My impression of Staff Fighting (numerical and otherwise)

Dark Melee is a high mitigation set (with the combination of stacking tohit buff, self heal, and ultra-high uptime terrorize). It lost the buzzsaw title years ago when in rapid succession Shadow Punch's animation and cast time were increased and the server alignment discovery (aka "arcanatime") caused a realization that low cast time doesn't translate into true high DPA, because arcanatime roundoff is disproportionately higher for low cast time powers.

The changes to midnight grasp significantly improved its single target damage, but the ultrahigh DPA that SP "had" and no longer has (it never really had it: that was an artifact of incomplete understanding of attack timing) and to a lesser extent the same for Smite are such that I haven't heard Dark Melee referred to as a "buzzsaw" set in a long time except in historical contexts.

It will stay that way. Proof is in the playing. My Staff/EA Scrapper is not lvl 50, IOed, and has 2 t4 incarnate powers (Agil, and Reactive), the rest at t3 (judgement just needs a vr to be t4) and it is still creating a swath of destruction where ever it goes. My wife is a process engineer, and even she says the numbers do not always match real life.

Staff works, and works well. Just like KM works and works well, even though people on the boards swore it was crap.

Of course, in that case the numbers showed KM was good. The problem was that it seemed only my numbers showed that, because only I use organic high quality free-range numbers.

Before we get snide, remember that this whole side-track of the thread happened because I was asked to prove that SS performed at a higher level AoE wise than Staff. I didn't want to try to prove something as impossible as AoE potential, but I was compelled to do so to prove my point. Ergo, the last few days of posts.

Like I've said before, I don't think AoE is really a problem with any melee set. Those that want more AoE can get it easily, in a variety of different forms. In a lot of ways +dam is more important than the actual strength of a powerset's AoEs, which is shown by the plethora of SS farmers.

Single target damage, however, is both an important part of a set and hard to replace with patrons/Epics. Only one Patron power is really great for DPA, and even then it is better for non-weapon sets and those with lots of +damage, making it only really great for SS Brutes and Tankers (by the way, I've seen posts that claim the best chain for SS only uses one SS attack, much like the AoE chain).

I'm guessing that you know how futile it is to try and predict AoE performance from numbers. That's why I've never tried before this thread, especially for melee ATs. Simply put, it is silly to try and do so, because so much depends on player skill and build. SS could have piss-poor damage with no additions and without an offensive secondary, or ridiculous AoE with 3 extra AoEs from Mu and /fire. Even sets like Dark, Stone, and Ice can easily supplement their weaknesses with extra AoEs, potentially above sets like TW and Spines with a lot of AoE tools in their attack set.

Besides that, the actual fix I've suggested for staff should implemented for more than inter-powerset balance. Making all 3 forms useful is something that would make Staff better without potentially overpowering it. While I still think adjusting the recharge on Serpent's Reach and Sky Splitter could make the set a lot more attractive without pushing the boundaries of OPness, I think that making FoB and FoM worthwhile would be enough. If you don't think that a lack of overall damage can be proved numerically, than you can at least objectively say that a large portion of people are ignoring the variety of Staff because the other options are simply far less valuable. By the way, this was something that appeared in my second post, if I remember correctly.

I have learned my lesson though. It is impossible to prove powerset imbalance in a way that will satisfy the math gods. It is much easier to simply complain about sound effects and the direction that the hilts are orientated, and I guess that's the kind of feedback that can make a difference. The mechanics of CoH make it virtually impossible to develop a rigorous approach to overall damage. Next time I'll make sure that I have a paper worthy of appearance in an academic journal, and demand the same standard for all other posters even when the necessary data is unobtainable/unusable without thousands of game logs and tons of time.

I'll also direct you to what I actually posted in my OP, just so posters realize that I haven't been calling Staff an underperformer throughout this thread:

"The point is that Staff has end-game potential, but not because it is a top-tier DPS set. It has a decent AoE, good enough damage, and allows players to build in previously impossible ways. It is both mechanically and aesthetically fun to play, and better in low levels than most sets."

My basic opinion of the set is unchanged. It peaks at level 8 for Brutes, Tankers, and Scrappers. I think that is a problem. The higher level attacks should feel like improvements, but my experience leveling my stalker was that leveling made my character worse. Serpent's Reach and Sky Splitter simply don't do a lot of damage per second, and having only EotS and GS makes the AoE non-compensatory. For me, I did the most damage relative to mob health in the low levels, and even with enhancements it felt like I got worse, not better. In fact, my early criticisms did not resolve around inter-powerset balance, but mostly were about the way Staff got worse later in the game and forced players into Form of Soul via the lack of strength from the other two Forms.

I say let'em argue till their pencils run outta lead. Meanwhile, I am well into my second Staff toon after having taken my new main Staff/WP MoonKnight scrapper clone to 50 on a joyous ride and he is now enjoying incarnate content.

Nothing more fun than jumping into a X8 spawn and swinging your stick till nothing is left standing. No math can equal the fun of that experience for sure.

Depends on your playstyle, but if more damage was always better than def or res then Firey Aura would be the only defense set anyone ever played.


Here is a tip for getting the most from Staff: just because a button has an orange ring around it doesn't mean you have to push it immediately. Another: Hardest hitting attack is not always the best attack to use.

Just how useful +recharge is depends on which secondary you are paring it with.

And then becomes completely useless as it's easy to softcap defense without it, especially for tank.

On the other hand, Psi resistance is very very useful for pretty much any tank.

Apart from psi. A lot of psi damage in the endgame.

How much befit you get depends on how near of far you are from the cap. For example, consider a tanker with 80% res and no def. For them, +10% res would halve incoming damage, wheras +20% def would only reduce net damage by a further 8%.

The difference is in the goal of the powerset. Staff is a "melee damage set", whereas fire is an "armor set." The goal of a damage set is to deal damage, with mitigation and other perks secondary. The goal of an armor set is to enhance survivability, with damage and other perks secondary.

(Also, I believe that I read some comment that said fire was the second most popular armor set behind willpower; I'll try and find it later)

That is something that could be numerically determined. I guess I could run the numbers and see if the advantage of 15% +damage is worth the loss of Sky Splitter/Eye of the Storm, though I doubt it (at least for brutes).

Small quantities of variable +recharge are generally worth considerably less than large quantities of variable endurance reduction. For damage sets, the main purpose of +recharge is to facilitate attack chains, and variable +recharge is worth less to an attack chain because it cannot be relied upon. Most armor sets don't have a ton of clicks that would benefit from +recharge, and those that do have a preference towards constant +recharge because of the need to perma certain abilities. The only set that would rely benefit a lot from FoM is Regen, and even then a case can be made from FoS.

On the contrary, it becomes very worthwhile. Even after soft-capping, it helps to gain incarnate level of defense (59%), and allows /MA tankers to soft-cap considerably earlier than other sets for exemplaring purposes. Remember, MA has the ability to use storm kick from level 2 onwards, whereas Staff only has Sky Splitter from 32/38 to 50.

Technically, the Storm Kick's +def applies to everything but psi. But realistically, the positional defense will protect versus almost all psionic damage except for about 3 attacks that don't have a positional tag.

And while +resistance could theoretically be more useful in edge cases, the vast majority of the time +def will be more powerful. It is also more versatile in that only one toggle power (currently) grants +resistance, but investment in +def can require 3-4 power pool picks. That means that +10% defense greatly expands build options, whereas +7.5% resistance grants little added versatility (the exception being invul/ tankers who might be able to skip tough).

You have a very narrow view of things. Fire armour offers less survivability than the other defense sets. This is because it offers more damage. It has always been designed that way.

"It's a damage set, therefore the only thing that that counts is damage", has never been the way CoH sets are designed, there has always been some which are intended to overlap with other roles with many powersets.

I doubt "running the numbers" would tell you anything useful, since it is a matter of when you have the buff, and what other powers you have.

For example, consider staff pared with Fire Aura (any AT). Use FoB to get the maximum damage buff, then activate Fiery Embrace. just before FE expires consume FoB and switch to FoM for the recharge bonus, to get FE back up as soon as possible.

Other tactics could be developed for other pairings (with some worse than others, I wouldn't pair staff with WP myself). That's the thing with Staff, it a tactical set, not a brute force and ignorance set like Titan Weapons.

Actually, quite a few defense sets have clicks with long cooldowns, but the thing about Staff is you can SWITCH. If your end is running low, use FoS, if you need your cooldowns up, switch to FoM. End use can vary significantly depending if you are fighting single or multiple foes.

This is how I play my Staff, who is a /regen brute. I switch frequently between forms, depending on what the situation demands.


It's +10% resistance for tankers, and it's not just Invun who needs some extra: Fire and Dark are also short of the cap, Stone when not in granite (e.g. fighting psi mobs), and even Ice has a horrible psi hole. SR is so for over the def cap on a tanker that ony +res makes any difference at all.

It also make resistance sets on stalkers significantly less gimped. The bottom line is if your have a res based set and can't hit the cap, then you get far more from +res than +def.

You are confusing my argument. I'm arguing that melee damage sets primarily do damage and should be judged accordingly. I've made this argument about 50 times in this thread, but I'll gladly repeat it again:

The benefit of damage can be measured moreso than the benefit of other effects. In fact, we have formulas relating damage to recharge and endurance (and AoE size when applicable). We do not have any way to judge the benefit of perks (-tohit, -def, heals, +res/def, -dam, etc.), especially in relation to the benefit of damage.

Therefore, any attempts to balance with perks will at best be guesstimates. That lack of accuracy causes a lack of balance in sets designed around their perks. Evidences of this:

Ice Melee
Most Ranged Attacks in Melee Sets
Dual Pistols
Electrical Blast
Devices
Ice Manipulation
etc.

As long as the perks caused by the secondary effects of the set do not cause the set to become demonstrably under/over-powered, the set should be balanced first and foremost around damage. As shown over my last few posts, single target damage is much more easily determined than AoE damage, so it should be balanced accordingly, not because it is more meaningful but because it is more accurate.

My opinion on the "advantage" of tactical sets: "it does not matter how you get there, but whether you get the job done." The end result is more important than the process. Devices is another "tactical" set and it absolutely does not get it done in comparison to other blaster secondaries. Dual Pistols is better, but again sacrifices the end result for the process.

And the benefit of using FE (or other damage buffs) in combination with FoB is overstated. FE increases all damage (except for procs/reactive) the same amount (~40%), and thus the ratio of damage dealt will be the same as without FE active. Therefore, FoB will be just as useful as it is without FE active, because it will either be better to use standard attacks with the damage buff or use Sky Splitter for the bonus damage. That is the real problem with so-called tactical sets: either they sacrifice actual potential for the illusion of choice, or one option is clearly the best (ie: Incendiary Ammo).

And if you want choice, you should support my actual fix. Increasing the value of FoB and FoM will only increase the value of choice.

The magnitude of the effects makes FoM considerably less valuable than FoS. That isn't in question. In addition to the endurance reduction, Sky Splitter grants a fair amount of regeneration while in FoS, and the side effects of FoM are considerably worse.

Let me put it this way: Which is better, a few seconds off your clicks, or nearly double the value of base Stamina/Health and an SOs worth of endurance reduction? Very rarely will FoM win. Heck, it won't win 50% even with my suggestion. But at least things would have slightly more parity.

My apologies, as CoD had the effect at 7.5%.

I used Invulnerability because Tough grants Smashing/Lethal resistance and Invul could get close enough to the S/L resistance cap that the resistance could become more useful than 10% defense and because it would allow tough to be skipped, theoretically.

However, for defending against psy attacks, 10% def to positionals will almost always be worth more than 10% to psionic resistance. For sets will nill in either resists or defense, it will be worth twice as much. It will also be of more benefit in lower levels.

As for SR, it gains several things from /MA. First, it gains softcap by level 22 (earlier possibly with DFB SOs or IOs/DOs). Secondly, it gains a much easier I-softcap, allowing it avoid slotting tough with a +def unique, and basically affirming musculature as the alpha. It should be noted that even with with 3 IOs in the toggles and passives, and Storm Kick, SR/ only gets to 51.2%, so it still has plenty to gain from additional defense. It especially benefits in that it doesn't have to run 3-4 extra toggles for defense, allowing it to pick up Hasten, Aid Self, Spring Attack, and other useful pool powers. Whereas it would gain less from 10% more resistance.

I was trying to make Dark Melee feel good about itself. I know it's an old title, but hey.

It's still not a 'defensive set' just because it has a -ToHit Debuff and a Heal. A lot of nice soft mitigation? Definitely.

I think we probably need to figure out what constitutes a 'defensive set', in the end. Is it the fact it has secondary effects built for survivability? If so, where is the line drawn between Practical and Excessive?

I'll always say the best Defense is an Overwhelming offense, in the end. I could stack -ToHit to high heaven with Dark Melee but I'd rather just kill everything with Titan Weapons infinitely faster.

I know EXACTLY what you are arguing. The issue is, I don't AGREE with it.

True. You can never completely balance one effect against a different kind of effect, which means that powersets in CoH are NEVER perfectly balanced. That's the charm of the game. *****-retentive attempts to make things perfectly "balanced" is what kills choice and variety, and what did for me in a certain recently released high profile MMO.

Exactly. "Your opinion". The fact is that people are still happy to play those sets, so your opinion doesn't matter in the slightest.

The thing is the people that take that position don't want anyone else to have fun playing the sets they don't feel measure up to the particular min/max stance they decide to take regarding any given set in question.

For staff the complaints I have seen make no sense whatsoever because it is not a matter of under performance, it's a matter of it is not top tier killing a GD pylon. Absurdity.....

... More like that it doesn't justify it's Single Target damage. Three AoEs? Nothing special, considering the PBAoE isn't very good, and the two cones are Decent/Good at best.

It did the fatal mistake of having a "Melee Ranged Attack", which always end up pretty lackluster. Hint: Serpent's Reach is Lackluster.

And Sky Splitter is probably the worst damage power in the set. I thought we moved away from those Slow and Crappy attacks a long time ago?

So, yeah. It's more of a complaint of "... Where's the Single Target damage, guys? The AoE is nothing to write home about."

Then play Titan Weapons. If you can't abide anything but the highest AoE kill rates (edit: or even single-target), then you should play the sets that do that.

You of all posters should know that they will never balance the other sets up to those levels so long as those sets do anything else. Other sets do other things that you clearly don't value because, essentially, your primary interest an edge case in the game - the case of high-synergy builds with functionally infinite endurance and high recharge. But no matter how important that context of gameplay may be to you (and to others in this thread), it is not the only context that exists, and therefore it is not the only context for which the devs will attempt balance.

I never said they did. My question should have been fairly simple, but I'll make it obvious since you may have missed it in context;

"Is Titan Weapons a Defensive Set due to having overwhelming damage and thusly superior kill rates? Enemies with 0 HP Can't attack, right?"

For some what you state as the issue is correct, but it does not make it true for those that bought, play and enjoy the set. I mean the rhetoric here is indeed absurd when you have people PLing themselves X8 with the nothing to write home about AOE's of which you speak.

People love the set.

Are we choosing to ignore IOs? I disagree. As they are now part of the monetary business model, while they may be ignored (questionable) in game balance, they are easy to get during this point, eight years later, since launch. Granted they weren't out at launch.

So, yes. It's a serious question. What defines a Defense Set? Titan Weapons has a lot of soft mitigation in Stuns, Knockdowns, and raw damage. Is it not a Defensive Set unless it has also +DEF, +RES, and/or a Heal? TW has +DEF. Is it not a Defensive Set now?

Is this supposed to be a counter-statement? Because it's not.

"People love the set." is not a counter-statement to "Is the set an underperformer?"

Its a high mitigation set. Super Reflexes is a defensive set. Dark Melee is very strong defensively for a melee offense set.


It takes a lot of recharge to kill infinitely faster with Titan Weapons. But if that's what you want to do, the game offers you Titan Weapons as an option.

And while your opinion is that the best defense is overwhelming offense, there's an entire archetype that would like to suggest that the best defense is defense. Unless you can kill everything literally instantly, high offense doesn't translate to high survivability. What happens is you just end up killing faster, and thus moving quicker and facing more things, and taking a comparable level of incoming damage. That's why blasters can kill fast and still die. The faster kill speed just puts them right back into harms way quicker.

High offense is high offense. High offense is not equal to high defense. Its always been assumed that there was some equivalence between the two, but to a first order approximation there's no connection between the two at all.

Nice try Reppu.

People love the set.

The set is not an under performer.

You don't believe that a damage powerset should be balanced according to the damage it deals in a way that prevents ridiculously underpowered and overpowered sets? We'll have to agree to disagree.

Balance is bad if it simply reskins different powersets. Balance is good if it prevents abuse and/or underperformance. CoH has many ways to OPness, and ideally balance would not change the feel of the sets, just the result. And please don't try to tell people that what makes CoH good is that certain powersets are badly balanced. That argument would just fly with /Devices Blasters, I6 Stalkers, I0 Dark Miasma characters, etc.

From this point forward, you can never say that the game should be more balanced, and I will use this quote to silence anyone wishing for any type of buff to an underperforming set.

People liking sets SHOULD NOT prevent those sets from changed if they are underpowered. People liked played PBs, yet the devs have buffed them. People liked Stalkers, and yet the devs buffed them. People liked Blasters, and the devs have tried several times to buff them.

People like devices. People like Ice Melee. In fact, there are probably people that like just about every and AT. But when a powerset is underperforming, it should be brought at least up to average or serviceable.

Fact of the matter is, your argument is silly. It shouldn't matter whether a person wants to play a tactical set or a brute force set; either should get the job done. I'm not trying to "kill" playstyles, but promote them by actually make them equal choices. By punishing people for playing a certain way, you are restricting diversity, not promoting it.

The thing is people are in the game right now on Staff toons killing X8 spawns so the call that the set is under performing is hogwash and the devs and most players know this.

Nobody here is saying it is top tier, but to say that it is under performing is ridiculous and false.