My impression of Staff Fighting (numerical and otherwise)
By
Abyssus,
Posted on: 2012-04-17 19:19 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I think that aside from KB, a good AoE metric can be found. I believe that something involving the damage per cycle, combined with max targets, and maximum % of effectiveness given from area (and the max targets) could be a good start. And while deduced metrics never perfectly replicate game conditions, I think it is fair to say that the rankings I gave in #110 are mostly accurate and how the playerbase would generally rank the base sets before APPs/EPPs/Spring Attack/Incarnates.
|
Originally Posted by Mazey
The problem is that there isn't a good metric for AoEs, at least, not one that can be found through deduction from the base numbers.
There are just to many variables involved, and the act of actual fighting with AoEs devolves into something akin to chaos. A thorough statistical analysis might be able to produce a metric that accurately weights things like area vs. target cap and how much knockback reduces AoE effectiveness for the average player, but such things are impossible to simply deduce and, as such, any deduced metric is inherently flawed. |
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
You are welcome to your opinions obviously, but having leveled a staff scrap from 1-50+3 I have no complaints whatsoever on it's performance. It is middle of the road in damage...and there is no reason it has to be the most damaging or in the top 3 damaging...the baddies still fall down |
Originally Posted by Combat
I've heard that a lot in this thread, and it is an opinion I am frankly puzzled by.
"I think Staff numerically underperforms, but doesn't begin to show that until higher levels. Can we change some of the powers to make it a little better at the high end?" "Screw the numbers, just have fun" How is that a valid answer to a numerical complaint? If the numbers are changed without cottage ruling everything, the set will still mostly play the same way. It won't hurt your fun. To be frank, as much as it is great that a powerset is fun to a lot of people, that shouldn't stop the devs from trying to balance that set, whether it is over or underachieving. And to me, fun is often a factor of easiness to play, and at low levels staff is absolutely basically works like a Mac. It succeeds because it is easy and simple to use, largely because the relative strength of its AoEs and the power of FoS. It is kind of like Willpower for the early levels, because it makes everything easier, but it doesn't have the raw numbers to be a top (or above average set) in the late-game. That said, even bottom dwelling melee sets can do ridiculous things, and staff still maintains a niche by offering survability in ways other sets can't. Personally, I don't the damage should suffer for that, just like DM isn't penalized by having -tohit in every attack, or Kinetic having -dam when using power siphon. |
The argument of "it's a paid set and should be uber" is silly...I have paid for all my sets for years...and staff did not cost me one penny extra over my $15/month. You can keep on stating it needs a buff...if it is buffed then so be it, but frankly from experience playing one..not number crunching...I am fine with the way it is
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
I think when you come to staff, you have to have this in mind: it is a DEFENSIVE melee set. Do not choose it if you want to do the max out damage, and do not pair it up with a defense set that has an easy time hitting defence and/or resistance caps.
This even works on an intuitive level: which would you expect to do the most damage - a huge sword or a wooden pole?
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
What makes it a "Defensive Melee Set"? Because it has Guarded Spin?|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
I think when you come to staff, you have to have this in mind: it is a DEFENSIVE melee set. Do not choose it if you want to do the max out damage, and do not pair it up with a defense set that has an easy time hitting defence and/or resistance caps.
|
Defensive Sweep laughs at your assertion.
Because Sky Splitter CAN give Resistance?
Sky Splitter is also one of the worst attacks in the set.
Because it has some Knock Down?
Titan Weapons again.
What makes it a "Defensive Melee Set"?
Quote:
Lots of sets have a similar power.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
What makes it a "Defensive Melee Set"? Because it has Guarded Spin?
Defensive Sweep laughs at your assertion. |
Quote:
|
Because Sky Splitter CAN give Resistance? Sky Splitter is also one of the worst attacks in the set. |
Contrary to you opinion, a power is not "good" or "bad" simply based on how much damage it does.
Quote:
| Because it has some Knock Down? |
Quote:
| What makes it a "Defensive Melee Set"? |
Also, it's the only offensive set which can give any +recharge, meaning that powers like dull pain, self heals and so on can be used more often.
The bottom line is, if the amount of damage it does the only criteria that you use for choosing your sets, then you can save your money and not buy staff fighting. a win-win situation.
I really should do something about this signature.
... Except, to get that Resistance, you have to use arguably the worst of the Forms for all intents and purposes. While, granted, no other set in the game gives +Resistance? That alone doesn't make it a 'Defensive Set'.
That would be saying Dark Melee is a 'Defensive Set' because it has a Heal, even though it's a buzzsaw ST damage set.
7.5% Resistance isn't really worth how horribly bad Sky Splitter is. And, no. If it did no damage and applied 7.5% Resistance it would still be bad. Your damage should not be dictated by optional secondary effects.
Quote:
Redefine you expectations to the +resistance (which is more on tankers) as the PRIMARY function of FotB Sky Splitter.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
... Except, to get that Resistance, you have to use arguably the worst of the Forms for all intents and purposes. While, granted, no other set in the game gives +Resistance? That alone doesn't make it a 'Defensive Set'.
That would be saying Dark Melee is a 'Defensive Set' because it has a Heal, even though it's a buzzsaw ST damage set. 7.5% Resistance isn't really worth how horribly bad Sky Splitter is. And, no. If it did no damage and applied 7.5% Resistance it would still be bad. Your damage should not be dictated by optional secondary effects. |
And yes, the extra resistance can be massive, depending on which defensive set you have it paired with.
And if you play a tanker, then the defensive value of the heal is a significant reason for choosing Dark Melee...
I really should do something about this signature.
Sure?
But it's still not a Defensive Set. It's a Damage Set. It doesn't do that Very Well.
Sorry, but that's the truth of it. You might want "Staff Defense", but "Staff Fighting", as a Scrapper/Brute/Stalker Primary and Tanker Secondary, is there to do damage. If it ranks so low on Single Target Damage, it's AoE being fairly high, in exchange for giving... scant Resistance?
... Not really seeing the perk, here. The Resistance is pretty good, but it's a shame it's tied into a crap attack.
Martial Arts is by far the superior "Defensive" set (for tankers).
Quote:
And Fiery Aura is a defense set, but it doesn't defend very well. You choose it to increase your damage.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
Sure?
But it's still not a Defensive Set. It's a Damage Set. It doesn't do that Very Well. |
Sorry, but that's the truth of it. You might want "Staff Defense", but "Staff Fighting", as a Scrapper/Brute/Stalker Primary and Tanker Secondary, is there to do damage. [/quote]
Doing damage is not the job of a tanker.
Quote:
|
If it ranks so low on Single Target Damage, it's AoE being fairly high, in exchange for giving... scant Resistance? ... Not really seeing the perk, here. The Resistance is pretty good, but it's a shame it's tied into a crap attack. |
But if all you can see are damage numbers, as I already said, the nice thing about paid for sets is you don't have to pay for them if they don't do what you want.
Quote:
| Martial Arts is by far the superior "Defensive" set (for tankers). |
Of course, if your resistance is already capped, then a tanker wouldn't want it, but there are plenty of sets that don't let you do that, or for only a very limited time.
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
And Fiery Aura is a defense set, but it doesn't defend very well. You choose it to increase your damage.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
Sure?
But it's still not a Defensive Set. It's a Damage Set. It doesn't do that Very Well. |
Quote:
| Sorry, but that's the truth of it. You might want "Staff Defense", but "Staff Fighting", as a Scrapper/Brute/Stalker Primary and Tanker Secondary, is there to do damage. |
I wouldn't choose Staff for a scrapper, but not all sets are equally good for every AT you can have it on, and the world doen't revolve around scrappers.
Quote:
|
If it ranks so low on Single Target Damage, it's AoE being fairly high, in exchange for giving... scant Resistance? ... Not really seeing the perk, here. The Resistance is pretty good, but it's a shame it's tied into a crap attack. |
But if all you can see are damage numbers, as I already said, the nice thing about paid for sets is you don't have to pay for them if they don't do what you want.
Quote:
| Martial Arts is by far the superior "Defensive" set (for tankers). |
Of course, if your resistance is already capped, then a tanker wouldn't want it, but there are plenty of sets that don't let you do that, or for only a very limited time.
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
How much +defense and +resistance is worth x amount of lost damage?|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
I think when you come to staff, you have to have this in mind: it is a DEFENSIVE melee set. Do not choose it if you want to do the max out damage, and do not pair it up with a defense set that has an easy time hitting defence and/or resistance caps.
This even works on an intuitive level: which would you expect to do the most damage - a huge sword or a wooden pole? |
Can't tell me? Then don't try to balance around those. Again, where does Kinetic Melee lose strength because it has gobs of -damage? Where does Dark Melee lose strength for having a great heal (which just happens to be in an attack better than any in Staff)?
Every set has perks. They aren't balanced around them, and shouldn't be. Staff's perks are the forms and the +res/def from Sky Splitter and Defensive Sweep. I've made this point a few times before, but balancing around intangibles is a mindset more fitting in I0 than I22, and simply caused powersets to be gimped or OP for no reason.
Quote:
| Doing damage is not the job of a tanker. How much they do is irrelevant. As already pointed out, Stalkers have Assassins strike for heavy hitting, and Brutes are less dependant on big hard hitting attacks. |
Quote:
|
You are again failing to grasp the utility of +15% recharge. But if all you can see are damage numbers, as I already said, the nice thing about paid for sets is you don't have to pay for them if they don't do what you want. |
Quote:
| With so many mobs resistant to CC? I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with MA, but people like other options, not all of which should be muwr dmg. |
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
This is a dangerous view in game design, and I'm pretty sure it's one the devs will never agree with. So long as it is a pillar in your position, I think you're going to argue to deaf ears in terms of the people who matter.|
Originally Posted by Combat
How much +defense and +resistance is worth x amount of lost damage?
... Every set has perks. They aren't balanced around them, and shouldn't be. |
"Balance" of the sort you're talking about is pretty subjective. This game's complex interactions of various buffs and debuffs means it's exceptionally hard to assign numeric "damage equivalency" values to specific non-damage effects. Because of that, balance for those sorts of things go by feel, not formula. That doesn't mean, though, that efforts to balance them are ignored.
However, it does mean that relative balance of powersets its something of a dart board exercise. They do take aim at a bulls-eye, but near misses are acceptable. Therefore, when viewed in any particular, narrowly-defined performance metric, such as DPS, some powersets are winners and losers. And the devs are OK with this, so long as the powersets don't win or lose by too much.
I think it's a heavy burden of proof to show that Staff lies outside the devs' "near miss" target area for powerset balance. It's good to raise concerns to them, in case they might agree, but I think you need to be careful about the firm assumptions you make about what design approaches are "right" and "wrong". If you go into things sounding like you're telling the devs they "did it wrong", you're less likely to get them to take you seriously.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
Obviously, what I'm saying has limits. A set where every power gave +15% defense to all would be OP.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
This is a dangerous view in game design, and I'm pretty sure it's one the devs will never agree with. So long as it is a pillar in your position, I think you're going to argue to deaf ears in terms of the people who matter.
"Balance" of the sort you're talking about is pretty subjective. This game's complex interactions of various buffs and debuffs means it's exceptionally hard to assign numeric "damage equivalency" values to specific non-damage effects. Because of that, balance for those sorts of things go by feel, not formula. That doesn't mean, though, that efforts to balance them are ignored. However, it does mean that relative balance of powersets its something of a dart board exercise. They do take aim at a bulls-eye, but near misses are acceptable. Therefore, when viewed in any particular, narrowly-defined performance metric, such as DPS, some powersets are winners and losers. And the devs are OK with this, so long as the powersets don't win or lose by too much. I think it's a heavy burden of proof to show that Staff lies outside the devs' "near miss" target area for powerset balance. It's good to raise concerns to them, in case they might agree, but I think you need to be careful about the firm assumptions you make about what design approaches are "right" and "wrong". If you go into things sounding like you're telling the devs they "did it wrong", you're less likely to get them to take you seriously. |
But as long as it is within reason, we should be try to balance relatively easy mechanics to judge, such as single target damage, more than hard or impossible things. Trying to balance around perks shouldn't be a primary option for the devs because perks are so much harder to numerically judge.
TW/Elec Optimization
About 50% of problems with powersets have to do with methods of evaluation more than the actual set itself, and after reading this discussion that's my overall impression here as well.
For one thing, "AoE" and "single target" are invented categories. There's a reason the "best" AoE chain is impossible to determine: outside of farming, it's often advantageous to mix AoE with single target attacks against the most dangerous enemy. Exactly how and when this is true is impossible to derive, because it's related to opportunity costs.
This is actually where I incidentally disagree with a popular notion that's been appearing on the boards lately, about range having no practical damage value. It is clear from my practical experience with Assassin Strike that physical distance limits my damage SIGINIFICANTLY, not only because it often reaches "guaranteed critical" status often just as the target dies or is killed by a teammate, but because the current target's HP is often low and the extra damage ends up "wasted." The opportunities lost by being unable to fire this particular power at the "perfect" enemy hinders my Stalkers very noticeably. if I were a better Stalker player, I could reduce this somewhat but I doubt I could completely eliminate it. Damage crunchers, meanwhile, continue to assume I land every Assassin's Strike in time to use the critical, which no doubt happens in pylon fights but much less reliably against the target's encountered in much of te rest of the game.
Anyway, I've always been somewhat weirded about by "aoe attack chains" because on most characters most of the time I have few actual opportunities to use it. Even the few characters that do have full chains find themselves spamming it for more than about one cycle, tops. Outside of say, fire farms, a high BURST seems often more advantageous to me.
Where Staff falls on that chart I'm not sure. In fact, it's somewhat unknowable, because it depends on how often you needed to use a good single target but couldn't because, say, the current enemy is too dangerous so you ended up blowing your animation time on a cone + defense power to protect yourself. There isn't a clear answer to many of these evaluations, and many of the elaborate formulas that appear on the boards tell us more about the poster than the powerset.
That's not to say powersets are completely subjective, but it is to say that like claims that "iq" measures "intelligence," what is derrived from such measurements may approach the truth in a general sense, but rarely is it actually true.
Quote:
Agreed.
|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
everything
|
Quote:
For an anecdote on this topic, consider my staff/elec scrapper that I've unfortunately only had the occasion to get to 27 today. Picked up Mercedes Sheldon's third arc while level 25, I ran a couple TFs reaching 27 and continued the arc surprised to find that despite the contact theoretically expiring at 25 the missions continued to be of my actual level. To make a long story short, on one of her missions you get ambushed by six or seven warrior bosses at once. They pretty much all went down at the same time, and it was before a single medium luck wore off. As you said in practice it is most often wise to mix aoe and single target, but it isn't outlandish to run into legitimately aoe-focused scenarios in all corners of the game's content.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Anyway, I've always been somewhat weirded about by "aoe attack chains" because on most characters most of the time I have few actual opportunities to use it. Even the few characters that do have full chains find themselves spamming it for more than about one cycle, tops. Outside of say, fire farms, a high BURST seems often more advantageous to me.
|
On that note, it seems likely that my finished build will typically require neither form of the soul nor power sink in the general case for the full aoe chain. The patron-augmented SS build argued for earlier burns more than twice as much endurance to be competitive with staff's damage before you even consider the constant drains from rage and hasten's crashes. How interesting is that? It doesn't have an additional low-endurance mode to fall back on if the situation were to call for it, either.
Quote:
In order to run the chain's I listed above and have the damage numbers I listed above, staff would have to run both FoB and have Hasten. And while Staff has an endurance advantage before FoS even, it should be noted that the endurance you are referring to only existing a perfect static situation. Practically, the end difference will be less because it will take either more time or more end to defeat targets because it is impossible to constantly get 5 targets in GS and IS with either repositioning or taking extra time to find a perfect target. |
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
For an anecdote on this topic, consider my staff/elec scrapper that I've unfortunately only had the occasion to get to 27 today. Picked up Mercedes Sheldon's third arc while level 25, I ran a couple TFs reaching 27 and continued the arc surprised to find that despite the contact theoretically expiring at 25 the missions continued to be of my actual level. To make a long story short, on one of her missions you get ambushed by six or seven warrior bosses at once. They pretty much all went down at the same time, and it was before a single medium luck wore off. As you said in practice it is most often wise to mix aoe and single target, but it isn't outlandish to run into legitimately aoe-focused scenarios in all corners of the game's content.
On that note, it seems likely that my finished build will typically require neither form of the soul nor power sink in the general case for the full aoe chain. The patron-augmented SS build argued for earlier burns more than twice as much endurance to be competitive with staff's damage before you even consider the constant drains from rage and hasten's crashes. How interesting is that? It doesn't have an additional low-endurance mode to fall back on if the situation were to call for it, either. |
Very few AoE chains would be possible to chain indefinitely, so EPS isn't as big a problem as single target chains. Because perfect sustainablity isn't possible in most situations, achieving it is not a very practical goal. Even Staff's basic AoE chain of GS-IS-GS-EotS, which is pretty stringent by AoE standards, burns about 4.5 end/sec before enhancements.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Funny thing is.. I only have EotS on my staff scrap |
Originally Posted by Combat
In order to run the chain's I listed above and have the damage numbers I listed above, staff would have to run both FoB and have Hasten. And while Staff has an endurance advantage before FoS even, it should be noted that the endurance you are referring to only existing a perfect static situation. Practically, the end difference will be less because it will take either more time or more end to defeat targets because it is impossible to constantly get 5 targets in GS and IS with either repositioning or taking extra time to find a perfect target.
Very few AoE chains would be possible to chain indefinitely, so EPS isn't as big a problem as single target chains. Because perfect sustainablity isn't possible in most situations, achieving it is not a very practical goal. Even Staff's basic AoE chain of GS-IS-GS-EotS, which is pretty stringent by AoE standards, burns about 4.5 end/sec before enhancements. |
Still whoop butt plenty fast
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
Quote:
Care to share with the class what the SS/FA/Mu's chain costs? It isn't pretty!|
Originally Posted by Combat
Very few AoE chains would be possible to chain indefinitely, so EPS isn't as big a problem as single target chains. Because perfect sustainablity isn't possible in most situations, achieving it is not a very practical goal. Even Staff's basic AoE chain of GS-IS-GS-EotS, which is pretty stringent by AoE standards, burns about 4.5 end/sec before enhancements.
|
4.5 EPS for an attack chain would be cheap if we were talking about single target. For aoe it is peerless both because few sets can even muster an aoe chain at all and because none of those that can can match staff's rates. I may not have gotten my wish for expensive perma toggle hybrid but I'm sure you can think of things to do with endurance apart from that.
Quote:
Using at the highest recharge rate I calculated, and using the attack as fast as the recharge, the combined EPC would be 7.045. That would be the endurance cost of each power divided by the animation + recharge. At the recharge necessary for GS-IS-GS-Eye chain, the SS user using just those three powers would have a combined EPS of 6.479. |
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Care to share with the class what the SS/FA/Mu's chain costs? It isn't pretty!
4.5 EPS for an attack chain would be cheap if we were talking about single target. For aoe it is peerless both because few sets can even muster an aoe chain at all and because none of those that can can match staff's rates. I may not have gotten my wish for expensive perma toggle hybrid but I'm sure you can think of things to do with endurance apart from that. |
And while strenuous on the endurance bar, it should be noted that DPE isn't greatly different. At the max recharge I calculated, SS would be dealing 21.19 DPS with FS/EF/BL for a cost of 7.045, or a DPS/E of 3.008 (using the max recharge because it would lend the highest end burn). Staff would deal 15.65 DPS with the GS-IS-GS-Eye chain for 4.5 end, so about 3.48 DPS/E. Considering that Staff would need to be perfect with its cones in order to reach that mark, I'd consider it pretty even.
And about that 4.5 end/sec being cheap for a single target attack chain...
Most single target attack chains will be probably be better than that. My TW character's attack chain burns a base of 8.11 EPS, but that is by far the most extreme example. For instance, a single target attack chain for Katana consisting of DA>GC>DA>GD would have a EPS of 4.16.
Also, remember that an AoE attack chain would be useful in approximately 3 cases, none of which are regular cases (those three being the Nemesis mission with 8 Fake Nems, the ITF with a lot of EBs, and the mission you played). Given that the FS>BL>EF chain will usually defeat most minions in a spawn, the EPS of an AoE chain is not usually a factor in everyday gameplay because AoEs are very rarely constantly used, and when they are (...farming) usually enough blue candy drops to prevent endurance drain. In a way, AoE DPS = Endurance gain by increasing the rate of blue inspirations, so the only real advantage is when fighting a large number of tough targets, which is never a factor in the early game and rarely a factor in the late game.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Actually, that's not true. The value of a metric is the degree to which it performs compared to alternatives. Here's your rankings *and* the numerical value for them:|
Originally Posted by Combat
4. Even without accounting for the changes I made in my previous post to the formula, most sets fall where we'd expect them to fall. Electric, Spines, and Claws all were ranked high, and the bottom consisted of Dark, Energy, and Martial Arts. This seems to lend credence to formula because it seems to correspond well with player experience.
|
Code:
Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 7. SS 451.24 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10 19. Dark 55.52 3 25
Your metric places the three sets with the most AoEs at the top which most metrics would do. It places *almost* all the sets with one AoE at the bottom, as most would do. You counted Dark as having three, but two of them have inconsequential DPC so Dark is really another 1/10 set.
The most noteworthy aspect of your metric is that it seems to go out of its way to elevate Super Strength. But it also does some very bizarre things, like claim Battle Axe with three AoEs has only 22% more AoE potential as Martial Arts, or Ice and Dual Blades are basically tied. It says Tremor all by itself is 50% better than all of War Mace.
This metric doesn't correspond to my experience at all, nor does it correspond to anything that resembles conventional wisdom. You point out the top and the bottom, but the top and bottom were practically predestined. The top four also have the highest number of AoEs, except for Claws that has a broken AoE damage formula and has known AoE advantages. The bottom three are essentially all of the one AoE sets - except for Super Strength and Stone. And no one thinks Stone is an above average AoE set.
If I resort your list just by number of AoEs and target cap total, I get this:
Code:
Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 19. Dark 55.52 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 7. SS 451.24 1 10 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10
[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.)
Quote:
However, the first list also failed to account for several factors:|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, that's not true. The value of a metric is the degree to which it performs compared to alternatives. Here's your rankings *and* the numerical value for them:
Code:
Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 7. SS 451.24 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10 19. Dark 55.52 3 25 Your metric places the three sets with the most AoEs at the top which most metrics would do. It places *almost* all the sets with one AoE at the bottom, as most would do. You counted Dark as having three, but two of them have inconsequential DPC so Dark is really another 1/10 set. The most noteworthy aspect of your metric is that it seems to go out of its way to elevate Super Strength. But it also does some very bizarre things, like claim Battle Axe with three AoEs has only 22% more AoE potential as Martial Arts, or Ice and Dual Blades are basically tied. It says Tremor all by itself is 50% better than all of War Mace. This metric doesn't correspond to my experience at all, nor does it correspond to anything that resembles conventional wisdom. You point out the top and the bottom, but the top and bottom were practically predestined. The top four also have the highest number of AoEs, except for Claws that has a broken AoE damage formula and has known AoE advantages. The bottom three are essentially all of the one AoE sets - except for Super Strength and Stone. And no one thinks Stone is an above average AoE set. If I resort your list just by number of AoEs and target cap total, I get this: Code:
Powerset rating AoEs TC 1. Spines 1331.58 4 35 2. Electric 971.77 4 32 4. TW 825.32 4 25 5. Tanker Fiery 817 3 30 3. Claws 906.9 3 25 11. War Mace 266.6 3 25 12. Dual Blades 247.8 3 25 14. Katana 244.27 3 25 15. Broadsword 210.63 3 25 16. Battle-Axe 183.14 3 25 9. Staff 317.42 3 20 6. Kinetic 625.6 2 20 10. Other Fiery 311.27 2 20 13. Ice 247.65 2 20 19. Dark 55.52 1 10 8. Stone 405.49 1 10 7. SS 451.24 1 10 17. MA (w/EC) 150.96 1 10 18. Energy 120.83 1 10 |
1. Damage Buffs
2. The added difficulty of using a larger narrow cone from melee combat
3. The "saturation" level, which should limit AoEs to a maximum value after a certain point.
I tried a rudimentary pass at that by estimating +dam and multiplying different values by constants (2/3 for large PBAoEs, 1/2 for "long" cones like Repulsing Torrent, and 3/2 for small PBAoEs). In practice, this would be a constant determined by experimentation.
For +dam buffs, I assumed 5% buff from BU, 75% from Follow-Up and clones, 80% from Rage, 50% for Soul Drain, 4% per slottable Achilles' Heel, 20% for Power Siphon and 15% for Form of Body.
My numbers for that:
1. Electric->1960.633
2. Claws-->1709.146
3. Spines-->1648.728
4. TW----->1463.804
5. T Fiery-->1368.157
6. Kinetic-->823.42
7. Staff---->804.15
8. SS------->779.245
9. DB------->758.443
10. Fiery N/T->693.7731
11. War Mace->666.5697
12. Katana---->562.5828
13. Ice-------->542.3904
14. Stone------>540.6596
15. BS--------->487.8149
16. BA--------->4224.5196
17. Street----->408.2553
18. Martial Arts>397.4095
19. Energy----->241.661
20. Dark-------->159.6407
That list is more accurate, but the numbers used are just placeholders. I'd like to this moment to restate that I think the idea of an AoE damage metric that ignores AoEs outside the sets is not a good metric for ingame performance. As shown with SS, most sets can actual find more AoE outside their sets than inside. Remember SS has the highest AoE potential of any set, and it is ranked close to last if we only rank sets by the criteria in your second chart.
However, if you insist on using a formula to calculate the AoE potential of each set, it should contain the following:
1. Base DS
2. Cycle Time (Animation + Recharge)
3. Max Number of Targets
4. Relation of Max # of Targets to Area, capping a certain value (probably with diminishing returns).
Using methods that don't contain number 4 will give misleading results. Again, doing that will vastly overstate the ability of attacks like Headsplitter, with extremely narrow cones, and understate the ease of hitting targets with a large PBAoE.
TW/Elec Optimization
Lisa skips into thread grinning from ear to ear.
After I left this thread, I logged on to Victory, and made a new Staff Toon.
Since I left the thread with the sure knowledge that Staff is only as strong as a kitten in the higher levels, I chose a secondary that I knew would keep her sorry tail alive a bit.
I made a Praetorian Staff/Elec Scrapper
I logged into the tutorial, decided I was nuts to make a scrap in Praetoria and rerolled her as a brute.....an angry, Loyalist of a Staff/Elec.
Oh my gosh but she is fun in Praetoria.
She might be doomed in the higher levels, but right now she is a killer.
She kills everyone she sets her angry eyes on...and she rarely dies !
So thank you everyone
Lisa.
So don't wait for heroes, do it yourself
You've got the power
winners are losers
who got up and gave it just one more try
***Dennis DeYoung
I have come to the conclusion that no matter what evidence is given some people will still argue over and over and warp the hard data to try and state their point.
I didn't need any numbers to prove what I already knew-staff is a very viable set and deals plenty of damage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
Quote:
I should point out *I* only do so when the discussion specifically surrounds AoE damage as an academic topic. I do not do so when evaluating the on-paper performance of an offensive set as it pertains to set balance.|
Originally Posted by Combat
if you insist on using a formula to calculate the AoE potential of each set
|
Its the responsibility of the person saying a set is "unbalanced" to explain by what specific set of metrics they are arriving at that conclusion. And its not enough to mention metrics that *can suggest* that conclusion: they have to be compelling enough to be considered reasonable measures of the set.
[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.)
The problem is that there isn't a good metric for AoEs, at least, not one that can be found through deduction from the base numbers.
There are just to many variables involved, and the act of actual fighting with AoEs devolves into something akin to chaos. A thorough statistical analysis might be able to produce a metric that accurately weights things like area vs. target cap and how much knockback reduces AoE effectiveness for the average player, but such things are impossible to simply deduce and, as such, any deduced metric is inherently flawed.
Main Hero: Mazey - level 50 + 1 fire/fire/fire blaster.
Main Villain: Chained Bot - level 50 + 1 Robot/FF Mastermind.
BattleEngine - "And the prize for the most level headed response ever goes to Mazey"