page 3 [FOCUSED FEEDBACK] Super Strength Adjustments

[Shin Magmus]

2 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Why are you ignoring damage scalers, then?
Tank: 52.8311
Brute: 41.7087

Jab: .68 *  Melee_damage

Tank Jab: 35.9251

Brute Jab: 28.3619

 

Brute needs 15 points of fury to get past the +26.6668% damage buff just to catch up to the tank.

 

Doublestack rage on both, tank gets +140% damage, brute gets +160% and we'll assume 95% damage enhancement.

Tank Jab: 120.349

Brute Jab: 100.6847

 

Brute still needs +19.53% more damage buff to catch up, or 10 pts fury. Hard to do? Not even remotely.

 

Brute fury is fine because it gets them close to scrapper damage until the scrapper AT-IOs get slapped into the build, of course.

 

Now show me what other melee set in this game can self buff to +140% damage/+40% tohit for 92% of the time. (Sorry, correction, doublestacked means doublecrash, so 83% of the time.)
Claws can doublestack followup for a whopping +52.5% damage and +20% tohit.
Buildup on all the sets that have it is +70%/+20% but is only up, what, maybe a third of the time on high end builds?
(Tank values on this last bit.)

"But SS attacks suck except KO Blow and Foot Stomp!" You're right, they do. And THAT, TOO should have been corrected 20 years ago.

Again, changes are fine. Push 'em.

   Just so you know, you're doing this math with both an incorrect assumption and an incorrect baseline.  It's not that Brutes "need" a certain amount of Fury.  It's actually that Brutes will have, are balanced around, and should be accounted for having: ~80 Fury at all times or ~160% dmg buff.  The very first step of all your math should be Brute damage scale + 160% dmg from Fury + whatever %dmg from enhancements (could be very low on procc'd out attacks obviously, varies by build), and then you start adding damage buffs from powers like Rage or Unleashed Might to make comparisons.  Hopefully that clears things up, this is how the game works so it's also how the game needs to be balanced.

 

   Brute self +dmg scales on many melee set powers have actually been too low this entire time, because the math doesn't account for Fury, which means Brutes have always gotten proportionately much less benefit from clicking powers like Build Up, and indeed from using Rage.  Brutes should have always had a significantly higher self +dmg value on Build Up than Scrappers or Blasters just for it to math out to be proportionately even.  This was ignored, and honestly Brutes are about to get defensive scalar increases so I'm willing to just not bring it up anymore because there's no way the devs would also buff Brute offense now... even if the math is still wrong... even if Brutes have deserved it for almost 2 decades.

[ScarySai]

33 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Superstrength with Rage" starts getting OP if you replace most of the SS set with specific stuff OUTSIDE of SS AND then put your foot on both the Damage Proc and Fury accelerator pedals.

 

Dark obliteration buffed by rage isn't going to break any clear speed records, and while gloom is strong, its not enough to bump SS up to the top by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how many procs you slot.

 

What makes ss strong on clear is foot stomp's large radius and soft control.

 

When other sets get that level of aoe coverage, the gap closes FAST.

 

My evidence? Look at how easily martial arts overtook super strength on tanks in spite of rage scaling much better for tanks than brutes, both in terms of normal clear and farming.

 

Many melee aoes in this game are extremely tiny, which is why scrappers without a taunt aura tend to be much slower, among other things. It's also why tanks dominated the game for about two years.

 

When you bump that area of effect up, a lot of problems with certain sets clear speeds go away.

Edited December 18 by ScarySai
Punctuation

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Shin Magmus said:

   Just so you know, you're doing this math with both an incorrect assumption and an incorrect baseline.  It's not that Brutes "need" a certain amount of Fury.  It's actually that Brutes will have, are balanced around, and should be accounted for having: ~80 Fury at all times or ~160% dmg buff.  The very first step of all your math should be Brute damage scale + 160% dmg from Fury + whatever %dmg from enhancements (could be very low on procc'd out attacks obviously, varies by build), and then you start adding damage buffs from powers like Rage or Unleashed Might to make comparisons.  Hopefully that clears things up, this is how the game works so it's also how the game needs to be balanced.

 

   Brute self +dmg scales on many melee set powers have actually been too low this entire time, because the math doesn't account for Fury, which means Brutes have always gotten proportionately much less benefit from clicking powers like Build Up, and indeed from using Rage.  Brutes should have always had a significantly higher self +dmg value on Build Up than Scrappers or Blasters just for it to math out to be proportionately even.  This was ignored, and honestly Brutes are about to get defensive scalar increases so I'm willing to just not bring it up anymore because there's no way the devs would also buff Brute offense now... even if the math is still wrong... even if Brutes have deserved it for almost 2 decades.

 

I disagree. There were two huge threads back on live comparing brute and scrapper damage output and they were, at that time, close enough on output that it was a wash. That changed with AT-IOs, as mentioned earlier. Maybe brutes deserve a mitigation bump for having crappier AT-IOs, maybe not. I'm certainly not seeing the rationale for it.

Same goes for all this rioting against this rage change. I continue to see it as a good correction for bad design.

[ScarySai]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

There were two huge threads back on live comparing brute and scrapper damage output and they were, at that time, close enough on output that it was a wash.

 

The ATO that carries the entire scrapper class didn't exist at the time, so that's moot.

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

The ATO that carries the entire scrapper class didn't exist at the time, so that's moot.

 

Yes, that was covered, in the post, in the sections you chose not to quote.

[Eirei07]

34 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

They're only killing it for the people who are whining about the 20% resistance debuff.

 

Rage is about to be -way- better for a Defense Build than it's ever been! I've been playing an SS/SR Brute for a couple months, now, on live, and it's been hellish whenever the crash hits. But with the Rage Change? She'll survive way better in those situations rather than collapsing like a flan in the oven. It'll still hurt... but 140% -less-.

 

Not the devs' fault that some people are going to whinge and moan 'cause they've specifically built SS characters exclusively around Resistance defense sets in order to essentially ignore the defensive crash for 20 years. Some folks are going to whine and kick and scream. Nothing can be done to prevent that.

 

But given the choice? I'd rather see this Tage change and the addition of UM as an alternative, rather than Rage just get cut. Three times more build variety.

 

I'm not sure why you were using a SS/SR with Rage on Brute in the first place, but hey, your choice. I have SS/Invul Brute, which the crash has not been too bad. It's about to get worse if the changes go through, and I don't even get new Hand Clap.

 

They're not killing it for me, but that's because I'm keeping Rage for thematic reasons. Doesn't mean that I don't get annoyed when they're nerfing Rage, and saying that they're changing it for "parity".

 

I do think they are trying to phase out Rage step by step. They already introduced a replacement, that garnered wide positive feedback. The nerf would drive current Rage users away from it. And if the speculation about proliferation of SS to other ATs are correct, it's highly probable that those ATs won't get Rage at all.

Edited December 18 by Eirei07

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Yes, that was covered, in the post, in the sections you chose not to quote.

 

This thread is cluttered enough without reposting the entire message.

 

You disagreed and used that as the basis. It's fair game.

 

@Shin Magmus DR is often ignored in these calculations too. The benefit drops off a lot after the first 100%. 140% really isnt that big of a swing.

Edited December 18 by ScarySai

[Troo]

Questions:

1. Wouldn't it be wise to also reign in Rage's impact on powers outside Super Strength similar to Unleashed Might? (maybe @Maelwys)
2. Should a mutually exclusive power without a crash ever provide more benefit than a power with a crash?

   • 2 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

     Spoiler

     Due to Scalar the Brute deals 75 damage. With capped Fury they're at 200% putting that up to 225 damage. With Rage that's another 80% bringing us to 285. Doublestacked you're now up to 345. Don't forget to add another 75 or so damage for Enhancements and we're now at a comfortable 420. Blaze it.

      

     On the other hand, we have Unleashed Might. So that 75 damage is pushed up by an additional 30% thanks to the second hit of damage UM adds on. So 22.5 more damage puts us at 97.5 as our new "Baseline". Why? Because Fury and other +Dam mods affect both portions of damage. So 97.5 gets increased by 200% from Fury bringing us to 292.5. And then Unrelenting Might is another 20% damage so that's a further 19.5 damage for 312. Toss on the enhancement value for another 97.5 and you're up to 409.5

      

     Huh. That's weird. 409.5 is -lower- than 420. Granted, it's a LOT closer than you might immediately expect when looking at the 80% vs 20% of the Rage and UM direct buffs... but still! Brutes actually get GREAT use out of Unrelenting Might while maxed out on Fury! (certainly more than Tankers do) And it is basically always the "Right Choice" for a Brute since you can maintain permanent uptime with no negative effects as long as you're also managing your endurance costs. It's an expensive toggle. 

     But at the -cap-... UM breaks free. 780 to Rage's 600. {clarification, that's double-stacked Rage, right?}

3. Hand Clap, why the improved version for just those who choose Unleashed Might?
   • Seems punitive. (see ** below)
4. Should it require double stacking Rage to equal the toggling Unleashed Might? (maybe @Steampunkette)
   • It really seems like the focus is on performance builds at the detriment of average players.
     • Is Unleashed Might a bit too strong?
     • **I guess if the pattern has been 'play our way or self gimp' then this path makes total sense.

 

Don't anyone get me wrong:

I'd love to dust of some SS/Fire Broot builds in order to take advantage of some UM-FieryEmbrace-Burn-FootStomp-(jump)HandClap-EpicAoe-CrossPunch like max recharge chain madness without the Rage interruptions.

 

oof 8+ new replies while typing..

Edited December 18 by Troo

[Maelwys]

26 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Dark obliteration buffed by rage isn't going to break any clear speed records, and while gloom is strong, its not enough to bump SS up to the top by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how many procs you slot.

What makes ss strong on clear is foot stomp's large radius and soft control.

Covered that. 
  

58 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Super Strength has access to precisely one AoE. Foot Stomp. And as I highlighted in that same first post: "Footstomp does too much damage for its Radius. Always has. The whole set is weighted around it...". Regardless of whether it's on a Brute or a Tanker, it's decent DPA and 15ft Radius. And it reliably activates FF +Rech procs. "Rage" as mentioned previously should be helping to shore up any lost accuracy and damage aspect from procbombing AoEs (with Brutes being less affected than Tankers by that lost damage aspect, due to Fury).

 

I 100% agree that "Dark obliteration buffed by rage isn't going to break any clear speed records."

To be clear; I imagine Ston's setup of Dark Oblit + Gloom was probably intended as a happy medium for what was viewed back then as an "average mission" test.
A more AoE-centric choice would've been Electrifying Fences and Ball Lightning; both of which have a base radius of 15ft and the latter of which has a target cap of 16.

The hill I'm apparently dying on here is "Most of the Superstrength powerset's performance is so poor that you're actually better off by dumping everything except for Rage, KO Blow and Footstomp in favour of off-set powers; which Rage allows you to fill with damage procs with no loss in accuracy and minimal loss in damage (particularly on Brutes)."
 

Edited December 18 by Maelwys

[ScarySai]

10 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

A more AoE-centric choice would've been Electrifying Fences and Ball Lightning; both of which have a base radius of 15ft and the latter of which has a target cap of 16.

 

This would bite you in the long run, as most of your time in a given solo clear is to kill the bosses, which can take a while in higher diffs depending on what it is. Ss also has large gaps in its st rotation without gloom, even with recharge buffs.

10 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

The hill I'm apparently dying on here is "Most of the Superstrength powerset's performance is so poor that you're actually better off by dumping everything except for Rage, KO Blow and Footstomp in favour of off-set powers; which Rage's buffs allow you to pack full of damage procs with no loss in accuracy and minimal loss in damage (particularly on Brutes).

 

What off-set powers besides gloom and/or an epic aoe, though? Burn is really the only other notable candidate, and it kills chaff just fine with or without rage post-buff. 

 

Like the idea doesn't translate to practice. If it did, UM wouldn't be superior to rage, which it is.

 

And that's the biggest mark against the rage debate right now: UM is decisively better than rage.

 

Tanks that six slot procs without any damage % will feel the loss of rage more than a brute, but it doesnt change the fact that the upper limits of UM are ultimately higher than rage.

Edited December 18 by ScarySai

[Steampunkette]

13 minutes ago, Troo said:

Questions:

1. Should a mutually exclusive power without a crash ever provide more benefit than a power with a crash?

This is the one question you asked me, so it's the one I'll tackle:

 

Yeah, sure. Because it requires a very specific set of circumstances to take that position. Specifically you have to have some Fulcrum Shift stacking or other massive external damage bonuses to make that happen. 'Cause there's no way you're ever going to attain that value, otherwise. And between Fury, Enhancements, and Rage, the guy who didn't take UM is going to be much closer to that damage cap.

 

And also hit way more often thanks to the 40/80 ToHit bonus, which isn't taken account in the napkin math you quoted. 

[Troo]

10 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

UM wouldn't be superior to rage, which it is.

 

It'll likely be a bit less superior at release. But hey, you just keep pointing out what needs closer examination. 

[Maelwys]

  

17 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

This would bite you in the long run, as most of your time in a given solo clear is to kill the bosses, which can take while in higher diffs depending on what it is.

Depends on the content; and the playstyle.

For a "Mission Simulator" with a variety of mooks to AoE and Bosses/EBs to focus down?
Traditional approach is to AoE the mooks and ST the Bosses: advantage to builds with a mixture of AoE and ST burst.

An alternative would be to just stay at the aggro cap the entire time, and drag any leftover stuff with you between spawns.
That's the approach I typically take when I'm on my Melee ATs as (to my mind) it's one of the draws of having Taunt effects.
And if that's the case and you can reliably maintain full target saturation regardless of how many of them happen to be bosses; then keeping up an AoE attack chain is going to clear faster than mixing in ST blasts. At least until the targets get whittled down and you're left with an AV or a mission door/elevator/whatever staring you in the face.
 

  

17 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

What off-set powers besides gloom and/or an epic aoe, though? Burn is really the only other notable candidate, and it kills chaff just fine with or without rage post-buff. 

 

Like the idea doesn't translate to practice. If it did, UM wouldn't be superior to rage, which it is.

For SS? Sure, Burn's there if you opt for Fiery Aura and it procs like crazy now with the increased target cap. Cross Punch has been covered already (I personally still use it on my INV/SS because it's thematic rather than due to its DPA) and/or there are the Epics like Mu Mastery  (AoEs) or Soul Mastery (for those who want a Hybrid approach with Gloom).

FAAAR TOO MANY Farming runs have sold me on the notion that 3-4 attacks with a reliable FF Proc mule is the sweet spot for sustainable AoE DPA.
Footstomp [with FF Proc] + Mu Mastery + Burn? Sold.
(And Rage, as mentioned previously, is mainly there to lessen the negative performance tradeoffs by procbombing everything)

UM is 100% better than Rage; providing you're leaning into SS attacks. And I consider that to be a good thing for Super Strength as a powerset.
 

Edited December 18 by Maelwys

[Troo]

4 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Footstomp [with FF Proc] + Mu Mastery + Burn? Sold.

 

#this-is-the-way

[Riverdusk]

17 hours ago, skoryy said:

I'd like them to just play a controller or defender.

 

Exactly what I was thinking whenever I hear the calls to nerf procs.  If they ever do the nerf procs  thing I sure hope they give AT's like controllers/defenders a decent damage buff.  Procs are literally the only way I can stand soloing them right now.

[PoptartsNinja]

2 hours ago, Troo said:

1. Hand Clap, why the improved version for just those who choose Unleashed Might?
   • Seems punitive. (see ** below)

It's my personal belief that this wasn't changed because the current Hand Clap does have an "accepted" use (albeit one a lot of the sets that pair well with Super Strength don't utilize). One of current Hand Clap's only use cases is to give Super Strength something to use to help mitigate the Rage crash, scoring a PBAoE knockdown and buying themselves an extra 3-5 seconds of not taking damage while the crash timer ticks down.

 

If a power has even a single valid use case, the devs have been fairly consistent in not removing that use case. That's why Detention Field still exists in its current form, since that has a single valid use during the MLTF: stacking phase shift on the least dangerous Recluse tower to prevent it from buffing Lord Recluse without killing it.

Edited December 18 by PoptartsNinja

[Shin Magmus]

21 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

One of current Hand Clap's only use cases is to give Super Strength something to use to help mitigate the Rage crash, scoring a PBAoE knockdown and buying themselves an extra 3-5 seconds of not taking damage while the crash timer ticks down.

 

If a power has even a single valid use case, the devs have been fairly consistent in not removing that use case. That's why Detention Field still exists in its current form, since that has a single valid use during the MLTF: stacking phase shift on the least dangerous Recluse tower to prevent it from buffing Lord Recluse without killing it.

   Incorrect, the devs turned a niche power, that wastes a slot on KB-to-KD, into a worthwhile AoE attack that can be used all the time.  This new attack has some trade-offs, but it still knocks 5 enemies down and therefore still partially mitigates the Rage crash.  Feels fine to me.

[Psi-bolt]

2 hours ago, Troo said:

Questions:

1. Should a mutually exclusive power without a crash ever provide more benefit than a power with a crash?.

 

I want to focus on just the underlined qualifier.   In the general case, a power with a detriment like a crash should provide more benefit than a power that doesn't have that.  Clicks in general should be more potent than toggles as well.    

 

However, in this specific case, when Rage's benefit is more damage and UM's is ease of use, no crash and the Hand Clap changes, it's not that clear.   Damage is the single most valuable attribute to most players.   The game incentivizes causing more damage over just about any other activity.  Thus in those cases, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the power that provides more damage to also provide less benefit elsewhere.    We see this in other parts of the game as well.  The Alpha Slot Musculature gives only very minor other benefits other than damage.  The Core path, for example, only gives Immobilize and Defense debuff enhancement.  These are attributes that few slot for.  The goal of going Musculature is that sweet 45% damage enhancement.  Compare that to Nerve Core which give Accuracy, Hold and Defense.  For many folks that offers a means to improve both your attacks and other powers that benefit much more from further enhancement.   Still I see many people choose Musculature because damage is the king. 

 

Likewise here, Rage beats UM in To-hit and Damage.  By a reasonable amount, especially if double stacked.  Which is why we have this 18 page (as of this post) thread with people bargaining to lessen Rage's drawbacks.  Despite UM being a good option, they want that extra damage. 

Edited December 18 by Psi-bolt

[Wavicle]

30 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

That's why Detention Field still exists in its current form, since that has a single valid use during the MLTF: stacking phase shift on the least dangerous Recluse tower to prevent it from buffing Lord Recluse without killing it.

Good Lord, that’s why?

 

That is so stupid. Just change the TF so you can get rid of DF!

[PoptartsNinja]

14 minutes ago, Shin Magmus said:

   Incorrect, the devs turned a niche power, that wastes a slot on KB-to-KD, into a worthwhile AoE attack that can be used all the time.  This new attack has some trade-offs, but it still knocks 5 enemies down and therefore still partially mitigates the Rage crash.  Feels fine to me.

You're right, I should have prefaced that with "it's my belief that," fixed.

The devs are very stingy with telling us their intent behind some changes, so it could be punitive. I'm just of the opinion that that particular change isn't intended to be. Being a toggle, Unleashed Might could still use handclap as a mitigation tool (by turning off Unleashed Might) or a damaging tool; but Rage doesn't have that option. I personally believe that's why Rage doesn't get the changed version, but unless a dev steps in and tells us their actual intent we're left with wild speculations.

It's one of the reasons I do think the current patch notes are often unfortunately inadequate. I'd love to see the reasoning or intent behind certain changes, so if something doesn't work we can help find solutions that will still work towards the devs' goals rather than counter to them.

 

Edit:

6 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Good Lord, that’s why?

 

That is so stupid. Just change the TF so you can get rid of DF!

That's what I was told when I suggested it be turned into a timed toggle. Since the timed toggles can't stack magnitude, it would remove Detention Field's "use case." That's why I suspect there's a similar logic at play here.

 

Whether I personally agree with that logic or not.

Edited December 18 by PoptartsNinja

[golstat2003]

23 hours ago, aethereal said:

 

I think this is disingenuous.  People aren't chasing procs for "sets that are low damage," they're chasing procs because procs are a huge damage add, no matter what the base damage of a set.  And Super Strength is perfect for procs because it removes the need to slot for accuracy.

 

Katana's "Soaring Dragon" on a Scrapper does 112.6 damage, double if it crits.  If you assume 100% damage enhancement and a 30% crit rate, that gives you an expected damage of 292.75.

 

Super Strength's Haymaker (not one of the "good" powers, and on a slightly shorter recharge than Soaring Dragon) on a Tanker does 86.6 damage.  It can accept 4 non-unique damage procs (Touch of Death, Mako's Bite, Perfect Zinger, Explosive Strike), and still have enough slots left over to two-slot damage for 90% damage enhancement.  Each of those procs has a 55.4% chance to activate, and does 71.75 damage when it activates.  Also then you take 70% damage enhancement from (single-stacked!) Rage.  The total damage here is 86.6 * 2.6 + 0.554 * 4 * 71.75 = 384 damage, way more than the procless Scrapper with a great crit rate.

 

I don't mean this to be the be-all, end-all calculation for Super Strength as a set, and I'm pretty agnostic about whether Rage needs changes.  But let's not pretend that procs are just a way to shore up damage for low-performing sets -- they're crazy powerful, and Super Strength is a really good set (and Tanker a really good AT) to go proc-heavy on.  And that has to be taken into account somehow.  Now, maybe even with all that, it still doesn't need changes -- like I said, I'm agnostic.  But we need to start from the principle that you can't be blind to this unique potential of this set.

 

My point is that procs should have almost nothing to do with balance.

 

We are told balance is made on SOs so no assumption should be made that the player is using procs. Since we assume they don't use IOs, they're optional. And procs as a system are an optional portion of another optional system.

 

Procs can factor, but balance for sets the need to be brought up or down needs to be balance for AT or primary or secondary primarily. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[golstat2003]

19 hours ago, aethereal said:

I'd like everyone who is saying, "Well, then they should nerf procs" to just... imagine what an epic clusterfuck it would be for the devs to post a thread titled this:

FOCUSED FEEDBACK: We invalidated every single performance-oriented build in the game lol

 

The devs in CB, OB and other places have already said  they intend to re-balance procs.

 

It's not a question of if, but when.

 

The "How" is all we're waiting for.

Edited December 18 by golstat2003

[Bill Z Bubba]

9 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

We are told balance is made on SOs so no assumption should be made that the player is using procs.

 

How many decades has it been since any dev actually said this?

Edit: More relevant, what HC dev has stated this and please provide the quote.

Edited December 18 by Bill Z Bubba

[golstat2003]

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

How many decades has it been since any dev actually said this?

Edit: More relevant, what HC dev has stated this and please provide the quote.

 

Literally said in OB on discord.

 

Primary balance IS SOs.

 

Doesn't mean they fully ignore IOs, but it is NOT assumed that everyone uses procs. Cause realistically everyone doesn't. Set IOs are a different story, more common.

[golstat2003]

Overall my point is I agree that if Procs are the issue those should be rebalanced  and the necessary buffs to certain sets and ATs should be done, if the devs agree that those ATs sets are low damage.