StratoNexus

This is where I take issue.

I am going to come out and say what I believe. This may not be true for most people, but I believe it is true for many.

Some people don't like ANYTHING that is even mildly situational. Some people just want perma-fast cast snipes straight up. Those people are clinging to this "defenders/corruptors get SO MUCH more out of the snipe" argument not because it is true, but because they are hoping they can use that fallacious argument to get perma-fast cast snipes straight up.

You either have a small desk or keep your mouse really far away!

While I agree it is an invitation to jump through hoops, I do not think it is a demand. Going from occasional fast cast snipe to always fast cast snipe has benefits, but even at the current known animation times the benefit is not so large that it makes ignoring the invitation a bad choice.

Because when setting it up so that it could be made perma with /Devices, corruptors and defenders ended up their incidentally? And because the difference between occasional fast cats and perma fast cast is not huge, it was decided that it falls within a reasonable balance range?

Those are my guesses. You could PM Arbiter Hawk, he may answer.

I'll go with Hawk's response, I happen to agree with him.

Hmmm. I can't justify snipes right now either. However, if I can also occasionally use that snipe without an interrupt and if it is DPS neutral or DPS positive in those situations, then I can, even if I still occasionally use it with the long animation.

You shouldn't have to go to all that trouble to get solid use out of the proposed snipes. If you can't justify taking the snipe as a long range, pre-fight attack that can also occasionally be used as a solid DPA attack in the midst of combat, that is fine. That doesn't mean they are useless. I believe a lot of people almost take the snipe, but just can't quite justify it. Occasional use in combat is all that is needed to make them a solid choice, still skippable, but not outright skipped like they are now. The argument that you have to go through all the gyrations you mention in order to get good use out of the new snipes is wrong.

It is not a contradiction and one cannot ignore the melee attacks. I also do not recall the devs stating that range is a defense comparable to melee-AT defensive power sets (useful, but I don't recall them going quite to the level of saying they were as strong as you imply they said).

Blasters and Doms are the two ATs that get plenty of attacks early (except /Dev, but they get Caltrops early, so that is wash). You can frequently use melee attacks and still have a strong range advantage. Not as strong as if you stayed at 70 feet with a full chain, of course, but the advantage doesn't disappear just because one regularly stays close to melee and I would even say the majority of the advantage remains (not that the range advantage is all that special, but simply using the melee attacks doesn't make it disappear as you imply).

Much to my sadness. One day blaster secondaries will be armor sets (look at me getting all slippery-slope crazy). Seriously, I like the range increase, but like increasing the range damage mod and not the melee one, it is a step towards relegating the melee attacks to being poor choices. That I am very much biased against.

I would argue the opposite. I think that type of responsive combat system is extremely attractive and based on recent designs and the devs own comments, I think I have a lot to look forward to. So if you want static, predictable situations where your same attack sequence can be repreated all the time, I think you are going to be facing a lot of disappointment as the game progresses.

If you only said it once, I may not have spent so much effort on it. You have repeatedly used the fact that in your opinion the snipe changes being slightly preferential to corruptors and defenders means that the snipe changes are wrong. Your bias is (or at least was) relevant. And I note, that despite your repeated statements that the snipe changes are not that important to you, you still bring them up as an issue, even in this latest post.

Here is where you fail to see how your bias is working on this issue. I don't need to explain why the snipe buff doesn't give equal benefit to blasters, because it is not important that it does. That is the counter and it is not gotcha-game nonsense. Only from your biased position that any blast set changes need to benefit blasters most or at least equally does that explanation need to exist.

The snipe buff makes snipes more attractive. They are situational powers, but will now be useful in more situations. They also have been improved to not punish DPS situationally (and they actually increase it in those situations). That makes the snipe changes very good, in my opinion. If corruptors and defenders have a small advantage in making those situations occur, I don't find that a compelling argument that the snipe changes are inappropriate. I do agree it is not the best situation, but none of the alternate gating ideas appeal to me as much as the to-hit buff idea.

Because you are the more interesting person to discuss this with? Maybe because I am a Phillies fan and love the Roy Halladay image (and, Yay! He is back tonight)? I didn't even think I was commenting on anyone's insults. I don't care to comment on the insults, just the issues. I will comment on the bias thing, because I do not mean it as an insult, knowing our biases helps us all understand and think about our points.

Sure. But you are not arguing that point with me. You are and have been stating that the snipe changes are improper because they do not address blaster issues (enough, specifically, fairly, etc.). You acknowledge that the blaster improvements do not have to come through the snipe changes, yet still feel the snipe changes should benefit blasters the most.

Fear is a funny thing. I agree that discussing and asking for further changes to blasters is proper. I just don't agree that the snipe changes are relevant to that discussion outside of the fact that it will be a small improvement for blasters. And while you have evolved to the point where you say the snipe changes are not important to you (a place you likely have always been in your own head), this conversation started because you clearly stated, "if they favor improving Snipes just for flavor, then they ought to say so, rather than allowing us to assume that the Snipe changes are the single-target-damage buff for which Blasters in particular, and blast sets in general, have waited."

That statement sounds like you want the snipe changes to be a significant buff to blast sets and particularly to blasters. The clarification and discussion in our ensuing posts has been valuable (at least to me).

Your fear that the I24 blaster buffs will be inadequate is not unwarranted, but at the same time I have never seen this much real and significant change made to blasters, so I think I have reason to be more optimistic.

Sure. But I still don't feel the snipe changes are relevant to that beyond the fact that they will be a minor improvement to the sets (a major improvement to the snipes themselves, I hope, but only a minor one for each powerset with a snipe).

I guess, but it seems like a lot of skepticism, rather than a little. I forgive you, though. I also do not see how they went out of their way to moderate the buff. They wanted the power to remain situational. They went out of their way to allow it to remain situational, not specifically as a way to moderate the power level, although it accomplishes that as well.

I can't begrudge you the attitude that the changes we know about may be all we are getting for years so they better make the snipes as awesome as possible for blasters. I don't agree with it, but I can see where you are coming from.

Sure.

Lol. I guess Eldagore's point on that could be seen that way; support ATs can help blasters get perma-fast cast snipes! Even still though, I still don't find the snipe change as relevant to overall balance.

I will admit, my bias for teaming does indeed like the aspect that teams will increase the viability of perma-fast cast snipes for any AT with a snipe.

Sure.

Is the Kismet autographed too?

While I agree with the sentiment that people shouldn't be so worried about the difference between perma fast-cast and occasional fast cast builds, you take it too far by using the term exploit. Exploit is a fine word, but has a pretty specific meaning in online games. And twinking is irrelevant (I think, isn't twinking when you give resources from a rich character to a poor character?)

You said, "It'd be nice if the buffs that are rightfully targeted at Blasters actually reach Blasters, instead of arbitrarily buffing two support ATs that were already just fine." The counterpoint that is trying to be made is that the snipe buff affects blasters positively, but is not targeted at blasters. The snipe buff affecting other ATs is desirable. If the snipe buff is more effective on other ATs, as long as the disparity is not great, it is a non-issue.

The fact that blasters need more improvement than other ATs, does not need to factor into the snipe change. Other changes can and should be made to blasters if blasters need help. If I were a proponent of blasters, I'd focus my attention on other areas, rather than worry that some defender might get 4% more return on the snipe change.

Considering how poor snipes are, I simply disagree with your position. I think snipes have long been in need of improvement. I don't think they should be made integral to the ATs that have them, but they should be more reasonable choices than they are currently.

The bias comes from your viewing everything through the fact that you feel blasters should be buffed. Other changes that happen to help blasters are not acceptable to you unless they are "rightfully targeted at Blasters." You sometimes seem to be able to understand that not all changes are made solely to buff blasters, but you don't seem to be able to actually accept it and view the snipe change in that light. Your position seems to be, "If it doesn't help blasters the most, then it is not done right."

That is a fine goal, but I don't believe a design is invalid if that is not true. Again, I would be OK if a change came along that made fast-cast snipes harder to achieve on corruptors and defenders, but it is not a big deal either way.

You'd be sort-of right! Hey, I can acknowledge that blasters seem to be the weakest AT, the tools they have are inadequate to defend themselves since they were designed specifically so that teammates would be their defense. I also seem to see a lot more blasters online at any time than I see defenders and corruptors (again anecdotal, only the devs know the truth).

I think tepid is the perfect word for my position. I may think the support ATs deserve a buff more than blasters. I don't have the correct information to determine this, only the devs do. Since they are changing blast sets AND blasters, I lean towards the belief that all ATs with blast sets need help, but blasters need it the most.

All ATs with blast sets need help, but blasters need it the most. From there, I can see that some changes might benefit corruptors and defenders more than blasters and be OK with that, as long as blasters also get other changes.

Calling you biased is a personal credibility attack? Hmmm, I guess it could be if I were trying to convince others to give your points less consideration. I didn't mean people shouldn't listen to you because you are clearly compromised. I was simply trying to communicate to YOU. Your base position that blasters need the most buffs is not allowing you to look at the whole picture very well. You keep viewing the snipe changes as if they must be best for blasters and downplaying the belief that other blaster changes are what really needs to be focused on.

And while you may have always felt this way, it took this much for you to communicate your agreement. However, it is also possible it took this much talking to get you to see this point.

But, sadly, you still view the world from the same place, so you are not fully convinced. The fact that the snipe buff may be easier to use for corruptors and defenders says nothing about how the devs feel about changing blasters. It tells us nothing (well, it may communicate that small variances and minor, unintended results are sometimes acceptable). It is likely merely an acceptable side-effect of an interesting change.

Blasters clearly outdamage corruptors and defenders (in most cases). They do not clearly outdamage brutes and scrappers, which is a problem IMO. Maybe everyone can get behind my desire to increase the damage mods on all three ATs that use blast sets!

Agreed! Let's buff the damage mods on the blast set ATs and stop worrying about snipes.

I would increase the blaster ranged dam mod to 1.25 (or 1.3) and the melee dam mod to 1.125 (and I'd consider increasing the blaster cap to +500%). Increase the corruptor ranged dam mod to 0.9. Increase the defender range dam mod to 0.8 and give defenders scrapper base HPs and the stalker HP cap.

While I agree the support sets have their role, one could say it will be somewhat diminished when the last AT that really needs them becomes less squishy. Granted, I agree blasters are not becoming all that much less squishy, but, uhm... I don't really have a point, just a thought exercise I guess. Also, even after the changes, blaster's role will still only be damage (they may even lose their role of extreme vulnerability that is so despised) and even if they are clearly higher than scappers, scrappers will still bring enough to get the job done.

I know it is hard to accept, but a new player should look at a power like Short Circuit and see it is PBAoE and then look at the secondaries and see melee attacks. Then they could put those facts together and fill their attack chain out with melee attacks.

That doesn't work so good for corruptors or defenders, but I am sure they could fill some of that time with powers from their other sets too.

However, I prefer shorter recharges, even though it generally hurts your damage output at the high end. Therefore, I am all for 3 and 6 second recharge attacks for Electric blast (I wanted that on Rad blast too)!

You would have greater weight on this matter if you hadn't said this:
It is my opinion that the snipe and nuke changes are MORE important than the blaster changes. I couldn't care less if blasters didn't get any other changes, because blast sets desperately needed these powers to be more useful and that fixes main powers for THREE ATs (with some other ATs getting a small benefit).

Your bias keeps showing through. The small (and it is small) advantage support sets have in this area is virtually unimportant in the scheme of the snipe change. Also, the snipe change itself has a virtually negligible impact on overall relative power of the three ATs you keep bringing up.

I am not opposed to adjusting this mechanic so defenders and corruptors have a harder time with it. However, I think the issue is being overblown by a few people, and I am honestly surprised you are swept up in arguing it with such passion (but I like the passion ).

This is kind of a misnomer. The reasoning behind the postulation that fast-cast snipes work better for defenders and corruptors naturally leads one to the conclusion that faster recharging nukes also work better for defender and corruptors.

Someone in this very thread pointed out why, let me find the quote.
I know the to-hit mechanic itself favors the buff ATs (one of the reasons I know some are pushing to make sure blaster Build Up actually works all by itself), but in general only if those ATs take a pool power.

While Leadership is a great pool, it sounds like the devs are trying to make the other pools more attractive as well. Sacrificing one of those other pools for Leadership will hopefully be a more interesting decision. I am also still hopeful that the improvement that fast-cast snipes allow will be moderated to make this a build choice that seems reasonable in either direction.

While I have argued the fast-cast snipes at the current proposed cast times are likely a buff too far, one has to also remember we are only talking about single target damage and generally are looking at a 17% to 25% increase in DPS over current numbers and even less over someone who builds for only occasional fast-cast snipe.

Of course, I also disagree with the notion that corruptor and defender damage levels are fine as is and I still don't see the population of those two ATs anywhere near the level I would prefer (but that last is anecdotal, only the devs know the real numbers).

With 50% from defiance, even cons will die. 50% is actually a pretty high amount to have from defiance. You need about ~40% more after slotting and Build Up to kill even con Lts. Most of my builds will be comfortably in that range with a very small amount of Defiance (some are there with no Defiance at all if you count Musculature).

And I can't stress enough that without an end crash, you will be able to follow up with another AoE that will likely finish the Lts anyway (even on settings where you face +con enemies).

It is my opinion this change is all for the better. The guaranteed damage is higher than the old. Yes, normally you would have done a very little bit more and there was a modest chance to do a lot more. But the recharge was also way longer. I never dreamed they would go this far and make, what to me is, the perfect change (for nukes).

MoM is max 16, but besides that, smaller teams on trials can be easier than larger ones. The devs have done a very good job scaling the trial difficulty to team size and it is a mistake to believe that max capacity is better.

I am excited to see the 12 brutes or scrappers doing this as well!

Immediately jumping to all of one AT is disingenuous. A MoM trial with 4 buff/debuff, 8 other would be fine if the 8 other were all blasters, all dominators, all anything, or a mix (it would be good to have one or two meat-shields, not vital, depending on the buff/debuff, but generally good). Blasters are a fine addition to any trial and bring solid DPS as desired.

I am not saying the DPS they bring is high enough relative to the armors or control other damage dealers bring, but it is high enough that they are a great addition to any trial.

That would be My Lady Fire, and long have I been devoted.

The citizens! Uhm, he is such a good tank, nobody ever notices his teammates! Yeah, that's it.

Like - range!

Gasp! I can haz Spines/Bio brute? That would put my Katana brute on hold again.

and aggro control. I am glad to see Johnny finally acknowledging that aggro mechanics are indeed often featured in comics. For the longest time he insisted they were some fantasy oriented thing that did not belong in a comic themed game.

So my jumping across Steel Canyon, using just Combat Jumping and Sprint, without ever touching the ground game is nothing more than a curiosity!

Curses, I thought I'd get bonuses for it.

Indeed. Maybe /Mental will be dead too and the new king will be Elec/Devices!

<.> >.>

It is an interesting choice. A scale 5.52 attack is not something I want to see, because even at 45 second recharge and a long animation time, that is unskippable (and becomes O.O with fast-cast). I want the snipes to be attractive, not Assassin Strike for blasters. Others do want what you suggest though, I have seen many ask for it.

So while I don't support your idea, it has its supporters.

Because Fire isn't as much ahead as so many people think AND it gets nothing else but damage. Fire BETTER damn well be ahead if the only thing you are looking at is damage, since that is all it does.

I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of Fire's DoT NEVER HAPPENS. Oh, don't get me wrong, I love Fire and the high damage AoEs are strong, but what Ice blast brings to a team and solo is also very strong.

Plus, all snipes suck, even Blazing Bolt. The snipe changes are there to make snipes not suck. BFR almost sucks, being slightly better than snipes. I skipped it on both my higher level Ice blast characters and I do not plan on taking it on my other two. Thus I am fully in support of helping that power. But not because snipes got improved, simply because it should be a bit more efficient and useful.