Samuel_Tow

And this surprises you? There is no evidence. There never was. There's only the bias of intolerant people who see their side as the majority because THEY are on it. This is one of the key reasons why the thread keeps devolving into petty bickering, because really - what can you say to a claim like that?

I didn't mean to criticise. I honestly don't know what this whole thing has been trying to tell me, aside from "You're a stupid doo-doo head!" which I kind of knew already. It's not just this thread, it's all over the place. I discard team utility for Blasters, I get called out on it. I discard Blaster soloability, I get called on it. I raise my difficulty, I get called on it. I request for a lower difficulty, I get called on it.

It's not a problem for me practically, because whenever I'm lost as to the things people are trying to tell me, I go out and do my own thing anyway, since it still beats sitting on my hands and wondering about it, but whenever this comes up... I don't know what to say. I mean, I do, but you've seen the result. That's kind of what I mean when I say no-one's given me a good answer - people keep giving me answers, it's just that these answers rarely agree with each other in any big way.

Again, I'm not criticising what you've told me, for which I'm actually quite grateful. But I'm still no closer to figuring out what I'm "supposed" to be doing with all my Blasters than I was before.

Been there, done that, got a Mercs/Traps to 50, a Bots/FF to 40 and I think a Demons/Thermal to thirty... Six? Something like that. Masterminds are really good about that, but they have one HUGE caveat - resummoning. Each summon sets you back 20 points and each upgrade another 45, for a grand total of 150 endurance points in the span of less than 10 seconds, which is... Ouch. Basically, more than anyone else, Masterminds are bound by their endurance. All the Masterminds I've played have had basically boundless potential, limited only by my inability to keep resummoning and reupgrading my henchmen after a certain point of incoming damage.

---

But that's just anecdotes. Something you said was more relevant to the thread and actually more enlightening. I couldn't find the right quote for it from the post, so I'll just explain it, instead: The differentiation you make between cost up-front and cost over time. This is what I'm struggling to actually grasp at the moment and what I'm failing to account for. If you can, could you please elaborate on that? What does it constitute, how does it affect endurance consumption, which situations lend themselves to minimising which cost? That sort of thing would REALLY help me.

To be honest, I'm currently looking at a spreadsheet for my Scrapper, and while I have the numbers handy... I'm not really sure what they're telling me. Most of them have an EPA of around 4 or 5, but their EPS is all over the place, from 1.0 plus to below 0.8. I'm not actually sure if that much difference is even significant.

But let's take something simple. Let's take Head Splitter vs. Slash. Head Splitter has an EPA of 5.803 and an EPS of 0.828 whereas Slash has an EPA of 0.976 and an EPS of 3.910. What is this telling me? Which power will cost me more? When will it cost me more? Which power do I want to slot for endurance? Let's just say we're using Head Splitter as a single-target attack for the moment. Maybe I'm fighting hard, single elite bosses in this hypothetical situation. What are the numbers telling me?

---

In fact, while I'm at it, here's something I've never actually thought about - how can I compare the endurance use of one character to another character? Would I just build an attack chain from uptimes and just grab the resultant combined cost, add it to toggle cost and compare that? I... Guess I could do that. But will it help? At least help me see that "Yikes! This guy is using up far too much!" I've always felt that some characters were a LOT worse off than others, but I've never had a good way to SHOW it.

Now, unless we want to go into the concept of split event-branching realities (which I REALLY don't want to do), we have to theories that each universe is wholly and entirely separate from every other universe with no points of crossover. There can be no ambiguity as to where one universe "ends" and another "begins" or which universe a section of space "belongs to." Treating them as separate items, it then becomes a question of how we view the differences between them.

Now, here's the thing. Even if we assume infinite energy, infinite matter and infinite space, the number of basic particles making that space up is still countable because they are distinct physical bodies. The number of different permutations they can assume is, therefore, also countable. And since a universe is "defined" by the current permutation of its base particles, then the universes themselves must be countable, as well. Not necessarily countable BY US, but still countable in the theoretical sense.

That is, of course, if we take in-universe factors to be what defines a universe from the multiverse. If we assume the multiverse to be a set of drawers, then in that model, we can only tell which is which by looking at what's inside. This is not necessarily the case, and indeed in higher-dimension mathematics, any subspace of a larger space is defined by its location within the space, not by what's actually within it.

If we view the multiverse as a vector space, be it one-dimensional, two-dimensional, ten-dimensional or what have you, then each unique vector could be its own universe irrespective of what's actually in it. Given that Portal Corp often speak of dimensional coordinates, rather than "the dimension that's like this and like that," I'm much more willing to assume this model of the multiverse. As such, we don't actually have any guarantee that the universes are actually countable, as we don't know how how the "space" within the multiverse is actually defined. In fact, if we view the multiverse as a higher dimension on top of the three (or possibly four) present in every universe, then theoretically, universes should not take up any "multiverse space" and as such may well be uncountable in the same way real numbers are.

It's actually interesting to think about this, because there are plenty of models that could be used, and I dare say all of them fictional. But it's interesting to theorise that universes are all arranged in some kind of... Let's say "grid" with realities flowing from one to the next as describable by specific overcomplicated, possibly fictitious functions. Simpler models are not hard to construct even just by hand, but universes are... Decidedly less simple.

Remember, that's -1x3. And yes, by all means, try it. I don't know what it was that did it, but -1x3 is much easier for me than +0x2, though I don't know if that may not just be because I turned off bosses in spawns. I just know that I used to complain about Malta like little girl, and these days I slap them around like errant stepchildren. I'm not sure what changed along the way, but I guess -1 enemies are easier than one would think.

*by the way*
When I talk about mixed messages, I'm not kidding around. I just wanted to point out that in this very thread a person told me that he's soloing +1x3 spawns with a Blaster solo by staying in melee all the time an never batting an eye and another person told me that Blasters shouldn't be played solo and that they should be very difficult to play like this even at default difficulties. I don't mean to question anyone's position on this, but what do I take away from it?

Actually, the discussion was whether the Isles were "off the shore of North America" or "in the Mid Atlantic." If they really are 20-50 miles off-shore, then I wouldn't call that Mid Atlantic, but then I may be misunderstanding how much the Mid Atlantic covers as a geographical area.

But I don't think 20 miles is even outside of visual range on a clear day.

Incidentally, how far off-shore is Striga?

If I recall correctly, it has been explained to me that Blaster melee attacks did start out at what was described to me as "pathetic damage but quick recharge," which I would infer meant Tanker numbers, and were changed to be much harder-hitting and longer-recharging later on by player complaint. While this changes nothing to alter current design, it does gleam an interesting insight into the intentions, or lack thereof, of the original Blaster design.

Provided this is true, this has the potential to produce one effect and one effect only - lower uptime for the same return. Granted, this is exactly the same thing people complained about with the Dominator changes - powers became too slow-recharging so they didn't have enough buttons to press, and it still pisses me off that this was changed. Especially on a Dominator, the less uptime I need to deliver decent damage, the more uptime I have to apply control effects. As such, what this sounds like it was the result of is a shift from the idea that Blasters would scrap and so their damage over time only mattered, to the idea that Blasters would deliver fast, surgical strikes with more potential for less uptime.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it's just this nature of the melee attacks that I draw my conclusions from. A melee-centric character seems like he is expected to push buttons and hit many times with relatively weaker attacks, or at least that was the design prior to the advent of Brutes. A character who CAN deal damage in melee, but whose primary function is not being a melee damage dealer, would instead have a LOT of potential contained within a FEW powers such that this potential could be thrown out all at once, then the situation in which it is useful not required again for some time.

I'll use your basic nuke as an example - nukes are designed to deal a LOT of damage REALLY quickly, but because of their drawbacks... You're really not supposed to be fighting much after you nuke. You could, but it's DESPITE design, not BECAUSE of it. Any time design is such that it focuses high yield in short spans balanced by high recharge, it tells me that the power or set of powers like this are not intended to be cycled continuously, or indeed be major part of cycling attack chains.

I could be wrong, obviously, but you have to admit there's at least some logic to this.

Well, that would be really sad. What did I go to drama school for if not to make people's eyes roll out of their heads?

Ideally, minimise EPS in such a way that doesn't cost me DPS. Which means "just stop attacking" or "run away to rest" is not an option. I'm not sure what's left but to minimise DPE, but if you have ways of achieving this in other ways (that doesn't involve Inventions), I would very much be interested to hear it. If I'm missing something obvious, I want to know about it

Oh, that reminds me - we need a fix for how toggle powers are showing up on the customization screen at some point. Right now, toggles only play their starting animation and immediately loop back. We almost never get to see their constant on animation, and since many of those fire up their effects slowly, we barely get to see their effects, too.

A lot of click powers don't seem to be playing their animations and effects right, either. Things like Dull Pain and Reconstruction will play their effects outside of the character's body in a line while the character does his animation, and Revive won't play anything at all.

Also, when are we getting Integration's visual effect back? It's been gone for a while now.

You know, speaking of the editor, we would really benefit if we were able to test our animations a little better. Power customization does relatively well, but we can do a lot more. This comes in two parts:

Part 1: Give us the ability to use a few basic emotes in the creator and let us try our costumes in a variety of combat stances. Let me see what my character looks like in the combat stance, when running, when jumping, when flying... How about when dancing or sitting down? We can already try out our power animations, so why not our movement ones?

Part 2: Give us better camera control. At the VERY LEAST let spin the camera vertically above and below our characters, as well as a better zoom selection. Instead of two states of "close" and "far," how about having a sliding scale that comes in closer and goes back a LOT farther? The better we can see our characters while making them, the less likely it is we'll spit and curse when we leave the editor and the costume ends up looking nothing like what we expected. Letting us rotate the camera with the right mouse button in addition to the little UI arrows and zoom in and out with the mouse wheel would be sweet, too.

To be honest, I don't think this mattes so much. Assuming I'm attacking constantly (which I try to), then I'm using between 4 and 8 units of endurance PER SECOND, and recovering only 1.67. I'd need to spend a LOT of time tallying about to make that worth the cost of an attack, so I honestly don't worry about it too much. If I hit enough enemies, the savings in endurance spent will MORE than make up for anything I waste in attacking too fast.

Thing is... Few AoEs are actually much worse for EPA than single-target attacks, simply because so many of them are so damn slow. The last set of numbers I did put things like Frost Breath and Ice Storm on the low end of the EPA scale, with Bitter Ice Blast and Freezing Touch on a much higher level, at almost twice the EPA. If I'm looking to save endurance short-term, I'll definitely look at slotting the highest EPA. I'm not sure where "short term" morphs into "long-term," however. Not that it matters for this example. BIB and FT still have higher EPS, too.

Come to think of it, that should make slotting my Ice/Ice Baby a lot more straightforward... Not the character I was targeting this contemplation at, though.

I disagree. Any Blaster I've tried to solo has soloed about average. Some better than others, some more annoyingly than others, but they have all soloed, including combos I was warned against, like Fire/Fire. The problem is that they're irritating to solo... Pretty much all of them.

But if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd still go with irritating over boring. Irritating is unpleasant, but at least it's gameplay. Boring is... Just not fun.

Logically, that would follow, but as I was said before, the ratio of endurance spent to damage dealt is actually pretty much fixed. As I understand it, the basic formula is 5.2 endurance cost per 1.0 scale damage, which runs to about 12.031 damage for Scrappers and Blaster ranged attacks.

Granted, I could improve my damage/endurance efficiency by slotting for more damage, but I'm already kind of doing that by default, and it isn't enough. I'm looking for alternate means, and endurance slotting is the other obvious solution. The question is what to slot first and what to omit altogether.

By the way, what people said before is true - if you want to deal more damage, you have to spend more endurance. Sometimes disproportionately more.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading the rest of your post. My eyes appear to be rolling inside of my head and I can't seem to stop them. That makes it hard to read.

That's kind of what I mean. I know everything CAN solo. People have been trumpeting that down my ears for years. Thing is, I've tried to, and while I will admit it's possible... It bores me to tears. In fact, I felt the same way about Blasters before the Defiance changes. They were too weak, too susceptible and not hard-hitting enough, so you had to play them cautiously, and that's just no fun. Right now, Blasters hit hard enough to where I CAN play them aggressively if I so chose, which is both more fun and actually faster to progress as.

Tankers... Well, Tankers put me to sleep. I've tried to play them, and while survival may not be an issue, actually playing the game is dull. Everything takes forever to kill, my attacks take forever to arrive and and I feel like I'm turtling all the time. Defenders just don't move me as the primary reason I play Blasters is damage, and a Defender really isn't all about that. And as far as Controllers go, I REFUSE to play something doesn't have an attack-centric powerset. Call me stupid, but I refuse to, and there really isn't anything which can change my mind.

That, and I dislike the AT's basic design and balance. If I wanted to, say, solo a Defender, I'd have to pick a combo that was good for that, pick only the powers that worked like that and basically go against the grain of the AT. Not my thing. I'd sooner pick something that's designed for it. I've always felt that Blasters were, at least ALMOST, designed for solo play, either intentionally or accidentally. I don't know if I'm right, but at least that's how things feel.

As for Dominators... Getting two-shot by Anathemas just doesn't inspire me. Nothing against the AT, but it's not something I want to play.

Soon as I figure out what you guys are doing to get that to work which doesn't involved Inventions, team-mates or more inspirations than tend to drop, I'll be right there with you Thing is, I could never quite get it. I mean, a lot of people have talked about it, but the things they tell me just... Don't seem to work when I try them exactly as described. I don't know where the problem lies.

Well, yeah, +3 and up settings do tend to make for larger spawns, but the old Tenacious was more like +0x2, and every time I've tried that, it's spawn either mostly bosses, or mostly single-lieutenant spawns.

No! Really?

You know, I'd probably shut up entirely if difficulty settings started spawning only the level enemies I picked, but to get an option for that I need to formulate a good suggestion, and that just seems like it's something people will insult over at the drop of a hat.

And, no, I wasn't giving the same attitude there as I am here. More like "Seriously? How does my difficulty setting impact you?" Apparently, people would rather the developers work on adding new zones than adding more difficulty options O.o

Since when has that stopped anyone from insisting?

...

Come to think of it, when has that ever stopped even ME from insisting?

That doesn't answer the question in the actual post, though. I'm looking at endurance efficiency, not damage efficiency.

That's... Actually brilliant! OK, if we assume I can get enough targets in my AoEs to overcome their lower efficiency (call it three or four), then I'm actually getting a pretty good deal on those powers and I shouldn't worry about their endurance slotting. On the flip side, if I use AoEs on single targets, like I tend to do with, say, Slice, then I'll want to slot those powers more heavily as they'll be less efficient for that purpose.

Interesting. So that gives me an answer that depends on what I do with the powers. Cool, I should be able to ascertain that

I meant to say my attack chains vary. When I said "static attack chain," I meant taking a theoretical attack chain and calculating its cost without actually knowing the attack chain's internal structure. Usually, when you design an attack chain, you work based off DPS and uptime, which give you percentage values, but don't actually give you number of times used.

I guess may have to fall back on my back-up - trying to figure out which powers I SHOULD use the most, which powers will cost me even if I don't use them much and then slot from there.

Except the people didn't form it according to Azuria. Ermeeth did. As I understand the history, they fled across the sea long after their nation had already been formed.

They are? OK, then, my bad.

That depends on your interpretation of "nation," but since you're determined to insult me, I'm sure you'll suggest I just don't know what I'm talking about. Figured I'd save you the effort, since you're not going to reply to me and all that.

But even if we assume "nation" means whatever your agenda requires it to mean, it wasn't created by Hequat. The Mu themselves created it by banding together and eventually being exiled. All Hequat did was provide them an island to live on.

To cross into unacceptable territory, it's like saying God created the Hebrew nation when Moses led them out of Egypt, when I'm pretty sure their nationality was very much set even before that. And I don't buy that you need a state to comprise a nation, being that I live in a nation which existed for 500 years without its own state.

They are contradictory. You just have problems with the English language, like capitalising its name, that you're projecting onto me because it's easier to insult other people indiscriminately than it is the accept your own fallibility.

And since you're apparently not going to respond to me, then I'll do your job for you and point out how hypocritical that statement is and how I should be accepting my own fallibility instead of questioning yours, but then I don't actually have a problem playing the bad guy, if that ever becomes necessary.

But, hey, do go ahead and keep insulting me. It's not longer annoying and it's just about starting to get good.

Moar, plz.

*edit*
It occurs to me that this will be really boring if you really do live up to your promise (though with the provocations, you probably will), but really, what do I stand to lose?

We'll see.