Another_Fan
-
Posts
3571 -
Joined
-
Quote:So very closeOriginally Posted by Crim_the_Cold
If I follow you arguements what I'm I think your trying to say is that damage is least important variable in determining overall performance and that survivability is the most important. An easy way to sum it up is that in the ages old tactical debate of Offense vs Defense you are on the side of and aparently always have argued on the side of defense.
However what you fail to take into account is that the enemies in the game have a set amount of survivability themselves just like they have a set amount of offensive capability. There is a point when building for offense were a character will only need minimal defenses because the enemies will be defeated before they will make enough of a difference. The realities of the game and the way set bonuses are set-up means it is easier to create a defensive advantage than it is an offensive advantage.
Damage isn't any more or less important, whats important is the overall benefit you get from it.
If you have enough damage that you don't need survivability extra damage is even worse for you
What we are talking about is how much more you get from powers how much improvement is there in your build. Blasters get very little overall improvement from musculature -
Quote:That would have been nice if that is what I was trying to do.Originally Posted by JayLeonHart_EU
This is great - you're using this to compare a Blaster to a Blaster, right? You know, since they (generally) only do damage and little else? If you are, then the analogy works, although proves nothing helpful. If you intended to show that increasing a smaller number by a larger percentage is better and therefore Musculature is better for a Defender/Controller than a Blaster? Well, let's develop your analogy further to make it fit their roles;
Boxer A only throws punches - 100% damage output
Boxer B spends half his time blocking, which halves incoming damage - 50% damage output, 25% damage reduction
Boxer A takes 100% of the damage from Boxer B
Boxer B takes 75% of the damage from Boxer A
If Boxer A deals 215 damage per hit and lands 10 hits a minute, that's 215*10*0.75 = 1,612.5 DPM to Boxer B
If Boxer B deals 110 damage per hit and lands 5 hits a minute (because although he could land 10, he spent half his time blocking), that's 110*5 = 550 DPM to Boxer A
So although Boxer A can only take half as much damage as Boxer B, he is producing nearly triple the damage output, since while Boxer B is splitting his time between punching and blocking, Boxer A is only punching. Boxer A wins. Every time.
Hurray for terrible analogies!
But what I was trying to demonstrate was why a smaller percentage increase in overall performance was less desirable than a larger increase in overall performance, and how you have to look at total performance not some small fraction.
Sorry you failed to get that. -
Quote:Originally Posted by PoliceWoman
I'm afraid your logic is flawed.
First of all, I believe our discussion is blaster versus corruptor against PvE mobs, not a PvP situation. So a better analogy would be boxer A versus punching bag, compared to boxer B versus punching bag -- not boxer A versus boxer B and see who is left standing. No doubt you have many interesting points about blaster survivability, but they are irrelevant to the subject of whether Musculature is a good alpha boost for blasters or not. Against a punching bag (i.e., a PvE mob), the metric I'd suggest using is simply damage per second.
Second, Musculature Core Paragon is effectively a 22% over-the-cap bonus (i.e., 2/3rds of the 33%) to the base damage of all ATs. My argument is that since blasters have higher base damage, they effectively benefit more from this, because this translates numerically into a higher gain in DPS. I believe your argument is that blasters are getting a different percentage, your 7.5% figure. This is simply wrong. The bonus from Musculature Core Paragon is 22% of the base damage for all ATs, including blasters, defenders and corruptors. Blasters have higher base damage, so they get more DPS from Musculature.
You are mistaken.
Musculature is not a net 22.5% bonus for blasters because they get other bonuses
Aim+Build up+Defiance are all part of the damage a blaster puts out. You are ignoring them in your calculation. Depending on what you are fighting and recharge that works out to an additional 70% to 160% damage.
Second musculature is not +45% over the cap, it is +15% subject to ED, then +30% over ED
Third we are talking about overall value to the AT. So in an AT with smaller or no self damage buffs the proportion rises. -
Quote:Boxer A: 500 hp 20 points per punchOriginally Posted by Crim_the_Cold
So lets make some comparisions.
Lets assign values for the boxers:
Boxer B: 1000 hp 10 points per punch
Base case
50 Punches both down
+10%
Boxer A does 22 points
Boxer B does 11
46 Punches Boxer A down
46 Pucnhes Boxer B down
Boxer A +7.5% boxer B +10%
Boxer A does 21.5
Boxer B does 11
46 punches Boxer A down
47 punches Boxer B down
Isn't math fun
And isn't it sad that "Damage AT" gets crap from the damage alpha -
Quote:Yes that's what I thought I would get from youOriginally Posted by PleaseRecycle
As has been evinced repeatedly in this thread and others, you seem to feel that there is a time limit on the efficacy of demonstrating anything. The first dozen pages of this thread are full of exactly such discussion, so I feel no particular need to go over it again. Blasters have the worst survivability neither among archetypes in general nor among what you call (or called?) damage archetypes, cf. this very thread.
We went through hundreds of man-hours of laying out the myriad ways in which blasters survivability can be more than commensurate to their damage output by multifarious metrics and grades. I encourage you to peruse the results - they're super duper.
Blasters have the lowest HP Cap shared with several other ATs
They have the lowest modifiers for resit/defense powers bar none of any ATs.
Matter of fact the only survivability category they even share is team buffs.
(Bottom hitpoints)*(Bottom buff numbers)=Bottom survivability -
Quote:World Peace : Don't fightOriginally Posted by Fiery-Enforcer
Then don't die.
-
Quote:Arcana uses that as the initial creation rate, you would have to ask her where that comes from.Originally Posted by Zem
I'm a little confused about this 30% creation rate number. I see the post where Arcana mentions it in this thread and yes she does say "of all characters" but I don't see how this squares with the data from BaB in Arcana's AT Popularity Analysis post. There the table that BaB gave us for "Archetypes created since Issue 12" shows Blasters at 16% of the total, not 30%. It's close to 30% of all heroes but not all characters, period.
What am I missing?
We also have some mention in this thread of the Issue 19 publicity stats (which I cannot find a link to right now, anyone have it?). The assertion is that Blasters are still something like #3 most popular even at level 50. Whatever the actual number is, that's not an indication of an AT that nobody likes. 3rd out of 14?
Bab's numbers are across all levels, so the initial creation rate and the average, square very well as long as there is a sufficient drop off after level 1. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Madadh
Oh crap, you're right. I guess doing less dps is better than doing more.. And regening less HP is awesome as long as your regen rate is very high.
Both cases assuming I'm boxing Boxer A, right? Or was I supposed to be boxing Boxer B? And do I find these guys in an AE farm, because I've never yet faced them in the regular game content, where more damage/sec output and more hp/sec regen are usually the considered the best metrics?
If you don't survive to deliver that DPS its worthless. -
Quote:Demonstrate if you canOriginally Posted by PleaseRecycle
No they don't.
-
Quote:Awwe you still careOriginally Posted by MajorPrankster
Another_Fan is always right, just ask him.
If you don't agree with him you are simply wrong.
Does not matter if his math is flawed, or if his 'facts' are just his opinion, if you don't agree, you are simply wrong.
I thought everyone knew that?
You'd be really impressive if you could actually demonstrate but you aren't a back things up kind of guy are you ? -
Quote:See the above post.Originally Posted by Madadh
Actually, I can back it up with a little math and your numbers. I didn't check your numbers for accuracy, but will just grant for the sake of argument that they are close enough. And the math part is pretty simple.
I'd very often rather have 10% of a bigger number, then 13% or 15% of a smaller number.
Anyone who has built an alt for regen probably understands this concept. -
Quote:Originally Posted by PoliceWoman
Your metric is "percentage increase over the damage a blaster is doing with Aim and Buildup active"? I'm sorry, but this isn't a meaningful measure. Not all blasters have Aim/Build Up, and even the ones that do have Aim/Build Up do not have them active all the time. Even setting that aside, arguing that you should measure the benefit of Musculature based on Aim/Build Up would be like arguing that Thermal Buffs aren't that helpful because they don't add much to scrappers with Moment of Glory active - it's not the general case, and it only confuses the issue.
Actually its very meaningful and arguably the only meaningful number.
But before we talk about why we need to get some basic concepts out of the way.
How do you characterize how good a combat unit is ? It isn't just how much damage the unit does, and isn't just how much damage the unit does its the product.*
To understand this think of 2 boxers boxer A is twice as strong as boxer B but can only take half as many punches.
If boxer A fights boxer B you are going to have ties or the fight going to whoever gets the first punch.
Now lets say we make both hit 10% harder
They are still in parity. It takes both approximately .9 times as long to take out the other.
But now lets say, Boxer A hits twice as hard, but we will only give him 7.5% bonus and boxer B still gets his initial 10%
Boxer A is still getting more than boxer B he hits twice as hard so his absolute bonus is 50% more than boxer B's
But when you look at how long it takes them to kill each other boxer B is still at .9 and boxer A is at .94
So when blasters get the most absolute damage it is still the smallest increase to their effectiveness and it is the smallest by a wide wide margin.
They easily have the worst survivability and the the smallest percentage gain so its a double whammy for them -
Quote:See aboveOriginally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
Well lets see.
Endurance/Range is a solid choice for any Blaster with cones who also wants to run a number of toggles (i.e. Leadership, Fighting, Epic Shield etc.). Blaster toggles mostly come from power pools and have a correspondingly high end cost.
Recharge/Stun or Recharge/Stun/Slow allows a lot of Blaster combos to get higher recharge while maximizing the potential of some of their secondary abilities (which they often lack the slots for). Most Blasters have access to a stun of some type and slows are present in several sets.
Damage/Immobilize allows a Blaster to make better use of the immobilize from their secondary and also helps if they opt to pick up an AoE immobilize from their Epic Pool. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Zem
In a game with 14 ATs, a 15% rating is bad? I'm not sure how that works out to a conclusion of "hates the implementation". Maybe it's just that Blasters seem the most straight-forward or stereotypical choice for a comic book genre game and as people get more experience they branch out to the other archetypes... and yet while doing so a respectable 15% continue to play Blasters.
In the 2009 data from BaB that 15% was the highest of any of the other ATs. If they have since slid to even third place they are most certainly NOT hurting for players. I haven't seen you explain this in any convincing way except to suggest that you have four blasters of your own that you only use for marketeering.
I hardly think there's a large population of Blaster-marketeers out there to explain the ATs apparent popularity. That would be a bit of a stretch.30% is the initial creation rateCode:300xxxxxxxxxx - - - - - - - - - - 15- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - - - - yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? - - - - 0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----0----1----2----3----4----5
15 % the average popularity
Average = Mean = Sum of samples/total number of samples
In this case it implies for all the initial samples at 30% there is going to have to be enough samples sufficiently below 15% to pull the total down so it sums to the average.
If you weight by population it gets worse as any ATs greatest population will be at the time of creation
Or simply you are going to need enough Ys to balance your Xs -
Quote:Its not a question of are they nice, its did everyone get more out of them ?Originally Posted by StratoNexus
I'd be fascinated to hear your reasoning on this. I am very fond of both the Cardiac and Musculature on my "main" blaster and am happy with the Musculature and Spiritual on another blaster.
Blasters really get the least out of the pairings. Recharge+Heal is win win with a cherry on top for a wide variety of ats. End Reduction + Damage resistance is pure cake to the ats with decent armor sets (and that includes controllers, doms, defenders, etc)
Where is the Damage/Range or the Recharge/Range
Quote:While sturdy characters are a huge boon in the trials (not that you need to be playing one, but it is a good idea to travel with one if yours is not), you are very incorrect in your assessment of the damage levels. Most damage in the trials is (not surprisingly) Smashing and Lethal. There certainly is a good amount of Energy damage and Lambda has a decent percentage of Psi.
My Fire/Earth/Ice Dom with capped Sm/Le defense does not have extra issues in the trials due to the lack Psi or positional defense. My ranger Fire/Fire/Force blaster with mid 30s ranged defense is not any more capable than my melee Fire/Fire/Flame blaster with 47% Sm/Le resist and gobs of +regen.
I am really not understanding your point about scrappers. My Invuln scrapper, who has lots of "typed" defense on top of the other stuff Invuln has, seems to work fine. But I have seen SR and Shield toons work great in the trials as well. I guess you can lose some recharge by not slotting Crushing Impacts, but Oblits are popular to add to melee defense and you get recharge in those.
Bad phrasing on my part re the scrapper what I meant to say was build a blaster for positional defense generally produced an underperforming ranged scrapper.
For the toons you mention the typed defense is cake. A dom can lock down entire spawns before they can even fire back. -
Quote:Blasters have most of their damage from self buffsOriginally Posted by PoliceWoman
I also disagree with these statements.
Regarding alpha slot, I personally am using the Musculature Core (+DMG) boost on my blaster. Due to the high damage scale that blasters are on, I would argue that blasters benefit the most from this alpha boost. I would never use Musculature boost on a defender, controller, or even a brute, who all have very low damage scale attacks.
As far as percentage gain goes numerically blasters get the smallest percentage gain in damage from musculature. As far as total damage output goes a typical blaster (one with aim+buildup) gains less than 10% additional damage from musulature. A scrapper can easily gain 13% a controller or defender 15%
On the radial tree, you gain recharge, heal, stun to hit buffs all off the baseQuote:Spiritual (+RCHG) boosts probably benefit blasters about as much as anyone else; using your powers more often is good for pretty much everybody. Healer/regen toons might benefit a little more due to the heal boost in this tree.
On the core tree you gain recharge healing and stun.
So blasters in general get the benefit of the recharge, and a single target stun or their minor heals.
Resistance/regen defense sets get recharge and plus heal, control sets get recharge, Stun, heal and all in good measure.
This as opposed to End reduction and additional damage resistance.Quote:Cardiac (+ENDRDX) boosts help blasters some; cheaper END costs helps everyone. Admittedly it does not help the END crash from Nova-like powers. Toons with resist toggles benefit a little more due to the RES boost later in the tree; but this can include blasters as they get the option of resist toggles in the epic pool and fighting pool. If you're the type to take those.
Nerve is the weakest but on characters with high defense it makes it easier to reach the incarnate softcap.Quote:Nerve (+DEF/+ACC) boosts are pretty crappy for everyone (I can't even justify taking this boost on an SR or a VEAT), so no difference here.
There isn't anything with an aoe attack that isn't good at dealing with running enemies that don't hit back.Quote:Regarding the incarnate trials, I personally have not built my blaster for positional defense, instead preferring to maximize my HP and recharge. I certainly could respec to max my range defense, but have chosen to maximize recharge for, well, more damage. Nevertheless, my blaster generally survives incarnate trials just fine, due to a combination of aggro control and maneuver. Yes, even the powers gathering part of Lambda and the attrition damage of Keyes. I find cone attacks like Full Auto are especially good at mowing down mobs running in a straight line on BAF trials.
You can disagree all you like but you can't back it up. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Zem
No, sometimes opinion is more important than fact. Just because you are in possession of a fact doesn't mean it has anything to do with the conclusion you're drawing from it. You're forgetting this is a game and the purpose of any game is to entertain. Actually, the purpose is to make money, but it does so by entertaining so I'm calling it the same thing.
People certainly seem to find Blasters entertaining enough to play in quite respectable numbers. Why? Who knows. If you're right and they are under-performing then the only conclusion is that people don't actually care about performance in the same way that you do. So why fix them when you could be addressing things your customers actually DO seem to have a problem with?
Well that goes to things stated upthread. Arcanaville pegs blaster creation rates at 25%-30%, and the devs have their average popularity at about 15%.
Sounds like people like the idea but in general hate the implementation. -
Quote:Never needed more than a numina uniqueOriginally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
I'd disagree. Cardiac Alpha allows my AR/Dev to run all 7 toggles at once with no end issues and the +range makes my cones a lot better.
But either way tossing isolated examples and saying that makes the case for hundreds of combinations is hardly valid -
Quote:Actually the gap just widens the more resources you can throw into a character.Originally Posted by StratoNexus
So talking about late game blasters is not allowed, except when it supports your argument?
Blasters got bent over with the alpha slot, and as far as I can tell got the least benefit of the ATs maybe masterminds or khelds did worse but I doubt it.
With the higher difficulties in the trials blasters fall even further behind, unless you have built a blaster for positional defense you're defenseless as almost all the damage is either energy or psi. Building a scrapper for positional defense means using marginal sets sacrificing recharge and generally achieving a less damaging less survivable scrapper. -
Quote:You can't count eitherOriginally Posted by Infernus_Hades
I se 2 people complaining about blasters. I see a lot more saying they are fun.
So please Shubbie and Another Fan just stop playing them.
My last post on this dead horse. Next week it will be are Defenders superfluous. -
Quote:So said John Henry to the steam hammer, and today like then some people are willing to kill themselves to prove a false point.Originally Posted by _eeek_
You're not good at what you do because of your AT. Nor are you less good because someone else got a nifty blast. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Infernus_Hades
Theory + Facts = Conclusion
You have a Theory that blasters are not desirable. The Facts are some people play them and have zero issue.
This not fitting your Conclusion you then argue more with the same points over and over and again others don't agree. Your Conclusion is not valid - your Theory is fine and with added Facts you just need to change YOUR Conclusion.
Your Conclusion is for YOU - you don't find the trade off with being squishie worth the small added damage.
My Conclusion - playing a blaster is fun and I need to be attentive and cautious or I die. This means to get a blaster to higher level means no training wheels. This equals fun for me.
Opinion <> Fact
Just to redo your reasoning so it has greater contrast
Theory: world is round
Your facts
People don't sail over the horizon because they are happy with it being flat and have zero issue.
Theory: bathing is good for you
Your facts: Many people are happy washing themselves once a month and think bathing gives you diseases. -
Quote:The brute proc seems to be an example of what I am worried about with f2p. Put a problem in the game then charge people to make it go away. Anyhow a 10% increase to the rate of defiance generation isn't going to be all that noticeable.Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
Outside of Brutes and Tankers, the rest just seemed to get a damage proc, rather than something cooly thematic (even if not everyone likes the +res for Tanks one).
The way the set is designed ranged def + decent recharge is exactly what blasters can make good use of.
Well good to know, blasters are not superfluous when the rest of the team is 15 levels down sidekicked up and trying to hit +4a, and the team doesn't mind dying a dozen times/missionQuote:Originally Posted by Madam_Enigma
As for blasters dying all the time... Yes, my blaster died a lot today when I was teamed. But then again that's to be expected. We only had about twelve team wipes in one mission alone. The team was an 8 man team running level 30 missions. And half the team (including the controller who was our only 'support' type) were levels 10 through 15. Some of the other people who was in that level range and thus unable to hit +3 minions was our tank, and the brute.
That's right boys and girls, the people who could have kept things from noticing the storm of hot lead flying from my blaster's pistols couldn't hit anything. Nor could the person who was trying to lock down the enemies. Funnily enough, when the controller left and was replaced with one who COULD hit things... no one died the rest of the time we ran missions. Not even when we accidentally aggroed 3 groups at once. -
Quote:Thank you that was an interesting read. It's nice to have authoritative information for this, and it had a couple of gems all their own.Originally Posted by StratoNexus
Some people have wanted to believe that, but it has never been true. Once they ended up on the idea of having Archetypes, Ranged/Melee has always been the concept. Some small utility was added for filler and flavor. Gadgets fell into the blaster realm due to a lack of anywhere else to go. I imagine they had some trouble making a good pool power grouping of the gadget powers (and pool powers is where they really belong).
and dominators have to love this oneQuote:Each of these Archetypes had its own "specialty" - the sorts of things it did best. And all of these Archetypes also had their drawbacks. The Tanker, Scrapper and Blaster were good in combat - but they needed the help of Defenders and Controllers to allow them to survive.
Quote:. A person might not understand that Crowd Control plus Melee is a challenging combination to make work. The hero would be extremely fragile up close, despite the melee power. And though the hero could root people from afar, his melee power wouldn't allow him to do anything. But to the new player, why not choose those two categories? -
Quote:Thought the concept was ranged damage/utilityOriginally Posted by StratoNexus
Considering that the blaster AT is designed around a Ranged Damage/Melee Damage concept, they better not be short on secondaries focused on Melee Damage. Secondaries that are different, should be in the minority. I am glad some secondaries have options for non-melee, but I never want blasters to abandon their basic concept of Ranged Damage/Melee Damage.
That may be part of the problem with blasters they don't have a concept.