Predicant

[ QUOTE ]
-Controller - Illusion Control – Spectral Terror

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike Mind Control's Terrify, I do not believe Spectral Terror takes To-Hit debuffs, so this would be a waste of an HO (using only the accuracy portion of it. Someone should verify this since I respec'ed out of Spectral Terror on my Illusionist, but I'm fairly certain it is correct).

[ QUOTE ]
-Defender - Dark Blast – All powers except Dark Blast – Accuracy + Tohit Debuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of "All powers except Dark Blast" it should read "All powers except Dark Pit" in the Lysosome entry.

[ QUOTE ]
-Blaster - Devices - Smoke Grenade – uses all 3 parts.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is in error. Only the to-hit debuff and accuracy of the Lysosome is functional in Smoke Grenade. Smoke Grenade has no -DEF component, only -ACC (and the -PER, but that doesn't really matter since it self-suppresses and also suppresses other -PER powers the user might have).

[ QUOTE ]
Only when mobs are flopping on their behinds. Otherwise, it isn't noticeable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously a debuff is going to have to hit to have an effect. It would be nice to have the real number, but the Devs seem reluctant to hand out that sort of information. Whatever the debuff it, it "feels" a bit better than SG and noticeably worse than RI, so the decision to enhance it isn't clear cut. But if someone's secondary could act synergistically (Earth/Rad, for example), there would be a clear benefit from slotting it. For someone with a less effective secondary (Empathy, for example), it might not make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Slot it how you want. But how people trade their Hami-Os cannot be quantified. Value is relative and has no bearing...hence the IMO for slotting any Hami-O in EQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be quantified from a game theory standpoint, and to a certain degree people either know that deductively or intuitively. The reason people value Lysosomes less than other HOs is rational, others provide an obvious benefit, while for most people the Lysosome is less effective than a +1..3 SO.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the accuracy, its at least ~75% base. If the accuracy portion of a Hami-O effects it, consider that a bug comparable to the recharge aspect of Vengeance. Not a Dev, but I'm going to say that it isn't intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not, but it is still an effect, and not an unreasonable one; considering it is limited to HOs perhaps the Devs did it intentionally (undocumented doesn't always equate to "bug"). Until a Dev comments, it's hard to say for sure; although you're probably right.

[ QUOTE ]
Before when Hami-Os were of higher values, you could easily use them in powers if you could use 1 out of 2, or even 1 out of 3 aspects. Now, with the lesser values, you really don't get your "money's worth" unless you can do 2 out of 2 or at least 2 out of 3. And if those 2 out of 3 are only giving negligible returns *shrug* person preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem comes back to the fact that we're talking about Lysosomes. If Earthquake really isn't intended to use all aspects of the buff, that means that the Lysosome is unique in that not a single power in the game can use it to potential effect.

[ QUOTE ]
So personally, unless a Hami-O is giving a good return for investment, an updated guide like this is kind of pointless. If you know what a +HP is, or mez, or range, you can figure out the basics. Hence me tossing in 2 cents where I feel like it to help encourage "better" placements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For other HOs, that's sound advice. I think Lysosomes are a special case, though. Short of Earthquake, it can't be slotted optimally (and as we've both pointed out, the +ACC might be an anomaly/"bug"). You aren't the only one who has shown indifference to the DEF/ACC debuff of Earthquake, but the fact is that a lot of such debuffs are fairly weak, and at least Earthquake's appears to be noticeable. If it is a waste to slot a Lysosome in Earthquake, then it is probably a waste to slot it anywhere else as well (assuming the better alternative enhancements are available, of course).

[ QUOTE ]
Earthquake doesn't use an Accuracy check; I can't see it being modified even if it could be slotted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earthquake doesn't take accuracy enhancements; that's quite a bit different than "doesn't use an Accuracy check". If it isn't an accuracy check, what mechanism makes it sometimes fail to affect a target? Mostly likely, there is an accuracy check just like with other similar powers, it is just a very high ACC.

[ QUOTE ]
And both the -ACC and -DEF aspects of the power are pretty small; hardly worth slotting for with SOs as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the values are (I doubt you do either, although I could be mistaken), but the -ACC is at least noticeable, which is more than can be said for some powers.

[ QUOTE ]
Recharge is the best thing to slot in EQ and one really shouldn't waste a Hami-O on it IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a Lysosome; people often trade them three for one or even give them away. Two aspects of it work for a variety of powers (most with -ACC or -DEF debuffs either worse or no better than Earthquake's); Earthquake is the only power I can think of that probably can use all three.

And if anyone with a 47+ Earth controller is bored enough to be willing to copy over to Test, I'll supply two or three Lysosomes and you can see for yourself if the +ACC provides a buff or not. Regardless of the result, it would be useful information to know.

[ QUOTE ]
Lysosome Exposure - Increase ToHit and Defense Debuffs, and Increases Accuracy:

[/ QUOTE ]

A few more uses I didn't see listed yet:

While few AR Blasters would probably slot it, it could be used in Burst (Accuracy and foe -DEF).

Earth Controllers could slot it in Earthquake. This might be the best use for it since it is the only thing I can think of that would use all three (accuracy, foe -DEF, and foe -ACC) aspects of the enhancement (assuming the +ACC works even though the default power is unenhanceable for ACC).

Storm defenders/Controllers could slot it in Freezing Rain (ACC and foe -DEF), Hurricane (ACC and foe -ACC), or Tornado (ACC and foe -DEF).

The +ACC and foe -ACC works well on all the Defender /Dark blast powers except Dark Pit.

Broadsword scrappers can use it in all their attacks (except Parry, and right now it probably works there too) for +ACC and foe -DEF.

Dark scrappers can use it for +ACC and foe -ACC in nearly all of their attacks.

Katana scrappers can use it like Broadsword (+ACC and foe -DEF) in most attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
-Defender/Controller - Dark (do Controllers have Darkness? It's been a while) - Twilight Grasp, Fearsome Stare and Dark Servant

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, Controllers don't get Dark.

Overall, a Dark Defender is probably the best use for Lysosomes (but for some reason /Dev smoke grenade always gets listed. Maybe that's an artifact from earlier guides before the various SG nerfs?).

[ QUOTE ]
you know you are an old player when.....

Your first electonic game was pong and it was new at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about when you first saw pong in a pinball arcade and "the first electronic game" you owned was the copy of pong you made yourself with a Motorola 6847 video controller and scavenged 7400 series logic?

[ QUOTE ]
Would simply removing the rooted aspect from all powers in Trick Arrow and Archery--as something unique to this set--be enough to overcome it's other weaknesses? I.e., leave everything relatively as is, maybe shorten some recharges at most: but lose the rooted. Let the archers dash about.

Or would that be too powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that would be a bit too powerful (hard to say for sure, but I'm certain there would be PvP complaints by those no longer able to freely prey upon archers). But there is one animation that could be reduced in duration that would have absolutely no effect on "animation aesthetics" and would do a great deal towards improving the set. Reduce the animation (not recharge time) and "dead time" for the Archery version of AIM.

[ QUOTE ]
In the game, having all the animations be as quick as snap shot would definitely decrease the visual appeal of the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem isn't the animation movements quite so much as the "stand there and hold still" before and after drawing. That, and the fact that somehow the bow strings issued by Freedom Corps must be really noisy, since with cloaking device and group invisibility mobs can still sometimes hear me pull back the bow string and will start attacking before the arrow ever even fires.

[ QUOTE ]
If any of you have ever seen a movie called "Hawk, the Slayer" you'll remember how absolutely silly the archer in that looked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that wasn't the inspiration for the Archery primary??? Darn, there goes my hope for the Full-Auto Archery Epic...

[ QUOTE ]
Fix the blaster? Don't really care what the Devs have admitted to - there's nothing wrong with the blaster sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my only extensive experience with Blasters was Ice/Ice, I would probably think the same thing. But the fact is that you are wrong.

The fact that you are wrong is relevant, because you are not completely wrong. You are partiallly correct because not all blaster sets are broken, which is why some of the proposed solutions (such as an across-the-board increase in damage) are very, very bad ideas. Such "solutions" would mean that those sets which sometimes can't kill greys with their max slotted level 32 attack would just go to not being able to kill greens, while the sets that didn't have the problem would become overpowered. A much better solution is Pilcrow#5, and those who are opposed to it probably just do not understand it.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the players who build them poorly. Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is the proof that you are wrong. Considering the implications of this statement shows exactly how blasters are broken, and suggests the preferred solution for solving the problem. Unless one picks up pool powers or adopts insane enhancement slotting it is very difficult to make a bad Ice/Ice or Ice/Energy blaster. The same cannot be said for AR/Dev or Archery/Fire.

[ QUOTE ]
That's one move. What do I win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely one or more of the PvP badges...

But you bring up a good point. The problem really isn't with all blasters as much as it is a decent number of the builds and the powers within those builds. /Fire is a weak secondary, but buildup in /Fire is fine. /Dev is a weak set, but Targetting Drone within that set is fine. While the primaries can be fixed by things like Pilcrow#5 (which solves the AR/, Archery/, etc. problem without causing balance issues like an overall +DMG boost would do), the secondaries probably need to be fixed on a power by power basis (and by fixing the powers that are broken instead of buffing ones that are already more than impressive, unless you're planning on completely writing off the casual player).

[ QUOTE ]
(I also agree that Targetting Drone needs +DMG)

[/ QUOTE ]

A great number of people agree with you. I'm not one of them (I think Targetting Drone is a great power as it is and that there are other powers in /DEV that need buffs or tweaks instead), but it does seem to be a commonly proposed solution to the /DEV problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it might be wise to start a new thread with the revised proposal. Or maybe we can continue discussion here and collect some more ideas

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the latter is a better idea for the moment. Most of the people responding (even Castle) seem to agree that some of the ideas have merit, but quite a number of the ideas (including mine and those I stole ^h^h^h^h^h liberated from others) are probably not easily implementable due to resource constraints (coding and artwork).

I would assert that ideas like Pilcrow#5 are ideal, in that they involve using pre-tested code that already exists in PvP, and no changes in artwork, etc. are more practical than some of the other (great or otherwise) ideas being proposed.

I think there are some other ideas along similar lines (no artwork changes, no new powers, minimal coding) that could be added. For example, why not also add the PvP code for status effect immunity to players for PvE? It would be a minor change (the code already exists), might solve another problem (perma hold/stun, especially in the later levels), and wouldn't require added any explicit status effect protection to blasters (which the Devs are apparently reluctant to do).

[ QUOTE ]
Fix the Blaster in the fewest possible moves? Ok, here goes:

Increase Base damage of all blaster attacks by 10%.
Have Blaster Attack base ranges increase as level increase.

That's it, two steps.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good low number of steps, but it doesn't fix Archery/ and doesn't fix AR/, nor does it solve some of the problems with the secondaries (/Fire, /Dev, etc.). Implementing Pilcrow#5 alone would do a better job (although, again, that doesn't solve the problem with some of the secondaries either) in a single step.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the one-shotting code fix defiance?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it will; but it might. And I don't think Defiance should be changed until we see what happens when it goes Live. Most of your argument for why it won't might be (and probably are) valid, but are based purely upon PvP are are also based on assumptions on how the anti one-shotting code works.

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: Defiance still sucks

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost no one would dispute that right now, excepting a few inexperienced people who have only played at the low levels or people with a (very) few select builds where it can be made to work. But that is the situation now, and the situation in the future depends on how they implement the anti-one shotting code. Consider what happens if it introduces the same sort of lag before death that some people see in Defiance right now, and imagine the implications of being able to get off several attacks (in addition to burning an inspiration or two) before the server allows the death. Certainly such situations are unlikely, but since the Devs don't know how Defiance really works right now it could be possible for them to introduce similar abnormal behavior. It would better, in my opinion at least, for them to fix and roll out the "no brainer" solutions like Pilcrow#5 before they start playing around with changes that might take weeks or months to properly balance.

[ QUOTE ]
........ but, we haven't addressed the issue of Defiance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defiance might be fixed by the anti "one shotting" code currently supposedly being implemented. I wouldn't suggest any modifications to Defiance (except fixing the numerous bugs, that sadly the Devs won't be able to find because their internal testing is flawed) until those changes are implemented.

Too many changes at the same time could cause balance issues. Some things, like Pilcrow#5 (sorry, I like that better than "D". It has a beat and you can dance to it), are so obvious that there is zero sane reason not to immediately implement it and just bring it Live. Adding range probably also fits in this category.

Other changes, such as modifications to powers creating debuffs and/or control powers, are deserving of extensive testing, and it would be nice if the various blaster secondaries were not "cookie cutter" in their effects.

Using /DEV as an example, a lot of people have suggested adding a damage buff to Targetting drone, in order to provide a similar effect as buildup over time. Instead, I think a better solution would be to make /Dev the "less offensive more defensive" secondary, something that perhaps could be done by restoring the pre-nerf +DEF of Cloaking Device, and making it not suppress. Such a change would not be unbalancing (we know this for a fact since it used to have even more +DEF pre-ED and wasn't remotely unbalanced then), and would help provide a more unique flavor than simply "more damage".

Similarly fixing smoke grenade (making it not supress) would go a long way towards fixing /DEV. In the case of many /DEV powers, what the developers need to do isn't quite so much fixing the set as much as it would be unbreaking it, since after the initial bug fixes (the 100% SG debuff bug that gave /DEV a much better reputation than it otherwise deserved post-fix) it was a decent (if still somewhat weak compared to alternatives) secondary.

If the Devs are so in love with suppression (maybe they want to avoid special case code?) that they can't stand to remove it from smoke grenade and cloaking device, then perhaps smoke grenade could have a minor placate chance (35% or so if AoE, or auto-placate the primary target) added so that it has some relevant game effect making it worth taking and the +DEF of cloaking device could be further increased. It would honestly not even be unbalancing to turn Cloaking Device into true invis (which goes away when suppressed) considering all the things that see through non-superior invisibility.

Trip Mines would be ok as is (even post ED) if they would just fix the numerous bugs (villains standing in the middle of them without them going off, people being able to always run through them without taking damage as long as they keep moving, etc).

There are many people who love Time Bomb. Ok, not many, but I'm sure some exist. Ok, I'm not sure, but I think... well, nevermind, just get rid of Time Bomb and replace it with Body Armor from the munitions Epic pool, and move Time bomb into the Epic to replace it. For those that would complain the munitions pool would no longer have an Armor power, tell them that variety is a feature, not a bug. And since Time Bomb is a "late" secondary power (and the +RES from Body Armor is pretty weak regardless) there would be no possibility of any unforseen balance issue.

Increase the range of auto-turret (and perhaps the duration), give it as 25% damage boost to partially make up for being broken by ED, and increase its recharge just a bit (to make it more of a deployable rather than situational power).

As others have mentioned, add the range to Taser that it deserves (somehow the Developer who made named the set apparently never saw one), and /Dev then becomes a balanced, if someone unique among the blaster choices, and useful secondary.

So while not as quick and painless as Pilcrow#5, I think /Dev could be fixed by

[*]Web Grenade - no change[*]Caltrops - no change[*]Taser - make a short ranged attack like the name suggests[*]Targetting Drone - no change[*]Smoke Grenade - either eliminate suppression or add minor placate effect[*]Cloaking Device - either eliminate suppression or restore +DEF and turn into true invis[*]Trip Mine - no change except to fix the bugs[*]Time Bomb - eliminate and replace (swap) with the Body Armor from the Munition Epic Pool[*]Auto Turret - minor increase in damage and minor increase in range[/list]
Most of those changes would require little time, with only the Taser change having any artwork effort. I think similar "minimal impact" lists could be generated for each secondary, and the result would be better than "broad brush" changes to the game / combat engine.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.... every blaster I've ever teamed with at lvl 32 must be Gods of the blaster AT then...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that pretty much proves the point I was trying to make. If your only experience with blasters is the low levels, then you never run into the sort of problems a lot of the posters are trying to resolve. In the low 30s, you probably haven't run into any of the major problems blasters have. You probably haven't experienced perma-hold from Rikti or Carnies, or perma stun from any of a variety of minions. You can still usually two shot whites and yellows. And you don't get one-shotted by much of anything at that level. At that level and below, playing a blaster is easy and it is understandable that you wouldn't be aware of the problems because you've never faced them.

[ QUOTE ]
My blapper's only 20 so I don't really know if this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you recognize your ignorance of the situation, then that's ok. Just realize that most of these people offering solutions are doing so because a real problem exists. As for the "can't kill greys", try an AR/Dev against Praetorian robot minions. At level 47 with 50 SOs (max slotting), you won't quite kill them with Full Auto. The reason that problem, and similar problems, exists is because a great number of things have high resists against lethal damage in the higher level game. This is why Pilcrow's solution (using the PvP code, since the same meta-problem exists there) was so elegant.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post...

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're not. There is an area of the game where they're fine, and it is understandable that those people who have only experienced this portion of the game might think they are fine. But the people proposing solutions (such as Pilcrow's #5) are doing so because they have seen some of the problem areas.

When a level 32 power slotted for max damage can't kill grey minions, that is not "fine". If you've never experienced that situation, it only shows that you lack knowledge of the problem domain and that your opinion has less merit than that of those attempting to propose solutions to the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way. Castle is going over the Blaster stuff right now and I am willing to wait and see what he says, even if I fear his two most common responses will be 'As intended' and 'Would require an animation change which we don't have the manpower/time for'.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he doesn't "have the manpower/time" to implement Pilcrow's point #5 then someone sell NCSoft stock short, since their code base would have to be pretty terrible for that change to require more than a minute or so of a programmer's time.

[ QUOTE ]
#5) Apply the irresistable damage (Blaster) and irresistable debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is such an obvious change that I can't understand why the Devs would go to the trouble of having the code diverge in the first place.

Ignoring the other suggestions (making no judgement upon their validity), this change alone would go a great way in solving the worst of the blaster problems. Since the code already exists, the only thing implementing it would do would be to get rid of some worthless bloat in the code base. And assuming their code base isn't completely brain dead, making this change shouldn't consume more than a few minutes of a developer's time, either.

While not a complete solution, it is a perfect one.

[ QUOTE ]
From my own experiences with the subject-I think the problem with Defiance bars being wonky may have something to do with client-server latency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed your post after saying pretty much the same thing. I think you are correct. Unfortunately, unless one of the Devs reads the replies and thinks similarly I doubt if the issue (one of several I suspect are latency related) will be resolved (not that it really matters for Defiance, since its value is questionable in any case).

[ QUOTE ]
Doublechecked Defiance - and its working for us (internally and on live).

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt; but your test environment may be irrelevant to the experience of most people due to the likely low latency (and high bandwidth if you are on LAN) to the servers. I doubt your test environment was getting a lot of the crashes many others were getting post I5 either. Unless a decent percentage of your QA department is playing through a mediocre broadband connection (and maybe even one or two via modem for a "worst case" test), there is little chance they will duplicate many of the problems your customers face.

For what it is worth, I have seen the same behavior posted by some of the others; a full defiance bar and no additional damage. I have also seen the other reported behavior (some defiance with no damage taken), although the latter issue is very rare and I know of no pattern to evoke it.

[ QUOTE ]
Castle challanged Chuck Norris to a duel - He WON!

[/ QUOTE ]

He is truly a Lesbian among Hellions.

[ QUOTE ]
Brute/Scrapper/Stalker=1
MasterMind/Dominator/Controller=2
Corruptor/Blaster=3
Tank/Defender=4
Kheldian=5

"Fun" = ((AT# * Team Size - 4 [minimum 1]) + (Number of Missions Completed * AT#) + 1 [for each badge earned] + 100 [for each Level and/or Accolade earned]) / (# of Hours of the play session + # of Defeats + ((10 - Team Size [minimum 1]) * # of Team Wipes)


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have made an error in your calculation, or at the very least have made a bad approximation. Rather than 3 and 4, Defenders and Blasters should both have a value of approximately 3.1415.