Super Strength vs. the Fighting Pool

[Glacier Peak]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

I am not and have never in this discussion looked at it as 3+3. All I am saying is that the arguments you are decrying as derailment are not derailments and that if anyone wants to argue to buff any powers, they need to give an honest comparison.

 

As you said, this is your opinion. However, it is still part of the powers being debated, and so must be considered.

 

Then why did you bring up the improved recharge rates?

 

Edge goes to Fighting pool?! The Super Strength powers in question with KB are doing KD levels of KB. The Fighting powers in question doing KD are KD levels of KB. So how are you assigning the edge to Fighting? (Edit: Both sets are doing KB. At equal levels.)

 

I don't know why the arcanatimes are different, thank you for pointing that out. And now I will point out that Super Strength is still faster than Fighting with arcanatime. So that doesn't really change anything for my presentation.

 

You are trying to remove components from the powers to improve your argument. That is not a fair comparison and you know it. I am not arguing against changes to Super Strength, I am arguing against dishonest arguments to change Super Strength. And why did you scratch out the 30% chance of KD of Punch versus the 15% chance of KD from Kick? There is no way I will believe you think a 30% chance of scoring a KD is not a tangible benefit. Or the 60% chance from Haymaker versus the 40% chance from Cross Punch. This argument strikes me as very dishonest.

 

Where are you getting your numbers from? Again, damage from Mids and City of Data is as follows:

 

(Using a level 50 Tanker as reference)

 Jab: 35.92 (Mids)/35.9251 (CoD) damage

Punch: 52.83 (Mids)/52.8311 (CoD) damage

Haymaker: 86.64 (Mids)/86.643 (CoD) damage

Boxing: 40.15 (Mids)/40.152 (CoD) damage (Maxed from all three powers: 52.2 (Mids)/52.195 (CoD math) damage)

Kick: 44.38 (Mids)/44.378 (CoD) damage (Maxed from all three powers: 57.69 (Mids)/57.694 (CoD math) damage)

Cross Punch: 67.09 (Mids)/67.095 (CoD) damage (Maxed from all three powers: 87.22 (Mids)/87.2235 (CoD math) damage)

Swipe: 43.85 (Mids)/43.8498 (CoD) damage

Strike: 65.51 (Mids)/65.5106 (CoD) damage

Slash: 78.19 (Mids)/78.19 (CoD) damage

 

It sure looks like Claws is outdoing Super Strength, doesn't it? Except:

Swipe: 43.85 (Mids)/43.8498 (CoD) damage, 0.83 sec cast, 2.4 sec recharge, 3.494 END cost

Jab: 35.92 (Mids)/35.9251 (CoD) damage, 10% chance Mag 2 Stun for 7.152 secs, 1.07 sec cast, 2.0 sec recharge, 3.536 END cost

Strike: 65.51 (Mids)/65.5106 (CoD) damage, 1.17 sec cast, 4.8 sec recharge, 5.491 END cost

Punch: 52.83 (Mids)/52.8311 (CoD) damage, 30% chance Mag 0.67 KB, 1.2 sec cast, 4 sec recharge, 5.2 END cost

Slash: 78.19 (Mids)/78.19 (CoD) damage, -7% defense for 10 seconds, 1.33 sec cast, 6.4 sec recharge, 6.822 END cost

Haymaker: 86.64 (Mids)/86.643 (CoD) damage, 60% Mag 0.67 KB, 1.5 sec cast, 8 sec recharge, 8.528 END cost

 

Now Claws aren't beating Super Strength. You have to look at all the components or you are not giving a fair comparison.

 

Edit again:

  

If Rage is to be ignored because it benefits the Fighting Pool attacks as much as it does Super Strength attacks, then the +ACC and +RECH from the Fighting pool has to be ignored because it also benefits the Super Strength attacks. Not as a 3+3 thing, but as a 1+2 thing. Because no matter how you look at it, you HAVE to start with Jab or Punch, and Cross Punch will buff those as much as it buffs any other attack. And as far as the +DAM goes? That has already been addressed. With all components considered, it does not outclass Super Strength. (Factor the +ACC and +RECH into your build calculus, certainly. However, you can't declare one universal buff invalid for consideration and retain another for arguing with. Because like you and the author have stated, you can have both.)

That just saved me a lot of typing, thanks Rudra!

 

[Vanden]

7 hours ago, Ukase said:

The only real question here is: Should a t-1, t-2, or t-3 do more damage than a pool power t-1?
This is where the question has different answers for different reasons. 

 

So, I think there's an important factor being missed in this discussion when phrases like t1, t2 power get thrown around. Jab may be in the first spot in the power list for Super Strength, but in terms of melee set balance, it is not, in fact, a tier 1 attack. Punch is the t1 attack in Super Strength. In most melee sets, a tier 1 attack has a recharge (and corresponding damage) of 3-4 seconds, and a tier 2 attack has a recharge of 5-8 seconds. With their respective recharges, Jab, Punch, and Haymaker are all effectively one tier lower than their position in the list of Super Strength powers would imply. When you hear it said that the powers in Super Strength are weaker than they should be because of Rage, this is precisely what that means.

 

With this in mind, the comparison to Fighting pool powers doesn't seem so stark for Super Strength. Boxing and Kick are both effectively t1 powers, and they don't pull ahead of Punch, Super Strength's "true" t1, until all 3 Fighting attacks are owned. The same is true of Cross Punch and Haymaker. In any other comparison between sets Rage would easily make up the difference, but in this case the other powers are pool powers and so they get the benefit from Rage as well.

[Biff Pow]

51 minutes ago, Vanden said:

So, I think there's an important factor being missed in this discussion when phrases like t1, t2 power get thrown around. Jab may be in the first spot in the power list for Super Strength, but in terms of melee set balance, it is not, in fact, a tier 1 attack. Punch is the t1 attack in Super Strength. In most melee sets, a tier 1 attack has a recharge (and corresponding damage) of 3-4 seconds, and a tier 2 attack has a recharge of 5-8 seconds. With their respective recharges, Jab, Punch, and Haymaker are all effectively one tier lower than their position in the list of Super Strength powers would imply. When you hear it said that the powers in Super Strength are weaker than they should be because of Rage, this is precisely what that means.

 

This is true and even if you take Jab, by level 50 with recharge bonuses and everything, you can take it out of your power tray. Your other powers will fill in the attack chain.

 

So some might ask then: who cares? It's a weak power that can easily be replaced by a pool attack, from a pool that many want to access anyway. Just skip it.

 

I think that logic works the other way: if it doesn't matter, why not buff it a little so it doesn't feel so replaceable? It seems weird to be incentivized to NOT take Super Strength powers.

[Ukase]

I wanted to barge in and say something about stuns. For melee characters, the stun might be amusing to watch, with the cartoonish circles rotating over the npc heads, but when they stagger away from me...I think I'd rather have them hit me than make me use the F key to get back within range to finish them off. 

So before anyone considers the stuns as a positive feature for melee, please rethink that position. 

[Troo]

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

Where are you getting your numbers from?

 

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/powerset.html?pset=brute_melee.super_strength&at=brute

 

I am using a Primary set compared to Pool powers.

Reason:

16 hours ago, Troo said:

Primary powers should simply be better than Pool powers. (doesn't have to be Dam, could be some other benefit of significance)

Should Secondaries? That might be debatable. Maybe the Tanker numbers should be similar to Pool powers.

 

 

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/powerset.html?pset=brute_melee.super_strength&at=brute

 

I am using a Primary set compared to Pool powers.

Reason:

 

 

I disagree with your rounding, as in I disagree that the numbers should be rounded, but thanks. At least now I know where your numbers are coming from.

[Troo]

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

Then why did you bring up the improved recharge rates?

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

..it is still part of the powers being debated, and so must be considered.

 

..and for responses to your other queries:

Spoiler

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

You are trying to remove components from the powers to improve your argument. That is not a fair comparison and you know it.

I left what I agreed with. You might be looking at it glass half empty.

I provided reasoning for each that I crossed out. A simpler comparison is simpler.

 

You could have said there are nuances beyond damage that could make a less damaging power more desirable and I would agree with that. In this case the 60% Knock in Haymaker is compelling even if it does nothing to help damage.

16 hours ago, Rudra said:

However, you can't declare one universal buff invalid for consideration and retain another for arguing with. Because like you and the author have stated, you can have both.

I get what you are trying to say, but it just doesn't work for this 3v3 comparison.

 

For a Super Strength character Rage would be a constant whether it was taken or skipped. 

If it is taken it benefits all the powers being discussed. If not take the inverse. 

The buffs from the pool powers can only be present if a player takes powers outside Super Strength. 

If a player sticks with the three SS powers being discussed INSTEAD of the three pool powers there are no fighting buffs.

If a player takes the three Fighting powers being discussed INSTEAD of the three SS powers there ARE fighting buffs.

 

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

So how are you assigning the edge to Fighting?

Knockdown is superior to Knockback in most cases for melee archetypes.

(As I said, my opinion. My opinion is also that for ranged archetypes Knockback is superior)

 

15 hours ago, Rudra said:

There is no way I will believe you think a 30% chance of scoring a KD is not a tangible benefit.

A "30% chance of" has a greater chance of missing 3 times in a row than it does of hitting. The math would be: 0.7^3

 

34 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I disagree with your rounding,

I didn't round.

I just dropped the decimals and stuck with the whole number.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:52 AM by Troo

[Glacier Peak]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

I disagree with your rounding, as in I disagree that the numbers should be rounded, but thanks. At least now I know where your numbers are coming from.

Why Brute numbers when we've been talking Tankers?

[Rudra]

11 hours ago, Troo said:

Knockdown is superior to Knockback in most cases for melee archetypes.

(As I said, my opinion. My opinion is also that for ranged archetypes Knockback is superior)

Except that Kick and Cross Punch are still using KB just like Super Strength. Both sets' powers are set at Mag 0.67 KB. Feel free to view various effects however you want. However, arguing that Fighting is better than Super Strength because it has the same effect applied the same way makes absolutely no sense. (Edit: Especially since the set you say does not get the edge has the better chance of applying it.)

 

11 hours ago, Troo said:

I left what I agreed with. You might be looking at it glass half empty.

I provided reasoning for each that I crossed out. A simpler comparison is simpler.

 

You could have said there are nuances beyond damage that could make a less damaging power more desirable and I would agree with that. In this case the 60% Knock in Haymaker is compelling even if it does nothing to help damage.

You know as well as I do that attack powers in the game include their damage and their secondary effects for balance. So no, a simpler comparison is not simpler. It is biased.

 

 

9 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Why Brute numbers when we've been talking Tankers?

In the end, it doesn't really matter as long as everyone involved knows where the numbers are coming from. Going from Tankers to Brutes changes two things: the damage values for the respective attacks and the -DEF from Slash. (That -DEF change is -7.0% for Tankers and -7.5% for Brutes.) So the argument doesn't change (much), as long as what is being debated is known.

 

Edit:

And for clarification, the data for Brutes at level 50 is:

Jab: 28.36 (Mids)/28.3619 (CoD) damage, 10% chance Mag 2 Stun for 7.152 seconds, 1.07 sec cast, 2.0 sec recharge, 3.536 END cost

Punch: 41.71 (Mids)/41.7087 (CoD) damage, 30% chance Mag 0.67 KB, 1.2 sec cast, 4 sec recharge, 5.2 END cost

Haymaker: 68.4 (Mids)/68.4023 (CoD) damage, 60% Mag 0.67 KB, 1.5 sec cast, 8 sec recharge, 8.528 END cost

Boxing: 31.7 (Mids)/31.699 (CoD) damage, 10% chance Mag 2 Stun for 4.768 seconds, 1.07 sec cast, 2.5 sec recharge, 4.42 END cost

     Boxing maxed: 41.21 (Mids)/41.21 (CoD math) damage

Kick: 35.03 (Mids)/35.035 (CoD) damage, 15% chance Mag 0.67 KB, 1.83 sec cast, 3 sec recharge, 4.94 END cost

     Kick maxed: 45.54 (Mids)/45.5455 (CoD math) damage

Cross Punch: 52.97 (Mids)/52.97 (CoD) damage, 50 degree cone, 5 target cap, 40% chance Mag 0.67 KB, 1.67 cast, 8 sec recharge, 10.66 END cost

     Cross Punch maxed: 68.86 (Mids)/68.861 (CoD math) damage

Swipe: 34.62 (Mids)/34.6182 (CoD) damage, 0.83 sec cast, 2.4 sec recharge, 3.494 END cost

Strike: 51.72 (Mids)/51.7188 (CoD) damage, 1.17 sec cast, 4.8 sec recharge, 5.491 END cost

Slash: 61.73 (Mids)/61.7288 (CoD) damage, -7.5% defense for 10 seconds, 1.33 sec cast, 6.4 sec recharge, 6.822 END cost

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Rudra
Edited to correct "damage" to "balance".

[tidge]

19 hours ago, Biff Pow said:

I think that logic works the other way: if it doesn't matter, why not buff it a little so it doesn't feel so replaceable? It seems weird to be incentivized to NOT take Super Strength powers.

 

My feels are this: there has been an effort (Live and HC) to "do something different" with power sets, such as:

1. Combos
2. Unique mechanics in the set

The buff to the Fighting pool attacks are of a piece with the first; Rage puts Super Strength in the second category.

 

Personally? I like the buffs that the Fighting Pool can get, but I think this (and the interaction with Rage) is what got us here. I don't see the devs making further changes to the Fighting pool, my suspicion is that if *any* change was to come I'd guess they'd rework damage boosts (see recent changes to Tankers) in some complicated way to not help pool attacks (as much).