And Energy Melee departs the penalty box...
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2011-12-02 24:16 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Quote:
Well, someone better at the interwebs found the quote I was referring to:|
Originally Posted by Trickshooter
I can't really weigh in on the issue with EM because I only play it on a Stalker (which are generally low on AoEs anyway) and I didn't have anything with EM before the change to ET, buuut...
This isn't actually what Castle said. Castle said that the posts where players were mocking anyone that didn't choose EM should have been "evidence enough" that change needed to happen. Basically, he was saying that even if you didn't have the dev damage formulas and datamining tools, the necessity for ET's change was self-evident. I'm not saying I agree with that statement or the changes made (these days, EM is clearly one of the lowest melee performers), but I want to make sure people have the correct information before they try to use it as a way to get some attention to this set. |
"There are a lot of reasons. Do a search the Blaster, Brute, Stalker, and Tanker forums. If you find less than 1,000 instances of someone laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation, I would be extremely surprised.
Datamining shows a significant skewing of the populace using these powersets, leading us to ask why? The answer is the same reason the posters were laughing at other sets: it's too good.
As for why now, instead of two years ago or two years from now...why not? We can't do everything we want immediately. Sometimes, things have to wait their turn."
That sure makes it look like they nerfed the set at least in part due to posts of someone "laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation", while completely missing the point of WHY those posts existed.
Not because it was "too good" for pve, but because it was "too good" in pvp. The nerf makes even less sense (and demonstrates even further how clueless said dev was as to why the posts he referenced existed...) when you take into account they were reworking pvp at the time anyway (and ended up killing pvp for all intents and purposes...), and that revision would have eliminated em's dominance in pvp anyway, because powers were being drastically changed in terms of dmg in pvp environments without touching their pve effectiveness.
Quote:
There is plenty of overlap in terms of effectiveness from at to at. Some scrappers can exceed brutes in terms of survivability and some brutes exceed tanks in terms of survivability and so on. So saying a set can allow an at to overlap another at's speciality vs another set, is not in and of itself enought to justify nerfing it.|
Originally Posted by JuliusSeizure
That's where I disagree completely. Stalker sets almost universally make huge AoE sacrifices to receive Assassin's Strike, which is the linchpin of an AT built around single target burst damage. The problem with the Stalker AT is that burst damage in this game is virtually useless outside of PvP, and it actually has less total DPS that most Brutes and Scrappers while receiving the lowest HP modifiers.
There is a difference between fixing a deficient AT that can't achieve it's intended role and fixing a single skill that broke every single AT that it was proliferated to. Beyond the numbers being close between the old ET and the proposed change to Assassin Strike-- a dynamic which relies on an AT mechanic to achieve a critical no less-- I see little reason to equate the two. Energy Melee allowed Tankers to outclass many Scrappers in single target DPS. Energy Melee allowed Brutes to both out-burst damage stalkers and out DPS every AT in the game. And in PvP at the time, Energy Melee allowed Stalkers to kill anything but a Tank , Brute, or Scrapper in less than 1.5 seconds. This was all because of Energy Transfer's game breaking numbers. Meanwhile, every single Stalker is deficient in DPS when compared to a Scrapper or Brute. This is as close to apples and oranges as we can get. |
Going further, if you agree that burst damage and/or single target sustained dps isn't as valuable as aoe (I know a lot of people like wailing on pylons to determine single target dps, but that simply isn't a situation that dominates play in the overall game...) in a game where you routinely fight more than one target (especially when the game is moving towards content where you fight far more than one target at time - ie., you wont' be as impressed with em in one of the trials while you one shot a lt as your teamates are wiping out 8-10 enemies at a time with their aoes...), then having a set that caters to that at the expense of aoe ability is not strong grounds to support the nerf em recieved.
If it were up to me, I'd just revise the set and give it a bit more aoe damage. I've advocated for a long time to change ET to an aoe, and revise the stun power into either a single target dmg/stun or and aoe stun, maybe with some minor dmg. But if you want aoe to continue to underperform in terms of aoe, then it should be much more effective in terms of single target capabilities - in otherwords, heads and shoulders above anything else (like it was...), because it truly is in the basement in terms of aoe capability.
And if the devs used to go by 'datamining' and 'thread response', why aren't they doing something about em now? It's not like they have to remake the entire set - they don't even have to make new animations. Just tweak some of the numbers on the powers. If they're concerned about 'breaking' the set, where was that concern when they broke it by crippling ET?
The thing that it might be worth adding in here is that even in the pre-nerf days, EM was NOT the definitive ST DPS set in PvE.
Super strength (often with stacked rage) and stone, with three dynamite dps attacks were both very competitive with it.
All you could say at the time was that it was somewhere in the top three, and that for many, it looked the coolest. There were many threads debating the virtues of stone vs EM vs. SS, but not much in the way of concrete answers.
Thing is, for EM to be where it was, it depended on that one very off-the-map power.
Take it away and you're back in the middle of the pack for the one thing that set did well.
Did those three sets give brutes an edge over scrappers? Probably. It should be noted that the fury math has been adjusted since that era, brutes sustained slightly higher levels of fury back then, and no I don't remember the exact chronology... EDIT: I also remember several scrapper sets being reworked for the better, that also changed the relative balance there...
EDIT: a note: this is with regard to PvE. I do recall that EM had a strong place in PvP, especially amongst stalkers.
Even in PvP though, I remember some compelling (though clearly not definitive) arguments in favor of SS for those tankers who actually did PvP... and in so much as tankers in PvP mattered, which was "some"
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
My main issue with the way they changed EM is that adding yet another super long windup animation before the damage finally comes fundamentally changed Energy Transfer as a power. Now, it is a another only useful on really big target's power because it takes too long to get it off. That super long animation and delay can be outright frustrating at times. I remember teaming with one player who tried to play their tricked out EM/Stone Brute after the change and they just shelved that character and never looked back.
Picture: Titan Weapons before Momemtum is in effect. Now, make it take even longer. Now, you have Energy Melee's big hitters.
Member of:
Repeat Offenders Network - The Largest Coalition Network in the Game, across Virtue, Freedom, Justice and Exalted. Open to all, check us out.
Current Team Project: Pending
Quote:
Actually, you'd also have to take away all the aoe titan weapons offers, which is tons more than em offers, and every time you use your 'best' attack, YOU take damage as well. EM is so uncompetitive against sets like titan weapons that it's just silly at this point.
|
Originally Posted by Necrotron_RO
My main issue with the way they changed EM is that adding yet another super long windup animation before the damage finally comes fundamentally changed Energy Transfer as a power. Now, it is a another only useful on really big target's power because it takes too long to get it off. That super long animation and delay can be outright frustrating at times. I remember teaming with one player who tried to play their tricked out EM/Stone Brute after the change and they just shelved that character and never looked back.
Picture: Titan Weapons before Momemtum is in effect. Now, make it take even longer. Now, you have Energy Melee's big hitters. |
Quote:
Not at I consider the devs of the time the pinnacles of competence (e.g. i13) but have you considered that maybe, just maybe, they knew how their changes would affect said powers in PvP and that they did change said powers because of how much the strayed outside of the acceptable guidelines in PvE as well?|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
Well, someone better at the interwebs found the quote I was referring to:
"There are a lot of reasons. Do a search the Blaster, Brute, Stalker, and Tanker forums. If you find less than 1,000 instances of someone laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation, I would be extremely surprised. Datamining shows a significant skewing of the populace using these powersets, leading us to ask why? The answer is the same reason the posters were laughing at other sets: it's too good. As for why now, instead of two years ago or two years from now...why not? We can't do everything we want immediately. Sometimes, things have to wait their turn." That sure makes it look like they nerfed the set at least in part due to posts of someone "laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation", while completely missing the point of WHY those posts existed. Not because it was "too good" for pve, but because it was "too good" in pvp. The nerf makes even less sense (and demonstrates even further how clueless said dev was as to why the posts he referenced existed...) when you take into account they were reworking pvp at the time anyway (and ended up killing pvp for all intents and purposes...), and that revision would have eliminated em's dominance in pvp anyway, because powers were being drastically changed in terms of dmg in pvp environments without touching their pve effectiveness. |
The "laughed at unless you were EM" concept existed almost solely in the stalker forums, where you had EM, or you had a lethal damage set. Castle referenced this once or twice in an earlier post from the one I quoted in regards to Stalker changes. EM, as a single target set, was held as head and shoulders above the rest. ET was disgustingly overpowered as in individual power, while the rest of the set suffered for it in a very lopsided form of "balance." Much like Psi Assault with PSW, they put the formulas back in line. But unlike Psi Assault, they couldn't buff the rest of EM to even out the set. There simply wasn't the AoE and utility options available to fix.
I agree that EM needs to be fixed properly to be put in line with the rest of the melee sets, I just don't agree that it needed it's biggest broken power to stay that way to be that fix.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
Quote:
For one, your point that "maybe, just maybe, they knew how their changes would affect said powers in PvP and that they did change said powers because of how much the strayed outside of the acceptable guidelines in PvE as well" doesn't make any sense at all when you realize they were changing pvp powers independently of how they functioned in pve. So maybe, just maybe, they didn't need to change how em worked in pve at all, and could have changed how it worked in pve independently. Actually, there's no maybe about it, they could have just changed how it worked in pvp without altering how it works in pve because the new pvp they created allowed them to do just that. And again, nobody was lauging at anybody for not taking EM for pve, because it did not perform exceptionally well there, even with one overwhelming power to its credit.|
Originally Posted by Reiraku
Not at I consider the devs of the time the pinnacles of competence (e.g. i13) but have you considered that maybe, just maybe, they knew how their changes would affect said powers in PvP and that they did change said powers because of how much the strayed outside of the acceptable guidelines in PvE as well?
The "laughed at unless you were EM" concept existed almost solely in the stalker forums, where you had EM, or you had a lethal damage set. Castle referenced this once or twice in an earlier post from the one I quoted in regards to Stalker changes. EM, as a single target set, was held as head and shoulders above the rest. ET was disgustingly overpowered as in individual power, while the rest of the set suffered for it in a very lopsided form of "balance." Much like Psi Assault with PSW, they put the formulas back in line. But unlike Psi Assault, they couldn't buff the rest of EM to even out the set. There simply wasn't the AoE and utility options available to fix. I agree that EM needs to be fixed properly to be put in line with the rest of the melee sets, I just don't agree that it needed it's biggest broken power to stay that way to be that fix. |
While EM was far and above the best single target set, and it SHOULD have been, considering it was far below every other set in terms of aoe ability, it wasn't so 'broken' that other sets weren't getting played, even in pvp for that matter. But now, after their 'fix', it is so broken that almost nobody plays this set anymore.
The idea that if EM had old ET back it would be 'broken' in terms of 'too powerful' is just silly when you look at a lot of the stuff that has come out since the nerf, and even moreso when you see how much this game has increased the value of aoe ability over single target. It would still be an underplayed set because it is so pitiful in terms of aoe ability.
But that doesn't change the fact that nerfing ET was a bad move because it clearly made the set ridiculously uncompetitive and led to it being almost never played. If they were set on weakening ET, they should have clearly buffed the rest of the set in some way to compensate, and any claims that it would have been impossible to do so is simply nonsense. So now the set sits broken in a corner and wasted. It absolutely should be fixed, and that can be done by returning the set to its old single target dominance, or as I'd prefer, improving it's aoe effectiveness. But anyone trying to defend a nerf that so clearly ruined a powerset simply doesn't have much in terms of effective ammunition - it's kind of like firing off ET at a corpse when you have low health...
Just for the record, ET's damage in PvP could always have been different, it didn't need PvP 2.0. There are certain effects that having a PvP and PvE flag make possible now, yes, but it's mostly for buffs. Since PvP was introduced, there's been a way to make the amount of damage, debuff, or other offensive effects different depending on the type of target: critter or player.
That's how we had 1/3 non-resistable damage on Blasters, non-resistable criticals on Scrappers, triple damage on Controllers, and non-resistable debuffs on Defenders.
My point being, I don't think PvP can really be blamed here. ET's PvP damage could have been altered to be different in PvP and PvE long before the Issue 13 changes.
Quote:
Unless they intended these changes to be focused in PvE, which was my point. Just like other sets (Psi Assault being the closest analog), having one overly good power and a bunch of less than good powers doesn't make for a good set. Unlike Psi Assault, however, EM didn't get the necessary buffs to make it a competitive set.|
Originally Posted by Cyber_naut
For one, your point that "maybe, just maybe, they knew how their changes would affect said powers in PvP and that they did change said powers because of how much the strayed outside of the acceptable guidelines in PvE as well" doesn't make any sense at all when you realize they were changing pvp powers independently of how they functioned in pve.
|
At the time, if you were a stalker anyways, you had a bunch of underperforming sets and EM. DM was decent, but still not as good and Elec didn't come around until JUST before the change. Your only real AoE options were Spines, which had lackluster damage, or DB, which had a broken combo system for stalkers.
People weren't laughed at if you were a tanker or brute for not choosing EM, because they simply had a better selection of options. But for stalkers, it was roll EM for performance or roll another set for concept.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
As far as disecting history on how Energy got nerfed and why it did, I think everyone can agree that if the same set was introduced today (with old mechanics intact) it would not require nerfing. It would be classified as a nice ST set with some good stuns but lacking in AOE ability. A person running solo with medium sized mobs would enjoy the set but if you wanted to run x8 it would be underwhelming when compared to other sets.
But seeing as it's been nerfed it's neither a nice ST set or AOE set when compared to other sets. Hence the valid complaints. Hence why you never see Eng melee's running around anymore.
Too bad too, I liked the animations of old.
There is a difference between fixing a deficient AT that can't achieve it's intended role and fixing a single skill that broke every single AT that it was proliferated to. Beyond the numbers being close between the old ET and the proposed change to Assassin Strike-- a dynamic which relies on an AT mechanic to achieve a critical no less-- I see little reason to equate the two. Energy Melee allowed Tankers to outclass many Scrappers in single target DPS. Energy Melee allowed Brutes to both out-burst damage stalkers and out DPS every AT in the game. And in PvP at the time, Energy Melee allowed Stalkers to kill anything but a Tank , Brute, or Scrapper in less than 1.5 seconds. This was all because of Energy Transfer's game breaking numbers. Meanwhile, every single Stalker is deficient in DPS when compared to a Scrapper or Brute. This is as close to apples and oranges as we can get.