Krouget1

I don't think he expected to receive all 4 by now, but if he has honestly ran 115 and not received any, I think it's understandable how discouraging it can be (especially when your gauge for drops is someone you can closely monitor, who managed 4 in less than half the time, by what's claimed).

It's the downside of having a partially random system, where reaching the minimum qualification for the reward, doesn't necessarily correlate with any extra effort and/or overall time invested.

I'd like to say I somewhat understand why the devs chose this method for rewards, and there are workarounds, but I can't think of many systems where I'd willingly call these conditions favorable. I'm a bigger advocate of the reward being equal to the contribution and time invested, among other criteria (but understand the downside to this, too). I haven't kept count of how many trials I've ran, but I'm positive I've received 2 very rares within the first 20-30 successful attempts. I consider that lucky, if I'm using the acquisition of 30 Emp merits as a gauge.

IMO, the tier 4's aren't that good that I think they should take months at a time to unlock. However, it's also interesting to see what people's impression of 'quick' is, in context of how long the realistic expectation is to unlock them (especially when currently angled towards repeating two trials, daily). For now, it is what it is.

To the OP,

Can't say much more than try and follow the suggestions, and wish you better luck.

I can't count the amount of times such a situation has presented itself, where I'd have to decide-- especially given the large team-oriented nature of the trials. I'll take any and all buffs.

EmperorSteele raises a valid point. While the buffs are certainly available, there are only certain periods on a TF where the team works cohesively enough to make use of them. Even buffing when in a group, it's not uncommon for players to stand around for some seconds before attacking, which wastes the better portion of the buff period.

I'm one of those players who likes to push the pace. I'll gladly take both, but won't ever deny a good defense buff which allows me to play to potential for 4 minutes.

Just to note, you have some builds which don't see a huge sacrifice in Damage/Recharge for the defense. It's also arguable as to whether or not focused dmg/rech builds outperform the latter, especially when taking into account the player piloting a given build (I find this to be the greater factor, really).

My main blaster is more oriented towards dmg/rech, and methods exist to boost survival when you aren't relying on direct defense, but it's made even easier when I can effectively avoid being the first to die on the team. As they say, you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the next guy-- in this context, it means generous use of PB'd veng if I'm on an inefficient team. If the team is more than capable of holding it's own, there are typically fewer problems.

Variety is a good thing. Play what most suits your play style, but remain open to other styles which work.

Agreed if taken literally, but in more general terms, a dmg/rech oriented build can take advantage of low/soft control powers, especially if it enables greater damage in the long run.

My fire/em makes ample use of power thrust on bosses, which specifically opens up a full damage chain before they can return to their feet. There are other mitigation methods, but it's arguably helping damage output, and not so much disrupting it, given the quick animation time and ability to queue an attack to fire from the same rooted position.

With Aim being a 62.5% damage buff, how are you accounting for the additional ~10%+ damage bonus (I'm assuming a blaster at rest)?

Indeed. I ran an ITF just yesterday, and the DoT from reactive alone, was in the 250,000+ total damage range, only behind fireball (260,000+), in total damage contribution. Considering it's 'free' damage, that's a nice boost...and it's only at 50% chance, currently, as I need the T4.

Though it may touch on the category of character creation, if you have the slot to spare, consider a 2-slotted hurdle in combination with combat jumping. The two together almost deliver suppression-less movement, and will give you an advantage as you change ranges to maximize cones, AoE, and melee damage, as well as an active defense. This is especially the case if you can joust and kite to properly set up your next attack, and 'avoid' some of the rooting/animation times.

High damage and recharge is always great, but delivering the combination of the two more efficiently is just as important.

Since you're sold on Rad, but also want the resist debuffs, consider slotting the Achilles Heel: chance for -res proc into your rad attacks.

It's not just damage, but consistent ranged burst damage. At the point we consider a team’s performance to be strong enough to invalidate a good blasters ability, that same team wouldn't miss a scrapper, brute, tank, dom, etc. for the respective added survivability.

However, in my specific example, I alluded to the added benefit of ranged high burst potential, giving blasters and other key ranged ATs, first strike ability, in addition to the AoE potential previously praised, and buff caps high enough to make most content a negligible threat. Keeping within the realm of reason, I touched on this not being absolutely critical for a team to steamroll content, but it’s a valid counter-argument to the idea that blasters aren't good on teams.

From my perspective, your point reinforces the dominance of force multipliers in the game, not so much that blasters need tweaking-- much less to levels which would make them stand out on a team that dominant.

This overlooks the point that in the initial barrage of AoE, that it's my blaster commonly landing in the initial salvo, killing mobs, because of high burst damage, with ranged priority. It also neglects the fact that there are many preemptive buffs which enable that potential, which don't rely on a specific enemy target.

This isn't to say FS isn't helpful, but I'll say there can be a synergy between the two-- if it's in my interest to get the damage boost, then I'll make it a point to close to the appropriate range to get the boost. Unless we're just being unreasonable, it's no more an automatic death sentence for my blaster, than it is for the Kin alerting the mobs with FS (or if it's coming after a mez, then I'm near guaranteed safety). If the consideration is that the Kin is at least surviving reliably, then I'll also assume there are enough factors at play which will let me operate closer to potential, both in theory and actual practice.

I'd agree. Extremes in any argument tend to miss the root of the problem.

I think you're being a bit selective in the emphasis you're placing on the performance depreciation here, but I'm not going to argue it, so much as I'm going to ask for clarification:

Are you stating that for their lack of survivability when solo, that any combination of blaster power set(s) should clearly outdo all other ATs in damage (ST, Ranged, and AoE)?

Or are you saying we should have something more subtle, like increased solo viability?

In either case, to what degree are you advocating, and how will that translate to teaming (if at all)?

It can't become less efficient than the next AoE dealer, unless something specifically counteracts just the blaster AoE contribution, and nobody else's. If the difficulty is affecting everyone equally, then the blaster is no more or less efficient in the hierarchy, than they were before. If you're highlighting the fact that as difficulty rises, you want more force multipliers filling the rank of teams, then that much still holds true...but blasters aren't unique in that respect. If you're inferring they should be the first to go among non-buff ATs, I think that's very debatable and situational.

Lastly, if you want to make sure mobs stay within the radius of the AoEs, there are multiple ways to accomplish or approach that. I just can't say I'm interested at this time, but you're not wrong in that it’s a concern.

Not just scrappers, but a few other ATs, up until the point where content becomes difficult enough to warrant replacing them, in favor of more force multipliers. Most content, however, isn't that difficult, meaning blasters still remain valuable on these capable/high end teams.

Certainly true. I'll add that on these same teams, they can be carried by 2-4 players, comfortably.

But again, it highlights established facts. Force multiplying ATs are strongest when they stick together. Scrappers and other melee ATs are equipped to be self-sustainable, albeit at a slower pace.

You've created an amalgam of points here, which don't necessarily get argument from me because I previously stated them. Most other ATs are better soloist, though I'll say on many buff-centric teams, control also goes out the window.

I'm 100% in agreement, on this specific point. We're just in disagreement as to which qualities, or lack thereof, support a reason for a buff.

This really doesn't reflect my in-game experience-- or at the very least, it doesn't hold any more true for my Blaster, than it does another AT.

I play with super-teams pretty regularly, and it's usually a matter of who fires the first to third AoE, depending on the attack, as the burst damage does the job. In my specific case, that's happening every 4ish seconds, before buffs, from ~80+ ft out, with staggered usage of Aim and BU (5 sec. downtime between the two, when used this way). Any hard(er) targets are usually dropped in a barrage of ST spike damage, but its less likely anyone is repeating a chain, unless it's an EB or AV.

Either way, it's not abnormal to force the pace of any melee AT(s) who are present, who typically have to close to melee distance for PBAoE, excluding patron AoEs. In this same scenario, FS usage is actually trivialized, as the mobs are usually dead before it can be cast for full effect-- the same holds true for longer animating rad debuffs, for example. In other words, it's not making or breaking the teams speed, as again, 2-3 AoEs clear most mobs, while a combined damage spike drops bosses as the team is on it's way to the next group. Range and the first strike ability of blasters, doms, defenders, SoA, etc. usually take precedence. Being more sturdy from the get-go doesn't mean much, if I'm also able to hit the soft cap for defense, etc. and kill fast enough to decrease the rate of return fire.

Nonetheless, I can't say blasters are bad at teaming, nor will I say it requires any special dedication that a good player doesn't already exercise. Playing to your strengths, it's more a matter of force multipliers acting in unison with a ranged AT, that has a good amount of AoE and ST burst potential.

In my experience, I'd lean towards no. However, it depends which qualities we're assigning to a *good* team.

While there are many obvious exceptions, I've found 1 of 2 things to usually be the case:

1. The team is good, and it moves comfortably or rapidly through content.

2. The team isn't so good, and moves slowly and/or with lots of deaths.

In the former team, a good player on a blaster should have no real issues, and/or is likely to have buff support. I'm lucky enough to frequent these teams, but I consider myself to be one among a group of experienced players, so there isn't so much need for personal survivability. We're reinforced by good builds, we know each others play styles, we know the content, and embrace the force multiplication idea. You pretty much have to be trying to throw something off, in order to fail. This makes the answer to your question a pretty comfortable "no".

On the 2nd type of team (usually a PUG), I'd say the answer leans toward "yes"-- but personal survivability doesn't need to be passive power selections or soft defense caps, on paper. For example, I get a feel for the team first, and I'm a lot more selective with power usage to minimize aggro, especially before laying on the AoEs. If the team is just bad, then it's usually in my interest to survive longer than the next player, so I can powerboost veng, and assist in carrying things, while using other tactics to survive. There have been times where after a PB'd veng, I could then set a kill pace quick enough to bring in inspiration to top things off, while allowing me to keep moving, in combination with accolades, phase shifts, etc. or other small perks like the chance for KD, properly timed patron holds, and use of KB on bosses. All of these help to boost survivability, in a more active respect, or at least retard the amount of incoming damage vs my outgoing damage-- it gets back to being an experienced player.

Would I like more personal survivability? Sure thing, and as you've stated, there are a lot of good points in this thread to back it. However, there is always a tricky balance to be established.

While true to some degree, in a game balanced for SOs, this isn't really the case. IO's have largely enabled all ATs to shine with copious amounts of +rech or +def, for example, which have served to close a lot of gaps between players builds. Playing solo without IO's, there is no way I'm alternating lightning rod/shield charge every 11ish seconds, while running around at the defense soft cap.

With SO balance as the consideration, my attack chain would typically include a greater number of powers, and even then, it may not be seamless. In this regard, I can't say having access to them is a waste. Just the opposite, it provides more depth to the gameplay, by making power usage more situational.

This is a bit misleading, as you're cherry picking specific power sets from an AT. My Earth/Ta or Electric/Sonic troller's, for example, will largely fall behind most blaster power sets, by comparison, and will most definitely fall behind my Fire/EM or DP/FM blasters in a head-to-head measure of damage in burst or DPS (with or without IOs).

This isn't to say other AT's can't dish it out-- but it doesn't disqualify blasters as offensive "juggernauts". A well played blaster (or player, rather) is an asset.

The descriptions have always been a bit sensational, but yes, I do. I don't take it as a literal representation, but with a blaster, there is not much question as to what my contribution is. Arguably, there are sets which overlap, but in general, I'm not emphasizing or meeting expectations to buff or control-- I'm putting up orange numbers, in range, melee, or AoE quantities, as the situation dictates.

My herostats data only reinforces this, as opposed to my Doms, Brutes, etc. (who while they certainly do high damage, also have other interest in play).

However, I'll gladly accept more damage on my blaster, if that's where this is going.

I'd have to agree. My main blaster also enjoys Ageless as a remedy to my nuke end crash. I can't say I've been marginalized in any way, which didn't exist before-- especially with my regular team of players who solo content for eight.

Depends who you team with, or how you look at it.

If you fall in action, then we just powerboost veng off you, and continue...

Blaming takes time. Keep it moving...

Me: "What's this scrapperlock thing? (joking)"
SG partner: "Something you had, way before you ever made a scrapper..."

Lol.

One of my SG mates, in response to a rhetorical question about "what this scrapperlock" thing was, stated: "it was something you had before you ever rolled a scrapper".

Its fun with squishies, too.

Not that I encounter behaviors anywhere close to what most on the forums seem to contend with daily, but the last time I experienced this on my Kin, I twice had to inform the leader that I wasn't a healer and left the team-- not because I had a chip on my shoulder, but due to the fact that I could, and was, contributing far more with my other abilities, as opposed to spamming transfusion in the hopes of landing the power on the enemy, and then hopefully healing anyone within range who didn't bolt off as their bars dipped into orange.

Designating a player as a healer by virtue of having a heal, is a terrible way to pigeonhole players into a specific role. This isn't to say that HP support is unnecessary (love that term), but when overreliance rears its head, most times, its detrimental.

So far as the math goes, no set with heals exists without buffs/debuffs, so deeming someone a ‘healer’, when the majority of their set contains buffs/debuffs, still doesn’t make sense. When players make calls for a healer, they literally are interested in powers which have ally heal effects, which as others have stated, are not the best way to keep a team alive.