StratoNexus

I did. When discussing damage comparisons, we generally base our assumptions on damage over units of time. Taking out the units of time makes the comparisons less meaningful, but it is sometimes useful if done with care. Plus, there is value in just looking at the blast sets alone, while being cognizant that that the ATs have other powers available, such as Sleet, Fire Sword Circle, Enervating Field, Healing Aura, Drain Psyche, and Charged Brawl.

If you are going to use my suggested corruptor value of 0.9, you really ought to use my suggested blaster value 1.25 in your comparison.

1.25/(.9*1.3)=1.07

Dropping Sleet onto a pack of enemies takes over two seconds. It is an awesome power and I use it constantly on my Cold defender (Heat Loss adds another 2+ seconds, but is on a longish recharge), but it does eat up units of time.

Granting a blaster can unleash their AoEs a second or two sooner than the corruptor, what does that mean? The corruptor took the extra time to deal similar damage to the blaster, and now both have to continue attacking (unless they were able to spawn melt). Of course, teamed, that same 1.3 from Sleet applies to the blaster attacks and the blaster never has to spend time animating Sleet; I think the team factor matters just as much as the solo factor.

Yes, and it is before the +30% from vigilance or defiance too.

I love defender debuffs (and buffs). Defenders and Blasters are my two favorite ATs. Defenders are more "useful" against hard targets and that is not going to change unless they seriously nerf buff/debuff, which seems very unlikely (and I don't think it is necessary). Blasters still have a wildly popular playstyle AND in general put out more damage than either corruptors or defenders (their popularity may suffer due to being too squishy, but the playstyle outside of that problem is well liked). I do not believe blaster design needs to fear corruptor/defender damage levels even if they got 20% closer, much less my suggested 8-11%, because the playstyle is key to their difference, while the damage level is of lesser importance to why those ATs would be chosen by players.

To be clear, your premise is that if something can be both earned and bought, it lessens the value of earning it. Correct?

It doesn't matter if you never buy it yourself, the simple fact that the option exists, lessens the value of earning it. If NO ONE ever buys it and everyone only ever earns it, earning it is still cheapened by the mere possibility of buying it.

It seems a rational, if weird, position. I don't feel that way in general, but it doesn't seem crazy or anything.

He he. Dual Pistols also has no powers that don't obey the damage formula. They can just choose to get more damage with Incendiary. This is a case, to me, where the secondary effects just aren't strong enough to make up for the fact that I can get extra damage (the base damage is not too weak for the secondary effect, the added damage is just too good to pass up relative to the weaker secondary effects of the other ammos).

I love slows. But when I used Cryo rounds it was nothing like when I play my Ice blaster (or defender). Not even close. One can say it shouldn't be as good as Ice, because Ice can't flip a switch and start doing extra damage and I agree. But if flipping to Cryo has such a small benefit, then I'll just never use it (it is possible there is not a good balance point here, because the Ice blast slows may be near the minimum threshold for usable effect).

I am also pretty sure that no one, especially the devs, consider the lack of animation time as part of the formula convenient.

He he.

Unless I misremember, I seem to recall being in the mid-teens on my Kin/Elec defender and draining entire even con and +1 spawns of all their endurance with one shot of Short Circuit. That may be nostalgic, rose-colored memory, rather than accurate one.

You might be surprised at how little this actually has happened on purpose.

For example, you said, "-recovery, -end hardly even matter in the first place, but still seem to cause attacks to do less damage", but Electric blast has no attacks that are weaker than the damage formula dictates (unless you count Tesla Cage, but many mez powers do little to no damage). Energy Blast damage is not lowered because it has KB. Ice has massive mitigation but for awhile it had better potential single target DPA than any other blast set (Fire blast got buffed around Issue 7 in order to improve its damage and put Ice in second place, additional changes/additions have dropped it further).

Thanks again for your work, I find this most helpful and interesting.

Hmmm. I valued playing my stoner to learn how to work around the movement issues (learning not to trap myself into tight spaces and keeping a few break frees handy are the two most valuable lessens I learned). I think it has a unique weakness which is fun, but I do think the weakness is set too high outside of Granite.

I'd likely not touch Granite, it seems well balanced, a big penalty with a big upside, meant to be used situationally, but possible to build around full uptime if desired. I do want it to have a costume customizable version that still allows for at least a very small amount of the base character to peek through.

I'd lessen the debuff in Rooted. This power and the set without Granite doesn't deserve to be debuffed as much as Rooted does. I'd still want the debuff to be strong, no fly, -70% run and jump speed, and if it is possible allow jumping, but limit the max jump height to 5 or 10 feet.

Well, I've never really thought the damage was as close as people make it out to be, especially when you add in the melee attacks.

1.125 / .75 = 1.5
1.125 / .65 = 1.73

1.25 / .9 = 1.39
1.25 / .8 = 1.56

Corruptors creep 8% closer and defenders dance 11% closer. That seems enough to be materially closer, so your concern exists, but I don't believe it to be a large move closer.
I find 39% more than corruptors and 56% more than defenders to still be a strong spread, and that is before adding in the melee DPA. When I originally suggested the ranged mod change for defenders and corruptors, I did mention that making scourge be +80% instead of +100% might be a good idea, but back then I didn't think we fought enough AVs for it matter. With the intro of trials and more EBs in regular content, reducing Scourge (in conjunction with the mod increase) is likely more important.

Changing the mods are simple changes and would have a strong impact for all the blast sets. A problem is that it affects so very many powers it might be viewed as difficult for QA (especially the scourge reduction, even with a script to make the change, it is still a lot of stuff that would change).

I do admit I am being conservative on the blaster mod increase, mostly because I am concerned about how it affects AoEs. But even at 1.35 I don't see a problem with some rough calculations of a few blaster AoE sequences.

Currently (at 50), Build Up+Breath+Ball can kill lvl 52 minions. If the range dam mod was 1.35 they could get 53s.

Currently (at 50), Build Up+Torrent+Explosive will barely kill lvl 48 minions. If the range dam mod was 1.35 they could get 50s (and are so close to 51s it makes me stare at 1.37 wistfully).

Rain of Arrows does move into killing even con Lt. territory after Build Up, but not after Aim. I don't find that problematic, but it might concern others.

True, which is why I like that they concentrated the mitigation buff into one power. That seems like somewhat of a contradiction, but it makes sense when you think about how blasters have worked and are designed. Traditionally, blasters don't have/get to take a lot of (non-attack) mitigation powers, so if it is needed, I'd rather it be concentrated into as few powers as possible. They do, generally, get/desire to take a lot of attacks though, so spreading an offensive buff out, so to speak, is not problematic, in my mind.

Defenders and corruptors might prefer one big attack they can rely on, but I still maintain that the snipe improvement should make snipes a DPA neutral or only modest positive, even in the case of the other ATs with snipes.

I likely wouldn't have a problem if they buffed all available tier 3 attacks (and maybe Voltaic Sentinel and pick something something from Assault Rifle (and leave Blaze as is or lower it some)). Legacy says the tier 3s should be that really good power, even though animation time problems have prevented some of them from being what they were intended to be. It would not be my preference to just buff tier 3s, but it would be more acceptable than making snipes integral.

It is the combination of factors that makes snipes not the right power to be such a focus for blast sets. They are supposed to be tactical, so they should be optional. The gate is cool for snipes, but I don't want blast set's big buff centered on a gate mechanic (or at least not this gate, I could likely be convinced about some gating mechanic, even though I would not prefer it). And I don't prefer focusing so much buff into one power. Any one of those objections alone and I'd likely be fine, but all of them together is what makes me fret.

I kind of already discussed this, but I will expand a bit. Most builds will already take 4 or 5 attacks, so it doesn't seem like an issue. Blasters, specifically, will often have even more attack powers. Granted, focusing buffs into 4 or 5 specific powers may be an issue, but even that could be done in a somewhat logical way. However, I'd not advocate for such a time consuming review of each power set in that fashion.

Well, it all depends on what X is? Do the proposed fast snipes snipes get blasters to X? Is there room to grow even if they keep the really fast snipes? Even if there is room to grow, I still don't like the snipes becoming quite that good a DPA power, it was just one of the concerns I had.

Consider what I have posted elsewhere:
Is 1.25 range mod for blasters enough? Perhaps it should be 1.3 or 1.4 even? None of those reach into a problem area where the damage gets too high, but they would add a nice increase that could help against bosses and certainly lift them against the really hard targets.

Actually, compared to other characters on SOs, you are not all that squishy when you have that much regen.

If your premise is that you normally only hit 3 to 6 anyway, then why complain if I suggest we lower the power so that it caps where 5 or 6 is currently, but it starts off at a much higher place AND can be used without risk for some benefit, but adding risk adds benefit?

Keep in mind, I desperately want snipes improved and I very much like the general idea of how Hawk is improving them. I just don't like the extent of the improvement. But it is true that I don't want improved snipes to have a significant impact on character DPA, in either direction; current snipes have a large negative impact on DPA, the proposed snipes have a large positive impact on DPA.

I think the fast snipes should have a very modest positive impact. Most people really want to take the snipe, but skip it because of the large negative DPA impact and the inability to use it mid-combat thanks to the interrupt. Make it DPA neutral and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think the snipes will be much more popular. Make it slightly DPA positive and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think snipes will be very popular. Make it have a large positive impact on DPA and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think it becomes too much of a can't skip power.

I don't dislike can't skip powers, sometimes things should be that good. I just don't think snipes should be in that category.

Did I say that? I may have mis-wrote, but going back and reading my posts I think you mis-read. But either way, allow me to clarify. I think Assassin Strike is acceptable AS a gated mechanic. While I don't personally prefer so much of an AT designed around that one power, stalkers always were, so I am not going to complain if they continue to improve that one power. Sure, you could have skipped AS, but using it while hidden was always potent enough to make it worthwhile. When they made it a decent attack out of hide, it got even better. Then, adding the focus stacks gate worked, since the power was already gated a different way.

I said part of this was subjective. Blasters (and blast sets in general) have had eight+ years where they have not had this type of gate and where snipers have been an optional attack. I want them to have another eight+ years where the snipe is still optional, just a much better option than it is now. I also will be happy with eight+ years with a nifty gate, that is on an optional power. I don't want eight+ years where snipes are no-brainers and where most blast sets depend on a nifty gate to be DPA competitive.

Well, considering I am saying insta-snipes are more powerful than I would like, if you add even more features, I am likely to think that makes the situation worse, not better (although it does mitigate the gating issue somewhat, I want to reiterate that I have no problem with this gate in general, just that I don't want such a large buff behind the gate, that is nearly AT wide). That said, if the insta-snipe animations all got 1 second longer as I suggested, then I could see possibly adding something else to snipes (although, I'd still prefer not making snipes so integral and would rather see buffs spread across significantly more powers in blast sets).

They have consistently been very leery of changing powers even when they know they are overpowered. Energy Transfer remained for a long time before they finally fixed it. They still haven't fixed Drain Psyche nor adjusted Blaze nor addressed Spines. *Stares at Fulcrum Shift still amazed.*

Sometimes stuff is overpowered, but they leave it. If they were not revamping some blaster powers, I would not want them to adjust Drain Psyche. But since they are working on this area anyway, I really think they should both make Drain Psyche easier to use and bring down the top end performance.

I don't think I can truly say that the current values are too high, objectively. What is the DPA of unhidden Assassin Strike with 3 stacks of Focus? 3 DS/second or higher? I would not argue that the DS/second of insta-snipes is too high for balance concerns.

I am not looking at this in terms of overbuffing blasters (which this certainly doesn't do), rather I am thinking it overbuffs snipes, but for subjective reasons. I don't think it is good for a special, tactical attack to be this valued, and I definitely don't like that value in a gated mechanic across multiple sets, because ranged sets were not designed with that type of gated mechanic as a defining feature.

Stalker's Assassin Strike was already gated, so adding another gate to it, and keeping that power integral to the AT was reasonable. It also helps that every set actually has Assassin Strike.

So I object to it for both reasons you mention. I just don't think the snipers should be that good for DPA AND I don't think ranged sets should end up with an AT defining gate.

Objectively, ranged sets can't have snipes as an integral attack because not all sets have snipes. I have no problem adding an interesting gate for snipes as is proposed and I think what is behind the gate should be good. I just don't think it should elevate ranged sets DPA chains by 25% or more. Not because ranged sets shouldn't get an increase at least that large, but because that increase shouldn't be tied (solely) to snipes. Sure, that is subjective, but it is supported by legacy.

I do recognize that calling the snipes set defining is subjective as well. I have to admit I do not think they are so good that they must be taken. I do think they are pretty close though, and I don't think they need to be in order for snipes to be worthwhile.

I also don't agree with this:
Self provided mitigation matters teamed. In many cases it matters more. In some cases it matters less. It many cases in matters about the same as solo.

I don't know if I can agree with that. Energy blasters deal damage slower. But they have gobs of mitigation relative to Fire blasters. Is that enough to balance the two? Perhaps not in very top end play where "mitigation doesn't matter," but now you have wandered out of that territory and into normal play. KB matters. When we get our sustain power, KB will matter even more, because delaying damage allows time for regen/heal ticks to work.

If you only have to deal 10% less damage, that safer route could be a no-brainer. I think the damage gap has to be higher in order to make it a meaningful advantage for Fire.

I disagree. I think they would be much more worth taking because you know you can get good (not extreme) DPA out of them after Aim (and hopefully Build Up/TD) while still also getting the (admittedly limited) tactical benefit.

I don't have a strong opinion on that rule. I'd have to see more about why it was implemented. While I have never felt range was as large an advantage as the game purported, I do think it does have advantages. I do think blasters specifically should be able to have higher DPA than armored characters, but that can be handled by the AT damage mod (which means we would need to talk in actual damage rather than scale values).

If the devs still believe in that rule I find the accident unfortunate, rather than fortuitous. I am not opposed to increasing ranged damage relative to armored sets, but I don't like doing it all with one power and its associated gimmick (there is no negative connotation to gimmick in this case, I like gimmicks in my games).

Clobber is a must take attack (I eventually respecced into it after they made that change) but I don't have to build special to utilize its high DPA all the time. I don't think Insta-snipe is a problem from the perspective of ranged having DPA that high. I think it would be fine for blasters to have an attack with DPA as high as 156 base damage per second (which is 104 for corruptors, scrapper Clobber is 138, for reference). I don't like that that extreme DPA is tied to the snipe/insta-snipe mechanic (only).

I think it would be better to have higher DPA across the board, rather than focusing so much on one attack, I'd rather that in the general case blaster range DPAs were ~70 with some attacks that went modestly higher and then maybe a few in specific sets that went even higher.

Stalkers were always built around Assassin Strike, so buffing them by buffing that attack works for me conceptually and mechanically (while I don't think they should have been designed around that one attack, the fact is they were and legacy matters).

Blasters were not built around the snipe and the snipe has traditionally been a niche power. I strongly want the snipe to be more than that, but I do not want it to become as important to blasters as Assassin Strike is to stalkers.

Of course, I'd buff all blaster attacks (and corruptor and defender blasts, too).

OK, you have convinced me that standardizing the snipes at 2.5 seconds would not be best (which wasn't hard, because I already thought that, but that was the high end of my suggestion and still not terrible, merely pedestrian, I'd rather not go to that outlier level across the board either). You have not convinced me that snipes at some value in between the proposed times and 2.5 seconds would not be best. I also am not really interested in standardizing the times. I like the spread of times.

Even 2.33 seconds allows for 25% higher DPA than Power Blast (17% higher than Power Burst), which is not an insignificant amount. But perhaps 0.5 seconds higher than the current proposed would be better than 1 second higher: 1.83 seconds, that is 57% better than Blast and 47% better than Burst.

I disagree. It is my opinion that the snipe doesn't have to be an extreme DPA attack. It just shouldn't always be a crappy DPA attack. I think it would be fine as a high DPA attack when the trigger condition is met instead of an extreme one.

My suggestion leaves the snipe as a higher DPA blast than either tier 1 or 2 (25% higher than Power Blast, for example). Due to Archery's poor DPA on its first two attacks it still makes out with that extra second added.

Snipes need to be a better choice. They are fine tactically, but that situation isn't all that prevalent, so it would be nice if they can also have some solid use outside of those situations. I don't think they need to increase the damage of single target attack chains by 25 to 40% when used, however. The fast cast snipe when 22% to-hit is reached is an excellent idea and I agree that making them have better DPA is very much needed. Double the DPA of tier 2 blasts, however, doesn't seem necessary to me.

That isn't to say I would have an issue with only adding 0.5 seconds, which would make the Energy snipe 57% better DPA than Power Blast, for example. I just think they would be more visually appealing with the full second added, be a solid choice, but not be as required in a min-max build.

A snipe change should make snipes appealing, not be a major source of damage increase for blast sets (a minor source, sure). I'd rather see other methods of increasing blast set damage than requiring the snipe and solid amounts of +to-hit.

Well, I think it is fine if they standardized the time around 2 to 2.5 seconds, but I kind of liked how the animation times worked out by chance to have an order that is interesting and could be argued to help balance.

Black Pebble says the end of weapon redraw in I24? Awesome!

I had no idea they had nerfed the corruptor version. What an odd thing to do. Fire Blast kept its faster animation on corruptors and defenders (and dominators) so it seems very odd Ice was altered. In addition Dominators still have the faster casting Ice Blast.


I'd rather not see a fast cast version of BFR, personally. I'd love if it got changed to a 14s recharge, 13.52 end cost, 2.6 damage attack and the hold duration was upped to 11.92s (but the Hold duration increase is something I want across the board for blasters). That would be awesome.

Thanks for the heads up.
I understand the issues with Ignite and Buckshot and the snipe change can be a very strong boost to AR single target, long range damage. However, it would be very unusual for current AR players to only use those two attacks, so most people are not going to be doubling their damage output just by adding the snipe.

Beyond the obviously nicer range ability the snipe offers, I am expecting the snipe to add ~40% to AR if perma and about 15% if situational (the lack of Aim makes the difference between perma and non-perma bigger than sets with Aim). Those numbers may drop depending on where the animation time for Sniper Rifle ends up.

What are the Rifle chains you are using?
Because it looks like your no snipe chain is Burst-Slug- wait a lot since you didn't put down any buckshot or ignite numbers.

No.

Scrapper level hit points!