Pilcrow

While we're discussing PBAE options, another one would be "hole in the middle" where the PBAE has an outer radius of, say 50', but an inner radius of 20'. The effects would occur in the ring between 20' and 50'.

Two ways to leverage this would be "hole in the middle" attacks that had a high amount of damage, but damaged both friend and foe, or placeable "hole in the middle" summons that could serve as fortified positions (causing large amounts of autoheal damage while MOBs move through them, causing status effects like disorient, slow, or sleep, causing -PER to protect your retreat.)

Given the redname post, there's no chance of people stopping their responses to the OP. That's what Castle responded to (even though I doubt that's all he read).

I've put the updated proposal in my siggy. And when cuppa gets back, I'll ask her if we can edit the first post. Until then...punt!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have every right to express your opinion and dislike my own. But unless you have some survey of the blaster population, would you be so kind as to express your opinion as yours and not some mandate from the Blaster community?

[/ QUOTE ]

And do you have a survey of what exactly blasters do want, before running off with a half a page of what you consider your best suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

I also didn't tell the devs to ignore other people's opinions. And I did not suggest that other opinions expressed in the thread were misguided and representative of only a vocal minority of the population.

You, meanwhile, did all those things in your very first paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
Please just ignore them. Really blasters have a couple main issues that dont require totally ruining the sets as these few posters that keep reguritating the same ideas to change blasters to THEIR ideals keep posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are welcome to express your own opinion and your opposition to mine. When you start telling the devs to ignore it because you claim it reflects the opinion of only a "few posters", you cross a line from expressing your own opinion to claiming you know what is and is not a minority opinion. And strongly imply that your opinion represents the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
You had your opinion, that would basicly to me, and im sure to others that enjoy the fun of playing both at range and in melee, would ruin the sets. And this is also not the first thread started lately dealing with these issues, issues that the suggested resolution to would again, in my opinion and reading this thread alot of other blasters as well, would not be acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of blappers have had the same knee-jerk reaction you did. I'm not sure I blame them with so many proposals here to get rid of the melee attacks entirely. But, I'd like to point out that my proposal does not eliminate melee attacks entirely, and keeps the best attacks in each secondary at melee specifically to maintain the high risk/high reward playstyle of blappers. You may not find it fun, of course, but the statement that it ruins the sets because you can't play at both range and melee is not accurate. You will have fewer melee-only tools and more both ranged tools, which can be used at melee as well, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
And i have a energy secondary. And to me, adding two powers that if i choose i can take in my epic sets, that of PFF and repulsion is a waste, and if i had to give up any other powers to have them added is completely not acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Processed Meat Man said something very similar, and you will see that my later proposal changes the sets less radically for that very reason.

[ QUOTE ]
I know the ideas that i put forward are not original , or even really my own exactly. They have been suggested time and time again for over a year. But they seem to be ideas getting lost in the recent flurry of "take this from us and give us this" posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I attempted to avoid that with the 10th power trick. And, in my revised proposal (which you don't seem to have read yet) you will find even less radical changes.

[ QUOTE ]
Posts that deal in ideas offered by a few in the blaster community that are seeking to have melees effectivness dropped in blaster sets, in order to gain what they feel is more range. I dont agree. I love the melee, and i love the way blasters currently play. I love the variety, to me anyone can fight in melee with defense sets, good players do it well without. And i love the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that such challenge should be embraced. I simply think that the deferential between the best ranged chain one can make and the best melee chain one can make should be smaller. If you will read on in the thread, you will see that, after reading others' opinions, I propose converting a single ST and a single AE in the secondary to ranged. Same BI, etc., simply add range. That should not lower the Melee attack chain at all (since the ranged power will still work at melee), but should increase the strength of the ranged attack chain so it is closer to the melee chain.

[ QUOTE ]
And the reason why exactly would the door be closed on having scaling fixed as you said?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may not be. It's possible the devs would consider raising the base BI of Blasters or change Defiance. I consider it unlikely, but it's possible.

[ QUOTE ]
[W]hat makes you think that the same devs that believe that dominator damage is scaled well are going to give us a long ranged high BI attack with out some cost for it coming from somewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

What price did Scrappers pay for criticals when they were given the Boss-Killer role? The devs have said aloud that they consider the secondaries an issue, I think they may indeed consider putting some love there without some giveback. They've said they're happy with Defiance. They raise other ATs BI, but didn't raise ours. I think they're happy with the overall AT stats and think there are only issues with individual powers and sets. My solution focuses where I think they are open to change.

If your opinion differs and you think that they might change base BI or the inherent, that's the route to go. Certainly, it would be much simpler to improve the Blaster ranged attack chain if they simply raised our ranged BI by 10%. If you think they would consider that, that's the way to go. My opinion is that they won't do that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Aren't anchors supposed to drop if you break LOS?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they aren't. They break based on distance only. The fact that LoS isn't required for anchored debuffs was one of the reasons my Dark Defender could herd most of monkey island in PI back in the day.

It's also the key to clustering mobs for AoEs. You smack your toggle debuff on a foe, then dance around a corner. As the foes come around a corner, they tend to cluster up, making hitting them with an AoE easier. This works particularly well with Tar Patch of course. My corrupotor uses this to pull a room full of mobs onto a Tar Patch before using Blizzard on em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the 411.

I would definitely expect that a damaging anchor toggle would need to perform an LOS check on a regular basis. Perhaps not each tic (lag might screw that up) but every few seconds and drop if LOS is broken. It may be appropriate for you to be able to maintan a debuff when safe from return fire, but not an anchor damage power.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sensitive to the fact that as long as this subject has been tossed around the forums, there have been people that have said:

"Blasters are all about range, and therefore the melee attacks are just plain wrong."


So long as the blaster "role" isn't used to justify eliminating the inherent risk/reward option that currently exists for blasters, I won't argue the "role" issue strongly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your sensitivity, and I think by role he means "you excel at that" not "that is all you can do". Controllers excel at control, but they buff quite well. Tankers excel at aggro management, but they can put together a mean ST melee chain. Scrappers excel at melee damage, but can manage aggro, etc.

I think it's key for Blasters to be able to pump out significantly more damage when they close to melee than when at range. I'd just like to move the ranged chan up a bit so the difference between melee and ranged chains is a bit less than it is today.

[ QUOTE ]
allowing a Blaster to put a ranged DoT toggle on a mob can allow you to risk-free kite a +4 boss around some indoor areas just by circling some large central blocking item. Or to DoT a SR Stalker who can't drop into Hide, and whose defense is useless (though I suppose they could make the DoT have to roll to hit).

make the toggle DoTs roll to hit, and have relatively short range... not just to apply, but have them drop the toggle if you go too far. Most of the exploits I can think of with them involve the extended range at which a toggle will remain, compared to the range at which you can apply it. For example, putting a DoT toggle on a boss, then Flying over their heads out of shooting range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't anchors supposed to drop if you break LOS? I thought that would deal with the problem of kiting around an obstacle to keep the aura up with no risk. I could be wrong.

I've no objection to the notion of "have them drop the toggle if you go too far" or even with too far being shorter in distance than the debuff auras.

As for each tic rolling a ToHit, that's how it works on those powers today. No reason it should change.

[ QUOTE ]
2: making all ranged attacks 40+ range allows someone to chain 3 Ice Blast attacks with Charged Brawl, all with 1.5 or lower activation times, and with 3 of them at 4 BI or greater. In other words, you'll blow a squishy away at range after Build-Up/Aim, in about 6 seconds. At least now you have to worry about Hurricane, Repel, closing to where the pets aggro on you, etc.

make all ranged attacks from the secondaries use animations such at the throwing animation from Impale, thus the slower animation makes them less effective at burst damage in PvP. Or at least have them fire fast, and block new powers for a second after. Anything that prevents them from creating a ranged one-cycle squishy killer.

[/ QUOTE ]

At 30 MPH (doesn't sprint + swift hit ~this speed?) you can close a 75' gap in 1 second. The game can certainly survive short range (20 =~60' right?) and I'd argue it can handle 45 (If you can eat one attack as you close, you can eat two while you close).

Changing the animation is less appealing than using short range, since the point is to punch up the damage in the chain. Would be better to do less range or to increase end per HP cost.

[ QUOTE ]
If they boosted our range, what would happen to the people that slotted 3 Ranges into their attacks? What if those same people picked up Boost Range? What if at that point you're hitting stuff so far away the game just becomes a joke? What if in PvP you can hit people from on top of buildings and chase them down from such a far distance away that they have no chance to react? Would everyone be accepting that?

If we increased the effects of our control powers, would the Controllers feel like we're stepping on their toes?

If we took away some of the melee and made it ranged, would everyone with a Blapper be happy or upset? How long would it take the average person to adjust to a new playstyle? Would everyone who doesn't read the forums be in agreement of what is going to happen if they're power changes?

If Power Boost and Conserve Power were made so that we could use them more often, would we just never run out of endurance and have greater control than some of the Controllers? If we buffed our control and then buffed Power Boost, would it be too powerful? Would we be too powerful with close to limitlesss endurance?

I like a lot of the ideas in here, but I mostly like the ones that just change some numbers. The whole range thing is now really starting to bother me in that if we get a boost in it, it would take a long time to test and retest and make sure that it won't break the game down the line. I would lean more towards the "range increases with level" option since it's in the late game that guys like Malta and Nemesis start to really screw with us. Early on fighting Family and Tsoo? Pfft, please. Anyways, I put out those questions to see if people are thinking about these things when they make their suggestions. Like I said, some of the ideas in here are creative and sound fun, but there is a big difference between what we can write and hypothesize on the boards than what actually will work out overall in the game.

If you think I'm overthinking all this, let me remind you that Cryptic isn't one to just take an idea and throw it into the game. From all of the people who I've brought into the game, every single of them has agreed that for the most part, what Cryptic puts into the game is well designed and thought out. I'm sure if you asked Castle how many scenarios and overall schemes run through their heads when implementing just one little change, he'll tell you it's not just 2 or 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that thinking like this is why he said that SOME of the ideas might work and others definitely will NOT work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, unintentionally I'm sure, you've inserted your own subtext there. I've defended the need for melee attacks in the Blaster secondaries, and the need for there to be a better damage potential up close than at range more than once in this thread alone.

The statement means what it says. Once our role was premium damage, now our role is ranged damage. Since that's the new role, please increase the amount of range the AT has access to so they can perform that role better. That's different from "all of our attacks should have range, then".


[/ QUOTE ]

My issue is with the word "role." It implies that melee attacks should be the rare exception to the rule, not a valid choice a blaster might make. It says that blappers are either broken, or evidence that the blaster sets are broken, because by definition they cannot fulfill the blaster "role."

I still think the blaster role is "damage" and it should be a valid choice for every blaster to decide if for them their blaster will be "AoE damage" or "single target damage" or "long range blaster" or "short range blaster" or some combination of all of these, and each of them should have a valid advantage over the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

But ranged damage IS the Blasters role according to Statesman:

[ QUOTE ]
I went away from the computer to check on some CoV stuff and *wham* I received 5 or so PM's asking "what is the Blaster's role?"

Answer - Ranged damage. Now, the issue is more specifically - what does a Blaster do that a Scrapper can't already do? Or, even worse, is a Scrapper inherently "stronger" than a Blaster. We want each Archetype to have a well defined role, and part of our Scrapper testing is aimed directly at this.

Secondly, I have no intention of removing melee attacks - it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation. This is a rather frequent refrain in PM's (and the occasional forum post). This is something that we should also explore...we want all the Secondary sets to be fun. - Statesman

[/ QUOTE ]


Furthermore, neither he nor I see a conflict between a Blaster having a ranged damage role and melee attacks being an important part of Blaster's capabilities. Blappers are not broken because they focus on melee. Secondaries aren't broken because they have melee in them. I haven't said that, Statesman hasn't said it.

But he has said the Blaster role is ranged damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Spines scrappers have more AoE than other scrappers, but no one says all other scrappers are inferior to spines scrappers. Spines and claws have ranged attacks, but no one considers them superior to all other scrappers just because they have ranged attacks. In a similar vein, I do not think that blasters should be heavily weighted towards AoE damage, or heavily weighted towards higher range. Designating any "role" for blasters other than "damage dealer" tends to do so, even if not everyone intends it to be so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then, wouldn't it be ideal for the secondaries to improve both ST and AE damage, both up close and at range? Wouldn't ideal secondaries have tools to improve the attack chains of any of those 4 "kinds" of damage?


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I can see where it would help them operate better at range. I can see a dev thinking: "that's way too poweful" and another going "well, if we gave it to the MOBs, too...". Well, let's see where you take it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thing about giving it to the MoBs: they already did give it to the MoBs, you just might not be thinking that they did.

Relatively recently, the devs changed things so that -perception now affects players in PvE the way it does in PvP: critters can actually disappear from your view if they are beyond your adjusted perception range (or they actually turned on the -perception in critter powers, something). The net result is that, in effect, critters debuff range now. They do because range and perception are linked: you can't shoot at what you can't target, even if you actually have much longer range.

But this isn't symmetric. (As I mentioned to Castle once before) -perception doesn't affect critters the same way: once aggroed on you, critters can target and shoot at you even if their "perception" is debuffed to zero: the game doesn't force critters to "see" you to shoot you.

Critters can force you to close to extremely close range before they become targettable - critters can actually become totally untargettable for short periods of time. But players cannot do the same thing to critters, because of AI restrictions (the critters always somehow have to "know" where you are).

Debuffing range is an alternate way to get the same effect, and by giving that effect primarily to blasters, it enhances their ability to attack from range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, so what about debuffing PER instead? If the effects are that similar, it seems to me to make a lot more sense that a rapid barrage of incoming damage will addle thier minds making it hard for them to get their bearings than that it will break the muzzle off their rifle.

All that said, let me emphasize again how interesting and worthwhile this -range idea is. I don't want the places where I disagree with you to overshadow my admiration for the cleverness of the notion. It might, all by itself, be the solution to the whole "blast debuffs are meaningless" issue that plagues Defenders just as much as it does Blasters.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with Pilcrow's assertion that more ranged attacks should be included in the Secondary, because as I see it, there are at least two attacks in the Primary which more properly belong in the Secondary. The Blaster Secondary (Devices excepted) is equally derived of melee attacks and control powers, and so the short range (point blank actually) Burst attack and the single target Control (2 and 3) would seem to more properly belong in the Secondary. In fact, the single target Control is in some cases redundant with Defender Primary Powers. The best example of this is Power Push and Force Bolt, only one of which needs to be taken.

The only issue with putting the ranged Control powers in the Secondary seems to be that Secondary Powers, even Control based ones, are either melee or PBAoE. (Again, Devices is the exception) This, I believe, is the other issue with Blasters. Their Secondary control powers, while useful, require them to move into melee to use them. Thus they are encouraged to be Blappers in order to use their holds as defenses. While I can see the logic behind this, there is a greater risk in stunning a foe and moving into melee, and thus greater reward, the fact that a Blaster has NO DEFENSES AT ALL, while at range, proves to be the largest issue after level 30.

Thus, my suggestion is that instead of adding ranged attacks to the Secondary, make more of the current Control powers ranged. This would bring the other Secondaries more in line with Devices, which is already longer ranged. I believe it is the ATTACKS that should remain melee, and the Secondaries should be a combination of melee attacks, and ranged Controls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as the thread moved on, Ive moved away from moving powers from set to set because of the chaos it will create for existing builds, but were we to put that back on the table, I would suggests that you're doing it the wrong way. Blasters are supposed to be about premium ranged damage. Giving them exclusive access to premiere ranged damage in their secondaries would make them unique in their own role. Giving them ranged control there and more damage to those who share the blast sets the squishie ATs instead.

If we are going to put moving powers around back on the table, and we want Blasters to be unique ranged damage dealers, the best way to do that would be to put a strong, steady attack chain in the primaries and the strong situational stuff into the Blaster secondaries where others cannot get at them. For example, you could move the snipe and nova to the secondary (along with that control power) and then you can bring three attacks (immobilize, 1 melee and 1 PBAE, for example) over from the related secondary (or their closest equivalents for NRG and DEV). This makes the primary more like a Dominator set, and the secondary becomes a mix of control and premium attacks instead of control and melee attacks. Thus the secondary supports both the melee playstyle and the pure ranged playstyle, instead of forcing people to blap to use half their secondary.

Now Defenders and Corruptors have a fuller, stronger, regular attack chain (albeit one that requires melee to gain full benefit) which resolves the problem you noted for them (weak attack chains). OTOH, they lack those situational damage powers that can wow a team offensively the same way Speed Boost and AM wow a team on the buff side. These new Blasters will have some powers unique to them that will make them more powerful soloers (snipe) and also more interesting to their team (nova) by leveraging damage powers instead of buffs or controls. All this managed in a way that increases AT diversity and the interest in having all ATs on the team, instead of compressing AT diversity and making the ATs more and more blurred.

Again, I worry about the chaos of a solution that moves that many powers around and have moved away from it. I toned that down as the thread went on. But the mechanics aren't where I really differ from you so much as the goals. If you're looking to improve Blasters, shouldn't it expand upon their specialty (dealing premium ranged damage)?

[ QUOTE ]
Take my boost range and there will be hell to pay !!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I had put a range boost into build up, which made boost range a hair redundant.

Regardless, my refined proposal did not remove boost range, it buffed it instead.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like a number of the ideas you present. Many simply won't happen, for a variety of reasons, but some are quite doable. When I get out of my current mountain of work, I'll re-read this and try and implement some of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please just ignore them. Really blasters have a couple main issues that dont require totally ruining the sets as these few posters that keep reguritating the same ideas to change blasters to THEIR ideals keep posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have every right to express your opinion and dislike my own. But unless you have some survey of the blaster population, would you be so kind as to express your opinon as yours and not some mandate from the Blaster community?

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters have a problem with damage scaling. This is not going to be fixed by simply saying give them more ranged attacks, or whatever. THe scale needs to be fixed. Statesman recognized this a few months back, and did nothing but give us defiance, which does nothing to solve the issue being that good blasters dont ever get much of a defiance buff. The ranged attacks still scale badly, and even more evident since ED was introduced. Over the course of a 50 level carreer i would estimate a extra base 10 percent needs to be gained to really level it out and make blasters live up to the kill before being killed ideals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see this as well, but that path really seems to be closed. As you note, they've skipped two opportunities to do this (When they raised Scrapper damage and the Defiance), so, either the devs feel such an increase in base BI is not an option, or in some other way undesirable. The proposal is to add range to some attacks in the secondary wihout decreasing their BI/DPS. This allows a blaster to increase the DPS of their attack chain without the increased risk of melee and without an increase in base BI, allowing them to "kill before being killed" better while in the higher safety of range. And it doesn't ruin blappnig chains because the ranged power can still be used at melee. Were we proposing the damage be lowered, then I would understand your concern, but the proposal is simply to add range to one attack.

For example, according to my hero planner, a chain with Charged Bolts, Lightning Bolt and Ball ligtning slotted with DMG and RECH SOs gives 25.23 BU in ~9 seconds or 2.7778 DPS. Add charged brawl to that and your chain is 46 BI in those same ~9 seconds or about 5 BI. Obviously, as you add more stuff to your chain, the includence of CB will do down, but I wouldn't be suprised if it gave you the 10% you're looknig for even in your final chains.

[ QUOTE ]
Mezz protection, situational, would be nice, i know its not going to happen but i throw it in every chance i get anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this can't be in an APP. But, otherwise, I'm with you on never gonna happen, so let's move on.

[ QUOTE ]
And finally not ALL secondaries are made equal. There are some glowing holes like say burn for a blaster. Fix those things, and those only. Some sets work great, like energy, or even i have seen electric manipulation used very effectivly. But i do agree with the poster before his half a page list of changes he proposed, that is change as few things as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will find that my later proposal is much less drastic than the original one because you weren't the first to mention this.

[ QUOTE ]
And simply to powers, not alot needs to be changed. Short range high damage burst powers should all be equal in distance, yes 40-50 feet sounds nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you will also find this idea brought up later in the thread, and absorbed into the revised propsal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Blasters revised role as ranged damage dealer (vs. previous role of best damage dealer) calls for a boost in range


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never been comfortable with that generalization. It implies that blasters should always be at range or seek to be at range, which then implies that all tactical options given to blasters that require melee range are, in some way, "broken."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unintentionally I'm sure, you've inserted your own subtext there. I've defended the need for melee attacks in the Blaster secondaries, and the need for there to be a better damage potential up close than at range more than once in this thread alone.

The statement means what it says. Once our role was premium damage, now our role is ranged damage. Since that's the new role, please increase the amount of range the AT has access to so they can perform that role better. That's different from "all of our attacks should have range, then".

[ QUOTE ]
Although it cannot be reduced to an easy sound-bite description, I believe blasters should more properly function as "damage dealers that have dramatically risk/reward ratios at long range as opposed to close range" - as opposed to scrappers that are "damage dealers that function primarily at melee range but whose mitigation is not generally range dependent." Relative to scrappers, I think a blaster that has no enemies anywhere nearby and firing ranged attacks should do less damage, and be safer, than a scrapper that is in melee range of lots of those things, and contrawise a blaster that is in melee range should do much more damage and be in greater risk than a scrapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, IMO, that's not the state of the game today. Melee attacks generally to 1/3 more damage than ranged attacks. Blasters do not, generally, have 2/3 the safety of a Scrapper when at range.

It's an intersting thought, and it has come down the pike before (some have suggested that Blatserd get decent DEF, but only vs. range, for example) but were I to look at Blasters and assign them a role other than "ranged damage dealer" it would be "team-focused damage dealer". The extreme of this is the */Fire Blaster, with enough AE to burn down Cincinatti, and no way to use most of it without a strong team backing his play. That's, in part, why I like upping the debuffs, because it helps the team, too. That's why I think it's essential to make it easier for him to deliver AE than it is today.

Just where I'm coming from. Not the only right answer.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that this is tricky to do: in effect the only way to achieve this is to somehow give blasters ranged defenses

[/ QUOTE ]



/note to self: read first, then write

[ QUOTE ]
but the devs don't want to give blasters defense at all. I've been attacking that problem from a number of angles (perception, scaled defenses, etc), most of which appear to be the kind of things too difficult to add to the game. So I have a proposal that might achieve that in a way that *might* be more palatable to the devs. I haven't had the time to fully flesh it out, but this seems as good a place to toss it out as any:


Give each blaster primary a means to debuff range.

[/ QUOTE ]

That has potential.

I can see why you want it in the primary (Defenders would go nuts if they couldn't debuff range, too). I can see where it would help them operate better at range. I can see a dev thinking: "that's way too poweful" and another going "well, if we gave it to the MOBs, too...". Well, let's see where you take it.

[ QUOTE ]
d. Easy to add

Most blaster primaries have certain logical places to put range debuffing, depending on how strong you want the debuffing to be. For example, short-lived range debuffing (~5 seconds) might be reasonable to put into low damage AoEs, like energy blast's torrent and explosive blast (yet another way to make EB actually worth something). Stronger, longer-lived range debuffing (~10-15 seconds) might be more reasonable to put into single target attacks, like AR's slug. Depending on how strong you want the effect to be, it could be made a continuous ticking effect in powers like rains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me the logical place to put in would be the snipes.

And, while not logical, gameplay wise I could see putting it into the cone powers. No logic, but it would really put that help where its most needed.

Very interesting ideas, as usual Arcana.

[ QUOTE ]
I like a number of the ideas you present. Many simply won't happen, for a variety of reasons, but some are quite doable. When I get out of my current mountain of work, I'll re-read this and try and implement some of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your not only visiting but posting here. I think, as a result, you will see some other post their ideas as well. I bet some of them will be well worth reading.

It's always hard to tell from this side of the code (let alone the internal balance spreadsheet equations) what is or is not in the realm of possibilities, but I'm glad to see that at least some of the ideas might be able to be leveraged.

If I may shill, Hanged_Man started a similarly constructive discussion about what Defenders want to see in the Blast sets in the Defender forum. Might be worth a read.

Thanks again for your interest and efforts, Castle.

[ QUOTE ]
[I]t really got to me the way some of you were talking back to SOCKER. His original reply got flamed to all hell and back and not one person thought, well hey, maybe he sees something we don't and that makes him think the way he does. And for that reason, maybe we're looking at a change the wrong way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You responded to me when you wrote this, and so I must assume you think I am one of those being too hard on him. I would ask you to re-read my initial responses to him, where I ask him for his reasoning. When he failed to include that reasoning in two subsequent posts, I did call him an "empty shirt", but at the same time I defended (twice) his right to have an opinion without having played a blaster through all levels.

I'm always interested in opposing opinions, they often lead to better, more refined ideas.

If I just happend to be the reply to, then that's life. But, if not, you must have read some things into my posts that I did not put there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<reduced to "soccer boy talking out the side of his mouth">

[/ QUOTE ] <recuded to "Pilcrow replying"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude see... now I had written out this loooong reply myself but thought back to your 'beating empty shirt' comment and reduced it to that one paragraph reply. And here you are replying. :P

Bad Pilcrow Bad!

[/ QUOTE ]

He gave us a real response. He deserved the same.

Guess he really got under your skin. For me, he's just someone who disagrees with me. I meet people like that all the time.

Usually, they're wrong

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, you want to know what I think needs working on? These are good points. (Except, as I said, I disaggre w/ the blaster one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you disagree. How can you disagree that the Devs acknowledged that the secondaries weren't percevied as fun and needing to be looked at, for example? How can yuo disagree that the devs changed the intent of Blasters from prime damage dealer to ranged damage dealer? Those are simply facts.

If you disagree with the fact that those things imply a need to make changes to the AT, I have a hard time seeing that perspective given the changes other ATs have seen when their role changed (like in I5 when controllers lost control and in I2 wne scrappers became boss killers, those ATs got HUGE buffs when their role changed).

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are not just ranged damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the problem. Their ROLE is now ranged damage, but their powers don't reflect or support that role. The only two secondaries the devs see as doing a good job of supporting that role and Energy and Devices, for reasons I think are so readily apparent I won't belabor them now.

[ QUOTE ]
But you neglected a HUGE one that needs adressing... Brutes... They are severely underpowered. Not enough defense to tank, but not enough damage to be considered a damager

[/ QUOTE ]

Brutes aren't meant to be a Tank. They're CoV Scrappers. And while they start low, Fury does indeed make them a worthy damage dealer to the team. Thee is an issue with the "must stay active" mechanism in Fury and Domination that needs to be looked at, but outside of that I don't see an issuw with Brutes. Mine play very effectively. Perhaps that falls apart late-game however. Mine main brute is in the 20s still.

I could see some issues when crossover comes, but within the context of CoV, Brutes don't strike me as being in trouble. Again, maybe that changes in the late game, or maybe that's something that gets better with the new Patron Powers. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and put them on the list. That doesn't mean that Blasters don't belong on the list of ATs that need help.

[ QUOTE ]
Another is the issue of Stalkers. A lot of people say they are no issue but a lot of people say they are... If they are causing that big a dispute, they will probably be changed in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stalkers are being addresed. A one-shot fix is being put up and, after they've had time to see how that works out, they will be making further changes if necessary. So A) they aren't underperforming and B) they are already being addressed co C) they're not a valid example of something that needs attention more than Blasters.

I'll leave the rest alone as I don't think failing to have a character at 50 DQs someone from speaking about them.

I do think that you are overly worried about raising the debuffs. Defenders get almost 2x the debuff strength on the exact same powers as Blasters do and it's not like people are running around saying "Hey, make sure the defender uses their blasts so that guy will be debuffed!" It's more typical for a team to not even notice that there ARE debuffs on the blasts. But the slight uptick in safety will still be meaningful for blaster survival, even if it is hard to notice. Frankly, that's an ideal change, one that really improves the Blaster's defensive lot, but in a way too subtle for a team to notice anything but his offense.

Well, let's see what my thoughts have evolved to at this point.

[*]1) Blasters revised role as ranged damage dealer (vs. previous role of best damage dealer) calls for a boost in range[*]2) Blasters need to be able to make a better ranged attack chains (both ST and AE) with their primary and secondary combined, than could be made with just the primary. [*]3) Controls and Debuffs are part of a Blaster's arsenal for a reason, and if they need more protection, that is where it should come from[*]4) Upping debuff and control a bit will lead towards AT homogenization, so a counterbalance needs to exist to keep ATs the best at fulfilling their roles.[/list]
Which leads to the following ToDo list

[*]A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80m)[*]B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)[*]C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and make sure every blaster has an "oh crap" control power.[*]D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.[/list]
Now I want to get into the details, because some of these, while they sound simple, can get a bit hinky in the details. How do we make Frozen Fists a ranged attack, for example. That gets into Animation time and can get pretty ugly.

A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80')

Here's one we can just do. No changes to animations required, thankfully.

B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)

[*]Devices: Taser - Make this the ranged ST attack. Animation: Use the Taser draw and stance, but steal the bolt and effect from Elec: Lighting Bolt[*]Devices: Time Bomb - Time Bomb is targetable and if it is damaged by Fire, Energy, or Smashing damage, it goes off early[*]Electric: Charged Brawl - Make this the ranged ST attack. Use the second half of Hurl Boulder animation, but instead of Hurling a boulder, you hurl a huge ball of Electricity. (Renaming is probably in order)[*]Electric: Lightning Field - This becomes an enemy targeted Electrical Aura. Put the effect that currently applies to the PC on the effected MOB instead. Nearby MOBs get the same animation as when hit by Ball Lightning.[*]Energy: Power Thrust - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use the Hurl Boulder animation again, only this time we make a ball of Energy instead of Electricity.[*]Energy: Boost Range - Increases the radius and max # of MOBs effected by an AE as well as the range of an attack. Radius increases by 50%. Max Mobs = 24.[*]Fire: Fire Sword - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use something like the spines: impale animation, but throw the sword instead.[*]Fire: Blazing Aura - Becomes an enemy targeted AE. Targeted MOB gets aura that is around PC now, nearby foes react as if they were near a fireball.[*]Ice: Chilling Embrace - Simply change this to Storm: Snow Storm[*]Ice: Ice Sword - See Fire Sword.[/list]
C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and buff controls where they are too weak.

[*]Increase strength of debuffs in primaries by X% (50%?)[*]Add recharge debuff to most AR: Buckshot, Beanbag, Snipe[*]Add regen debuff to AR: M30 Grenade, Flamethrower, Ignite, Full Auto[*]Add recharge debuff to Archery: Snap, Aimed, Fistful, Rain[*]Add regen debuff to Archery: Flaming, Explosive, Stunning[*]Add recharge debuff to most Energy Blast attacks[*]Add regen debuff to most Fire Blast attacks[*]Energy Manipulation: Stun - Causes and AE knockdown around the target[*]Fire: Combustion - Causes run-away fear[/list]
D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.

Here's one we can just do. No changes to animations required, thankfully.


It's not the simplest plan, but it seems to me as simple a plan as I can see that puts the changes where the devs seem open to actually making changes (i.e. - primarily in the secondaries).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Ice: Frozen fists - Half and Half again. ~2 BI + Slow. Essentially, Ice Bolt.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good News, actually FF does 4.5 BI. So it's essentially Ice Blast. I think there is a thread in the blaster section comparing /fire and /ice, and it's mentioned in there. Plus I've used it and it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

W00t! Ice needs damage more than more control anyhow.

Is the slow on FF relatively minor? If it's not, maybe it IS overpowered.

[ QUOTE ]
I like almost all of it. Only thing is that I do [not] like a 20' range on the secondary attacks, both to keep them separate from the "true ranged" attacks of the primary, and also to keep with risk vs reward. Generally the secondary attacks are much heavier on control effects, and I like the idea of making Blasters weigh the risk of approaching to control vs staying back to blast (and vs approaching all the way to control/blap).

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my goals is to allow Blasters to make a better ST attack chain at range with primary and secondary than they can do with primary alone. While 20' is technically range, I feel the supplemental ST ranged attack from the secondary needs to be at least middle range to get this job done. Ideally, better will mean either more damage, or getting damage and light control in one shot. Either of these would make the Blaster's ranged ST chain better than one formed from the primary alone (because they can either deliver more damage, or not have to stop delivering damage when they need a bit of control). With the exception

[*]Devices: Taser - Pure Control. Essentially this is Beanbag. And it is the exception to the rule (damn you alphabetical order!)[*]Elec: Charged Brawl - Only 10% chance of disorient, but ~5 BI. This essentially amplifies damage only, as intended.[*]Energy: Power Thrust - Half and Half. ~2 BI+ 100% chance of knockback. It's Power Push, but with more damage.[*]Fire: Fire Sword - Pure Damage. As intended.[*]Ice: Frozen fists - Half and Half again. ~2 BI + Slow. Essentially, Ice Bolt.[/list]
I don't see Beanbag, Power Thrust or Ice Bolt being overpowered, even though you can essentially recycle them non-stop with some recharge. So, I don't think these capabilities will cause cross AT issues.

So it comes down to whether or not you like that goal of mine and whether or not 20 is "enough" range in your eyes. These are things where reasonable people can disagree, but that's why I think they should be medium range attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm not sure about that toggle field idea. I mean, I love it in concept, but I can't see such a field as being STRONG, and meanwhile, it's a constant aggro-pull to the Blaster. Is that really desirable? Would we be better served by a "drop field" like a stationary electric field, that we could use either on controlled mobs or to deny approach like Caltrops?

[/ QUOTE ]


[*]As to concept: Yeah, I love that, too.[*]As to strength: They currently do about 0.5 BI/tic. I think adding 1.0 BI (slotted) passive AE damage to my output would be reasonably nice to have. Seems strong enough to be worthwhile. seems not so strong that I wouldn't rather lay down a Fireball first, all things being equal.[*]As to aggro: This is what makes it fair and not overpowered. These are clearly team powers, you can't really use them solo for any length of time. With all that aggro, something will status you. But on a team where aggro is under control (or you are well protected) you can pump out the AE serious quick. Situational and strong. Seems perfect to me.[*]As to a drop field: If we're looking to buff DEFENSE, a drop field with damage and fear like caltrops would indeed be better. But my goal here is to give the Blaster a way to increase their AE damage output at range, not their protection. [/list]
Diving into the drop field thing a bit more. Most secondaries already have a kind of "keep away" power, Dev just gets it early. If you need to lessen the amount of aggro near you you can drop Caltrops or Lightning Clap or Ice Patch. The only two missing such an "Oh Crap" power are Fire and NRG.

For Fire, I'd suggest that Combustion cause Fear. And for energy, if such a power is needed, then we need Stun to act more like Thunder Strike. Main foe gets damage and disorient, but everyone gets knocked back.

Derails happen, but mostly, I think you're battling an empty shirt here:

[*]He said others were in more need of help. We asked who. No response.[*]We explained why Blasters were in need of work. He chose not to explain why that reasoning was wrong in his eyes.[*]We explained that even the devs have discussed the insufficiency of the secondaries. He's made no case that that analysis is wrong.[*]His only counter to the notion that Blasters need work seeme to be that he sees plenty of Blasters in the game and they seem to deliver enough damage for him.[/list]
We've substantiated why we believe Blasters need work. He has failed to counter that reasoning, or even respond to it for the most part.

Personally, I think whether or not he's played a Blaster directly in the late game is less relevant than his refusal to discuss the substantive issues that explain why we are calling for these kinds of changes.

[ QUOTE ]
Shucks, it's not my humor they are afraid of, it's how many people agree with my reasoning and how well I express my arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to say that your sense of humor, reasoning, and rhetorical style are all things to be afraid of. Perhaps not for the reasons you wish them to be.

PS - Here's a little tip for you the next time you try to be funny. Follow the rule of three. "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." - David St. Hubbins

[ QUOTE ]
I know Pilcrow didn't want to necessarily touch on the inherint but I think it's a necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no god, just another guy with some ideas. Don't give deference to me.

The reason I'm avioding working on the inherent is that the devs say they are happy with Defiance.

They didn't say the same thing about the secondaries.

But if you think it's essential, go for it. They listen. They've changed their mind before.

[ QUOTE ]
There are others that need changing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be so kind as to share with us what ATs you think need attention more and why?

Here's mine:

[*]Blasters role has been redefined as ranged damage dealer, but they have not received buffs to help them fulfill this new role since its definition by the devs. They are continually denied access to protections because they are supposed to leverage range and teammates as their protection, and yet their secondaries do almost nothing to improve their performance at range. The devs have admitted multiple times that the secondaries are an issue, and have not yet changed them. [*]Defenders have some primary sets that overall work nearly as well for Controllers as they do for Defenders. With Controllers having comparable damage and a more team-friendly set to supplement the buff set, Defenders are severly blurred in role. Their secondaries are weak enough that teams would rather have them save END by doing nothing than spend time blasting.[*]Tankers have a team role that has been whittled away by the changes made to make sure everyone can solo and the descision to keep them from being able to tank for a team of 8 on their own has led to their role on a large team being overshadowed by Defenders/Controllers, meanwhile, on a small team, a Scrapper will usually do their job well enough and with more damage to boot[*]Dominators secondaries are too weak in the early game to make the climb to the late game decent. In some cases, the damage from the control powers in the primary exceeds the damage from the pure attack powers in the secondary. They level like controllers used to, slow in the early game, only coming into their own once they get their pet or mass confuse. But with no buff powers to make them interesting to teams in the early game and a pet class that outperforms their ultimate power, they offer neither the team-friendly path to help them level to 32 quickly, nor the reward to make it worth the effort to do so slowly.[/list]
Clearly, you think I'm misguided. And yet, when someone tells yuo that you are misguided, they usually point you in what they think is the right direction.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and after reading V for Vendetta the comic, I have a much greater appreciation of the Wachowski brothers latest endevor.

The prisoner in room number 5 expanded my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And within that one inch, you are free"

I love Alan Moore. Such a shame that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was slaughtered, but I have high hopes for V for Vendetta. The Wachowskis and that material seem to be a good fit.

So sad the Watchmen lost Gilliam.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your assessment. I see 4 ATs as performing Sub-par:

[*]Dominators[*]Tankers[*]Blasters[*]Defenders[/list]
YMMV