What is Meant by "Weak" or "Underperforming" Powersets?

[tidge]

IMO Weak/Under-performing is very subjective. I think there is a case to be made for using different sets in different content by different ATs in the hands of different players, but...

 

... a simple review of the forums where folks discuss different power choices should make it somewhat clear that different play styles and preferences make a big difference in perception.

 

Writing only for myself: I have some powersets I love on some ATs, and yet hate the same set on a different AT... because of "performance". There are some sets that are "just fine" but end up really shining at level 50 with clever choices in ancillary powers and slots. There are quite a few characters of mine that I think play really well, but I wouldn't recommend for certain content.

 

The best thing IMO about CoX is that there is so much content with such variety.

[Ghost]

18 hours ago, Waljoricar said:

So I've recently had a couple of character concepts - a Necromancy/Poison Mastermind and a Kinetic Melee/Energy Aura Brute.

 

Now, for me, concept is king, always.

However.

 

When starting a new character, I like to have a quick browse of the forums for bit of a build guidance and general consensus on primary/secondary synergy, playstyle, etc. I solo exclusively and play everything at the "standard" difficulty, so I'm not concerned with min/maxing a character.

it's disheartening when I learn that Kinetic Melee is objectively the worst melee set out there. Or that Poison on Masterminds is just a woefully underperforming set. Like I said, concept is king, but I also want to have a good time as I play and feel like my character packs a wallop, you know?

Which got me wondering; what do people actually mean when they talk about those bottom-of-the-barrel powersets being weak, underperforming, poorly optimised or trash on a particular AT?

Is it typically meant from an endgame "creatinging a build with the highest damage output" (or whatever metric fits the AT in question) mindset, or are some powersets just so broken, so in need of rework that they're not fit for purpose even when playing at standard difficulty?

Whether or not a primary/secondary combo is enjoyable is another matter, but I do wonder just how much I'm shooting myself in the foot by startig a new 1-50 solo journey with a character that, according to popular opinion, kinf of sucks.

Ignore the BS and play what you enjoy!

[Seed22]

If you were doing HM or going for +4x8 I would say yes there are objective high and low performers. 
 

But you’re not, so while yes your set is the worst melee set in the game, it still slaps around baseline goons so have fun!

[TheMoneyMaker]

For those sets that perform better or adequately at moderate difficulty rather than those that do well at +4/x8, just remember that those that do fine against the +4/x8 do even better when they are played at moderate difficulty too.  But the real underperformers should be fixed to be brought up to perform as well as the middle tier powersets.

[UltraAlt]

19 hours ago, Waljoricar said:

I've been playing since i3. I think I know what I'm doing by now (I don't).

 

?

People play differently.

 

Within the framework of character conception I have some general slotting guidelines that I use for all characters.

Put 2 acc enhancements in every power that can take accuracies (if I can get an accuracy of 2.00x without slotting 2 accs, I don't slot any more than I need to get the 2.00x)

Put 1 end enhancement in an toggle power and (after the accuracies) 1 end in any power that cost more than 10 end to use.

After that, I generally put one of enhancement in for whatever special effect that power has (this does not go for taunt. I usually only increase taunt in the sets actual taunt power)

And, a damage enhance in any high damage powers.

 

By the time all that is said and done. I'm generally heading into the ATO sets and IO sets.

As early as possible, I'm slotting a https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Panacea:_Chance_for_%2BHit_Points/Endurance in health

At 17 or shortly after, I'm slotting a https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance in stamina

Generally, slotting a https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Power_Transfer:_Chance_to_Heal_Self in stamina shortly after that.

 

After that I go with IO sets or Winter Lord sets (usually individual procs out of this set) that fit my conception of the character.

And, yeah, this can mean intentionally avoiding mini-maxing/maximum efficiency for the sake of character conception (the same goes for powers and pool pick for me).

 

There is a lot powers and power pools that many players never use simply because other people don't consider them to be OP and/or consider them to be underpowered or "not worth taking". It doesn't mean that they are entirely worthless, but all powers are conditional and it will probably mean adapting your playstyle to the powers instead of trying to force a power set into the all too common "Hulk smash" game play style. 

[Tsuko]

CoX is the best game in the world at making you feel like a superhero, no pun intended: animations, lights and a shaking screen.

but when you open the logs and start talking about Degats per animation / second and clear time vs single target dps, there is a real difference between some top powers and others... fillers to keep it polite.

so what's important is how each player feels about each power: I'm sure there's a player somewhere who loves his KM/regen brute and has a blast with it.

 

[macskull]

The “play what you want” crowd has got to be one of the most unhelpful segments of this game’s player base. It is entirely possible for someone to like the way a low-performing set looks or feels while also wishing that set performed well, and just saying “well, get over it” isn’t constructive at all.

[Bionic_Flea]

17 minutes ago, macskull said:

The “play what you want” crowd has got to be one of the most unhelpful segments of this game’s player base. It is entirely possible for someone to like the way a low-performing set looks or feels while also wishing that set performed well, and just saying “well, get over it” isn’t constructive at all.

I don't think that's fair for a few reasons: 1) The "play what you want" crowd includes a lot of people.  I would put myself in that group and I don't consider myself unhelpful.  Would you put me down as unhelpful?  2) I'm not seeing any "get over it" responses.  Literally or figuratively.  At least in this thread.  I have seen it elsewhere.  3)  I'm not seeing anyone, in this thread, arguing against improvements.

[Captain Fabulous]

If a set is fun to play I don't care so much if it's "underperforming" or not. For me it only becomes an issue when soloing, which I rarely do.

The only exception to this is Regen. That one just sucks no matter what you're doing.

[Ghost]

40 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

The only exception to this is Regen. That one just sucks no matter what you're doing.

Not true - works good on Sentinels

[macskull]

3 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

I don't think that's fair for a few reasons: 1) The "play what you want" crowd includes a lot of people.  I would put myself in that group and I don't consider myself unhelpful.  Would you put me down as unhelpful?  2) I'm not seeing any "get over it" responses.  Literally or figuratively.  At least in this thread.  I have seen it elsewhere.  3)  I'm not seeing anyone, in this thread, arguing against improvements.

I suppose that was more directed at the “ignore the BS and play what you enjoy” poster, even though the OP expressed their frustration that even though they enjoyed the idea of Kinetic Melee they didn’t like the idea of being stuck with a low-performance set.

 

I really only take issue with that sort of attitude because it’s incredibly dismissive and especially in help/general chat ingame it is often given as an answer without answering the actual question. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard “is x or y better?” being followed up with “anything is viable, play what you want.” Like, sure, you can do most content with most builds (when built right and played the right way) but that isn’t actually answering the question that was asked.

 

To be clear here, I don’t think people that think you should play whatever you want are problematic (hell, I’d put myself in that category too). If someone enjoys soloing -1x0 on their Empathy Defender using only Brawl, that’s great, I’m glad they’re having fun.

[Seed22]

39 minutes ago, macskull said:

I suppose that was more directed at the “ignore the BS and play what you enjoy” poster, even though the OP expressed their frustration that even though they enjoyed the idea of Kinetic Melee they didn’t like the idea of being stuck with a low-performance set.

 

I really only take issue with that sort of attitude because it’s incredibly dismissive and especially in help/general chat ingame it is often given as an answer without answering the actual question. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard “is x or y better?” being followed up with “anything is viable, play what you want.” Like, sure, you can do most content with most builds (when built right and played the right way) but that isn’t actually answering the question that was asked.

 

To be clear here, I don’t think people that think you should play whatever you want are problematic (hell, I’d put myself in that category too). If someone enjoys soloing -1x0 on their Empathy Defender using only Brawl, that’s great, I’m glad they’re having fun.

I share your sentiments in this.

 

I usually go with the answer I gave in this thread, except substitute in whatever it is they're doing. If you want me to give a truthful blunt answer to the best of my knowledge I can and will do so. If OP asked if they'd be viable in say HM 4, or even say 3, I would say no. They'd be a carry spot but not exactly a hindrance except in 4* and even then ehhh with enough Cold doms and natures anything is possible.

 

But I never like to go with "play whatever you want" unless they lead me to believe they are solely playing only in the kitty pool(i.e. the majority of CoH content). That's not to say that HM is some elite hard sweatfest, OP. Don't want you getting scared off it. It's really not approaching anything resembling difficulty.

[Ghost]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

I suppose that was more directed at the “ignore the BS and play what you enjoy” poster, even though the OP expressed their frustration that even though they enjoyed the idea of Kinetic Melee they didn’t like the idea of being stuck with a low-performance set.

 

I really only take issue with that sort of attitude because it’s incredibly dismissive and especially in help/general chat ingame it is often given as an answer without answering the actual question. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard “is x or y better?” being followed up with “anything is viable, play what you want.” Like, sure, you can do most content with most builds (when built right and played the right way) but that isn’t actually answering the question that was asked.

 

To be clear here, I don’t think people that think you should play whatever you want are problematic (hell, I’d put myself in that category too). If someone enjoys soloing -1x0 on their Empathy Defender using only Brawl, that’s great, I’m glad they’re having fun.

The point of my response is….

 

If you enjoy playing it, why worry what anyone else thinks?

 

What good is having a high damage toon, if you’re bored to death with the power set?

 

 

I took the post to say they enjoyed kinetic melee until they “heard” it was low performing.

Maybe I misunderstood what the OP was asking - but I stand by my fucking answer.

If you enjoy the powers and how it plays - don’t worry about everyone else’s insignificant opinion.

 

 

Edited August 23 by Ghost

[macskull]

5 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I took the post to say they enjoyed kinetic melee until they “heard” it was low performing.

Maybe I misunderstood what the OP was asking - but I stand by my fucking answer.

If you enjoy the powers and how it plays - don’t worry about everyone else’s insignificant opinion.

 

Like I said, concept is king, but I also want to have a good time as I play and feel like my character packs a wallop, you know?

This is definitely a case of "I'd enjoy this set a lot better if I wasn't sacrificing performance."

[Greycat]

3 minutes ago, Ghost said:

The point of my response is….

 

If you enjoy playing it, why worry what anyone else thinks?

 

What good is having a high damage toon, if you’re bored to death with the power set?

 

I took the post to say they enjoyed kinetic melee until they heard it was low performing.

Maybe I misunderstood what the OP was asking - but I stand by my fucking answer.

If you enjoy the powers and how it plays - don’t worry about everyone else’s insignificant opinion.

 

Precisely.

 

If someone specifically is asking "I want a high damage set/high AOE set/etc," that's another matter and can be answered that way.

 

But the "I like this set but someone told me it sucks, did I make a mistake?" - no, you didn't, and that sort of attitude about "only the high damage stuff is best" is nothing but damaging.  No, I don't think @Ghost misread it, because the OP says *exactly that.* They build for concept, but:

 

Quote

it's disheartening when I learn that Kinetic Melee is objectively the worst melee set out there. Or that Poison on Masterminds is just a woefully underperforming set.

 

So, yes, for someone like this? It's fine to say (say) "Earth/FF on a controller is going to be slow, just so you know" or "Plan for a fire/storm controller to be an END hog" or answer about performance for people *asking for damage-above-all* with rankings and whatnot. But when they're being told it sucks *and it directly ends up lowering their enjoyment of the game,* then letting them know that playing for concept is fine and perfectly viable *is* the appropriate answer.

 

No matter if other people don't like that answer or not. Play to your own goals and enjoyment.

[Ghost]

On 8/20/2024 at 3:06 PM, Waljoricar said:

 

it's disheartening when I learn that Kinetic Melee is objectively the worst melee set out there. 

Whether or not a primary/secondary combo is enjoyable is another matter, but I do wonder just how much I'm shooting myself in the foot by startig a new 1-50 solo journey with a character that, according to popular opinion, kinf of sucks.

and here’s the two sections that lead me to my opinion.

 

How did he “learn” it was the worst melee set?

by playing it or someone telling him?

Then he mentions “popular opinion” - again leading me to believe he was happy with the toon until “someone who knows better” opened their big mouth and ruined his enjoyment.

 

 

@macskull

Youre sick of people telling players to enjoy what they like.

Im equally sick of players telling others they are doing it wrong, because they picked the wrong powers.  Or wrong AT.

 

If they pick and play what they enjoy, the chances are they will stick around longer than if they pick and play what someone else enjoys.

 

 

 

[macskull]

14 minutes ago, Ghost said:

@macskull

Youre sick of people telling players to enjoy what they like.

That's weird, considering in my last post I said:

If someone enjoys soloing -1x0 on their Empathy Defender using only Brawl, that’s great, I’m glad they’re having fun. 

 

[Neiska]

A few thoughts.

 

The first - not everyone chases the same things. Some people like to chase the META, others like to chase the style or feel of a set, I have even met a few who picked their powers based entirely on looks. There is no wrong way to "enjoy" a character.

 

The second - even on most tests, pylon timers etc, the game in itself has so many different activities, so many different enemies with different resists and so on, that it's impossible to get a 100% kiss-your-elbow best on everything. There is simply too many variables. Now I hasten to add, they are good "ballpark" figures, but they are just that, ballpark numbers, not something to bet the farm on.

 

The third - what set does perform best, will also vary on things that cannot be precisely measured, like player knowledge or experience in the game, or skill. Even if you take the very best powerset, and blow 600m inf kitting it out, you might still stumble, if you don't know the mission, the map, the enemy type, the new powerset, so on.

 

So take things that people say with a bit of salt. Opinions and input are good to have, but there is no magic powerset or AT that will be the kiss your elbow best at all activities on all missions and so on. And keep in mind, often what makes or breaks a set or AT is playing to its strengths, many of which cannot be fully appreciated through just math. An example off the top of my head, is at high level gameplay when doing the hardest difficulties, debuffs are often king. But in other situations, like speed running lvl 50 missions, such a build will not be the top performer, even though it might absolutely wreck-face doing the most challenging game content.

 

My usual reply to "what's at/power is best" is "in what context?" because context matters quite a bit in CoH.

 

My two cents

[Erratic1]

On 8/20/2024 at 4:00 PM, Psyonico said:

I've got a kinetic/energy brute.  Probably my first toon to get fully T4'd with incarnates.  Although KM is considered weak among melee sets, it is still perfectly functional.  If concept is king, I think you'll find KM/Energy to be a fun combo.

 

Sure, if you don't mind other people you are grouped with killing things while you are waving your hands around, making your power eventually going off meaningless.

 

Concept is king, until is sucks so much it is no fun.

Edited August 23 by Erratic1

[Waljoricar]

Things got a little heated in my absence!

 

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and contributions to this thread. There have been some very measured and thoughtful responses so far regarding how we talk about powerset efficacy within certain parts of our community and how relevant those perspectives are outside of those very focused discussions.

 

I'm not making value judgements about how people choose to enjoy the game and I'd encourage otherwise to do the same.

 

10 hours ago, macskull said:

 

Like I said, concept is king, but I also want to have a good time as I play and feel like my character packs a wallop, you know?

This is definitely a case of "I'd enjoy this set a lot better if I wasn't sacrificing performance."

 

This is a really succinct way of describing the feeling I'm often left with after looking for general build advice for one of my character concepts and the catalyst for my original question - is the language used to talk about those often derided powersets relevant or helpful outside of conversation specifically about min/maxing?

 

The obvious answer is, of course, it depends on what your intention is with the character you make; there's nuance to consider.

 

12 hours ago, Seed22 said:

I usually go with the answer I gave in this thread, except substitute in whatever it is they're doing. If you want me to give a truthful blunt answer to the best of my knowledge I can and will do so. If OP asked if they'd be viable in say HM 4, or even say 3, I would say no. They'd be a carry spot but not exactly a hindrance except in 4* and even then ehhh with enough Cold doms and natures anything is possible.

 

I almost exclusively solo or, at least, I intend to for 1-50 content, which is a not insignificant investment to make time-wise.

 

Once I've achieved my personal goal of hitting Level 50 solo, I may very well want to change things up. Start teaming, doing tougher content in general, etc. I'd be gutted to learn that I had chosen a character that, from the very beginning, had a immutable handicap that relegated them to a "carry spot" on a team or, worse, makes me not "economically viable" for a team to want me in the first place.

 

Or, if we were to stick to the playing solo example (as that is the reality of my playstyle and the premise upon which my original question was built), learning that I'm about to choose the absolute worst version of a power (Poison on Masterminds in this example) across all ATs is definitely alarming. Now I'm wondering which is more important - enjoying being a Mastermind or enjoying the Poison powerset, because they seem at odds with one another, considering there's a really awesome Poison powerset one street over (Corrupters).

9 hours ago, Neiska said:

A few thoughts.

 

The first - not everyone chases the same things. Some people like to chase the META, others like to chase the style or feel of a set, I have even met a few who picked their powers based entirely on looks. There is no wrong way to "enjoy" a character.

 

The second - even on most tests, pylon timers etc, the game in itself has so many different activities, so many different enemies with different resists and so on, that it's impossible to get a 100% kiss-your-elbow best on everything. There is simply too many variables. Now I hasten to add, they are good "ballpark" figures, but they are just that, ballpark numbers, not something to bet the farm on.

 

The third - what set does perform best, will also vary on things that cannot be precisely measured, like player knowledge or experience in the game, or skill. Even if you take the very best powerset, and blow 600m inf kitting it out, you might still stumble, if you don't know the mission, the map, the enemy type, the new powerset, so on.

 

So take things that people say with a bit of salt. Opinions and input are good to have, but there is no magic powerset or AT that will be the kiss your elbow best at all activities on all missions and so on. And keep in mind, often what makes or breaks a set or AT is playing to its strengths, many of which cannot be fully appreciated through just math. An example off the top of my head, is at high level gameplay when doing the hardest difficulties, debuffs are often king. But in other situations, like speed running lvl 50 missions, such a build will not be the top performer, even though it might absolutely wreck-face doing the most challenging game content.

 

My usual reply to "what's at/power is best" is "in what context?" because context matters quite a bit in CoH.

 

My two cents

 

This is a really well articulated response and highlights how important that nuance I mentioned is.

 

Though, to be clear, I've never been in pursuit of the best power, I've just been wary of choosing powers that are oft looked at as kind of a dud.

 

I fully appreciate that even that "dud" designation is subjective and influenced by so many variables that it loses all meaning without a frame of reference which is, really, a player's goals/intentions with a character.

 

9 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Sure, if you don't mind other people you are grouped with killing things while you are waving your hands around, making your power eventually going off meaningless.

 

Concept is king, until is sucks so much it is no fun.

 

Yeah, exactly. This is kind of the feeling I get when I'm considering certain powersets these days.

 

The "waving hands around" just makes me think of the KM nova and it cracks me up. It's so extra for no reason at all 😂

 

Sidenote: if anyone wants to quote me (love being included in this discussion!), please feel free to address me directly and not in the third person.

 

I promise, the OP is very much in the room with us now 😉

Edited August 23 by Waljoricar

[Indystruck]

Everyone has how they like to play the game. That's cool.

 

Sometimes, people ask questions about performance, or they ask questions about concept.

 

The problem arises when someone from the other branch tries to answer a question concerning the other side.

 

So, here's the thing:

 

Underperforming is not a problem, usually. The lowest sets, you can build around and adjust and work with and make shine pretty well. B u t,

 

This is a team game. And some teams are going to leave you in the dust just because of things you can't necessarily build around, things like patch setups, things like animation times, things like waiting for your AoE control to go off before the mob gets nuked (these are not necessarily all Kin Melee problems), that sorta thing. And the only answer for still feeling useful tends to be, play more aggressively, get to the spawn before your team does, which turns the whole thing into this breakneck, buzzsaw pace that might not necessarily be what the player actually wants.

 

But then, the answer tends to be "find like minded people to team with" or "develop a group that you fit in with". Sound advice in theory. But in practice, let's face it, the player base isn't what it once was in terms of size, so this can be easier said than done to line up people who want that in the same active play time that you have with people who are now busy working 9-to-5s. It ends up taking a lot of your free time to setup your free time to just go have fun, if you get a dedicated group of players together. Not ideal.

 

If you like an underperforming set, there's nothing wrong with that. Take it for what it is, and you get to be happy when ever it ends up getting some shine.

If you don't, try looking at other things and wonder if you can bend it to fit your concept. Do you need Kinetic Melee for the flow-y energy effects as you do those animations? Maybe a re-coloration of some of the hit animations on MA's punch animations would work better? Kin Melee is a bit better on Stalkers, maybe you could try that approach out.

[Without_Pause]

Let's start at square one. What is underperforming? If we look at how the game was designed, those so called underperforming sets can be made to where they are balanced if not overperforming.  Yes, KM can overperform in a game which is 'balanced against SOs' by using IOs.* The issue is that the current meta has so many builds overperforming other overperforming builds to where those lesser overperforming builds come across as underperforming. I can literally make numerous builds which would be bored soloing the original max diff setting CoH had. IIRC, it was up to +3 with no ability to increase team size so +3/x actual team size. It might have been limited to +2. Wee? Add in the current meta, see higher diff settings, starred content, etc. and it is further evidence that the lesser overperforming sets are in need of being reworked.

 

Part of the issue of game balance is making formulas for how sets are designed, and then giving sets variants in that to give them additional feel. See faster playing sets versus slower ones, and Scrapper Claws being a bit of a unicorn in it's design without it being overpowered. I haven't really deep dived the data for various sets, but my leaning is that there is no real or at least recognizable formulas for how powersets are built. If there are ones, you can't prove to me they were used when KM was made. 

 

* Meta aside, if you want to die on the hill that that the game is still balanced against SOs, go start playing various content, ie soling +4x8, Incarnate, starred content with using SOs because all of that is in game. At this point, teams are expected to steamroll. I think the last time I did a Frostfire not at +4 was when I led the team. and that's due to me not using 2X XP boosters. Regardless of the original intent with game balance the current meta has redefined it which means the lesser overperforming builds are 'bad.' Again, if someone can make a KM build which solos +3/x2 than it is technically overperforming the game's original design. 

 

P.S. I can't recall the history of KM specifically, but I feel like it was never a set that performed well. Regen is a poster child of a set which so overperformed it being nerfed became a meme, and even the HC team hasn't lifted a finger to do even basic 'holy crap how has this not happened yet' adjustments. 

[pawstruck]

Not to be a dick, but: How is the word "underperforming" not self-explanatory?

 

Many weaker sets aren't noticeably bad because IO's are overpowered and this is a twenty year-old, solved game. I know I say this a lot, but people seem to forget how crazy strong we are now compared to Hami-O days.

 

Some sets are so noticeably bad that I cannot even endure them for the perfect concept. Poison on MM's is one example. Storm Blast on blaster is another. Once you've played, say, Ice, I can't help but feel like Storm is just a less effective version of them.

 

(Also, what the hell is that T3 blast? I make my enemies wet with a raincloud, and that's supposed to be more damaging than my Direct Strike lightning bolt??)

 

What I (we?) mean is clearly not that YOU can't play and enjoy these weak sets, but that most of us are bothered enough by their comparative weakness that we do not want to play them until they are buffed. 

[Without_Pause]

19 minutes ago, pawstruck said:

Not to be a dick, but: How is the word "underperforming" not self-explanatory?

Pet peeve: anyone who uses some variation of 'Not that I am...' as some way to downplay the brunt of what they are about to say. 

 

There are people who believe the game is still balanced around SOs. I'm not one of those but context does matter. 

[Waljoricar]

11 minutes ago, pawstruck said:

Not to be a dick, but: How is the word "underperforming" not self-explanatory?

 

There's a really good discussion about how this term, amongst others, may be interpreted in more than one way depending on the context of its use and the dissoance created when those terms are taken literally by lay players not familiar with said context.