Zarkonan1

Disappointing news, but not unexpected. <thinks about how long Temperature Protection has remained the same>

Great work so far Manticore.

Can we have some sort of central "quest log" or something to keep track of the story arcs and Paragon City History that we learn?? Or some library where we can just sit down and read all this information in-game from clickable books? So if I want to read the history of the Hellions or CoT, or a specific villian or hero, I can just go there and read it?

If this is already in game through the help menu (which just occured to me and I'm at work) just ignore my question.

Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...

It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.

The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright, given this outlook on Burn... per my first post I still say it doesn't synergize well with the Tanker secondary...

But, if you see it as still usefull as an offensive power when combined with other powers from other AT's, I STRONGLY suggest letting us enhance ACCURACY!!

Why? In teams you are often fighting higher level minions and burns unenhanceable ACC make it much less useful.

Another significant problem with using it in a team setting (assuming lockdown of some kind of the mobs) - its long DOT often makes it superflous in a team setting compared to a blaster's Fireball, Frost Breath, ET, Lighting Ball, etc., or a scrappers whirling sword, Quills, etc.

Frankly, it lacks utility in a team setting in most situations. Is it worth it to me to spend 5 slots on this power on the off chance I get a team without a blaster or scrapper?

Look, if you are taking the time to change this power, do it right. Make it fun. Make it useful. If you are keeping the fear, then decrease the Dot duration (and increase damage and recharge accordingly), and let us add ACC enchancers to it.

If no other changes are made to Burn, I'll give you my antecdotal response:

I will not be slotting burn and I will probably drop it from my build in order to pick up a power, such as Build-up, that I will use more often and to greater effect.

I fear this will be a common reaction.

Is this really what you want to happen?

Regards,

Dear Devs,

My 2 inf.

From another of my posts on this subject, Burn as it now plays on Test has the following characteristics:

The Good:
BI of around 9
End of around 7
Immobilization Protection
AoE

The Bad:
Unenhanceable accuracy
Unenhanceable damage beyond SO's
Immobile Pet
Recharge of around 30 seconds or so
DoT

The Ugly:
Massive Fear that trumps all taunt effects

Analysis:
Given all of the above, I think some might say it is fairly balanced. The BI on Burn is massive considering its AoE and its end cost is so low (look at FSC - BI of 4.5ish and an end cost of 27ish!!). It even offers a status protection.

But I believe that a power has to be considered within the AT and the Powerset.

With its Fear effect, Burn does not syngergize well with other tanker powers. Specifically, Burn forces mobs into range, which pushes them out of melee range. Most of the tanker's attacks are melee based and are rendered significantly less effective when used in conjunction with Burn. Its not fun to chase down mobs after you have fled them with melee attacks!

Now, one counter-point to this is that Burn is now intended to be an anti-melee power, not intended to be an offensive weapon primarily for damage. Ok, fine, I can live with that. However, it still doesn't synergize well with other melee attacks - even if they are attacking at range for less damage, they are at range and Tanks are a melee AT, so our offense is reduced which in turn reduces our defence.

My Suggestions:
Again, I think you have to look at the whole powerset...

1.) If you keep burn as is (a primarily last-ditch defensive power), and keeping in mind the trend to make lvl 32 powers have more utility, I would recommend changing Rise of the Pheonix from a rez power to something useful such as an anti-unstoppable (i.e. trading defense for damage) or something like that.

2.) Reduce the fear effect such that it works as it does on live but keep the new damage and recharge. This will keep Burn an AOE offensive power. You will probably have to up its endurance cost to something that matches its BI (keeping in mind its other limitations).

3.) Scrap burn for some of the suggested powers in this thread - a damage-back shield, an aura that reduces defense when its turned on but does good damage, etc.

Thanks for listening!

My two influence:

Defiance is conceptually very wrong for a blaster. To infringe on a trademark, who is the first to jump in and get damaged and fight extra hard in the process, Wolverine or Cyclops?

Frankly, I like defiance, but it should be the Scrapper inherent power. Blasters should get the criticals.

I realize balancing defiance with the defender secondaries in the scrapper set would be a headache, but it just fits so much better thematically with scrappers than with blasters.

If thats not an option, I suggest making epic powers, which aid defense, available at an earlier level rather than defiance. More choices = more fun. Let blasters decide if they want to trade offense for some marginal increase in defense.

Its simply not realistic for me to bring two characters up beyond level 40 as a working adult. And yet, I'm forced to do so if I ever want defenses of any significant ability (and coolness might I add) on my blaster alts.

For RP purposes, character design purposes, drop the epic mastery level requirement to 20 or something like that.