Reduce the nerf on energy transfer.

I call it the corpse blaster special. Sucks for procs too. Pretty much what you see is what you get, whereas fast chains get tremendous benefit from procs.

Energy punch has almost identical DPA as bonesmasher, so you'd sub that in for gloom. Unless fireblast has better DPA than Energy punch, in which case you'd sub that in for gloom.

Either way it is a sizable reduction as gloom is one of the better DPA attacks brutes have.(and by extension if tanks could access it)

Only if you use the magical balancing equation that I have argued over and over again as being ridiculously flawed.

See above.



The problem is when a set is on par with many other competing sets in terms of single target ability, while falling far behind these same sets in aoe ability, then overall that set is subpar. That is where em is right now.

The fact is, single target mitigation is inferior to aoe mitigation, for 99% of the game, vs 99% of the enemies. Stacking single target mitigation is even weaker when you consider how fast things get killed in this game.



The problem arises when competing sets are as good as EM is solo, and way better on teams.


Overall it is underpowered. Overall means both aoe and single target abilities. You're saying that because em is competitive in single target abilities with competing sets, that it's not underpowered, while ignoring the other side of the coin where it clearly is underpowered.

EM is competitive in single target ability, but that's not the overall picture. In terms of aoe, em is way behind other sets that are at the same level as em in terms of single target ability. That's why em is underpowered.

If it continues to be the unquestioned basement dwellar in aoe, then any changes would need to make em the unquestioned leader in single target, rather than just one of many top competitors in said department.

Strawman, I've never argued that all sets should be the same.

Bill showed you his for the study he did on single target damage. Starsman is another poster who set up charts studying a wide array of damage situations.


I'd be fine with em being alone at the bottom in terms of aoe abilities, IF it was alone at the top of single target abilities, but that clearly is not the case now. That WAS the case before the nerf, which is why I liked the set then, even though it was feeble in terms of aoe damage and ability.

I'm not claiming the set is unplayable, only that it's clearly underperforming overall vs. other sets.

I'd return the set to what it was and allow it to be unique in that it was THE dominant single target melee set.

If that was not an option, some of the changes I'd like to see would be (some or all depending upon the specifics of the changes):

1)Make stun a pbaoe. This would dramatically increase the sets mitigation and aoe abilities.

2)Make ET either a small cone or have it jump like Chain Induction. This would justify the slow animation and make the attack more viable on teams, especially if it was made into a cone.

3)Make TF work like thunderstrike and improve the aoe of the set further while making the sets tier nine more attractive after the stun reduction.

Editing

The formula does takes into account the power's AoE capabilities. The formula, however, does not automatically design a set. It is the set designer that gets to pick how much utility/damage the set will get.

He can intentionally make the attacks faster so they dish more damage, he can also intentionally give the set 2 or 3 AoE attacks with large radius, or he can just give it a one AoE attack with minimal radius.

These are all design choices.

The problem is not the formula, but the early developer's over-reliance on it to balance everything without them looking too much into things. These days, Castle is much more aware of the issues and tries to balance sets according to his goals. After the result of Dual Pistols, I'm not sure if the new power guys fully grasp the concept or if I just underestimate their goals with the set (and that set is a Swiss army knife of secondary effects so it's very likely it's the later.)

It also may just have to do with the developers, Synapse and the new animation guy, not working as tightly together as Castle and BaBs have learned to do. In this game's power set design phase, it is critical that both these people work very close together.

Dual Pistols seem to show a lot of things that are considered issues in Martial Arts, namely long and beautiful animations that are too long for the attacks they are placed in. From the video I saw on Kinetic Melee, I'm already afraid it may be similar there.

Ditto on both counts.

I think we seem to agree that the recent 'set designs' and 'set balances' have been on the underpowered side? People were playing dp because it was the new shiny, once the newness wears off, I doubt it will get much play with it's current stats and playability, at least in terms of performace (did I see something in the i17 beta that they're already buffing one of dp's powers...). I hope the new kinetic melee is not designed in a similar fashion, but I'm also pretty worried that it is.

I don't mind if sets are slow, but the negatives of slow animations should be compensated with more damage, certainly more than their current method allows, whether that method is via some formula or just pick and choose. The problem being that whatever method they are using is not taking into account the inherent negatives a slowly animating set has for a player, in terms of killing corpses on teams, getting stuck in long animations when you need to click a heal or defense power, etc. That's why I mock the 'magical balancing equation' I continually hear about - it clearly does not take into account enough of the variables that exist in this game. In fact, there are far too many variables in this game to create one simple equation to use for all sets.

Ultimately, i think the devs are missing the point of a super hero game. People want to feel SUPER. They don't want to struggle against three or four minions, certainly not at level fifty. They want to be able to get to the point of being able to defeat av's and gm's, even if it's very hard to do. And yes, I know this is all achievable in some ways at this point in the game, but recent moves seem to suggest they might be trying to weaken top end performance, and new sets seem to be aimed at 'really special' hero rather than 'super' hero. I'm not saying make sets 'auto win' deals, but there are no sets in the game right now that are ridiculously overpowered, so start balancing the underpowered sets to match the top sets that people like, rather than ruining the sets people like by 'fixing' them and balancing them to the lowly, unpopular sets. Same thing with creating new sets, make them comparable to the one's people like, not the pitifully underperforming sets players hate.

To clarify the pvp argument in regard to the em changes, I'm not arguing they changed em to alter it's performance in pvp. I stated that ems performance in the old version of pvp, where it excelled, led to countless posts by players mocking other players for not taking em, as it was the only truly effective melee set in pvp. The devs saw these posts and mistook them for unanimous sentiment that em was overpowered in terms of overall gameplay, even though it clearly was not an overpowered set in pve. A dev specifically stated that these posts influenced their decision. This is not a myth but a fact - I was in that argument and recall without question reading that post with shock.

Your argument is odd in that you claim the idea that pvp influenced the change is a myth, then go on to say that maybe it was done to make the power useful in the new pvp? I don't know whether or not the new pvp influenced the change or not, but the end result is clear, the nerf to et made the power, and the set, an underperformer in both pvp and pve.

I didn't mean it was intentionally designed to insure it remained useful in the new PvP, just that as a side effect of the nerf, it ended up remaining useful in pvp.

ET broke the day we were allowed to have huge levels of recharge. IOs indeed made it self sustained, but hasten and external buffs always made it just as strong.

I will admit just one thing: I was extremely shocked they nerfed ET before they nerfed Granite. Sure, it was an easier fix, but it also was not as horribly broken. I still not sure if they will ever get Granite nerfed.

As for the notes above, not everyone loves playing the dps monster. There are loads of people that enjoy playing a set just because they like it. MA is one of the most popular Scrapper sets and its very far from being the best at anything.

Changing TF to a PBAOE like thunderstrike make sense to me for the following.
1) The long animation isn’t as bad when it’s an AOE.
2) WH wouldn’t be as much of a joke if used as a follow up AOE attack.
3) You’re not cutting the Stalkers out like you would if WH was buffed.
4) No need to change any animation.
5) Your team value goes up without hurting solo play.
6) An attack chain of TF, WH, BS, … should be a good group attack and you still have ET as a heavy hitter for Bosses, EB, and AV’s.
7) With the animation already being used as a PBAOE and other high end PBAOE already in use, it should be an easy change for the dev to make.
The dev keep the work they have done to ET and the set becomes more useful, sounds like a win/win to me or have I over looked some things?