ParagonKid

I've never felt like this was fair, because on that spectrum of damage -to- defense, there has always been an imaginary point on there where, once you go to the right of it, it only becomes more and more detrimental. Once you are tough enough to survive the enemies you are facing, more toughness than that only punishes you. Stalkers and Scrappers have always been on the left side of that point (the best side to be on). Tankers, almost certainly to the right of it. Because of this, melee AT balance will always be a mess. I wholeheartedly believe that was the wrong axis to balance melee along, but we're stuck with it now. But it'll never be "fair" and Brutes will always struggle to wind up on the winning end of that ratio because that have the added burden of having their damage "ramp up"..

The two episodic story arcs were the crowning achievement of story content added just before game shut down. I especially liked the second one, Pandora's Box, because it was designed specifically to help progress your defeat badges for the Freedom Phalanx Reserve Member accolade.

Like I said earlier in the thread, any time someone talks about "fixing SS/Rage" or proliferating it to Scrappers, it seems like the same few people come out of the woodwork sniffing around looking to make sure the set comes out the other end worse. There is an irrational, emotional objection to the set by people who hide it under a veneer of balance discussion.

Correct. And I'm personally OK with Rage having a defense, endurance and damage time out if SS was actually crushing every other set for ST and AoE damage. It barely nudges into first place for Trapdoor on one AT. And all of this just discussing SS's numerical performance. Even if that issue was solved, it's still got thematic issues and is boring.

I'm saying you can keep the -def and -end IF SS is actually allowed to be a huge outlier. How that should be done is debatable. I'd look at the ST attacks, seeing as that is where SS lags in the standings.

"Yes Battle Axe doesn't have a crash, but it doesn't get a 120-second duration on Build Up either." It doesn't need a 120 second Build Up when it's beating/nearly matching Rage+SS without it, does it? Because SS is a worse set. And a worse set should not have to pay a crash penalty because of a power that merely bring it up to par. I would accept the crash if SS's actual performance towered over everything else. Power with a price. It simply does not, though. And that's on TOP of SS being boring and basic.

No. You're thinking about it the wrong way. Take Rage out of the picture. Now SS has no extra penalties. It's now just a collection of terrible attacks plus KO Blow. It's being outperformed by every set including Kinetic Melee, probably. So, bring Rage back in. Now you've taken on a unique 'tax' to endurance and defense. Now you're marginally better than the #2 Trapdoor set, who didn't have to play a price for that. And you're still only middling at Pylons, being outclassed by sets that, again, pay nothing for being better than you. So, no. SS should not be uniquely paying a "crash tax" for landing midway on any chart. You're insane to try and rationalize it.

Ah yes, the tests that used Super Strength's iconic attacks "Gloom" and "Crosspunch". Where SS ranked well for AoE Trapdoor, only on Brutes, but was decidedly mediocre for single target damage, but carries the penalties all the same even when you're not fighting something that plays to its strength and carries penalties that sets ranked as good or better still don't have. Do you really feel 200 milliseconds of difference from the next guy warrants a crash? Ice, Katana, Fire and Battleaxe do not have a crash. SS does not outperform anyone enough to warrant a special crash. It simply does not. In a course graded on a curve, SS scored an A on its Math test, a C on its English, someone declares SS Valedictorian and then shoots it in the foot as a reward even though most of the class did better in English and the next best Math score was also an A.

That's a subjective track of argument I try to avoid. Objectively, if a set has severe penalties built into and other sets do not, and it merely breaks even with those other sets, that is NOT BALANCED. To correct this, you either buff that one set until its performance is superior, you nerf ALL the other sets, or you remove the penalties. Or, the fourth option, you pretend it IS balanced, even overpowered, and try to gaslight anyone pointing out that it is not.

A set that carries extra penalties for being merely middle of the road is NOT okay. SS pays its dues, unlike any other melee set, and for that reason it warrants being the pinnacle of melee sets as long as every other set does not have artificial punishments inflicted on them.

"I am super strong." What makes you super strong? Do you punch much harder than people who aren't super strong? "In many cases, no." Do you lift heavy things? "No". Do you carry penalties that other people who hit just as hard (or harder) do not? "Yes." Why? "Nobody seems to be able to articulate why except to respond because I have a power that makes my numbers look big." But there are people with bigger numbers and they are not punished? "Yes". Like, it's just such an insane take to me to stan the Rage crash while looking at the set as a whole, and where it is in relation to every other melee attack set.

I am completely unimpressed with what 80/70% damage does to the attacks in the powerset in question. Or stacked, for that matter. The practical value of this for anything other than farming for resources in a game with a handful of people even playing it is vanishing. Have it cap my damage, what would it matter? Am I going to Hurl+Jab down Kronos solo? And if I did, so what? If the choice is between removing the Rage crash and SS becoming incontestably the best melee attack set, or having a crash punishment on a mediocre Issue Zero powerset, I'll pick the former and not lose a wink of sleep.

The crash actually gives the powerset some identity and without it, Super Strength would be even more bland. That's pretty sad that the worst part of the powerset is the only thing that makes it 'interesting'. It's an old powerset; a bad powerset, held up by the power of myth behind it. Iconic by name only. People like the 'idea' of the set more than the powers themselves, which I guess explains why Scrappers/Stalkers still want it.

I have 4 points of contention about the set. 1. Super Strength is barely a powerset. Rage, KO Blow and Footstomp is "it" for the set. Three powers that are actually worth talking about. Its boring, lacks thematics and is very basic. 2. Does Rage actually warrant a crash in 2025? I haven't see recent numbers, but for single target and area damage, it seems pretty middle of the road these days. I don't see the justification for the set carrying any drawbacks as long as other powersets that don't punish you can outperform it in any way. 3. I don't even understand at this point why Scrappers even want it. Other sets are better. As I said, MOST of it is a boring set with unremarkable and even just plain bad powers. You think you're going to crit on Handclap? 4. I don't...trust that anyone tinkering with the set is going to do anything other than nerf it. I approach it with the view that it's a mediocre set that will get ruined based on myths of what it once was supposed to be, isn't now, and truly never actually was.

Bruising buffed any proc/bonus/pet damage you did so it was different than the flat modifier increase.

If we get rid of Scrappers and Brutes and then give Tankers Fury so they have a real Inherent, all of the issues with the melee ATs crowding each other go away. I can see Tankers living in harmony with Stalkers like an old Coca-Cola commercial. EDIT: Rather than post another reply, I'll just add to this post. It's not very fun that Tankers don't have a real inherent/unique mechanic. Bigger AoEs was never something tangible. "I'm going to built this toon as a Tanker as opposed to a Scrapper because my cones will be larger". Scrappers have Crits. Brutes have Fury. Stalkers have the Hide/AS gameplay loop. One can argue they don't like those inherent mechanics, but they at least have them. Tankers have the absence of unique combat. Or, if you want to put it another way, their unique combat is that they're worse at it. Not fun. Bruising wasn't great, but it was something. I'll always be sore that it was taken from Tankers and not replaced with anything real. Gauntlet, or whatever you want to call what tankers currently get as an "inherent", isn't real the same way getting socks isn't a real Christmas present.

Because I'm tired of that being hung over SS as some kind of threat that the powerset will suddenly stop being earth-shatteringly overpowered. Because it's not. Like I said, I have no fear over then "ruining" Rage or SS because I refuse to touch them already. That boogyman holds no sway anymore; HC team saw to that. It's been how many years now they could have proliferated the set? I call the bluff. I'm double-dog daring them to port SS to Scrappers.

I used to think like that. But then I decided that I can't stand to play SS in its current form anymore and no longer care to excuse how HC has handled it. There's zero downside if they ruin it further if one is already not engaging with the set at all, yes? Latest issue being really underwhelming only brought that simmering discontentment to the forefront, especially with nothing else to distract from it.

Prove it. I've got data indicating it's very middle of the pack. You've got nothing.

In general, for single targets you fire off the powers in order of highest 'damage per activation time'. For SS that's usually simply running down the attacks in order strongest to weakest: KO Blow, Haymaker, Punch, Jab. If KO Blow finishes recharging before you get to Jab, for example, you'd execute KO Blow, then the next strongest attack that's available..

It's a better metric than the nothing you've produced to support your position.

It is a quantitative assessment based on the best performance data the community has harvested. You're the one dealing in subjective feelings.

Pretty damn good isn't good enough for having tacked on penalties while other melee sets are better yet don't have those.

More that they're victims of spread misinformation. They could also prefer to roll sets for RP reasons, or are just completing one of every powerset combo, or go in with eyes open but are hoping the set gets fixed one day. I imagine those would be the major reasons, but not all of them. Regarding removing the penalty: The penalty has 3 components to it. Only one of them affects DPS. Removing the other two, while leaving the damage penalty, would go towards making the set more fair without increasing performance. Alternatively, removing the damage penalty *would* increase performance, AND would make the other two penalty components more justified in remaining.

Absolutely it does. If you have Powerset A that does X giggleflops of damage per second and Powerset B that ALSO does X giggleflops of damage per second, but Powerset B also punches you in the nose, that's not balanced; why would any sane person pick Powerset B ever?* You either reduce A's damage, increase B's or remove the punches. The response "the punches ain't so bad' speaks more to your poor understanding of balancing than mine. To further illustrate my point with your own example of Staff: Staff sacrifices damage for the flexibly of the Stances mechanic. If Staff did X giggleflops of DPS and kept the Stances, why would you not pick Staff always? Conversely, to be balanced, SS ought to gain superior damage over sets that do not have a built in crash/penalty because it HAS a crash/penalty. You balance a pro with a con, and a con with a pro. SS has a con, but no pro compared to other sets which do as good or better. *The answer in the case of Super Strength is that people pick it because they are told to ignore the numbers and overlook the penalty by people who don't really know anything.