that, I was looking at the brute version). It is 7.5% for everyone else.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I already have a problem. The numbers don't seem right. GS does 1.15833 DS, IS does 1.66, and Eye of the Storm does 1.23 without the bonus and 1.476 with the bonus. That means GS-IS-GS-EotS should do 1.15833 * 2 + 1.66 + 1.23 = 5.20666 DS without the bonus and 5.45266 with the bonus. With the 10% resistance debuff that would be 5.99793 DS with the EotS bonus. At the target caps that would be about 38.11 DS/sec. I get the same total arcanatime (9.11s) so that is 0.659 DS/sec and 4.18 DS/sec. With the total damage buff you mention above that's 1.38 DS/sec and 8.79 DS/sec for Tankers and 2.37 DS/sec and 15.06 DS/sec for Brutes.
Secondly, not sure what I did to get a lower bonus on Eye of the Storm. I must have missed a digit when I added the bonus (I had it going from 1.23 to 1.29).
Thirdly, I meant to put a disclaimer at the top for the main fault in the method: not calculating cast times + recharge, but just recharge. The numbers were supposed to be guesstimates, not perfect representations of actual gameplay.
Fourth: I used the chain posted either earlier in this thread or in another thread that was listed as "the best staff AoE chain." If I had gobs of free time, I would have tried to develop something better, but I didn't. This influenced why I didn't add DO to Staff as well.
But since you insist, I'll spend more than 5 minutes and make a more correct write up. I'll just focus on Brutes for now, because SS for brutes is comparatively weaker than SS for tankers with respect to staff.
Staff powers:
GS- 1.15833, 1.98 animation, 8 sec recharge, 5 target max, .586 DPA, .116 DPC (DS/(A+R)), .588 Max DPC
IS- 1.66, 2.376 animation, 10 sec recharge, 5 target max, .699 DPA, .134 DPC, .671 Max DPC
EotS- 1.23 to 1.4975, 2.772 animation, 17 sec recharge, 10 target max, .443 to .54 DPA, .0622 to .0757 DPC, .622 to .757 Max DPC, 7.5% -res
Super Strength:
Foot Stomp: 1.42, 2.244 animation, 20 sec recharge, 10 target max, .633 DPA, .0638 DPC, .638 Max DPC
Potential extra AoEs:
Dark Obliteration (Soul): .9, 1.188s, 32s, .758 DPA, .027 DPC, .433 MDPC
School of Sharks (Leviathan): .935, 2.508, 20s, 10, .373 DPA, .0415 DPC, .415 MDPC
Bile Spray: 1.2, 2.904, 32, 16, .413 DPA, .0344 DPC, .55 DPC
Arctic Spray: 1, 2.904, 32, 10, .344 DPA, .0287 DPC, .287 MDPC ,11.25% -res
Electrifying Fences (Mu): .8, 1.32, 20, 10, .606 DPA, .0375 DPC, .375 MDPC
Ball Lightning: 1.02, 1.32, 32, 16, .773 DPA, .0306 DPC, .490 MDPC
Static Discharge: .96, 2.244, 24, 10, .428 DPA, .0366 DPC, .366 MDPC
Fire Ball (Pyre): 1.0952, 1.188, 32, 16, .922 DPA, .0330 DPC, .528 MDPC
Energy Torrent (Energy): .96, 1.32, 24, 10, .728 DPA, .0379 DPC, .379 MDPC
Out of those, it is clear that Mu Mastery has the greatest AoE potential when adding two or more AoEs, though fireball is probably a better choice when adding a single AoE. SS would be better served with Mu and Staff with Pyre, though I will assume that both use Mu when adding AoEs for simplicity.
Here are the constant conditions:
1. 95% damage enhancement
2. 100% accuracy (assuming no misses for simplicity)
3. 150% damage from fury
4. Form of Body Buff (scaling at high levels of +recharge, but treated as constant for low levels)
Here are the variables:
1. # of Rage Stacks (multiplying final damage by 11/12 for 1 stack and 5/6 for 2 stacks)
2. Amount of +recharge
3. Number of added AoEs
First Test: No +recharge, 1 rage stack, no added AoEs
Super Strength MDPC:
Footstomp MDPC: 1.42*(1+.95+1.5+.8)*(10)*(11/12)/(2.244+20) = 2.487 MDPC
Staff MDPC (assuming 15% damage buff and 7.5% -resist from FoB and FoB bonus damage for simplicity):
GS: 2.246
IS: 2.60
EotS: 2.93
SUM: 7.77
So, with no recharge slotting, SS’s AoE potential will be much less. For our second test, we’ll go to the other extreme: 335% added recharge (115% from enhancements/incarnates, 50% from FF, 170% from global recharge), 3 extra AoEs from Mu Mastery, and double rage.
At this point, Staff has a few options. It could run GS-IS-EotS, or it could use the supplemental AoEs and EotS/IS. I’m guessing that the best option would be something like IS-EotS-IS-EF-BL-EotS. That way, the extra AoEs would get the FoB bonuses. Because SD is not significantly better that IS or GS, it probably shouldn’t be used in an AoE chain.
Second Test: High recharge, Double Rage, 2+ added AoEs
First, SS. Power order would be EF-FS-SD-BL. So, during the course of combat the following would happen: (1) EF-FS-SD-BL-EF-FS – (.633s pause) – SD-EF-BL-FS – (633s pause) – SD-EF (.4 sec pause) – FS-BL – (.232s pause) – SD-EF-FS … or an average chain of roughly 1.66 FS – 1.66 EF – 1.33 SD – 1 BF – (.587s pause).
Therefore, total damage would be 272.03 DS, in a time of 10.29, for a DPS of 26.43 DS.
Now, for Staff. First, let’s try the GS-IS-EotS chain.
For the first time, GS would receive no damage bonus, IS would receive a 4% bonus and Eye would get 9%. The second time they would all be at 15% and Eye would get the bonus damage. I’ll assume the 7.5% resist debuff.
Total Damage: 227.81 DS
Total Time: 14.256
DPS: 15.98
So significantly less than the SS chain at max targets. That should be expected, because a majority of the time you will be attacking a max of 5 targets. Now for the chain substituting BL and EF in. I make no guarantees that this chain will be the best possible chain using these AoEs, but it should bring up the damage a bit. Obviously, EF and BL will get the full damage bonus every time.
Total Damage: 268.524
Total Time: 12.936
DPS: 20.76
Significantly better than Staff without an added AoE, but still behind SS. In fact, SS would deal 21.19 without SD. It is important to note that this will be better than any possible in game performance because of the time it will time to manipulate the cones to hit max targets. If the SS user uses SD, they will need to adjust to use that cone, but it will be significantly easier to get 10 targets in a larger cone than 5 in a smaller one. If we adjusted the numbers on the cones so that we expect 3 in IS and 7 in SD, the DPSs become 24.85 for SS and 19.73 for Staff.
It should also be noted that regular gameplay would not extend long enough for the SS user to experience pauses. The combined damage of FS, BL, and EF is enough to defeat most minions in a spawn, and single target attacks are usually a better option after those attacks.
Anyways, let’s try a few more. First, the GS-IS-GS-EotS chain, with 240% recharge, compared to SS’s options of just FS, FS and BL, and FS, EF, and BL (all at double rage).
The chain of GS-IS-GS-EotS will deal 142.56 saturated DPS (132.6 before –res), in a time of 9.108, for a total of 15.65 DPS. This is not significantly worse than GS-IS-EotS chain, and comes with additional defense and simplicity, so it may be a common option. However, it is worse than the chain with EF and BL.
At 240% recharge and double rage, footstomp alone would deal 59.76 damage every 8.13 seconds for a total DPC of 7.35. So without AoEs, SS is about half as effective as staff, and nearly 1/4th as effective as it is with 3 AoEs and extremely high recharge.
At the same level of recharge and with double fury, BL would deal 68.68 every 10.73 seconds, for a DPC of 6.40. Because no coherent chain can be composed of just FS and BL, I’ll just add the DPCs, which would produce a combined DPC of 13.75, which is within reason of the Staff chain, especially considering that GS and IS will likely not hit maximum targets with no time lost (the point at which SS’s DPC exceeds Staff’s DPS is 4 targets in GS and 3 in IS).
If SS were to use Fireball instead of BL, total DPC would go up to 14.31. Additionally, if it were to add the DPC of EF to FS and BL, the total DPC would go to 18.42. In order to surpass the best Staff chain I’ve found with just EF and BL, SS would need about 295% recharge in the three AoEs.
From those, we can expect Staff to beat SS under several conditions:
1. Lack of extra AoEs, ie before level 35
a. Also, without SS having Burn available
2. Low levels of recharge bonus
3. SS not double-raging
4. Less than 10-16 targets
5. No downtime between mobs to allow powers to recharge
6. Perfect use of cone powers
Now, Staff probably doesn’t have to have ALL those things working for them, but it will absolutely be worse if all are false. So staff would probably at is comparitive best if the fighting was against a constant amount of tightly grouped hard targets with relatively low amounts of recharge. But in the high-end game, against a large number of targets, with extra AoEs, and at high levels of recharge, SS will be better. And that situation represents a large portion of combat at high levels. I highly doubt that SS users will want to skip added extra AoEs, and I also doubt that Staff will want to waste two powers choices on extra AoEs with 3 already in their set, so it is not a bad idea to assume that the sets will use their late-game power choices to shore up their weaknesses.
Finally, I’d just like to note that the reason SS/Fire/Mu is THE defacto farming set lies less in the ability to increase damage (though that IS important) and more in the ability to create a decent chain that is easy to use. By using burn, an attack with a good dpa and dpc despite a low target count and longish activation, they can fairly easily replace SD, and thus have an attack chain that relies on no cones, has the advantage of two powers that both boost the extra AoEs from Mu and work in a multiplicative way on each other, instead of in a way that promotes limited returns. In contrast, TW/Fire may be faster, and doesn’t even really need a lot of extra AoEs, but is harder to use. -
Quote:Like I said, I'd be fine with bringing examples to prove what I mean.Originally Posted by Devlin_Quaid
I've never met a player who complained about people who "build to succeed"
I have heard people complain that certain builds are unfair because they have far more potential (True or not, you decide), I have heard people complain about setups being too hard to work with (HEATs used to get this a lot), but the only time I hear people beating on "Min/maxers" is when they want to keep something that is obviously upsetting balance, and just for themselves. You may have caught a few knee-jerk reactions.
I have heard people say, both directly and indirectly, that any nerf to a high performance set (Fire Control, Kinetics, SS, Fire Armor, etc.) is completely justified solely on the grounds that they are good.
I've heard people justify any and every change that affects high-end builds negatively, regardless of whether or not it was WAI. In a theoretical example, it would be like the developers deciding to change the 5-set rule to 3 sets, and a large portion of the playerbase approving solely because it hurt sets that were optimized. -
I don't think I explained my point thoroughly enough.
I'm not angry entirely at change. Sometimes change is warranted, ie in the cases I mentioned in my first post.
What's I'm angry about is the player response, specifically derisive player response to those who enjoy optimization. I dislike being told my opinion doesn't matter whenever game balance becomes an issue, whether it be AT balance, powersets, IOs, procs, or any other issue. I dislike being treated as inferior by other players because I engage in activity that enhances my gameplay.
This may not seem like an issue to some, but I have seen the sentiment in dozens of threads recently over a wide variety of topics. I could point out the exact posts that I am referring to if you wish.