Pilcrow

[ QUOTE ]
Defiance currently gives +dam and +acc as we get beat down. The problem is that in the later game we do not get to use it that often cause we can't take more then a couple solid hits from even a minion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just another thought I had in regards to Defiance.

If I understand Defiance correctly, it can produce up to a +500% damage buff, kicking in at a very low damage buff around 30% health and then ramping up to insane levels as you creep into the red.

I don't think we'll see defiance getting replaced or getting a huge boost in capabilities. The devs are "happy" with it. But I do think that there are things they aren't happy about with Blasters and that those could as easily be housed in defiance as anywhere else.

So, here's the suggestion.

What if Defiance offered a boost to range when your health was high. Make it the mirror image of Defiance such that, at full health, your range increase is maxxed out, and once your health is below 70%, your range gets no bonus at all.

Something like a 50% range boost at 100% health, going down to 0% range boost at 70% health would do a lot to help blasters without overpowering them, IMO.

I don't think it's a complete solution in and of itself, mind you. Just a good piece.

Looking for commentary, notions, reasons it won't work.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people who argue on this board have seen AT LEAST one character to the end. Usually multiple categories of ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
The Blaster end game is completely different from the beginning okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, something as easy to notice when you're trying to keep the Blaster alive as when you're playing him. Something I've dealt with as early as level 30 because my friends don't mind SKing up a person who knows how to play.

I don't think one should DQ someone's opinion because they haven't played a toon to 50, except to the extent that they may be unaware of how things change for the AT in the late game.

[ QUOTE ]
We got GUTTED for the 12.5% damage boost. The minimal defense blasters lost is not comparable. You can say that we were overpowered. Fair enough, but to suggest that the big defense changes hit Blasters harder is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the above is a perfectly valid counter to the line of argument BlasterMaster is taking, I would like to point out that for my Blaster his main lines of Defense before I5/I6 were not Combat Jumping nor Stealth. They were:
[*]A controller's AE holds[*]A tanker's aggro control[*]A defenders shields or debuffs

I think we can all agree that most of those defenses were downgraded just as severly if not MORE severly than the armors in I5/ED (though controllers got a damned nice consolation prize, it does little to help my Blaster).

My Scrapper has personal defenses that make those changes much less relevant to him than it is to my Blaster.

Perhaps a side-point to the main line of argument going on here. But it was a point I felt worthy or being raised nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love for some of the status abilities in the secondary sets to be ranged rather than PbAoE or Aura toggles. It won't happen though since it would allow blasters to kill squishies with almost no problem and that is something the developers don't want.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some status effects that can be used at range and that also won't allow Blasters to kill squishies with impunity.

Sleep, Slow (-SPD), Immobilize, even Fear - none of these will let a Blaster kill a squishie at range without the squishie being able to retaliate/act/try to escape.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new mez similar to the way PVE disorient works in PVP. It would detoggle and disable your ability to target, but you would be able to do self-targeted powers & chew inspirations all you wanted. And, of course, you could high tail it out of there.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters should not do much more damage than Scrappers. All that does is make Scrapper irrelevant. Blastes should have had control as their secondaries instead of these stupid melee based things.

If I were redesigning the Scrapper secondaries, I would get rid of most of the melee attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

My blapper wishes to register a complaint. I see nothing wrong with the melee attacks other than that's the only kind of damage we see in the secondaries. I'd like to see a mix of melee and range there, even if it costs me a melee attack or two.

But being able to significantly improve my DPS and DPE by closing to melee is a very good thing, and the melee attacks pull that off rather well. I can think of some alternative implementations that might have done the same thing even better, but you can pry my magnified point blank damage out of my cold-dead hands (won't have to wait long either).

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters should all have single target and AoE immobilizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

/Agree - ST immob to start. AE immobs around the 5th power slot.

[ QUOTE ]
They should all have a single target hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

/Disagree
Ranged ST sleep, fear, slow - but not hold or disorient

[ QUOTE ]
And they should all have aggro (hate) reducers.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be nice. Well worth losing one of the lackluster powers for.

[ QUOTE ]
All PBAoE blasts should be removed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I like that there can be a price to pay for closing to melee on a Blaster. I think one is quite sufficient, however, and would like to see Blasters get an enemy targeted damage aura (like an EF that does damage) in place of some of their PBAEs.

[ QUOTE ]
Everything should be ranged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I disagree. The control powers that let me fortify my position (PBAE toggle controls, powers like caltrops, etc.) do a great job of protecting my blaster without invading the role of a controller in any significant way. The melee ranged AE controls are fabulous "Oh Crap" powers. The ST controls attached to strong melee powers are another way to make closing to melee with a Blaster as dangerous for the closer as the Blaster.

It's powers like Devices:Taser and Ice:Freezing Touch that I take issue with. No damage. Useless as an "Oh Crap" power. No position fortification. Just a ST melee version of a power that only does a Blaster any good if it's ranged.

One thing I would like to see is more stackability in the secondaries. The Ice Secondary is such a hodge-podge of controls that it's hard to build mag on anyone. Energy's stacking disorients is much better, even though it's less overall control.

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Integration starts at -6 MAG mez PROTECTION and RESIST and ends out at -9 MAG at level 45. It used to be -9 and -12 and before that -15 from 16 on.

The Regeneration buff is 150% with only 100% enhanceable. Three slotted for healing that's a buff of 245%. Six-slotted for heals it's 260%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you both for the clarification.

So it would be fair to say that it's a mixed protection/resist power with less protection than most other melee-ers have?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and mez protection:
1) My regen actually gets mezzed pretty regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Regen has mez RESIST not mez Defense, which greatly shortens the amount of time you spend mezzed. If that's accurate, I can see where a regen might spend time mezzed.

But it's still not comparable to a Blaster's plight, even before you note the difference in survivability between a mezzed regen (with a ton of auto and durational clicks protecting him) and a mezzed Blaster (whose protections are almost entirely toggles or instant clicks like controls and aid self). The Blaster gets the full brunt of the me. Factoring defense in, he's going to likely be dead before it lifts of its own accord, and often, before a teammate can realize he's mezzed and cure him.

(What I wouldn't pay for an icon in the team window that showed a teammate was mezzed. My Blaster wants that even more than my Defender and Controller do.)

[ QUOTE ]
2) Play on a team? 5/8 of defenders and 5/7 of controllers can give you mez protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

The devs have said that the mez powers are timered to make it hard to use them preventatively and instead use them reactively. While we can pretend that mez protection is available via teammates, its much more likely to manifest as mez-reaction: Blaster is mezzed, Defender/Controller notices and casts his mez fixer.

That lowers the offensive output of Blasters as related to Scrappers since they spend parts of the combat typing "zzzzzzzzzzzz" instead of actually using their offense. Not to mention the time they take away from the Defender or Controller extricating them (or preventatively buffing them) that can be spent on improving team performance (+dmg buffs, -res debuffs, +rech buffs, etc.) when teamed with a Scrapper.

I'm one of the rare people who thinks the devs position on squishies getting almost no access to mez protection makes sense. But let's not pretend that the kinds of mez protection that squishies can get from teammates are in any way comparable to what melee-ers have inherently. It's a huge factor in the actual damage output of the two ATs, and it's almost never noted in scrapper/blaster comparisons, or at best as a footnote.

[ QUOTE ]
As for defiance Vs critical hits... I'll trade any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet.

Invuln: Dull Pain
Regen: Reconstruction
DA: Dark Regeneration

Give most of the Blaster secondaries a non-interruptable heal and they'd likely find Defiance better than criticals, too.

Edit: Actually, not a half bad idea, that. Would create some nice synergy with Defiance.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is one thing wrong with blasters that I am sure we as players can agree on, is that we can not agree on what is wrong with blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why it's important to get some guidance from the rednames about what is and is not their vision for the AT. If the devs tell us that ranged damage is our forte, then solutions that focus on that are more likely to be accepted and implemented than if we say: "I think we should be more like corruptors". It may be a nice thing to believe, but it ain't the vision.

[ QUOTE ]
We were told that our role was ranged damage, and in fact when it comes to ranged damage, we are by and far, better at it than any other AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that is always the case. In a solo situation, the lower ranged damage of a Defender or Controller can be better than ours, because they can actually go to town with it, while we pull and kill n run n kill n run? In a team situation...well, there's a reason they raised our HPs.

We're clearly the best at it on a team that is able to support our doing it, but controllers don't need to be on an ideal team to be the best at control, nor defenders to be the best at buffing, nor tankers to be the best at managing aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we get into the "so what" mode of thinking. That is where the problem lies my friends. It is not that there is a specific problem that can be quantified and laid out on the table, it is that we were given a role that is mediocre at best, and downright uneeded at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree. Our role isn't mediocre, we simply don't excel at it in noticeable qualitative ways. If Snipes and Nukes were in our secondaries, and defender sets had buffs/debuffs in those slots instead, I don't think our role would be considered at all mediocre. What we lack is capabilities in our secondaries that are both unique to blasters and fulfilling of our primary role: ranged damage. Toss a couple of unique ranged attacks in there (like target-focused AE damage auras, like an EF that does damage) and Blater's role would hardly be considered mediocre.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the reason that they are making us keep the Melee powers in the secondary. NOT because they want to kill us, but because they can not in good conscience allow us to actually excell at the one place they say is our role.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think they put them there originally because they had a different vesion of the AT back then. Now, with a new vision and admittedly lackluster secondaries, they finally CAN do what you say they cannot. Maybe I'm wrong, but we had an ecouraging post from Castle on that score.

[ QUOTE ]
It would break the game if they did. That is the long and short of it, my fellow blasters. If they gave us what we think we need, more specifically what we want, then it would break their game. I mean come on. Can you imagine the outcry that would come from the Scrappers if we could 1 shot Lts, or heaven forbid, even Bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need to be able to one-shot LTs and Bosses to have a good role. Everyone would and SHOULD outcry if that happens.

Nevertheless, the outcry of Scrappers is irrelevant, they already got their lackluster sets fixed and their team role buffs. They'll have to cope with other ATs getting the same things.

[ QUOTE ]
Primary sets. Increase the range across the board. I want to be hitting from real range. Ok, this is mainly a wish list item, as I can not see this happening anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

/agree

[ QUOTE ]
Secondary sets. Revamp the sets please.

[/ QUOTE ]

/agree

[ QUOTE ]
Inherent ability: Point Blank. The concept being that as we get closer to our enemies, our accuracy, as well as our damage increases. Melee powers are not affected. Other powers are affected as a percentage of their base range. Range boost enhancements do not adjust this at all, and shots outside of the base range are completely unaffected by the inherent. A shot from melee range would get the maximum boost to damage and accuracy (probably a 100% boost to base damage, and similar accuracy boost). This is to reflect that we are in MUCH more danger at that range.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always liked this concept, but how 'bout this?

Migrate the PVP inherent (irresistable damage) to PVE

[ QUOTE ]
Now, before everyone starts flaming me, stop for a moment and think. Here we are. We are the LEAST unified community in CoH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spend some time in the Defender forum. Try asking them how THEY want to be fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Range matters. It's not quite a defense, but it's not meaningless either. And it's not BS for there to be an AT whose primary role is ranged damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not saying range is BS, per se. What I'm saying is this whole "Blasters are ranged damage" is pandering to Scrappers so they won't boohoo because Blasters can and/or should be outdamaging them using melee attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Well, then. Ummm. I guess we agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters aren't "Rangers", they're damage dealers. Period. Doesn't matter at what range that damage is dished out and I don't want to see the AT getting overhauled into Rangers because Scrappers can't tolerate the fact that a "squishie" can out punch them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree here. If Blaters lost their ability to greatly magnify their damage output by closing to melee, it would be a serious error. Blasters aren't ONLY about ranged damage, anymore than tankers are ONLY supposed to be about armor or controllers ONLY about control. Ranged damge is just thier forte.

I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit more range in the secondaries, but if they eliminated blapping, that'd be a complete misstep IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Range is pretty much meaningless given Blaster animation times. In the time it takes to fire off an attack or two for most sets, thats more than enough time for an enemy to close to melee and smack you with their high damage attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, an enemy can close in the time it takes you to launch a couple of attacks. In a couple of attacks, you can often kill an opponent or at least lay down a soft control like immobilize, stun or knock. If they do close to melee range, you almost definitely have a melee ranged control and some intense melee damage to do unto them before they do unto you. 1-2 attacks while they run and take it in the crotch is far from meaningless.

Now, if you fail to pull and bring a bunch of guys onto you, you're in trouble. This is one place where most of the secondaries demonstrate their lack of utility. If it's one hero = 3 minions, Blasters need a way to deal with three incoming foes at once, and with the tools in their arsenal, they aren't well equipped. That's not a fault of range, that's a fault of secondaries that don't support range well enough. Something as simple as a cone or drop with a slow, brief but high -ACC, or a ~50% chance of sleep or fear or immobilize would resolve that situation quite readily without stepping on other AT's toes, as caltrops readily demonstrates

The problem you cite here isn't that range is meaningless, but that most Blasters lack the tools to keep foes at range well enough when solo.

Meanwhile, on a team, Blasters synergize fabulously with a controller or tanker who can keep MOBs still wholesale for you while you let loose with the damage. The only hole I see, and it's one that needs filling, is that some secondaries lack a good "oh crap" power to use when you manage to grab aggro despite the help of those kinds of teammates. If, for example, Blasters had placate in their secondaries, you'd find a lot fewer faceplants arising for them on teams.

[ QUOTE ]
Nearly every enemy mezz is ranged so blasters being at range is no defense there. I dont buy the arguement that mez is significantly more likely in melee than at range. Other than Malta hand tazers and the occasional incidental stun from a Crey riot baton, I'm having a hard time thinking of any mob mezes that are only used in melee ranged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly every faction has ranged mezzers, which are a bane on the squishies ESPECIALLY Blasters, and that may well be what you recall. But at melee range, control is a pretty common, stacking, strong secondary effect on many MOB powers not including the lovely control primary melee powers you mention.

[ QUOTE ]
As well, with many of the best blaster primary attacks having ranges that are very short(blaze, powerburst, shout, flamethrower) , it makes it even easier for mobs to close to melee and smack you.

To say nothing of the insane range some mobs get on their attacks. A typical malta minion using Burst can outrange my AR blaster's Snipe. I didnt believe it until I tested it. Council Rifleman can do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are exactly the sorts of places where I think they owe Blasters buffs to fulfill their role.

[ QUOTE ]
But this "Blasters are ranged damage" and the rest of the things that get floated around here are bull[censored] and need to be pointed out as such. Blasters are about dishing out damage. Period. The range from which that damage is dished out matters not at all. Blasters cannot withstand damage. Not to mention status effects. If they're expected to be held to "the deal" they damn sure better get what they paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the "ranged damge" role is BS.

Range matters. It's not quite a defense, but it's not meaningless either. And it's not BS for there to be an AT whose primary role is ranged damage.

Generally speaking, the MOBs dish out more damage per attack at melee, they generally dish out more DPS at melee, they generally dish out more status effects at melee. Combat at melee is faster in animation and recharge time, which lessens the opportunities for the Blaster and his teammates to react to a situation gone bad (status, tanker/controller/defender down, etc.) before it results in a domino death for the canary-in-the-mine Blaster. And the cost of switching targets for a ranged offender are much lower than for a melee-er.

The problem with Blaster's isn't that the devs have revisioned them into a role that's BS. The problem is that they do not "hold Scrappers to "the deal" they're damn sure holding Blasters to". They aren't holding Controllers to it anymore either. Nor Corruptors, Masterminds, Stalkers nor Brutes.

The only ATs still being held to the old deal are Defenders, Blasters, Tankers and Dominators. They each need buffs to better fulfill their roles in the game.

The only BS I see here is that Blasters haven't been given the tools to fulfill the role they have been given as well as most other ATs fulfill their roles.

(PS - That's not to say that Scrappers, Controllers, Corruptors, Masterminds, Stalkers and Brutes are right where they should be and shouldn't have their capabilities trimmed a bit. But trimming their capabilities isn't going to make a Blaster any more fun to play (unless you PVP exclusively). The MOBs will be handing you your behind just as much as they did before.)

FWIW, the bottom line for me is this...

Scrappers initial role in the game is the solo class, with no team role.

That didn't work out, so the devs made them boss-killers. They received adjustments to two lackluster sets, an inherent to help them in their role, and (eventually) the highest base damage in the game to make sure they were the best at their role.

Blasters initial role in the game was "damage juggernaut" (alternatively King of Damage), the team damage dealer who is a glass cannon in order to need a team.

That didn't work out, do the devs say he is the "ranged damage" dealer class. But unlike Scrappers, Blasters have received almost no changes since this role was announced, and neither of those changes directly improved blaster performance in that role. Further, the secondaries (or at least most of them) have been acknowledged as lackluster without being fixed.

Blasters need buffs to imporve their performance in their new role. Blasters need their lackluster secondaries fixed. Those fixes are going to threaten Scapper's a bit. Scrapper's will simply have to remember that they already received their buffs to be best at their role and already had their lackluster sets fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm I thought it was pretty well accepted that scrapper base damage is 125% of blaster base? If that's not correct and it's lower then I am even more skeptical about scrapper damage brags.

[/ QUOTE ]
Scrapper base brawl is 1.125

A Beta board redname post demonstrated that criticals hit enough to make the real differential 1.2:1.0 instead of 1.125:1.0.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the things we English graduate students are trained to do early on is to read the text--and only the text--first. All interpretations must be supportable from the text itself, not from anything outside that text. It's called "close reading".

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a close reading of that passage could note that it speaks of Defenders getting something Blasters did not get. That's not my inference, that's right in the text. Nor does close reading divorce itself entirely from context. One would not be going outside a close reading to note that your passage exists in a Blaster Issues thread as opposed to an I love Castle thread, for example. Further, close reading is what you do FIRST, it does not invalidate other methods of interpretation and criticism. Your appeals to autority do not make my interpretation invalid, though It seems clear you hope for people to consider it so.

My interpretation may have been inaccurate (though you won't share your intent so we can't know), but it was not invalid nor was it paranoid, crazy, or demonstrative of an inability to separate opinion from fact.

Further, I see an bit of a double-standard at play here. You chastise me for infering things not directly supportable in your text, but you certainly give yourself enough liberty to paint me as paranoid, unable to determine fact from opinion, and crazy with little to no support for those positions directly in my text.

When people are more interested in villifying others than in discussing an issue directly, I find that behavior both rude and suspect. You say that your motivations are irrelevant, and that facts stand on their own. So, why are your assumptions of my motivations relevant?

If the facts speak, let them speak.

[*]The six-week "check-in" by _Castle_ to Defenders was an outlier from a dev team that generally "checks-in" in much longer intervals, if at all.[*]During the six weeks in question, Castle has posted in this forum. Further, the thread he posted to was requesting much more than simple bug-fixes, but actual buffs to Blasters. Further, Castle suggested that he will look into implementing some of the notions posted.[*]If past behavior is an indication, the devs are more likely to respond to a number of well worded PMs than to posts on threads that request them to read or post.[*]The devs did much more posting about topics like ED, the global defensive rollback and travel suppression than they did on the Defenders Issues thread. Yet those many posts resulted in little or no change to I5, ED and suppression. Meanwhile, the Defender Issues, Scrapper Issues or other threads that actually yielded a significant number changes in the functionality of the game received little attention in terms of redname posts.[*]The Defender forum and Defender Discussion thread received almost no redname posts in the lead up to I5 and ED, and yet they listed making Defender buffs more relevant one of the key reasons for the I5/ED rollbacks again and again.[/list]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, you were looking for me to chastize "the devs for not checking in with a progress report in as timely a manner as they did for Defenders" and, not surprisingly, you found it, even though I never actually chastized the Developers for anything. You found what you wanted to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not seek those facts, nor was I seeking posts from you waiting for you to chastise the devs.

You posted those facts, in a public forum, hoping that someone would read them (as I did). There's a reason you did that. Failing to explain your reasoning, you leave it to the reader to infer it.

If I made the wrong inference, that's on me. That I would make an inference doesn't demonstrate paranoia on my part. You had a motive, or you would have spent that time drinking pina colodas.

Perhaps you'll share that motive with us. But claiming to have no motive is not a rational claim.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, you did inappropriately use the quotation feature.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not agree that the use was inappropriate. I used the quote to surround what I felt you should have said within a context that made it clear that the quotes surrounded what I felt you should have said. Here's an article by a Chicago Tribune writer doing the same thing. Here's someone from US News using the same technique. It is not unprecedented, nor is it a misrepresentation of what someone else has said when done within such a context.

Nevertheless, I apologize to you for using quote tag in a way that you feel misrepresents you. It was not my intent to imply that you had written those words (quite the opposite, in fact).

I would suggest to you that, regardless of your intent, your post comes across as a chastisement to the devs for not checking in with a progress report in as timely a manner as they did for Defenders.

[ QUOTE ]
Pilcrow:

It is inappropriate to use the quotation function to put words into someone's mouth that they didn't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not use the quote feature to "put words into your mouth". The post made it clear that you had not used such an a approach and that I was suggesting that perhaps you should have.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, I don't know why you have a problem with what I posted. It was just a statement of fact, no opinion ventured.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also did not say that I had a problem with your post explicity. I simply asked if ti would have been hard to send castle a friendly PM. Yet, you very easily caught the inference I made that you, perhaps, were being a bit unfair to the devs.

Just as I was able to catch your inference that the devs aren't treating blasters fairly as compared to other ATs.

Bad form to pretend you don't understand subtext in a post where you called out mine.

Would this have been so hard?

[ QUOTE ]
Castle:

Hey, I know you're busy, but I wanted to check in. It's been about 6 weeks with no update on where the Blaster Issues stand. I know when you were having trouble getting to the Defender Issues promptly you posted to let Defenders know that even though there wasn't anything to report, you were still working on it.

Could you take a moment to post to the Blaster Issues thread (here's a linky) and let us know what's going on, even if the only thing to report is "nothing to report"?

Thanks,

Circuit_Boy

[/ QUOTE ]

Or did you PM him and get no response?

[ QUOTE ]
I think we should take everything out of this and consolidate all the information for each set and power within it and post it into a new thread. Would help with the information sifting and would be easier for Castle to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, although as a suggestion thread, it's a bit different than a bugfix thread.

The overall format might be something like this.

I. Balance Intentions - A list of balance changes that we would like to accomplish with Blasters, all suggestions will be pegged to one or more balance intentions it meets, with no judgements made as to whether or not that intention is advisable (we figure you will do that CASTLE).

A. Increase Blaster Total Damage potential
B. Increase Total Damage Blasters can deal at range
C. Eliminate Blaster need to close to melee
D. Increase AE damage contribution of Blasters in typical combats
E. Increase survivability of Blasters
F. Give Blasters a secondary role in a team (other than Blapping)
G. Replace Defiance with a more appealing inherent
H. Make range a real "defense"
Etc., Etc., Etc.[/list]II. Overall Blaster Fixes - A list of fixes that do not touch on individual powers but on things like inherents and game mechanics that will resolve some Blaster issues


1. Increase base BI of blasters to 1.2 to = that of Scrappers (A, B, C, D)
2. Replace Defiance with a power that increases or decreases the damage delivered based on range instead of health (B, C, G)
3. Migrate Blaster PVP inherent to PVE (irresistable damage) (B, C, D, F)
Etc., Etc., Etc.[/list]III. Individual Power/Powerset Fixes - A list of fixes that do touch on individual powers.
A. Primary - AR


1. Increase range on Buckshot
Etc. Etc.[/list]

Not true, but the redname post keeps this post from falling off the boards, so there's no need to bump it to keep it alive.

I don't think any of us expect any of this to hit in I7, so odds are Castle will be circling back in a month or two, until then, there's not much to do unless one of the other threads sparks a new idea worth posting here.

[ QUOTE ]
Monkey wrench!

So how do we know which "player suggestions" weren't just really "Dev ideas" that took awhile to implement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond trusting the posters who make the claim, you don't know. I'd say most guides share that flaw (although some of them are at least testable).

For more recent changes, you have the suggestion forum to consult as "proof", but you'll never prove anything to a troll. Reasonable people can judge for themselves which posters to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember that Coyote was added to Outbreak as a result of that player's relationship with the game. Forgive my ignorance, but didn't that player pass away?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, Coyote is an homage to a player who passed away. His friends posted his story to the boards, the thread got a lot of discussion, and the devs apparantly liked the idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget changes to the Martial Arts animation times, as well as completly changing Storm Kick. (And thank god for that!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly, I'm limited to the ones I recall being suggested, but I'm glad to see that those came from the playerbase, too.

Frankly there are other things that kind of came out of the player base indirectly. Like Scrappers saying "we need a role on a team" and getting boss-killer criticals. No one specifically asked for criticals, but they did ask for a team role and it resulted in criticals.

Issue 1
<ul type="square">[*]5th Column Prison – When you're defeated in certain equipped 5th Column bases, you will have more to deal with than a hospital bill. The Column has learned how to override the city's emergency teleportation network, and they have no intention of letting you go free. [*]Circle of Thorns Crystal Prison – Like the 5th Column, if you are defeated in selected lairs, the Circle of Thorns will have a big surprise in store for you. [*]Outdoor Mission Maps: The villains of Paragon City have taken the fight to the streets. Battle your foes in instanced outdoor missions within the city itself, or journey to bizarre alternate worlds and spread justice throughout the multiverse. [*]Tailor: Now your costume can change and evolve with your hero. At 3 locations within Paragon City , you can update your outfit – for a price.
At levels 20, 30 and 40, you can earn extra costume slots by performing tasks for Icon's tailors. Now you can customize your look on a daily basis! You may perform these tasks at any level after the initial level. [*]Decreased the difficulty of higher level foes. Foes 4 and 5 levels higher than you are now easier. Foes 6 and 7 levels higher than you are slightly easier, but still very difficult. [*]Added character delete confirmation. [/list]
Issue 2
<ul type="square">[*]Capes : Starting at level 20, characters can earn the right to wear a cape. Visit the City Representative in City Hall once you get to level 20 to start your quest. [*]Effects: Starting at level 30, characters can earn the right to add constant special effects to their character's costumes. [*]Earn badges by visiting locations, learning Paragon City's history, reaching certain milestones, or completing certain missions. Accolades can be earned by getting all the badges pertaining to a particular "set." There are over 150 different badges in all. [*]Power Re-specification: The Terra Volta reactor has been running beyond full capacity for quite some time. Heroes who venture within it may experience untold side-effects. [*]Exemplar/Aspirants: Higher level characters can now help out their lower-level friends easier than ever with this "reverse Sidekicking " feature. Exemplars artificially lower their level to that of the Aspirant. Exemplars will lose access to powers gained after the level they have been lowered to, and their Enhancements will have an appropriate reduction in effectiveness as well. Exemplars do not receive Infuence or Enhancements for arrests or missions. They do receive XP and Inspirations. 100% of XP received by an Exemplar goes towards debt reduction. If there is no more debt to get rid of, further XP gained will be converted to Influence. [*]Stores: Made it possible for you to buy level 40 Magic Enhancements from Ghost Falcon. [*]The Tutorial is now optional for all players. [*]Kiosks are now functional, and track the Victors, Punishers, Healers, and Nemeses on a daily and monthly basis. [*]The current team leader can switch the lead to another player with the /makeleader command. This command is available as a button in the Team window.” [*]Sidekicking is no longer persistent (ends when one player leaves the team or logs off). When you stop being a sidekick, your pets will dissipate. [*]Enhancements have a new window where they can be easily traded or deleted. [*]Using the "Search" feature, you can now look for prospective team members across zones, sorted by Archetypes and Levels. You can also expand your search to browse all heroes, not just those looking for groups. [*]Quick Trade. You can now quickly give an Inspiration or Enhancement to a team-mate or other player. Simply drag the item from your inventory to the player, or right click on the item you wish to trade and select Give. You can control automatic acceptance of gifts via Decline Gifts in the Options menu. [*]Teleportation Confirmation. You can optionally set up a prompt to appear when someone wants to teleport you. [*]Resurrection Confirmation. Whenever you are rezzed you will be prompted to accept or decline the Resurrection. [*]Use the /hide command to appear offline on people’s Friends lists (and Supergroup rosters). Use the /unhide command to appear as online again. [*]Many continuing sound effects now fade. [*]You can now trade up to 99,999 influence in one trade. [*]Completing a Story Arc will now give you a choice of the Enhancement Type you receive.
Powers: [*]Reduced Tanker and Defender attack powers Endurance Costs. [*]Added Confirmation Dialog Prompts for Teleport/Recall Friend and Resurrection powers. [*]Modified All Sleep. Sleep can now only be broken with a Change in HP (Damage or Heal) , by a Knock Back (or KnockUp , KnockDown or Repel) or by a power that specifically does so (such as Empathy/Clear Mind). Anything else, such as Buffs, Debuffs or Mez powers that do no damage, will not free a Sleeping target. [*]Fixed Group Fly so Everyone affected gets a Fly Speed Boost, and everyone will go faster is Fly Speed Enhancements are used. [*]NEW CHANGE TO TANKER AND SCRAPPER KNOCKBACK: Most Tanker (and many Scrapper) melee attacks that do KnockBack will now do KnockDown to villains 1 level below you or higher (villains 2 levels below you will get knocked back). Placing 1 Generic KnockBack Enhancement will allow you to KnockBack foes at your level. Placing 2 Generic KB Enhancement will allow you to KB foes 2 levels higher than you (and so on). This should now give the player a much greater degree of control on whether they want KnockBack or KnockDown . Percent Chance to drop a target remains unchanged. (War Mace was unchanged). [*]Voltaic Sentinel can now move! It also can fly. It still cannot be targeted by you, players or villains and thus cannot be healed or attacked. [/list]
I'll do some other issues later