Adjusting Super Strength.

Except whether a powerset specifically performs in a particular way within the context of a particular archetype is not a matter of opinion. Fury, for example, materially changes the impact of damage buffs within a damage set. It is therefore mathematically *impossible* to make any damage set work in the same way for Brutes and non-Brutes if they contain significant damage strength buffs. The archetypes simply do not scale proportionately in that fashion.

The notion that if a powerset works for archetype X it must work for archetype Y has been proven false countless times over the years. Whether its possible to balance an offensive set in other ways between the archetypes is a separate question, but the notion that its automatically true that a set balanced for one melee archetype must be balanced for the other three is objectively false.

That's not what I said. I'm not going to argue with you about what I said, but I did not make the contention you stated.

Whoever said this:

is wrong.

I should be more precise: everyone who has said that, player and dev, was wrong when they said it. That if-then statement is false regardless of utterer.

I was just about to quote that.

OK, you win too then.

Disclaimer: Know Arcana replied but i have not read her reply yet.

That would just prove that the set is not compatible with the AT as it stands. Not all power sets work for all ATs. The sets that to this date have not been proliferated are mostly sets that break specific AT performance thresholds or mechanics (Fire for Stalkers is a great example.)

Anyways, just to prove a point: did you know that among Brutes (excluding Epic/Patron Pools) Super Strength is actually weaker relative to other sets than it is for tankers? This is due to its heavy reliance on +Damage with weaker base attacks to boost, meaning Fury has less impact than you would expect. This does not make the set broken, but it's a bit more accepted for brutes because they still don’t underperform.

The same applies for all sets that have a sustainable alternative to buildup, like Follow Up, but at a lesser degree because of lower damage buff.

The thing with scrappers is that the developers designed/tweaked an AT around the idea of critical hits meaning double damage, and giving them stronger damage buffs for stronger bursts, but then decided they didn't feel comfortable with anyone in the game doing over X level of damage even in random form.

Basically, it's not the set that it's broken, its just an incompatibility with established rules and acceptable repercussions of said rules.

Don't take it personal, but yea what she said.

Now, don't take me wrong, I don't actually think Super Strength is performing acceptably anyways for the reasons I noted in a previous post.

Thing is, if the set had to be ported to Scrappers, it may need additonal design consessions, but the devs appear to dislike making exceptions if they can.

New rules may be needed to balance things out for the AT.

Rage would do three different things for the three different non-stalker melee archetypes, if we look specifically at damage buff:

1. It buffs +80% dmg for tankers

2. It buffs +80% dmg for brutes, which including fury is proportionately about half the benefit.

3. It would buff +100% for scrappers without a proliferation adjustment.

There's no reason to believe its performance as a tanker secondary correlates to its performance as a brute primary or that either would correlate to its performance as a scrapper primary. Rage is 25% stronger on scrappers than tankers, and 50% weaker on brutes than tankers. Those are balance-significant numbers. Even if you assume Rage gets adjusted for scrappers, which target do you aim at: the Brute target or the Tanker target? They are a factor of two apart.

Super strength cannot be balanced for both Brutes and Tankers simultaneously with that huge difference in damage buff benefit. Particularly as its facing the wrong way: towards a higher offensive benefit for Tankers.

Did I say where exactly you were wrong? No. Just that you were wrong. I could, in fact, be referring to an *entirely different* conversation, and just happened to pick this particular venue, vis-a-vis this thread on these very boards, to remind you that you were, indeed, wrong.

Contractual obligations and all that.

See my Guides and Tutorials

I often find myself jumping back and forth between the idea that Brutes get "unfair" advantage of damage buffs and "well, THATS how they pay for the fact that they have tanking capabilities while scrappers don't."

But when it comes to sets like SS, where the entire set baseline suddenly becomes the power... things get a bit more gray. But I like to think it works fine as is and the brutes are in the "penalized by divine coincidence" stance.

This would mean that Scrappers should be looking back a the source Tanker material.

Ideally, though, I would had liked if all versions of the set behaved different. With Brute Rage boosting Fury generation rage, and Scrapper perhaps somehow boosting critical rate instead.

Rename them for each AT:
Tanker: Rage
Brute: Enfuriate
Scrapper: Enrage

There still are issues with KoB and the way criticals have been managed so far, though. I think the strongest attack I have seen for scrappers is Cleave doing a wooping 5.52ds in a crit chance (and it's a small cone!)

I would say: settle in that number as the "Crit cap per blow" and from now on, any attack that goes over that simply does (5.52 - BaseDS) with (5.52 - BaseDS)/BaseDS chance to crit.

This would mean for KoB a 1.96 crit with a 55% chance to crit.

You win too!

Here's the thing, I purposefully used the words 'overpowered' and 'fair' instead of 'balanced'. I tend to think it's all BS, since the devs can change their balance goals any time the person with final decision-making authority says.

I think if you are going to have different ATs where in the general case one AT is supposed to do more damage or be more survivable or whatever, then you need to not have power sets that can't be transferred directly. Of course that is not true now. But I think it should be.

Arcanaville, Ultimus and you win, because my comment could be read as an objective evaluation of SS. I did not mean to leave that impression, but it is certainly a fair reading of my post. I haven't taken my blood pressure medication today and so chose for my mental and physical health to concede victory!

Fair enough but you are wrong, because you were right, but now you're wrong and.... wait what?

In the general case, none of the powersets are really transferrable directly in a way that preserves archetype intent. Some just break less things than others.

And that's after first handwaving away all the "obvious" problems with proliferation: removing or rewriting criticals, eliminating or altering gauntlet - we just *assume* the inherent or archetype-specific features are just plug and play, but they aren't always. Martial Arts is a canonical example of what happens when you adapt one set to one archtype: the better you fit it to one, the harder it becomes to port it to others. But the alternative of making sets that fit nothing, so every archetype is equally unserved by it and thus creates no proliferation problems is highly unpalatable.

This doesn't just happen to melee archetypes. Containment alters the way control sets benefit Controllers and Dominators: its possible for a control set to work for one but not the other, to be too powerful for one but not the other.

I disagree.

It's not a competition or fight, you know? Besides, if it was... would not be fun if you just quit!!!

I think here lies a problem with communication: each AT should not just be different points in a levered stick between damage and survivability. Every AT should actually have an entirely different feel and gameplay mechanic.

Stalkers are the only AT where this is sort-of-obvious, every powerset that lands in their hands gets altered to accomodate AT design.

I find it a bit unfortunate that other than Taunt the Power and effects that nearly feel secondary (Taunt/Gauntlet/Critical) there is next to no hard wall telling players "this is supposed to play differently."

OK, you win.



I don't know that I agree with that. I certainly think powersets should feel different when played, but I'm not sure that I think there needs to be this chasm of difference between Tankers, Brutes, & Scrappers. I also don't think we need all three of those ATs (and Stalkers) but that's another discussion.

I think Defenders should feel vastly different than Scrappers and they do. But they serve vastly different roles.

I don't necessarily think it's unfortunate, just an artifact of having too many ATs that do basically the same thing.

So long as they exist they need to be differentiated. If the devs ever forget that, they will have no one to blame but themselves for the self-inflicted consequences they will generate. They will be harsh.

In your opinion are they different enough now? That's not an incitement to argument, I'm curious about your position on that given your last sentence.

Not really, but the more they overlap the more the devs will encourage comparisons they won't be happy about encouraging. There's a difference between not fixing the air conditioner and setting the house on fire.

Setting the house on fire is more memorable though.

yes

Originally Posted by mauk2 Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words. "Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard. Never change, E_L!

Late reply (was my night time). Sorry Hope, I realised after my 'wtf 5 seconds' post that you might have been talking about the proc. I was just very confused about the idea it could be 5 secs..when as you say..the crash is always 10.

Most of the list is good and inline with what Claws was saying in his OP. But..a resistance debuff? Even if it IS resistable? That is as silly as the current crash only hurting (mostly) Defence based sets! Either it should be impacting both, or none.
Another problem I see with a rage toggle (and just rage in general) is the massive +to hit. 20% in a huge value. Maybe it could stand to be lowered..? But..then again, a toggle with a cost like that, is somewhat comparable to FocAcc (pre nerf).