Bosstone

Yes, it is. Set and match. You say this like it's the easiest thing in the world.

Let's see:

Buff Darkness Manip
Buff Devices
Buff Electricity Manip
Buff Energy Manip
Buff Fire Manip
Buff Ice Manip
Buff X primary powersets (optional)

versus

Buff Blasters
Nerf Mental Manip (so that it's the same as the other secondaries)

Yeah, no.

I don't really have input on the rest of this thread, but:

/bind LSHIFT+LBUTTON powexec_name Teleport

By using this bind, you can hold the left shift button and click anywhere on the screen. You will automatically teleport in a straight line to wherever your cursor is without having to fuss with the targeting cursor. It is highly accurate and very fast. The only caveat is that you have to allow the teleport to fully complete before you teleport again, otherwise the game will think you've clicked twice in the same place and you'll waste a teleport.

Also, if you combine Teleport with Hover, you won't be immobilized after the teleport (albeit you will move very slowly).

It does require two power picks and some slotting for endurance and range, but Teleport+Hover with the bind above is, at least IMO, the ultimate travel method. Nobody has ever been able to outrun my hoverblaster in a race. A Blaster with perma-Boost Range would be even faster.

Just because one of the current EAT concepts was executed poorly making for an extraordinarily difficult AT that doesn't provide amazing returns and the other is a pretty easy AT that's just fantastic all around doesn't invalidate the theory behind epic ATs. Epics are supposed to be Hard Mode; that's why they're locked until you reach a certain level, so that you've gained at least some experience with the game before you try them. (Yes, I know they're unlockable on the Market now. That doesn't change how they were originally conceived.)

Not when that AT theoretically provides a unique experience that no other AT provides and when that AT is specifically something many newbies like. It's not labeled as Hard Mode; there is nothing about a Blaster that would suggest it's any more difficult than other ATs, and in fact it's not supposed to be.

All out-of-the-box ATs should ideally provide a similar game experience. Not in gameplay; of course a Scrapper or Defender or Tanker will play differently from a Blaster. But there is absolutely no reason someone who picks a Blaster should have to experience a harder game than someone who picks a Scrapper or Defender. There's no justification for it beyond "the AT was designed poorly."

I love how you say that like if we'd just understand what you're getting at, we'd agree that this is indeed a problem.

What you're not getting is that to a certain subset of other players, undefinable but probably not significantly smaller or larger than your own subset, do not want something unique, except in that the AT has nothing unique. That is just as valid a preference as your own, with just as much justification backing it, ie none. Unique qua unique is not automatically desirable.

Hence "if you have".

Really, I'd love a polished game, and I'm surprised Paragon doesn't have a dedicated copyeditor/proofreader whose job is to check this stuff (if they do, they're paying too much for what they're getting). On the other hand...I'd love to have you guys work for me for a year proofing documents and then tell me you give half a flip about spelling errors you're not being paid to catch.

Absolutely, as an Epic AT. Those should be the Advanced Classes, the ones that are harder to play but allow the experienced player to reap more dividends. It certainly should not be an AT that's available out of the box to every player immediately and theoretically has its own niche that makes players want to play it over any other AT.

Blasters are popular. Newbies like them. That's not a good position to put a difficult-but-rewarding AT.

That's my guess too. Either the Blaster will start accruing debt or he'll have to take pains to avoid dangerous situations, which will slow him down where the Stalker can breeze through more easily.

Personally I'd like to try my hand at this test too, but using a Corruptor or Dominator. Comparing a Fire/Dev Blaster to a Fire/Traps Corruptor would be simply unfair, but a Fire/Ice Blaster and a Fire/Cold Corruptor could be an interesting comparison. (In that case I'd actually expect the Blaster to win the front 25, but the Corruptor would pull ahead in the back. Benumb and Heat Loss, what what.) Sadly I haven't got the spare time for it currently.

THB is using timestamps as markers, not durations. If you parse it out, his first run had the Blaster take 58 minutes to go from leaving the tutorial to level 7 with 1 death and the Stalker take 57 minutes with 0 deaths.

On his second run, the Blaster took 54 minutes to get from level 7 to level 9 with 1 death, while the Stalker took 53 minutes with 0 deaths.

Figuring about a minute or so to hosp and get back to the mission after death, that's pretty much identical so far. Aside from the deaths, of course.

Yeah, I don't think Arcana is the one getting a false picture.

2HB isn't even above level 10 yet, man.

If that's what you got from a post which explicitly mentions the problems with Blasters, then I think we're done here.

You're missing the logic train.

1) Stalkers were highly unpopular.
2) One of the devs' core assumptions is that an AT should not be significantly less popular than the other ATs. Less popular, certainly, but not significantly so. (Another core assumption is that an AT should not significantly underperform other ATs, hence the concern about Blasters. Both of these are aspects of game balance.)
3) The devs went, "Why are Stalkers unpopular?"
4) Players gave their reasons why they wouldn't play Stalkers.
5) The devs examined the AT and agreed that those reasons were problematic.
6) Stalkers got a change.

At no point did Stalkers get buffed because Stalker players wanted a buff. That is not and has never been the sole impetus for a change, and I'm frankly shocked that you think it is. The devs have to agree that a change is warranted, and all the devs care about is game balance.

Scrappers will get a review when players leave the Scrapper AT in droves. When players prefer playing Brutes, Stalkers, and even Tankers over Scrappers by a significant margin, then it's reasonable to conclude that they aren't finding the AT interesting any more and something should be done to make it more interesting.

But it's not a point, it's just your own preference. Several others in other threads have expressed their preference that they like having a no-frills self-sufficient damage dealer available to them. Each preference has equal validity.

When Stalkers were being pushed for a buff, it was possible to list reasons. "Given the assumption that all ATs should be viable options, the fact that so few people play Stalkers presents a problem. They do not fulfill their intended role well enough, and properly utilizing their available powers requires a slow pace that very few people find fun."

That is an argument. Your argument in each of these Scrapper threads has been, "I think Scrappers should get a unique mechanic because I think each AT should get a unique mechanic." That's not compelling. That's just your preference. If a majority of people plus the devs shared your preference, it wouldn't be an issue, and it might even be counted as a core assumption. But they don't.

Now, I can see an argument for ensuring each AT is unique. After all, if two ATs aren't sufficiently differentiated, why have two ATs at all? However, an AT encompasses more than just the inherent, and I do not believe it has been shown that Scrappers are not sufficiently differentiated.

Yes, I realize you personally have been making a distinction between NEED and WANT, but rather than simply stating your preference and leaving it at that, you've been pursuing it pretty aggressively, as if you think your wants are what should be prioritized. When you're spending your own money or time, you can indulge your own wants without any justification, but here you're arguing that your wants deserve development time that could instead be used on things that have better justification for dev attention.

That's why you get people pushing back against you and EG, even people who might otherwise enjoy a small Scrapper buff. This is the City of Heroes equivalent of First World Problems.

And lo, power creep.

I find that this makes statistics on poor Blaster performance rather more powerful than not, actually.

If you assume players will gravitate to the best of an AT, then statistically that AT's performance data should be clumped around the performance of the best sets. If that's true for Blasters and they're still lagging, that says quite a lot.

Then Surveillance is off the table. Remember, it has -Res and -Def. See Munitions Mastery and Bane Spider Training.

The Power Analyzers don't have those debuffs, but it's not like they're uncommon temp powers.

Really, if you want something unique for Scrappers that doesn't impact gameplay, I vote for /e tantrum.

Because when I think fun, I think Surveillance.

They should? Any reason why?
That makes them unique then, doesn't it?

Seems to me it's useful to have an AT without gimmicks for the people who don't like the other ATs' gimmicks. I know there's folks who might play Brutes except that they dislike Fury, or want a damage dealer but they don't like Stalkers' stealth mechanics. And the balanced nature of Scrappers is a selling point in and of itself.

Scrappers have plenty to recommend them as they are. They really don't need a bell or whistle. The lack of one, and the lack of need for one, is what makes them special.

You know, it works the other way too. I'm going to leave this particular line of conversation be, since really there's nothing I can say your and Khasei's posts don't already.

This would make more sense if I went around calling them Superawesomebuythemnow Packs, but...kay.

Yes, I'm sure the guy who insists on calling them Supergamble Packs clearly wouldn't have any kind of agenda.