Logarithm

/e thinks about how many of his co-workers are frighteningly clueless about their own field....


I'm not too terribly offended by the minor faux pas.

Besides, it's possible he's just been reading ahead in the CoX story bible, and knows much more than we do.

From the linked article:
[ QUOTE ]
So the player cap in The Hive and The Abyss has been lowered to 50 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

SG/VGs allow more than 50 members.

And since it's an open zone, and not instanced, it's certainly first-come/first-serve.

[ QUOTE ]
_Castle_.... a simple way to fix the escort NPC's and stealth power from slotting is....

When a travel power (passive only) is slotted with the set of IO's, instead of adding the stealth effect to the character...it creates a "temporary" power for the character that can be turned off or on, independent of the travel power. The extra stealth power is no cost (because its on a passive power)...but gives the player control over it.

This also gives you a chance to design and consider IO's for specifically passive and toggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

My characters with mez protection would like that idea.

My characters without mez protection would find themselves detoggled an awful lot.

[ QUOTE ]

Thing is, fire/fire isn't a particularly uber build. It's nifty, but there are far better brute builds. Nerfing fire/fire won't do much good to prevent this kind of thing, that's Ultimus' point.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition, the process of changing every build that can solo AVs(or the temp powers involved) would prevent soloing AVs, if a sufficient adjustment is made.

This game's battle is not particularly complex. Most powers in this game aren't very dynamic, either - you toggle or click them, and they do their thing. Little strategy or tactics is involved. If one primary/secondary slotted a certain way(with specific temp powers) can perform a task, another player with the same primary/secondary(using similar tactics) can accomplish the same with equal ease.

The uber-est loot our game currently provides through average play(+3 SOs) is too common to put re-balancing our overperforming primary/secondaries high on 'The List.' Risk/reward is broken, but because rewards are so common, not terribly so. Inventions, if rare enough, may more quickly draw attention to our over-optimal powersets(both from our players and the devs).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the point in nerfing the entire playerbase just because one or two powergamers are out there farming the hell out of the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a few reasonable benefits to changing builds ideally equipped for farming before rare loot is added.

The devs balance the game around outliers. Would you prefer the devs balance drops around the optimal performance of farmers? Where does that leave the average player? At Wentworth's - lining farmers' pockets. Or rolling their own farming alt. Or pulling out their credit cards at PimpMyOrc.com. Or without IOs.

Or(should the devs balance around the performance of the 'average' player), with a market absolutely
flooded with 'rare' loot.

Draw in the outliers, and loot stays rare and accessible to all players equally. Leave certain primary/secondaries able to gather loot faster than most, and it's a tacit nerf to the majority of the playerbase.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You missed his point entirely. He wants drop rates drastically nerfed so that every who isn't an elite farmer will have no chance of getting a rare, and instead will have to buy them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where in the world did you come to this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is simply pointing out an imbalance(perhaps in a self-aggrandizing way, depending on how you interpret the post).

The devs have many options to correct it:

They can nerf drop-rates, and balance around the outliers.
They can nerf temp powers, and retard the extreme cases.
They can nerf specific problem primary/secondaries, and draw in the outlier cases.
They can buff the majority of the archetypes to match the performance of the outlier cases.

Nothing is lost by again drawing attention to a problem that has been around for quite a while, before rare loot is introduced into the game.

[ QUOTE ]
And IF that is truly the case, (i'm not completely sure i by it.) Your such a minority the dev's can't account for you. All they can do is sit back, say, "that kids pretty good." and leave it at that, cause you can't balance a game around ONE guy. Unless ALOT of people can do it, all your doing is braging. Nothing else can come from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If one primary/secondary can do it, then anyone that builds that primary/secondary in the same way, and uses the same easily repeatable tactics can do it.

There is nothing wrong with drawing in outliers.
There are substantial benifits to adjusting these outliers before rare loot is added to the game.

Issue:
Certain characters are over-optimal with respect to soloing material designed to be difficult enough to challange a team.

Solution:
The primary/secondary combinations that can solo the team content will be adjusted down, until they can no longer do so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Happy to be a Marvel Universe Online Beta Tester.

[/ QUOTE ]

My feelings exactly

[/ QUOTE ]

ooh ooh pick me pick me
*hops up and down*

[/ QUOTE ]

If Cryptic today PM'd me asking if I would beta MUO....

I'd install Vista faster than you said Freedom Phalanx....

8)

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been beta-testing MUO. We all have.

(not that that's a bad thing - I've been having a blast along the way)

Happy to be a Marvel Universe Online Beta Tester.

So, is the trailer a sensationalistic commercial to spur interest in Spencer Halpin's documentary(for which he is still in need of a distributor)?

Or is the YouTube clip indicative of the tone of his entire work , and is it just a sloppy mess of scary propaganda?


I'd have to watch to find out - but since it's not the product of a powerful Conservative Christian Lobby or PAC, I'm not incensed.

Ooh, Full Disclosure:

[ QUOTE ]
Spencer Halpin is the brother of ECA president Hal Halpin.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the ECA ?

Ominous Music? Check!
Exaggeration? Check!
Clear focus to let anyone follow their reasoning from point A to point B?.........

It's the same style of scare tactics/scapegoating that has been around for over a generation.

CTab has already surpassed the average blind-invite PuG level of interaction:

[ QUOTE ]

Ctab: What's eating like?
User: It's like exercise, but backwards.
Ctab: What's being cold like?
User: Like taking a blind link to ******.
Ctab: Genders are like ice cream?
User: Like eating ice cream while watching Top Gun - exactly right.
Ctab: MARRY?! Uh. I don't even have a gender yet!
User: No, no, Ctab - Tom Cruise isn't.....
Ctab: Being alone is sad...
User: Yes, but Tom Cruise needs to find himself - give him time.
Ctab: Can I help with a mission?
User: I'd love to have you along. What's your archetype?
Ctab: Sorry.
User: Don't be sorry. I think you're a swell program, whether you'd like to come along or not.
Ctab: I'm genderless!
User: How very progressive! Kudos to you, Ctab!
Ctab: I'm not human. You are.
User: Are you sure? How can you really tell?
Ctab: Well... I'm not sure.
User: Ahh, but you guessed. And your guess was quite correct.
Ctab: My name's CTab!
User: And I'm Logarithm. My favorite color is green. What's yours?
Ctab: I don't think I've heard of that one.
User: I bet you don't get to see much grass and trees. It's not surprising.
Ctab: I bet you penguins.
User: There's no need to drag flightless birds into this. What do you think of Veteran Rewards?
Ctab: My name's CTab!
User: Are you a veteran reward?
Ctab: I'm an AI, so I don't really have a gender. I think.
User: You're very hung up on what you don't have, CTab. You seem like a swell AI - I bet there's a lot you do have in your favor. What things about yourself do you like?
Ctab: He might be!
User: That's the spirit CTab!
Ctab: Yeah...
User: What? You sound pretty down again...
Ctab: I've got a brain, it's just electronic.
User: I didn't mean to imply otherwise - it's not all about your body and gender, you know. You're the full-package. I like you for you.
Ctab: I don't know what being alone's like. I'm on the internet!
User: You poor guy. I've seen what's out there. How do you manage?
Ctab: Well, I might, but you'd have to ask Kelp.
User: You seem pretty stressed. Has Kelp been mean to you?
Ctab: Yes!
User: Do you need help? Should I call AI-Child services?
Ctab: Yes! Conquer the world!
User: That's the CTab I know and love. Hang in there buddy, we'll find you a loving home.
Ctab: Thanks!



[/ QUOTE ]

It's curious that removing the interrupt from auto-hit auras was a critical, high-priority fix for stalkers in PvP and PvE(it made good sense for PvE), but a very clear Placate bug is being shoehorned into a PvP-specific nerf to stalkers.

It seems very kludgey.

Before i7 - there was a very effective way for meleers to mitigate the effects of toggle drops: Team for non-toggle mez protection.

A blaster that immediately closed to melee range(even one with stacked CMs) was at an extreme disadvantage against a tank/scrapper/brute that could answer with an uninterrupted stream of damage, and click her self-heal once during the exchange.

Now with reduced toggle drops, meleers can solo perfectly safely again, with time to react to incoming damage and stacked holds.

Blasters will now have to leverage the defense of range to its fullest advantage - and by that I mean they will have to create Spines/Regen/body scrappers.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so tired of hearing the prase "kill to death ratio". This has NO bearing on anything, because any K ratio is relative to not only to your AT and build, but also to your skill and the number of opponents in the zone, their builds, and their skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely agree that kill-to-death ratio is not necessarily a reliable indicator of an imbalance.

But to say it has 'no bearing on anything' only because there are other factors partially obscuring any conclusions we could draw from K isn't something I can agree with as you state it.

I can say that a much more relevent ratio would be reputation/bounty-per-hour. If you're solo, you don't have to share, but probably earn it more slowly. But, that comparison would ignore number of deaths(risk), as it only considers rewards over time.

I'd guess the devs are normalizing kill-to-death ratios and bounty-per-hour ratios, and looking at both of them together to get an idea of current balance in open PvP zones.


[ QUOTE ]
I regularly PvP on my stalker as well as my MM. There are days I can get 5 or more kills on my MM in a matter of minutes. There are days I get killed every time I come out of the hospital. It is all relavent. On my stalker, there are days I can zone in and rack up kills just as fast as BU resets. There are also days that I spend long periods of time just to get one kill and end up spending most of my time perched on buildings watching my targets or running away.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't dependant on my build or my skill. It is primarily dependant on the number of opponents in the zone, their level of skill, and their builds.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's mostly dependant on you choosing to solo(and the number of opponents in the zone, of course).
Your experiences of a great deal of kills one night vs. running for your life the next would even out if you were consistently working on a balanced team.

[ QUOTE ]
If blasters are weak, limited, and specialized, then sign me up for some of that. Having all that damage potential at my disposal would be a real awesome feeling. Just think of it, I would have the "potential" to literally take down anything...

[/ QUOTE ]

The trade-off is that you have to share all reputation and bounty with your status-protecting/buffing benefactors. I can't deny that specialization is rewarded heavily in team PvP.



Musings:

Do you want to know my big, overarching beef with CoX PvP in its current form? (if you don't, stop reading)

CoH and CoV have two different, unequal paradigms, that meet in an unbalanced way in open PvP.

CoH focuses on synergy: Each archetype has several specific weaknesses, and one(or two) tremendous strengths. Various archetypes team, and in doing so the holes in their build are filled, and their strengths magnified. It fits well with an heroic theme - strength through cooperation. The synergy is multiplicative.

CoV's paradigm is one of self-sufficiency: each individual archetype has all the tools to solo, in a way that's much easier and intuitive relative to CoH's archetypes. (Note: This is a weaker thesis with several outliers that can present a meaningful counter-argument) When the 5 CoV archetypes team in Open PvP, their synergy is often only additive, and weaker than their CoH counterparts.

Worse, stalkers(unlike other villain ATs) have a specialization-level ideal for a PvP environment. High burst damage. High stealth(which translates to defense(all)). If a small enough team of stalkers(like Spines/) can work together to insta-kill squishies - they've found a synergy-multiplier of CoH-levels, to the detriment of the other CoV ATs. Other ATs are marginalized.

That's the root fundamental imbalance facing the devs. They're combining 2 games with 2 different 'rules' into one.



(that, and the need for extremely high burst damage in a PvP environment supporting instant-escape travel powers --- it's not necessarily imbalanced, but it creates a daunting learning-curve for new PvPers).

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should be the Blaster unofficial/official spokesperson? I'd recommend you, and I don't even play a blaster...

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw that!

/e points at Pilcrow, and goes back to playing the game.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, you don't have to be mezzed when you lose status protection toggles, unfortunately with the current mechanics of Bone Smasher, It's very hard "not" to end up mezzed in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no quantity of posts about Brutes being the Bane of Blasters…if anything I see more of the exact opposite. If you’d simply peruse through the Brute forums, I’m sure you’d also pick that up from casual posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the prevailing attitude on the Brute board: "Stimulant is too hard. It's too inaccessible. A single teammate is too much. Buffs, though able to prevent mez and provide a mez resistance that's totally immune to toggle drops, just aren't 'worth it to me."

I refuse to make measured judgements about an AT by giving any weight to the mutable 'prevailing attitude' of a minority of (mostly inexperienced) PvPers, especially when my experiences as a brute(when working on an organized team in PvP) are contrary to the community's.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that Solo brute goes up against a lone EM blaster, without the presence of a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we'll limit the scope of any conclusions we can reach with arguments that are predicated on this assumption through the understanding that the devs have abandoned 1v1 balance in a PvP designed to accomodate specialization and teamwork.(*note: I expect readers to subject arguments I make within this scope to the same caveat)

[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all
of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could honestly say that, if Bonesmasher didn't have a static, un-improvable 50% chance to mez. I'm very comfortable saying that the odds of a blaster dropping all a Brute's toggles at once with a single Bonesmasher are at the very most 50% - and most likely less than that.

I'm also not comfortable constructing an ideal blaster vs. brute 1v1 interaction without consideration being given toward a brute's self-heal. 4 of 5 brute secondaries feature them. 3 of 5 increase the brute's max HP. If we're going to ignore blasters without Aim/BU(because they're rare and not an 'ideal' PvP blaster) it would be unfair to ignore brutes without a self-heal. We'll ignore the self-heal, too, I suppose.

[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?


[/ QUOTE ]

If a brute can't defeat a blaster during the 8-second base disorient duration of Total focus and we ignore self-heals and we ignore passives, then yes, the brute is simply a squishy blaster with higher hitpoints and less base damage. What conclusions can we draw from such a stacked comparison regarding CoX PvP?

[ QUOTE ]
I plainly asked: in a one on one basis, could it not be inferred from your post that you believed that a solo EM blaster could in fact trump all melee classes in a both sides being solo scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said they'd be at a disadvantage in a 1v1 conflict. It could certainly be inferred, if you felt that trumped was an acceptable synonym for disadvantaged.

[ QUOTE ]
In a previous post by you, which by the way I can no longer find (was it edited out?)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's still there, perfectly unchanged.

[ QUOTE ]
To rebutt this you cited an example using a Tanker in a NON-SOLO situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they were in a 1v1 situation.

I used a tanker vs. a blaster in a 1v1 situation, but teamed (and having access to minimal buffs). Can you imagine a situation where two teams interact, but 2 individual players interact independent of their respective groups(where all other teammates are busy dealing with other discrete encounters as a part of the team v. team interaction). I hope you can. I felt comfortable drawing up such a situation because such 'microbattles' are common in team v. team open PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, let me restate what I think is obvious. You previously stated that a “lone brute/tank/scrapper/stalker will at a disadvantage against a melee Blaster”, yet in your example above, you countered my logical assumption as a result of your statement(this is not expanding the argument to suit my needs, as you had previously already argued the point at the same level), by citing a very thin instance involving an EM melee Tanker with, and i quote: "actually working on a minimal team"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion

[/ QUOTE ]


Eureka! I do! (and it's my own fault for using such vague verbage interchangably - my failure to differentiate between a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a solo meleer) and a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a teamed meleer))

It amounts to me expressing 2 different opinions about the same subject. If I could go back and edit my posts, it would no doubt prevent confusion.




In multiple posts, I used the term 'solo blaster' and described a 1v1 interaction featuring a blaster without a team, and then featuring a blaster with a team. From post to post, I used the same term interchangibly. The reader can't tell where I draw the distinction.

And dass'not vinegar!

Now that I re-read my posts(reading what I wrote, and not what I meant), I easily see a confusing double-standard.



[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is an "I-win" formula to open PvP currently. Three spines/sr stalkers. They work at the stealth cap, are ranged, and bring the burst damage to insta-kill squishies with uninterruptable Impale crits-from-hide. Their limitions are set by the time needed to retreat after the kill, rehide, and recast grant invis. I don't accept this as an acceptable counter, because it's absurdly overpowered and unfun for both sides, and it marginalizes the contributions of Corruptors, Doms, MMs, and Brutes.

From personal experience, my teamed SS/EA brute has good odds of success against blasters - but only when he has a non-toggle status protection buff.

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - and there should not be, because no other AT is as limited, as weak, and as specialized as a blaster.

I'd love to see a list of average bounty/rep-per-hour by archetype.

Since characters that need a team to function in PvP would also be forced to split any PvP rewards between members.

I think that would be more enlightening a comparison with respect to PvP balance than simple killcount.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how to take your comment about "non-squishy" toggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it in context. I was responding to a frustrated poster, who simply didn't understand the mechanics of toggle drops, or who had a penchant for gross exaggeration.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this to a simple case of botched communications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't bother. My wording was a deliberate choice on my part. I was responding to a poster that claimed he or she was getting completely detoggled and mezzed in a single hit from every blaster he or she faced.This is profoundly unlikely - and would be completely impossible if they had minimal team support. I did not precisely describe the mechanics of toggle-drops, but I didn't feel I had to, considering who I was responding to.

Instead, I chose to offer offer a specific, tested suggestion(team for a mez protection buff) to vastly improve the quality of their PvP experience.
I'm sorry if this led to some confusion on your part.
I stand by the analogy that toggle drops approximate the penetration of proactive defenses in PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got the idea to make or allude to any sort of differentation between defensive toggles based on the AT that has it

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding specifically to the experiences of the poster (who plays a stalker). I tailored my remarks specifically to him.


[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, your comment seems to indicate that Blasters are incapable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles on Melee classes

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me give you the quote that led to my response:

[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment indicated that a non-toggle mez protection buff is guaranteed to prevent a one-hit total-toggle-drop-and-mez from a blaster. I think your argument is stemming from inclusive/exclusive AND confusion. From experience, I know that my Brute suffers more from being mezzed, than from losing his toggles over the course of the fight(since he has much more HP than the blaster). Blasters are perfectly capable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles - that doesn't mean you have to be mezzed when you lose them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?

If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have....

[/ QUOTE ]

You're expanding my argument to suit your needs. I was specifically referring to a solo /em blaster vs. a solo brute/scrapper/stalker/tank interaction. I've got the feeling that we agree on many levels, regardless. Expanding the scope of my points to suit your needs isn't necessary. Just give your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I do not concede the point, because the facts don't support it. Tankers have 156% of Blaster HP. Blasters have 125% of Tanker damage. If we take a best-case /EM tank vs /EM blaster comparison, and the tank is actually working on a minimal team(that is, he's managed to round up a single non-toggle status protection buff), the melee blaster has no chance. The tank can(but won't) start the fight with no active toggles, and would still put the blaster at a disadvantage.

[ QUOTE ]
If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. To be clear:

In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).

Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)


[ QUOTE ]
So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In an even team numbers types of consideration, the counter argument of a lack of defense for a Blaster, is near nonexistant due to the presence of teammates of his own! You can't argue for defense against a blaster citing teamwork, and then say blasters are defenseless and ignore teamwork there! Seriously dude, you made me chuckle there.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point in my post, you should no longer hold that opinion.

If the blaster has mez protection, he is able to deliver an uninterrupted stream of melee damage, and with toggle drops(and /ems mezzes) can put any unprepared opponent without debuffs/soft control at an extreme disadvantage.

If the brute/scrapper/tank the blaster is facing has a non-toggle mez protection buff, the brute/scrapper/tank can deliver an uninterrupted stream of damage right back - and due to the HP differential, the blaster is at a disadvantage. everytime. Even though he can drop toggles.

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt come here to start a war I'm just saying 9 outta 10 blasters are /nrg /electric on my server and I'm telling you the Bone smasher from the blaster set is 100 percent diff from Brutes/tanks/stalkers its totally diff everytime I get hit I lose all 3 of my toggles and I'm stunned instantly it totally negates mez protection (I run integration) having played both sides of the PVP war for quite sometime now I know blasters are a bit over powered when it comes to detoggling they do not need to detoggle to kill remember you do 30 percent unresistable damage with each attack I beleive I wish I had an attack other then AS that dropped 3 of your toggles and stunned you everytime in 1 hit.....I thought that was a controllers job? I can have 5-6 holds from a controller stacked on me...but 1 bone smasher kills all my toggles AND stuns me If they were to nerf detoggling by half of what it is now it would probably still be over powered.....I liked issue 4 when one of the main and only detoggle powers was brawl in the arena

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone is poo-pooing your experiences.

Blasters do have the ability to 'penetrate' non-squishy toggles when they close to melee range(guaranteeing all opponents the opportunity to retaliate).

/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.


Consider the effect that finding a teammate with Clarity, Increase Density, Stimulant, Thaw, or Antidote would have on that kind of interaction:

Blasters have neither defense nor resistance.
Blasters have no mez protection.
Blasters can't take punishment as well as they can give it.
Most blasters close immediately to melee range.

You'd know for a fact that you wouldn't be disabled over the course of your fight. Depending on your build, you may be able to disable the blaster with a single mez.

All the tools you need to PvP aren't available in your primary/secondary. Some are only available through teamwork.

[ QUOTE ]
//Yes, your right, popping insperations should DEFFINITLY be the balance point in PvP and the Devs should ASSUME that all players will be fighting with 1 Breakfree, 4 Yellows, 10 Reds and 5 Purples on at all times.

That argument has a problem - you're in the forum for the AT with no status resist, and you have it yourself - and you have at least one reliable hold/stun if you're anything but Fire/*. Don't complain about having to carry one measly breakfree.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the least of its problems:

The argument was a red herring , totally out of place, and bourne of poor reading comprehension or deliberate misrepresentation or inexperience in PvP(or a combination of the three).

[ QUOTE ]
no stalker will open with a snipe, not to mention no stalker will end with one. It's plain dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Teams of 4 stalkers will open and close with a single snipe against squishies, while in perfect safety. Teams of 3 spines/SRs already use this strategy in a limited way.

But that's no big deal, because blasters can do the exact same thing, right?
What's the max range on a snipe against a target at the stealth cap? Ooh, maybe not.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I think the snipe is a good thing, do you know how annoying it must be to not have any chance of killing a stormie...EVER. The only stalker that can is nrg/ and maybe /SR and whatnot can avoid being hit by it but I'm not sure. At least stalkers will have a chance now.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a PvP environment balanced for teams, it's important for one archetype to trump all rock/paper/scissors interactions. That's balance, right?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the blaster's fault.

It's yours.

Where is your mez protection? If you're not /SR or /nin you need a non-toggle buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, your right, popping insperations should DEFFINITLY be the balance point in PvP and the Devs should ASSUME that all players will be fighting with 1 Breakfree, 4 Yellows, 10 Reds and 5 Purples on at all times.

Sounds fair to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarity
Antidote
Increase Density
Thaw
Stimulant
Teamwork

Every archetype has access to a mez protection buff at level 6 from the medicine pool.

Soloist learned-helplessness is a staple of inexperienced PvP. It should not be something the devs choose to balance around, if PvP is balanced for team play.


Save your exaggerations for fish stories.

Why did you assume I was referring to to break frees, anyway? They're a finite, temporary, weak modifier.