Sorry Donna, what you're not getting is the basic premise: pvp is unimportant compared to pve. PvE is the lifeblood of the game and it is those players who keep it going with subscriptions. You can look at a variety of things and realize the devs agree (pvp not being worked on at all, CoP brought back minus pvp elements).
May have been stated before but a simple analogy: Ice cream company makes vanilla ice cream. Turns out 95% of their customers want them to add banana to it, they don't like vanilla as much as other flavors. 5% though hate banana and want it to stay as it is. If that company wants to sell more ice cream they're gonna cater to the 95%, not the 5%. Are the 95% selfish? Who cares, everyone is selfish.
Quote:
Oh i understand that pve is more important due to the numbers, pve is the game to start with and pvp is an extra.|
Originally Posted by Ryuuk
Sorry Donna, what you're not getting is the basic premise: pvp is unimportant compared to pve. PvE is the lifeblood of the game and it is those players who keep it going with subscriptions. You can look at a variety of things and realize the devs agree (pvp not being worked on at all, CoP brought back minus pvp elements).
May have been stated before but a simple analogy: Ice cream company makes vanilla ice cream. Turns out 95% of their customers want them to add banana to it, they don't like vanilla as much as other flavors. 5% though hate banana and want it to stay as it is. If that company wants to sell more ice cream they're gonna cater to the 95%, not the 5%. Are the 95% selfish? Who cares, everyone is selfish. |
But there is a tweak to be made to the analogy...
Ice cream company makes vanilla ice cream.
95% of their customers want them to add banana to it.
5% though hate banana and want it to stay as it is.
Are the 95% selfish?
If there is already, strawberry, chocolate, mango, mint, caramel, blueberry and raspberry riple...
then yes, it is selfish to change vanilla to bananna.
See my point?
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
Quote:
Its useless fluff. Whats the point of stuns that have really short durations when you could have just killed the target had your damage not be pre-nerfed to compensate for the fluff stuns. Whats the point of an immobilize attack that slows? Any target thats going to be doing any kind of running is going to be bosses anyways because everything else is killed in 2 hits and the immobilize isnt strong enough for bosses anyways. Whats the point of defense debuffs on sword attacks when you already got 2 SOs worth of accuracy. You cant say its to help the early levels because we have the beginners luck thing in place till level 20. End drain on elec trick attacks are kind of pointless unless you have -recovery to keep the target at zero, we dont get any abilities like shortcuit that does this for any significant amount of time to make use of the end drain. The only one thats not totally useless fluff is what DM gets in terms of debuffing on tohit because its stackable for significant amounts and the fear being a ghetto hold. So unless all of the secondary effects get brought up to the same level of usefulness as dark melee I see them as fluff that we pay for in damage, recharge or endurance cost.
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Not useless fluff. The secondary effects are essential to flavor the sets' concepts and can be used to good effect if a strategy is formulated with those effects in mind. Ice feels more 'icy' when it slows and freezes the enemy, fire feels more 'fiery' when it catches foes on fire, dark feels more 'darky' when the foe has shadows swirling around their heads and unable to hit you.
While I don't take Cobra Strike on my MA scrapper either, that's more related to not having much to stack with it (really, only EC) and not because 'melee ATs are only concerned with damage'. Being able to hold or stun a foe can be an essential strategy in certain circumstances (those -ToHits and slow toggles can really slow you down) for *any* AT. |
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
I cant believe you even brought up pvp, considering how dead it is in this game after all the changes that have happened. Seriously they have got the tools now to make adjustments for pvp and pve seperate so most if not all your concerns shouldnt an issue anymore. Hell I am just glad they are not screwing up the pve side anymore due to pvp nerfs.
|
Originally Posted by Donna_
Oh i understand that pve is more important due to the numbers, pve is the game to start with and pvp is an extra.
But there is a tweak to be made to the analogy... Ice cream company makes vanilla ice cream. 95% of their customers want them to add banana to it. 5% though hate banana and want it to stay as it is. Are the 95% selfish? If there is already, strawberry, chocolate, mango, mint, caramel, blueberry and raspberry riple... then yes, it is selfish to change vanilla to bananna. See my point? |
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
Yea must be nice to have the part of the game you like not to be messed with eh... |
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
I cant believe you even brought up pvp, considering how dead it is in this game after all the changes that have happened. Seriously they have got the tools now to make adjustments for pvp and pve seperate so most if not all your concerns shouldnt an issue anymore. Hell I am just glad they are not screwing up the pve side anymore due to pvp nerfs.
|
Glad umbral doesn't call you selfish for liking that
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
Quote:
The devs did away with the unresistible nonsense in PvP back in I13. Scrapper crits are resistible, Defender debuffs are resistible, etc.
|
Originally Posted by Umbral
(and reign in some of its ridiculousness in PvP because it has the hardest hitting single attack in PvP that also has a guaranteed stun attached and 15% chance for an unresistable crit)
|
Quote:
Wait, you mean like a weak secondary effect thats balanced as a strong secondary effect?|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Its useless fluff. Whats the point of stuns that have really short durations when you could have just killed the target had your damage not be pre-nerfed to compensate for the fluff stuns.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Whats the point of an immobilize attack that slows? Any target thats going to be doing any kind of running is going to be bosses anyways because everything else is killed in 2 hits and the immobilize isnt strong enough for bosses anyways.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Whats the point of defense debuffs on sword attacks when you already got 2 SOs worth of accuracy.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
You cant say its to help the early levels because we have the beginners luck thing in place till level 20.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
End drain on elec trick attacks are kind of pointless unless you have -recovery to keep the target at zero, we dont get any abilities like shortcuit that does this for any significant amount of time to make use of the end drain.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
The only one thats not totally useless fluff is what DM gets in terms of debuffing on tohit because its stackable for significant amounts and the fear being a ghetto hold.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
So unless all of the secondary effects get brought up to the same level of usefulness as dark melee I see them as fluff that we pay for in damage, recharge or endurance cost.
|
Murphys Military Law
#23. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.
#46. If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed towards you.
#54. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Quote:
For my playstyle I would rather the effects get removed and the damage not be balanced around them because for the most part I dont use them in combat because its either neglible (defense debuffs), pointless(CaK immobilize with slow), or doesnt really work (end drain). This is why overall we need a total powers revamp on all melee sets so devs can look at the fluff and see its not needed or if they have to keep it not penalize the damage because of it or boost it to levels where the fluff actually makes a difference like DM.
|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
Wait, you mean like a weak secondary effect thats balanced as a strong secondary effect?
I have no idea, ask some of the other people who posed here, because they seemed kinda pissy after Arcanaville suggested that this was one of the big issues that needed changing, and a good metric to determine the level that the changes needed to be. So I think they must have some use for it. Right, so 60% of your tohit (calculated after the enemy defense is taken out) is better than essentially +7.5 tohit? I can't remember, doesn't it stack too, and for the same duration as the -tohit from Dark Melee? I'd say it's there to give broadsword/katana players a better chance to hit an enemy that has defense, than other powersets would have. I got nothing on this one, someone else might, but I will say that it doesn't look like anything is lost for the added secondary effects. They might be weaker, but they are balanced as weaker effects. It's not like there was someone earlier that was saying that a developer could make MA secondary effects immensely more usefull, condidering the strength of Dark's secondaries. Aww man, too bad nobody suggested making the secondary effects stronger and more usefull as a way to fix MA. |
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Going to break my promise on not posting in this thread to say:
1. Please don't beat up people because they don't know who I am. 95% of players probably don't. Euro players probably even moreso.
2. Heck, even I didn't know who Dr. Rock was until maybe I4 or I5 (course I think he's been gone for years now).
3. Still reading the thread. Still not commenting directly on mechanical changes to MA. Carry on.
4. Since I'm here anyway, in my opinion Stupid_Fanboy should get more credit for Claws. As I recall, S_F was the one that first pointed out that Claws was broken relative to Geko's statements. Bill became more involved when Castle tried to tweak Claws' speed, ala his Pylon tests.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Just going to chime in to say that Umbral is wrong about EC and CS and their stun power.
I use Thunder Kick, Air Superiority and Eagles Claw as my main attack chain ... and round it out with Cobra Strike and Dragon's Tail. TK+CS+EC makes for a remarkably effective combination of stun power/suppression against single target Bosses, even with only CS slotted for stun (via Razzle Dazzle).
Needless to say, this means I'm *NOT* a cookie cutter SK-CK-SK-CAK kicker ... but then I've always preferred the road less traveled.
It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for ...
Quote:
Because stuns combined with KB = a foe can't retaliate. You can spout the 'death is the ultimate mez' BS but *while* you're applying that mez, you can render a foe incapable of striking you back, not relying on one sole mechanic to do so, but on stacking layers of effects...just like stacking def and resists or +HP and regen. |
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Its useless fluff. Whats the point of stuns that have really short durations when you could have just killed the target had your damage not be pre-nerfed to compensate for the fluff stuns.
|
Quote:
| Whats the point of an immobilize attack that slows? Any target thats going to be doing any kind of running is going to be bosses anyways because everything else is killed in 2 hits and the immobilize isnt strong enough for bosses anyways. |
But one particular tactic I can see used is, CAK a guy then Crane Kick him away and switch targets. That CAK guy is either unable to return due to being immobilized for a time or is slowed so he'll slo-mo walk back. May not be something you'd use but there you go...it would definitely save you some hits for a time.
Quote:
| Whats the point of defense debuffs on sword attacks when you already got 2 SOs worth of accuracy. You cant say its to help the early levels because we have the beginners luck thing in place till level 20. |
Quote:
| End drain on elec trick attacks are kind of pointless unless you have -recovery to keep the target at zero, we dont get any abilities like shortcuit that does this for any significant amount of time to make use of the end drain. |
Quote:
| The only one thats not totally useless fluff is what DM gets in terms of debuffing on tohit because its stackable for significant amounts and the fear being a ghetto hold. So unless all of the secondary effects get brought up to the same level of usefulness as dark melee I see them as fluff that we pay for in damage, recharge or endurance cost. |
Quote:
Apparently, you're expecting these extra effects to play the damn game for you |
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
For my playstyle I would rather the effects get removed and the damage not be balanced around them because for the most part I dont use them in combat because its either neglible (defense debuffs), pointless(CaK immobilize with slow), or doesnt really work (end drain). This is why overall we need a total powers revamp on all melee sets so devs can look at the fluff and see its not needed or if they have to keep it not penalize the damage because of it or boost it to levels where the fluff actually makes a difference like DM.
|
Personally, I like where the extra effects are in some of the powersets. They're there so you can go "Ah! I can do this because I have x effect in play!" not "Whew! If it weren't for x effect, this set would be garbage!" The -ToHit in DM isn't even that high (baring Touch of Fear). In a normal attack string, you're only going to debuff a single target to a moderate level where, only with some extra defense, will result in a nice amount of misses. Outside of that (i.e. no extra defense, multiple targets or heaven help your ToHit or rech is debuffed), the effect is negligible.
Hard, toggle dropping, mez secondary effects don't always need meaty long-durations to play a role in a battle. You're just looking at the game through your narrow minded tactics.
Quote:
Well if you really want to make the analogy apt, you have to tweak it even further: the ice cream shop has 10 flavors (vanilla, etc., etc., etc.) and 2 methods of serving the ice cream (cone and cup). The flavors are the equivalent of the various powersets and the serving methods are indicative of play mechanics (PvP and PvE). The ice cream store suffers from a problem, however: the wax coating on the inside of the cups makes any ice cream inside of it taste completely different, to such an extent that almost no one likes the way anything tastes in a cup, except for vanilla which is rather bland in a cone, but, thanks to the coating, makes vanilla in a cupo taste tolerable or even nice. Very few people actually buy anything in a cup, however.|
Originally Posted by Donna_
But there is a tweak to be made to the analogy...
|
You are saying that vanilla should be left alone because it tastes good to a select number of people that enjoy eating ice cream out a cup, even though it doesn't taste particularly good anywhere, specifically because of how wonky the cups are and how they make everything else taste bad. It would, honestly, be better for the store as a whole to simply change the formula for the vanilla so that it tastes better in a cone and then change the coating on the cups so that everything tastes good in both a cup and in a cone (this is what I've been saying).
This is not a question of having 10 flavors and changing the one you like. It's a question of having 29 flavors that taste good for a vast majority of people and 1 other flavor that only tastes good to a scant number of people (and, even then, doesn't really taste good compared to other stuff you could get if you didn't insist on eating ice cream).
It may seem selfish to you for me to say "screw the 10 people that like vanilla as it is now; there are 100 people that want to like vanilla but can't because it tastes like crap unless you eat in it a cup", but I'm considering the interests of 100 people rather than thinking of the interests of 10. It only seems "selfish" to you because you're in that small group that doesn't want anything changed. It only seems "selfish" to you because you think I'm ignoring you completely. It only seems "selfish" to you because I'm not putting your interests ahead of other people's and am instead looking to maximize benefit for the most people.
You can call me "selfish" all you want: I'll just facepalm and then refer you to a mirror.
Quote:
Why must people be so insistant on making bad analogies? Seriously, it's getting ridiculous...|
Originally Posted by Umbral
You are saying that vanilla should be left alone because it tastes good to a select number of people that enjoy eating ice cream out a cup, even though it doesn't taste particularly good anywhere, specifically because of how wonky the cups are and how they make everything else taste bad. It would, honestly, be better for the store as a whole to simply change the formula for the vanilla so that it tastes better in a cone and then change the coating on the cups so that everything tastes good in both a cup and in a cone (this is what I've been saying).
This is not a question of having 10 flavors and changing the one you like. It's a question of having 29 flavors that taste good for a vast majority of people and 1 other flavor that only tastes good to a scant number of people (and, even then, doesn't really taste good compared to other stuff you could get if you didn't insist on eating ice cream). It may seem selfish to you for me to say "screw the 10 people that like vanilla as it is now; there are 100 people that want to like vanilla but can't because it tastes like crap unless you eat in it a cup", but I'm considering the interests of 100 people rather than thinking of the interests of 10. It only seems "selfish" to you because you're in that small group that doesn't want anything changed. It only seems "selfish" to you because you think I'm ignoring you completely. It only seems "selfish" to you because I'm not putting your interests ahead of other people's and am instead looking to maximize benefit for the most people. |
If the wax cup is making the icecream taste bad, the obvious, cost effective solution is to *get new cups*! That doesn't mean the analogy is apt at describing what should be done in our situation.
But it may bring to light possible results so maybe the analogy isn't completely useless: You want to change vanilla for the 100 ppl that *want* to like the flavor? That is no indication of how many *will* like vanilla after it's changed. You might end up with a worse flavor than you started with that *no one* wants. Changes to MA should keep the flavor of the set (or possibly adding to it). There's no reason, unless there was truly a balance concern, to take anything away from the set if it already has a cult following that enjoy what it can do.
Quote:
The cups represent the current state of PvP and what it does to sets. The best thing to do would, honestly, be to just "get new cups" (i.e. take a look at how Scrappers operate in PvP and make it so that they're not so crappy), but it's going to be a helluva lot more work that it is in that analogy.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
That doesn't mean the analogy is apt at describing what should be done in our situation.
|
Quote:
| Changes to MA should keep the flavor of the set (or possibly adding to it). There's no reason, unless there was truly a balance concern, to take anything away from the set if it already has a cult following that enjoy what it can do. |
I've been thinking about perspectives on a set like MA and I'm prepared to support Donna's position to an extent. I think she hasn't been doing a very good job in portraying her position, but that doesn't mean it lacks merit.
MA is a set that numerically under-performs...a pretty small amount. However, to close this gap some fairly significant changes would have to happen. Or at least some fairly significant changes are being thrown around.
MA has solid enough representation in the game, I'm confident the primaries have a fairly even distribution. Additionally, the people playing it seem to enjoy it (I like mine). Are there improvements that could be made? Of course, but that stands for every single powerset in the game.
If you want to play a martial artist you will. MA is strong enough where that decision isn't going to cause you a negative gaming experience because like any and every scrapper primary and secondary, it gets the job done pretty well.
So the question is; are you seeking change for the sake of change? Balance for the sake of balance? If you understand change management, you probably wouldn't, well at least not if you care about the people using the set anyway. But that is implied by understanding change management.
Not to point fingers, but Umbral is an example. He has stated he doesn't play MA and this discussion is purely academic for him. If that is the motivation, one could pick any set out of hat and do the same thing lobbying for tweaks, changes, fixes, and adjustments. I'm not passing judgment on that motivation anymore than I judge the motivation of someone who likes the set as is, or who hates the set as is. For what it's worth, my motivation for seeking change in this thread has been for change's sake. I don't honestly believe it will make me enjoy MA a whole lot more because I already like it. I also don't believe it will make a lick of difference in who does or doesn't play the set. My MA scrapper has never felt slow compared to other st scrappers because it is extremely difficult to detect the difference that is present in a team environment. The only place you'll feel it is during confined testing. To which I propose the question - big whoop?
This post has the potential to run very long if I touch on some of the specific power changes being sought so I'll wind it up with two last comments. MA has been weighed against DM and people have noticed that it falls behind in utility/control and damage. That might be indicative that MA needs improvement, but it might be indicative that DM need to be pruned back. Check out the shield thread to see what Castle said about DM performing so strong in one specific scenario...
Lastly, for those not seeking tweaks, but actual heavy changes to the set: Are you dynamiting the mountain because you honestly believe the scenery will be more beautiful after, or are you doing it to fit your own vision of how the landscape should be?
People have kind of pointed out in other threads that a Scrapper Primary set that is weaker than some of the other sets is sitting very pretty. Scrappers in general do not need really need work, and each of their primaries offers good variety and performance. I can think of other sets that need a look more (I'm interested to see what Fiery Aura gets, for one).
Sure, I suppose it could use some tweaks. I'm fine with those tweaks as long as it keeps the flavor of the set. I don't want the KB removed from Crane Kick (that's a big part of the power's appeal when used right) and I like the stuns. If tweaks can keep the set working with the some feel, I'm fine with that.
Still, I like Martial Arts and think it's a great set. No need to avoid playing it now at all.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
If you were to ask what powerset I play, even if I didn't have one at the time, would answer Energy melee. It's my favorite, I like the look, I like the feel, and I like the playstyle. I care very little about MA, my biggest hope is that EM gets fixed, and I fear the day another set is improved at the expense of its relationship with EM in the balance equation. |
Originally Posted by Frosticus
So the question is; are you seeking change for the sake of change? Balance for the sake of balance? If you understand change management, you probably wouldn't, well at least not if you care about the people using the set anyway. But that is implied by understanding change management.
|
When I see MA, however, I see a set that can be improved without changing It's position in line. From it's history and design, it is easy to see it was supposed to be midline damage and high secondary. Buffing it to where it was supposed to be is not only acceptable, but probably a good idea. I'm just sad it will probably happen before EM gets looked at. Though I can still hope every patch and release with have the magic changes I want.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
Not to point fingers, but Umbral is an example. He has stated he doesn't play MA and this discussion is purely academic for him. If that is the motivation, one could pick any set out of hat and do the same thing lobbying for tweaks, changes, fixes, and adjustments. I'm not passing judgment on that motivation anymore than I judge the motivation of someone who likes the set as is, or who hates the set as is. For what it's worth, my motivation for seeking change in this thread has been for change's sake. I don't honestly believe it will make me enjoy MA a whole lot more because I already like it. I also don't believe it will make a lick of difference in who does or doesn't play the set. My MA scrapper has never felt slow compared to other st scrappers because it is extremely difficult to detect the difference that is present in a team environment. The only place you'll feel it is during confined testing. To which I propose the question - big whoop?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
This post has the potential to run very long if I touch on some of the specific power changes being sought so I'll wind it up with two last comments. MA has been weighed against DM and people have noticed that it falls behind in utility/control and damage. That might be indicative that MA needs improvement, but it might be indicative that DM need to be pruned back. Check out the shield thread to see what Castle said about DM performing so strong in one specific scenario...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
Lastly, for those not seeking tweaks, but actual heavy changes to the set: Are you dynamiting the mountain because you honestly believe the scenery will be more beautiful after, or are you doing it to fit your own vision of how the landscape should be?
|
Murphys Military Law
#23. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.
#46. If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed towards you.
#54. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Quote:
EM imo was largely changed for the sake of change. Without a doubt ET was too strong of an attack, but it was also a very unique attack in very unique set. The argument to leave the set as it was was easily as compelling as the argument to change it. The decision to change it for the sake of change was made and it has largely been poorly received. As is usually the case for such events. I too am hopeful it will be revised again and I'd say it is in need before MA simply because the changes to EM took away the fun factor of the set, which MA still has in spades.|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
If you were to ask what powerset I play, even if I didn't have one at the time, would answer Energy melee. It's my favorite, I like the look, I like the feel, and I like the playstyle. I care very little about MA, my biggest hope is that EM gets fixed, and I fear the day another set is improved at the expense of its relationship with EM in the balance equation.
|
Quote:
| When I see MA, however, I see a set that can be improved without changing It's position in line. From it's history and design, it is easy to see it was supposed to be midline damage and high secondary. Buffing it to where it was supposed to be is not only acceptable, but probably a good idea. I'm just sad it will probably happen before EM gets looked at. Though I can still hope every patch and release with have the magic changes I want. |
Quote:
| Big whoop; fair enough, its probably true, but I would respond: "why not?". Powerset balance is an important part of a game, and why should a MA player have to know that most other scrapper primaries are either better in all situations or at least in most. Yes I can understand that it is still fun to play, but does the act of improving it's performance imply that what is fun about the set has to go? |
The thing is MA players don't know that most other scrapper primaries are better in all/most situations because they aren't. And even if they were they would only know that by personally examining each set, or by listening to people who have conducted tests centered around very specific scenarios. That testing has show that MA isn't even that far off the mark. Not enough to spur developer involvement without significant pestering.
Quote:
| I would like to point out that after castle made his comments, he was informed that the scenario was not a cross-section of normal DM performance but a highly structured and prepared senario showing the maximum possible level it could reach. A level that would not be attributible at all to general gameplay. Also it isn't that sky-high level of performance that MA is being compared to. Rather it is the average power level that anyone could expect to achieve when using the set. |
Quote:
| I don't want to dynamite the mountain. Quite the opposite, I want to add a ski resort to one side. A nice improvement to the scenery, something that could entice newer people, improve whats already there, and not change what people currently enjoy about it. Of course you can't make everyone happy. |
FWIW, I think MA could use improvement. I'm on the cusp of whether it is a want or a need though. If it is a need situation, it ranks far below numerous other sets that are in need of fixing. Unless people want to change it simply because we can.
Quote:
This makes me wan't to argue soooo much, you have no idea.|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
Without a doubt ET was too strong of an attack, but it was also a very unique attack in very unique set.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
See that's just it. "Why not?" is the conversational reciprocal of "big whoop". It is the definition of change for the sake of change.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
The thing is MA players don't know that most other scrapper primaries are better in all/most situations because they aren't. And even if they were they would only know that by personally examining each set, or by listening to people who have conducted tests centered around very specific scenarios. That testing has show that MA isn't even that far off the mark. Not enough to spur developer involvement without significant pestering.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
I don't think you were one of the people advocating large changes to the set.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
FWIW, I think MA could use improvement. I'm on the cusp of whether it is a want or a need though. If it is a need situation, it ranks far below numerous other sets that are in need of fixing. Unless people want to change it simply because we can.
|
) but if it is possible to get a set that could use improvement, that attention, do it. Discussion never hurts, theres plenty of space on the forums for threads on each set and potential buffs, but should the opportunity come for a set to be improved, even if its not the dog your backing, my opinion is to go with it. Don't say "**** no! do this one first!!!". Get the buffs through, get enough opinions and voices in there to ensure they're done right, then start lobying for your set again.
Murphys Military Law
#23. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.
#46. If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed towards you.
#54. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Quote:
Actually, I'm developing a bit of a habit of doing that (ever since the DM changes, all of my major powerset tweak suggestions have involved sets I do not personally play), though I make sure to only do so with powersets that I have specifically seen have some imbalance and then had numbers to back them up with. I don't just arbitrarily pick sets and then start lobbying for change: I do it with purpose, which makes it a bit different than simply picking sets out of a hat and going from there. I'm more enamored with balance as a whole than I am with any single set's performance (though I readily admit to my prejudices, which can sometimes bleed over), and the closet I get to an emotional investment in any single set I make changes concerning is a desire to make me want to play that set at some point in the future (because, yes, I know the numbers and numbers are important to me when I pick a powerset combination to play and when I'm playing a set, my knowledge of those numbers is going to color my perceptions of my play experience). I don't want to play a set that I know, with very little doubt, underperforms on average compared to the other sets I could have taken, so, if a set is going to be an option that actually interests me, it needs to actually be a roughly equal numerical option compared to the other sets I could take (which I would argue MA really isn't, and, as such, should get some tweaking to bring it up to par).
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
Not to point fingers, but Umbral is an example. He has stated he doesn't play MA and this discussion is purely academic for him. If that is the motivation, one could pick any set out of hat and do the same thing lobbying for tweaks, changes, fixes, and adjustments.
|
Quote:
The devs employed a balancing metric on ET that they never (or rarely, nothing else is jumping to mind. edit: outside of pvp of course where cast times are heavily considered) use. Even including cast time as an attack metric ET still operates outside of normal parameters. On some level or another the devs seem to agree that it was a unique attack and allowed it to keep most of its unique aspects. The of course sucked a lot of the fun out of the set though, but that is a different, but related, discussion.|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
This makes me wan't to argue soooo much, you have no idea.
|
Quote:
| It could be, but (and it's my fault for not puting the phrase in proper context) it is more: MA could stay the same way it is now, but with the room it has for improvement, and the possibility for improvement without changing anything excluding performance, why not? Sorry, bit of a Durakken moment. |
Quote:
| Not to harsh on the developers, but considering the history of needing to pester just to get significant intrest twards needed changes, I can't really see dev intrest as a stunning argument for keeping the status quo. Though player intrest is of course a very good argument, just one thats hard to really use with any kind of accuracy. |
Quote:
|
My thought is, and this is not an accusation or directed comment, there are sets that need improvement first, (firey aura, trick arrow, EM ) but if it is possible to get a set that could use improvement, that attention, do it. Discussion never hurts, theres plenty of space on the forums for threads on each set and potential buffs, but should the opportunity come for a set to be improved, even if its not the dog your backing, my opinion is to go with it. Don't say "**** no! do this one first!!!". Get the buffs through, get enough opinions and voices in there to ensure they're done right, then start lobying for your set again.
|
Quote:
What I'm saying is you could arbitrarily pick a set and you'll find that once you sink your teeth in there will be aspects that could be tweaked and possibly more importantly in many sets powers that are bugged and not working as they should. This is pretty common in the more complex AT's, but does spill over into these territories as recently as the examination of Shield Charge that I did.|
Originally Posted by Umbral
Actually, I'm developing a bit of a habit of doing that (ever since the DM changes, all of my major powerset tweak suggestions have involved sets I do not personally play), though I make sure to only do so with powersets that I have specifically seen have some imbalance and then had numbers to back them up with. I don't just arbitrarily pick sets and then start lobbying for change: I do it with purpose, which makes it a bit different than simply picking sets out of a hat and going from there. I'm more enamored with balance as a whole than I am with any single set's performance (though I readily admit to my prejudices, which can sometimes bleed over), and the closet I get to an emotional investment in any single set I make changes concerning is a desire to make me want to play that set at some point in the future (because, yes, I know the numbers and numbers are important to me when I pick a powerset combination to play and when I'm playing a set, my knowledge of those numbers is going to color my perceptions of my play experience). I don't want to play a set that I know, with very little doubt, underperforms on average compared to the other sets I could have taken, so, if a set is going to be an option that actually interests me, it needs to actually be a roughly equal numerical option compared to the other sets I could take (which I would argue MA really isn't, and, as such, should get some tweaking to bring it up to par).
|
Aside from that though, because the devs so greatly undervalue aoe attacks any single target focused set is already miles behind in the race. Unless you are seeking to balance it primarily as a singular hard target focused set? Which is where sustained single target dps is the most important metric. That however only constitutes one small aspect of the game. Even a set as dominant as a pimped out old EM couldn't hold a candle to an aoe focused set in terms of reward rate in most situations.
Single target dps is a metric we have great accuracy over measuring, but just because we have it so clearly dissected doesn't mean it is more important than any of the other aspects that are involved when we play.
In another direction, adding some additional aoe to MA so that more closely mimics other sets is certainly one way to resolve the perceived issue. If that is the way that is agreed upon then that is great, but that doesn't necessarily equate to it being the best way, or even the right way. It just means that the set was altered to more closely match other sets.
Quote:
I realize that I'm extremely late on commenting on this, but Arcanaville's statement is 100% true. Everything I learned about claws came from Stupid_Fanboy. I'm just louder than he is.
| 4. Since I'm here anyway, in my opinion Stupid_Fanboy should get more credit for Claws. As I recall, S_F was the one that first pointed out that Claws was broken relative to Geko's statements. Bill became more involved when Castle tried to tweak Claws' speed, ala his Pylon tests. |
Be well, people of CoH.
My point is that PvP performance shouldn't take precedence over PvE performance. The crux of your argument (which is actually drawing away from the actual discussion of what should be done to make MA a more viable powerset) is that I'm being selfish for suggesting largescale improvements that would make MA a substantially better performer in PvE (and reign in some of its ridiculousness in PvP because it has the hardest hitting single attack in PvP that also has a guaranteed stun attached and 15% chance for an unresistable crit). As far as I can tell, you're not really concerned with creating a balanced set. You really just want a set that allows you to outperform other people in PvP. To me, that's the height of selfishness because you want to ensure that you're always on top.
Personally, I'd just say that MA overperforming compared to Scrappers as a whole and that Scrappers (and all melee ATs, honestly) need to be improved in PvP to make them even remotely viable. It's not an issue of other sets underperforming compared to MA; it's an issue of Scrappers as a whole sucking miserably because CoX PvP is horribly imbalanced. When you're trying to claim that a single set (or extremely small subset of sets) is the only truly viable option within an AT, it's not almost never a problem with the sets but rather an issue with the AT as a whole.
You're really not doing yourself much benefit by continuing on this path. It's pretty apparent you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.