Feedback: Testing Melee Set Performance

[TheAdjustor]

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

We're not trying to represent the Defensive Power of these powersets. We're trying to ascertain their primary combat capabilities. DPS, Average time to Kill, things like that. We should use minimally effective custom NPCs because we're not trying to test a player's ability to run away and recover or pop a tray of inspirations or use temp powers or any of that.

 

We're testing the capabilities of the Attack Powersets.

 

It's true that Brute Damage is more variable than a Tanker's, but a Brute's ramp up should be 'about' the same for any given test, since they'll be on SOs it's unlikely to get above the 70-75% degree. Less so with an x4 group sizing.

 

As to the Blaster PC: We can just dual-box a second account, follow, autofire Energy Torrent. Every 12 seconds the placement of enemies will change is the result of that method.

Oh because secondary effects don't  count for anything ? 

 

You don't do much damage if you are not alive. Oh maybe I shouldn't do it, there is no limit to envy and I can easily see calls for dark melee to be nerfed because it's far more survivable than anything else.

Edited September 15, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[TheAdjustor]

38 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

But if you were partnered with a blaster with KB on an outdoor map it would meet all the criteria.

 

The outdoor comicon maps are just like the Jamison Park outdoor maps from Tina Mac and Maria.

 

Only thing its missing is different damage types, but that shouldn't matter because we aren't testing resistance.

 

There should be some other way to test the different Attack set damage types against various enemy group resists though.  That needs to be factored in as well.

 

Inspirations shouldn't be used IMO for a good baseline.

Have to disagree on that. It's a problem with the pylon test that shifts the test towards sets that make good use of procs. While there is still a benefit for heavily proccing out a set it's reduced as global damage bonus increases (as a percentage not in the absolute)

 

The -res procs are also problematical in that they can only be applied at most once per enemy IIRC.  So having them in a build would by nature overstate their effect.  It's very had to quantify much the way secondary effects are. TW has a very nice +def ability that Pylon builds don't take advantage of, but can be very useful against enemies like Devouring earth of Rularu.

Edited September 15, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[Hopeling]

31 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Oh because secondary effects don't  count for anything ?

No, just because that's literally not what we're trying to measure right now. First we want a working baseline damage comparison. Once we have that, we can add different test conditions to account for things like secondary effects or knockback from teammates. Moreover, if durability is an issue, that limits certain kinds of testing. Maybe you want to turn it up to +2 instead of +0 and see if TW suffers much more than other sets from reduced hit chance, but if every build just dies a lot on +2, you're not going to get very useful data.

 

Like you say, TW offers pretty good mitigation, with a Parry-type buff and multiple powers with high chance for knockdown. Ignoring them isn't going to make TW look any stronger.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Hopeling

[Haijinx]

On the pylon thread they have put together an AE archvillian arc for testing.  Perhaps you could use that for some of this.

[TheAdjustor]

9 minutes ago, Hopeling said:

No, just because that's literally not what we're trying to measure right now. First we want a working baseline damage comparison. Once we have that, we can add different test conditions to account for things like secondary effects or knockback from teammates. Moreover, if durability is an issue, that limits certain kinds of testing. Maybe you want to turn it up to +2 instead of +0 and see if TW suffers much more than other sets from reduced hit chance, but if every build just dies a lot on +2, you're not going to get very useful data.

 

Like you say, TW offers pretty good mitigation, with a Parry-type buff and multiple powers with high chance for knockdown. Ignoring them isn't going to make TW look any stronger.

I am sorry but that's exactly wrong. It's also exactly how so many bad changes happened on live.  Sets are holistic, they don't just provide damage, they also provide control and survivability. War Mace for example has an incredible amount of mitigation by tossing out stuns all over the place, Dark has -to hit and an incredible heal.  The only reason to nerf a set is that it breaks the game not because people have pylon time envy. 

 

If this is to be a proper test it should be against Arachnos, Devouring Earth and Rularu.  There is also the whole incarnate vs non incarnate as well in there. Incarnates by their very design took a 20 pound sledge hammer to the game broke in pieces and then started grinding the pieces to dust.

[TheAdjustor]

6 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

On the pylon thread they have put together an AE archvillian arc for testing.  Perhaps you could use that for some of this.

Good start. I haven't tried the arc but it would need to have a good representative sample of enemy types.  IIRC the most resisted types of damage in the game are S/L followed by energy.  Don't hold me to this but I think Negative and fire are both barely resisted. Anything that doesn't represent this is an inherently biased test. (That's a problem with pylons that have 20% resistance to everything and no defense)

[Hopeling]

Just now, TheAdjustor said:

I am sorry but that's exactly wrong. It's also exactly how so many bad changes happened on live.  Sets are holistic, they don't just provide damage, they also provide control and survivability.

I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with me about. I agree that secondary effects exist and are important. I said as much above.

[TheAdjustor]

19 minutes ago, Hopeling said:

I'm not sure what you think you're disagreeing with me about. I agree that secondary effects exist and are important. I said as much above.

Baseline damage is meaningless, it's the stuff of e-peen and to a lesser extent farming. It's been awhile but I seem to remember someone soloing two AVs at the same time according to the rules of scrapper challenge on live. The video may still be up, I think they used Katana or Dark (A very impressive thing either way), I doubt I could manage it. Should other sets be nerfed down to their level ?

 

Admittedly I am biased. The more I look over this thread the more I think sets like dual blades, Street Justice, staff that force you to play mini games get their top performance need to be boosted. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[DSorrow]

21 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

The only reason to nerf a set is that it breaks the game not because people have pylon time envy.

It doesn't need to break the game to warrant a nerf. If there is a noticeable lack of parity between sets, adjustments are needed and sometimes those need to be buffs. While TW doesn't currently break the game it does pose an issue for future content which I think we all want. If the new content is supposed to be at least slightly challenging for your average team, there are going to be a lot of teams who only accept top performing sets. Players looking for the easiest way to rewards is what you see in all games, including this one: 1-2 Brute + 6-7 Corr LRSFs back in the day, people grinding BAF for incarnates, MSR for merits (pre nerf) and so on. Yes, more difficult content still sees the light of day but any time there's an easy way, a significant portion of the community will choose it and sometimes this might have negative side effects. If CoX were to stay completely static until the end of time, then I don't think the current state of TW would be critical.

 

As for pylon test envy, that's just a silly argument. Many of the posters in the thread who think a slight nerf would be justified (including me) play TW. It's not that I want it nerfed because I enjoy it like it is, but it's just impossible to hand wave all the evidence pointing to the fact that it's at least a bit too good. Because the evidence has me convinced that it's pretty likely to be nerfed, I think it's better to try and come up with an appropriate adjustment rather than try to argue that the lack of balance is fine.

[TheAdjustor]

1 minute ago, DSorrow said:

It doesn't need to break the game to warrant a nerf. If there is a noticeable lack of parity between sets, adjustments are needed and sometimes those need to be buffs. While TW doesn't currently break the game it does pose an issue for future content which I think we all want. If the new content is supposed to be at least slightly challenging for your average team, there are going to be a lot of teams who only accept top performing sets. Players looking for the easiest way to rewards is what you see in all games, including this one: 1-2 Brute + 6-7 Corr LRSFs back in the day, people grinding BAF for incarnates, MSR for merits (pre nerf) and so on. Yes, more difficult content still sees the light of day but any time there's an easy way, a significant portion of the community will choose it and sometimes this might have negative side effects. If CoX were to stay completely static until the end of time, then I don't think the current state of TW would be critical.

 

As for pylon test envy, that's just a silly argument. Many of the posters in the thread who think a slight nerf would be justified (including me) play TW. It's not that I want it nerfed because I enjoy it like it is, but it's just impossible to hand wave all the evidence pointing to the fact that it's at least a bit too good. Because the evidence has me convinced that it's pretty likely to be nerfed, I think it's better to try and come up with an appropriate adjustment rather than try to argue that the lack of balance is fine.

 

What are you balancing against ? Fire is by far and away the most damaging of the blast sets and has been since day one(it's damage is actually understated as well since it is also one of the least resisted damage types both in pve and pvp).  Should it be nerfed ? 

 

Anyway you get to the point, so far there has been no proof that an adjustment is even needed. All this thread has shown, is that some players will always prefer the metagame of screwing with other players and attempting moral projection and most people don't understand assuming the conclusion is not a valid form of argument.

[DSorrow]

18 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

It's been awhile but I seem to remember someone soloing two AVs at the same time according to the rules of scrapper challenge on live. The video may still be up, I think they used Katana or Dark (A very impressive thing either way), I doubt I could manage it. Should other sets be nerfed down to their level ?

I did 4 or 5 at the same time on my Kat/Inv back in the day. They were hand picked, of course, to mostly do S/L damage so that I could survive it. That said, I don't think soloing several AVs at once is a similar issue to TW because that feat isn't powerset specific. I'd be convinced of a problem if there was a powerset that was significantly more survivable than others, or an offensive set that was capable of doing it significantly faster than others, especially if the latter was also great in the non-niche parts of the game.

 

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

Fire is by far and away the most damaging of the blast sets and has been since day one(it's damage is actually understated as well since it is also one of the least resisted damage types both in pve and pvp).  Should it be nerfed ? 

 

It's a big part of the powerset design that many of them have niches where they are particularly good at, but usually they come with much heftier costs than what TW gets. Fire Blast doesn't have any actual secondary effects, Dark Melee has great single target damage and survivability, but its AoE is crap. Spines gets great AoE at the expense of ST damage. TW definitely needs to get something for the clunkiness and endurance cost, but what it gets now just appears to be too much. Besides, nobody is suggesting that everything should perform exactly the same according to a magical formula, but that that performance should be reasonably close together after you account for secondary effects and stuff like combos / clunkiness.

 

3 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Anyway you get to the point, so far there has been no proof that an adjustment is even needed.

So Titan Weapons getting extra damage on top of the damage formula on literally every attack, extra damage over times on top of that plus great soft control, decent DPA without Momentum and Defensive Sweep doesn't point to the direction that it's maybe slightly too good? Hand waving all that evidence is basically the same as saying that EM is fine because it isn't completely useless.

[TheAdjustor]

2 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

I did 4 or 5 at the same time on my Kat/Inv back in the day. They were hand picked, of course, to mostly do S/L damage so that I could survive it. That said, I don't think soloing several AVs at once is a similar issue to TW because that feat isn't powerset specific. I'd be convinced of a problem if there was a powerset that was significantly more survivable than others, or an offensive set that was capable of doing it significantly faster than others, especially if the latter was also great in the non-niche parts of the game.

 

 

It's a big part of the powerset design that many of them have niches where they are particularly good at, but usually they come with much heftier costs than what TW gets. Fire Blast doesn't have any actual secondary effects, Dark Melee has great single target damage and survivability, but its AoE is crap. Spines gets great AoE at the expense of ST damage. TW definitely needs to get something for the clunkiness and endurance cost, but what it gets now just appears to be too much. Besides, nobody is suggesting that everything should perform exactly the same according to a magical formula, but that that performance should be reasonably close together after you account for secondary effects and stuff like combos / clunkiness.

 

So Titan Weapons getting extra damage on top of the damage formula on literally every attack, extra damage over times on top of that plus great soft control, decent DPA without Momentum and Defensive Sweep doesn't point to the direction that it's maybe slightly too good? Hand waving all that evidence is basically the same as saying that EM is fine because it isn't completely useless.

It's kind of funny as fire has great damage good end usage and very fast activation but you are fine with that because that's it's niche. DM has great single target damage and the best survivability of any melee set is also ok.   I could rattle off the facts that undercut your position but what good would it do ? You like other in the thread aren't open to them.

 

I give Galaxy Brain this, he polarized this issue and made it raise enough smoke that it got noticed he will probably accomplish the goal of sickening people on the game and having wasted a lot of people's time. GG

 

 

[Hopeling]

49 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

Baseline damage is meaningless, it's the stuff of e-peen and to a lesser extent farming. It's been awhile but I seem to remember someone soloing two AVs at the same time according to the rules of scrapper challenge on live. The video may still be up, I think they used Katana or Dark (A very impressive thing either way), I doubt I could manage it. Should other sets be nerfed down to their level ?

 

Admittedly I am biased. The more I look over this thread the more I think sets like dual blades, Street Justice, staff that force you to play mini games get their top performance need to be boosted. 

I don't think you're understanding my point.

 

I agree that secondary effects are important. But TW has very good secondary effects. I'm proposing a test that ignores them because I think TW has some of the best mitigation out of any melee set. It has Katana's defense buff plus War Mace's knockdown. I'm saying we should handicap TW by taking that away, and see if it still overperforms.

 

This isn't me trying to put my thumb on the scales; just the opposite. This is me accepting the burden of proof. If we run these tests and TW comes back in the middle of the pack, then I'd have to admit I was wrong - maybe it deals "pretty good" damage and has good mitigation, but that's not the monster performance I think it has, and doesn't warrant a nerf. But if it comes back top of the pack for pure damage, AND also has great mitigation on top of that, that suggests it does. I'm making a declaration against interest.

32 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

What are you balancing against ? Fire is by far and away the most damaging of the blast sets and has been since day one(it's damage is actually understated as well since it is also one of the least resisted damage types both in pve and pvp).  Should it be nerfed ?

Not just on the basis of its damage, but that's because the comparison here goes the other way. Fire Blast deals more damage than Ice Blast because Ice Blast gets much better secondary effects; that's a fair tradeoff. But if Fiery Melee deals less damage than TW, and TW gets much better secondary effects, where's the tradeoff?

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hopeling

[DSorrow]

Just now, TheAdjustor said:

It's kind of funny as fire has great damage good end usage and very fast activation but you are fine with that because that's it's niche.

Yes, because it doesn't get great soft control and even more extra damage on top of the DoT.

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

DM has great single target damage and the best survivability of any melee set is also ok. 

Yes, because it pays for that with a basically complete lack of AoE.

 

What is TW's niche? Being exceptionally good at both ST and AoE, having soft control, extra damage on top of extra damage? All for the cost of being "clunky" and endurance intensive? I couldn't say with a straight face that what TW gets is appropriate for the cost. It deserves something, but I can't come up with any justification for it getting as much as it gets now.

 

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

You like other in the thread aren't open to them.

I'm completely open to having my mind changed. I've already done it once, my starting position was that nothing needs to be done to TW. After reviewing the evidence posted, I think nothing needs to be done to it right now, but it wouldn't be unjustified to bring it down a notch and that it would probably be a good thing in the long run, assuming we're getting new high-end content. Hand waving evidence, on the other hand, seems very much like the epitome of "not open to changing one's mind".

 

4 minutes ago, TheAdjustor said:

I give Galaxy Brain this, he polarized this issue and made it raise enough smoke that it got noticed he will probably accomplish the goal of sickening people on the game and having wasted a lot of people's time.

If anything, venomizing the discussion like that is polarizing the issue. This isn't camp "TW is fine" vs "nuke TW from orbit" and it doesn't help the discussion to try and frame it that way.

[Haijinx]

40 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

It doesn't need to break the game to warrant a nerf. If there is a noticeable lack of parity between sets, adjustments are needed and sometimes those need to be buffs.

I think if a fair enough test comes out of this (and other) Efforts

 

We will probably identify more underperformers than overperformers.  

 

For example Electric melee probably needs better ST, Good old EM, Broad Sword due to DPA issues, and so on.  

 

Of course part of the testing could be to establish a Median range of Melee Performance.   

 

Based on the (admittedly weak) examples of Pylon testing that is probably somewhere between 400-500 DPS ST for a /Bio Scrapper with a max IO/incarnate build.

  

 

[TheAdjustor]

5 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I think if a fair enough test comes out of this (and other) Efforts

 

We will probably identify more underperformers than overperformers.  

 

For example Electric melee probably needs better ST, Good old EM, Broad Sword due to DPA issues, and so on.  

 

Of course part of the testing could be to establish a Median range of Melee Performance.   

 

Based on the (admittedly weak) examples of Pylon testing that is probably somewhere between 400-500 DPS ST for a /Bio Scrapper with a max IO/incarnate build.

  

 

I wasn't going to comment any further in this thread as every post draws more attention to a topic that should be taken out and shot, but this seems very much to have the right  of it. If anything it winds up being an argument for nerfing all the melee sets.  500 dps for the very survivable melee characters is ridiculous. There's no risk to compensate. You take a look and the very best blaster results are barely cracking 500 and to do that they have nowhere near the survivability and have to give up most of what they do have to be in melee to do it.

Edited September 16, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, TheAdjustor said:

I wasn't going to comment any further in this thread as every post draws more attention to a topic that should be taken out and shot, but this seems very much on the right but, if anything it winds up being an argument for nerfing all the melee sets.  500 dps for the very survivable melee characters is ridiculous. There's no risk to compensate. You take a look and the very best blaster results are barely cracking 500 and to do that they have nowhere near the survivability and have to give up most of what they do have to be in melee to do it.

Hmm.  I have no idea what it should be really as far as risk/damage output.  

 

I will note Blasters typically have better AOE than any Melee character by a good margin.  

 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

I think if a fair enough test comes out of this (and other) Efforts

 

We will probably identify more underperformers than overperformers.  

 

For example Electric melee probably needs better ST, Good old EM, Broad Sword due to DPA issues, and so on.  

 

Of course part of the testing could be to establish a Median range of Melee Performance.   

 

Based on the (admittedly weak) examples of Pylon testing that is probably somewhere between 400-500 DPS ST for a /Bio Scrapper with a max IO/incarnate build.

  

 

yeah electric melee needs help, i rolled one on test for the upcoming tanker changes, and not anymore  lol

[MunkiLord]

TW over performs, I'm fine with it. I still don't think it deserves a nerf. People are having fun playing it and it's not breaking the game, so it should be left alone.

 

The mythical future harder content problem can be addressed when and if it actually becomes a problem. Until such time that is a purely made up reason not based in actual reality, but instead complete speculation. 

 

If other players get pissy because some TW is destroying mobs on their team, oh well. That's how I feel about the few Brutes complaining about the potential Tanker changes stepping on their toes. And it's how I felt when someone started a thread for Blasters asking them to chill so other people can get a shot off. Oh well.

[Galaxy Brain]

It was never my intention to cause a massive divide over this, and I for one have been bouncing back and forth on my opinion on where a so called "problem" even lies.

 

Is TW too good? I'm not sure if it by itself is anymore, but what we have for results now shows that it is certainly a catalyst for incredible performance when built right and with the right power pairings. The question then comes, do other sets with the same pairings match up?

 

If anything comes from this thread, I would like there to be an understanding of what makes a set good in some quantifiable way. Using actual gameplay attributes and metrics and not niche Farm maps or Pylons, and with the most basic slots possible. 

 

If we can do that, it should be clear that at a basic level certain things will just snowball when given extra juice from IOs or buffs. Om the flip side, we can probably ID what sets totally need help and in what ways if they struggle even at a base level.

[Megajoule]

Kids enjoy cake, so let's let them eat nothing else.  Three meals a day and snacks too.  It's what they want, right?  What's the harm?  Okay, so they might get a little fat, but it's not like it's actually poison... 

 

Really, the only reason that anyone might want kids to eat things they don't like, or do things they don't like (like study or exercise) is because they're busybodies who just hate fun.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Megajoule

[MunkiLord]

Comparing balance in a game to behaviors that can literally kill people decades early is stupid. 

 

Edit: I will say though that people that think kids need two hours of homework every night are busybodies that hate fun. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by MunkiLord

[Megajoule]

Health is health, whether we're talking about a computer game or people.  That the latter is objectively more important, and has more lasting consequences, is acknowledged but not relevant to the conversation.  Within the context of the game, this stuff is serious; it matters.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Megajoule

[Infinitum]

17 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

Health is health, whether we're talking about a computer game or people.  That the latter is objectively more important, and has more lasting consequences, is acknowledged but not relevant to the conversation.  Within the context of the game, this stuff is serious; it matters.

I have yet to see anything in this game that is diseased enough to address it with the zeal you just did.  Seriously, the war walls arent melting down partner.

[Infinitum]

44 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

TW over performs, I'm fine with it. I still don't think it deserves a nerf. People are having fun playing it and it's not breaking the game, so it should be left alone.

 

The mythical future harder content problem can be addressed when and if it actually becomes a problem. Until such time that is a purely made up reason not based in actual reality, but instead complete speculation. 

 

If other players get pissy because some TW is destroying mobs on their team, oh well. That's how I feel about the few Brutes complaining about the potential Tanker changes stepping on their toes. And it's how I felt when someone started a thread for Blasters asking them to chill so other people can get a shot off. Oh well.

I was on that thread also, im a brute player and im a tank player, i play them all like a tank though.  I love the proposed tank changes.

 

Shoot for that matter i play my trollers like tanks too.