Blaster Primary Comparison: Standard Environment Testing

[zenblack]

9 minutes ago, modest said:

What you're asking is unreasonable. It also defeats the purpose of this testing.

 

@Galaxy Brain's testing is meant to compare the relative performance of each Blaster blast set with its included powers in a standard in-game environment. If outside elements are added to the test, then the test would not reflect the inherent performance of the power set.

Then why is Hover and Combat Jumping included? And the definition of a "standard in-game environment" cannot be achieved unless you include the basic mechanics available to any character playing in the game. I don't think it can be achieved without bringing in things that would skew the testing environment (as I stated with Inspirations) perhaps unfavorably to one set/condition or another. But ignoring them completely also skews it significantly.

Edited August 8, 2020 by zenblack

[modest]

8 minutes ago, zenblack said:

Then why is Hover and Combat Jumping included? And the definition of a "standard in-game environment" cannot be achieved unless you include the basic mechanics available to any character playing in the game. I don't think it can be achieved without bringing in things that would skew the testing environment (as I stated with Inspirations) perhaps unfavorably to one set/condition or another. But ignoring them completely also skews it significantly.

Hover and Combat Jumping are persistent buffs, and a proactive method of damage mitigation. They give the same buff to each Blaster tested regardless of environment or situation.

 

Inspirations are situational buffs, and a reactive method of damage mitigation, recovery, and healing.

 

In order to be objective when comparing power sets, the comparison should not include reactive mitigation that comes from sources outside of the power set.

[Galaxy Brain]

10 minutes ago, zenblack said:

Then why is Hover and Combat Jumping included? And the definition of a "standard in-game environment" cannot be achieved unless you include the basic mechanics available to any character playing in the game. I don't think it can be achieved without bringing in things that would skew the testing environment (as I stated with Inspirations) perhaps unfavorably to one set/condition or another. But ignoring them completely also skews it significantly.

Hover and CJ are included as they are often taken on most characters (or some combo thereof) and it helped align cones in some cases. 

 

The "standard game environment" is reflective of this test emulating a simple mission, which is what 90% of the game is comprised of, instead of a Farm Map or stationary Pylon which test more extreme attributes of a character (AoE / ST on either end). The map and custom enemies / difficulty was chosen to be be just difficult enough to not be a raw speed test, but also not dangerous enough to not be doable with just primaries. 

 

Now, is this a bit unrealistic as the secondary set / etc was mostly ignored? As well as X factors like accolades/insps/temp powers? In a sense, yes. But, every set had the same rules applied with the same sort of slotting to get what I like to call the "Baseline / Floor" for the set's performance. A set like Fire would do well with a more defensive secondary or team mates (as would Rad), but then so would most any other set. A set like Psy Blast would likewise shine with an AoE heavy secondary, and so on, but that does not change the set itself and what it brings to the table.

[zenblack]

5 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Hover and CJ are included as they are often taken on most characters (or some combo thereof) and it helped align cones in some cases.

And no Maneuvers, Haste, Tough or Weave? These are uncommon on most Blasters, regardless of combo? And Inspirations are used lower than 90% of play in your testing time if needed?

 

You applied a certain penalty based on deaths that you found reasonable. Is it also not reasonable to expect use of inspirations on a character regardless of secondary?

Edited August 8, 2020 by zenblack

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, zenblack said:

And no Maneuvers, Haste, Tough or Weave? These are uncommon on most Blasters, regardless of combo?

Hasten I exclude specifically because it is unstable until you perma it and given each spawn is not the same it would wildly change results run to run in terms of timing unless I pause, let everything recharge, and tackle each fight fresh. I did this with the melee test as well.

 

The other toggles in hindsight I could have included but I doubt it would have made a HUGE difference in the relative safety between each set.

[zenblack]

5 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

The other toggles in hindsight I could have included but I doubt it would have made a HUGE difference in the relative safety between each set.

My opinion is that I attribute more "Safety" in having 3 defensive toggles (with your base slotting, whatever you choose) based on the relative amount of defense that is available to a Blaster with with just Hover/CJ than you do.

[Galaxy Brain]

TBH, I just kind of threw CJ and Hover together just for the +Air Control and the minimal defense it gave, and had already gone through like 4 sets by the time I had thought of adding more... so I just went with it 😛 

 

Looking at it, I put 1 fly SO in gover (and swift), and then 1 Def SO in CJ, resulting in a total of:  ~4% def

 

If I were to say, have CJ, Hover, Weave, Maneuvers, and Tough all 3 slotted: 14.5% Def / 16.5% res to S/L, which is a very decent boost... but not *super* significant in terms of "would 100% make a set that was unsafe into a 100% safe one", at least compared to one another! Ice would likely have not had that 1 death (and possibly elec), but the others that has a handful of deaths would likely still have those handful as they did not do a good job of preventing damage outright compared to their peers.

[zenblack]

I completely understand about forgetting about adding them. And with how much time it would have taken to run each 10 times it is not a trivial amount.

 

My feeling is it won't turn Fire into a safe set. But it would impact how many deaths it received, along each. It may give certain sets more of an advantage over others and it would be a more accurate data sample in regards to safety since most blasters would have some amount of defense in a "real environment" which you are trying to simulate with your test.

 

Good job regardless!

Edited August 8, 2020 by zenblack

[Galaxy Brain]

Thanks! I agree it would certainly curtail deaths, and I may just run Rad/ again with that real quick since... sheesh lol.

 

If that has a significant change in performance then I think it may be worth trying again

[Tsuko]

Nice testings, for people in SO level 30ish.

 

All sets are not equal in term of optimisation : a fully build blaster dont need the tiny heal of water to stay alive.

 

I never use a new toy without a full build +5 and at least Veteran level 12/20 with accolades/incarnates buy with transcendent merit.

 

So the "safety" measure is "a bit" blurred when you have a full caped range Beam / TA blaster with bonfire, emp arrow and Glue arrow able to dps at 100+ range, for instance.

 

So.... YMMV for some reason as americans says 😄

[Galaxy Brain]

6 minutes ago, Tsuko said:

Nice testings, for people in SO level 30ish.

 

All sets are not equal in term of optimisation : a fully build blaster dont need the tiny heal of water to stay alive.

 

I never use a new toy without a full build +5 and at least Veteran level 12/20 with accolades/incarnates buy with transcendent merit.

 

So the "safety" measure is "a bit" blurred when you have a full caped range Beam / TA blaster with bonfire, emp arrow and Glue arrow able to dps at 100+ range, for instance.

 

So.... YMMV for some reason as americans says 😄

Not everyone can build like that, everyone can use SO's at all lvls of play 🙂

[Galaxy Brain]

Ok, so I was able to test with Maneuvers, Hover, CJ, Tough and Weave all 3 slotted + 1 End redux (except hover [fly] and CJ [none]), and that took all of my slots to do so. On top of being a major endurance strain, that kind of build is just unrealistic. 

 

I ran Rad Blast again and while I did notice a difference, when the stray hits piled in I was still in trouble.... maybe something between these values could be worth it but I still think the initial round is still good to show what "the primary alone" brings to the table.

 

 

 

 

[zenblack]

Perhaps something along these lines? Assuming you use Hover in Combat (to get out of range, per your original testing) quickswapping to Ninja Run/Fly for movement.

 

https://gyazo.com/de84ac0ad046933fa0312a9ac4f5a327

 

This uses a .97 End Drain with 2.48 Recovery and is sort of the middle of what we were talking about.

Also uses a total of 8 slots between the toggles and Stamina. I had hoped it would make more of a difference on Rad

but I can't say I'm much surprised, it's entire schtick (- Def and DoT) doesn't fit well with Blaster & the game is designed.

Edited August 8, 2020 by zenblack
Rad edit

[modest]

1 hour ago, Tsuko said:

Nice testings, for people in SO level 30ish.

 

I never use a new toy without a full build +5 and at least Veteran level 12/20 with accolades/incarnates buy with transcendent merit.

I also never use a new character until they're fully-built with IOs boosted to +5, at least veteran level 20, have full accolades, and have full incarnates. After all, if a character doesn't have those things when I first use it, how will I know if I enjoy playing it?

[Tsuko]

1 hour ago, modest said:

I also never use a new character until they're fully-built with IOs boosted to +5, at least veteran level 20, have full accolades, and have full incarnates. After all, if a character doesn't have those things when I first use it, how will I know if I enjoy playing it?

Fair enough 🙂

 

Personally, i just try it fully ready cause i see no interest in low level things : leveling is the just a step before the real game.

[Frosticus]

This is great work!

 

water looks better than I would have imagined.

 

I wonder if these would change at all for corruptors. Some sets seem to get a bit more mileage out scourge than others. 

[Novacat]

9 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Ok, so I was able to test with Maneuvers, Hover, CJ, Tough and Weave all 3 slotted + 1 End redux (except hover [fly] and CJ [none]), and that took all of my slots to do so. On top of being a major endurance strain, that kind of build is just unrealistic. 

It's definitely not a set of toggles that can reasonably or realistically be used together in pre-incarnate SO setups. Tough is also ... not that great, and if you've got a resistance power in your epic pools you're best of slotting that one up with tough just... left by the wayside on the way up to Weave. a dead power slot from having to grab a prereq, basically.

 

That said, the addition of a proper defensive stack should have a decent effect on sets that were lacking in safety on their own. It may do little to aid Water, Ice and Dark, but may allow Fire and Beam to lose one or two deaths from their safety rating.

[Troo]

It is comical seeing folks project a min/max focus and "I wanna skip to the end game" mentality onto the testing and the data collected.

 

If someone wants to do their own testing, have at it. I would suggest using mission: "View your Future Memory" with standardized common IO slotting and power pool selections.

 

• Powersets are intended to have strengths and weaknesses.
• Builds are merely simple puzzles.
• IOs were intended to provide variety and enhance replay-ability while capitalizing on some corporate goals.
• Incarnates are another layer of the same.

 

Thanks @Galaxy Brain for doing this work, laying out your findings so clearly, and adding some considerations beyond just pew pew.

[Tsuko]

13 hours ago, Troo said:

It is comical seeing folks project a min/max focus and "I wanna skip to the end game" mentality onto the testing and the data collected.

 

If someone wants to do their own testing, have at it. I would suggest using mission: "View your Future Memory" with standardized common IO slotting and power pool selections.

 

• Powersets are intended to have strengths and weaknesses.
• Builds are merely simple puzzles.
• IOs were intended to provide variety and enhance replay-ability while capitalizing on some corporate goals.
• Incarnates are another layer of the same.

 

Thanks @Galaxy Brain for doing this work, laying out your findings so clearly, and adding some considerations beyond just pew pew.

Pew Pew is life, Bigger pew pew is sex 😄

[oldskool]

@Galaxy Brain, this is really good stuff.  

I for one, like the "safety" metric as it is.  I think the methodology chosen gets the point across.  The amount of defense added by CJ and Hover is minimal.  The mobility aspect of each is obvious to me.  It helps to try to ensure effective use of the various kinds of range attack (cone, TAOE, standard, etc...).  

The outcome of which sets are safer than others is the entire point of how the test was designed.  To go back and re-do all of it with a more substantial defensive stack is to skew results for a certain outcome.  If the concept of reading the results was "X set is actually safer than this because with Y defensive stack makes it so", then I think the test was successful.  There is no need, in my opinion, to go back and placate others to prove that Y defense stack makes X set better.  Doing this treads more into the realm of establishing how a build comes together to resolve a problem vs highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each individual power set.  

[Haijinx]

I'm with Oldskool on that one. 

 

All the sets had the same conditions.  So it shows mitigation provided by actively using your primary.  

 

Obviously some sets will benefit more from additional protections added to their builds than others.  Generally those sets that were less "safe"

 

[Galaxy Brain]

Agreed, I still think it would not change the results comparatively, but it may highlight a few sets that were on the *cusp* of being safe but had chip damage come in unluckily. But still, I think this holds up fine.

[oldskool]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Agreed, I still think it would not change the results comparatively, but it may highlight a few sets that were on the *cusp* of being safe but had chip damage come in unluckily. But still, I think this holds up fine.

Which just goes into the argument of how Blasters can be played safely by stacking additional defensive measures.  That particular outcome boils down to "no $#!%" kind of observational ability. 

[Haijinx]

That's why with really tough build or a lot of support Fire/ becomes such a monster

 

The only check on its performance normally is the risk of face planting. 

 

 

[carroto]

This reminded me of my great disappointment in the way Psi was proliferated to Blasters.  Losing the cone was too big a hit to the AoE capability of the set.  I love the set on other ATs and if I could play that version on a Blaster I'd be all over it.  On the other hand Blasters get the best version of Rad Blast, so there's that.