Possible ways to help support classes

[arcane]

I like that types of support sets are apples and oranges while still all contributing (yes a couple sets need a slight upward tweak like FF and Emp). It gives the feel that there are at least three mini-AT’s to play within one AT. That would maybe be a problem if any of them actually struggled to be effective, but that is simply not the case, excluding the aforementioned sets that could use slight tweaks.

 

And the idea that ally-only buffs have not had their values balanced around being ally-only does not hold up logically with a quick glance at the numbers. So talk about self-buffing all you want, but if the values are not tweaked downward, it’s a non-starter from a balance perspective.

 

Clear example: FF ally shields vs. FF AoE shield. A nearly no end cost, immediately permeable, nearly no recharge, does not require allies to remain in radius, shield is supposed to affect you in a greater way than a taxing high end cost, requires allies to remain in radius shield? That is absolute nonsense. For the FF target shields to affect you, knowing all that, it would need to affect you even less than Dispersion Bubble, logically. At least the OP is proposing scaled down versions of the effects rather than suggesting these sets should just have their cake and eat it too.
 

I don’t feel the need to compare to a debuff set because buffs and debuffs so clearly have their own sets of pros and cons. It’s just straight disingenuous to pretend like debuffs are better in every usage case. I don’t feel the need to compare to more user-friendly buff sets because those numbers already prove my point. Farsight affecting you where FF target shields do not is already balanced by it having higher recharge, lower defense, higher endurance cost. Although I say Farsight is balanced with hesitation because it really isn’t; it’s way too powerful with power boost.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[Luminara]

15 minutes ago, arcane said:

And the idea that ally-only buffs have not had their values balanced around being ally-only does not hold up logically with a quick glance at the numbers. So talk about self-buffing all you want, but if the values are not tweaked downward, it’s a non-starter from a balance perspective.

 

Flash Arrow: 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 15s recharge, 60s duration

Weaken: 37.5% -Damage, autohit; 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 16s recharge, 30s duration

Poison Gas Arrow: 50% -Damage, autohit, 45s recharge, 60s duration

Hurricane: 37.5% -ToHit, autohit, 8s recharge (if detoggled), 10s duration (per tick, 0.75s interval)

 

Deflection Shield/Insulation Shield/Ice Sheild/Glacial Shield/etc.: 15% +Def (not all)

Sonic Barrier/Sonic Haven: 20% +Res (not all)

 

The facts, not impressions or guesses or hearsay, based on this sampling of defender powers, don't support your assertion.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

 

Flash Arrow: 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 15s recharge, 60s duration

Weaken: 37.5% -Damage, autohit; 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 16s recharge, 30s duration

Poison Gas Arrow: 50% -Damage, autohit, 45s recharge, 60s duration

Hurricane: 37.5% -ToHit, autohit, 8s recharge (if detoggled), 10s duration (per tick, 0.75s interval)

 

Deflection Shield/Insulation Shield/Ice Sheild/Glacial Shield/etc.: 15% +Def (not all)

Sonic Barrier/Sonic Haven: 20% +Res (not all)

 

The facts, not impressions or guesses or hearsay, based on this sampling of defender powers, don't support your assertion.

The way it’s currently set up is, generally, debuffs > ally only buffs > self affecting buffs. Obviously there are differences depending also on tier, threat, and more.

[MTeague]

13 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

The way it’s currently set up is, generally, debuffs > ally only buffs > self affecting buffs. Obviously there are differences depending also on tier, threat, and more.

Sure. Okay, let's say, for the sake of the argument, and presuppose that some differences ought to be baked in (on the theory that the debuff might be resisted?... though Poison debuffing resistance to debuffs is *mighty* strong....).

 

Small FF Bubbles (not the big bubble) provide +15% defense to allies, and +10% to you.   Or whatever scaling the devs felt appropriate to decide that a Buffing Defenders secondary set provided them a commessurate boost that a Debuffing Defenders secondary set provided them.  But I do think there ought to be something.

[arcane]

28 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Flash Arrow: 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 15s recharge, 60s duration

Weaken: 37.5% -Damage, autohit; 18.75% -ToHit, autohit, 16s recharge, 30s duration

Poison Gas Arrow: 50% -Damage, autohit, 45s recharge, 60s duration

Hurricane: 37.5% -ToHit, autohit, 8s recharge (if detoggled), 10s duration (per tick, 0.75s interval)

 

Deflection Shield/Insulation Shield/Ice Sheild/Glacial Shield/etc.: 15% +Def (not all)

Sonic Barrier/Sonic Haven: 20% +Res (not all)

 

The facts, not impressions or guesses or hearsay, based on this sampling of defender powers, don't support your assertion.

Debuffs are not supposed to be directly compared to buffs as I have already said because they have their own pros and cons. Debuffs have higher base values because they come with more baggage - including aggro, accuracy, highly impactful resistability, often shorter durations, etc. Your criticism accounts for none of this and is thus misguided, misleading, and nigh meaningless. Your analysis is univariate and lacking any subtlety, which is almost always a sign of incorrectness.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[arcane]

29 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

The way it’s currently set up is, generally, debuffs > ally only buffs > self affecting buffs.

And that is precisely because the number of complicating factors goes self affecting buffs > ally only buffs > debuffs. Your statement is a feature of elegant design, not a bug.

 

Seriously, a bunch of the power gamers here have had a ton of recent conversations about how easily the value of debuffs gets mitigated in high end continent. Both that and debuffs = best can’t simultaneously be true, people.

 

I’m a middleground guy and recognize they all have pros and cons though.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[Wavicle]

Yea, I wasn’t saying there’s anything wrong with that order.

[Haijinx]

9 hours ago, arcane said:

“It’s broken so no harm in breaking it more” is a fundamentally bad argument on principle IMO that I will never support.

 

However you would not support nerfs to those ATs that have gotten the Lion's share of the creep?  

[arcane]

3 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

However you would not support nerfs to those ATs that have gotten the Lion's share of the creep?  

I would be ok with reasonable nerfs. I don’t know that that is a feasible thing to do because of immensely repetitive and tiresome backlash to nerfs, but I personally have no qualms with pursuit of balance sans power creep.

 

I have been through every nerf in this game since launch. A few were tough, but I’m still here. How mind numbingly easy and repetitive the game has come closer to making me leave than any nerf tbh. But not close enough.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, arcane said:

I would be ok with reasonable nerfs. I don’t know that that is a feasible thing to do because of immensely repetitive and tiresome backlash to nerfs, but I personally have no qualms with pursuit of balance sans power creep.

 

I don't think they would happen.  But this position is definitely more consistent than buffs for X, but no buffs for support classes.  

[arcane]

Just now, Haijinx said:

 

I don't think they would happen.  But this position is definitely more consistent than buffs for X, but no buffs for support classes.  

Well, it’s more subtle in that you have to go off of what you really think needs buffs. For instance, IMO, Stalkers needed their buffs. Tankers maybe needed a tweak but they overcorrected a bit. Blasters did not.

[Wavicle]

I think I am in favor of more buffs to individual sets that need help, such as was done with Trick Arrow, rather than across the board buffs or changes to how powers have functioned for years.

In other words, Kinetics is fine as is, but Empathy could use a little something. Storm Summoning is fine as is, but Force Field could use some help. Radiation Emission is almost fine (remove the end crash from EMP), but Sonic Resonance could use a little help.

[Wavicle]

Actually if we're being completely honest, Kinetics could use a nerf, but I'm not holding my breath.

[arcane]

2 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I think I am in favor of more buffs to individual sets that need help, such as was done with Trick Arrow, rather than across the board buffs or changes to how powers have functioned for years.

In other words, Kinetics is fine as is, but Empathy could use a little something. Storm Summoning is fine as is, but Force Field could use some help. Radiation Emission is almost fine (remove the end crash from EMP), but Sonic Resonance could use a little help.

Right. Simply changing all ally only buffs would overcorrect Cold or Thermal when maybe only Emp/FF/Sonic need a buff.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[Wavicle]

I made posts already of suggestions for Sonic and FF. Maybe I'll make an Empathy post.

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, arcane said:

Well, it’s more subtle in that you have to go off of what you really think needs buffs. For instance, IMO, Stalkers needed their buffs. Tankers maybe needed a tweak but they overcorrected a bit. Blasters did not.

 

Stalkers were probably overbuffed in the end.  Their ATOs are so much better than everyone else's.  Its like they were designed to turn stalkers into scrapping damage fiends with more buildups than you can even fire off, and oh yeah here's a lot more hides and hide crits too! 

 

Scrappers have decent ATOs too, not as good, but definitely second place.  
 

Sure Tankers got nice buffs but their survival is mostly wasted.  Stalkers and Scrappers hardly ever die anyway. 

[Wavicle]

15 minutes ago, arcane said:

Blasters did not.

Yeah they did, but they may have gone a little too far with the Nukes.

[arcane]

8 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Yeah they did, but they may have gone a little too far with the Nukes.

Well, they needed buffs at some point, yes. Specifically, I think that, after already having buffed the Nukes to such a level, the sustain toggles were just downright egregious. I recall thinking very specifically that whoever implemented those was just throwing gold at their favorite AT and that balance went out the window on that one.

Edited April 21, 2021 by arcane

[Luminara]

1 minute ago, arcane said:

Debuffs are not supposed to be directly compared to buffs as I have already said because they have their own pros and cons.

 

There are more than enough tangible, directly comparable effects to provide accurate and reasonable comparison points.  Using Calvinball rules doesn't change that.

 

20 minutes ago, arcane said:

Debuffs have higher base values because they come with more baggage - including aggro, accuracy, highly impactful resistability, often shorter durations, etc.

 

The debuffs I listed in those examples are autohit.  Every debuff I listed has a significantly longer duration than recharge time.  Two of them are flagged to set one half as irresistible.  Three have additional components which alleviate aggro issues.  All of them are superior in strength when compared to click buffs like FF/Cold/Sonic shields, some so much stronger that reducing them by half (+4 foes) still leaves them at a higher value than comparable click buffs.  And that was just a quick list.

 

25 minutes ago, arcane said:

Your criticism accounts for none of this

It does if you actually know what powers do.

 

Let's cut this short.  You're going to disagree with everything I said, make up new rules, accuse me of saying something I didn't or not saying something that I did, then throw out another deflection.  You're too obvious, and I'm not going any deeper down your rabbit hole.

[arcane]

Agreed. Peace, then.

[Wavicle]

Debuffs mostly have target caps. Buffs protect you no matter how many targets there are.

[Luminara]

5 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Debuffs mostly have target caps. Buffs protect you no matter how many targets there are.

 

The aggro cap provides near perfect parity for comparison on that front.  You can pull aggro from multiple spawns, but since debuffs only have target caps, not total limits, they're functionally comparable (by which i mean i can Flash Arrow one spawn, then Flash Arrow another spawn and the first spawn's debuff is not removed.  this can be done to as many spawns as can be debuffed within the duration of the power).  A theoretical self-affecting FF trifecta could protect you from hundreds of foes, but so could Flash Arrow.

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

 

The aggro cap provides near perfect parity for comparison on that front.  You can pull aggro from multiple spawns, but since debuffs only have target caps, not total limits, they're functionally comparable (by which i mean i can Flash Arrow one spawn, then Flash Arrow another spawn and the first spawn's debuff is not removed.  this can be done to as many spawns as can be debuffed within the duration of the power).  A theoretical self-affecting FF trifecta could protect you from hundreds of foes, but so could Flash Arrow.

Yea, but I'm saying in One activation.

[Naraka]

15 hours ago, arcane said:

Debuffs are not supposed to be directly compared to buffs as I have already said because they have their own pros and cons. Debuffs have higher base values because they come with more baggage - including aggro, accuracy, highly impactful resistability, often shorter durations, etc. Your criticism accounts for none of this and is thus misguided, misleading, and nigh meaningless. Your analysis is univariate and lacking any subtlety, which is almost always a sign of incorrectness.

Don't forget target caps, range, diminishing effect as kill speed increases, invulnerability states and wasted activations (targeting a for that might be in the process of being bursted down) all contribute to an aspect of debuffs that buffs don't have to contend with. There's probably a name for it but I'd probably call it "target confusion".

 

With something like a Stalker utilizing AS and demoralize (uncommon playstyle) it has some aspects of target confusion because you tend to want to prioritize annoying targets that aren't immediately about to be bursted down by your allies, but they really only have to worry about that one attack at the beginning of the flight. With a debuffer that factor is multiplied by every power that has meaningful effects and the number of targets/range and deciding if waiting for the foes to be gathered vs team survival. 

[Naraka]

15 hours ago, Haijinx said:

 

Stalkers were probably overbuffed in the end.  Their ATOs are so much better than everyone else's.  Its like they were designed to turn stalkers into scrapping damage fiends with more buildups than you can even fire off, and oh yeah here's a lot more hides and hide crits too! 

 

Scrappers have decent ATOs too, not as good, but definitely second place.  
 

Sure Tankers got nice buffs but their survival is mostly wasted.  Stalkers and Scrappers hardly ever die anyway. 

Old school Stalker fan, I'm rather resentful how the messed with Stalker. It's cool that is basically a better Scrapper now (with less AoE), it ignores what stalkers were (most probably don't even know what demoralize is) and they defend their perspective by trying to say "the hit and run style was weak" ignoring that that wasn't even the AT's style to begin with.