Powerset Comparisons

When I look over the threads in this section I am shocked and a little dismayed with a though I had about how people go about comparing sets in the game. I come at this from the perspective of a classroom teacher, and I deal with this particular issue all the time from parents of my students.

Why is it that when people compare powersets in the game and judge their relative effectiveness that they always use sets that are the outliers and not the averages to compare?

For example, people almost always compare the damage buff from Stacked Rage or from Fulcrum Shift when judging how well a set compares. People use the debuffs in Radiation Emission to judge the effectiveness of debuffs in general. The debuffs from Rad are especially effective vs. hard targets (think AVs, GMs, etc.) but based solely on their numbers it is not so exceptional. On the low end think of how people compare to sets that are seen as underperforming. Is Beast Mastery really so bad? When you compare them to Bots maybe, but when you look at them compared to Mercs or Ninjas they aren't so bad.

I think we need to change how we look at the powers in this game. When you compare between sets we should use the middle to judge not the high or low end. When you judge everything from the outliers, those which are OP/UP will skew the perceptions of the readers and make it difficult for them to accept other positions.

I did read your post, twice to make sure I understood it. I only used examples of Masterminds sets, but I could have easily used any powerset group in making a comparison. There are problems in support sets (see the other post in this sub-forum), blast sets, melee sets, armor sets, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't have used Masterminds as an example. It is the archtype I play least (except for maybe Defenders) and I base my example on the statements of others that I have read in the forums. I apologize. I should have used sets I have more personal knowledge of in making my examples. Then again, the examples were not the point of my post at all.

I think you are missing the point Drae.
The OP isnt (at least I think) complaining about ANY specific sets, be it melee, blaster etc etc. They are talknig about HOW sets get compared. Such as in Claw's "Tweak SS' thread, were a few people dived in with huge examples of how SS, at max performance, is not 'that' amazing. Which as I said there..is really pointless, since how often do we play at max everything?

That is how I read the OP anyway..saying that comparing a set to another at max settings is just not really helping. There is always going to be outlier sets, but if one set, at 'base line' performance is X amount better than another at base, we can compare that.

Well that is ok, I long ago faced and made friends with my inner jerk. I'd rather be right and an *** than wrong (perhaps less correct, or having a differing opinion would work better here).
And I was just turning it about..the request..well..demand..I pull a comparison out of my hat, came off as quite rude to me. Just sending it back with interest.

Oh I give up..you are still missing the whole point the OP is trying to make.

I dont think so but if that is how you feel then, that is ok. Different perceptions in different eyes. It's only natural.

Quote:

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!

Just to start the discussion (argument?) again..I think part of the problem with wanting and finding average comparisons is that the average person..most likely (judging from all the players I know) wont actually LOOK on the forums for advice. They will just ask in game on Help, ask friends etc etc.
The ones posting are more of the min max type, and WANT those end level talks about best performance.
So yes..in that regard..the average builds ARE a bit less common, on here. And as Klaw said, it can be misleading for a newer player to see that and think a set needs it all to be any good.