StratoNexus

I do not think high burst damage + high sustained DPS is going to do it. There are blaster combinations out there that can already do that and they (likely) still underperform the other ATs.

If you want to eliminate the under-performance (and by default the near total reliance on allies) then blasters need some combination of armors, other self buffs, controls and/or debuffs. Damage alone will not solve the under-performance issue unless the damage is so high, spawns insta-melt.

Damage is not a niche, it is a communal responsibility. Therefore no AT can be carved from that alone unless you are willing to deny them self-reliance. I am. I do not think many others have that viewpoint.

Ah, the heck with it! They took away my defiance! They can take away my melee attacks! But they'll never take my Freedom! (yeah, that's it).

Actually, while I do not want the melee attacks to be lost, I am very interested in open communication and I want people to toss ideas out even if they make me weep. People often say they want the melee attacks gone, but then never truly expand on what they want instead. I want to see if something can be done that doesn't make me think, well just play a dominator or just play a corruptor.

The one way I could think to do that would be to have an amalgam of armor, control, and buff (mostly self only buffs if not totally self only). So far, that seems to be where most of the anti-melee crowd are headed.

It could generate good ideas for a new AT, even if blasters don't get that kind of change.

I am pretty sure using an awaken and not being stunned was a regen thing as far back as I remember.

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

First, I think most everyone who wants to see blasters fixed would be more than happy if that fix comes in the form of additions to actual blaster powers. While many suggestions involve adding stuff to the inherent, many are about adding stuff to the powers themselves.

Second, depending on what you want the concept of the AT to be, they can put as much stuff into the inherent as it takes to meet that concept. If they decide against adding control/debuff to attacks and just want an AT with a mix of range and melee attacks, they should feel free to add whatever is necessary to the inherent to make that concept function.

Think about brutes.
They are low damage.
They have good self armors.
Most of their attack sets have significant control baked into regular attacks and have a few attacks that are just more control.
All of their attacks also have taunt baked in.
All of those things are part of their powers.
Then they get +150% damage from their inherent. A massive boost. They get all their survivability from their powers and a huge chunk of their damage from the inherent. It might be worth noting that the inherent actually has several properties: it measures incoming attacks, it measures attacks made, and it notes when enemies of certain ranks are nearby.

Blasters could be the opposite if that was chosen. They could get all or most of their damage from their powers and a big boost to survivability from the inherent. I am not saying that should happen, but it is not a problem nor bad design.

OK. So you have now said the secondaries shouldn't be melee and they shouldn't be debuff or team buff. I am trying to get you to say what they should be.
Armor? More range damage? Control? Self buffs? A mix of those (or some of those)? Throwing all precedence out the window, design a blaster secondary you would like.

Keeping in mind I like blaster secondaries as melee a lot, I'll throw one out there as an off the wall idea. What are you picturing?

/Fire Manip
1) Ring of Fire - more range damage, modest control
2) Fire Shield - prevent some of the most ubiquitous damage
3) Char
4) Fire Sword Circle
5) Build Up
6) Flashfires
7) Warmth (Self only)
8) Burn (but you can place the patch up to 60 feet away)
9) Hot Feet

I am going to have to ask that you clarify this.

Having read some of your responses since, I do not think it means what I thought it meant. Here is how I read it:

Blasters get resistance shields. There are ATs that do not get resistance shields. Why should blasters get mez protection while those other ATs do not?
And my definition of resistance shields are powers that resist damage.

I look at this in the opposite fashion. Blasters were once found so weak it was felt they needed some form of inherent mez protection. Since that was the goal, the only real question now is did they give blasters enough mez protection? It is already an intent that blasters get some form of inherent mez protection. That, in my opinion, strengthens the argument for adding true protection.

It is arguable that everyone should be affected by it. While that was not truly possible in the past, once they added toggle suppression it became a possibility, IMO. Not very likely this late into the game's life, but I think the game would be better for it.

Your point makes no sense because the latter creature is non-existent.

Except blasters and dominators both have forms of mez protection inherent in the AT itself (and I guess Khelds too, worthless as it is).

While I have gone to preferring just leaving blasters alone again (I go in cycles it seems), I always liked the idea of 12 seconds of mag 6 mez protection after Aim, Build Up, Soul Drain, and Hail of Bullets, (and they can be used while mezzed), and 8 seconds after Full Auto (also usable while mezzed). And Targeting Drone would get mag 3 mez protection.

Hmmm. I don't hit that ratio on +2 / x5. I definitely hover between 1 and 2 deaths a mission (Arachnos could be 3, CoT is less than 1, Malta would be 1 to 2, Council will be way below 1). What is a mission? ~12 spawns (obviously it varies, but in general or a good average)?

That said, even if the tactic fails to prevent mez 50% of the time, it still has had a significant impact on the number of mezzes. Not that I am saying it is enough of an impact, just that it is not impossible to stretch out the break frees, even on a non-mezzing blaster.

Build Up before aggro, engage into melee, Blaze, Fire Sword? That is usually good for a Lt.

Build Up as leaping in, FSC, Ball, Hot Feet is ticking, start single targets attacks; that often works well enough to avoid mez. Not on x8, but x3 to x5 it works well.

I once suggested adding Sm/Le/Fire/Cold resist to blaster Blazing Aura to represent this concept.

While I like that idea (if we are talking something small, like 20-27), it may not be trivial to implement. The aggro cap may be a universal entity rather than an AT dependent one.

I have also always been fond of the idea of making tanker Taunt hit up to 8 targets in a 20 foot radius, leave brute Taunt as is (5 targets, 15'r), and up scrapper Confront/Challenge/whatever to 3 targets, 10'r.

And while I am not for increasing tanker damage, I do think a review of AT mods and AT caps is likely a very good idea at this stage of the game's life.

So what is the secondary going to do? More range attacks? Armors? I am betting debuff and control are what most people who want to eliminate melee attacks are thinking, although maybe he was thinking armor or more range attacks.

Looks at corruptors. Primary that deals ranged damage. Secondary that can mitigate damage and support ranged attacking.

Why do so many people want to turn blasters into corruptors? Play corruptors. I think it would be boring to make another corruptor AT (considering defenders also are ranged damage with a support/utility role).

If you don't like the blaster AT, but like the corruptor AT, that does not mean blasters should be turned into corruptors.

Since I am insane, I'll address this. I like having potential. Rather than just being amazing all the time, I like suppressed, restrained power that cannot be released... yet. But then something happens that allows it to be released.

I prefer a team working together as opposed to 6 soloists who split up (although splitting up into two or three groups sometimes and then coming back together is also awesome).

Actually, I got that. You exaggerated so far, it became inane. Your point drowned in your own hyperbole. You lost your audience (unless of course you are just talking to yourself, which is possible, I do that myself sometimes).

Nope (although I prefer to call them team reliant). I never said I wasn't insane, I was just clarifying what I called your examples.