Claws - Too many useless powers

[Troo]

 

A lot of information is anecdotal. Data mining can be misleading. Relying too heavily on numbers can sanitize the fun right out of things.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:29 PM by Troo

[Captain Fabulous]

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

 That might be the case, but it still seems to me to be misleading. Your friends might be in the majority in terms their playing habits. But if you look at a metric like hours spent playing, the bulk of those casual players might represent a minority of the player time actually spent ingame. 

 This could very well be true. I don't honestly know. But I'm not entirely sure it's a metric of any value. It makes me think of Champions Online, where it's been in life support mode for the better part of a decade and the only people that play are a small group of die hards that keep it alive. There's no need to cater to the casual suboptimal player because there aren't any.

 

Looking at what people play and how long they play might be a useful metric in deciding what kinds of new content to add but I don't think it's something that is valuable when it comes to balance.

[Troo]

6 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

Looking at what people play and how long they play might be a useful metric in deciding what kinds of new content to add but I don't think it's something that is valuable when it comes to balance.

 

Listening to players who actually play sets, it would be a novel idea.

 

 

[Captain Fabulous]

17 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

People who, after years, only have characters in their mid-20s are not operating in a realm where optimization matters much...or balance or other things which tend to be cared about in the big picture. That's fine for them but does not mean others are wrong for finding their enjoyment pushing performance.

 

As for the discussions you have on the forums regarding optimization, the exist because they, unlike "having fun" are deeper mines to plumb. Years ago on Live, I had a Traps/Assault Rifle character with no travel powers because he was meant to be a normal guy using normal tools. He was not optimal at anything and had some serious limitations compared to other characters. And working within those confines as a strictly solo character was fun, as a challenge. But where is the discussion to be had there? What I found fun would have been torture for others and simply uninteresting to yet others.

 

 

I am 10000% OK with minmaxing, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on everyone else. I have characters all across the spectrum of effectiveness. from borderline gimped themed characters to fully IOd unkillable powerhouses (with the majority of my characters being somewhere in between). My point is that level of performance is not the norm, and should never be considered the norm, because the majority of people who play will never achieve (and have no desire to achieve) that level of performance. They want to hop on, beat up bad guys for an hour, and hop off, without having their play time eaten up by theorycrafting.

The fact the game allows you to play a suboptimal themed character effectively is because it's balanced around basic SO builds. If balancing was based on higher levels of performance that character would have been unplayable, and to me that would be unacceptable. 

[Captain Fabulous]

14 minutes ago, Troo said:

A lot of information is anecdotal. Data mining can be misleading. Relying too heavily on numbers can sanitize the fun right out of things.

True, which is why we do extensive closed and open betas. Com'n man, you know this already.

[Captain Fabulous]

3 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

Listening to players who actually play sets, it would be a novel idea.

Again, you know full well they listen. But you also know full well it depends upon what you're saying. If you're complaining a change added 0.4% to your pylon times it's far more likely to be ignored than if a change made a once functional character now unplayable, even at low/moderate difficulty levels.

[arcane]

1 hour ago, Troo said:

 

Listening to players who actually play sets, it would be a novel idea.

 

 

Or even just listening to people who both still like CoH and still play CoH. Believe it or not there are frequent posters that can’t meet that low bar.

 

There are posters with closed beta access who have publicly expressed a desire for the game to fail. Not a problem at all, I’m sure.

Edited Tuesday at 04:32 PM by arcane

[lemming]

Just on the subject of claws, my first scrapper ever was a claws/regen and I still have a fondness of claws.  Just started up a claws/regen and feel it will be nice with the various knockdowns and such.   I don't go for a set attack chain.   Tried on some chars and noted, for me, it doesn't have a huge difference.

It's kinda like solo AV.   I have characters that can do them, but it's not fun for me.  Takes longer than I like and if I'm doing solo play, it's checking out various storylines, or setting up a char for further group play.   Min-maxing can be fun, but I think I burned out on that playing Champions.

[Scarlet Shocker]

On 7/13/2025 at 5:18 PM, Troo said:

Claws over performs on Scrappers compared to other archetypes.

 

Should the set rely on more than three or four powers?

Typical buzzsaw attack chain:

Follow Up -> Focus -> Slash -> [epic/other] -> repeat

 

Power	Level	Effect
Swipe	1	Melee, DMG(Lethal)
Strike	1	Melee, DMG(Lethal)
Slash	2	Melee, DoT(Lethal), Foe -DEF(All)
Spin	6	PBAoE, DMG(Lethal)
Follow Up	8	Melee, DMG(Lethal), Self +DMG, +To-Hit
Confront	12	Ranged, Foe Taunt
Focus	18	Ranged, DMG(Lethal), Foe Knockdown
Eviscerate	22	Melee (Cone), DMG(Lethal), +Special
Shockwave	26	Melee (Cone), DMG(Lethal), Foe Knockback

 

 

I'd just like to take a moment to remind you that this is actually a game, rather than an automated process. It should be played the way individuals enjoy it and more than two decades of game play have amply demonstrated that the proverbial cat can be skinned in multiple ways.

 

If you feel there are too many crap powers, you are perfectly at liberty to leave them out, ensuring they never appear in your rotation, come not within a single parsec of darkening any doorstep to which you happen to be approximate to and not let such terrible sub-optimal powers trouble your weary head, ever again.

 

However that last part may be tricky because they do seem to be living within your cranium at a hugely subsidised rental.

[Troo]

36 minutes ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

If you feel there are too many crap powers, you are perfectly at liberty to leave them out, ensuring they never appear in your rotation, come not within a single parsec of darkening any doorstep to which you happen to be approximate to and not let such terrible sub-optimal powers trouble your weary head, ever again.

 

However that last part may be tricky because they do seem to be living within your cranium at a hugely subsidised rental.

 

Hold on now.

What I asked wasn't a hard question: "Should the set rely on more than three or four powers?"

 

I also pointed out what seems to be a disparity between archetypes using the same powerset.

 

 

A number of folks have been able to manage a reply based on their opinion and their experience, without the need to lash out at me personally. Seven or eight 'you/your/etc' in four sentences seems unusual.

Question: Is there a reason this topic has triggered such a response from yourself? It's just a discussion.

 

[MTeague]

My Claws/SR scrapper does not use Focus or Shockwave, because I don't like the idea of projected waves of force from the claws. 

I use only attacks that can concieveably be direct use of the blades.  Strike, Slash, Follow Up, Spin, Eviscerate. 

 

I am aware some consider that as intentionally gimping myself. I give them permission to hold that opinion. For me, concept is of far greater import than performance. 

I do use Weapon Mastery epic pool for Caltrops, Web Grenade, and Shuriken to deal with runners. 

[Riverdusk]

Having only those few powers seems terrible to me:

 

AoE?  For a game with so many enemies just focusing on only single target seems strange.  Spin is amazing.  Personally I find shockwave amazing.

 

What about when leveling up or exemping down?  That seems like it'd be painful.   Personally I never just look at what a character can do at level 50.  I look at how it plays at a variety of different levels.

 

Also separate question:  Do those comparisons take into account procs?  The longer base recharges on the tank/brute versions vs. scrapper should help proc rate which would help close the gap some potentially.

[Scarlet Shocker]

1 hour ago, Troo said:

 

Hold on now.

What I asked wasn't a hard question: "Should the set rely on more than three or four powers?"

 

I also pointed out what seems to be a disparity between archetypes using the same powerset.

 

 

A number of folks have been able to manage a reply based on their opinion and their experience, without the need to lash out at me personally. Seven or eight 'you/your/etc' in four sentences seems unusual.

Question: Is there a reason this topic has triggered such a response from yourself? It's just a discussion.

 

 

I fundamentally disagree with your premise. It doesn't rely on them. It might be possible to do so, in the same way a well practised micro team can run almost all the content in the game. 

 

Reliance and necessity are two very different things and ultimately the game is the game and it works reasonably well as is for most players.

 

I wasn't lashing out, I'm sorry if you felt I came across in that way but as you and I both have agreed in other threads there are sets with superfluous powers but people still take them for many reasons not the least of which is that they enjoy them.

 

Can you play with just those powers? I'm sure you can but that's only reliance if you choose nothing else and this game is about variety.

 

But let's suppose for just one moment that you are correct and a few powers in the set are OP - what would you prefer to do? Nerf them and maybe boost some of the other powers? I guarantee that'd piss a few people off so there's no real solution without heartache somewhere

 

[Yomo Kimyata]

17 hours ago, Captain Fabulous said:

Because using the same 3-4 attacks over and over again can get boring AF? Because I play to have fun and really don't care if it takes me an extra second or two to kill something with my sub-optimal build and power rotation?

 

I'm totally down with that.  Heck, I keep Kick in the rotation because sometimes it is satisfying to finish off an enemy while keeping on truckin'.

 

 

7 hours ago, Seed22 said:

What I’m scratching my head at is in NO OTHER COMMUNITY have I or will I ever see the players advocate for the smallest amount of spells to be viable.

 

I'm not advocating for the smallest amount of spells/powers, not by any means.  However, for me, who partly finds beauty in efficiency, I look at my powers like:  hmm, I've got two single target damage powers and I'm ok with the animation of both (I still mostly avoid fire/frost swords unless they really mean the character concept) and I can alternate between them with no down time and there are three other single target damage powers and none of them are superior in terms of dpx or aesthetics, so I'm good not taking any of those other powers because they simply aren't doing me any good.  Me.  Not doing ME any good.  You play how you want, because I am certainly not the one trying to enforce a most optimal path on anyone except for me.

[MTeague]

3 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

But let's suppose for just one moment that you are correct and a few powers in the set are OP - what would you prefer to do? Nerf them and maybe boost some of the other powers? I guarantee that'd piss a few people off so there's no real solution without heartache somewhere

Plant Control says Hi.  

 

I mean, don't get me wrong. New Plant, is plenty viable. I'm re-levelling a Plant/Psi dom, and doing just fine. 

But it's definitely some Tennyson, 

 

"...Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,..."

[FupDup]

Broadly speaking, the game has a few mechanics that stand in the way of picking every power in a set. 
>Animation time budget (once you have a full chain, adding more powers is literally useless)

>Limited power choices
>Limited slots

 

...So being able to get by without the full 9 powers is practically a necessity. However, it also sucks for some powers to be pure noob traps with no legit use case. My take is that powers with weaker DPA should generally have higher utility or something so there's a little more give and take as to picking which ones you want.

 

Like for example, in Dark Blast, right now you always want to take Gloom as your first attack because it has higher DPA and that's the end of the story. What I would do is make the T1 blast have a noticeably stronger to-hit debuff (perhaps last longer too?) than Gloom so that it would be a choice of DPA vs safety. You aren't expected to take both because, again, animation budget and limited slots, but maybe the choice would be a little less of a no-brainer?

 

Some sets with limited utility might be harder to translate this idea to than others, admittedly. Like maybe Flares might have a chance to spread fire to nearby enemies or something because Fire Blast lacks secondary effects, I dunno. I think you get the idea. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:53 AM by FupDup

[Scarlet Shocker]

43 minutes ago, MTeague said:

Plant Control says Hi.  

 

I mean, don't get me wrong. New Plant, is plenty viable. I'm re-levelling a Plant/Psi dom, and doing just fine. 

But it's definitely some Tennyson, 

 

"...Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,..."

 

Truthfully I've not noticed much different in my Plant trollers. I am not denying there is a change but I haven't really noticed much.

[Troo]

3 hours ago, Scarlet Shocker said:

But let's suppose for just one moment that you are correct and a few powers in the set are OP - what would you prefer to do? Nerf them and maybe boost some of the other powers? I guarantee that'd piss a few people off so there's no real solution without heartache somewhere

 

I am okay with folks playing however they choose. Devs, they don't feel the same. They have repeatedly shown as much. 

Claws, Super Strength, and others are going to get the same treatment as other sets have. It is framed as an effort to address overperforming and less desirable powers.

 

I would actually have left existing sets alone, allowing only minor adjustments and Qol.  

Not everyone agrees with that approach.

It is my opinion that we don't need to make everything same-same, we don't have to race to average everything out. We don't need to make existing powersets unrecognizable, we don't have to force respecs and/or shelving of characters. We can still have room for improvement where needed. We just don't need to jerk existing players around to do it.

 

There are so many great things that have been added I don't understand the penchant for griefing our own. As you said "I guarantee that'd piss a few people off so there's no real solution without heartache somewhere".