Focused Feedback: Energy Melee Revamp

[Wavicle]

48 minutes ago, Grimz said:

You bringing up the concept of mini-games from other MMOs doesn't really mean much when you consider that games like WoW, FF14, SWToR and Rift still have base rotations... some even more restrictive than CoH's in terms of optimal damage. Additionally, though this is not based on the opinion stated above, I recall the increase in RNG being a large complaint within the WoW community (Something Classic also doesn't have as much of). In my opinion, fun in a MMO comes from group play, community, visual flair (the SFX kind) and strategy. My personal from of enjoyment is actually one of the main reasons for my altoholism (I have a hard time dealing with leveling since it's often slow and tends to not have many group options). Not to say I don't like gimmicks, a challenge is always worth the effort imo.

 

To keep this in the topic of Energy Melee, I think the changes are fine and that the set needed the extra AoE attack (I would personally argue it needs a third, but that's just me). The set in current live plays fine and will benefit greatly from the changes. This will also buff the viability of Energy Melee Tankers.

 

Disclaimer: I am not trying to disvalue Wavicle's opinion, simply questioning some of his logic in hopes of obtaining clarity on his end while also giving my own opinion in the process.

You're good. I'm certainly not saying that enforced rotations are always better. I appreciate that CoH has many sets without any sort of enforcement at all. All I was really saying is that by insisting the devs NOT implement such a system one removes a tool from their toolbox.

[Gobbledigook]

1 hour ago, DreadShinobi said:

There is a leveling range where you have TF and do not yet have ET until lvl 38 on tankers.

Nothing different to some other sets. Its not like you will be missing an attack, it just won't have the secondary effects.

 

It's not like Em doesn't have stuns already. Power crash will be a spender until ET.

 

I am not saying remove it, i am saying i wouldn't miss it if it went. Keep it for me, it is just a bonus.

 

I am just trying to suggest possible ways to make the set slightly less combo orientated for those who don't like combo's. A small compromise.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Gobbledegook

[Troo]

5 hours ago, Infinitum said:

It kinda was then too, everyone ran this...  BU. ET. TF. ET. Then whatever filler you needed.

 

If you didn't run that you weren't maximizing the set against the weaker or slower powers in it.

 

Not much is different in the new EM just the order of attack, and the lesser or slower powers are buffed EP TF WH, and you get an added AOE, a buffed slow ET that's worth using now even without focus.

 

Add in focused ET it's light years better.

 

The game has always been about optimal attack chains, even old EM.

Poppycock.

 

No offense, but for some, TF was a skip-able power.

 

I definitely skipped TF. It was waaay to slow for what I was doing on Stalkers pre-nerf. Less squishy ATs were a different story. So see, it's not so cut and dry as you simply imply.

[modest]

I performed some playtesting tonight with the latest version of Energy Melee on the beta server using an Energy Melee/Energy Aura Stalker. My impressions are that it is now a well-balanced set. My only criticism is that the flow of combat was not as smooth as a set without build/spend mechanics, but I don't think that can be avoided. The build/spend mechanic of this set felt good to me.

 

The Stalker version of Power Crash was enjoyable to use. I also wish that it wasn't a spender, but it wasn't a large annoyance. I might have been annoyed by Power Crash using my focus stacks it if I were playing a build that had lower recharge.

 

My overall impression is that this set is well designed and ready for live.

[Troo]

3 hours ago, josh1622 said:

Please keep feedback on topic as it's been repeatedly requested. This is a thread for players to leave their opinions for developers, not for you to make flippant and disrespectful remarks.

Yep, yep

Don't worry the feedback has been heard by the HC team (I promise)

Really, most folks are very close to being on the same page.

Examples: New cast time for Total Focus is better, Whirling Hands being brought up to status quo is better, and who doesn't want fast Energy Transfer???? No one? Oh one person over in the corner 'it feels more powerful!!'

 

3 hours ago, Saikochoro said:

Those three points were on topic with feedback.
 

@ScarySaimay come off as harsh at times, but they certainly aren’t the only one in this thread that have done that. 

yep, yep..

 

Do I see a guide to effectively using cones on melee characters coming soon? I seem to be having some trouble on a Stone/Energy Melee Tanker in particular.

 

side note: Technically, in focused feedback, comments are to the HC team not to other posters (..but many of us are guilty of this. Thx HC team for letting us back & forth a bit)

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Troo

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Having "mini games" that give you better damage if you do your rotation correctly is one of the main ways MMOs make classes interesting to play. NOT having them is one of the things in CoH that is generally boring, to be honest. Differentiation and specificity is better, imo.

It's also insanely boring from a gameplay perspective. It's one of the things I distinctly don't like about those other mmos.

 

After playing FFXIV for two months straight I appreciate the freedom more sets have here. 100x much appreciated actually.

 

I guess it depends on what one is looking for in their combat-related gameplay. /shrug.

 

EDIT: To be clear it's one of the reasons I play and played sets like Dual Blades an epic ton less than other sets. Staff fighting interested me cause it was a staff. I pretty much stopped playing it after rushing it to 50 and don't see myself going back. I found it less smooth and more restrictive than other sets I had played.

Edited November 11, 2020 by golstat2003

[Moonlighter]

1 hour ago, Wavicle said:

You're good. I'm certainly not saying that enforced rotations are always better. I appreciate that CoH has many sets without any sort of enforcement at all. All I was really saying is that by insisting the devs NOT implement such a system one removes a tool from their toolbox.

And to be clear, I am not saying no sets should have systems that create different types of rotations. I wouldn't advocate for the removal of the combo system on Dual Blades anymore then I'd support adding a combo system to Martial Arts.

 

[Bopper]

30 minutes ago, Troo said:

Do I see a guide to effectively using cones on melee characters coming soon? I seem to be having some trouble on a Stone/Energy Melee Tanker in particular

Sadly, Stone Tanks can't jump. To take full advantage of a cone you want to jump attack, turning your cone into an AoE and maximizing the surface area at the base of the cone attack to hit more targets.

[BrandX]

5 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

 

Or if the set even really needs it. I could certainly live without it.

That too.  I didn't think the set needs it.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Troo said:

Poppycock.

 

No offense, but for some, TF was a skip-able power.

 

I definitely skipped TF. It was waaay to slow for what I was doing on Stalkers pre-nerf. Less squishy ATs were a different story. So see, it's not so cut and dry as you simply imply.

TF under BU was still a high DPS power even then, if you skipped it then you were missing the boat.  High Recharge two ETs and a TF in a BU cycle that you could spam every 20 seconds was fatal.

[Replacement]

You know, 51 pages in there's something I'm not sure I've honestly seen:

 

Thank you for making EM interesting.  A simple 1-2 punch mechanic is simple, but decisions add depth to it.  Simple+depth is always a gameplay win for me, so I appreciate this.

 

(point of contrast: dual blades has a high burden of knowledge, along with many technical "gotchas" to be aware of.  This creates complexity masquerading as depth.)

 

I'm sorry some OGs don't like it that way.  But it's freshened up the set in a more impactful way than just numbers and I appreciate it.

 

Source: have been testing EM on Tankers, Stalkers, and Scrappers (in order from most to least).

[Wavicle]

There seems to be some random weirdness with some EM attacks looking or sounding like they've hit but doing no damage, and the opposite, doing damage, but having no hit sound. I've noticed variations of it on TF, BS, PC, AS. I've mentioned it, I think in an actual bug report. I'll continue trying to figure out if its duplicable, but so far it really does seem very random.

[ScarySai]

12 hours ago, Troo said:

Poppycock.

 

No offense, but for some, TF was a skip-able power.

 

I definitely skipped TF. It was waaay to slow for what I was doing on Stalkers pre-nerf. Less squishy ATs were a different story. So see, it's not so cut and dry as you simply imply.

Balderdash.

 

No offense, but TF was not a skippable power if you cared about performance.

 

While slow and chunky to use in today's meta, there is no denying that it had some hurt behind it.

 

Pip-pip, tea and crumpets.

[0th Power]

FWIW, Total focus use to be a mag 4 stun which helped it to be less skippable. 

[AerialAssault]

1 hour ago, 0th Power said:

FWIW, Total focus use to be a mag 4 stun which helped it to be less skippable. 

I don't know if that was the case in the past, but it isn't Mag 4 on the current servers, it's Mag 3.

 

One of the only Mag 4 Stuns in the game is the Widow's Scramble Thoughts, weirdly enough.

 

Ideally, no power in a set should be skippable. Designing a power to be skippable seems to be counterintuitive to designing a set.

[Replacement]

I don't think the argument holds water that "Total Focus is now unskippable and that is bad."

 

Anyone arguing for "fast ET all of the time, no conditions" -- that is majorly unskippable.   Instant Assassin's Strike, regardless of AT?  You think that would be skippable?  And do you really think the rest of the set wouldn't suffer to pay for that?

Edited November 11, 2020 by Replacement

[BrandX]

I never saw TF as skippable.  With or without a mag 4 stun (and that was changed back in Paragon Studios)?  How was it ever a skippable power?

[ScarySai]

It wasn't ever skippable unless you were building a bad character.

[Gobbledigook]

Does it matter? it isn't feedback just bickering.

[Infinitum]

55 minutes ago, BrandX said:

I never saw TF as skippable.  With or without a mag 4 stun (and that was changed back in Paragon Studios)?  How was it ever a skippable power?

It wasn't if you were serious.

[ForeverLaxx]

2 hours ago, AerialAssault said:

Ideally, no power in a set should be skippable. Designing a power to be skippable seems to be counterintuitive to designing a set.

I disagree with this to some extent. Some powers should be "skippable" on basis of playstyle and preference without suffering "too much" of a loss to efficiency. My reasoning for this is that part of the draw of CoH for me is the creation of character concepts that can still complete the same content everyone else can, while also making the character "my own", in a sense. The newer sets suffer from this in that most, or even all, of the powers are "required" to make it functional and this reduces the variance between different players running the same powersets. This can also make some sets woefully underpowered until they get their entire 9 power kit which also feels pretty bad.

 

Sets that have "skippable" powers allows for greater individual player customization, both in-set and with Pool Powers. If I have to take 9, 8, or even sometimes 7 powers from a set before it actually works, that makes it somewhat of a failure in my eyes.

 

That said, I never skipped TF. Even if it was slow, I liked the animation and it hit very hard. EM was always the ST Burst set and not taking TF reduced that too much for me.

[AerialAssault]

I agree on the basis that it's player choice to skip taking a power (see: Confront), but from a design point of view, why would you go out of your way to make a power that is intended to be skipped? Why not either A) make a better power, or B) have a blank space where a power should be?

 

I think though, if a power is considered 'unskippable' it should at least be 100% worth it to take. Which I personally feel that Total Focus is, even before these changes.

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, ForeverLaxx said:

I disagree with this to some extent. Some powers should be "skippable" on basis of playstyle and preference without suffering "too much" of a loss to efficiency. My reasoning for this is that part of the draw of CoH for me is the creation of character concepts that can still complete the same content everyone else can, while also making the character "my own", in a sense. The newer sets suffer from this in that most, or even all, of the powers are "required" to make it functional and this reduces the variance between different players running the same powersets. This can also make some sets woefully underpowered until they get their entire 9 power kit which also feels pretty bad.

 

Sets that have "skippable" powers allows for greater individual player customization, both in-set and with Pool Powers. If I have to take 9, 8, or even sometimes 7 powers from a set before it actually works, that makes it somewhat of a failure in my eyes.

 

That said, I never skipped TF. Even if it was slow, I liked the animation and it hit very hard. EM was always the ST Burst set and not taking TF reduced that too much for me.

There is a lot of truth to what you say here, and I would take it a step further to say anything is skippable if you aren't worried about being optimal.

 

Just like any attack chain will work it just wouldnt be optimal.

 

Being optimal isn't a prereq with this game - theres lots of ways to play it to meet anyone's satisfaction and being optimal isn't a must.

[siolfir]

21 hours ago, Wavicle said:

That’s WHY I included that part. I didn’t say anything that implied or suggested otherwise in any way.

Late to the response here (I got off the forums soon after I made my post). I was trying to point out to others in the thread, who were attempting to silence others from expressing disagreements within the past few pages, that just because they might think that any dissenting opinions are, and I quote "outdated."

 

I was trying to recognize that including the "imo" was a good thing. Sorry if it came across (apparently to several people) as a criticism; while it was a quote, it wasn't a direct reply to what was quoted.

 

[0th Power]

Has anyone done testing on the average increase in targets hit on power crash in EF mode in non farming conditions?  If not, I will try to set something up.

 

Proposed Conditions (let me know if anyone sees any flaws)

-lv 50 Invulnerability (for a non damaging taunt aura and increase to hit) tank or brute

-"racetrack" of Perez Park

-All powers slotted for over 90% accuracy

 

Control

-Engage group

-Lead with bone smasher

-1 second to line up the cone

-Execute power crash

-Record number of targets hit

 

Energy Focus

-Engage group

-Lead with total focus

-1 second to line up the cone

-Execute power crash

-Record number of targets hit

 

Expected outcome - The average targets hit in Energy Focus will be between 1-2 greater than the control group.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by 0th Power
added testing construct