Garent

Funny, I had a really similar idea from that.

I don't believe it's necessary to alienate either group. I fully believe that it's possible to buff blasters in such a way that they continue to appeal to the second group while bringing back the people who were pushed away because they realized they could do better things on other characters with the same amount of effort. I didn't fully support ANY of the proposed blaster changes, but I definitely supported blaster changes in general.

Your issue isn't really with blasters being buffed though. Your issue is with the difficulty level of the entire game. This is a perfectly valid issue, and is one that I share. Pushing for blasters to be the final hold out of a trinity based game that hasn't existed for years isn't the way to address that issue though. It's neither the most efficient way of addressing the issue nor is it one with a chance of happening.

Is English your second language?

For corruptors and defenders, yes, I did. VEATs are the most overpowered thing in the game and I opposed the nuke changes on them for that reason, but defenders and corruptor damage is inferior to controllers at many level ranges (especially max level) when you compare the same buff/debuff set and a similar 'tier' of blast set to control set.

I would have preferred controllers getting nerfed, but that's an unrealistic expectation.

He looks like this.

Because of the focus of the game and the type of playerbase it attracted as a result of that, I consider that to be a smart move. Other games focus on increasing the length of the experience, while City of Heroes has been focused on increasing its width, and has only relatively recently gained a "end game" which most other MMOs are focused on. The game has always been casual/solo friendly. The only times in the game's history where any sort of high end performance was expected from people's characters were the periods after the LRSF and STF were released and before inventions were being well utilized by the player base, and the period in super secret closed beta where we were testing incarnate trials before any incarnate abilities were released. The only true challenges remaining in the game are ones arbitrarily created by the player base, which means they're only relevant to a particular person if they choose to make them so.

I thought we were past teasing vagueness like this.

Radiation blast has always been energy, so I can understand why this set is mostly energy as well. Then again, radiation blast was released before toxic damage existed. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with radiation blast being changed to toxic or split toxic/energy damage.

Like Starsman said, pretty much every armor set that's been released or tweaked since willpower has been unbelievably overpowered at first. Some of them continued to be so even after being massively nerfed.

Radiation melee looks really cool though. I like its gimmick.

This is the fallacy that many "anti-balance" people commit. They believe that game balance is impossible to achieve without all of the players using the exact same playstyle. Unless one's vision of balance is extremely restricting, this is not the case. It is completely possible, and has been done many times before, to make something perform at a similar performance level to its peers without significant changes to its playstyle. In fact, I would say that many of the buffs in the game have greatly -improved- class distinction, variety, and fun. Dominators are the first thing to come to mind.

This shouldn't have an impact. A 10% resistance debuff will always increase your damage output by 10%.

Is that a singular your or a plural your? If you're speaking about me in particular, I think you're mistaken due to being somewhat autistic. Either that or you are genuinely pulling the same bait and switch that everyone who has been on the internet for over a year has seen.

I think you're easily impressed if you're surprised that being abrasive and throwing your weight around provoked a negative response.

Based on the conversation the forums had with Castle over the aggro system, I think it's very likely there's no one who is ABLE to tell us the exact formula. It's very fortunate that the style of the game meant that we never really needed to quantify aggro.

Many people feel better about themselves if they decide that the part of the game they focus on and care about is the only one that matters and that anyone should care about. If you define what 'good' is, then you will always be 'good'.

Thanks.