ProcessedMeatMan

Regardless of anyone's stance on this, I think we can all agree on one thing:
Let's hope that there is a clear cut and obvious message that informs the player that what they are choosing is truly permanent.
Something similar to the red text "you will be killed" warnings in the PvP zones.

[ QUOTE ]
I read up to page 14 of this and just stopped reading because of all the whining.People,understand that this isn't even on test and you are already whining about it.From what I read,you all want the villians to be INDENTICAL to the heroes with all of their choices.The devs throw somethign new at us and you all cry and moan and whine.Accept the new content they are giving us,it's much better than nothign or the same old thing.Even though you are permanently locked into that patron's pool doesn't mean that it's the end of the world.In a later issue,there could be the possibility of betraying your patron and choosing a new one.(Maybe still having that patrons pool but they get deleted and placed over with powers from your new patron.)

[/ QUOTE ]

... but that's an assumption Chan. Those aren't allowed here

Yeah, I suppose. Those weren't power-specific changes though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you for on the 'how it works doesnt matter' argument.

The only thing that really matters is, since these things are permanent for the forseeable future what will happen when they are tweeked for balance.

Everything else is moot since it can be tested on the test server.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really find the APPs in CoH to be unbalanced between the different sets? They all seemed to do what they want.

I've never even bothered to switch mine on test on my one 40+ character, just get different powers within it. (Currently having all of them.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, most of the Hero APPs haven't been touched since they first hit the Test server in issue 4. As a matter of fact, the only Hero APP power that's been altered at all is the Blaster Force of Nature, IIRC.

EDIT: and the Controller versions of Hibernate and Earth's Embrace, which were actually buffed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...

But it doesn't matter how it works! What if I decide, for example, that I actually hate the way Scorpion's Mace looks with my character?
Now I'm screwed in the A. What the damn Mace does doesn't make any difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you have the choice of not using the mace and just using normal pools (just like heroes.)

I'm 99% postive that the reason this isn't respecable is that it ties into your badge/souvenir rewards for the Patron Story Arc.

You do the story arc (now the *history* of your character) you have officially pissed off all of the other patrons and only the one you picked will be your sugar-daddy.

A decision with a consequence! My gosh!

How CoV where if you fail a mission, the contact tells you to take a hike and won't *ever* talk to you again?

I'm quite happy to see it, myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for posting this. Though I don't necessarily agree, your point is a perfect example of discussion and debate that can be derived from the facts we've been handed already.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can debate over what you assume is valid but it wont help much until you see how it works.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the point is, if it was okay to discuss and debate CoV features prior to beta based on dev comments and article mentions, it doesn't seem outrageous to discuss/debate PPPs at this stage. There's virtually no talk about the specific powers, but there is enough info to discuss the pitfalls/virtues of non-respecable post-40 powersets. There are definite pros and cons. There was just that dustup earlier that took things to the extreme that was not constructive.

Additionally, if people had just shut up and played 'wait and see', Positron would might not have offered some clarification today. More info is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for explaining the point more eloquently than I.

I just don't get the "yay, new information! Let's not discuss any of it until we know every last detail!" crowd. Kinda makes this entire thread pointless. Hell, it makes posting anything at all pointless.

...

But it doesn't matter how it works! What if I decide, for example, that I actually hate the way Scorpion's Mace looks with my character?
Now I'm screwed in the A. What the damn Mace does doesn't make any difference.

I just hit the first reply I saw... wasn't directed to you Clint

[ QUOTE ]
We dont know what is contained in the Patron pools yet, how many powers exist, how similar they are to each Patron, etc...so its difficult to debate for now until we see it on Test to form our opinions on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter what they contain. I don't see why it's "difficult to debate." We've been given some facts about how the sets, in general, will operate. What they actually do is largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

If we ARE going to assume stuff, then I'll assume that the sets won't be any more or less similar than the current Hero APPs. Which is to say, they'll have a moderate amount of variation with only slight similarity.
Besides, I highly doubt each set will have flying shark attacks.

You might want to re-read his statement.

Will there never be an option to respec out of them? Who knows. Does it really matter? They won't be anytime soon.

What assumption?

What is being debated here is fact. Positron just freakin' posted that they would be permanent. His statement was pretty clear.

Fact: Villain PPPs will be permanent. Hero APPs are not.
Fact: Power tweaks will happen.
Fact: Some sets will be better than others, for various subjective reasons.
Fact: It's not like you can copy over to Test and try them out first. Unless you level to 50 without a PPP and then try them out.

I don't see how these are assumptions. They're perfect fodder for debate. Knowing what powers the sets have is irrelevant given the facts we have already.

[ QUOTE ]
Dark melees Shadow Maul will be the cause of 90% of stalker deaths in game. horribly long time for pretty much a squishy to stand still.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about the same as Total Focus and Thunder Strike for Blasters (and other squishy powers I imagine). It's not really a problem for them. I don't see why it would be that much of an issue for Stalkers... outside of waiting a couple extra seconds to get back into Hide.

[ QUOTE ]
OG and CoF are defensive countermeasures you can activate after breaking hide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that. However, the animation activation times on these powers are going to be a real PITA for a Stalker to use in that way. The Scrapper version is annoying enough already, but at least it makes sense for us to turn them on "before" we engage.

A range debuff would not only make sense, but kick major tail as well. Great idea!

He speaks!

Thanks for the words, Castle.

Let me interject my propaganda while you're here: Don't take away mah powahs!!!

I know I said I'd drop the topic, but there have been many good and valid points regarding the Blapper style that should continue to be discussed.

[ QUOTE ]
So technically speaking, looking at all the melee attacks as being there "so that we can get into melee" isn't necessarily true, especially since they fall into our secondary which is labeled "support".

[/ QUOTE ]

Dingly_Dang touched on this in an earlier post, but I feel it needs to be expanded.

Currently, Blaster secondaries are primarily melee-based. Yes, primarily.
The melee percentages listed in Dingly_Dang's post are somewhat skewed. He only focused on "damage" powers. If you really look at them, it gets much, much bigger.

Devices - Is the only set with one melee-based power: Taser.

Energy Manipulation - 5 melee-based powers (Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Stun, Total Focus) and 4 self buffs (labeling self-buffs as support powers is stretching it).

Electricity Manipulation: 7 melee based powers (Charged Brawl, Havoc Punch, Lightning Field, Lightning Clap, Thunder Strike, Power Sink, Shocking Grasp) only one of whcih (Lightning Clap) is an obvious "oh crap, get me outta here" power. It also has one self buff and one ranged immob.

Fire Manipulation - Same as Electricity. 7 melee powers, one self buff, one ranged immob.

Ice Manipulation - 5 obvious melee powers and one questionable melee (Ice patch). One short range cone debuff (Shiver), one self buff and one ranged immob.

That's 5 Blaster secondaries - 45 powers total - 25 which are specifically melee based powers. Over half of the secondary powers available to Blasters are melee-based. 55% to be accurate. Considering three of these sets actually emphasis melee combat, I'd hardly say that Blasters were always meant to be purely ranged damage dealers.
Hell, if we take Build-Up (and Targeting-Drone) out of the equation (powers which boost ranged AND melee damage and accuracy), that number jumps to 62%.
I'd say Blasters were definitely meant to be part-time melee combatants.

The title of "Support" was the mistake, not the Secondary design.

All of this, of course, does not take into account the game's progression since release. Blaster secondaries have changed very, very little since their original conception (post AT system in Beta). However, status effects are much, MUCH more prominent in the game now than they ever were prior. This alone is reason enough to question today's validity of a Blaster's place in melee combat. I will certainly agree with that. Say nothing of lower self-damage potential a la ED.

So, to say that Blasters were not meant to be in melee range is, IMO, a delusion. The secondaries speak for themselves. Unless, you're suggesting that Blasters were never "meant" to take those powers to begin with... or it was a design "mistake '... or are supposed to be used only "situationally" (an entire secondary full of situational powers? Unlikely) ... none of which makes any sense at all.

The Blaster's role has changed to a degree... not due to any sort of "original" conception, but because of the game's own evolution. So, instead of clinging to this notion that Blasters were meant to be this or that, the focus (as Picrow has stated many times) should be on where Blasters are NOW.

I'll freely admit that a Blaster in melee TODAY is at a far greater risk than in the past. As such, something definitely needs to be down to emphasize the ranged portion of what Blasters do. However, I strongly feel that this change should not come at the expense of what has already existed in the game for two years. This is important.

[ QUOTE ]
/em rolleyes

Weren't you going to drop this?

[/ QUOTE ]

D'oh! I hate when my hypocrisy is called out!

About the rudeness:
[ QUOTE ]
If it was it went over my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "your opinion is irrelevant" comments were uncalled for, so I removed them. That, and my dumb statement about yellow polka dot skies didn't make much sense lol

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of ideas that deserve airtime. Here's something that came in to my PMs from someone who would prefer to remain anonymous. I think they're wirth seeing (especially #2 )

1. Increase the range on all of the attacks shorter than 80 feet in the primary (at least 60 for all AoE and nukes, 80 for single target) and remove the inturrupt timer from snipe attacks while still keeping the two LoS checks.

2. Make every toggle other than Cloaking Device and every PbAoE in the secondary a ranged target toggle and a ranged AoE. This would mean that tripmines and other summons would still operate as they do now. However, Hotfeet and chilling embrace would be ranged. The range on all of these powers should not be more than 30' activate and of course they would be limited by the toggle leash the same as defenders. Recharge times would be increased on all of the powers changed.

3. Impliment the PvP mechanic for resistance bypass in PvE. This will help the lethal and /smashing sets even out with the pure elemental sets and will keep sets with a pure elemental set from being dinged as hard when they run up against a mob with very high resists to their elemental *cough* Infernal *Cough*.

Those three base changes would completely change the play style of blasters, still allow variety by leaving the melee in place and still very usefull but, would do so in a way that would make blasters overpowered in PvE. The important thing to note is the increased recharge times on powers like Hotfeet, Chilling Embrace and the like. I mean really slow to almost long recharge times on those powers. A blaster should not come close to a corruptor in providing defense to a team and those powers used offensively could do so, thus they must be balanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting ideas. About the PBAoE idea... powers like Lightning Field and Blazing Aura would need to be changed. a ranged-toggled damage aura would draw aggro to the Blasters like crazy. I'm not sure what to do about BA, but LF could lose the damage and have it's end drain increased maybe.
I'm not too hot about losing my LF, but hey... compromise should be made somewhere

I popped open my manual and found the AT description you're talking about. You're right, it does say "Blasters specialize in delivering massive damage at range." So, I guess that makes us both right.

Whether the melee attacks were a mistake or not is up for debate. I believe that this was intentional. They exist. They've existed for a long time. If they were a mistake, then they wouldn't have been improved over time... you know, to make them more attractive.
It is simply not logically possible for someone to play "against" an AT when they're using strictly powers provided in their Primary and Secondary sets. If they weren't "about" melee, they wouldn't "have" melee to begin with. Sure, their emphasis is ranged, I agree, but to saythat Blasters "were never meant for melee range" is obviously not true. Unless you're goign to play the "look what they did not Controllers with multiple pets" card, but that's still not a power reversal, that's a downgrade.
It's not like we're playing pet-less MasterMinds here...

There doesn't need to be a red name post supporting the use of melee attacks. They're IN the damn secondaries! If players want to call them "Blappers," that's their perogative. They're still Blasters. Our AT description doesn't change simply because we empasize our secondary strengths.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

FYI: A blaster that makes use of his melee attacks is more of a glass "canon" than a strictly range-limited blaster could ever be. I understand that this is what people want to change and that's fine. I actually agree. To be honest, this conversation is moot anyway. Stateman has already stated that the melee attacks aren't going anywhere.

On a slightly different tangent... what's with the implication that Blappers rely on pool powers to be a Blapper? I've never had more than Fitness, Speed and Hover since I created this character. I've seen a few Blappers with Acrobatics, but I'd hardly say it's necessary.

EDIT: Post was unnecessarily rude. Apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not everyone is playing AGAINST the AT. I have a blapper 'toy'. I play him when I want a change of pace. I in no way take him seriously. Blasters are meant to be RANGED offensive juggernauts. Just because some people take advantage of the mistake that's the melee attacks doesn't mean that's what they're there for.

Asking me to suffer with blasters in their current form because your concept for your blaster goes AGAINST the AT isn't fair dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had this argument before. Blasters were never advertised as "ranged" damage dealers until fairly recently by a Statesman post. Every AT description that the game has provided up to that point has never, to my knowledge, specified that Blasters were soley "ranged" damage dealers. Sure, it was implied, but that's the key. I'm paraphrasing here, but the first Blaster AT description I ran across while loading up the game stated that "Blasters are fragile, but are the masters of damage, be it from range or in melee."
Given the plethora of melee-based attacks in our secondaries, I'd say that if Blasters were "never meant to be in melee," we wouldn't have so many damn melee powers to begin with.
I don't view this as a "mistake" as you say. I would argue that this was completely intended.

Regardless, if a melee power exists... and I use it... how is this a mistake? They weren't "intended" to be used?

Asking me to accept that powers I've loved and used for two years should be taken away because of your idea of what Blaster should be, isn't "fair dude." I just happen to enjoy using the powers that have been here all along... and using them the way they were obviously intended to be. Excuse ME if I take issue with them being taken away from me.

If the Devs want to go and change how Blasters operate, that's their perogative. I really take issue with them completely removing powers from the game after they've been around for so long and are detrimental to our (by "our" I mean those of us that actually enjoy the melee attacks) "fun."

Removing powers at this point is akin to deleting characters, IMO. I'd be like logging in to find my Tank has been changed to a Kheldian

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme..

[/ QUOTE ]


ED

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... removing powers and changing how powerful they CAN be are two completely different things.
How hard is this to understand?



EDIT: Sorry for de-railing the thread, Pilcrow. Blasters need love, but not at the expense of power removal. There, I've said my piece. Hijack done!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its been proven the devs can make 'drastic' changes, unless you do not think ED(esp in combination with I5) was such a change. This is not a good argument to not make any changes "at this stage of the game."

[/ QUOTE ]

Changing how powerful an enhanced power can be... and removing that power completely are two different things. So yes, it is a perfectly valid argument.

The only powers to ever be removed from the game were Fold Space, shortly after Issue One, and the single target Wormhole, in Issue 5 (technically, this was not removed).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, hey, you blappers let me know if I missed the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say you did. The reason for such high damage on the melee attacks is the "risk" of entering melee range. Adding range to these attacks almost demands that their damage be reduced to compensate for balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even after our role changed from "juggernauts of damage" to "ranged damage dealers"? Even after Scrappers got Criticals and a 12.5% damage boost?

Seems to me that "higher BI because melee = higher risk" rule preceeded those other changes. Is it out-of-bounds to remind the devs that when their paradigm shifted for Scrappers from Soloers to Boss-killers, they got a buff appropriate to let them do that job, and that we might benefit from a similar buff to fulfill our new role as well?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you here. I was just using past experience with Dev balance reasoning to make that comment.
Sure, more range would be nice, I guess... but not at the expense of my favorite secondary attacks. I'm selfish like that.

[ QUOTE ]
But, hey, you blappers let me know if I missed the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say you did. The reason for such high damage on the melee attacks is the "risk" of entering melee range. Adding range to these attacks almost demands that their damage be reduced to compensate for balance.

Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.

I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme.. and the Blaster problem is not "that" extreme.
Adding new power options is the way to go. Not removing them.

Haha! Someone needs to get Beef Cake on this stat!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

* Caleb is the only Zone Event that can be spawned by players. (CuppaJo)

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we get a link to the post where she said this?

Because I have redname confirmation through PM that you can summon Deathsurge, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see it. Copy and Paste.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt to bait me to break forum rules by posting a PM.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember seeing any rules against posting (non-abusive) PMs. Could you post that excerpt?