PvE DPS Balance Initiative: Scaling and Midrange

Anyone suggesting testing supercharges has acknowledged you don't do so at this stage of the effort. This discussion is about a Robot Sidekick.

They should at least give you a free Legendary Voucher Code for a year. For all your time a dedication to help balance the powers.

Hera & Zeus Be With You.


#%*# everyone who doesn't respect or acknowledge your work. I personally like to see aspects & explanations of the game on paper to thoroughly understand whats really going on. People here everyday complaining about balance and your one of the very few in the community (Thanks to the others who have time to provide data too) doing something about it to help the Developers in the process.

They need a poster of the month of something like it around these forums. Cause you surely would be winning it.

Maybe it's time the devs just remove RSK from the game.

Could you do a Tunso Test of Rage as well? I'd feel best comparing same player to same player. It would make the scaling more accurate. If you already did and I overlooked it, sorry. Link to it and that's all I need.

EDIT: And again, sorry for asking. Your thumbs are probably still bleeding from that last Rage Melee test.

Are the balance changes just for AM's or the powers as a whole? All powers should be balanced by WM, AM's, movement skills, supercharges and even Iconic powers. I mostly see AM tests and thats only part balance not full balance. There should not be certain powers that gets a ok. Only using 15%(I'm guessing) or lower of all available powers is not balance period.This should be a everything or nothing balance initiative.

I still want to thank all of the people who worked hard to even get us to this point.

Quite the opposite, we're advocating excluding Robot Sidekick from the current round of testing to improve balance. To Spore's previous descriptions, you have to suspend some disbelief for the sake of creating a common baseline of effectiveness. To another prior point, Robot Sidekick is only "absolutely" used because the core powerset is lacking in someway in damage effectiveness. The point of all this work is to expose those gaps in the core powerest and correct them, not hide them. No, it doesn't match the reality of what a player would really do but you have to create the core metrics first and then build upon it. Since Robot Sidekick is power agnostic but useful, it should be tested...but tested separately and on it's own at some later point,

I'm hoping we get a dev response. From the testing tips thread, I was kind of led they were interested in demonstrating what it is that makes a powerset capable of delivering its best results. Of course these quotes are taken out of context and none of them say precisely what I'm implying them to say. But I do personally draw a general sentiment from them.

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/dcuo/index.php?threads/testing-tips-dos-and-donts.256329/

If the AM only needs 4 slots and its capable of padding itself with additional iconic or movement abilities, then that's what the power is capable of. It's the best conceivable rotation. It's a source of parallel damage that actually increase your damage output. It speaks to the sentiment I felt I was being conveyed.

I do see where we all have our opinions and are able to debate passionately for them. We may get caught in a loop until we get a dev response. When I capture test results, I already separate AM from WM from AM+WM. I can separate AM+RS just as easily. I've tagged the existing tests that use RS, so we're not lost in the weeds as we have this discussion.

I should have been more clear.

If I cast an ability that hits 8 targets, it doesn't get a chance to crit on each target. It is not 8 rolls of crit dice. When the ablity is cast, it is critical or not. If it is not, none of the 8 targets get crit damage applied to them. If it is a crit, all 8 targets get crit damage applied to them.

Also keep in mind how splitting works. If I hit 1 target, the full damage of the ability is applied to that target. If I hit 2 targets, the full damage of the ability is applied to each target...netting 200% total damage being distributed. If I hit 3 targets, the game takes the same 200% damage and distributes it evenly to the three targets. If I hit 4 targets, the game takes the same 200% and distributes it evenly to the three targets. Aside from just a handful of historical and current exceptions, there's no difference from hitting 2 targets and hitting 8 targets.

This is what kills it for me, and the reason i could careless about a second round of balancing. ALL of this should get addressed First before moving onto the rest yet, it likely won't. Aside from damage numbers, which can be quickly and easily adjusted, these ^ are huge factors of numerous imbalance issues as well as pvp problems. I just can't see how another round of balancing will be productive without first addressing the above, and more. Anyhow, appreciate all the work you guys do in trying to right the ship and steer them in the right direction, I hope their ears are open this time around.

I have been thinking about the baseline and I see a major issue with it. We are including CRITCAL DAMAGE. If there is a way to shut off critical damage it should be done. Than all testing without critical damage should be completed and a baseline should be form. From there, a baseline with mods and scaling should be formed. And than add critical damage to see how that impacts damage should be analyzed last, as some power may benefit more or less with critical and it would be easier to pinpoint that if critical damage was removed from all initial testing.

As for the variance between powers damage, .5% would be the best scenario; however, I would like to see it around 1% and no more than 2%. The 5% that is out there is really not acceptable as you pointed out. With critical damage varying damage out potential, it is even more important to get a true baseline, non-critical damage, as close to each other as possible.

I wish I would have made the note of this sooner about the critical damage as it would help with true balancing of this game. I know some will argue that all powers have equal chance for equal critical %, but that is not the truth. Some powers have a higher critical % chance and that gives them an unfair advantage. That has to be included in all discussions, because as stats get higher, the powers that have more chances to crit do more damage.

Yeah, that's just vague. I read it as them wanting us to use the best combination of abilities and weapon attacks for the powerset being tested, though it doesn't specify that, nor does it specify that abilities outside the powerset are to be considered. I simply feel that pure powerset testing is implied, as the goal of this whole exercise is to balance the powerset AMs, rather than every conceivable aspect of DPS game play. We'll see what they come back with, and I'll roll with it.

I think RS needs to be included. There are powersets that will always use this in their optimal loadouts as there is nothing left to use. As for supercharges they need to be remove from damage role all together. Support roles can have them but they are so out of balance in terms of damage. The best option here is the devs to disable supercharges in damage role going forward.

Thx for clearing up.

You can definitely get a critical on one target and not another target. I just had it happen in a solo I ran. Also confirmed on some Sparring Targets. Splitting is also not completely "even" (looking at end results) for either Might or Precision damage.

I don't think this is the best place to elaborate though so I'll leave it at that for now unless you think it is relevant for this initiative thread.

Note: I did not see any specific scenario mentioned between you two so I am assuming you responded to damage in general. If not feel free to disregard/re-mention the scenario.

Another consideration is that, if they do formalize midrange, loadouts may change, depending on how it's accomplished. They can already vary with content. For instance, with my Fire toon, I run with: Inferno, Burning Determination, Fiery Weapon, Flame Cascade, Fireburst, and open sixth slot. I doubt the Fire tests included FC, but it's important for prolonging the AM. Now, when running solo and duo content, I do put RS in that sixth slot. For alerts and raids, though, I carry Mass Detonation, because I can't always get inside 12.5 m. Again, I doubt that Fire was tested at melee and range with both in the loadout. This is where testing and running content don't really line up. If we end up with a melee ability, a midrange ability, and a ranged ability for some powersets, that RS slot either disappears or you risk losing damage in certain situations, unless you can armory over to another loadout.

Meets my observations too but I dont know much about game mechanics and could therefore just be wrong. Also what is shown might not be what it is. Im inclined to trust in greater knowledge here anyways as well as not really seeing room for what I think of being concerning to be adressed atm regarding the route taken. Just wanted to get it of my chest as the huge scaling Tunso -> Live baffled me.

Well it's not *just* observations for me but I won't get into it unless deemed crucial for this thread.

Same here.

Thinking this through, folks will use RS because there's nothing left to use, but is that because that's the way its supposed to be or is that because the powerset with nothing left has a shortcoming that the Devs should address? Borrowing from a previous comment, if a power's AM rotation only takes up 4 slots, wouldn't that inconsistency compared to other powers that take up 5 or 6 slots be another form of imbalance that should be corrected?

To be clear, I'm not advocating every power be identical in effect and damage except for their animations. We do want each power to have something that sets it apart, something that makes it special. Just not sure creating gaps in the rotation that need to be filled with iconic powers to compete is the way to go.

The other way to look at it is, if one power take up 4 slots for the AM rotation and another takes up 5. The 4-slot should achieve equivalent damage to the 5-slot AM rotation. The additional should be used for preferential powers that give the player flexibility in fighting style, but shouldn't count towards the powers baseline damage effectiveness. If Devs have decided the AM rotation is the maximum damage potential for each powereset, measure the baseline against that regardless of how many power slots it takes up. Free slots should be used for SC, iconics or other powers as a matter or preference but not included in the baseline.

These are good points, but I stand by my earlier statement that these issues should be handled in the next phase of testing. Let's just get the powers all scaling correctly, then look at the intricate details that will make some powers perform better than others.