MA power tree

nacito

let's talk about the MA powers
For what i have seen is a pretty popular group of choice for dps or even tanks, why is that you may ask?
I have been looking trough it and well I think it may need a few tweaks because it feels overperforming

how so?!

Energy management:
Rush buff + form (who feels like an EU also, like both in the same power, because they both scale of the same stat) and you are done with the energy, which lets ma builds be really diverse and pick practically anything after that, where other trees have to spend more to even meet energy management requirements

even if you still have energy problems, you can also top that with steadfast, like, cmon, you would almost never have energy issues, and guess what? it also scales off DEX, you don't need to spend in like recovery or endurance to feed your energy pool

admittedly, ma power tree set is pretty fun with all these energy benefits(main reason to why most pick them). i think it would be better for the game if other trees had such relaxed energy requirements, though as it is right now, it is clear that ma tree has a large advantage over many others sadly ​​

flowcyto

I tend to hold the opposite view. MA shows what I wish more powersets had atm: reward for restricting ur power choices, but also more universal interactions w/ other sets. Yes, its all great to have stuff like Steadfast and Rush, but conversely ur penalized for stepping outside the sets w Steadfast, and Rush still requires you to pick and charge a Dragon move. Other sets may seem to be getting a worse deal w/ EUs that scale off Rec/End, but at the same time these new Rec/End EUs function over time to give constant returns, vs. spiky returns from something like Steadfast (or the old KI). Such that, say, w/ the revamped TK set, you dun even have to SS Rec or End to be fine w/ TK Reverb's energy if ur gear and build is decent enough otherwise.

I dun think most of the other sets have many energy issues when built well. MA may have more leeway there (depending on the power choices made), but I wouldn't consider that a large advantage when it comes to optimization.

flowcyto

I can say going too far w/ the other approach is also dangerous since it can encourage cherry-picked builds that hurt diversity as well, or overly reward builds that lack any sort of cohesiveness. Its a balancing act either way. (besides which, the in-set adv still has its stipulations or drawbacks, its not necc a 'cost-free' reward)

spinnytop

gradii said:

Reward for restricting your power choices is dangerous, it encourages building for only one set at the expense of making interesting combinations, do we really want that for a game which used to be "Be the hero you want to be" ???​​

Reward for doing one thing neither implies punishment for not doing it nor a lack of benefit from doing something else. Just like with currently revamped sets, there will be a reward for staying within the set and using the in set synergies, but there will also be benefits to be had from mixing in out of set powers. You aren't required to do one or the other, which gives people the greatest amount of viable choices.

aesica

flowcyto wrote: »

I can say going too far w/ the other approach is also dangerous since it can encourage cherry-picked builds that hurt diversity as well

Both of them hurt diversity. Locking people into picking same-framework powers is easily avoided by not having so much unnecessary interaction between powers. Just some thoughts on some of the current MA power interactions:

• Rush and its energy returns: This isn't a popular opinion I bet, but we'd really be better off without this. Why? By properly confining energy management BS to energy unlocks and forms, those things can be better at what they do. If I design a powerset around you getting a total of X energy every 3 seconds, would you rather that total was split between just a form and EU, or also shared with a passive and some secondary effect of another power? By limiting it to just the form and EU, players can better utilize powers in a more diverse manner. Certainly better than making them stop and say, "Oh wait, but I need ____ for the extra energy even if it doesn't fit the vision for my character."
• Combos that build stacks of some DoT: Would the game really break if somebody using an Enrage form could stack a DoT at the same rate as somebody using a Focus form? Or even a non-optimal form like Concentration or Compassion?
• Ultimates like Vorpal Blade: This deals additional damage based on the number of Focus stacks a player has. What this says to players is, "either you're using a Focus-based form or you shouldn't even consider using this power.

Given how theme-driven so many players seem to build their characters, I think restricting powers is way more harmful to the spirit of the game than allowing them to be more open. Sure, balance is important, but in a game like this, so is build diversity.​​

flowcyto

Eh, I'd rather take the approach that MA has as far as EU's: an in-set one that jives w/ the sets best stat, but also a more universal one that can be used for other powersets. I wouldn't even really consider Rush to be needed for many Focus users (similar to Unstoppable for knocks, or Defiance, etc), but it just depends on the build and gear.

I guess when it comes to the topic of set specialization vs. cross-set viability, my typical answer would be to do both whenever possible.

spinnytop

I personally like the Rush mechanic and I hope it stays. More interesting stuff to work with is always better.