-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
[ QUOTE ]
My spines scrapper does this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I knew I should have addressed this. The big difference I think is that you move to reposition for cone AoE. A blaster repositions for survival either his own or a teammates and also repositions for his cone attacks, AoE, single target attacks with knockback etc. -
[ QUOTE ]
Never teamed with an ice tanker then?
[/ QUOTE ]
Few people have. How many Ice tanks do you see running around past the 20s? I can usually count them on a single finger most days. Invul tankers? If they were a pinatta a blind quadraplegic could hit one. Fire tankers are almost to those numbers as well.
I love my Ice tank (although he is on hold due to melee classes being looked at) and I got an Ice Tank invited into the SG so that we may actually have some variety in the SG and don't get jaded but to be honest alot of times I would rather have an invul tanking. -
Let me just chime in and say that in my experience blasters move a hell of alot more in combat. In some rare occurances I have not moved more and they were all herding instances. Everything got herded in a corner or a dumpster and then bam I unload with everything. Even in those instances the scrapper is usually right in there with the tanker killing things. Especially if the mobs don't have alot of AoE. So its not like the scrapper is moving around either.
Now, in a normal team session there is no comparison. I move to position, to dart in and out of melee (with SS now with toggle SS), retreat from dangerous situations, run to help teammates that are squishy and something has slipped past the tank.
With the last examply many people will ask "Why not just kill it from range?" and the answer to that is when you are going up against +3 minions and you happen to be an AoE blaster you are not going to be able to kill it from range before it kills the squishy.
So what ends up happening is that I run up and Power Thrust (Gotta love the ranged AT providing support with his melee cause its better than his ranged powers) and since the mob is on his [censored] I Bone Smasher him before backing up and finishing him off with a ranged attack.
Right there alone I believe is a good example of why a blaster moves more than a scrapper. A scrapper moves to engage and proceeds to beat their target. I have never seen a scrapper beat their target then back up, then go forward, then back up. It is a very simple matter of running up to the mob and beating it down.
On the other hand the blaster has to run up and then retreat to range because he can't stay in melee, then advance to melee to use is support powers before once again going back to range. If this doesn't illustrate why blasters have to move more than scrappers I don't know what does. -
Going back to your pet idea, have you ever seen how phantom army is used against the Psychic clock king? They throw them out on the opposite side to draw the Kings initial Alpha strike away from the group then the rest of the group goes in and tackles the king. Same tactic is used on alot of the psychic mobs by players because there are no defenses against psychic other than regen and SR.
So the blaster is in a similar position all the time. He is facing mobs that he has no defense against. How is he going to use this pet I wonder? Considering that a blaster that unleashes his AoE can kill a mob in a few seconds (usually no longer than 10 seconds from personal experience) and that mob attacks typicaly recharge in 8 seconds or higher unless they are brawl attacks it is reasonable to assume that after the alpha strike has landed on the poor hapless pet that the blaster can clean up with almost no fear of reprisal.
This is a supporting arguement why your pet idea is over powered. The pet idea alone. Do you understand what I am talking about when I say a supporting arguement? I made this same case earlier but you claimed that I did not support my arguements which is clearly false.
[ QUOTE ]
No And I have made my case go back and reread it if you want since you ignored it the first time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay lets go back and see just what kind of case you make.
[ QUOTE ]
Concern while Miluex may go overboard the general thought he has rings true man, if you where to get all the things you listed changed with Blasters they would be too uber.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the first response that I see to my ideas and it includes a flat declaritive statement that in your opinion it would be "uber". Why you think it would be "uber" you don't say just that all those ideas would be "uber" as if just saying it makes it true. No past experience refrenced and no scenario or example given. Just a flat statement as though it were truth.
Now in your second response you respond to my request to range in our primaries with this little nugget of a response. Which I address in a later post but will do so here again.
[ QUOTE ]
(Well both myself and Developers dissagree with you here concern. #1 they likely didn't intend for blasters not to enjoy the melee aspects as many here in this post claim they do, risk and all. # 2 State's has said in a further post that they will not be removing all of them so this point of your's is very likely both wrong and dead sir.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay Statesman said that he was not going to remove melee attacks from the secondaries and that was all. He said nothing in regards to our primaries. In fact our role has been changed from damage to range. This would imply that our primary should be ranged attacks however you seem to be confused about the issue.
You then come back and basically sum up your responses after talking about your pet with [ QUOTE ]
I agree the worst part however is you want them all and then some and thus have little concept of the scale of such a change.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Again you have this flat declaritive statement with no supporting arguement. You don't give any examples why having all the changes are bad you simply say that they are. You don't refrence past experience in any way for that matter indicating how such a change would unbalance the AT in regards to the mobs that they face. You rely on this as a fact in and of itself instead of simply seeing it as an opinion and useing facts to support it. Much like your comment about the devs disagreeing with me. A statement that had no factual support. Just an opinion.
Now in your next post rather than attack the idea you attack a statement I made about damage and misdirect the arguement into a playground of your choosing.
However, when it comes down to the idea of giving the PbAoE status effects range and making them either targetable toggles or Summon Drops you come back with this:
[ QUOTE ]
(Here is where I can apply the same holes in my argument you used with my pet suggestion. A solid argument by the way, since I again did not make it detaild enough for you.
I am talking about one pet with blaster hp's not perma with some range and some small aggro managment. This would be about no differant then teaming with a second blaster except it would protect you.
You are concerned about the risk mitigation of my blaster hp pet idea. Yet you clearly think all of your changes plus this one above would be less of a damage mitigation factor?
I call Shennanigans Sir,
This abiltiy above your suggest alone takes out as much risk then one Pet with blaster hit points.
Think about it the aoe you lob from a safe range kills all but 2 while you run around a corner. A single pet cannont kill so many so fast, it has no aoe. The pet would not be able to mitigate damage to the level that this change of yours alone would do. Mull that over and if you use reason you should see the light.)
[/ QUOTE ]
How this applies to the PbAoE in the secondary I have no idea but you seem to think that it does. Are you begining to see why I am saying that you are not supporting your arguements? I mean you come back with this to counter ranged hot feet or ranged lightning field in the secondaries? A single pet cannot kill so fast, what the hell are you talking about? This was taken completely in context. Is this one of the arguements you refer to later?
Again later you show your complete misunderstanding of reality.
[ QUOTE ]
(Coming from you this is a good joke. whats more I read State's post which clearly says they will not be taking away all melee powers again this point of your suggestions is moot.)
Yes all those melee attacks. Those melee attacks have nothing to do with the PbAoE status effects and toggles that I am talking about. They also have nothing to do with the primaries. I really don't think you have understood what you have read. At least this is what it seems like from what you are posting.
After this post you continue to go into whether or not I add damage to the blaster set as you seem dead set on proving that in a way you were right and end up proving that both of us were right depending on how you looked at it. You begin once again making declartive statements with no supporting arguements. You simply seem to assume that something is obvious. [ QUOTE ]
(No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously you did not actually look at the idea. You would have noticed that the idea did not call for ranged level 32 nukes. Glossing over that I will just point out that this was the entire arguement against them. Just an opinion. When I ask you to support your opinion you say that you have except that as I go back and look all I see is flat statements with no examples or for that matter any supporting sentences much less facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally we end with this lovely post.
[ QUOTE ]
I have very much backed up my posts you choose not to agree to my backing statments or to ignore them and that's fine too, but claiming that you somehow did more or used a differant tact to defend your own points is just as flawed in my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I went back and looked. You don't have any supporting arguements other than your opinion. You have not even tried to set up a scenario or an example that shows why your opinion is correct which is something that I have done. The one time that you did try to set up an example it was about lobbing some AoE around a corner (Something that blasters do already) and that would somehow unbalance blasters. I am not sure if that qualifies as a scenario as it was evident that you were not looking at what the suggestion suggested. I mean anyone that thinks that lobbing Lightning field or Chilling embrace around a corner is going to do anything other than piss alot of mobs off clearly has no concept of balance. Especially when they are comparing that to the concept of a disposable pet. -
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that slows down scrapper DPS is executing an attack on a villain only to have it die before the damage is registered - something that happens to me all the time when I'm teamed with blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is one that cuts both ways as well. The only one where this really does not happen is Elec blasters single target attacks that hit instantly. The animations on AR also end up making me go through an animation only to see the target die before I attack. Especially if I have to re-draw the gun. -
Tranth you still have not supported your position. You have repeated your opinions again but have not supported your statement that the ideas are overpowered yet unless it is your contention that a blaster being able to deliver damage from range quickly is unbalanced.
Let me clarify that when I say I would not mind a little button to kill all the mobs, I would not mind it on any AT because frankly I enjoy seeing mobs die. This is a vice and it is one of the reasons why I enjoy playing max payne 2 with god mod on just so I can stand still and slowly shoot people in the head and enjoy every slowed second of it. A little sick? Maybe but it has no relevance because when I suggest an idea of mine is balanced you had better believe that I am suggesting it to balance the game and not to give a single AT a god mode.
Honestly if I was looking to make the game easier you wouldn't see me supporting a nerf to enhancements trying to make the game harder.
Okay enough defending my credibility.
You want to agree to disagree on alot of points without actually debating on them fine.
Lets see if we can take issues one at a time and find out what is so unbalancing about each one.
[ QUOTE ]
No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay so you are against all ranged 32 nukes. However you don't say why it is unbalanced. You simply say that it is. Do you understand why I am saying that you are not making a case? You said previously: [ QUOTE ]
Nah I am fine with thunder Blast man if you wnat that play electric, its one of the things that adds flavor for electric blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this ranged 32 nuke okay but the rest are not? What makes this nuke balanced? Is there some compromise you are looking for? Is there a compromise that comes along with this nuke? Does it do less damage? Does it have a smaller AoE? Please explain why you think that ranged nukes are unbalanced.
Okay, One thing that really peeved me is in regards to your comment about having ranged manipulation powers.
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how being able to summon and drop Hot Feet takes out more risk than an agro management pet. You have absolutely no concept of how overpowering your idea is.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what I said.
[ QUOTE ]
(Feeling is mutual other than pointing out that your post didnt mention only hot feet but many more powers in this change I need not further clarify myself to you as you will miss or igore it most likely anyhow.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is your response. You notice that you have not given any reason why any of the manipulation powers being ranged will be unbalanced. What you have said is that they are unbalanced in your opinion with no supporting arguements. Yes I am totally aware that I included more than just Hot Feet. I was merely giving you an example as to what I was talking about considering that you may have misinterpreted it.
So I give you a power to work with and instead of showing how it is unbalanced you come back and say "Ha! Your only useing one power as an example and your idea includes more than that and that is why it is unbalanced." Try again.
[ QUOTE ]
(The agruments are all there for you in black and white this is amtter of opinion on both sides and we are not like to agree on it is all.)
[/ QUOTE ]
The arguements are like the ones above, opinions and not arguements. If you want to say in your opinion something is not balanced that is fine. If you make a flat declaritive statement then please back it up with some nice supporting arguements. -
I have been useing blasters in PvP and it does not do extra damage to those with no resistance. It is not a -30% resistance but simply ignores 30% resistance.
-
[ QUOTE ]
What's this I thought you said no increase in damage? hmm 30% unresistable damage to mobs = damage increase, did you not Sir in another post claim to be a lawyer in training?
Where then is your atteniton to detail with your own percivied facts?)
[/ QUOTE ]
I begin to understand your lack of understanding. Take two mobs with no resistance. Which are the majority of mobs in the game. Current blasters would do 100 pts of damage. Blasters with the PvP change would still do 100 pts of damage.
If the mob has resistance, lets say 30% the mob would still take 100 pts of damage. Wait thats not more damage is it? No its consistent damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Think about it the aoe you lob from a safe range kills all but 2 while you run around a corner. A single pet cannont kill so many so fast, it has no aoe. The pet would not be able to mitigate damage to the level that this change of yours alone would do. Mull that over and if you use reason you should see the light.)
[/ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that Thunderous blast is overpowered? Wait maybe you missed my change to blaster nukes at the bottom I guess I will continue reading to see if you realized this arguement was pointless.
[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about one pet with blaster hp's not perma with some range and some small aggro managment. This would be about no differant then teaming with a second blaster except it would protect you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, it has ranged agro management. Extremely overpowered. If it ties up one enemy that just negated all damage (100% resistance in a way) from one target. That is pretty damn powerfull for a power. That is why Phantom Army is considered crowd controll and this is what you are asking for. You are asking for crowd controll.
[ QUOTE ]
Again you forget that you claimed that your changes make no damage increase in your most recent post to me Sir, Not only is this a damage increase for melee aoe it also has the strong possiblity for lameness effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I made it clear that I was for increasing melee AoE several times. I even explained why.
[ QUOTE ]
This abiltiy above your suggest alone takes out as much risk then one Pet with blaster hit points.
[/ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how being able to summon and drop Hot Feet takes out more risk than an agro management pet. You have absolutely no concept of how overpowering your idea is.
[ QUOTE ]
6. Swap the damage caps of blasters and scrappers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Hmmm Increase Damage ? Could be!)
[/ QUOTE ]
I love this. Really. So if I take a blaster with a higher damage cap and fire an attack it will suddenly do more damage? No, it won't. It makes it so that the potential is there but the cap does not magically make blaster attacks more powerfull.
[ QUOTE ]
8. Faster activation times on powers for blasters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Sure thing but btw this would up DPS and thus hmm well Increase Damage!)
[/ QUOTE ]
I see you have confused damage with DPS. Need to stop doing that as they are not the same thing. Did I say that it would not increase DPS? No I didn't. Increased activation times will not make blaster attacks do more damage. It does not increase damage. It does increase DPS but don't confuse that for damage. If an attack is not one shotting an LT it will not one shot an LT no matter how fast the attack is performed.
[ QUOTE ]
9. Making level 32 nukes into more useable AoE powers like Head Splitter or Full-Auto and less situational all end consuming powers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
([censored] ? As I reread this one I realize that I glossed over it without enough thought myself. It alone is insane. I gotta say this alone is better then a small resistance to one power and a blaster hp pet.
You Sir Have no concept of balance if you cannot see that.
And BTW it is the now soon to be non perm click powers that scrappers get which sucks thier endo and are becoming O' Crap powers like Blasters booms and not the other way around.)
[/ QUOTE ]
First don't compare primary and secondary sets in regards to final powers. If you want to compare the scrapper secondary powers, then compare them to blaster secondary powers. Except for Total focus those scrapper secondaries are much better.
So, what you are saying is that if we had a ranged attack that was similar to Head splitter in damage and made into a small AoE cone or somewhat it would somehow unbalance us compared to scrappers that already have headsplitter? It removes a situational power and allows blasters to once again perform their role from range. An amazing concept. It allows blasters to have another power to cycle when they want to kill bosses. An amazing concept. Somehow though this is unbalanced?
Once again you have not said why these things are unbalanced. You have just said "OH MY GOD ITS UNBALANCED MY IDEA IS BETTER"
I already explained why your idea is ungodly good and overpowering but you have so far simply repeated your assertion that the powers are overpowered or said that in a round about way that the changes would add damage to the blaster class. Which of course was the point of the changes. To improve blasters without adding damage but allowing them to put out more damage. Can you understand that concept.
The changes also reinforce the concept that blasters should stay at range until they wish to close by placing their defensive powers at range rather than makeing them get in melee to use their manipulation powers.
However rather than saying why range is a bad thing or why haveing a non-situational attack power is overpowering you have just spouted off you opinion with no supporting arguements.
As to why your idea is so overpowering that it will never happen, think about summoning your pet from around the corner to absorb the alpha strike (including mezzes and AoE damage) so that you can round the corner and perform your alpha strike with absolutely no fear of reprisal because you the mobs have attacked and their powers are recharging. The pet can die because it does not have to live that long.
In teams it is even better because it can be buffed by defenders and controllers and its ability to absorb damage for the blaster multiplies. Do you begin to see why your idea is overpowered? It can die in one hit and still be overpowered for a balster soloing.
My final thing to say on your comments. [ QUOTE ]
5. (stolen idea) Give each single target attack a -10% res that lasts 5 seconds. This not only helps boost the blasters damage a minute amount but also allows the blaster to help a team. Thus encouraging teaming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( I know you mentioned you would give up this idea I just want to point out again that you forgot this would in effect increase damage.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course its not my idea. I put it up there because I don't expect all of my changes to even be considered or done all at once. So I am throwing out the most reasonable ideas that I can see being implimented with the least amount of coding so that something has a chance of being considered. Of course I would like to see all the changes made. I would like to have a little button that lets me kill all the mobs on a map but I don't think I will get it. -
[ QUOTE ]
Ever been a scrapper in a good team with blasters and defenders and tanks and wondered why you were bothering to attack when you could just stand around and nothing would change cause the blaster's killing everything, the tanks holding agro, the defender's keeping everyone alive...
yes, I will use your argument for my own means: "What it means is the <Scrapper> has no role <in a team> anymore because..." everything they attempt to do is already being done much more efficiently.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you ever wonder why a set that can do a bit of everything is outshined by sets that specialize? Obviously you do. Are you saying that scrappers should be able to do both jobs as well? Or do you only want to do either the Tankers or the Blasters job as well? Why should you do either job as well when you are not taking the penalties they get for specializing?
While we are on the subject of teams have you ever been on a team where you had a scrapper, tank, defender, and a controller and no blaster? Did the team turn to you for damage? Yep, and you were able to provide that. Ever been on a team with no tank and a team wanted you to take the initial agro? I would not be surprised and you can do that too.
So you have a character that can fill two team roles and it also gets the additional role of boss killer. It can fill two team roles when the AT that it is filling in for is not around and it has its own role all of its very own.
Yet you are sitting here and whining that blasters are complaining about having their single team role usurped by scrappers?
Keep up the great comments like this because they are friggin hilarious. -
Looks like it was a good thing that I bound my SS to an easy to hit key because I am going to be turning it on and off alot in combat.
I rather enjoyed being able to quickly place myself on the field of battle where my cones would do the most damage. I guess now I will have to quickly move, position, turn off the power, attack, then turn it back on again to move. Seems fair to me because I get all this range.
I am not against the change but I do hope that they would do something to blasters to compensate for the lack or frustration that comes from the lack of mobility. Allowing us to shoot on the move would be a good start. -
[ QUOTE ]
Smite doesn't one-shot white minions. Shadow Maul might with HOs, and Midnight Grasp can, but it's not really a one-shot as it takes several seconds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your experience meshes with mine but I would add that Full-Auto and Flamethrower both take several seconds to "one shot". Several Seconds that can lead to death. -
[ QUOTE ]
Bully for you man.
it's lines of thinking like this that have folks who generally agree with the fact blasters need help up in arms about your ideas you are suggesting an easy mode. If all of your suggestions where to get implemented they would cause much more unbalance then my own 2.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you straight out. How do the suggestions I have unbalance things more than your idea of defense and an agro shunt for blasters. Please enlighten me.
If you can explain how allowing a blaster to attack from range with their primaries is unbalanced then maybe you can begin to say that my suggestions are unbalanced. If you can explain to me how adding no damage to the set is unbalancing then again maybe you can begin to say that my suggestions are unbalanced. Please just explain how the suggestions I have made are unbalancing. I have seen both yourself and Mieux claim this but with absolutely no supporting arguements.
[ QUOTE ]
"If we are ranged damage then by all that is holy our primary should not have a single friggin ability that is closer than 30' in range.
(Well both myself and Developers dissagree with you here concern. #1 they likely didn't intend for blasters not to enjoy the melee aspects as many here in this post claim they do, risk and all. # 2 State's has said in a further post that they will not be removing all of them so this point of your's is very likely both wrong and dead sir.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Here you prove that you did not read the ideas. When I refer to range over 30', I was referring to our primaries. If you notice in my ideas that I posted I left secondary attacks at 20' which is only 10' farther than they are currently or did you not know that your melee really activates at a slight range anyway and you don't actually have to be in melee to melee?
[ QUOTE ]
As far as the pet is concerned I most definatley do not want it to be anything like a tank, rather just another target for your foes wih blaster type hit points and only one out at a time. Perhaps the golem referance through you off there I did not mean to imply a tank strength pet.)
[/ QUOTE ]
This is where you don't understand game balance. It does not have to be a tank strength pet. It only has to soak the alpha strike or soak two or three attacks in a team setting. What you are doing is basically completely negating damage that would be going the blaster way. That is one hell of a defense. On top of that you also wanted defense for blasters. Do you begin to see why it just may unbalance blasters?
[ QUOTE ]
Agree to disagree with you here is all I could say you ideas do indeed over power mine imho.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is through what rational process of deduction did you determine that my suggestions unbalance the AT. I know what your opinion is; what I want to know is why you hold it. -
What you have got to love is that we are supposed ranged AT and yet our primaries have powers that are melee range. Simply genius design there. Then when someone comes along and says "Hey why don't we make these abilities operate at range instead of melee for the ranged AT" people scream bloody murder and moan about how it will unbalance a set with no defense to have range in addition to damage. While Mieux is at it he should go and tell scrappers in the scrapper test thread that they should be nerfed because they are imbalanced in the player VS. villain world balance view.
Of course he really isn't interested in balance or he would have already done that. Instead he wants blasters to prove to him what Statesman has already said and has been tested many times. He seems to think that blasters should be forced to rely on another human being that is subject to change to be balanced. He seems to think that as long as a tank is around blasters are peachy.
Except that he acknowledges that all of those things are not true but when someone suggests improveing the AT in a way that supports its role he says that it is unbalanceing because there is no compromise.
What a joke. -
[ QUOTE ]
Concern while Miluex may go overboard the general thought he has rings true man, if you where to get all the things you listed changed with Blasters they would be too uber.
Which is not to say that any one fo them or even a few would be bad its just all of them would be too much.
While I do agree blasters need something I am for a single pet to mitiagate aggro and a single damage resistance power of the blasters choice replacing the (generally considered lamest melle power in thier secondarys.)
I.E. Ice blaster with a Frost golem and resistance to ice at a 20-30% base in his secondarys.
I am not for mez protection personally as I remeber mezzin to be a major weakness in comics for blaster types...
think Johnny storm after being hit with water (knock back) or Cyclops after being locked up in a steel mask by magneto.
The 20 foot melee range idea while effective would be if nothing else lame looking so I hope that one atleast does not get implemented.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only one I would retract is the -res idea. That was not my idea anyway. Everything else though would only start to fix blasters. If we are ranged damage then by all that is holy our primary should not have a single friggin ability that is closer than 30' in range. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't want your PbAoE to be a ranged power? Do you think it is unbalancing for blasters to have range?
Honestly you say that my ideas unbalance the set but then you want to have a friggin agro pet? The Tanker on tap? Sorry but the best part of my ideas is that not one gives the blaster defense and every one of them adds to ability of the blaster to do damage without increasing the strength of the attacks themselves. Except for the melee. If we are going to have a melee AoE then it needs to be damn powerfull. Of course since we won't be getting in melee that often it can have a long recharge time, somthing like the recharge on Total focus would be good. However the melee AoE really needs to be worth the risk of the agro in teams.
As for animations not looking right I think we can live with some wierd looking animations for the same amount of time that Katana scrappers did. I know I could anyway if I knew that it enhanced my ability to attack from range.
I have a hard time understanding how someone can say that the ideas I put forth are overpowering in the slightest when they are putting up ideas for adding to a blasters defense which even as blasters stand now would be me far more overpowering than anything I have suggested. -
[ QUOTE ]
i looked at your suggestions for blasters on the other thread and I found them borderline ridiculous. You uniformely want everything imporved without a single concession in power. Melee attacks that work at 20ft...hahahahaha.
That reads like someone who is out of touch with reality and only cares about making Blasters beyond uber.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me Mieux, what concession did scrappers make when they got criticals? What concession did tankers make when they got punchvoke and the new taunt? Not a damn one.
Why should blasters concede anything when they are not performing at their role, shouldn't the devs make a change like they did with scrappers and tanker to make them fit their role?
Sounds like you are more out of touch with the game than I am. -
[ QUOTE ]
Concern, if you want to improve the fate of blasters, you need to address this problem instead of ignoring it. You have to recognize that the balance you are thinking of is the wrong one. There must be "balance" between the heroes and the mobs....not between the Heroes (PvP notwithstanding). None of your suggestions (haven't seen them all) seem to acknowledge this. How do we keep the average team from being TOTALLY overpowering? Upping blaster damage and giving them mez and defense is simply going to exacerbate this problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mieux, it is clear taht you have not looked at my suggestions. I would love for you to point out how my suggestions make a team or a blaster overpowered. You go ahead and do that.
Now on the the next really important part that I am going to quote.
[ QUOTE ]
You have to recognize that the balance you are thinking of is the wrong one. There must be "balance" between the heroes and the mobs....not between the Heroes (PvP notwithstanding).
[/ QUOTE ]
Your telling this to the guy whom when I2 was being banged around on the test server suggested balanceing the entire game by limiting enhancements. Thereby lowering the players ability to deviate from the original norms that were balanced by the devs. Your telling me that I have lost sight of PvE balance when I am the only person besides a few others pushing for Hammidon Enhancements to be balanced in both PvE and PvP.
Sorry, when it comes to who is looking to balance the game as a whole you will have a very hard time finding one more commited to that goal than me. You on the other hand Mieux have shown that you can't even take the time to look up one of the posts from 2 months of posts that go into detail how other classes outdamage blasters.
Last point before I forget about you mieux is that the blaster nukes do not balance the blaster class nor do they make the blaster the king of damage. You are taking a power that basically can kill minions in one shot when the blaster could have killed them in two with his normal AoE and believeing that the loss of all the endurance and the long recharge time make this power something turns a blaster into a damage monster?
Maybe for herding but herding was never the focus of this game and it damn well should not be the focus for blasters. After reading your posts your not even worth responding too as you clearly say "Theres a problem, but I am not sure if there is a problem so don't say there is one." You either believe that Blasters are the kings of damage and have something to back up that Statement or you think they are not the kings of damage in which case you can take a look at the numerous suggestions to improve them and critique them.
Better yet though, you should seriously look to how you are playing scrappers in the lower levels. An easier time leveling I have not had. I went out and took a scrapper to level 12 just to see if it was more difficult than a blaster. Must have been all that time I spent playing as a blaster because my DM/Invul [censored] the mobs he went up against. Maybe it was just me. Then again maybe you have no idea what you are talking about. -
First let me say that I actually was not responding with anger but was responding rather frankly. Some of your questions seemed rather strange and I attributed that to your lack of personal experience.
[ QUOTE ]
Again show me in my post where I said this was a stupid request, I seem to remember thinking it sounded like a good idea. In any case being a scrapper I wouldnt want to hazard a guess at how often I had to chase down a mob because some blaster knocked them across the room, I believe the most typical response to this issue is, tough. Why should I use lesser attacks just for you? Why should the tanker adjust his attacks for you?
[/ QUOTE ]
This was the point! Why should the tanker refrain from useing his foot stomp? Answer: He shouldn't. Which is why I asked for better range in the primaries.
[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, how would you then benefit from this cap then without someone to buff you? Why should it matter if as you say it is so useless? Do you want to have an additional 100% of damage that you cant achieve without help too?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have talked about this in many places but basically allowing scrappers to do more damage to blasters and giveing them better defenses is an insult to the blaster class. Let me ask you what makes you think you need the 100% you don't use?
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have made it pretty clear that if you want something boosted that you are going to have to loose something.
[/ QUOTE ]
The dev's have made it clear that when something was supporting the role of an AT that it would be improved. Punchvoke, and taunt for tankers, Katana improvements for scrappers not to mention stacking armor. Exactly what was the price for stacking armor? Oh, that right, there wasn't one other than the inherent cost in the armor themselves that was always there. The devs are very willing to change something for the better without doing a give and take.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh wait I can, because I currently have a Warshade, and as much as being a blaster must suck based on your statements, I doubt it is as painful as having to deal with Quants/Voids that purposely hide out of range and sight, have sniper range, and can 2-3 shot, and stun you, its sort of like having a Lost Pariah in every mission you have from lvl 1-50 and until issue 4 comes out a -30% resit to all damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi, I have a warshade too. As a matter of fact I found the War Shade three form to be so easy I went straight for the human only form to find a challenge after playing my blaster. Warshades are a little hard to play in the early levels but after you get nova it is pretty easy compared to a blaster in the 30+ game. You would really have to play a blaster to understand.
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously if I had been negative in any way in my replies then I could under stand your anger, but I wasnt and the only one that I really disagreed with was the damage cap, and I gave a logical if not in your eyes good reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't angry. Check out freedom fury's thread on Blasters in CoH if you want to see a furious post. As to your logical explanation it ignores the stated reason given by the devs for the damage caps being the way they are. It is similar to saying well I believe the sky is blue because venus is green. Even doing only lethal damage you are putting out damage comparable to blasters. Or you will be once you slot your powers. -
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone done any datamining to show who does more damage on average in a team from lvls 1-50? Is it blasters or scrappers? Why do I get the feeling it's blasters?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure that the Dev's have the numbers. The fact that Statesman did not come out and say that blasters deal more damage than scrappers kind throws your assumption in some murky waters.
Now here is a really funny thing, take two ATs. Only count the amount of damage to arrest a mob. Which one did more damage from 1-50 the scrapper or the blaster? Of course the blaster did because he was in debt more often at the higher levels. So your absolutely right in saying that blasters in generaly do more damage from 1-50 than scrappers. That was a pointless arguement now was it not?
[ QUOTE ]
It's another thing to whine about another AT having a higher damage cap with absolutely zero proof on how that affects in-game results. It's like whining that some Winnebago has a speed-o-meter that goes to 300 MPH and yoru Ferrari only goes 210 MPH. So friggin what? How often do you see scrappers outdamaging blasters in team situation? That is the question I don't see answered.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually that question has been answered over and over again for several months. The answer has always been that over the course of a mission the scrapper will deal more damage. As to complaining about the Caps, I explained it elsewhere that the scrapper will most likely never see the cap but what it represents is a slap in face to blasters. It would be like someone saying to a guy with a dragster that he was the fastest car on the lot and then giveing a sedan the power to actually go faster in the long run. Is the dragster really the fastest car on the lot? You could certainly say that in short bursts he is but is he really the fastest car? Is the statement "Blasters are the kings of damage" really true?
[ QUOTE ]
And let me add, the vast majority of the game is not played at lvl 50. Issues that occur at lvl 45+ seem ridiculous to me when you've played through 95% of the content. So any meaningful analysis had better focus on the lvl ranges where the majority of people play their toons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutley, and I suppose that of course you will be looking into the 30+ game since that is where the majority of people spend their game time when looking at 1-50.
[ QUOTE ]
And let me offer you some reality Concern. From lvls 1-16..maybe even as high as 20...scrappers are pretty mediocre.
[/ QUOTE ]
Compared to late game scrappers. Jesus, in the early game the only way you can say that scrappers are mediocre is if you call every other AT mediocre. Everyone but controllers take on the same size mobs at the early levels. Now, you can point to specific sets and builds that do better but I can point to specific builds in the scrapper realm that will take down +1 bosses at level 8. Maybe even level six I have to check on power choices but it is certainly doable and without insperations for the scrap. That doesn't seem mediocre to me but it does not represent all scrappers either.
[ QUOTE ]
But you dont' see scrappers pissing and moaning about it do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Could be because they really don't have a problem. I don't know, makes sense to me. They certainly seem willing to make extremely long post counts whenever they do have a problem.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters it seems, have a different sweet spot, yet, judging by your posts, that is totally unacceptable that there should be any shift in power.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are going to have a really hard time finding posts of mine to support that arguement. I welcome you to try though.
[ QUOTE ]
But it if the reason is based on coveting someone else's damage cap, irrespective of in-game results....let's hope they make the right call.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason was never because of the damage cap. That was just iceing on the cake. It was the final insult. The last straw if you will. -
[ QUOTE ]
I think there's a big difference between "What's your Primary" and "r u healer" and its not just Grammar. ...One leaves a chance that the other Defender set might still be of real help to them. The other one sounds really ignorant and puts the defender on the defensive or make a guess (well, except for ForceField who can't "heal" at all).
But we should move on to other things.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have started responding to "R U Healer" with "R U Damage". Works pretty well.
Okay, moving on. -
Honestly it doesn't matter what comic hero you throw up for blasters.
Johnny the Homicidal Maniac puts the smack down on all of them so of course scrappers should have higher damage caps.
Sorry, I just sometimes fail to see how we can really translate comics to game balance. -
[ QUOTE ]
However, other blaster types should be able to play like an actual superhero, blazing down from the sky and destroying all. The Human Torch is a non-stealthed, non-superspeeding blaster, and he's not gimp. Cyclops, while he usually fights in a team, doesn't use stealth or invisibility either.
[/ QUOTE ]
This I completely agree with. We are playing a game of Heroes. When I made my 3B guide it was insult to the Devs in disguise. It was to point out that the way that they made blasters created people that if they wanted to be successfull they would use tactics that were bastardly. It was just a tongue in cheek guide on how all blasters could do really well if they just stopped playing like heroes and began to play dirty.
It actually did help people which was a bonus in a way but unfortunately the devs never saw it or ignored the point that it made. Blasters aren't heroes. Sometimes blasters can do amazing things, so can your average pedestrian in paragon. Every other AT does amazing things all the time, so why are blasters the only class to left out of the Hero biz. -
[ QUOTE ]
No you haven't. You may have seen, "Team looking for a healer", but that translates to "Controller/Defender who is Empathy primary".
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw a broadcast that asked for a defender. It wasn't until after I joined that they asked if I was a healer. I mean get it straight people are so much more open these days to who they invite. They just throw back what they don't want. -
[ QUOTE ]
The thought of someone being able to use Bone Smasher or Total Focus on me from 20ft away is pretty disturbing, but if you want more range on these then the damage or duration or effect would have to go down a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize that the current range on melee attacks is 10' right? That is basically just doubling the range. No lessening of the power needed. Why, Because we are supposed to be about range and putting it up to 20' is just a bone thrown in that direction.
[ QUOTE ]
Again this seems reasonable if range is supposed to be your defense, but Im not sure what the range of foot stomp is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Greater than the Diameter of Footstomp. The range of Footstomp is PbAoE. The reason behind this is if I want to hit a guy behind the tank and it gets knocked back by Foot Stomp I want to be able to shoot him from range without having to possibly go through melee opponents to get that guy. I have no doubt that AoEs from Malta grenades will be going off around the tank and I don't want to be near him. That is why I asked for that range specifically.
[ QUOTE ]
This is where I have to disagree with you and here is why. IMO it seems Scrapper damage types are far more resisted than most Blaster damage types.
All scrappers deal smash or lethal with a smidge of negative or toxic here and there, and pretty much everything and its mamma has resists to smash/lethal some DE and carnies aside. Also if we are supposed to be the boss killers (not my idea talk to States about it) then we need to be able to do that, and the extra cap helps this, and really this only comes into play when someone is using Fulcrum shift as far as I know.
[/ QUOTE ]
I got news for you. The cap is not helping you, unless you play with Sould Drain or you have a kinetics defender on tap. Why exactly do you think you need the potential to do more damage than blasters? Your boss killing role is made evident by your criticals. The reason you have your cap is because Statesman said that you had more risk. Please, come back and tell me that you have more risk than a blaster in melee or ranged. You do lethal damage? So does AR. You do smashing damage? So does energy. You are not alone in having damage types that are resisted.
[ QUOTE ]
Arent your attacks already faster than anyone elses? Not really sure on this but I could be wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are indeed wrong. Take a look at AR animation times or for that matter Fire and Energy animations. The only set that has fast animations is Ice. Even then you have wonderfull rain animations that root you. Not to mention the snipe animations that root.
[ QUOTE ]
Ive seen tons of Novas, ect and really them being PBAOE isnt that much of a pain in a group, and I know my friends use them solo too, there simply has to be some risk for the ridiculous amount of damage those powers do, I may be able to get behind a short range targetable version of this but it would have to be pretty short.
[/ QUOTE ]
The real issue with nukes is that they are not usefull in every combat. I mean every combat. Blasters have enough problems and the last thing they need is a situational damage power that is good for clearing minions. Jeez like our AoE we have in our primary is not already good for that. Why in the world would we need these solo unless we wanted to go nuke a hazard zone mob of minions. Only when we were doing that every one got pissed. So why not simply make them a usefull high damage attack that is a small AoE but does at least Head splitter damage with the same endurance cost and recharge so that we can do some real damage to bosses with our attack chain. Having a fast animation would be a requirement of course. We are not friggin Sayans running around with Kamaya maya blasts.
Not to mention that having another boss killer attack would be really usefull in PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
I have never played a blaster past 10 but I have played with more than a couple and here is my thoughts on these changes (forgive me if this has already been addressed)
[/ QUOTE ]
This fact is glaringly obvious. I wish I could say go make a level 40 blaster and take it for a spin but you can't do that. It is obvious that playing on the scrapper side you really don't know what it takes to play a blaster. Having seen friends use nukes is not the same as useing them and dealing with them. -
Actually what ticks me off are the people that are friggin condescending. I was recently playing with a blaster and two tanks in Faultline. Now this is with my Dark Defender. The tanks did not want to rush the Vahz mobs. OK. I can deal with that.
However after I got them debuffed, Feared (Takes two fears), and immobilized the blaster still would not come down to blast and instead just stayed as high as he could sniping. The tanks thought it was great because they did not have to worry about the stupid blaster. The blaster thought he was "ubar" because he never got hit.
Meanwhile, I am sitting in the middle of the Vahz staring straight up going "What are you waiting for? Hit the friggin AoE allready!"
May as well have been talking to the wind. Cowardly blasters. Make me sick. The best part was after putting on this show of brilliance he says "I don't get hit let me snipe the boss." Realize that he is hovering above us. Yeah, sniping the boss is a genius move when you drag the entire mob on the party.
Sigh, I have seen gung ho Blasters. I have seen cowardly blasters. Unfortunately it seems that the balanced blaster is very hard to find or maybe it is hard to play. I am not sure but I cringe inwardly whenever I invite a blaster because I never know what I am going to get.