StratoNexus

If I am in the middle of a mob and feel I need to use my sustain power RTFN, I don't think I would mind if they got knocked back.

Power Boost doesn't take any sets. You could use SOs, but level 50 common IOs are better (my build all has level 40s, because I have my default set to 40 and didn't bother changing it, but I'd use 50s for the commons once I could (and I use whatever is available for sets, although I usually try to stay level 35 or higher).

You will still likely want to eat inspires pretty often, I'd consider one of those binds to convert inspires into purples. Hit PB before eating each Alpha and you only need one luck, although I'd be prepared to drop a second one if things get rough (although that is what Personal Force Field is for too).

The difficult thing will be holding aggro. This build does not generate enough hate. I am not sure how to rectify that. Spamming Explosive Blast as much as possible was my main idea, but I don't know if that would be enough.

Everyone knew an order you made up? Seems doubtful. Time is a fabulous set, but it is because it mixes buff and debuff. It is not near the top when you talk about debuffs alone.

I thought everyone knew this about the relative ranking of buff/debuff!

I've always preferred /Fire for tanking because it has two auras, one of which has an auto-hit component. But /Nrg will have some strong survivability options with Power Boost and a defense build. I'd also consider Aid Self, which also works very well combined with Power Boost.

I think I'd try to build using a resistance APP and get as much defense from other places as possible. I'd strongly consider Force or Flame for the APP with a small consideration for Electric.

Below is an idea. I'd strongly consider Spiritual Radial, but I used Agility Radial for now. I'd likely slot Energize (Conserve Power) with the 3 Miracles that include recharge and then any cheap Heal/Rech IO. I'd lean towards Void or Vorpal for Judgement, Diamagnetic Core Interface, Storm Radial for Lore, and the Clarion Radial for Destiny.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.96
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Nrg-Nrg-blanker: Level 50 Magic Blaster
Primary Power Set: Energy Blast
Secondary Power Set: Energy Manipulation
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Medicine
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Force Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Power Blast -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(21), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(23), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(23), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(25), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(39)
Level 1: Power Thrust -- Acc-I(A)
Level 2: Energy Torrent -- Posi-Acc/Dmg(A), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(3), Posi-Dmg/Rng(3), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(5), Posi-Dam%(5)
Level 4: Energy Punch -- T'Death-Acc/Dmg(A), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx(7), T'Death-Dmg/Rchg(7), T'Death-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(9), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(9), T'Death-Dam%(11)
Level 6: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), Ksmt-ToHit+(43)
Level 8: Sniper Blast -- ExtrmM-Acc/Dmg(A), ExtrmM-Dmg/EndRdx(25), ExtrmM-Acc/ActRdx/Rng(33), ExtrmM-Dmg/ActRdx/Rchg(33), ExtrmM-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(33), ExtrmM-Acc/Rng/Rchg(48)
Level 10: Bone Smasher -- T'Death-Acc/Dmg(A), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx(11), T'Death-Dmg/Rchg(13), T'Death-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(13), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(15), T'Death-Dam%(15)
Level 12: Aim -- AdjTgt-Rchg(A), AdjTgt-ToHit/Rchg(19)
Level 14: Build Up -- AdjTgt-Rchg(A), AdjTgt-ToHit/Rchg(21)
Level 16: Conserve Power -- Empty(A), Empty(17), Empty(17), Empty(19)
Level 18: Stimulant -- IntRdx-I(A)
Level 20: Power Bolt -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(34), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(34), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(34), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(36), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(40)
Level 22: Aid Self -- Mrcl-Heal/Rchg(A), Mrcl-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(40), Numna-Heal/Rchg(40), Numna-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(43), IntRdx-I(43)
Level 24: Boxing -- Acc-I(A)
Level 26: Explosive Blast -- OvForce-Acc/Dmg(A), OvForce-Acc/Dmg/End(27), OvForce-Dmg/End/Rech(27), OvForce-Acc/Dmg/End/Rech(29), OvForce-Dam/KB(29)
Level 28: Power Boost -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(45)
Level 30: Tough -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(A), S'fstPrt-ResKB(31), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(31), RctvArm-EndRdx(31), RctvArm-ResDam(46), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(46)
Level 32: Nova -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(36), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(36), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(37), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(37), Oblit-%Dam(37)
Level 35: Personal Force Field -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A)
Level 38: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(39), LkGmblr-Def(50)
Level 41: Temp Invulnerability -- RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(A), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg(42), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(42), RctvArm-ResDam(42)
Level 44: Force of Nature -- RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg(A), RctvArm-EndRdx/Rchg(45), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(45), RctvArm-ResDam(46)
Level 47: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(48), LkGmblr-Def(48)
Level 49: Tactics -- Rec'dRet-ToHit(A), Rec'dRet-Pcptn(50), HO:Cyto(50)
Level 1: Brawl -- Acc-I(A)
Level 1: Defiance
Level 1: Prestige Power Dash -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Slide -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Quick -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Rush -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Surge -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Rest -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run
Level 2: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Health -- Mrcl-Rcvry+(A)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(39)
Level 0: Portal Jockey
Level 0: Task Force Commander
Level 0: The Atlas Medallion
Level 0: Freedom Phalanx Reserve
Level 50: Agility Radial Paragon
------------

Well, they could invade the RI, but it's cheaper to let Statesman send 8 superpowered heroes to invade instead. It also gives them deniability.

Blasters, they shoot things.
13.
It is undeniable. Those of you trying for 36, or even more overblown at 42 are reaching too much.
13. Enjoy the simplicity and truth. I hear there is freedom in it.

LOL. Don't mind me. I think I just went off the deep end for a little. And scrappers don't jump in and out of melee like a blaster who uses both sets.

This is not necessarily true in a scenario with multiple variables. Using the melee attacks may be better in some ways, added damage and possible control, for example. But they have build costs as well as the obvious exposure to extra risk.

It is possible for the added damage and control to be better, but still not worth those costs. Not enough better?

I am figuring we are not at that point though, so I will cease belaboring the concern.

Adding damage to FA does not invalidate its use as a control tool. It limits its ability to stack because the other sleeps blaster can access have damage. Why aren't you complaining about that? If Flash Freeze and Sleep Grenade did not do damage, FA could pull double duty (Siren's Song would suffer, but I have trouble weeping for Sonic, its control is awesome without stacking sleeps).

But I don't really want to stop those 5 people who are stacking sleeps, I'd prefer something else be done (just like I would have preferred something else for tankers). (while I am being snarky here, I do mean it, I'd prefer they not add damage to FA, I typed too fast in my previous post and said something that I don't really believe).

I wouldn't mind that. But shiver's -recharge is massive. Saying all it does is slow is like saying all Rain of Arrows does is damage.

Alright. I am probably being paranoid. It does look like I am pretty much guaranteed to lose our bet.

Alright. I am convinced to wait and see. I do like using HoB precisely because it meshes so well with blaster melee powers.

Seamless is barely relevant in normal play. I assure you, every ranger can build to be attacking at a very high rate. Between throwing out AoEs, self buffs, single target attacks, moving, using inspires, using buff/debuff powers (for rangers that are not blasters), etc., the ranger is not frequently staring at a power tray without stuff recharged.

But true, against those tough targets like AVs, a rangers single target chain can be lacking (although I find I have that trouble with some armored characters and have to throw in an AoE as well). And we all know that AVs are really when you want to move into melee to fill those gaps!

I don't think they are superfluous, I think they are getting close. The advantages they bring are already tenuous, and I24 further reduces them. I admit

The first sentence is incorrect. I am guessing (hoping) you intended it to be funny, I smiled a bit.

Next, I am starting to find the term Blapper grating on my nerves. As if using the blaster secondary attacks is some kind of degenerate playstyle. I am not talking about those builds that are excessive melee combatants. Rather, I am talking about blasters. Not rangers, not blappers. Blasters. Those who use both. When you are already building to be solid at range and supplement with melee attacks. As the range part improves, the need and/or value to supplementing with melee goes down.

Finally, however or whatever the original design for blasters was, if you are going to abandon the melee portion, then abandon it. If the design has issues, but you want to keep the melee portion, fix both range and melee. Unless, of course, the melee attacks and powers are already good enough? I could be convinced of that, although I think some sets would still fall short.

No, but I have 8 years of CoH being a fun game and blasters being a popular AT to support the idea that balance isn't everything and that a disadvantaged AT makes the game more fun.

However, this is fruitless, blasters are getting buffed and I am fully on board in supporting the changes and trying to make sure blasters get the best possible buff to make them more competitive and balanced. I was never against AT-wide blaster buffs, beyond the fact that I didn't think it was necessary and that time would be better spent elsewhere (new villain groups, fixing outliers like snipes, nukes, barb swipe, the Presence pool, APP Melt Armor (hey, I24 is looking really good!)).

So what is fun and exciting about "sustainable ranged attackers"? Defenders and corruptors already fulfill that role and are among the least popular ATs (I can't prove that, but I believe it).

The essence of the blaster AT is attacks from anywhere. VEATs and HEATs get to be sustained attackers. Why is this denied the AT originally designed to be that? What is the purpose in only improving 5/8ths of the blaster?

I simply disagree. Range has advantages. Oh, those advantages are not strong enough to deny every semblance of survivability, but they are not also hand-wave dismissible.

That is not an advantage. Every attack set has that. It is why people skip Repulsing Torrent and Barb Swipe. It is why they take Gloom. The fact that blasters have more poor attacks they can skip in order to take better attacks that negate their range is not an advantage.

On the one hand, you could say that those who engage in a lot of melee need more of a survivability boost, so naturally this will help them more. However, the nature of this boost actually favors the lower damage rangers face. The mechanics being used to help blasters do not favor taking the kind of big hits one can face in melee. It will still be very useful, my own experience with a high regen blaster tells me that, but they will not favor blasters over rangers.

No, I should direct my complaints to all facets that weaken the relative use and strength of blaster melee powers and I will continue to do so. The I11 buff to range, content development, the I24 buff to range, and the emphasis that I24 sustain powers do not require melee (even when attached to powers that were previously melee). None of them are bad decisions and I support every one, but together they weaken the relative use of blaster melee powers.

If that is the direction we are heading, that is fine with me. But it is undeniable that the value of entering melee has dropped a large amount for blasters and we may be at or close to the point where it doesn't make a lot of sense to build for melee when you could focus on range and get better mileage.

I guess that is sort of true. Obviously I don't want ranged offense to not work, but I do want melee offense to have an advantage of some kind. It has mostly lost its damage advantage. The counter mez thing still works to a decent extent, so maybe that is where I should focus my attention. I am not suggesting the devs should change course, but I also want to fully consider how the changes will affect the entire AT.

I disagree. Pure blapping, sure, that was marginal. But being a blaster was significantly more productive than being a ranger. I won't deny the danger, which means it may have been less productive for rewards if you died a lot. However, blasters that mixed in the melee attacks were, in the past, significantly more potent than pure rangers (both with control and damage). I do not think that advantage is as large now as it was in the past.

True, but better options will also exist from range, making the choice to enter and use melee less wise. As an extreme example to illustrate the point, if we make it so that every tanker gained a passive 10% resistance all and 4% defense all for every secondary power they take, there is not a lot of advantage to picking up some of their primary powers.

Obviously, the I24 blaster changes do not trivialize the melee attacks that much and maybe I am worrying over nothing. However, I am concerned that outside of the sustain type powers, we have not seen anything that addresses improving the melee powers and that you, who have always maintained blasters were damage dealers at any range, are now defining blasters as sustained ranged attackers.

I don't like that blasters are hard mode specifically, I am not enamored with getting pasted while solo (I have a high tolerance for it, but I don't particularly want it). I like that they make other people pay attention to them when teamed (and I think that will still be true even after I24). I absolutely agree it is not compelling from a balance perspective, but I am not positive that matters. Balance is not always required to make a fun, popular AT, if it has enough interesting features.

That isn't to say I don't think balance is a good goal, I just don't find it to be a necessary goal. I don't think that is truly the goal with what I have seen from the I24 changes. They want to buff blasters, but I don't believe they want them to be balanced against scrappers, dominators, brutes, or contollers. Maybe I am wrong, but from what we have seen so far, I think the target is a bit lower than balance.

I think the changes I have seen so far will make blasters more fun, more survivable, and more damaging. But I also see them abandoning the melee nature, which is sad to me, but a choice that could make sense. A fair number of people seem to prefer blasters as rangers. And while melee still seems an option, it is fast becoming a weaker option, where in the past you got value from entering melee, now it will be done just for style. Risk for no reward other than the joy of doing it, which is fine, but I think it will make even more people skip the melee attacks, which will give more impetus 2 years from now to marginalize the melee even more.

I do not normally have a slippery-slope mentality, but I feel like I am reacting not to one incident, but a series of incidents, so I do feel like we are moving down a slope.

You certainly won't get an argument from me on that score. I used that same reasoning to discuss why blasters did not necessarily need a survivability buff. Isn't there room in the game for an AT heavily dependent on teammates? The proposed changes coming in I24 tell us the answer to that question is NO.

I'd say that prior to I11 they had significantly more benefit. Enemy and encounter design has also significantly altered their benefit. I do not think it is fair to say they were always marginalized (unless you allow for big margins). While I agree the melee attacks always had issues, the margins for their use have been shrinking even further, on top of the old issues.

Indeed, but why do it? Shouldn't there be a benefit to entering melee? Or is that old school thinking? Is it enough that the concept of a mixed range and melee blaster is mostly as functional as a pure ranger? Sure the pure ranger is better, but going into melee looks pretty?

Obviously, the mitigation powers help any blaster survive longer and may open people up to the possibility of using the melee powers, but why should they use them? If you can get the same damage level and mitigation from range, why waste power choices and slots on melee attacks?

It's certainly not a bad PBAoE unit, but is it a powerhouse? It seems it, without looking too close, so maybe I am fretting over nothing. But I think about Fire/Fire/Blaze scrappers or Fire/Fire/Soul Brutes, and I am not sure an Elec/Fire/Force blaster is competitive. Is it worth 6 plus seconds in melee range for SC and FSC, considering the improved ranged options? When we had to close to 40 feet for Blaze, jumping the rest of the way for FSC seemed more appealing.

Is that a good AT definition? Does that give blasters a purpose beyond what they can do now? While I agree it may be slightly better than the current, "they deal damage", it certainly doesn't seem much more expansive.

Or perhaps I should say it doesn't seem clear enough. I can think of definite ways of designing around that definition, but it still seems a bit too vague.

Not surprisingly, I also can't let go of the concern of how this might affect the melee attacks and other melee oriented powers. They are already somewhat marginalized and if they get marginalized even further in I24, then they ought to be abandoned and the AT should truly be designed as sustained ranged attackers.

If it seems necessary to buff the defensive tier 9s with a crash, I love your idea, adding offense to the tier 9s seems a good idea. Most people seem to take and enjoy the tier 9s as they are, despite the presence of some who dislike them.

When I had my idea for a Storm Armor set, I designed the tier 9 as follows (this was pre-ED and I have learned a lot since then, but I still love the concept of a more offensive tier 9, (I think the damage number listed might be brawl index)):

Storm's Fury - (Toggle) You stand in the eye, channeling the fury of the storm. Channeling increases your hitpoint and endurance recovery while your foes are blasted by bolts of lightning. Channeling the Storm's Fury is very taxing and you will be drained of nearly all hitpoints and endurance, as well as be unable to regenerate or recover hitpoints and endurance for some time. +100% regen/+.32 end recovery, 0/sec cost, deals minor DoT Energy (.6111) in a 20' radius, will shut off automatically after 120 seconds, 880 second recharge, [heal, end recov, acc, dam, rec reduc]

I want to be sure people understand, I want the crash. I mean that. I want Unstoppable to crash and I want it to be significant. I prefer the current Unstoppable with a crash to an Unstoppable without a crash even if they do not lower the benefits.

I would not mind if the crash was moderated a bit, but if they totally take the teeth out of it, I will be sad.

Indeed, at 6 minute base recharge and a horrific crash, not a big deal (obviously some builds can leverage it exceedingly well, and teamed it can get very good). Ice Storm's damage is low enough to also not be a big deal.

With the coming changes to nukes, Blizzard being incorrect becomes more of a concern. I also see no reason why Ice Storm and Rain of Fire should remain incorrect, once you decide to fix Blizzard.

Ice Storm, IMO, could easily leave the defender version as is and increase the corruptor and blaster version.

Oh, I think people will freak if they fix corruptor Rain of Fire (as well as Ice Storm and Blizzard for corruptors and defenders), but they can't claim the cheese was moved. Numerical errors and balance issues are always up for change. Cheese moving should be avoided as much as possible.

Except changing the values to be correct still leaves it cheese and still leaves the cheese in the same place. I don't see people suggesting changing Rain of Fire into a targeted AoE or into a debuff patch.

EM is still better than most at nominal levels of recharge for single target DPS (the results are in take 2 used very low recharge and has EM as number 2 just below Fiery). And lots of sets have long animation powers. Corpse blasting is not a solid argument, it happens to everyone, it is just more visible with TF, but it happen with GFS, MG, KoB, etc.; how much of Fiery's DoT never actually happens (Fiery's on paper damage is always going to be higher than actual in game performance)?

I am 99% sure Arcanatime is used, Bill used it for the first results are in thread. It is worth noting that high recharge actually favors some other sets (at least according to Bill's results). Bill's first thread had high levels of recharge which does push Stone up above EM (EM maintains a good endurance advantage, naturally). Dark can also rise above depending on how good a Soul Drain it gets.

It seems unlikely the set has major issues, otherwise the devs would prioritize it instead of shrugging whenever it is brought up. They seem to have the same general feeling I do, something seems off, but yet it isn't a bad set.

They already took the joy of managing Speed Boost away from me, might as well kick my Empathy joy into the dirt as well.

Managing the buff cycles is why I play Empathy (and I miss it on my kins and bubblers). YOU may not find it fun, but I do.

But there is a difference between taking it into account and using IO builds as the primary balance concern.