Another_Fan
-
Posts
3571 -
Joined
-
Quote:A blaster with decent range and some sort of stealth can usually pull the spawns apart. Even at +4x8 you aren't going to get 4 bosses except from doubled spawns.Originally Posted by StratoNexus
?
How is a blaster better off vs. MIs or a large spawn of Carnies in general? I guess the one advantage is against the dark servants because blasters can stay out of the debuff? It is not like blaster builds normally end up with more Psi defense than a /SR scrapper. Even at incarnate level, the blaster will need Clarion, the scrapper is free to take Barrier or Rebirth. -
Quote:The Ice Tank has a self heal and a variety of tools that a SR scrapper doesn't ( I am assuming you mean Ice/ not an ice melee tank).Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Sure, you use a couple of purple insps. No problem. I do it with my Ice tank all the time, which also has no psi defense.
A blaster can also do it with insps to of course, but the will need a lot more - insps for mez protection, insps for healing, and insps because the fight will go on for longer.
I have a Claws/SR brute and an Arch/Dev blaster. The Arch/Dev blaster has the tools to be very safe when fighting things like carnies. The tactics are very simple, pull onto minefields, when minefields don't get the bosses RUN!!!
The claws/sr has inspirations and aid self to fall back on which really isn't that great. -
Quote:Really ? So you think a 25-30% advantage in HP + Mez protection offsets having to fight several of them at once in melee range with a MA/SR scrapper ?Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Nope, SR scrapper is still ahead in mez protection and max hp. And they can kill them faster than a blaster.
-
Quote:Been going on 4 years now, I can wait a little longer if it gets done right.Originally Posted by Tater Todd
Well he did mention Snipe Changes MIGHT happen during I24 but he said changes to anything else or Nukes for that matter will probably be I25...he told us to be patient and that changes are a comin'! I think it's his way of saying that the Ranged ATs will be balanced eventually but it will take a few issues.
-
Quote:Not really. IIRC the Master Illusionists use a psionic attack without a positional tag. Almost all SR's advantages are negated.Originally Posted by St_Angelius
Ah, but then Arcana was replying to B_L_Angels who said she solos carnies at +4X8 on a blaster, Arcana was pointing out how much trouble she had on a SR scrapper on the same difficulty, and that if a sturdier AT with inbuillt mez protection had trouble it was a clever feat to do so with a blaster.
-
Quote:Woah turbo. Go over to the blaster boards and take a look at where I have been on this subject for the past nearly 4 years now, or if you don't want to do that here it is in a nutshellOriginally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Isn't that proving the point point you are trying to oppose? Only Blasters would need to fight one Master Illusionist at a time. Anyone else can fight half a dozen.
My point was Arcanavile's point was rubbish. Everyone is going to have problems fighting 4 master illusionists at a time, well maybe not a Dark Armor character but that is about it.Quote:They are the most picked AT at the start of the game. => Most picked by new players, New Players<> Advanced Players. => They should not be the challenge AT. So while I can appreciate that people would want a more challenging AT, and I have nothing against there being one, Blasters aren't the one it should be. -
Quote:Blasters share these powers with other ATs. The problem is blaster Primaries and Secondaries need to be made for blasters not defenders and corruptors.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
So the rationale for why the crashing nukes crash is apparently that Blasters are such dangerous high-performing characters that the devs had to take their most powerful attack and triple its recharge and increase its endurance cost, and do so in a way that made the most vulnerable archetype even more vulnerable for an extended period of time.
I would like to see someone attempt to make this case objectively, as opposed to just matter-of-factly.
Edit: Just consider the whole range is the blasters defense credo. Well Range is not a corruptor or defenders defense. Blasters shouldn't have to share short range tier 3s with them. If you design a set that is going to be paired with potent buff debuff abilities it needs to be different than the same set coupled with just more damage. -
Quote:Correlation isn't even linkage without a mechanism. The act of saying look 90% of the time I get a phone call, its when I am on the toilet is the only linkage between the two events and its an imaginary connection.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Correlation is linkage, which is what you originally asked for.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Starsman
In my experience, I die on my blasters more often than not because I can't act. Mainly: because I can't move.
With a melee character, If I find myself in a bind, I can run around easily and use the world to my advantage, block line of sight to rest (more possible mostly in teams) or simply be able to take an inspiration.
With a blaster, if I'm in a bind I tend to be darn too binded (mezed) not even able to swallow an inspiration other than a break-free one (and it is too slow to use that just so you can take a heal.)
I used to think that mez was the big problem for blasters. But I actually checked and it really wasn't that bad when compared to other ATs. If you remember when Fire/Kins were the giant farmer, they weren't farming maps with mez heavy enemies.
I think the perception that mez is the big problem, comes from the fact that it is a slow and annoying way to die. When it happens it is much more memorable than a quick stabbing. -
Quote:LOL,Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It says something about how down-trodden the Blaster community must be after all these years that no one has yet posted a thread about this. If it was about Scrappers or Defenders, it would be all over the place in ten minutes.
Anyone who reads the boards had to have realized it was already a done deal before you started lobbying for it. The same way inherent fitness was when you started your "Endurance as the limiting constraint thread".
That said its nice to see something will be happening. I just hope its better than the farce that was defiance 2.0. -
Quote:You don't have to sell me. I have been saying that since defiance 2.0Originally Posted by Kyriani
The problem is that Blasters don't bring anything but damage to the team... and that damage is lacking in relation to their fragility and in comparison to the other ATs. In plain terms the other AT's can perform just as well as damage dealers compared to Blasters and do so with far more safety and consistency.
Edit: Let me be clear. Blasters are a basic AT. They are the most picked AT at the start of the game. => Most picked by new players, New Players<> Advanced Players. => They should not be the challenge AT. So while I can appreciate that people would want a more challenging AT, and I have nothing against there being one, Blasters aren't the one it should be. -
Quote:Don't ever change. Really, your constancy is a touchstone to me. But back to the topic, Have you tried fighting only one Master Illusionist boss at a time ?Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You're just too awesome for this game. This game isn't designed or balanced around your skill level. You'll have to accept the fact that when this game is balanced, it will be balanced for a difficulty level vastly under the one you think is appropriate. Most players can't run on +4x8 on any archetype with any powersets. And its not just a question of lack of experience. I've been killed on my soft-capped SR in +4x8 Carnie missions in a single instant with no chance to react at all,
I don't know how you prevent that sort of thing from happening on blasters that are far squishier, but whatever it is, its something beyond my understanding of physics. -
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. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight
Ok Team today's mission is to shingle a roof. Tank, scrapper, defender, and controller here are your tool boxes, nails, and shingles. Sorry blaster we ran out of stuff while we were getting ready for you. I do have some good news though. You can use my crowbar for a tool, the rest of the guys will share their left over shingles, and you can have all the bent nails you want.
Blasters don't have all the tools needed to overcome many of the challenges they face in the game. That a tiny handful of blasters have figured out how to shingle a roof well under such conditions is amazing.
That the players that have done so insist that EVERYONE else continue to suffer through that is appalling.
I don't want you roofing my home.
Blasters may not have the hammer or nails, but they do have the power sander and the tar pot. I don't expect my corruptors to tank. I don't expect my scrappers to debuff. Everyone brings something to a team but not everyone brings the same thing.
Edit: Really for someone that continuously brags about what their blasters do this is really hypocritical. -
Quote:It isn't the blaster that has the problem it is the player.Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
IMO conceding that Blasters are at a disadvantage isn't helpful to your argument. The debate is about "whether Blasters underperform and how to buff them" not just about "how to buff Blasters" (my words).
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Tater Todd
Can we get back on topic Another fan lol. You're not going to get what you want out or Arcana and she's not going to get it out of you. Let us all just get back to discussing how a blaster currently should play in order to perform on the same levels as the other ATs...or is it even possible without having to go out of ones way to make it work.
Never really been away from it. The question is how much does lack of status protection hurt blasters vs how much lack of X* hurts blasters vs how much does improperly designed powersets hurt blasters.
It's really important to get this right because having it wrong will mean all that happens is the Devs get a good laugh out of it.
*X = lack of secondary effects , controls, heals, hitpoints any of the other theories that aren't "THE ONLY THEORY THAT EXPLAINS IT ALL" -
Quote:ROFLOriginally Posted by Tater Todd
*sigh* Understood...at least you're having fun with it. I just think that it's weird when a person debates but refuses to look at both sides of an discussion...or maybe they are incapable of doing so due to their experience from their environment being somehow the absolute general standard for everyone else, stubbornness or pride.
When Arcanavile decided to name call it was as much an admission from Arcanavile as anyone will ever get. What does that make it for you ? -
Pretty much nothing.
If anything its opened up a wider gap between melee ATs with fast animating powers and blasters. Being able to cycle your powers faster now, gets you even more stacks of interface and hybrid. -
Quote:What I was pointing out was the methodology Arcanavile was using to reach conclusions was deeply flawed.Originally Posted by Tater Todd
Wrong about what? Do you two even know what you're arguing about anymore lol.
You both have agreed that blasters need more than just mezz protection and moar dmg.
I thought the beginning argument was about admitting to the fact that blasters need help in the first place...Which both of you agree on so I don't see the need to pursue this further unless both of you have concocted a sure fire way to fix them and you have it laid out in PDF or Powerpoint lol.
Arcanavile knows this and that's why there was all the name calling.
Oh please the whole discussion of blaster problems is a counterexample. I have deliberately stayed away pointing out your prior errors and let you reverse your position.Quote:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, Another_Fan saying its possible I'm not wrong is like Venture saying its possible someone isn't retarded. Its an incredibly strong endorsement if you parse it in context.
Except in this case, where we are in agreement about the conclusion, just not how it was reached or the degree of the problem.Quote:Because what I want is on very general terms what Another_Fan wants, his main criticism when it comes to blasters focuses on the notion that all of my analysis is wrong, except for the rare moments when it agrees with him in which case I only got there by coincidence, because my flawed methodology could not possibly have generated the correct response.
Seems to be contradictory how could that be ?
LOL Narcissism its not just for breakfast.Quote:I'm not so much arguing as reminding Another_Fan that in this particular instance, when I'm not specifically inviting debate for its sake but doing so because it parallels a game change I'm actually serious about effecting, his swipes are basically immaterial to me. I would gladly tolerate them if it got me closer to my goal, and I would also gladly eviscerate them if it got me closer to my goal. However, neither does anything beneficial so I'm just responding for the sake of replying to someone that either thinks they can take free shots at me or enjoys being made a fool of by me. It doesn't matter much which. -
Quote:You have the most entertaining ways of admitting you are wrong.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
As snide as the comment was likely intended, its also likely true for the foreseeable future. Which is why as entertaining as academic quibbling with you might be, its really just a sideshow to the main effort of getting things done correctly. I'm unaware of any way you can help that effort, or hurt it, so on a purely practical level there's nothing to be gained by convincing you of anything, nor at risk in failing to do so.
-
Quote:I never asked for correlation, I never would except as a lead to explore.Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Correlation is linkage, which is what you originally asked for.
Really ? Have a group of blasters run a variety of missions with clarion on autofire, have the same blasters run the same missions without clarion.Quote:Causation is impossible to prove, because mez doesn't cause death. Only damage causes death. However, I don't feel compelled to actually attempt to prove absolutely that mez contributes to death, because that's a sufficiently obvious fact.
Good experiments produce results that you don't need to go crazy sifting the data.
You state the near axiomatic. Blasters have the worst tools to avoid mez in the first place and no protection from it when it finds them. It would be truly astonishing if they weren't mezed more.Quote:Since mez contributes to death in terms of increasing the likelihood of either death or being weakened to the point of being more vulnerable to death, and blasters were datamined to be mezzed more often, and were datamined to be killed while mezzed more often, those are sufficient to induce that mez contributes to blaster underperformance. Neither I nor the devs ever stated or even implied that it was the sole cause of blaster underperformance, and in fact I disavowed that idea many times, including in every recent thread about blaster mez protection. In fact, I've gone out of my way to state several times that one of the reasons why I'm not generally supportive of granting direct mez protection to blasters is explicitly because I don't think its the sole or overwhelmingly concentrated cause of blaster underperformance, but focusing on granting mez protection could lead the devs to fail to address the more general problem of survivability and offensive capability balance.
So far we have had attempts to fix blasters by the equivalent of banging on the television set to fix the picture, seeing as the next attempt is likely to be the last bite at the apple, it would be nice if it were done correctly. -
Quote:The problem is the idea that there is a Magic Key to all blaster problems. Blasters have a all kinds of issues, from powersets that are thematic but not effective, to built in low survivability, and initial concepts that range is a viable defense and damage is how they win through.Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Although, if a higher than average rate of death while not in a mez'd state is also true, the distinction of mez'd or not mez'd may be a non (or secondary) issue.
I'm not convinced that mez is the major key to Blaster's survivability problems. I'm not saying it absolutely isn't, but I'm not convinced that it is. -
Quote:Hmm you want the AT that has damage as its only thing but already is in 4th or worse place, to give up more damageOriginally Posted by Starsman
What if they got an inherent click that grants mag 3 full mez protection (no resistance) for 30 seconds and a 0.1 second recharge, it also gives the player a -15% damage debuff and can only be activated if you are currently mezzed. Cap stacks at 4.
-
Quote:If you are mezed the most to begin with you are going to have the most deaths while mezed.Originally Posted by Garent
"Higher than average death while in the mezzed state" is exactly what shows that.
Imagine you have two kinds of pot.
1 a hard to break pot.
2 an easy to break pot.
Now if you put the the hard to break pots in the shade, and the easy to break pots where its sunny, you are going to find that more pots broke where it was sunny.
Saying that lack of mez protection explains blaster's problems is like saying sunlight explains why the pots are breaking. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Winterminal
The problem is power creep. Slight buffs to other archetypes in the past have yielded tougher enemies across the game in the present, with stronger attacks and/or more debilitating (mez) attacks. Where Blasters could once wreak havoc from afar, nowadays the enemies are lasting longer, and hitting or incapacitating us harder. Thus, this discussion about how Blasters can be brought back to their former stature, and the problem that we've all run into: What do you give an archetype dedicated to dealing damage other than more damage?
Power creep has certainly magnified the problem. Castle was unrelenting in buffing everything but blasters