FunstuffofDoom

That seems, uh...

Ya know what? No. I don't know a thing about PvP, I don't PvP, and I don't want to PvP. So, DP might be awesome there? Go DP. The end.

Wait, what? Can you walk me through that?

I can do no more. I have exhausted my ability to explain arguments since decided, or, failing that, my patience. We will have to settle for agreeing to disagree, or some such.

Good day to you.

So what do the PvP applications of Dual Pistols look like? Not as a blast set, because, as pointed out, animations hamper a high-DPS chain, but as another set of debuffs? Would two or three Dark/DP Defenders, or Rad/DP Corrupters, or what have you, be a new must-have for team PvP?

Well, on the Scrapper forums, there're some comparisons of sets and speeds. Just under four minutes is the record, I believe. How fast do the pylons respawn? 'Cause, while that did take some special circumstances to pull off, it seems certain builds might be able to beat that, perhaps without saturating Against All Odds. At which point the question becomes "What counts as soloing the Rikti Ship Raid?" Merely surviving until the shield comes up? Defeating U'Kon? Planting a bomb? Getting X number of merits?

I edited your post a little. As I said, if you'd like to continue in such a vein, do so in a private message.

Ahem.

It seems to me that your basic complaint is something like the following. Please correct me if I have made an error in restating something.

Consider the number 12. It can be found by adding the numbers 1, 5, and 6, or 2, 3, and 7, or 4, 4, and 4, and many other combinations. However, while each combination yields the number 12, every combination uses different numbers to get there. So, in a combination uses a high value the other two values will be correspondingly lower. You understand, so far?

The claim 'I and my friends' made, is that powers in general follow a similar trend, and that Dual Pistols did not. So while Fire Blast might be 5, 5, and 1, and Assault Rifle might be 3, 5, and 4, we felt that whatever numbers Dual Pistols had, they added up to eleven. Or something. But less than twelve.

Enough evidence has been provided contrary to that statement that I am no longer arguing it.

For the love of God, man, do you read my posts except to extract parts of them for further argumentation? I conceded seven hours ago. We've both since posted. Currently, the argument has consisted of clarification of several arguments I used, and a critique of pragmatic views as applied to balance.

That's not what I meant by equality. Bionic_Flea summed up my position best when he said:

Or, as I've put it, if X is Single Target damage, Y is Area of Effect Damage, and Z is utility, I want every set to be XYZ. And, perhaps, we'll call XYZ the set constant, K. K-Sub S, if other constants are in use.

Of course it's a pipe dream. I submit myself to the pragmatist approach that working towards the ideal is the best action we can take, and will be content.


Actually, that's a callback to something I wrote earlier in the thread. I didn't mean to suggest it was the metric Devs use; that was a typo. It's just a throwaway argument I constructed to help an argument, using basically the same points you did. However, it isn't nearly comprehensive enough to be taken seriously, I think.

I didn't. I wanted equality. Which is why the metric I suggested earlier in the thread, one for some constant all sets could be measured by, had three variables: Single Target damage, Area of Effect damage, and Status Effects/Mitigation/Utility. However, it has since been made clear to me that such things can be provided in sufficient quantities that ragging on Dual Pistols for numerical disadvantages is fallacious. My response and concession can be read just one post above yours.

If you'd like to continue debating the merits of my argument, I urge you to do so in PM. Your mischaracterizations are becoming dangerously close to insulting, and in any event, the topic is currently irrelevant to the thread.

That is good to know. I will cease claiming that Dual Pistols is numerically inferior, and instead claim that the set simply does not fit me as a player.

I'm glad you enjoy the set. It doesn't mesh well with me, but I think it can bring many things to a team, all of them beneficial.

I suppose the counter to that claim is simply a demand for proof. Can you show me --and I mean actually show me. Not theoretical work. A demorecord, or a youtube video, or something-- or a DP/Whatever character excelling some way?

You've done a very good job of laying that out. Thank you.

I was getting hyperbolic at the end, there. I don't want the I Win button. But, if I enjoy the work, time, and effort that go into making a character as strong as the system will let me, is that a lesser form of enjoyment? Have the Devs released some edict from on high that the game must be played their way, and no other? Have they got some sort of vision they're trying to adhere to?

I defer to Samuel_Tow's point, then. If skilled used of a keystone power is required to yield middle-of-the-road performance, is a set balanced?

As an example, Kheldians have the similar necessity of constantly switching forms and toggles to reach peak performance, but upon doing so, they are incredible, not average.

I offered the opinion that the set did not sit right with me. I was asked to justify that position, and I am doing so. However, from the first, my position has included the stance that I am happy people enjoy the set. It currently isn't for me, and I have been explaining why.

And, what if I happen to find damage fun? What if I really, really enjoy playing a peak character? What if something has to be capable of ridiculous performance for me to want to play it? Is my fun any less valid than yours because of that? Should I not be allowed to play because my end goal is to do things others can't? Is the work I do to get such a character meaningless because I use it the wrong way? Think about it.

We agree, then.

For the upteenth time, to what benefit?

Fine, with incendiary ammunition, a DP character is average at single target damage. However, this only lasts as long as the refuse to change ammo types. Since the recurring point is that ammo-changing provides utility to render the set balanced, 'twould stand to reason that an inability to change ammo types ('cause you're keeping it locked on incendiary to be decent at ST, remember.) removes that utility, and thus unbalances the set.

That's actually a quote from every post I've made in this thread. The accusation that I only care about damage is two things: A gross oversimplification of a single part of my argument, and a very interesting slippery slope. Think carefully how you respond, 'cause when I ask, "So what if I like powerful sets?", the wrong answer's going to set a good many forumites against you.


That's a subjective opinion. And again, it's not what we're arguing.

Dispari made a very good point. How do you quantify the utility gained from the ability to switch your secondary effects, along with those effects? I'm not sure, and I'm very glad it's not my job. But, as it happens, I've interacted with the set in question. I don't think it's balanced enough. Is it playable? Yes. Is it pretty as all-getout? You're damn right it is. Is it on par with every other blast set? ...I think not.

I think you think you've found some marvelous logical flaw in my argument. Whether or not you'll think you've got any straw in your hair at the end of the day is a different thought entirely.

I agree. Of course, I agree. That every powerset could magically line up along some quantifiable constant is pure fantasy. Or, perhaps, an ideal. I don't expect it to happen, but I feel happier knowing it's being worked towards.

Edit: To the kind individual who decided my words were inappropriate and chose to chastise me from the shadows: Please, in the future, a PM of your grievances will lead to contrition and amends. Negative Repping leads to bemusement and irritation.

I didn't say I want everything to be the same. I explicitly said I didn't want everything to be the same. You even acknowledged that I explicitly said I didn't want ever set to be the same.

Or, in more relevant terms, I don't want every single set to be the same powers, but with different colored effects.

I do want all sets to be fundamentally equal. At the same things? No. But, compensation should exist, such that a set low in one area should be high in another.

So, to again use more relevant terms, if a set has low utility, it should have a correspondingly high ability to deal damage.

No, you've got a farkload of people on the forums with the time to come up with theoretical builds that push the limits. Only a very small percentage of the gaming population has the time and resources to actually build such a character.

I disagree. Mediocrity is the worst possible thing this game can have, in regards to powers.

Mediocrity requires a middle. A middle requires to ends. Mediocrity tautologically requires some things to be better, and some things to be worse. We shouldn't want that. We should want all things to be equal.

Now, to cut down any straw men before they pop up, I do not mean that all powersets should be the exact same thing, or any permutation of that argument. That's a very, very boring game. Powersets should be comparably strong, in different ways. Strengths and weaknesses, all that jazz.

So, do I want everything to be Fire/Archery? No. I want everything to be Blast/Blast. I want everything to line up perfectly, to be even in some quantifiable way. If X is potential for dealing ST damage, Y is potential for AoE, and Z is additional Utility, every powerset should be XYZ.

Umbral raised a few points to that effect: Some powersets are low in one area, but compensate in others. AR has low ST damage, but high AoE. Fire has high damage, but low utility. DP has low damage, and utility. I don't think it's enough. I don't think beautiful animations should offset performance. And, while I accept that the game is balanced around SOs, not IOs, I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that IOs factored in at some point, too.

But, as I've emphasized, these thoughts are mine. It's clear I stand in a minority view, and so I say the same thing I said at the beginning.

I'm glad you enjoy the set. I don't think it's for me.

So, I freely admit we might've been looking at different numbers. However, the ones I saw, during Open Beta, put DP at in the bottom half of all sets for Single Target and Area of Effect. This could be easily balanced by the set having great utility, which it does. However, my experience is that it doesn't have enough. If you can numerically prove me wrong, I'll gladly alter my opinion to 'the style of the set just didn't mesh with me'.

Wait, you mean you really didn't... Oh, you poor *snrk* dears! *snrk* *snrk* Please, come sit down with me, here. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourselves running around, or something, would we?

Yeah, that'll happen. Oh, but it would be beautiful if it did, no?