Circuit_Breaker_NA

Jacket sleeves and clipping issues. Not usually an issue when arms are at the character's sides, but anytime they cross their arms or raise them, there's obvious clipping at the shoulder.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly I think that the domination boost should be lowered by 50% and have the standard attacks boosted in damage to compensate. The domination bonus of increased duration, mag and endurance refill is enough without making it the sole way for a dominator to deal damage. Give it a minor damage boost rather than a major one and tip the scales for the more attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea has a lot of merit.

Also, my dominators are still massive endurance hogs. I can play on a team and let the brutes and corruptors and masterminds do all the work, and just play control for mitigatory purposes... but that's not going to build my domination at all. If I have any hope of building domination, I'm panting and wheezing the entire mission without stamina -- and the devs keep trying to maintain that the game can be played without it...

[ QUOTE ]
My point is more that overrepresentation of that power among the playerbase is both the ends and means of balance.

1) Overrepresentation itself is a metric, a tool that may flag certain powers and/or powersets as overperforming. One could make such an argument for the I1-era City of Blasters fix for Smoke Grenade. Similarly, the proliferation of WW among PvP players didn't create the problem; in this scenario, it's a symptom of it.

[...]

I think you clue in to the underlying point, that balance itself is adaptive. The playerbase will seek out maximally performing builds or playstyles, if those builds and playstyles legitimately outperform others to the point of exclusion, then it's the Devs' turn to adapt to the playerbase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I continue to find it amusing that various powers get nerfed or shown up for nerfing due to their prevalence, and yet Stamina remains...

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it. Is the complaint that everyone is running around with the same powers, just because of variety's sake? NO! The problem is that blasters/stalkers are running around with an overpowered set, trivialising PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is simply that some high burst damage sets can kill in one rotation of their good powers. High burst damage isn't a problem, as long as you can't kill in one burst. EM compares somewhat poorly to some other sets when it comes to damage over time. But in a PvP setting, this never comes into play, because of the hit and fade nature that can be employed.

If PvP fights took longer and were not 3-5 second affairs, serious hinderances to burst damage sets like 20 second recharges would come into play, and really reign the effect of their burst superiority in.

Unfortunately, the creation of the stalker AT guaranteed that the devs could never "slow down" PvP combat to create knock-down, drag-out fights even among those with low defenses. You can't cut damage in half universally and still have an assassin archetype.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the information Castle gave, it has to be deluded with all the times in Bloody Bay and Sirens Call when the only people in the zone are perceptionless heroes and stalkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the solution is to obviously increase the availability of perception buffs to more powersets? Somehow, I don't think that this is what stalkers want, either. It's pretty plain that stalkers thrive on these scenarios, and obviously don't want to see them removed. Hardly sporting.

Of course, this would all be a moot point if PvP weren't predicated and designed around 5-second battles.

If they'd go and do a global damage nerf against PvP targets, we'd get knock-down, drag-out fights that ... wow ... would feel comic-y.

Then, the scrappers could shut up, because their high DPS would matter more than the burst that a blaster's able to do with three powers. Of course, you'd have to let the blasters kite in such a situation, too, so by this time you're not really talking about City of Heroes/Villains anymore.

It'd sure be nice if a PvP one-on-one was more like an elite boss or AV battle than a lieutenant one.

[ QUOTE ]
In I5 Invuln scrappers went from 66% to 33% damage resistance [non-S/L] and Invincibility lost about half its defense. So twice as many hits got through and a lot of it hit twice as hard. (S/L is between 1/3 and 2/3 of damage taken; I've heard different numbers.)

In I6 that 33% went to 20.6% [S/L went from 75% to 56%] and Invincibility lost a little more.

So, yeah, about a factor of 5 or 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was only a 46% loss? Because earlier in this very post, you brush aside somebody correcting you that the cap buff to blasters was a 25% increase in cap (or a factor of 25%), not a straight 100%. If 400+100=500, then 66-20=46%.

Or do you just choose whichever method suits you?

(and yes, I apologize for the misplaced decimal and poorly drawn conclusion that stemmed from my error earlier)

Fulmens, I think it's rather disingenuous to use a 65% chance to hit -- defense loses effectiveness as enemy level scales up. Run that same 27% chance against, say, evens with a 50% to-hit, and you can calculate the old blaster survivability as 50/23=2.17. Now I5 the numbers (and as was pointed out, stealth supresses), and you see a 4% defense after you attack (which, ironically, is when a stealthed blaster will be taking damage). 50/46=1.09. 1.09/2.17=5.02.

Gosh, that looks like the scrapper number (which used resistance, which scales evenly with level -- resistance and defense are basically balanced against even levels, and defense slides up and down in relative effectiveness according to level.)

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than boost range, or damage with blasters, they instead encourage us to fight when we are at low health.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying this wrong. Instead of boosting ranges or damage with blasters, they encourage us to fight at 10% health. And then bump our hit points so 10% health is 118 hp instead of 100, to make us more survivable at that low health.

[ QUOTE ]
Am i the only one that read STates comments that its scrapper testing that is going on. Seems funny to me that in order to fix the blaster sets they are testing scrappers, chances are blasters are not going to get a damn thing, its scrappers that will be buffed or nerfed accordingly to make blasters feel better about themselves. So again, blasters will get nothing accept a more favorable personal glow when making comparisons to another AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the date on the OP. This is a serious necropost, said adjustments already happened. Nothing for scrappers to be concerned with.

[ QUOTE ]
//The ranged-only blaster is pretty sorry damage compared to a scrapper or a blapper, its only saving grace is that a couple of them on a team -- provided they're the right sets -- can put out impressive minion-sweeping AE damage.

And yet, practically any build of this type that you describe will be better ranged damage than any scrapper - and what power picks were spent on other things rather than shotrange attacks? And why should refusing to take attacks that are demonstrably very efficient and powerful be rewarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting that a blaster be rewarded for not taking melee attacks -- I'm suggesting that without them, they aren't very good damage dealers, and thus fail at their role. However, with them, my assertion is that they are not appreciably better than scrappers at damage dealing -- at least, not sufficiently so to compare with the appreciable survivability advantage scrappers enjoy. A blapper should do more damage than a blaster. But a blaster isn't balanced, and neither is a blapper. The blaster might have some level of safety (less still than a scrapper) by taking non-melee secondary powers and defensive pools and such, but will not compare favorably to the damage that a scrapper puts out with greater safety. The blapper has no level of safety, and might (with some pool melee filler) put out damage on a level with scrappers -- but enjoys none of the safety available to a scrapper while doing the same.

[ QUOTE ]
//You did a straight-up comparison of damage per attack, while ignoring recharges. Take a scrapper vs a blapper over time -- say, on a team facing large spawns rather than solo facing his 3 even level minions -- and those recharge differences play a BIG difference. The entire katana set that you listed recharges in less time than bone smasher, save Golden Dragonfly. Even dipping into their far less spectacularly damaging ranged attacks to mix in with their melees, a blapper can't really flesh out a full attack chain, and this means that the constant good dps from a scrapper set will catch up and often even surpass the blapper.

Uh, I have to disagree from experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's not apparent from your sig, experience with what? Mine's an electric/energy, what's yours, for frame of reference? The next part makes it apparent you're /elec, what's your primary?

[ QUOTE ]
I have enough recharge to run attack continuously if I had infinite endo - which of course I do not and need someone else to buff me for. Power Sink mitigates this but not completely. I am simply not waiting on attacks to rercharge that I have ever noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm impressed, then. Though, I would suggest that you're speaking from the perspective of the best-off secondary when it comes to filling out a chain. Electric manipulation has 5 very good damage powers -- fence, charged brawl, havok punch, thunder strike, and shocking grasp. Without knowing your primary, it's tough to make a good assessment (I'm counting a 4 second recharge fence, 9 seconds on brawl, 15 on havok punch, 20 on thunderstrike, and I don't recall shocking grasp's recharge -- color me skeptical, but I don't think you'd disagree that a scrapper's much, much better off in the recharge arena? meaning they can make a chain with fewer attacks and fewer slots invested, leaving room not only for pool power supplements to whatever floats their boat, but slotting their defenses, as well), but let me tell you, I have a rough time forming a complete attack chain. I burst through about two minions at a time, and then get to wait for recharges. Three at a time, I suppose, when TF comes into play.

[ QUOTE ]
This includes extended brawls with AVs where I'd expect it to be most obvious - never has been, bang bang bang bang bang.

//The poster to whom you're responding is (and has been, the whole post) analyzing the ranged blaster. As such, the melee attacks don't count.

I don't think that's the case at all, and moreover the same poster has been citing that plain old damage is the goal and range is not useful. If I may refresh your memory:
[ QUOTE ]

*WHEN*; just once tell me *when* is "ranged" damage any more important than 'damage' period? The only situation in the *ENTIRE* game where I've found I *really* needed ranged damage was in the Ernesto Hess TF; with the ring of sentry guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the point of this same person discounting the very high damage in the melee range attacks if they admit that range is not especially useful? Making the blaster fight with one hand tied behind their back seems to be the goal here?

The original post by Statesman noted, but it's pretty obvious that long ranged damage is weaker than short ranged damage across the board, for every AT and every set. What now?

Assume this balance was changed for some reason - blaster ranged damage is upgraded to the point where it is very comparable DPA and DPS with the melee attacks. Why would anyone with any sense take the melee attacks then?

[/ QUOTE ]

*shrug* Should there be any melee attacks to begin with? Or maybe just ones with dual purposes, like stun, total focus, freezing touch, etc.? I don't blap by choice. I rolled up a ranged blaster when I started. I just found that I stunk at my job, and I found this odd way to be better. I wouldn't cry if I could do something closer to blap or scrap damage at range, and actually make use of this ethereal "range as defense" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Assume Blaster ranged damage is put on par or made superior to scrapper melee. Why would anyone with any sense play a scrapper at that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Actual defenses? Status protections? They just like being up-close and personal?

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just see little point in demanding massive changes to something that clearly, Cryptic never has and will never spend a lot of effort changing - seems to me it's a pretty sensible design anyway. Good luck with that windmil though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the implication that I'm perceiving an imaginary problem. Disguising an insult in a literary reference doesn't make it any nicer a sentiment, nor any less condescending.

In any case, when the current incarnation of blasters receives almost no thought, of course the fix will require more effort than they've bothered to put in. That doesn't make striving for, devising, and advocating such a fix any less noble, nor less worthy a cause or pasttime.

[ QUOTE ]
//Scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can at range.

//Blasters deal fairly good damage at range, and massive damage in melee.

Uh, in my experience blaster ranged damage always exceeds scrapper ranged damage. You seem to think otherwise. I don't see how you can think this. I suppose you could intentionally make as gimped a blaster as possible and never take any ranged or AOE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there's a word missing. Big deal. The intent was to say that scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can deal a bit at range when it's advantageous to do so (runners, for instances). You have to look at blasters in two lights -- a pure-range build and a blap build that mixes range and melee. The ranged-only blaster is pretty sorry damage compared to a scrapper or a blapper, its only saving grace is that a couple of them on a team -- provided they're the right sets -- can put out impressive minion-sweeping AE damage. Unfortunately, not all sets are like this, and it's a very narrow role that requires an entire team's support.

The blapper, on the other hand, can do a good deal in melee -- but not enough to mirror the survivability differential between a scrapper and a blapper.

[ QUOTE ]
In melee, in my experience, blaster damage exceeds scrapper damage handily (by a bigger margin than I actually thought, as others have pointed out).

[/ QUOTE ]

You did a straight-up comparison of damage per attack, while ignoring recharges. Take a scrapper vs a blapper over time -- say, on a team facing large spawns rather than solo facing his 3 even level minions -- and those recharge differences play a BIG difference. The entire katana set that you listed recharges in less time than bone smasher, save Golden Dragonfly. Even dipping into their far less spectacularly damaging ranged attacks to mix in with their melees, a blapper can't really flesh out a full attack chain, and this means that the constant good dps from a scrapper set will catch up and often even surpass the blapper. Again, I repeat -- the blapper's dps advantage (even assuming best builds) in melee doesn't reflect the size of the gap in survivability.

[ QUOTE ]
//The secondaries *don't count*.

Okay, then scrapper secondaries *don't count* either - which is pretty stupid but if that's how you want it, there it is. Scrappers are gimped damage dealers with irrelevent secondaries. I'd ask what you thought you were getting at by saying such a thing, but I don't particularly care.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster to whom you're responding is (and has been, the whole post) analyzing the ranged blaster. As such, the melee attacks don't count. If you want to compare the ranged blaster and tout range as a defense to close the scrapper/blaster survivability gap, you don't get to include the melee attacks to make the scrapper/blaster damage gap look smaller, too.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Issue 8 rolls around with this issue still unaddressed (resolving it seems unlikely but at least another bone or two thrown our way might appease us) and the devs will have a riot as the six or seven people who still play blasters rise up in outrage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Six or seven people... Blasters are the most populous hero AT in the game right now. I know, because I just checked. And since I know some blaster is inevitably going to say "OMGTHEIRALLUNDER30~~~," I checked... there were still more 30+ blasters than anyone else (they beat scrappers by 1). Defenders, of course, were the lowest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I7 will be toning down toggle dropping to appease the tankers and brutes. Watch the FOTM ice/energy and ice/elec PvP-blapper numbers plummet. The only reason the numbers are that high is that blasters are currently fairly formidable in PvP. Take away some of the toggle dropping capability, and you'll see a migration to scrappers for PvP juggernauts and those who wish to play them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since AS is practically a melee snipe, shouldn't it follow the rules for snipe attacks and have it's range and line of sight checked twice? Once when the attack is initiated and once when it is resolved. Not like now, when people can start up AS and kill someone 100 feet away because the target moved.

If not, can someone tell me how to interrupt a stalker running Elude or similar powers? It's impossible to hit them even if I can see them perfectly fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been brought up a couple times internally. The problem with making AS check Range twice is that it would be virtually impossible to land in PvP. It would also make it unique in that all other melee powers only check range once, so even if your target is running, you will still land the attack, no matter how far away they get.

It DOES check line of sight twice, so if you constantly take routes which break LOS frequently, you can stop Assassin attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we get snipe to only check range once, then? I don't care which one you keep, but as is it's quite annoying. The same logic applies -- other range attacks only check range once. Keep the first one, and it would actually be useful for nailing fleeing targets. Keep the second, and you could gamble and set up a snipe on a target you think is going to approach you, and do so before they're close enough to close and interrupt you.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what the numbers are. I was just throwing out 50% as a suggestion because it compared well with Rage. If you feel like 30% is better, then that's fine too. But again as I said that should be the MINUMUM.

Pre-ED one of the advantages given was that you could shift the Accuracy Enhancements in your attacks over to Damage. Thus at the very least the benefit should be that one one SO Enhancement, which is 33%. Do you believe that the benefit should be less than the effect of one Enhancement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just posting to point out the slight fallacy of this argument. Prior to ED, 6-slotted+TD vs. 5-slotted meant 300% instead of 266% -- a constant 12% incremental advantage from that extra slot. To compare, adding a 6-slotted buildup (30 second recharge) to the 5+acc slotting gave you 10 seconds of 366% plus 20 seconds of 266%, or an average of... 300%. This is why it was considered equivalent -- it literally was. Then you had the other factors like what killed the buff -- for build-up it's slows (reduces the uptime), for TD, it's toggle drops and status effects to drop the buff and force you to recharge and retoggle it. These were also fairly equal, I'd say.

Now, TD loses the slotting advantage, but build-up lost some of its uptime, too. Now, you could say that build-up allows 10 seconds of 300% damage and 35 seconds of 200% -- for an average damage of 222%. So build-up is, over time, a 22% (base damage) buff. In the past, the average-over-time of build-up put the build-up blaster right on par with the TD blaster's slotting -- so I don't see why TD should be more than 22%. In addition, detoggling's getting an upcoming adjustment, while slow is as effective as it ever has been. Toss in the perception buff in TD, and honestly, I'd have a hard time justifying 15% by the numbers.

Saying "but it used to give us an extra SO's worth of damage" is disingenuous. It fails to take into account the diminishing return of slots -- one extra slot's worth is a bigger difference when you're sticking it on top of 3 slots than it is when you're sticking it on top of 5, and build-up lost plenty of efficiency with ED, too thanks to more limited uptime, without even considering the frequency of fights that last 40 seconds (enough to squeeze in two build-up periods pre-ED) vs. those that last 55.

I'm not against Targetting Drone getting damage, particularly if the perception love gets spread around somehow, but please think about what you're asking for in the right frame of mind and be reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You touched on a very good point. Power boost for a blaster is of limited use. Why? Not because the buff isn't strong. But because the way the majority of such buffed effects work for blasters is cumulative over time -- the actual benefit of one knockback, or one slow, or one non-SC drain, is low. It's only your ability to pile them up that helps you out. A 15 second boost to that... not always attractive. Make it a toggle? Must-have (and overly strong).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, power boost is definitely an odd duck. However, if they increased all of our secondary effects, or added more secondary effects, then maybe the current version of powerboost would become rather useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree. Power boost would certainly be more attractive if what it boosted was more readily noticeable in the small doses you can fit into power boost, or, of course, if the doses you could cram in were higher (ala boost range being permable, though not necessarily to that extent).

[ QUOTE ]
I really liked your analysis on conserve power. It is a bit more on the purist side for my own tastes. And by purist, what I mean is that you truly expect that the effects of the power be closer to "perma" than "situational".

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I don't think anybody reading the power list when they picked up the game thought "wow, that's a great power to have, say, 30 seconds on a 10 minute recharge!" It did get a boost way back when to 90, and was almost great with 6-slots and perma-hasten. The hasten invariably increased your attack rate and you still needed stamina anyways to keep up, though.

[ QUOTE ]
For the few of us who actually have conserve power, I expect we use it as a bonus power to be combined with stamina already planned in the mix.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, I *do* have conserve power, and I *do* combine it with stamina. Blapping can take a lot out of you, and I don't have the luxury of treading water against a couple guys while I wait for endurance to replenish like a scrapper or tanker often can. The way things tend to shake out, though, I rely on my stamina'd output the majority of the time, and conserve power is relegated to a trouble button -- a sub-optimal use (because it's more effective if you've got blue already and can burn the blue you've got AND the blue you're recovering at the discounted rate), but one that I find better than reaching for it while I'm in a crash cycle.

[ QUOTE ]
(It would be fantastic if conserve power is a complete substitution for stamina, but that would be asking for too much).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I don't get this argument -- do other sets feel that asking that a secondary power out-perform a pool power is "too much?" Kinetic shield is 12.5 defense base, weave is, what, 3? Is kinetic shield "too much?" Tough for a tanker is 15% resistance, temp invulnerability is 30%.. is temp invulnerability "too much?"

[ QUOTE ]
Besides ... if we are truly utilitarian about our endurance usage, then we'd realize that a lot of our stamina's endurance recharge is wasted every time we go AFK, or take a break waiting for someone who went AFK.

What I mean to say is that there is actually a lot of good opportunities to take a break and socialize with your fellow heroic MMORPGers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about you, but I don't click conserve power then, either. I do get what you're saying, and that's that click buffs afford some degree of control over when you use their typically stronger effects. But in extreme durations with long downtimes, I find that caution and unwillingness to be caught with your pants down and it unavailable to you evens out -- I go through a lot of fights where I could use conserve power but hesitate, that stamina works for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course ... if they do reduce the downtime of conserve power, that'd be gravy!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my general feeling. It's not a make-or-break deal, but I do feel disappointed. I certainly picked the set because it looked like it would afford me the ability to marathon-fight without having to rely on stamina on top of it.. And it certainly is described in a more significant way than, say, power sink, which I showed (admittedly rough, since I don't have a definitive recovery per hit number) numbers for, though power sink outperforms it (as I mentioned, to the degree you'd expect compared to stamina).

I guess I've gotten to the point where I've suppressed my discontent to a simmer on the back burner of my mind. It's no longer the focus of my crusades, but if it were righted it would certainly feel like a long-standing issue had finally been resolved and that they did right by me.

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of energy's utlity powers are underrated.

The problem I see with them is duration. (The following is MY take on it and not necessarily correct for anyone else People play blasters to blast (or blap.) Having that many click/short term/buffs is more of a slowdown. They end up getting viewed as situational powers and at that point can become a burden. "Meh, why would I take boost range when I can take this?", this being another attack, or say stealth or something.

All the powers that boost like this DO suit a purpose and are great. (I swear by power boost on my dominator. PB/Domination = perma-froze mobs.) However, despite how quickly you can make it recharge it's still so short lasting... it's like by the time you trigger all your boosts some of them are already expired.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it and (maybe) how some others do and that's why I think they're underrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You touched on a very good point. Power boost for a blaster is of limited use. Why? Not because the buff isn't strong. But because the way the majority of such buffed effects work for blasters is cumulative over time -- the actual benefit of one knockback, or one slow, or one non-SC drain, is low. It's only your ability to pile them up that helps you out. A 15 second boost to that... not always attractive. Make it a toggle? Must-have (and overly strong). You can take some of the bite out of it by slotting recharge -- but you start eating up animation time and endurance that make you wonder "is there something more effective I could put that time and blue to use on?"

The other thing that really sneaks up on energy manipulation's buffs is recharge. Conserve power is amazing.. when it's on. But for a pro-active (that is, best used *before* you need it) utility power... it's got a recharge that you'd normally associate with situational powers. Heck, I nuke more often than I can conserve power. Let's go over and ask folks with the fitness pool -- "Do you guys consider stamina a situational? Is endurance management situational, something you only need once in a while?" You'll get laughed out of the building. And don't get me started on the relative quality of stamina and conserve power for endurance output over time -- the pool power wins. Despite the strength of the buff, conserve power is, as a whole, the worst endurance management power in the game. Stamina out-performs it and is an auto power, power sink/energy drain/consume/dark consumption/transference can all be used both more frequently *and* reactively (ie, only when you need to, instead of guessing when you should activate it), not to mention all those have enemy effects that a strict self-buff lacks.

Conserve power would have a lot going for it if it had a 5 minute base recharge and its current 90 second duration. You could use it frequently, with the knowledge that it'll be down for a minute, but then back. Instead, it has a 10 minute recharge.. fully slotted, it's got a 1/3rd uptime for half endurance cost.

Over 5 minutes, a rested-to-full blaster has 100 endurance + the 500 endurance he'll regenerate over that time to spend -- he can output 600 endurance in 5 minutes.

Over 5 minutes, a conserve power blaster will have 90 seconds worth of half-price power usage, essentially doubling his endurance in that time period. He can spend the original 100 endurance plus the 150 endurance he recovers during the buff, at half price, or outputting powers worth 500, and then he can trickle along at the regen rate for another 350 for the remaining 3 and a half minutes. He spends a maximum (assuming he could drain himself while conserving, squeezing the most power usage -- while not drawing aggro and dying -- out of the discount period) of 850 endurance -- a 42% boost. Conserve cost him 8 endurance to activate, by the way, but that's a bit trivial here.

The stamina blaster can recover 50% faster with the same slottage as the conserve power blaster (3 of the only type the power will take). Thus, he recovers a whopping 750 endurance in the 5 minutes, and can burn 850 as well.

Interesting. Of course, take away the permission to burn the initial pool (starting at empty and leaving empty, or starting full and leaving full for the next cycle to be identical, as it were), and you get the plain blaster gets 500 to spend, the conserve power blaster gets 650 to spend, and the stamina blaster gets 750 to spend -- conserve power favors dumping and in a dump situation can catch up to stamina, but doesn't get to dump twice in a row.

Now, consider that, say, power sink is useable once a minute, requires a hit check, but folks like to brag that it'll take 'em to full of, say, 2 enemies. We'll just slot 3 endmod enhancements, since the other two examples have only had 3 slots to play with thanks to ED, so we don't touch the recharge. In our 5 minutes, our blaster gets to fire off power sink 5 times, using 75 endurance to do so. He gets back 500, from his power sinks, 500 from his recovery, and had 100 to start off with. He gets to use 1025 endurance in 5 minutes. Now, this number compares with stamina the way you'd think a secondary-to-pool comparison would go.

To truly make conserve power worthy of a secondary slot and its anticipatory nature, I'd love to see the base recharge bumped down to 5 minutes base. This would be 2 and a half slotted, so we'd cram two uses into that 5 minute time period we've been analyzing. 16 endurance to activate, and you could burn your original pool plus 300 endurance worth at half price. 800 effective endurance output during conserve, plus two minutes of recovery for 200 more. 984 endurance output in 5 minutes on a burn cycle, with a much less painful 1 minute famine per feast.

Anyhow, I sort of got sidetracked by a conserve power analysis, but oh well. That's my take on why the self-buffing of energy manipulation is often "underrated." It boils down to that the buffs other than boost range -- which is often antithetical to an energy manipulation set, since it's a popular blapper choice -- just provide too much famine compared to the feast. Power boost isn't a very easy-to-see benefit on most primary powers (boosted slow?), and the "chance" nature of bone smasher and energy punch's disorients makes people leery of the possibility that they'll power boost and it won't go off at all. And conserve power.. well, in a game where stamina is so widely taken, it's nothing to crow about. Even though it can be stacked on top of stamina, it's so infrequently available, that many people will forget they have it, or will dislike building a blaster that can actually use endurance at the rate to take advantage of conserve or conserve + stamina, only to not be able to use that level of output the majority of the time. Much better to drop a few of those powers and take fitness, and be able to maintain a level of consistency.. at least in the eyes of the majority.

[ QUOTE ][*]Energy: Power Thrust - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use the Hurl Boulder animation again, only this time we make a ball of Energy instead of Electricity.[*]Energy: Boost Range - Increases the radius and max # of MOBs effected by an AE as well as the range of an attack. Radius increases by 50%. Max Mobs = 24.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do you one better. Keep the power thrust animation, and merely add a "shockwave" to then end, emanating from the character's fist at full extension. You can crib the effect from claws/focus, or maybe shrink down and recolor an energy torrent shockwave to about a foot across. If you wanted, the same could be done for energy manipulation/stun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know? I've got another set of ideas, MUCH simpler. Not as good as the others, but probably much easier to make.

1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by adding 20 to their range, except for cones.

2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 20' range. BTW, that would be Power Thrust for Energy, not Energy Punch, making it a true "keep away" rather than a "get away" power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, why not both? I agree, power thrust would be greatly improved by this change -- but if other sets get stuff like charged brawl and frozen fists at 20', why not energy punch as well -- power thrust's damage isn't even in the same league as the other attacks you're talking about, so energy manipulation wouldn't be capable of adding the same oomph to a short-ranged (but not quite melee) attack chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three reasons:

1) I think that of the two, Power Thrust really needs the boost, while Energy Punch can use it.
2) Energy Manipulation is good enough, pretty clearly the best secondary now, that there is no justification for improving TWO of its powers. And of the two, clearly Power Thrust is the one that most deserves it.
3) If I were going to improve two attacks from Energy Manip, it would be Power Thrust and Stun, operating on the principle of "boost the weakest powers first". Stun is much less popular than EP, therefore it pretty clearly could be boosted with less worry about overpowering what's already the best secondary compared to the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. A 20' stun would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor.

And I think you're missing my point by a hair. I don't disagree that energy is one of the better-off sets and is certainly popular. However, it's popular for its blapping aspect -- you could say that it's popular *despite* not providing the immobilize for a ranged attack chain. That was mostly my point. If you're going to take melee-range attacks and bump them to short-range ones, of course you'll take the opportunity to allow power thrust pre-emption.. but does that necessitate leaving it a step below other secondary combinations' contributions to the short-ranged attack chain? Boosting both power thrust and stun would leave it low damage-wise, but would be a good tradeoff for short-ranged mitigation.

[ QUOTE ]
You know? I've got another set of ideas, MUCH simpler. Not as good as the others, but probably much easier to make.

1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by adding 20 to their range, except for cones.

2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 20' range. BTW, that would be Power Thrust for Energy, not Energy Punch, making it a true "keep away" rather than a "get away" power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity, why not both? I agree, power thrust would be greatly improved by this change -- but if other sets get stuff like charged brawl and frozen fists at 20', why not energy punch as well -- power thrust's damage isn't even in the same league as the other attacks you're talking about, so energy manipulation wouldn't be capable of adding the same oomph to a short-ranged (but not quite melee) attack chain.

On the blapper vs. blaster issue: I currently play blappers. When I got the game and rolled up a character, I created a blaster. As the game progressed, I became dissatisfied with the damage my electric blast was capable of putting out at range, and when freespecs started going in, I experimented on test and discovered that I could do some serious damage in melee. I lucked out in that I had some controls available to me to mitigate the risk, so I respecced to blapping and haven't looked back.

I've since come to enjoy blapping. It's pretty fun in that "screaming in-your-face balls-to-the-wall hyena" way, closing in and hoping your shock-and-awe campaign will overwhelm them enough that they don't manage to get a couple solid hits in. It's an exhilerating rush, I admit.

However, it's not what I originally made the character for, and even subsequent blapping alts have been made with the knowledge that this is probably a fringe playstyle that may or may not continue to be supported.

As such, I'll probably miss blapping if it goes by the wayside to make way for more effective blasting. But I'd welcome the shift and revel in blasting if I found it equally effective. I do think it would be bothersome if they didn't leave a signature melee attack per secondary, though -- let those fire and ice folks keep their swords, leave me my bone smasher, etc. One, serious melee attack is a good fall-back for even a ranged specialist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget that it was on test for like, 6 minutes before it was jammed through to live.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know being an irrational ranter is your schtick, but the patch that included the changes to endurance for bosses and LTs was on test for over a week, actually longer than most patches have been on test that have included far more than that patch did.

[/ QUOTE ]

And for the duration of that week, it was thoroughly documented how it gutted endurance drain strategies unnecessarily, several alternatives were offered -- all within the span of the first 36 hours, I might add -- and yet nothing could be done about it before it went live. You can leave buggy or over-nerfing code on test for a month or a minute, if it goes live in the same state, it's still buggy/over-nerfing and wasn't on test long enough to get it fixed/adjusted to a level that's worth pushing live.

[ QUOTE ]
Fewest possible moves? OK.

Situational mez resist.

Postulates and reasoning:

1) People like blasters being risky. (I'm one of them.)
2) People don't like being mezzed to death. Even being one-shotted is better than being mezzed to death.
3) Individual powersets aside from devices and energy might need tweaks, but those are several "moves".
4) Defiance is a joke.

So, replace Defiance with an intrinsic that lets blasters DO something other than get mezzed to death. Come on, we're gonna faceplant quickly anyway from any of a number of other causes. The only one that annoys a risk-loving blaster is mez, cuz mez isn't so much about risk as it is about being effectively face-planted while still having nonzero health.

All other ATs have ways of handling mez. Melee ATs have their very prescious anti-mez powers. Defenders generally don't provoke mez, and have some powers that resist mez (e.g., Dispersion bubble). Controllers can employ a "mez the mezzers" attack plan, and at high levels can use their pets to take the brunt of mez attacks. Khelds can use any of the above tactics, and have the anti-mez Dwarf form to fall back on.

Blasters have none of that. At best, they have a "kill mezzers before they mez me" tactic, which is really just a variation of the primary blaster tactic, "kill them before they kill me; if in doubt, run away". Mezzing just takes the "run away" option out of the picture.

If it's an intrinsic power of some kind, then it only activates as the Devs see fit, and doesn't become a must-have, must-slot power in the primary or secondary. It kicks in when you're in trouble: you just got held, and now you're below 50% health (which is bad territory for a blaster). So every "tick" you get a -chance- to shrug off the mez. Not a certainty, but a possibility. And if you are too mezzed for the modicum of resistance provided to free you, well, you were stupid and deserve to faceplant. That's part of the risk blasters love.

It even works for PvP: the blaster is easy to take down -if- you focus on him and can absorb his damage output, but don't think you can just pin him down and kill him quickly. He'll be as risky to nail as any other AT.

And this solve a huge amount of blaster problems without adding to damage output, adding +DEF or +DR, and without adding any controversial powers to be abused. It just gets rid of the reliability of mez used vs blasters. It adds a -tension- factor in PvE fights with mezzing enemies; yeah, the blaster just got held, but -maybe- he manages to break free by virtue of his willpower, instead of giving up hope and waiting to faceplant or praying that the empath isn't too preoccupied to send a CM his way.

We're blasters. We're gonna faceplant a lot anyway. Those of us with the epic Rise of the Phoenix power even like the opportunity to use it! But give us that chance to run away or go down fighting as we choose, not frozen in that Michael Jackson "Thriller" pose, where we know we're faceplanted, but we're just awaiting the formality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to all. In fact, I think I may like the chance per tick to break free better than just an increasing scale of resistance as health falls that I've suggested in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arcanna, I am very much in agreement that blasters should have their attack chains pretty much laid down by the time they hit their teens but I don't think that blasters need situational powers in addition to what they already have in their secondary.

What you described as a replacement to nova is something that I would consider a great secondary power. I think that blasters can have a good attack chain starting out and then as the levels progress pick up powers that can be helpfull in certain situations. The final powers though should allow them to basicaly upgrade their ranged attack chain at a time when they really need that attack chain to be strong enough to deal with the masses of mezzing mobs.

I am with you in regards to making the first powers the bread and butter, I just think that the bread and butter can get better as time goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't so much disagree with this sentiment as I have a parallel one. I have an aesthetic dislike for a situation where, say, we could make a full attack chain with power bolt, power blast, and torrent at low levels, and then eventually, we can "upgrade" that chain to power blast, power burst, (new) nova. It orphans powers and takes up power slots. I'd much rather "upgrades" come in the form of self buffs, like build up. So I see "upgrades" mostly coming from the secondary: build up, boost range, power boost, conserve power, for example. In effect, I'd rather have my power bolt work better over time, than have my power bolt replaced with a "better" power.

Doing it that way gives us more options to put other powers in the primary that are there just for variety's sake - either situational powers, or powers that aren't necessarily "better" or "worse" but are subject to player taste (i.e. TK verses CAK in the MA set).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. One of the best things about City of Heroes is that you don't have a mess of bland "upgrades" that do the same thing as something you already have, only better. You get a power at level 1, you use it all the way to level 50, and it stays useful and effective, though enhancements and coupling it with other stuff.

I don't want to get into a replace mode. Some scrappers are already like this, and I don't like it. I see a lot of builds posts on the scrapper boards that basically take very few attacks pre-, say, 18. This just seems like exploiting respeccability, and tends to indicate that some sets in there are going against the CoH mantra of "high level powers = specificity not just more overall power."

I don't want to see blasters fall into that.

I agree -- help our early attacks build a better chain on their own, and then we can afford to do more situational stuff at the top.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My suggestion? This may be controversial and it may have been said before.. but I think we should get rid of "True" nukes and replace them with Full Auto/Rain of Arrows like powers.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been said before. Yeah, I was the one that brought up how much more usefull it would be for blasters to have non-situational powers like scrappers do in their primary sets.

My rational is different though. We already have situational powers in our secondary sets, so whey do we have situational powers in our primary set? Really, why? That just doesn't make any sense.

So, I advocated makeing the nukes high damage powers of some kind. Perhaps some powers could be designed like Head Splitter but with a range of 40' so that you would basicaly have a line attack but one that recharged fast enough to be used about twice a fight and did head-splitter sized damage. You could hit a boss and cut right through all the minions to get to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm. Could we make the electric one chain lightning? *falls over drooling and twitching in delight* I've wanted a power that was AE of some sort and animated as a lightning bolt-esque power that jumped from one enemy in its area to the next since, well, I rolled my first character.