Energy Transfer
By
Airhammer,
Posted on: 2010-09-04 10:23 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Quote:
Sorry, I tend to forget Stalkers exist. You really can't blame me.
|
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
The '**** stalkers' solution.
|
Quote:
Well, that is the stalker's role - to be forgotten, scorned, unnecessary and embarassing.|
Originally Posted by Candlestick
Sorry, I tend to forget Stalkers exist. You really can't blame me.
|
(Paging Test_Rat to the courtesy phone...)
Quote:
Ignorant player bigotry like this still exists?
|
Originally Posted by Candlestick
Sorry, I tend to forget Stalkers exist. You really can't blame me.
|
Quote:
Well that's the difference between my argument and yours, I present facts and evidence to support my argument while yours is supported by nothing but opinion, and on top of that, you get facts wrong. And you don't really think you're polite, do you, lol? Of course you don't.|
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
Well, I figured I was being particularly polite on the matter - I don't agree with your presupposed premise, and that's pretty much it, so there's no real point us arguing past one another.
|
Quote:
| I don't know what your suggestions were, because I simply didn't bother reading what you had to say on the matter of buffing. But there have been people suggesting buffs to Whirling hands as fixes to the set. |
Hmmm, maybe that explains your argument that EM is 'fine', maybe you haven't even actually looked at the set...
Quote:
| My current favourite word is callipygian; just because I'm using a word you haven't seen on the side of a cereal box lately doesn't mean it's because it has some special application. |
Quote:
| You presume that Energy was fine; you assert that Energy, now, is insufficient for the balance range of play. But you can't prove that, and to be fair, I can't disprove that, because neither of us have anything remotely like provable samples of data. Your assertions satisfy you, my caution satisfies me. |
My statements that EM is on par with several competing sets in terms of single target damage are supported by not only game play, but damage studies done by players such as starsman and billz, and I'm not aware of anyone who has even suggested otherwise, much less shown conflicting evidence. And my contention that this damage is delivered more slowly than competing sets is supported by the cast times that are available to anyone who cares to look, which goes on to support the idea that such cast times make delivering the damage more problematic on teams, for obvious reasons, and have been observed by countless corpse-smashing EM users. And my contention that EM is badly outclassed in terms of aoe output is easily proven by simply glancing at the aoe capabilities of EM then comparing them to just about any other set.
What part of that argument do you dispute exactly, and what evidence are you struggling with?
Your argument is that EM is 'fine'. I'm still waiting for you to put together any evidence at all to support that idea. But understand, just because you can't seem to find any (probably due to the fact it's difficult to find evidence to support an incorrect conclusion), don't pretend it's impossible for the opposite side of the argument to support thier contentions with evidence, because we already have.
EM is clearly underperforming in overall gameplay, and it's supported by statistics, gameplay, and common sense. If one can agree that EM is on par with several sets in terms of single target ability, and is getting badly outperformed in aoe ability by the same competing sets, then obviously there is a competitive imbalance and EM is underperforming.
But I'm sure you'll 'politely' respond again by telling me you don't feel my argument is worthy of your time to read, lol (which is odd considering all of your responses to my posts). In reality, it's just a transparent way of saying you don't have any way to support your own argument or refute mine.
Quote:
Your contention that the damage is delivered slower is in direct conflict with the results of the studies you cite. Those studies are about damage per unit of time. EM consistently delivers more single target damage faster than almost every other set, according to those studies.|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
My statements that EM is on par with several competing sets in terms of single target damage are supported by not only game play, but damage studies done by players such as starsman and billz, and I'm not aware of anyone who has even suggested otherwise, much less shown conflicting evidence. And my contention that this damage is delivered more slowly than competing sets is supported by the cast times that are available to anyone who cares to look, which goes on to support the idea that such cast times make delivering the damage more problematic on teams, for obvious reasons, and have been observed by countless corpse-smashing EM users.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
What part of that argument do you dispute exactly, and what evidence are you struggling with?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
EM is clearly underperforming in overall gameplay, and it's supported by statistics, gameplay, and common sense. If one can agree that EM is on par with several sets in terms of single target ability, and is getting badly outperformed in aoe ability by the same competing sets, then obviously there is a competitive imbalance and EM is underperforming.
|
While I would love to see the set get another AoE damage power, that is just my personal bias speaking. The game has room for single target sets, and this one has been that way since launch, so I see no reason to change it now. However, my desire for an AoE could be satisfied nicely by making Stun an AoE with low damage and just the stun. That may be too out of character for the set, but I think it would be nifty and is certainly more interesting than just slapping damage into Stun.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Quote:
Did you notice the part in B's calcs where SM's attack chain uses Brawl every 3rd attack? So, yeah, if you're attacking a Pylon that warrants a gapless attack chain using only basic IO slotting that makes you resort to Brawl, the Brute's EM will be superior to Stone. In real world situations, the higher recharge of Heavy Mallet won't be *that* detrimental (and you'll likely have a high enough recharge to compensate), and SM's ST DPA will outstrip EM's.|
Originally Posted by Reiska
Claws?
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...results+are+in Powerset DPS EPS Brute Energy 157.5 3.3 Brute Stone 137.5 3.5 ?_? |
Plus, I was talking only about Tanker EM, as I rather pointedly stipulated at the top of my post. Not that it should affect the calculations too much, but remember that Tanks are required to take the T1 power and Stone Fist owns Barrage by a mile, a discrepancy you can adjust for as a Brute.
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
Quote:
What are you looking at, the burst or DPA? Cuz, DPA-wise, it only gets one, ET. I'd hardly call TF's 46.15 an "extreme" attack. Even if you were just looking at the big number floating above mobs' heads, many sets get 2 "heavy" attacks, and most of those heavies would also translate to higher DPAs than TF.|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
That being said, you are being unfair. You attempt to demonstrate that most sets get 1 extreme damage power, Clobber, KoB, ET, SS. Yet you then try to point at TF and say, "Look how badly it compares to Clobber." Except EM is the only set to even get two extreme attacks.
|
Looking at Tanker sets that have 2 attacks that do 100+ base damage (dam/DPA):
Axe: Swoop (101.43/51.23) & Cleave (122.79/48.96) (Gash actually has a higher DPA, but lower orange number)
EM: ET (202.87/69.86) & TF (158.38/46.15)
Fire: Incin (111.2/61.17) & GFS (144.15/57.48)
Stone: SS (158.38/92.3) & HM (101.43/54.89)
WM: Clobber (129.91/89.47) & Shatter (101.43/40.44)
Of those, DPA-wise, the only attacks that go under 50DPA are TF, Cleave & Shatter. Cleave & Shatter are cones (okay, Cleave is narrow, but you can often line up 2 mobs w/no trouble). TF has the stun, which I admit was worthwhile when it was a mag 4, guaranteed boss stun, but at Mag 3, I don't think it pays for the animation, so to speak. Now, if you're looking at burst...
Quote:
| It is also improtant to remember that DPA is indeed a very good metric to look at, but it is not the only metric to consider, especially when we start talking about the really high powered attacks. As much as we (rightfully) downplay its importance on the forums, sometimes, the fact that a power puts out a big orange number needs to be considered. ET deals 1.82 times the damage of Incinerate (which is not really Fiery's big hitter, but it is the power you listed, so I stuck with it), 1.56 times the damage of Clobber, and 1.28 times that of Seismic Smash. |
And then there's the end cost, which I'll again admit, EM is good for, esp ET, which is an obscene 19.90 DPE vs. most ST attacks' 8.56 or even Fire's 10~11 range (Incinerate, btw, comes close at 16.2, but Fire always has better DPE due to the extra damage).
Let's face it, EM's ST capacity is good--I never meant to say otherwise. It's simply not the best any more, and it may need to be to make up for its other deficiencies. Or give it more control, as in...
Quote:
| [Re: Stun] Not both. Adding damage to Stun seems pointless, the set already has 5 single target attacks and two big hitters. Adding the AoE stun is much more interesting, IMO. |
If you read my Ice Melee guide, I'm all about balancing sets around ST damage, AoE damage & control. Ice Melee has pathetic ST damage, but is balanced by good AoE & superior control. Stone Melee has pathetic AoE damage, but excellent ST & superior control. EM currently has pathetic AoE, good, maybe even superior, ST and... well, adequate control. EM used to have pathetic AoE, adequate-to-good (w/the mag 4 stun in TF) control & fantastic ST, which made it worthwhile to play. Bring the stuns fully into "good" category (yes, those terms are horribly subjective) and I think we achieve balance.
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
Quote:
Let me know when Stalkers are not marginalized by every other AT in the game, and I will start caring.
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Ignorant player bigotry like this still exists?
|
Quote:
Okay. They're not. Consider yourself enlightened.
|
Originally Posted by Candlestick
Let me know when Stalkers are not marginalized by every other AT in the game, and I will start caring.
|
Quote:
You don't know how to skim-read, then?
|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
But I'm sure you'll 'politely' respond again by telling me you don't feel my argument is worthy of your time to read, lol (which is odd considering all of your responses to my posts).
|
As a point of order, the comparisons I did in those threads have lost a considerable amount of accuracy due to the recent fury nerf.
Even on the high end comparison, I wouldn't use a value higher than 75% fury (150% damge buff) these days. That's going to knock all the brute sets down a peg.
Energy Melee can still dish out considerable single target damage. EDIT: (Unless you're on a team and spend half your time watching the enemy you're trying to use ET or TF on die before the animation finishes, thus completely wasting your attack.) Its aoe output still sucks. Its mitigation from stuns is not something to ignore but its not good enough to explain away the state of the set right now.
If another set has comparable ST output, greater aoe output and comparable or better mitigation, then the set is not balanced.
I don't consider EM balanced. I also don't think improving its ST damage to be an appropriate correction. Either the mitigation the set provides or its aoe output need to be improved.
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
You're adorable. Just adorable.
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Okay. They're not. Consider yourself enlightened.
|
Quote:
Never seen it.
|
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
:O leverage fan?
|
Quote:
After looking at what Castle did to Cobra Strike, I think the likeliest buffs would be to simply increase stun chances a bit so that they're a bit more reliable. The durations aren't too bad compared to their base recharge times (well, except for Stun); the proc chances are just too low to be even remotely reliable. Stun could probably get some kind of change to make it an AoE control power of some kind (add a chance for splash control with no damage on enemies within 10'), though it could just as easily follow the Cobra Strike model and be turned into a control/damage fusion power (that pretty much means it'll be treated as a damage power with a decent control secondary effect).|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
I don't consider EM balanced. I also don't think improving its ST damage to be an appropriate correction. Either the mitigation the set provides or its aoe output need to be improved.
|
Increasing AoE performance would be difficult without some fancy Cottage Rule avoidance within the set. Even if Whirling Hands had its recharge time lengthened, it wouldn't do much to make the set a better AoE performer. Giving Energy Transfer or Total Focus some AoE capability would be hard to justify without breaking the rule.
But necessary to fix the set rather than fix Em tanks and brutes.
You could increase the radius of whirling hands and give it a new shorter animation with a higher recharge for more damage all without touching any cottage rule issues.
Be well, people of CoH.
Well, sure, but are the problems you have for the set somehow not problems for the stalker?
Quote:
Kind of not really. Especially when it comes to AoE output. Stalkers in general lack AoE, so the fact that EM is low on AoE is not actually odd, relative to other stalker attack sets. EM on tankers and brutes, stands out more.|
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
Well, sure, but are the problems you have for the set somehow not problems for the stalker?
|
That is not necessarily indicative that the fix should be targeted at improving EMs AoE, but the argument could be made that EM is fine on stalkers but less so on the other two ATs (if EM was a scrapper set, you could point at MA as being similar in its lack of AoE). Brutes and tankers have more of a need for AoE, with their role as aggro gatherer. The gauntlet radius of EM is actually pretty good, so that covers tankers, IMO, and brutes are supposed to be less good at this than tankers, so one could say that EM is just weak in the AoE department and leave it at that.
However, it is not as simple as saying that it is unfair to leave stalkers out. It may actually be quite fair to leave the stalker EM as is and still make a change to the brute and/or tanker version.
I have said something similar before:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
Coming from a long-time /Ice and /Mace user, one thing about /EM that is often overlooked from a tanker perspective is that /EM is actually not a bad AoE aggro generator. Yes, it is low on AoE damage. However, it had simply beautiful AoE gauntlet. /EM still has good AoE gauntlet, although buffs to /Ice and /Mace have significantly helped those two sets close that gap (and other gaps).
Something about /EM still seems off to me. My only high level experience with it is on a Stalker, and I think Stalkers were the least negatively affected by the changes to /EM. I haven't really had an issue with my /EM Tanker, but he is low level and not played often enough for me to truly judge. |
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Billz's notes are about the set lacking in mitigation. Do stalkers somehow get more mitigation out of EM?
(I am coming more and more to be of the opinion that people making these complaints are complaining about brute performance primarily, given the positive tone that Ultimo had about it on a tank, and that anyone else can go to hell as long as They Get Theirs, Jack)
Quote:
Interesting question. Which is worth more, Whirling Hands or Assassin's Strike? For mitigation and damage, I honestly think I am leaning towards AS.|
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
Billz's notes are about the set lacking in mitigation. Do stalkers somehow get more mitigation out of EM?\
|
Placate vs. Taunt? Taunt is pretty good mitigation for your allies, which may yield better mitigation for the user in the long run. OTOH, it is pretty hard to argue that kill my friends is bad mitigation.
The stalker may come out ahead when it comes to mitigation from just EM.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Talen, I consider stalkers to be blappers with melee mitigation sets specifically designed for hit and run tactics.
So, no, I don't care about stalkers having weak aoe output because they have weak aoe output by design as an archetype and I don't care about their mitigation from energy melee when they have so many other tools to get them out of harm's way.
Be well, people of CoH.
So is it a reasonable permutation of your argument that placate represents enough mitigation for you to be happy with Energy Melee? Hide won't do it; hide replaces another power and doesn't diminish aggro. When you add in the fewer HP, surely that means that Placate is doing even more work than you feel EM should be doing for a brute?
Also, isn't it rather disingenuous to claim that an AT that gets critical hits more often than a scrapper, a device that rewards making more attacks, to be 'hit and run'? If anything, the stalker, which lacks defenses and the utility power is even more focused on doing damage than scrappers and brutes.
I would love activation time changes but i don´t think that will happen. But hey if it one day should be prolifirated(sp?) to scarps maybe they will take a look at the set since everything melee revolves around scrappers.