Aura_Familia

Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight

The question is did they make them fun enough. The answer for me is not fun enough that it vies for space in my build. Range 80 tier 3 > part time insta-snipe.

Originally Posted by Obitus

The AT's capabilities are wanting. How or whether you personally choose to use those capabilities is irrelevant in a balance discussion. I offered two possibilities for buffage. The first option is higher survivability (above and beyond the relatively modest survivability boosts that have been proposed so far; and keep in mind that supplemental survivability buffs could take the form of proactive measures like control). The second option is higher damage. (And that's higher average damage, by the way; it's not necessarily an invitation to buff Fire Blast into the stratosphere and leave Electric gimpy by comparison.)

I'm not married to any particular solution, believe it or not. You can pick one or the other, but unless you wish to argue that Blasters are well-balanced in the grand scheme of things (which would be fine, but I'm not interested in having that debate here), you can't say neither.

As a point of interest, though: is your experience with blasters limited to any particular primary sets?

Except that fast snipes do offer more damage, specifically more single-target damage. And at least theoretically, the boost is significant, which means that the developers have to take it into account when they look at rebalancing snipe-capable blast sets. Check out the following link:

Breakdown of Blaster i24 Performance

The snipes are important, whether we want them to be or not. I keep saying this, and it keeps getting missed or misunderstood or misinterpreted: I don't want the snipe buff to be the end-all be-all single-target damage buff, but I'm concerned that the developers will treat it as such.

I couldn't agree with you more in your assessment of snipes. The very reason I'm annoyed is that I feel like the developers are using the quirky fast-snipe mechanic to make an end run around the issues that are important. If the snipes need to be more attractive on their own merits, then that's bleeping dandy, but we've played the game for eight years, most of us, just fine without using Snipes at all. Why the devs would decide suddenly to tie long-awaited blast-set buffs to a power very few of us care about, and in any case a power that is only tenuously relevant to the question of generic-combat performance -- and then tie a quirky conditional trigger to the power that arbitrarily favors certain builds' use of it -- is freaking beyond me.

But I'm sure that my above commentary will simply be construed as an expression of myopic prejudice against improvements for snipes.

If the AT's specialty is damage, and the AT pays demonstrable and significant penalties for that supposed status, then shouldn't the AT be great at both single-target and AoE damage?

Exactly my point.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Originally Posted by Thunder Knight

.... yes, but that doesn't change how long it's been between parts 1 and 2 of a story arc that was supposed to have one chapter released every month. (With the implied meaning of "released approximately 28-30 days apart")

They'll probably release it next week, but that still makes it almost two months since the release of part 1, and that's getting people edgy.

New powersets and new story arcs are very different types of content vectors, and one shouldn't preclude the other.

Originally Posted by Kangstor

I would be really glad if they just fix hybrid but I guess it will not happen any time soon

Originally Posted by DreadShinobi

The difficulty (or lack thereof) of the game, including content that is gated by having a certain level of skill and/or build required to complete it and higher rewards that support being able to complete said content. This would be content that not everyone would be able to complete, or it could simply be a selectable hard mode of content already existing in the game that would give significantly better rewards than the normal version of the content.

Yes, I went there. It's the biggest thing, along with pvp, that needs to be fixed in this game.

Originally Posted by .Viridian.

I personally find feedback on writing, storylines, lore et al. to be quite useful. When I’m putting together a storyarc, I try my best to tap into the kinds of stories that our playerbase is looking for. This is harder to do when I’m working on something that’s tied to the larger narrative, but even small changes in storytelling style can make a world of difference if those changes are what your audience is after.

The biggest lesson that the community has taught me personally is how to write better villain content. A lot of feedback I’ve seen on the forums has asked for villain stories that are self-driven and proactive. It’s a lot more fun to hatch your own diabolical scheme than to have one handed to you by Arachnos. It’s more difficult to write, certainly, but the payoff is usually worth it. If it weren’t for direct and critical feedback from the community, I might not have learned that lesson so quickly (if at all).

So personally, I welcome constructive criticism. Sometimes people can get... passionate about the storylines, certainly, but isn't that a good thing? Besides, I already knew I’d need to have thick skin if I wanted to succeed in this industry.

Originally Posted by dugfromthearth

you mean would I be up to a challenge rather than farming?

yes

Originally Posted by Thunder Knight

Okay, going back and checking, Zwillinger didn't say anything about not existing yet, he explicitly said they'd talk about it "soon". Meanwhile, when asked about power pool customization, they said "we can't talk about that".

So I thought that, you know, we'd get information the thing that they specifically said they'd talk about soon long before we'd get information about the thing that they specifically said they weren't going to talk about at all.

So, I guess for future reference, I should keep in mind that "we'll tell you about it soon" means "we're not going to say anything at all for at least two weeks", and "we're not going to tell you anything about that" means "we'll tell you about it in a few days".

Or in other words, lol WUT?!!

Originally Posted by Soul Trapped Burrito

That's easy. The game will TELL YOU what you want!

Originally Posted by Rakeeb

I really hope you're right. I think you're wrong, but I hope you're right.

They say a lot of things. Watch for what they actually *do*.

Originally Posted by Ultimus

So you are saying we won't go past 53?

Originally Posted by Thunder Knight

The frustrating part is that the stuff I'm most interested in hearing about is the stuff that they only gave a passing mention to (Sorcery and new non-trial Incarnate stuff), and I had to sit there and listen for a full hour just to learn that they weren't going to talk about what I actually wanted to hear about.

It's all the more disappointing because last week's Coffee talk heavily implied that they'd go into more detail about Sorcery this week, and.. they didn't. When it was brought up, they bascially said "Yup, Sorcery", and immediately changed the subject. They spent less time on Sorcery and Incarnate stuff combined than they did on, say, German beers or wacky forks.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of text-filled patch notes to read once it gets closer to release, but this trickle of information spread out in an hour-long video is still a little frustrating.

Originally Posted by Obitus

I have considered the other buffs to Blasters and blast sets that I know about. I think the misunderstanding is that I'm separating the buffs into categories -- survivability, AoE, and single-target damage. Or perhaps the misunderstanding stems from a difference in our expectations: I don't account for the prospect of buffs that haven't been announced yet. I can only evaluate what's in front of me; I'm not going to accept the argument that I should shut up because the devs might do something more, later, that renders my complaints moot.

(That last statement was not directed to you in particular, but I see the sentiment a lot: "Just wait! I-24 could change based on our feedback in BETA," or, "Arbiter Hawk could be working on any number of things that make you look stupid in retrospect!" All of that is true, but it's not relevant to a discussion that is taking place right now, except to the extent that our feedback could also change things before BETA. )

Yes, this is a matter on which we have an irreconcilable difference. You either disagree with the premise that Blasters are worst off now, or you believe (seemingly) that the sum total of the I-24 changes, other than or in addition to the Snipe change, will be enough to bring Blasters back into the middle of the pack, balance-wise.

I consider the first position obviously false; it's not even worth debating here. And based on what we know at this moment, I consider the second position false. A regen/absorb buff of roughly Energize's strength is not enough to raise Blaster survivability to the point at which Blasters have an equitable arrangement, relative to their damage-dealing peers (Scrappers, Brutes, Dominators), with respect to the ratio of damage to survivability.

And since I doubt very much that the devs have any interest in giving Blasters significantly more survivability than they've already hinted, the obvious solution is to buff Blaster damage. Not by a huge amount, but by enough that the worst Blaster's single-target damage is at least on par with the average of a hat-picked other AT's.

The nuke change is great, but it's not enough on its own to address the offensive side of the equation. It's strictly an AoE damage buff. So what's left, as far as we know right now? The snipe buff, and a few as-yet-undescribed tweaks to blast sets that don't have a snipe.

That last sentence is the critical point here. If the snipe buff is being used as the catch-all single-target buff to every set that has a snipe, then it is idiotic to make the buff conditional or uneven. Keep in mind here that I'm talking about blast sets here, and not just Blasters; Cosmic Burst's activation time is just as bad on a Defender as it is on a Blaster. Cosmic Burst matters more to the Blaster, but that's incidental.

Oh, and to address your prediction in the quote above -- Blasters should be unequivocally better soloists than support ATs, because support ATs are the best at teaming. Blasters are currently mediocre in both categories. They should be at least in the same soloist league, generally, with Scrappers/Brutes/Dominators.

I'm a big fan of Arbiter Hawk, but if he truly doesn't think that Blasters are designed from the ground up to be the premiere damage dealers in the game, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he plans to give Blasters Scrapper-comparable (or even just Scrapper-analogous) defenses, or Dominator-comparable control powers, then that's great, but unless he does plan to do those things, the balance of the game demands that Blasters be the best damage dealers, even if it's only by a margin of 5% or 10% above the next-best competitor.

We can accept that there will never be a 1-to-1 relationship in the cross-AT ratios of damage and survivability; for instance, if a Tanker is (conservatively) 10 times more survivable than a Blaster, no one would honestly expect that a Tanker should do 1/10th of the Blaster's damage -- but come on. We have ATs running around that are several times more survivable with the same or a very similar damage potential. In some cases, those other ATs have better damage.

There should be some advantage for the squishiest damage dealer, by far.

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

Yeah that was my point. I was responding to Leo's post where he said:


Personally I consider the targets of the change to be Blasters, Dominators, Defenders and Corruptors. Given your posts it sounds to me like you consider it to be those four ATs plus Scrappers and Stalkers. I consider that to be a reaosnable viewpoint, I don't entirely agree with it but it's a reasonable viewpoint.

I have no clue who Leo considers to be the target of the change (hence the sarcasm).

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

Ok, so who WERE the changes targeted at? It clearly isn't Blasters and Dominators since they get a lot less benefit form the changes than other ATs. Obviously the snipe change is intended solely as a buff to Defenders and Corruptors that Blasters and Dominators happen to get some benefit from. Thank you for clearing that up. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

And that is where we have a disconnect. Personally I consider the situation I proposed to be exaclty analogous to the snipe situation. Defenders and Corruptors are getting an awesome buff. Blasters and Dominators... aren't.

I guess if you want to be really exact then the analogy would be that Brutes get Total Focused reduced form 3.3s cast to 1s while Tankers and Stalkers get it reduced to 3s.


Stranger things have happened. I remember when people told me I was mad for requesting that the single target shields in Cold, FF and Thermal be made AoE and that doing so would break the balance of the game entirely.

Now don't get me wrong, when I ask for Snipes to be changed to Single Target attacks I don't mean keep them as they are and remove the interrupt, that would be to good. I mean remove the interrupt and rebalance them as a 12second recharge blast (which means dropping the damage and probably upping the cast time to around 2seconds).

Originally Posted by Oathbound

Frankly, I agree that that is the goal of some of the detractors.

Others would rather see, or be just as happy to see, the trigger changed to something that benefited all archetypes with snipes in a much more evenly proportionate manner, even if that meant getting less use out of it.

For what it's worth, I would be fine with either. As long as everyone with snipes got the same relative value from the change. THAT is my primary issue with the current proposed trigger.

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

I like situational powers, especially if they don't need much in the way of slotting. I'm less fond of situational attacks due to the large amount of slotting most attacks need and the fact that they rarely provide much advantage over just taking a different attack.

That being said I don't actually want all ATs to get Perma-FastSnipe, I wouldn't object to it but I believe it's a poor solution. What I want is for either the FastSnipe feature to be changed to be more even applied across ATs or for Snipes to be eliminated entirely and replaced with standard single target attacks.

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

Let's use a counter example. People still complain about the cast time of Total Focus in Energy Melee right? Suppose that the devs announced that they were going to reduce its cast time... for Brutes. How do you think the Energy Melee Tankers and Stalkers would feel?

Originally Posted by Obitus

Or a slower, stronger, mega-Fireball. (Or perhaps more importantly, huge supplemental AoE debuffs/controls for some Defenders.) It's all in how you look at it.

Nuke powers are no longer nuke powers in the sense that there's no major downside for using them. Thematically, I'm sure that bothers some people; without a crash, the nukes lose some of their apocalyptic last-resort flavor.

On the other hand, I think some are objecting to the damage loss in part because they don't fully appreciate just how much more user-friendly nukes will be in Issue 24. It's one thing to know the abstract power details; it's another thing to have lived with something one way, for years, and then learn to appreciate a dramatic change on an intuitive level.

Mechanically, nukes will be buffed in Issue 24. It's not even a question. Whatever damage is lost on a per-use basis is more than made up by the decreased cycle time -- even if we ignore the crash. If we don't ignore the crash, then nukes' per-use damage output also becomes less important, from a practical standpoint; if you no longer have to retoggle, and you no longer have to pop blues to fight a recovery debuff, then you're in a better position to kill anything that survives the nuke.

Originally Posted by Oathbound

I never said that it was.

I said that the change disproportionately favors 2 of the 3 primary Archetypes with access to it, and neither of those 2 are in particular need of improvement, while the Archetype that is in need of improvement gets substantially less from it.

Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood

The change may not have been aimed at a specific AT but it sure as PANCAKE hit a specific AT.

Ignoring Scrappers and Stalkers from the moment (since they rarely use snipes) there are four ATs that are affected by this change and the change affects them all to a very different amount.

Blasters: No way to do it perma, have two powers that can potentially trigger it (but one requires a lot of slotting)
Defenders/Corruptors: Can do it perma with Tactics and Kismet at level 22, a few other options in specific sets, also have an APP with To Hit Debuff Resistance
Domiantors: Most sets have to use Tactics + Kismet + Power Boost to get it at all. One specific APP can do it perma with sufficient recharge.

So the question becomes is this the right way to change snipes?
Does it make sense to implement a change that has wildly different effects on different ATs?
If a change is implemented that affects different ATs differently how does it impact the balance between the ATs?
And the BIG one: is it going to encourage players to take Snipes on their characters?

So yeah for me I think that this change is a poor way to fix snipes. The big litmus test is whether it will make snipes worth taking for characters. Speaking for myself I think that while we'll see Defenders and Corruptors taking Snipes we'll see relatively few Blasters and Dominators taking them (except for Devices Blasters).

To me that means that the change is a failure. It's making snipes "more fun to use, less completely situational" for TWO ATs but leaving them virtually unchanged for the other two.