Feedback: Testing Melee Set Performance

[GM Capocollo]

20 minutes ago, Vayek said:

Definitive proof that Titan weapons is too strong for a melee powerset since melee sets must always be the weakest damage in the game! *he said with a deeply sarcastic and belittling voice*

 

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/man-wins-yet-another-round-of-laser-tag-using-only-melee-attacks/

Please stop arguing against a point that nobody else in this thread is making.

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Hopeling said:

By the way, if you're doing this on Pineapple, the arc ID is 3280.

Yep thats what I was planning, thanks!

[nihilii]

1 hour ago, DSorrow said:

(like I've stated several times and as it says on my signature, I play TW so it wouldn't even make sense to be jealous of my own character)

We're all circling around the elephant in the room: this whole thread is a bunch of people playing TW yelling at people playing even more TW they want to nerf TW to oblivion because they're jealous of TW.

The debate is between people who like being OP vs people who like incentive for diversity in their alt lineup. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. 😛

[Infinitum]

19 minutes ago, nihilii said:

We're all circling around the elephant in the room: this whole thread is a bunch of people playing TW yelling at people playing even more TW they want to nerf TW to oblivion because they're jealous of TW.

The debate is between people who like being OP vs people who like incentive for diversity in their alt lineup. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. 😛

I don't play TW though.

[Haijinx]

Maybe once the testing critera is hashed out, start a new thread - So at least the Randos who only read the first 5 post won't continue chiming in with the nerf herding accusations.  

 

 

 

 

[TheAdjustor]

Thought I would give Savage Melee/ WP a shot at this test tonight. SM looked like it would be interesting as I have never played the set at all and it had some features that seemed to be test worthy. It has a mini game, and Teleport Nuke. The mini game is interesting as sets with a mini game are by definition more complex and harder to manage, hence should do more damage than sets without a mini game, and it would also compare better to TW with its momentum game.

 

The Teleport Nuke seems even more interesting as it's very useful against targets that actually move. I have the suspicion Electric Melee would be enormously competitive on this test, and at higher levels of recharge would completely destroy TW.

 

From personal experience fitting in an epic like pyre mastery or mu mastery is actually very significant to overall set performance, while most of the single target tests, seem to work around waterspout.

 

Unfortunately the map seems to be gone.

Edited September 19, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, TheAdjustor said:

Thought I would give Savage Melee/ WP a shot at this test tonight. SM looked like it would be interesting as I have never played the set at all and it had some features that seemed to be test worthy. It has a mini game, and Teleport Nuke. The mini game is interesting as sets with a mini game are by definition more complex and harder to manage, hence should do more damage than sets without a mini game, and it would also compare better to TW with its momentum game.

 

The Teleport Nuke seems even more interesting as it's very useful against targets that actually move. I have the suspicion Electric Melee would be enormously competitive on this test, and at higher levels of recharge would completely destroy TW.

 

From personal experience fitting in an epic like pyre mastery or mu mastery is actually very significant to overall set performance, while most of the single target tests, seem to work around waterspout.

 

Unfortunately the map seems to be gone.

It's this one on Pineapple 🙂

 

[TheAdjustor]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

It's this one on Pineapple 🙂

 

Give it a try in a bit or tomorrow. Played around a little more with Savage Melee it seems very satisfying.

[Hopeling]

2 hours ago, TheAdjustor said:

From personal experience fitting in an epic like pyre mastery or mu mastery is actually very significant to overall set performance, while most of the single target tests, seem to work around waterspout.

 

Unfortunately the map seems to be gone.

Including pools and epic powers will definitely be a boost. That's probably the next thing to test once we get "baseline" numbers with just the primaries.

 

My apologies about the map: I took down the asteroid map and put up a warehouse map like we talked about, then later took down the warehouse and republished it to add the test conditions into the mission text. I've edited my posts with the new arc IDs, and at this point I'm pretty sure the mission is in its final form, but if in doubt, search for arcs by @Hymnblade.

8 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Maybe once the testing critera is hashed out, start a new thread - So at least the Randos who only read the first 5 post won't continue chiming in with the nerf herding accusations.

Yep, that's the plan. I think we've just about hammered out the protocol now, thanks to everybody's input.

[Galaxy Brain]

So, I think we have settled on our criteria after some testing between @Hopelingand I. 

 

MELEE DAMAGE SET TESTING:

It has come to light that the current metrics for testing performance are not reflective of normal gameplay conditions. Common metrics such as fighting a Pylon or clearing a Farm map do not take into account the realities of playing through a mission, which is 90% of the normal content players would be going through.

 

Pylons have unique resistance and regen properties that don't reflect "real" ST damage for most content, as shown by wild DPS swings from person to person on them. Farm maps similarly do not reflect how moving through a map, or just fighting different types of enemies can affect performance which leads to certain sets seeming much better when thrown at those specific environments. That said, mission environments can vary wildly as well which makes testing on them rather unreliable.

 

Luckily, we are able to pick maps in AE. 

 

 

There is a unique Warehouse map that fits several criteria for traversing a mission that will provide more realistic challenges for players as they try to quickly defeat all enemies. Several boxes / railings / walls get in the way of enemy placement, there are several "T" shaped sections where enemies can spawn on either end, and there is a large circle area with two entrances which provide further choices and spawn points to realistically spread enemies around. There is also a vertical ramp section that will split up a mob into sections that the player will need to traverse. Enemies are not usually neatly grouped, nor the map as linear as can be so this should help replicate your "average" mission.

 

This Defeat-All testing ground comes with special "Punching Bag" enemies of Hopeling's design. There will always be 2 Boss Punching Bags and 1 Elite Boss Punching Bag in the mission on top of the randomized regular spawns throughout the map. These enemies have no resistances, and only have the T1 street justice attack. Otherwise, they should behave as normal enemies with standard HP values, aggro to you as normal, but otherwise not really provide much of a threat as the purpose is to quantify the Damage Sets in a realistic setting.

 

The difficulty of the mission should be run at +0/x3 based on our testing to best balance between ST and AoE leaning sets. At x3, the mobs can come in spawns of between 5 and 10 enemies, which line up perfectly with the target caps of almost all Melee AoE powers while also not being an overwhelming amount of enemies for more ST oriented sets. The guaranteed 2 Bosses and EB should likewise provide a venue for ST damage to shine. The x3 setting also provides a variety of spawns as shown in the quoted post below:

 

 

After running 10 missions:

• About 30% of spawns were +1 lvl compared to +0, with no pattern of what types were +1
• About 30% of spawns were groups of 5 Minions, and 2 LT's
• About 20% of spawns were groups of 8 Minions, and 1 LT
• About 20% of spawns were groups of 4 Minions, and 1 Boss
• About 10% of spawns were groups of 10 minions
• About 10% of spawns were groups of 3 Minions, and 3 LT's
• About 10% of spawns were groups of 4 Minions, 1 LT, and 1 Boss (the last group in a typical "Defeat the bad guy!" mish)

So over time, the enemies in a mission would provide varied challenges for any set's strengths to overcome, and on occasion the +1 will provide harder targets or annoyances like those enemies with 1 hp left and all you have are your big attacks to swing with 😉 

 

The map and enemy spawn sizes should give a healthy variance that over multiple tests give a solid "average performance". Ideally, players should run the mission 10 times to get a solid average and account for variable spawn types / runners / misses / etc. Each player's time will be recorded and added to a master list for comparison. Any notes from players will also be recorded!

 

Ex: 

 

 

Each primary should have all their attacks slotted with even-level SO's to emulate the "Normal Slotting" expected: 3 Damage, 1 Accuracy, 1 End Reduction, and 1 Recharge. Build-Up style powers should have 3 recharges, and certain powers may have slight alterations depending on the power type (to be discussed). However we should be aiming for the "average / intended" slotting and avoiding IO's to gather the baseline data on sets for a first run.

 

Inspirations, unique IOs, and pool powers except for Combat Jumping (due to extreme popularity/commonality) should not be allowed in order to focus on the primary set's performance. As for the secondary, Willpower is the least invasive choice as it offers no offensive perks aside from +Recovery. WP, Regen, Rad and Bio all offer +Recovery options. Elec, EA, Fire, and Ice all offer an End Drain, and Ninjitsu offers a +End button, making 9/13 secondaries offer endurance tools, so that actually makes WP the ideal choice to mirror "average" performance.

 

Willpower Slotting should also mirror the average. 3 primary defensive SO's + 1 Endurance Reduction in the toggles, and then similarly 3 slotting the passives as well as stamina. Something like this by @TheAdjustor:

 

Example: (Build Up should have 3 rech in there, but this is just an example)

 

 

Players should feel free to run the map 1-2 times before marking down their 10 test times to get familiar with the primary set / map in question. Every set getting 10 run times per player should give us plenty of data, and the map / difficulty / secondary / slotting choices should ensure we get a wide array of scenarios that test the primary's capabilities with minimal outside effects.

 

Caveats:

 

Doing these tests on the Pineapple server also grants the character passive Accolades to boost Endurance. Technically, anybody can get these just by playing, but they are an X factor to consider.

Inherently, there is randomness at play per mission in terms of +1 Spawns, Misses, Critical Hits, spawn layout and the like. The more test results we get though, the more we can iron out odd times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Thoughts?

[TheAdjustor]

I would recommend an alternate secondary to be included. SR with and without quickness comes to mind.  Survival is of no concern in these tests. I am fairly certain I could have turned off every toggle except possibly rise to challenge and could have just used High Pain Tolerance and Rise To The Challenge.  In a real world build I would have everything toggled on and tough, weave, combat jumping and maneuvers as well.

 

 

After I did some playing with savage melee last night, I recalled the performance of the electric melee/ shield defense combo on live.  Which quite frankly I would be willing to bet is still the highest performer in actually accomplishing mission goals.  The combination of alternating Telenukes+Fire Ball was insane in it's effectiveness. I suspect Svage Melee shows similar performance, and once recharge reaches a given point  you get a telenuke that obliterates spawns every 20-30 seconds or so.

Edited September 19, 2019 by TheAdjustor

[Galaxy Brain]

SR could be a decent secondary test as well as +Rech is a factor. 

 

The idea though is to have your "normal" toggles running while completing the mission as fast as possible though, and not everyone takes tough/weave/maneuvers  (at least to the degree of combat jumping). 

 

Ideally, the spawn sizes should be just enough to not give a terrible advantage to any one kind of set. If we had less targets than AoE suffers compared to ST, and vice versa for more. We will have to see if Elec/ and such really outperforms. 

[Hopeling]

3 hours ago, TheAdjustor said:

I would recommend an alternate secondary to be included. SR with and without quickness comes to mind.

I'm increasingly sympathetic to this the more we've talked about it.

 

Since we're trying to benchmark attack sets more than secondaries, I'm actually not sure Quickness specifically should be included; that can be folded into testing at various levels of global recharge.

 

The issue with WP vs SR is that there are two big differences besides durability (which, like you say, is a non-issue): Quick Recovery, and a taunt aura. Adding Invuln (taunt aura, no endurance) or Ninjitsu (endurance, no taunt aura) as another point of comparison would address this.

4 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Pylons have unique resistance and regen properties that don't reflect "real" ST damage for most content,

I... don't think this is actually true? Pylon resistance and regen isn't particularly unique, and can be accounted for with some arithmetic. Pylon DPS predicts DPS on a stationary archvillain about as well as you could hope for. It's just that sustained ST DPS isn't an especially relevant metric in a game consisting mostly of short multi-target fights.

 

I know this is a nitpick, but it's the only part of your summary that I had any objection to. The rest looks great.

[Haijinx]

Sr only has a taunt aura on Brutes and Tankers.

 

Don't think Brutes and tankers get ninjitsu

 

Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

 

Certain sets lend themselves to survival at low levels if that is a consideration.  WP and EA come to mind. 

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Hopeling said:

I'm increasingly sympathetic to this the more we've talked about it.

 

Since we're trying to benchmark attack sets more than secondaries, I'm actually not sure Quickness specifically should be included; that can be folded into testing at various levels of global recharge.

 

The issue with WP vs SR is that there are two big differences besides durability (which, like you say, is a non-issue): Quick Recovery, and a taunt aura. Adding Invuln (taunt aura, no endurance) or Ninjitsu (endurance, no taunt aura) as another point of comparison would address this.

 

I... don't think this is actually true? Pylon resistance and regen isn't particularly unique, and can be accounted for with some arithmetic. Pylon DPS predicts DPS on a stationary archvillain about as well as you could hope for. It's just that sustained ST DPS isn't an especially relevant metric in a game consisting mostly of short multi-target fights.

 

I know this is a nitpick, but it's the only part of your summary that I had any objection to. The rest looks great.

We can start with WP, then the next best ones would be Ninja and Invuln probably. 

 

I thought Pylons had extra res? I can just edit that bit out anyways, but I think its time to move this thread to the Scrapper forums to start 🙂

[Haijinx]

Pylons have like 20% resist to all, one of the reasons they were chosen.  

[Hopeling]

Pylons do have resistance to all damage, and they do regenerate about 100 hp/second, but that just means the equation is (DPS*(1-Resist)-Regen)*Time=HP, rather than just DPS*Time=HP. Since the resists, regen, and HP are known, determining raw DPS from kill time is just an algebra problem.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Hopeling

[Galaxy Brain]

I have created a new post in the Scrapper sub-forum to gather more data on this matter:
 

 

[Haijinx]

14 minutes ago, Vayek said:

And it frustrates people like me to see people like you spit all over what we love.

who are you referring to? And don't we already have 20 pages litigating this?

[Indystruck]

20 minutes ago, Vayek said:

At some point, your meddling causes more harmful effects to other players (like me) than any of the stuff you complained about would have ever done.

 

And if this were an i24 or i23 server, this might make sense. The fact of the matter is, this server has already changed plenty of things that weren't like how they were on live. And who are you to come and tell people when they can stop or resume working or fixing things? By virtue of you still being here, you've clearly liked all the "meddling" that's been done thus far.

[yeetsman]

34 minutes ago, Vayek said:

My fundamental problem here is that the vast majority of us players (myself included) are just thrilled to even be able to play the game we love again.

 

And it frustrates people like me to see people like you spit all over what we love. To see you come on here and talk about how the game is defective in this or that way. How it is below your standards, blah blah. 

 

If you dislike things that much, it isn't that difficult to start a new server like those jokers have over on the we have cake server. They have really screwed it up (in my honest opinion), but have made it the way they like it.

 

But then we have the small handful of folks here on this thread (and others), where nothing is ever quite good enough for them. They want this changed, that nerfed, this other thing remade.

 

At some point, your meddling causes more harmful effects to other players (like me) than any of the stuff you complained about would have ever done.

 

This is why we get angry and frustrated by posts like this.

lol why dont u stop spitting on improvements ppl like and start ur own static server if u hate changes bro ... its not that difficult .... 

[DSorrow]

5 hours ago, Vayek said:

My fundamental problem here is that the vast majority of us players (myself included) are just thrilled to even be able to play the game we love again.

 

And it frustrates people like me to see people like you spit all over what we love. To see you come on here and talk about how the game is defective in this or that way. How it is below your standards, blah blah. 

 

If you dislike things that much, it isn't that difficult to start a new server like those jokers have over on the we have cake server. They have really screwed it up (in my honest opinion), but have made it the way they like it.

 

But then we have the small handful of folks here on this thread (and others), where nothing is ever quite good enough for them. They want this changed, that nerfed, this other thing remade.

 

At some point, your meddling causes more harmful effects to other players (like me) than any of the stuff you complained about would have ever done.

 

This is why we get angry and frustrated by posts like this.

"In order for your criticism to be valid you must not have a criticism of the thing you want to criticize."

 

When you're done trying to frame anyone not sharing your stance as "hating the game", you're welcome to argue your position with actual arguments and evidence rather than spewing generally accusatory and derogatory nonsense. This kind of melodramatic misrepresentation of other people's arguments and intentions is not only 100% unconstructive, but serves nothing else except creating a toxic environment. 

 

I can't be bothered to list all the errors in your attempt at an argument, but once again it's built around an un-argument: traitorous critic, tries to polarize the discussion and attacks the arguers rather than the argument. F for f-fort.

 

If you wanted to throw a tantrum rather than argue your position, then I guess you've succeeded in what you wanted to do.

Edited September 20, 2019 by DSorrow

[Infinitum]

5 hours ago, DSorrow said:

"In order for your criticism to be valid you must not have a criticism of the thing you want to criticize."

 

When you're done trying to frame anyone not sharing your stance as "hating the game", you're welcome to argue your position with actual arguments and evidence rather than spewing generally accusatory and derogatory nonsense. This kind of melodramatic misrepresentation of other people's arguments and intentions is not only 100% unconstructive, but serves nothing else except creating a toxic environment. 

 

I can't be bothered to list all the errors in your attempt at an argument, but once again it's built around an un-argument: traitorous critic, tries to polarize the discussion and attacks the arguers rather than the argument. F for f-fort.

 

If you wanted to throw a tantrum rather than argue your position, then I guess you've succeeded in what you wanted to do.

You are mistaking a debate team argument for a conveyance of feeling and opinion.

 

And there is nothing wrong with either.

 

It's getting a little annoying seeing logical fallacy this logical fallacy that, honestly.  I'm not on a debate team, I'm not here to win an argument, it's opinion and sharing of feelings.

 

Nothing more, you don't have to win a debate or prove anything to tell it like you see it.  Right or wrong.  The fact that it isn't structured in argument form doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion or what the are feeling, because that matters too.

[DSorrow]

38 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

You are mistaking a debate team argument for a conveyance of feeling and opinion.

 

And there is nothing wrong with either.

 

It's getting a little annoying seeing logical fallacy this logical fallacy that, honestly.  I'm not on a debate team, I'm not here to win an argument, it's opinion and sharing of feelings.

 

Nothing more, you don't have to win a debate or prove anything to tell it like you see it.  Right or wrong.  The fact that it isn't structured in argument form doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion or what the are feeling, because that matters too.

I'm not mistaking this for a team debate thing, I'm just getting annoyed at the consistent use of ad hominems and other non-arguments to support a position. I don't expect anyone to make a perfect argument as we're all human beings and all that, but when the argument is consistently and constantly hostile and lacks substance then I'm not going to sit by and let anyone think it's a good argument.

 

Neither am I here to win an argument because like I said, I don't really have strong feelings for any specific outcome so long as it's reasonable (anything like the EM nuke would not be). If it turns out TW isn't that much better than other sets in simulated average play, then it's reasonable to keep it as it is. If it turns out it's too good, then slightly tuning it so that it's "only" top tier would be reasonable.

 

Opinions are needed because at some point we're going to have to jump into the opinion territory anyway because "being OP is fine / not fine" isn't about facts, it's about opinions. However, the "nerf = bad" / "you're just anti-fun" / "just stop criticizing something I like" is an incredibly unconstructive way to demonstrate an opinion, because it doesn't help exploring whether any changes are actually justified in the first place nor reaching a consensus on what a reasonable change would look like. 

 

EDIT: Just in case it was not clear, I'm only nit picking arguments that I think are out of line. While this is not a formalized debate, I don't think that frees people from the responsibility of civil discourse or allows people to outright dismiss the arguments of anyone else. As in any discussion, if you can't find arguments to support your own position and your only retort is to insult your opponent, it's a pretty big ask to expect anyone to take your opinion if you can't justify it yourself. There are perfectly valid ways to voice an opinion contrary to adjustments, such as "I think nerfing TW is bad because reasons X, Y and Z" or "I think it's fine that some powersets are significantly better than others because A, B and C" that don't have to resort to attacking other people or using other types of rhetoric to blatantly avoid addressing points raised by others.

Edited September 20, 2019 by DSorrow

[Infinitum]

49 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

I'm not mistaking this for a team debate thing, I'm just getting annoyed at the consistent use of ad hominems and other non-arguments to support a position. I don't expect anyone to make a perfect argument as we're all human beings and all that, but when the argument is consistently and constantly hostile and lacks substance then I'm not going to sit by and let anyone think it's a good argument.

 

Neither am I here to win an argument because like I said, I don't really have strong feelings for any specific outcome so long as it's reasonable (anything like the EM nuke would not be). If it turns out TW isn't that much better than other sets in simulated average play, then it's reasonable to keep it as it is. If it turns out it's too good, then slightly tuning it so that it's "only" top tier would be reasonable.

 

Opinions are needed because at some point we're going to have to jump into the opinion territory anyway because "being OP is fine / not fine" isn't about facts, it's about opinions. However, the "nerf = bad" / "you're just anti-fun" / "just stop criticizing something I like" is an incredibly unconstructive way to demonstrate an opinion, because it doesn't help exploring whether any changes are actually justified in the first place nor reaching a consensus on what a reasonable change would look like. 

 

EDIT: Just in case it was not clear, I'm only nit picking arguments that I think are out of line. While this is not a formalized debate, I don't think that frees people from the responsibility of civil discourse or allows people to outright dismiss the arguments of anyone else. As in any discussion, if you can't find arguments to support your own position and your only retort is to insult your opponent, it's a pretty big ask to expect anyone to take your opinion if you can't justify it yourself. There are perfectly valid ways to voice an opinion contrary to adjustments, such as "I think nerfing TW is bad because reasons X, Y and Z" or "I think it's fine that some powersets are significantly better than others because A, B and C" that don't have to resort to attacking other people or using other types of rhetoric to blatantly avoid addressing points raised by others.

Everyone has a motive hidden somewhere even if its shrouded behind debate and formal argument terms.

 

Doesnt make the persons point any less valid either way.  They play the game too.

 

For instance I couldnt tell you what an ad hominem is.  And I dont care enough to look it up.