Sooo when is MA going to be adjusted?

I really like where you are headed with this. My favorite Scrapper primary is (and always has been) Martial Arts. I played it and loved it even during the "smell my foot" days.
But having just recently played an Energy Melee character up to level 16 over the weekend and then hopping back on my Martial Artist, I can definitely "feel" the difference. Having a chance to stun on every attack translates into ALOT of mobs getting stunned every fight, without me actually even trying to cause this. So when you play Martial Arts, the extra effects are kinda random and less valuable as "mitigation" then even the closest set for comparison (Energy Melee).

What if "Knockdown" was Martial Arts' special effect. Code in a chance to knockdown on every attack. It doesnt solve the problem you are illustrating above, but would make up for the lack of a "consistent" effect.

Oh I also LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the idea that Umbral brings up about taking a half second out of the "floating in air" animation of EC. I want my MA to be smooth and deadly, a veritable dancing death machine. The "hold" at the top of the EC animation is a little too much "crouching tiger" and not enough "bruce lee" for my tastes.

So how does hitting a nerve point that makes the target move slower somehow prevent it from healing? You can't simply say "nerve point!" and be done with it, especially since the best power for that particular excuse to be used on is actually Cobra Strike (which would likely make it a power that people would actually take rather than completely ignore, depending on the grade of -regen applied)

Except that MA isn't the ST DPS set. It's simply one of them (Fire, DM, and MA are probably considered the nominal ST sets, though Fire is more of an all around damage set; MA and DM both share the position of heavy ST and utility focus with DM having more utility but less AoE and MA having less utility but more AoE). Giving it -regen without allowing other sets to have it allows it to pull ahead of virtually every other set out there while still being able to maintain the same AoE performance that the set already has (which, while low, isn't the lowest out there; DM is bad even by MA's standards). Something else to consider is also that -regen is a very quick and dirty way of getting through GMs. The only reason that you don't see Scrappers and Tankers killing GMs like trollers and defenders (and MMs, and blasters, and corrs) is because of a lack of -regen. Against a GM, that -regen is going to do a helluva lot more (thanks to higher base regen to debuff) and could quite easily push an MA/* into the GM soloing realm (which I'm pretty sure the devs didn't want happening with any AT).

Most of this comes from the fact that I don't think the devs should provide 1 set with a massive benefit against hard targets without providing it in some way to all others unless that set specifically needs that benefit to compete. The AH proc seems really great and it seems a bit unfair that only a few sets can slot it and only 2 of them can get much use out of it until you look and see that those sets can't really get up to "average" top end performance without it. -Regen in MA is pretty much the same only it's even more specific. I doubt the devs want to specifically turn MA into the AV/GM stomping primary (which it would be if it got any decent degree of -regen), especially when they're not even sure what kind of primary it's supposed to be.

If Scrappers were to get -regen, I'd prefer the -regen to be granted via a worthwhile ancillary power (i.e. screw the "3 times worse" rule that makes everything 6 times worse for a Scrapper because we have to deal with "3 times worse" and crappy AT mods) or an IO. If you really want a mechanism that augments performance against hard targets but not against other targets, it's probably smarter to consider -res: it's actually a useful secondary effect for things other than AVs/GMs though the only things it really is useful on is hard targets (because they have to survive long enough to see much use out of it).

Mmmm...truthfully, in my own play experience, with Shadow Maul, Soul Drain and Dark Consumption, I felt (this by no mean, means accurate, maybe Dragon Tail was up more often than I thought, compared to those 3 abilities in Dark Melee combined) that Dark Melee had more AOE. All perspective and playstyle based I would take it (look at the Super Strength thread, where others are comparing Foot Stomp to Claws 3 AOEs).

Here's why I'm okay with them giving one set -regen, and not the others. Mental Manipulation: Drain Psyche AND Psionic Assault: Drain Psyche.

There is only one set to take, to get -regen, in those ATs. You don't see any other set get the -Regen, when those sets do. So, what's the difference with MA having that effect and none of the other sets having it?

As for the reasoning...same thing applies...one could just as easily say the same nerve you hit to slow the targets movement, slows the target's regen.

However, you're right, maybe putting it in Cobra Strike would be better. I really hadn't thought about putting it in Cobra Strike. Same effect, increases the DPS on hard targets.

So, you can prove that, in the past, when the devs largely didn't know what they were doing and mostly just stumbled upon balance by happy coincidence, that MA was weak because the devs didn't know what they were doing?

It's completely pointless to bring up the old design of the set when the discussion is how to fix the set as a whole now. You may as well just cite how pre-nerf IH operated in a discussion about whether current */Regen should get debuff resists. You're pretty much doing this over and over again by simply stating that you talked to someone 3 years ago about this and already got an answer even though the entire paradigm has shifted in the intervening time, especially when there is a perfectly reasonable logical foundation for abandoning the archaic model that you still believe exists. The devs can change their minds. Apparently you can't.

The CAK model would work wonderfully as a model for the other powers in the set if the devs actually wanted to maintain the whole idea of "a diverse suite of secondary effects". As the devs know now, it's not so much a question of how many different effects you've got as it is what you can generate via the interaction of those various effects. If each power in MA operated using a different secondary effect pairing (one mez effect and a second debuff that is rendered irrelevant by the operation of that mez), then they could easily "over load" the set with secondary effects (which, as you have stated, was the primary reason why MA was given such paltry effects in the first place) and be confident that it wouldn't be completely borked.

I would love to see more knockdown in MA as well but I fear that the dawn of Kinetic Melee will overshadow it even more in this department. But a big 'yes' to knocking my foes to the floor and a second shaved off of Eagle's Claw.

Half a second off of EC. Shaving off A full second would just be borked (95.6 DPA and a stun on a 12 second recharge coupled with Storm Kick?).

Sorry, posting before my first cup of tea of the day.

Yep, just a little off the sides would suit me fine.

That Stupefy Chance for Knockback I put in EC was the second best investment I ever made.

The best? A Stupefy Chance for Knockback in Cobra Strike.

My plan for cobra strike?

1: Slot purple acc/stun/rech, normal acc/stun/rech, purple damage proc, mako's proc, touch of death proc, stupefy KB proc.
2: Use uppercut animation.
3: Laugh maniacally.
4: Profit?

Eagle's Claw's animation suggests knockdown rather than knockback. Cobra Strike, yeah, I agree, looks like knockback.

Does this make any sense to anyone?

In the game you're playing, secondary effects are trivial. Not everyone is able or willing to play that way.

Looking at the sets from the point of view of a leveling Scrapper running on SOs...is there any other set (not counting Parry and Divine Avalanche) that has to sacrifice kill speed for consistent mitigation to the extent that MA does?

Please no. MA provides burst damage and because the attack's base damage isn't reduced to compensate for a persistent damage buff it makes full use of +Damage effects. Rebalancing the set to provide a persistent damage effects has several side effects that would be bad to add to an existing set:

~ +Damage is devalued both from sets and from friendly buffs.
~ MA loses burst damage

There are plenty of melee sets already with persistent damage buffs.

While single target status effects are devalued in high end play, persistent defense buffs like Parry are awesome. MA could be given a self defensive buff as part of an attack, such as +defense as part of Cobra Strike. MA could also be given some utility as well to help it out.

MA would need a lot of changes to make it "valued" in a giant group setting beyond killing all the bosses. If you tried to make it into a group set then that generally means persistant AoE effects which completely change the set's current single target focus. I have to wonder if the devs would provide AoE debuffs without making the set pay even more in the single target department.

Wait, didn't you previously state the opinion that changes that would kill MA in PvP would be bad?

I kind of agree. Spending time messing with CAK while there are so many powers that need much more attention seems odd to me. It feels like the main concern here is that CAK doesn't neatly fit into some conceptual balancing framework, but in reality the power is not causing problems with MA.

Crane Kick's knockback, on the other hand, fits perfectly well into the conceptual design paradigm but the fact that I am kicking away targets I am trying to defeat with melee is a much bigger detriment to playstyle than the hodge podge effects stacked on CAK. I even was defeated once because I reflexively hit Crane Kick and kicked a Circle of Thorns Earth Mage out of the quicksand and couldn't get to him before he finished me and he only had a sliver of health.

The first fix should be to Eagle's Claw. After Cobra Strike is pretty useless. Even my lowbie scrappers can afford to take the time to put out a short stun. The sad thing is that the only area where Cobra is actually useful, detoggling Lts. with ToHit debuff auras, is negated by the very ToHit debuff you would be trying to eliminate.

It's possible for the devs to alter the chances of aspects of a power occurring, but it's not likely that the devs would have that power globally alter the proc rates of IOs as well. They could, but it would likely involve a including every single one of those procs on the list of things that the power effects.

Having the power increase the crit chance isn't going to be particularly spectacular either. In order to make it provide quite the same oomph (assuming 95% +dam slotting) as 100% +dam, any power with a 5/10% crit rate would need to get an increase to 59/66% crit rate while the power was active. Of course, because it's not operating off of a +dam mechanic that causes dilution, on a team, you're going to get a lot better performance than that because you're augmenting all of the +dam you've got normally as well as any extra +dam your team is providing you with. By this same token, you're still not going to perform in the same way in PvP because you're trading controlled direct increase to damage (via +dam) for an increase to the random chance to deal double damage.

I highly doubt the devs would replace Focus Chi or any BU power that isn't integrally related to the function of the powerset with a power that increased the chance of an AT specific function within that AT (and, yes, critting is an AT specific function so that if the set were ever proliferated across to Tankers or Brutes, it would need to see a rather spectacular change).

MA sees a decent bit of use in Siren's Call PvP because of Eagles Claw's massive animation time providing it with a lot of burst damage potential, especially since it also allows you to follow up that heavy hit with more hits thanks to stuns (and how there is no more mez prot in PvP so you can guarantee that stun).

Someone trying to make a claim that the set shouldn't see a fix or variety of fixes because of PvP though, just seem even more selfish to me since it's pretty obvious to anyone that PvP is both used less than PvE but it's also not even remotely balanced in the first place.

DM has to make some pretty massive sacrifices when using Touch of Fear, but that's partially mitigated by the presence of a decent self healing attack and the native tohit debuffs of the set.

Increased Crit + Increased proc firing in PvP is better than inc dmg.

Proc damage is unresistable and Crit speak for themselves.

I don't think this would effect Ma badly in PvP

It would however provide them with an untoward advantage and require some really delicate rebalancing just because you want to have that untoward advantage (because you don't want to be hit with diminishing returns) and enjoy the fact that the set does well in PvP expressly because it does so poorly in PvE.

Yes.

Just because they didn't always know the consequences of what they did, doesn't mean they acted completely randomly. You just have to put the pieces together correctly. And my sounding board over the years have been the devs, both the current dev team and the devs that were here originally and are not here now. So yeah, I think the picture I've pieced together is reasonably accurate.


I mention the past not because I'm bound to it, but because the devs usually don't just wake up one day and do things completely differently. They have their own "cottage rules" regarding maintaining continuity of design. While they can refine their methods, they still have conceptual rules about things they generally don't discuss often except when they mention them as the justification for certain kinds of changes - or lack of changes.

In any case, the current picture of MA is still the same: it doesn't match its current conceptual design, and no one has yet created an alternate one for it to meet. And my original statement is thus still true: MA either needs a new conceptual framework to meet - and must then be redesigned to meet it - or it needs to be reengineered to meet its current one. I don't mind if the devs change their minds. In fact, for a long time I tried to get them to do just that: change the conceptual target for MA, to allow it to get features its currently barred from having. They've actually been resistant to that, which is why spend more time trying to adjust MA to fit its current conceptual model rather than proposing alternates.

Although I've been talking to the devs about MA for four years, this is not just some distant memory. The last time I (briefly) talked to the devs about MA was December. And I prod Castle about it pretty much constantly. So much so that (jokingly) Castle struck back with glee (although I can't explain how quite yet, that quote is an MA-related quote - but before anyone gets any ideas, it has nothing to do with an MA powerset change: no MA change is hinted at in that quote. Its about my *thoughts* about MA, not about MA itself).


Well, I don't know that. As the set intended to have the *best* overall secondary effects (which within this context means foe-affecting secondary effects by the way) it has a tremendous amount of leeway given the strength of secondary effects in other sets, particularly DM. Unless someone declares DM's secondary effects to be broken, MA is automatically granted enough latitute to at least reach DM's net overall effectiveness, which is the combined effect of all the tohit debuff in the set plus Touch of Fear. Right now, by any reasonable measure, that already exceeds the damage mitigative effect of all the effects in MA combined.

Lets line them up:

Immobilize: DM's has longer duration and higher mag (reliably).
Single target mez power: MA's is harder (stun vs fear) but DM's has over four times the uptime.

Other:
DM has a pervasive -5.625% tohit debuff (-11.25% in ToF) stackable (usually 10s duration)
MA has a 4.8s mag 3 stun, 10% 7.2s mag 2 stun, 60% knockback, 75% PBAoE knockdown.

Debatable, but all of the DM tohit debuffs are perma or better relative to the attack they exist in. MAs effects are stronger but not perma relative to their power's cycle time and usually less than 100%. No clear winner in the remaining basket.


Keeping in mind that as of right this second DM is supposed to be the utility specialist, its actually powers like Siphon Life and Dark Consumption that are directly part of its concept. Its getting damage mitigating foe effects as basically an extra over and above its set concept and beating the tar out of MA with them. And this is not just a paper exercise: its really obvious in-game that DM's secondary foe effects are very strong, and combined with Siphon Life DM has almost as much damage mitigation as some actual scrapper secondaries.


So actually, I'm really not all that afraid of adding significant secondary effects to MA. The set is so distant from any balance rails that its a rare moment when I really don't have to be as restrained on powerset suggestions as I normally am. By my estimation, its not just DM that trumps MA: arguably MA is numerically near last in effective secondary effects, and not even unambiguously second in foe secondary effects (separate from DM which is unambiguously better, its arguably no better than Claws in foe secondary effects).

Its tempting to do it just to see you proven wrong again.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

Yeah I figured that much.

That's why it doesn't make any sense.

Ah, I knew I forgot one. Even without using Touch of Fear though, I'll take DM's mitigation (reliably works on any foe except Green Mitos, doesn't sacrifice kill speed) over MA's (unreliable, inconsistent, pretty much never works on anything that you can't one-shot unless you sacrifice kill speed.)