Alekhine
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Quote:Just a slight sidetrack here, and I know you said, "one of the only ways".Originally Posted by Turbo_Ski
It should also be noted that one of the only ways people have found to get the badge The Really Hard Way was to use a league of mostly damage capped corruptors for the scourge criticals to bypass the regen of Tyrant at the 40% phase change.
But, I would like to point this out.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=291967
There are only two corrs on that entire league. Go go broken blasters and defenders!
-
Quote:click aim?Originally Posted by Agahnim
How can I get to +22% to hit on my Elec/Ice blaster?
-
A +22% to-hit buff is not out of line, as it is easily attainable.
Once again, things are being very overstated on these forums. As pretty much the entire blaster 'fix' was in the first place. -
Quote:tinkerers gonna tinker, yo!Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Next on my list to think about after we see what happens to Blasters. Its a non-trivial problem to just make go away, because its left an enormous footprint on a huge number of powers that can't just all be changed now, and a lot of things have been subsequently balanced around a world where that happens to be true.
-
Quote:No, that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is the AT should not be 'broken' by turning it into something else after all this time. In other words, no I don't agree with a complete overhaul of the secondaries, I don't agree with turning a blaster into a reverse dominator, I don't agree with having a blaster inherently having the survivability of a melee class. Really, what needs to be done here, would have to be a fresh idea. That would allow blasters to remain blasters. I am speaking for myself, I don't want to lose that style of play.Originally Posted by Oliin
So you suggest that if there's a significant gap in performance between the average and the minimum performing ATs that nothing should be done to help the one lagging behind so long as they meet some minimum requirement?
-
Quote:I completely agree with what you are saying here. Personally, I don't need blaster changes, as I am very happy how my old broken down blaster plays. But, I conceded to some changes back on ... eh, the 4th page or so of this thread. Chances are, I'll adapt and be fine with them, who knows maybe I'll like them better. But, there have been some exaggerated claims made in this thread, both on the side of blaster weaknesses. And, on the side of what that fix could or should be. I think whatever this change is, it should remain very close to what the blaster playstyle has been for years now.Originally Posted by StratoNexus
While there is a baseline, there is also an average. Even if everything performs above the baseline, if an AT wanders too far from that average, I expect something will be changed.
Blasters could perform above the minimum expected baseline, but if they perform too far below the average, that will also trigger a change. -
Quote:What is missing from your previous statements was how 'reasonable' was being defined. I see now, in a different post, you have defined it. Previously, it had been alluded to being on the higher end of that scale.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The various archetypes are intended to have roughly the same ability to succeed in earning XP and rewards at the reasonable levels of difficulty played by the average player.
I'll touch on the teaming issue again. I agree with most of what you said. But, due to a very simple fact that this is a MMO, teaming will always be a part of the framework design. They can make every AT able to solo better, which was done. And yes, nothing in particular is needed for teams. Regardless of all of that, teaming as part of a successful MMO has been, and always will be part of the underlying framework. That simply can't be denied. This is a fact, and I don't need a quote to say it is, or isn't the case. I can log into the game and see it for myself.
Exactly, all powersets and ATs are not equal. As they never all should be. There should always be some variation to how they arrive at their goal. That variation could include survivability, damage output, forms and strengths of diverse methods of mitigation, among others I am sure. But, different characters, classes, and archetypes in a game will not perform at the same level. As they should not! I will agree with you, that there should be a baseline performance across the board. It's just a matter of what that is. Even with that baseline, some ATs and powersets will rise above that baseline.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
No, because the devs aren't perfect, and because no one said the powersets had to be "equal" but rather: The various archetypes are intended to have roughly the same ability to succeed in earning XP and rewards at the reasonable levels of difficulty played by the average player.
*sigh*Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
If you still have issues with how the game is designed, I would recommend taking them up with the devs. -
Quote:...Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Targeting Drone is very like a Dominator pet (but much weaker)
You are playing City of Heroes, right? -
Alright, this is my last response to the 'mirrored' debate.
But, stalkers fall out of that due to some very AT specific powers.
We are not talking about similar playstyles, modifiers or some powers that may be the same.
Mirrored powersets, means just what it says it means. There is no other way around that. Unless you all are bending it with a curved carnival mirror.
-
Quote:No. Simply put. No.Originally Posted by Grendar
Semantics.
Stalkers have a melee damage and a defense set, tankers have a defense set and a melee damage set.
Blasters have a damage set and a "damage support" set, which has a fair amount of very poor control. Just because they don't share the same power sets with primary/secondary switched doesn't mean they don't mirror each other.
You can't bend the word 'mirrored' to suit your needs here.
This is beyond silly. Defenders/Corruptors and Tankers/Brutes are mirrored, that is it.
It is very specific to what a mirrored set means in this game. -
Quote:Holy smokes, look at their powers! Those are NOT mirrored!Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
You played one recently?
Dominators have control, ranged damage, and melee damage.
Blasters have ranged damage, melee damage, and control.
They share the same def/res mods.
Sorry, I don't see where "not a mirror" is happening... -
Quote:Alright, what you said in the beginning is exactly what I am getting at here! No other AT has been 'changed' to mirror another AT.Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
They didn't need to be changed, because the mirrored each other from the start. As did corruptors and defenders.
Stalkers where changed to more closely mirror Scrappers though.
IMO Blasters have always mirrored Dominators, with higher damage backed up by weaker control-as-mitigation. It's just that Blaster control secondaries are so weak some people didn't notice them.
Past that though, it is just inaccurate, stalkers are certainly not a mirror of scrappers.
And Dominators are not a mirror of blasters. You can say there are similarities between those ATs. But the only 'mirrored' ATs we have are corruptors/defenders and tankers/brutes. -
Quote:Huh? I never mentioned a thing about being a dev. But, for the record I am not a dev's non-red account. Nor am I a arm chair dev. Also, I personally would not name drop every chance I had.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
If you're actually a dev's non-red account, feel free to PM me the circumstances under which the performance balancing metrics were revoked, which can be covered under blanket non-disclosure. I will then concede the point publicly.
Conversely, if you're not, you're wrong, period. That rule was even basically publicly conceded by Castle, who provided me with permission to repeat it during the Defiance 2.0 discussions.
And no, my statement is 'not wrong'. The 'bedrock' or framework design of this game, as a whole, certainly revolves more around teaming than it does with all ATs performing at +2/x6. Which is what you had 'suggested'. The fact remains, that all ATs, and the powersets within those ATs, do not all perform at the same level. They never have, they don't now, and it's highly unlikely they will in the future. It doesn't take much looking into gaming history with different characters, classes, and archetypes, that they have had different skills, abilities, survivability, and ways 'to win'. Now, were changes made in this game to make certain ATs 'better' at soloing? Yes. Are those changes ongoing? Yes. Has it ever been stated that every AT, and powerset within, needs to perform at that the same higher end difficulty level? NO, it has not. You even changed it yourself, in a post later to say 'reasonable levels of difficulty played by the average player.
I'll ask this again. To take that farther, are you going to tell me that all Defender, Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Tanker, and so on and so on. Are all the powersets within those ATs created equal?
I'm not sure if you have read the entire thread. But, in this very thread there have been direct comparisons saying, "if I can solo my scrapper/brute on +x/x6 or x8, why can't I do that on my blaster."Quote:Originally Posted by UberGuy
This isn't particularly relevant. The examples in this thread are not attempting specifically to balance for soloing at +2/x6. What they are attempting to do is use relative performance at those difficulties, which are very high, to reveal and/or explain what happens to Blasters relative to other ATs, and why. Soloing is a simulation of what can happen if you take too much aggro on a team or league. Playing without ally buffs is instructive for understanding what happens when allies cannot or do not provide buffs. When Defiance 2.0 was discussed, Blasters underperformed even when teamed.
Ok, the blaster AT is a unique one in that it doesn't have a mirrored AT. Blaster changes are coming, yes. But, I would hope for something more than just a simple mirror version of an AT already in game. To simply mirror an already existing AT, seems like an easy out to me. None of the other ATs you mentioned were 'changed' to mirror another AT. They came into the game that way. How would that take away an option? It would take away something unique, and turn it into a mirror image. I honestly don't know how else to explain that. I'm not saying there couldn't be some things borrowed from other ATs, or improved upon in the blaster sets. But, to totally mirror another AT would take something away from the blaster playstyle that has been here for years.Quote:Originally Posted by Madadh
I don't see how any of this is the case.... I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying that you didn't explain you point of view.
My suggestion was based on the fact that almost all (maybe even all) blaster secondaries already provide light mezzing abilities. Some also already provide buffs and or debuffs. Most people that state blasters need fixing cite a lack of survivability, and a lack of an easier way to obtain survivability than almost purely from IO sets, compared to other ATs. Further, none of the folks that state blasters need fixing seem to think that Doms, Corrs, and Defenders need fixing as much or more than blasters. So, therefore it would seem a given that controls, buffs, or debuffs provide the survivability that blasters lack. So adding in those would fix the issue. But adding in primarily buffs/debuffs would make blasters almost identical to Corrs. So that's not a perfect solution. The niche that isn't filled, that blasters already seem to closely resemble is an inversion of the Dom. The already seem to be close to that, but the mezzes that blasters currently have are too few and too weak to give them the desired levels of survivability. So upping it would seem an obvious solution.
I'm not sure if you didn't carefully consider my suggestion, but if not, the above should clarify it, and why I thought it sensible. Or maybe you have a good reason for your position, but choose not to share it. If so, I'd be interested an explanation.
Especially for how having a set that mirrors another is taking away an option. Does having tanks and scrappers/brutes/stalkers mirror each otehr take away an option? If so, how? And if we got rid of one or more of those how do you figure that makes tehre *more* options? Same for def/corr? How is having both a def and a corr less options than when we only had Defs? I really don't understand your position.
Edit: I really am not saying I know all the answers. But we're discussing options, etc, and statements like, "Nuh-uh!!" don't really add anything or forward the discussion. Truthfully, I don't care how or if blasters are fixed since I hardly ever play the AT. I'm not totally convinced that they need fixing. But if they do, the argument I find most telling is about survivability at it's core, so I tailored my suggestion accordingly. Maybe since I don't play the AT I just don't get or have overlooked some key point. If so, you'll have to explain it.
I'll gladly speak to your Tankers and Brutes, we can hang out if you like!Quote:Originally Posted by Zul_Vakirol
My Tankers and Brutes would like to have a few choice words with you about that.
But, neither of those ATs were changed to mirror another. -
Quote:Your first statement, is mostly false. A bedrock design in the game revolves around teaming. Not soloing +2x6. This is not a guess either.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The various archetypes are intended to have roughly the same ability to succeed in earning XP and rewards at the reasonable levels of difficulty played by the average player. This is a bedrock design rule of the game. That is not a guess.
I doubt the average player believes the game explicitly makes some archetypes intrinsically better than others either. That's more of a guess, but one I'm comfortable making.
To take that farther, are you going to tell me that all Defender, Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Tanker, and so on and so on. Are all the powersets within those ATs created equal? No they are not, and that is not a guess either.
Also, 'better' is a very subjective term. It doesn't translate into numbers, especially if it infringes on particular playstyle. -
Quote:Oh, and this is presumed by who exactly? It's certainly not by the playerbase. The playerbase knows darn well, and it is widely accepted that some ATs have more inherent survivability than other ATs. It also is not presumed by the developers of the game. Take blasters completely out of comparison. The remaining ATs do not have parity in regards to their ability to survive. As they shouldn't!Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The game makes no guarantee, and no promise that you'll be able to solo at +2x6. However, its *suggestive* when a player with comparable skill in two different archetypes finds they can solo easily with one archetype at +2x6 and only with much more difficulty with the other archetype. It suggests the two archetypes have very different strengths, and that difference will show up for other players at other difficulty levels.
But whether its visible or not, the presumption is that it shouldn't exist. Higher difficulty levels are sometimes necessary as a "microscope" to magnify and see them more clearly. -
Quote:No, making blasters more like inverted doms is about breaking the AT of a blaster. That is not what is needed. Having another AT mirror another AT is taking an option away. Taking options away is not a good thing.Originally Posted by Madadh
What about making the blaster secondaries more controlly? Making blasters more like inverted Doms, like Def and Corrs are currently mirror each other.
This would necessitate changing several sets, but not a whole lot, since blasters are sorta limited in number of secondaries to choose from. And it would modify only sets that no other AT uses.
Would that help blasters secondaries enough? Would that be able to be made balanced? -
Quote:Originally Posted by UberGuy
And in any case, it's a moot point. Improvements of some sort of coming.That's great, but it doesn't make anything posted here a moot point or unworthy of discussion. I'm fairly certain these changes haven't been announced yet. And, even when they arrive in beta, feedback will be welcome. I have conceded some changes are coming, I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have no issues with certain changes. What I do have problems with, are some of the 'fixes' that are being overstated on these forums. That would essentially break the blaster AT for what it is.Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Synapse agrees blasters have problems and changes are coming in I24.\
I am so glad you went into more depth with this response, than simply saying MITIGATION! That is word that is used a bit too much on these forums at times.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I'll take a step back a bit to answer this. At the beginning of time, the devs created five different power "classes" - Damage, Control, Defense, Buff/Debuff. Every powerset focuses on one of these, and every archetype has two of these.
Because Damage was split into Melee and Ranged Damage, Blasters became the only archetype that only received one of these. But more importantly, three of the four contain significant damage mitigation and survival tools. Every archetype gets at least one powerset that contains a lot of mitigation. Except Blasters.
This was a fundamental difference, but at the beginning of time it was thought that this would be balanced by the fact that Blasters had so much more offense than all other archetypes that it would make up for that deficit. This wasn't true, but you could almost believe it until the devs made another fundamental change to the way they balanced the game. They decided that everyone must have the capability to solo effectively. And that meant everyone had to have at least some minimum amount of damage. Tanker damage went up. Controller damage went up. Meanwhile, there was no serious effort to address the fact that soloing requires *two* things: enough offense and enough survivability.
In the current game, everyone needs to be able to kill, and everyone needs to be able to survive. And every archetype without exception has at least one powerset that is EXPLICITLY designed to kill, and one powerset EXPLICITLY designed to keep the player alive. *Except* Blasters.
That's what they lack. And its not just a trivial difference: its the largest fundamental difference between any archetype and all other archetypes in the game.
I can see, and totally understand the point of what you are saying here.
Also, I do understand how MMOs evolve and changes take place. I am not against that happening. My point is, and has been that, it is very important preserve what the blaster AT is. Any changes or 'fixes' should not radically change the playstyle of a blaster.
I do understand the other side of this. Though I still say it gets exaggerated quite a bit on these forums. Do blasters have the inherent survivability of some other ATs? Of course not. Are they dying to every single group, mob, or every time an attack hits them? Of course not. (If they are, they may be their own problem) From my point of view, I don't enjoy the play experience I get from my more 'sturdy' melee characters. To me it is boring, and just not fun.Quote:Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Wow this is really just bad.
BL angel, Alekhine I don't agree with you but at least I understand your arguments.
Edit: Let me take a little time to explain where I come from on this. I really don't expect to change your minds but maybe you can concede there is some validity to the other side ?
Blasters in my eyes, have always been behind the curve. Their numbers for pool and epic powers put them well behind every other AT from the start. When you add in the nature of how IOs and how defense and resistance work they fall further behind.
Where a corrupter may need to use 20 slots to softcap their defenses and a defender 5, a blaster might have to use 40. A scrapper, a stalker or brute can both have very high survivability in melee and do large amounts of damage there with little more than SOs. If a blaster wants hi survivability at range they have to buy it with IOs.
Now I am not saying blasters can't do things, just that it takes them considerably more effort.
You were not the person to mention this, but back to the +4/x8. In my opinion no single AT or character should be surviving a +4/x8 mission. If anything, that should be a rare occurrence. As it stands right now, we probably have too many players that can pull a character out of their pocket and run at +4/x8 without handpicking enemies much. The ceiling of difficulty should not be so easily achieved.
I'll leave you with this quote from the blaster thread.
Yeah, so what is wrong with that?Quote:Originally Posted by Fulmens
When you're building a melee character, you live and die by the build.
When you're building a Blaster, you live and die by the playstyle. -
Quote:What exactly being traced back, that all other ATs have, and blasters do not?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
There is a justification to buff blasters if they underperform, and that underperformance can be traced back to something they lack and everyone else has.
I'd say that the ability to farm at +4/x8, is a very poor way to think of 'balance'.Quote:Originally Posted by St_Angelius
And as for the Just coz brutes can solo on +4X8 doesn't mean blasters should be able to. well, why the hell not? Controllers can, corruptors can, defenders can. why shouldn't blasters be able, at peak performance levels, be able to perform to the same peak as every single other AT in the game?
It's not always those ATs that can do such a thing, but it comes down to their primary and secondary. Also, are you sure there are not already blasters that are capable of such thing? (For the record, it's not me)
I'm not so sure that is a problem. I see it as more of an option. Even if all ATs could be created equal, should they?Quote:Originally Posted by St_Angelius
Do blasters have a harder time and have to rely on tools outside of that AT far more than all other AT's? Yes, and that is the problem.
I am not totally against certain buffs being applied to blasters. But, I am not in favor of redefining the AT, from what is has been since this game began. And some of what has been mentioned in this thread and other 'broken blaster' threads is asking for just that. -
Quote:No, I did not put words in your mouth that time. Reread my post again, I said 'if' that was what is was based on, and then I asked a question everything was supposed to farm at +4/x8
Putting words in my mouth again I see. Extrapolating from 0 to infinity does nothing for your case. I am not basing it on a setting of +4/x8 at all. I merely mentioned once that a blaster with more is still less than a brute (or a scrapper for that matter) with less. What I am basing blasters being broken on is the following:
1) Blasters are mezzed significantly more often than any other AT. My own data shows that they spend 2-3 times more time mezzed than any of my other squishies and 10 times more time than my mez protected toons and that is considering the mountain of break frees munched through by my blasters that are rarely if ever used by my other toons.
2) Blasters spend more time mezzed than any other AT because they have no built in tools to avoid mez in the first place. (defense, to hit debuffs, AoE controls, mez protection)
3) Blasters spend more time mezzed than any other AT because they have no built in way to break out of a mez once they are mezzed.
4) Mez is extremely common in I23 (much more so than I5) it begins as early as level 8 and gets more and more prevalent the higher level the content is.
5) By design a blaster must enter combat. All they bring to the table is damage. This means that a blaster will be exposed to and affected by more mez than any other AT.
6) The few survival tools blasters have are eliminated completely when they are mezzed. (Defensive toggles suppress, offensive toggles that also provide mitigation are detoggled, the blaster's ability to remove threat by eliminating the target is drastically reduced, and the blaster's ability to utilize terrain and break line of sight is eliminated.)
This is a game. Playing is fun. Sitting at the keyboard waiting for mez to wear off so you can use more that 3 powers is not fun. Providing a fun experience should be the devs first priority
But, I'll rephrase my question.
You are basing this off of mez, and your data to how much a blaster gets mezzed.
Alright, someone has to be at the bottom of that list. Right now your data shows blasters are, by 2-3 times. You add mez protection to blasters. Where does this stop? What AT is the 2nd on that list? Then they move to the bottom of the list! HEY! They want mez protection too! Mez has always been a part of this game.
Eh, I mostly disagree with the environment creep. There have been a lot of additions to this game that have made it easier over the years. Yup, it is fun to be overpowered 'sometimes'. I'm going to ask you specifically. Is your 'fix' for blasters just adding a form of mez protection?Quote:There is also environment creep too. That means that power sets that lack tools to start with are worse off in comparison. Some times its fun to be over powered. It is a super hero game after all. The one thing it shouldn't do is put you entirely at the mercy of the RNG. There should be tools available to give you a chance to recover from the occasional bad streak.
Pssst, I'm not sure you know my teaming tendencies. And before you come back with that was too snarky, you are assuming something you can't know. If you don't like me putting words in your mouth, then please don't assume who or how often I team. I can say for a fact, I was a lot of PUG teams today. Matter of fact I just now got off of one. Plus, I've seen more than a few scrappers die first on teams, trying to bite off more than they are capable of.Quote:You should PUG a bit more then. When I play my buffing defenders I am rarely needed by anyone other than blasters and other buffing defenders. When there are deaths it is always the blasters first unless they are played by highly experienced players. The blaster has earned the name "vengeance bait" for good reason.
Wait, you have blasters built for survival that perform almost as well as your scrappers and brutes? Then what are you asking for here? With that statement, I don't even understand where you are coming from anymore. You say they are built for survival, they perform almost at the level of your scrappers and brute, but yet, the universal issue with all of them, is the mez. What should their weakness be then? You already have then surviving by your own words.Quote:I wouldn't need a sturdier character if I could keep the tools that I have by using the tools that I have.
I can and do play blasters well. I have blasters built for survival that perform all most as well as my scrappers and brutes. Building for any thing else (damage, recharge, secondary effects) results in a distinct reduction of performance especially in comparison. A full half of my 50s are blasters of one stripe or another the various power sets all provide unique playstyle opportunities. The one universal issue with them all is the proliferation of mez in the environment since I5 and a complete lack of tools to compensate.
Getting mezzed every mob? You are really leaning here! You have stats and data showing blasters get mezzed the most of all ATs. But you exaggerate by saying every spawn? C'mon, that is way overstating the 'issue'. If this is not an exaggeration, is it based of off primarily solo play? And if you are surviving anyways, as stated above. What's the big deal with mez? If 'you' view mez so harshly as a lag spike, you still have the option to play an AT, that has built in mez protection.Quote:I'm all for the edge of the chair, seat of the pants experience, that's why I focus on blasters and mez and not blasters and moar defense, resistance, hit points etc. I don't mind going to the inspiration tray for a break free once or twice a mission but I really dislike having to go to the tray for a break free once a spawn.
Being mezzed occasionally is thematic. (I think brutes, tankers, scrappers, etc should try it some times) being mezzed every spawn is immersion breaking.
Mez is much like lag to me. The occasional lag spike is no big issue. Lagging once a minute for 10-30 seconds is going to make me log off and call my cable company. -
Quote:Alright, if you are basing this blaster broken theory on not being able to farm +4/x8, or that they do it slower. I have to ask, where will this end? There are certain powersets that may also have issues with this. Is everything in the game supposed to be capable of farming +4/x8 with absolute ease?
Tell me what you are basing it on then. Blaster design in the current game is all ready absurd. I'm not hearing any arguments from you that prove that they are not.
Putting words in your mouth? Yes, I am guilty of that.Quote:Naughty naughty, trying to put words in my mouth to prove your point. No other AT has these issues. I'm an advocate of making blasters work the way they ought to rather than the way that they do. There are no real issues with any other AT the do not need buffed or nerfed. The blaster needs to be rebalanced to accommodate the environment something no other AT needs at this point in time.
But, there certainly has been power creep and the ceiling has been raised rather recently.
This has already been noted on these very forums.
Heck, I even see it on teams now! People are talking about how overpowered they are.
Perhaps it was snarky, but that wasn't really the intent. I dissected you post and gave point blank answers much the same way you did to my post.Quote:My, my, aren't we snarky.
If I wished to be snarky and make inferences to your play style I would say that you should try running your blasters against things other than Cimerorans, Council, and Family.
Also, I do not fight just those enemies. Just today, I was on a team that went against carnies in quite a few missions, set at +4x8. I believe during that, we had one death. And it wasn't even a blaster.
Quote:I'll once again ignore the implied snark.
No, that comment was definitely not snark.
The point of that is, if you want a sturdier type character. There are plenty of ATs already in the game that would have that already built in. As much that has been said that blasters should be for everyone, I agree! But, there should also be AT choices for everyone. I know I am not the only person that enjoys the blaster playstyle. To make blasters into some kind of ranged scrapper, how is that for everyone? I have more level 50 scrappers and brutes than anything else. But, I prefer to play my blasters and defenders.
I hope that is an exaggeration. Blasters are not that difficult to play. Look, I don't die very often. But, I do enjoy having to at least keep an eye on my health bar. Staring off into space and thumping buttons is not for me. That is the reason I don't play many of my melee characters anymore. My first 50 was a tank, and it is just not fun anymore. There should be choices for everyone! Sure, some enjoy being all powerful and rarely facing death. But, there are some that don't mind the occasional death, and would rather play by the seat of their pants.Quote:All the other ATs have different learning curves but they take about the same amount of skill and time to master. The blaster has a learning crater. -
Quote:Absolutely not! Basing the game on farming is absurd.
Since a blaster is supposed to give up every thing else for damage shouldn't the blaster be able to farm the fastest of all the ATs since farming essentially boils down to doing damage to defeat things quickly?
This sounds to me more like you are advocating a nerf to those melee types. Too many things in this game have gotten too easy as it is.Quote:Let me answer that. All ATs should be balanced relative to the game environment. All ATs should be notably different from each other and play differently. At the same time all ATs should be able to achieve a similar level of success from using those different tools.
Let me put it to you a different way. If balance is supposed to be a comparison of damage output to survivability and we know that the blaster is the AT that is supposed to be the lowest on the survivability scale then the blaster should also be the highest on the damage output scale.
Now lets turn that around. The tank should then be the almost unkillable king of survival and they should do almost no damage what so ever to get that survivability. The Brute should then be doing slightly more damage for slightly less survivability and the scrapper should be a bit more damage yet for a bit less survivability. That is not even close to the way it works. Giving the blaster enough damage to make up for that comparable lack of survivability would mean the blaster would be one or 2 shotting bosses without Aim or Build up. Elite bosses would also be trivial taking perhaps a dozen shots to eliminate. Only an AV would be a challenge. Since adding the required amount of damage would be exceedingly broken the answer is to add survivability in one or more forms to bring balance to the blaster AT.
Read above comment.Quote:What I want is the ability to handle common situations in the environment created by the devs with tools that are built into the ATs. It should not be a random "you can do X if you were lucky enough to get Y as a drop. Not lucky? Sorry, you lose." Blasters use inspirations to make up for tools they lack. ALL other ATs use inspirations to enhance the tools they all ready have and many of them can ignore inspirations completely. Blasters are the only AT that have the inspiration tray as part of their attack chain.
But, if you are smart, no it doesn'tQuote:Yes it is.
And this here explains so much. You are missing something very important.Quote:Opps, I guess not. I can't use inspirations when I'm mezzed.
This is what being proactive is about. Plan ahead, burn some inspirations you don't need. The ones you may need will be there.Quote:Yay! Break free! Oh, wait I used the last one I had last spawn with the Carnie Illusionist. Wait I know I'll combine insps to make one! I have a big purple, 2 medium reds, a medium yellow, 2 medium greens, 1 small orange, 2 small wakies, 1 small green, 2 big blues, 1 medium blue, and 1 small blue. Dang, guess I'm screwed again.
Once again, think ahead of the game.Quote:Yay! Movement. Crap, I'm mezzed. No movement for me. Guess I'll have to play level 2 blaster and hope this 1/4 a bar of hit points that I have left is enough for me to finish off those 3 undamaged Steel Strong men charging in on me since I got mezzed right as I made my first attack...... Nope, guess not.
So, perhaps those other toons are more suited to your style of play?Quote:I'm tired of running out of break frees, purples, greens, oranges in content that my other toons don't even need to use more than the occasional insp for. Worse still, since my other toons don't need to use them I can combine them all into reds and completely outpace the damage output of the "king of damage
There is no reason that all ATs should have the same learning curve.
Unlike real life, break frees are pretty darn cheap.Quote:Hey! Here's your brand new Ferrai. The fastest one ever made. "the king of speed" It's got all the bells and whistles. Multi-CD changer, AC, Sunroof every thing you need to drive down the road at hair raising speed.
Gas! No, no gas. That niche belongs to all the other cars. You can't have any gas. Get outa here! -
Quote:See I view this as part of the problem here. This revamp that I keep hearing about survivability and nothing more. People have posted they want blasters to have the survivability of scrappers. Others want them to have the controls of a dominator. You are comparing times of farming a map with a brute? Where does this stop? There are other ATs and powersets within, that won't farm as well either.
Tweaks are not enough. D2.0 was a "tweak" and it wasn't enough. The blaster AT as a whole needs a serious revamp.
Let me ask this, even if all ATs and powersets could be balanced and equal. Should they be?
I don't think homogenized ATs is the answer here.
If you want mez protection and more built in survivability, there are multiple of ATs you can choose from already!
My main two characters I play are a blaster and defender. Although, I have multiple tanks, brutes, and scrappers at 50 also. I don't play them much at all. Do you know why? I enjoy having to look at my health bar sometimes! Surviving things you are not 'supposed' to is fun! Sure, there are times I log in a more 'durable' character and just throat punch. To me though, that gets boring quickly. I'd say 95% of the time, I am on a blaster or defender. It seems to me that a more 'squishy' character has to think more proactively. I see that attack coming, is it going to kill me? Or can I pop a green, and keep going? YES! I will use inspirations! Even a breakfree if needed! Sometimes breaking LoS before it's too late! Movement and stuff!
I don't care about the spreadsheets, numbers, and the human calculators of the forums. This playstyle is fun for me! You take this so called 'broken' blaster and give it the inherent survivability of a scrapper, I'm bored to death. You give me controls of a dominator, why would I just not play a dominator? I clear a farm map 15 seconds slower than a brute? 15 seconds? Who gives a poo!
Wanna take a revamp look at the snipes? Go for it, they are outdated in today's game.
Perhaps a reasonable (read not massive) damage buff? Ok.
Maybe take a look at the t9 crashes? Alright, though I'm not sure I am in favor of all crashless nukes.
But mez protection? Get outa here! :P -
Quote:Ok, the easy answer to that is. If is it being based that 'x times tougher' = x times the survivability. There has to be more to that than the simple CoH buzzword of mitigation.Originally Posted by Lucky666
Come on then out with it. What is a lot that he's supposedly missing?
I am not seeing this 6-10 times the death rate for blasters.
Not for myself, or for people I normally team with. Just last night, I was on a team with a relatively new player, that was being a blaster. After running many +4/x8 missions, I think this player may have died 3 times. And, I am talking about someone that has played 3 months max, that I had never teamed with before.
I still think that this 'broken' word is being exaggerated.
Or there are some unrealistic expectations of what blasters should be.
If you are expecting a blaster to solo a +4/x8 map. Be able to stand there, in a group, go get a sammich, come back still living. Perhaps the blaster AT is not for you. Yes, I realize that was probably an exaggeration on my own part. -
Quote:In that case, you are missing a lot.Originally Posted by PrincessDarkstar
By taking the average mitigation of a scrapper or other AT and comparing it with the low to zero mitigation most blast sets have?
-
Quote:Exactly how do you equate this 'x times tougher' you are talking about?Originally Posted by Fulmens
Madadh: The next time you find yourself in a discussion where the other person's trumpeting the joy of playing a blaster, ask questions.
"How much more damage would you say you do than a scrapper with the same amount of inf sunk in their build?" You'll probably get an answer, if they're being accurate, like "20%" or "30%".
"How much tougher is that scrapper than you are?" You'll probably get an answer like "I don't die [much]" or "It doesn't matter, I kill things too fast" or some variant on "I don't know" or "I don't play them" or "I don't want to answer that question."
The answer, for most builds for most of the game, is "Scrappers are six times tougher, plus the advantage of mez protection."
How much tougher are Brutes? Six times tougher. How much more damage do Blasters do? Maybe 20%. Tanks? Ten times tougher, but at least Blasters do considerably more damage. Corruptors? Maybe only three times tougher, and don't have mez protection.
Six times tougher. 18% less damage. That is not balanced. (Incidentally, we went almost a month before someone brought up City of Blasters on the blaster boards. Yeah, June 2004 was the good month to be a blaster.)
I've said in another thread, that sure, some tweaks could be made. But, your posts seems to be hyperbole. Either that, or I have had a history of some very good RNG numbers.
Also, this mez protection issue I am just not understanding. On most teams, it becomes a non-issue. Either by tank'age or buffage. If solo, you plan accordingly.
Look folks, I don't want to simply face-roll across my keyboard to play my blasters. In every tf, trial I have completed with my blasters I have done so without death. 100% of the time? No, of course not. But, I have been there to see scrappers, brutes and tanks die. All while I am still blasting away. I can say for sure, I do not die 6 times more often than those ATs. And, that is totally not from standing in the background, watching the carnage.
So yeah, certain tweaks made to blasters? Sure.
But, I am seeing a lot of exaggeration to this 'broken' claim to blasters.