Eldagore

Thats unfortunate. It was not intended to be a grind, the weapon itself was supposed to grow at a fair pace to keep up with your character. It wasnt supposed to be a job of itself. I based it on Tolkien style lore when I proposed it, the weapons in the books were obviously of high quality, and some had some hint of magical ability. However, the swords and such were named and famous because of the deeds that were done with them, the feats performed by the wielder. hence the weapon XP, though I havent played yet to see how that was put in. It almost sounds like they put it in and made it a new timesink instead of being a system woven into normal gameplay.

Also, there was not supposed to be a lvl cap, at least not so much as one coded onto the weapon. There were just supposed to be a general set of max stats, high enough to put them above drop stuff easily, and in this case when a lvl cap was raised the max stats could have simply been adjusted accordingly and the weapons could have gained more room to grow. Maybe the system got put in as it is to allow for some kind of allowance for the trade system, which would be nonsense also- as if Gimli would trade his ax.

I downloaded it last night, I think I will at least go check out the current form of the game before i judge it to harshly, as I said last I played was in early closed beta.

Please tell me your Spanish Inquisition character is a stalker. ASSASSIN STRIKE!!!! "(F10)Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!"

I dont really want the last word, but a few things you say put words in my mouth so I feel obligated to correct them. First, "doesnt deserve" and "doesnt need" are not the same thing, and one is what I said and one is what you twisted my words to say to try to help you weak arguments. I have no issue with blasters getting more ST DPS, but i do not feel they need it. That is hardly the same as "Blasters should not get a ST DPS increase". Again, one I said oand one is what you twisted my words to say. So, i admit nothing, at least not in the context you are trying to shroud around my statements.

Speaking of admitting, I am glad you have decided to basically retract your off topic argument about ST dmg you made using Energy Transfer. How you made the jump from my statement about St vs AOE in a reward/time balance metric to a power that was changed to fit into inter-powerset balance(totally unrelated to what i was saying in the first place) i will never know. Write it off as "scarcastic comment" or whatever, you went on to try to save it in later posts. I never took it seriously anyway as it was apples to oranges.

Blasters are the dmg specialists? I do not think anyone has ever found a quote to back that up from a dev anywhere. i think it is the perception players have of the AT, and maybe even what most players want out of the AT. If the devs agree or not, I dont know. If they will make changes to pursue that end, i also do not know. Right now I think they are happy to work on making blasters not die so freegin much.


"I simply posed the logical extension of your argument, which is that Blasters definitively don't deserve a damage buff (even a single-target-damage buff, even though single-target damage doesn't matter) because Blasters are getting a defensive buff in I-24. My point was that Blasters are vastly outclassed defensively right now, and only have a marginal damage advantage, which means that clearly you expect the defensive buff in Issue 24 to be massive."

that quote there is exactly why I wrote my first sentence. That was never my argument, it is the one you have been trying so hard to make my argument. My argument, as from my very first post here, is that the two items SHOULD NOT BE TIED TOGETHER because snipes are for all AT's, and blaster changes are for blasters only. You, and others of a like mind irrationally railing against this snipe change as though it creates the grand injustice of this generation simply refuse to look at the snipe change apart from the blaster buffs.

Certain builds was a reference to certain high end IO builds, typically farming builds. I should never have posted that, as the game is not balanced around them anyway. Average Joe blaster vs Average John brute, On SO's or even partial IO builds, the blaster will wipe a spawn faster, by a good amount.

As for your list of build up replacements, I think you are in short company when it comes to that idea. Go pole the blaster forum, with the suggestion of "replace all versions of build up with freezing rain" and see what kind of response you get. The utility of what you are trying to compare, is not even something you can try to compare.

Also, energy manipulation gets build up. And has to use power boost, and very, very high recharge IO bonuses to get what people keep trying to call perma fast snipe. Clicking aim, build up, and power boost in sequence, intermittently, would be mildly disruptive to an attack chain anyway, and rather annoying to boot, all to try to leverage a 20% increase in ST DPS. You can also do this with enough targets in Soul Drain I hear. Either way, sounds like a "cost" of its own. Bottom line, devices is the only blaster secondary that gets the snipe mechanic without specific efforts to achieve it, or a not-insignificant amount of IO's, or both.

SO, anyway, I am sure I "misunderstood" your malaise shrouded arguments yet again, so feel free to point out how and where by changing your point of perspective on your own statements once again.

Blasters cant get fast snipe from tactics because: Build up.
Lets say we turned the tables. Lets say blasters could get it from tactics too. Would people be on here gnashing teeth because def/cor dont have build up to go along with fast snipe like blasters get? "And they get build up/nuke too!!" just curious on your stance on that one.

Because, if you say "no, because blasters need the buff" then you are ignoring the potential of the defensive changes and placeing more importance/result on a ST DPS increase of 20% or so above new powers that give recovery better then slotted stamina, significant regen buffs, etc. If you say "yes" then I do not understand what the problem is.

Err, because said support AT will, by design, pass the snipe buff along to every person on the team, even if they do not build for the snipe change? Blasters wont. Sure appears to be a notable difference.

LOL, again. Do you not remember your own argument? Its only a page back. You brought up a single power that was changed to conform to the then new DPA formula(alongside a lot of other animation changes because weopon redraw was removed, etc) as an argument to my statement that ST dmg is not nearly as important under the new reward/time balance metric the devs favor as the overall governer to the game.
So yeah, it got changed, so that it would compare to powers in other sets. Are we comparing moonbeam to psi lance or somthing? How does anything about ST DPS really become supremely important here when AOE dmg totally trumps anything we could discuss when it comes to reward/time? Even between AT's? Is fast snipe fire/time corruptor going to break the rewards/time metric because of a 20% ST DPS increase, when compared alongside a claws/elec brute in AE? So, again, I am not sure why you brought up Energy Transfer in relation to this.

Hyperbole. Blasters dont need to have defenses on par with scrappers or brutes. because they can kill faster. They just need enough of a boost to not eat carpet so often, so that they can keep rampaging through spawns. They will still die more then the others, but they will also defeat spawns faster, and have the advantage on teams of not being in the fray getting pounded unless they want to. Despite the hyperbolic ramblings of many on the forums, scrappers and brutes do not dish out AOE destruction(outside of a very select few builds) like a blaster can.

I would agree with this. The "contacts" system was basically directly ported from hero side and unfortunatly did not get enough attention when CoV beta was going on, as most players were concerned about the new AT's. Really, "contacts" should have been almost exclusively unlocked by saving them in missions, or buying their services. in a way, sort of like the brokers, but they ALL should have worked that way.

for instance, instead of having to go run some errend, you could be rolling through town, and pick a random door to find random guys to fight inside, or none at all even, and random loot to gain. be it money, or componants or shematcis for some device(that you could sell if you didnt want to use it) and occasionally some guy you would have an option of saving(or disposing of).
This way, you are doing your own thing for your own gains. and that guy you (maybe) saved? He will show up on your map, and you can go to him for information. not"hey thanks for saving my bacon, now go bust up that casino" but more, " I hear there is going to be a pricey jewel in xxxxx warehouse until 4 ocklock" and then you can go there, or not. Or maybe that guy is a traitor and when you go there you get ambushed. Maybe if you tipped him for the info he would be more reliable.

There should be the normal story arcs, but they needed to have some rewards not tied to "being a good guy" like a lot of them feel now. Like rikti war zone. I would love it if you could go into a rikti cave/base, and instead of saving some longbow or fighting the boss, you could steel some rikti tech and leave. And then sell it. or use it to build a ray gun. or use it to build a portal generator, and then summon a portal full of hostile rikti wherever you want, like say, in the longbow base, or next to Seer Marino, or in that warehouse with the jewel so the guards are distracted.

See, thats a villain. You do it for money, or to further some plot, or just for fame. "Did you hear Villain X let a bunch of Rikti loose inside the university and then punched the Dean in the nose and robbed the storehouse of it's Impervium?!!" You know, that kind of thing.

Those story arcs about "that'd be bad for buisness", even in the morality tip missions- they would mean a lot more if there was actually "buisness" going on.

meh, i am not going to rehash countless threads of discussions already had about balance metrics and St dmg. ST attacks are balanced against themselves, so that sets compare well. that itself has no relevence to reward/time or anything else really in this thread, so i wonder why you brought it up anyway, hence my LOL.

Self contained performance is your stance then?

OK, so the blaster can get the fast snipe sometimes, more often if they build for it. Devices, the black sheep of the family, can get it easily to make up for no build up. Because blasters do not need massive increases in DPS, this should all be dandy. Snipes are given a perk that makes them interesting, and a way to use it if you want to build for it.

The def/cor can get snipes, if they build for it, using TEAM BASED POWERS. So, their self contained performace will increase, by cost of power choice, and endo costs of team based powers. Still seems dandy to me. Or they could ignore snipes, not have to take the leadership pool(which has costs balanced around team benefit, not solo benefit) and not have to spend the endo running tactics. Without tactics, you have Time, which may or may not deserve the perk of "easy" fast snipes. To me, this may be the one single point of contention you have a leg to stand on, and honestly i do not see it as a deal breaker under any light. If you think Time does not deserve this ability of its own merits, then go argue somewhere to have it changed so its to hit does not stack with other sources. Wont hurt my feelings. Otherwise you are saying solo cor/def should not be able to get fast snipe by choosing a pool power toggle designed and balanced around team use.

I dont much agree with anything you are saying at this point. Especially how team performance is irrelevent. Really? the new mechanics and how they perform on a support AT in a team setting dont matter? K.

Indeed. And solo, blasters dont need anything offensively IMO. They need defense. And they will be getting some in the changes to the secondaries. Blasters kill stuff plenty fast. they just eat carpet plenty fast too.

And so we are back to changing snipes, you know, without considerations about survivability to muddy the waters. Because that part of it will be taken care of elsewhere. If you choose not to take a snipe for whatever reason, that is your choice. In this regard, I think the dev team hit the nail on the head. If it was easier to get, then they might as well have just thrown out the power all together and made tier 4 blasts and said "yay! swords for everyone!!". If they make it much harder, people will just ignore the powers and write them off as too situational, just like they do now. I think giving it to support AT's "easier"(through the use of team based powers) was a brilliant move, because it puts snipes right in the middle- some solo builds will make good use of it, and some team builds will make good use of it while at the same time passing it along to others too. In this way, the snipes will see enough fast snipe to feel worth it, but not so much as to suddenly become the uber ultimate attack power for everyone.

Corruptors and defenders can have that solo benefit because they are a team AT. You say they solo better, possibly, then blasters. Maybe thats why we are getting blaster buffs in I24?


LOL, at your rebuttle to my ST dmg point. A change made to one power, BEFORE there were even any rewards to gain? Well, unless you count PvP kills i suppose. Pretty sure IO's have changed the reward/time balance tool since issue 7. We can revisit this again if you can, say, find something to point out to me changed from incarnates forward.

Blasters dont need the ST DPS buff. They can get it anyway, intermittently, and also any time they get onto a team with support AT's that provide it. besides, solo, they already have an advantage to dmg output: build up. the one set without build up will get the St DPS buff through target drone and fast snipe anyway. Seems like a pretty good starting point for balance to me, blasters can sometimes get it, but they get build up, support AT's can get it more easily, but dont have build up and will pass the buff along to blasters on teams to boot. The defensive disparity will be taken care of with upcoming changes to secondaries, which is the real change blasters need as an AT.


As for objectivity, you bring up blaster changes like defiance, which points to the changes coming to the secondaries, and then say snipes, which is a change to all AT's, is relevant to be considered in an objective view of blaster survivability because support AT's can get it easier. And so we return to my first post. You see, you keep saying how you hold no hope for the blaster changes, hence, it is very important that the snipe stuff is done right. I find that to be an illogical transition. Blasters need to be propped up defensively, which is the goal of the coming changes to the AT.

Snipes, and yes nukes, need to be changed, because the current versions are simply clunky and not fun. IMO, the proposed changes will be fun, and remain balanced. They are not being changed because blasters need a defensive pass as an AT. def/cor getting to fast snipe easier is not somehow going to be detrimental to blasters survivability. It is also not going to give those two AT's a megaton advantage in dmg output, and will give no advantage when teamed.

The idea snipes benefit support AT's more then blasters is your opinion. I do not share that opinion, mostly because the route they take to achieve this state comes almost entirely from powers that affect the whole team. So, the real benefit then is when considering solo play. IMO, if you choose to solo an AT designed for team play, it is OK to have a fast snipe. if you team up with your fast snipe, then the people you team with will also have fast snipe, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT BUILD FOR IT. Blasters on the other hand, will not benefit their team mates, likely because they are not viewed as a purpose built team AT as defenders are. Thats why one is called "support AT" and the other isnt.
I also do not share the opinion that support AT's would be somehow broken by adding this bit of ST DPS. Because, again, it is for solo play only that this is even a consideration. because after all, again, on a team that same route to perma snipes will grant it to every blaster on the team.

I have stated in other threads that IMO, the devs do not consider a boost to ST DPS to be a major event. The game is balanced around rewards/time. ST dps is largely irrelevent to this metric, as shown by the big brother is watching code put in place for AE. ST attacks were not the ones triggering reward reductions. So, the idea ST dps on a support AT is somehow going to throw the game off it's axis is, to me, laughable. Especially when, again, as soon as that support AT invites another snipe user to the team, the "advantage" becomes moot.

Funny that isnt it, how a support AT would have an easier time getting perma snipes, USING TEAM BASED POWERS, so you know, they would have an easy way to grant that same bonus to every snipe user on the team, thus, supporting the team. Crazy stuff.

As for the blaster changes, the dev team has already stated if the proposed changes end up falling short, then they will add more buffage until they do not fall short any longer. This is why they should be considered objectively, not as some kind of tag along to crashless nukes and snipe changes. Because, they will be altered until they are sufficient on their own merits to keep a blaster upright in the same situations other AT's can also remain upright, to the point where blasters do not fall behind the average leveling speed anymore. It is likely the changes will get tweeked in beta, and then datamined on live for a good amount of time, and possibly revisited if the AT still warrants it. It is then a rather good thing the changes to the blast sets are happening at the same time, so that when the data mine begins, the devs know there wont be any notable changes in the future on the offensive side of the equation, allowing them to focus on the defensive side down the road if the need arises.


Its all pretty crazy right? Almost like the dev team thought about this for a while before announcing it to players, as opposed to having a brain blast in the shower in the morning and then blurting it out on a dev chat two hours later as many here feel must be the case.

I am fairly certain the shard will see a revamp similar to dark astoria(though possibly not with solo content in mind) as a place to work on things like omega slot. Whats scarier then Tyrant? How bout Rularuu. Incarnate level eyeball enemies....shiver.... take that defense bonus IO builds!

I must correct you on this. It was not that players didnt want hazard zones, it was that the dev team running the game way back then decided they wanted players to do missions. So they ramped up mission completion XP. I know currently mission completion XP doesnt feel really all that great compared to the amount you get from critters now, especially bosses, but thats because they changed the XP for them too, a while later. At the time of the original mission XP change, it was rather significant. This was combined with a "half debt while in a mission" change, again, significant when the leveling XP curve was outrageous and debt was actually potent enough to be a real detriment.

Prior to those changes, the player base was more then happy to street sweep both city zones and hazard zones, in fact especially hazard zones(carny town comes to mind) because you could find huge spawns on a smaller team which increased challenge and also reward rate for skilled players.

And so I must correct you- the hazard zones are ghost towns by the dev's own design.

When critter XP was changed again, there was a very brief revival of zone sweeps with small teams, but soon after they snuck in some code that made the hazard zone spawns react to team size(they used to just be huge spawns. i mean huge like 15-20 minions with a liut or two and a boss in there) so now a small team gets to face mid size or even smaller spawns. That was basically the cement shoes for the zones, and no one has looked back since.

The reason for the dev's desire to corral people into missions? "We spend all this time making these cool stories and maps, and nobody goes in them because they would rather run around on the streets blasting bad guys". Or something akin to that anyway. I actually miss making a new hero, entering Galaxy City and patroling the streets near the hospitol, rescuing citizens from thug activity like muggings. Saving that lady who was getting assaulted by some purse snatcher, and then having her run up to me to thank me after just never got old. I would save people while traveling between missions, against grey cons, just because it was the right thing to do, even if it is just a silly game. It was HEROIC. It was what originally made my wife start playing the game, she watched me save a few helpless ladies and wanted to "save people too". There's still a few legacy spawns around town that you can still do that in, but really those types of little things have gotten left behind in favor of stopping the aliens from destroying the multiverse. But I suppose I am just being nostalgic.

So, TLDR: the devs made a conscious decision to push players from one content type to another. It was not a change brought about by the players. The dev team is responsible for players abandoning the zones they created through the changes they made.

No way!! Bodyguard mode and provoke FTW!