Tranth

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The third, and short term easiest version involves tweaking individual powers of effected sets -- which would almost certainly nerf some powers, buff others and cause a whole slew of new imbalances.

It's not as easy to get things done as you might think.


[/ QUOTE ]

So noted. And I think I have a fair solution:

1. Add an energy component to Broadsword. Just seems fair.
2. Make Cold Blast attacks Cold/Energy instead of Cold/Smashing. Thematic with all the Ice/Eng Blasters out there *ahem*

(EvilGeko looks at his character list)

3. Also make Illusion controls power Psi/Eng instead of just Psi. I think you will agree that's needed.
4. Finally Spines should be all toxic damage.


I don't think that will cause any untoward imbalances.

[/ QUOTE ]


Gonna Disagree on account of logic to only one tidbit here Evil Geko.

#4 is going a bit far as a pointed spine would indeed logically make lethal damage as well as toxic for its payload and indeed make more lethal off the bat and toxic later.

This just seems "right" to me in a thematical sense.

Also not sure about the Ice being energy thing but I can see the kinetic forces behind hurling the ice Thematically doing that.

Tranth

[ QUOTE ]
1. Start Me Up (Stones)
2. Lovely Rita (Beatles)
3. Born To Boogie (Hank Jr.)
4. A Woman's Work (SheDaisy)
5. Don't You Play With Me (Stones)
6. Brown Suger (Stones)
7. It's Only Rock 'n Roll (Stones)
8. Badonkadonk (Trace Adkins)
9. Whiskeybent and Hellbound (Hank Jr.)
10. My Give a Damn's Busted (Jo Dee Messina)

[/ QUOTE ]



Hmm Not bad.. But where's Green Eyed Lady from Sugar Loaf Hmm? heh

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) Queen -- Fat Bottom Girls

[/ QUOTE ]

You make the rockin' world go round!

[/ QUOTE ]

Perosnally, I think The Prophet's Song is Queen's best work.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes A very good choice indeed

[ QUOTE ]
1) James -- Low Low Low
2) Garbage -- Milk
3) Concrete Blonde -- Joey
4) Jethro Tull -- Slipstream
5) Queen -- Fat Bottom Girls
6) Garbage -- Bad Boyfriend
7) Sublime -- Hong Kong Phooey
8) Belly -- Gepetto
9) Jethro Tull -- Locomotive Breath
10) Black Sabbath -- Sweet Leaf

[/ QUOTE ]


Damn Castle,

Not only are you the tops in Red names for concise helpful Dev responses man your also the top Red name in musical taste!

Anyone listing Queen and Jethro Tull as 2 of their rotation favorites is indeed a wise fellow with discerning taste in my book.

Bonus points for one of the Tull's being a Rare Cut I barely know.

Gonna have to go Jam on Slipstream now.

For my money Check out "A Small Cigar, or Up the Pool" for Solid Rare Tull cuts Castle.

Keep on Rockin' man.

Now for My own Part time to get eclectic on you all:


1) Jethro Tull -- Skating Away on the thin Ice of a new day.
2) Elton John -- Mona Lisa' and Madhatter's
3) The Who -- 905
4) Jethro Tull -- One White Duck / 0^{10} = Nothing At All
5) Queen -- Drowse
6) Three Dog Night -- Mama Told me not to Come
7) Rush -- Subdivisions
8) Steely Dan -- Dirty Work
9) BOz Scaggs-- Lido
10) Queen -- 39

Put that in your IPod and smoke it

Tranth.

(responses to concern in) ()

[ QUOTE ]
Tranth you still have not supported your position. You have repeated your opinions again but have not supported
your statement that the ideas are overpowered

[/ QUOTE ]

(Hello Again Concern, Yes I have supported my claim my opinions and arguments do support my claim just like yours do neither one of us has hard facts here only I realise that however appearantly. What you need to grasp to understand both our arguments and positons is that they are based on personal experiance and opinions only.)


[ QUOTE ]
yet unless it is your contention that a blaster being able to deliver damage from range quickly is unbalanced.


[/ QUOTE ]

(Nope that is a ridiculos statement and both against what I stated and what Statesman has clairfied as his vision for the arch type.)

[ QUOTE ]
Let me clarify that when I say I would not mind a little button to kill all the mobs, I would not mind it on any AT because frankly I enjoy seeing mobs die.

[/ QUOTE ]


(Fair enough Concern consider it clairfied now to clairfy from my view I think simmilarily to a poster 2 above or so that the combination of all your changes is tantamount to a form of god mode and I don't want to see it personally. A couple of em sure, the 20 foot melee and nukes from afar sans Electric hell no.)

[ QUOTE ]
This is a vice and it is one of the reasons why I enjoy playing max payne 2 with god mod on just so I can stand still and slowly shoot people in the head and enjoy every slowed second of it. A little sick? Maybe but it has no relevance

[/ QUOTE ]


(This is your playstyle and it makes sence to me but it is outta whack with my own. I personally despise god modes and other so called "cheats" I feel they cheapen my experiance.
Now that said I don't care if you use em if your changes where lets say optional and not all blasters had to use them. In such a case I would be fine with them as I would just aviod your type of player but since they would be all encompassing for the AT I am very much against more than a few of them getting implemented all at once.)

[ QUOTE ]
because when I suggest an idea of mine is balanced you had better believe that I am suggesting it to balance the game and not to give a single AT a god mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Well I Can see you might mean for that to be your goal or percive it as balanced in say the same way a player of "the way of the closed fist" in Jade Empire would justify thier actions. Still I for one choose hold the torch against such folly. If you think all your changes being implented at once would begin to balance the archtype of Blasters then you Sir are out of wack with the vast majority of what players would consider to be balanced needs of the Archtype.

Sure we blasters need love but we don't need or want a god mode. )

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly if I was looking to make the game easier you wouldn't see me supporting a nerf to enhancements trying to make the game harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

(This is possibly untrue as it is entirely possible that you would do just that. I mean I don't know you from adam and as this is not black and white stuff we are discussing but rather opionated player styles and changes.

Also your second post I happen to agree on (regarding the enhansement changes.) This is a all encompasing change that is likely long in the coming as the Perma powers where till the last patch.)

[ QUOTE ]
Okay enough defending my credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Agreed in truth I was never in doubt of your credibility. Just your reasoning and logic behind your propsed changes.

as I even agree on alot of your posts plus you've been around longer I just happen to disagree on this one and still do.)



[ QUOTE ]
You want to agree to disagree on alot of points without actually debating on them fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Your want to percive it that way so you feel better is also fine.

I have very much backed up my posts you choose not to agree to my backing statments or to ignore them and that's fine too, but claiming that you somehow did more or used a differant tact to defend your own points is just as flawed in my eyes. You used opinions and misdirections to my responses and to state otherwise is flat out poppycock. Show me facts from your previous posts actual facts not opinions Concern.)

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see if we can take issues one at a time and find out what is so unbalancing about each one.

[/ QUOTE ]

(sure thing.)

[ QUOTE ]
No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay so you are against all ranged 32 nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Ok Concern heres a classic case of misdirection at hand Here you take a part of my quote and weakly attempt to manipulate it. If you honestly thought that the paragraph above somehow meant I was against all AOE attacks on blasters even after I told you I liked them on electric blasters then I got nothing for ya. Your either wrong or daft or both.)

[ QUOTE ]
However you don't say why it is unbalanced. You simply say that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Ok here you are right I don't say why HERE and do you know why that is? It's because I have already done so in the last 4 posts and you ignored it no need to repeate the same argument aside from saying we diagree on this.)

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand why I am saying that you are not making a case?

[/ QUOTE ]

(No And I have made my case go back and reread it if you want since you ignored it the first time.

Also My case can be easily supported with simple logic actually just with the #'s if you think about it you propose 9 some changes as a start and I propose 2 that would balance the AT in my eyes.

The math is gonna likely swing in my favour here bud as most often 9 changes are going to equvialiate toomore then the sum of 2. So theres a new take on it for you.)

[ QUOTE ]
You said previously:

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Nah I am fine with thunder Blast man if you want that play electric, its one of the things that adds flavor for electric blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this ranged 32 nuke okaybut the rest are not? What makes this nuke balanced? Is there some compromise you are looking for? Is there a compromise that comes along with this nuke? Does it do less damage? Does it have a smaller AoE? Please explain why you think that ranged nukes are unbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Good question,

Well for my part and playstyle its ok because it promotes variance in the Archytypes. Being a blaster yourself you likely know that electric's secondarys are oft considered underpowered and these guys are rarer then say and ENG or Fire Blaster even with thier AOE nuke from afar. Also Unlike you I dont want all blasters to play and act the same or have a god mode.)




[ QUOTE ]
Okay, One thing that really peeved me is in regards to your comment about having ranged manipulation powers

Explain to me how being able to summon and drop Hot Feet takes out more risk than an agro management pet. You have absolutely no concept of how overpowering your idea is.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That is what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(Feeling is mutual other than pointing out that your post didnt mention only hot feet but many more powers in this change I need not further clarify myself to you as you will miss or igore it most likely anyhow.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is your response. You notice that you have not given any reason why any of the manipulation powers being ranged will be unbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Acutally I did give a reason in previous posts and if you want to know that badly go back and really read em this time. Suffice to say that this change alone wouldn't bother me really it's when its coupled with all the others. Not trying to peeve you but if you take it that way thats your call, we have very differing viewpoints that much is obvious.)


[ QUOTE ]
What you have said is that they are unbalanced in your opinion with no supporting arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

(See above you have seen and ignored my arguments quit claiming there where none its folly.)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I am totally aware that I included more than just Hot Feet.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I figured as much you just seem to like quoting bits of things that folks can take out of context to solidify your arguments but when the whole of them are presented as you originally laid themout. Then they are filled with holes like a slice O swiss cheese. Hey don't blame me for the weakness your own arguments ok.)

[ QUOTE ]
I was merely giving you an example as to what I was talking about considering that you may have misinterpreted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

(No you where only qouting a section of your own idea so as to lend more creedence to your current defensive argument in truth but its ok I am on to your tatics.)

[ QUOTE ]
So I give you a power to work with and instead of showing how it is unbalanced you come back and say "Ha! Your only useing one power as an example and your idea includes more than that and that is why it is unbalanced." Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Que? why would I try again looks like you got the point finally. So I got what I was looking for.

The reason for that response was to show you that I knew your tactics but that you could not disprove your own original words from your own posts.

You can't just take a part of your post and cut it out of context and say its ok now this is what I really meant guys please don't look back at my original idea anymore, unless you flat out state you've changed your postion.

Something you have not done. You still claim to want all these changes and that the combination of getting all these changes would be a "START" to fixing the blaster archtype.

Look thats a argument you just can't win and I would wager frankly isn't gonna happen.)

[ QUOTE ]
(The agruments are all there for you in black and white this is matter of opinion on both sides and we are not like to agree on it is all.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The arguements are like the ones above, opinions and not arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Who died and made you the lord of what constitues an argument? I got news for you opinions can by definiton indeed be the whole some of arguments and in this case on both your side and mine indeed are with the small additon of personal experiances we've both had in game.)

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to say in your opinion something is not balanced that is fine. If you make a flat declaritive statement then please back it up with some nice supporting arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Look man I did... alright? Like I said you don't really appear to understand what you read in them anyhow.)

(Now if you'd like to take this to pm's to aviod hijacking your thread any longer thats ok with me as this is damaging to your thread at this point and I had no intent of playing this much badmittion with you when I made my intial post and apologize to the folks who could careless for either of our ideas. Otherwise we agree to disagree and let things go. Tranth)

[ QUOTE ]
What's this I thought you said no increase in damage? hmm 30% unresistable damage to mobs = damage increase, did you not Sir in another post claim to be a lawyer in training?
Where then is your atteniton to detail with your own percivied facts?)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I begin to understand your lack of understanding. Take two mobs with no resistance. Which are the majority of mobs in the game. Current blasters would do 100 pts of damage. Blasters with the PvP change would still do 100 pts of damage.


[/ QUOTE ]

(Like I mentioned I am not here to convince you rather then to state your errors, you miss the point that this adds damage to those with resistance which is added damage period.)



If the mob has resistance, lets say 30% the mob would still take 100 pts of damage. Wait thats not more damage is it? No its consistent damage.

(Wrong its more that 30% would not come off without your change consistant yes more damage yes I did not claim it would be more than a mob without resistance would take just that is it is more damage. The fact that you need to stretch really hard to come up with responses is plain.)

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it the aoe you lob from a safe range kills all but 2 while you run around a corner. A single pet cannont kill so many so fast, it has no aoe. The pet would not be able to mitigate damage to the level that this change of yours alone would do. Mull that over and if you use reason you should see the light.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that Thunderous blast is overpowered? Wait maybe you missed my change to blaster nukes at the bottom I guess I will continue reading to see if you realized this arguement was pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Nah I am fine with thunder Blast man if you wnat that play electric, its one of the things that adds flavor for electric blasters.)


[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about one pet with blaster hp's not perma with some range and some small aggro managment. This would be about no differant then teaming with a second blaster except it would protect you.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Wow, it has ranged agro management. Extremely overpowered. If it ties up one enemy that just negated all damage (100% resistance in a way) from one target. That is pretty damn powerfull for a power. That is why Phantom Army is considered crowd controll and this is what you are asking for. You are asking for crowd controll.

[/ QUOTE ]

(No You are just not getting it and its not supriseing to me as you simpley don't wish to. one pet with blaster hp's and some not 100% some small aggro effect that need not even overpower your own would be fine by me acutally overpowered? Not hardly For a look at overpwoered changes see you own Ideas and most importantly the fact that you want them all for starters.)


[ QUOTE ]
Again you forget that you claimed that your changes make no damage increase in your most recent post to me Sir, Not only is this a damage increase for melee aoe it also has the strong possiblity for lameness effect.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually I made it clear that I was for increasing melee AoE several times. I even explained why.


[/ QUOTE ]


(You also claimed your changes added no damage! Erm?? there you go Sir thats what I was saying is that you forgot what you said.)

[ QUOTE ]
This abiltiy above your suggest alone takes out as much risk then one Pet with blaster hit points.


[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how being able to summon and drop Hot Feet takes out more risk than an agro management pet. You have absolutely no concept of how overpowering your idea is.

(Feeling is mutual other than pointing out that your post didnt mention only hot feet but many more powers in this change I need not further clarify myself to you as you will miss or igore it most likely anyhow.)

[ QUOTE ]
6. Swap the damage caps of blasters and scrappers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Hmmm Increase Damage ? Could be!)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I love this. Really. So if I take a blaster with a higher damage cap and fire an attack it will suddenly do more damage? No, it won't. It makes it so that the potential is there but the cap does not magically make blaster attacks more powerfull.


[/ QUOTE ]

(Again your just being silly here the potential for more damage exisists if/when you slotted and or you where buffed.)

[ QUOTE ]
8. Faster activation times on powers for blasters.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Sure thing but btw this would up DPS and thus hmm well Increase Damage!)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I see you have confused damage with DPS. Need to stop doing that as they are not the same thing. Did I say that it would not increase DPS? No I didn't. Increased activation times will not make blaster attacks do more damage. It does not increase damage. It does increase DPS but don't confuse that for damage. If an attack is not one shotting an LT it will not one shot an LT no matter how fast the attack is performed.


[/ QUOTE ]

(I aggree mostly with what you point out here bottom line is you are deadler and if not increasing damage out right you are still in effect increasing DPS, in truth though this is an ok Idea.)




[ QUOTE ]
9. Making level 32 nukes into more useable AoE powers like Head Splitter or Full-Auto and less situational all end consuming powers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[/ QUOTE ]

([censored] ? As I reread this one I realize that I glossed over it without enough thought myself. It alone is insane. I gotta say this alone is better then a small resistance to one power and a blaster hp pet.

You Sir Have no concept of balance if you cannot see that.

And BTW it is the now soon to be non perm click powers that scrappers get which sucks thier endo and are becoming O' Crap powers like Blasters booms and not the other way around.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
First don't compare primary and secondary sets in regards to final powers. If you want to compare the scrapper secondary powers, then compare them to blaster secondary powers. Except for Total focus those scrapper secondaries are much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I most certinaly will compare them as they are the price or oh crap powers of each archtype it matters not that for Scrappers they are on the defensive side for blasters they are on the offensive side they have the determental effects you referanced blaster side thus I brought them up.)

[ QUOTE ]
So, what you are saying is that if we had a ranged attack that was similar to Head splitter in damage and made into a small AoE cone or somewhat it would somehow unbalance us compared to scrappers that already have headsplitter?

[/ QUOTE ]

(No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)


[ QUOTE ]
It removes a situational power and allows blasters to once again perform their role from range.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Actually though it does do what you sy it also takes away too much risk and cheapens the elcetric blaster already commonly percived as one of the weakest choices. Againa I am about more variety not less.)

[ QUOTE ]

An amazing concept. It allows blasters to have another power to cycle when they want to kill bosses. An amazing concept. Somehow though this is unbalanced?


[/ QUOTE ]

(Yep though you are blind to it .)


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you have not said why these things are unbalanced. You have just said "OH MY GOD ITS UNBALANCED MY IDEA IS BETTER"

(Same as yourself only I stay on topic and actually defend and elaborate on points you inquire on rather then choosing misdirection and ignoring other ideas entirely. Remember we are talking about opnions here and we are both speaking from our own experiances in game you have not given hard #'s or facts yourself Concern just your ideas and opinions. This is acase of the pot calling the kettle black.)

[ QUOTE ]
I already explained why your idea is ungodly good and overpowering but you have so far simply repeated your assertion that the powers are overpowered or said that in a round about way that the changes would add damage to the blaster class.

[/ QUOTE ]

(This is merely your perception I have backed my case up and stand by it I repeat myself only to assure you I have my own reasons for what I choose as the ways to fix the blasters as you do and I am fine that neither of us are wont to agree.)

[ QUOTE ]
Which of course was the point of the changes. To improve blasters without adding damage but allowing them to put out more damage. Can you understand that concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Well I think I understand where you are coming from as best as I am like to and I disagree with it.)



[ QUOTE ]
The changes also reinforce the concept that blasters should stay at range until they wish to close by placing their defensive powers at range rather than makeing them get in melee to use their manipulation powers.

However rather than saying why range is a bad thing or why haveing a non-situational attack power is overpowering you have just spouted off you opinion with no supporting arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

(The agruments are all there for you in black and white this is amtter of opinion on both sides and we are not like to agree on it is all.)


As to why your idea is so overpowering that it will never happen, think about summoning your pet from around the corner to absorb the alpha strike (including mezzes and AoE damage) so that you can round the corner and perform your alpha strike with absolutely no fear of reprisal because you the mobs have attacked and their powers are recharging. The pet can die because it does not have to live that long.

(Hmm Then tell me how it is that Controller Pets actually get folks killed by aggroing the next group over there would be risk as much or greater risk infact thenyour susgestions.)



[/ QUOTE ]In teams it is even better because it can be buffed by defenders and controllers and its ability to absorb damage for the blaster multiplies. Do you begin to see why your idea is overpowered? It can die in one hit and still be overpowered for a blaster soloing

[/ QUOTE ]

(I can see where you are coming from better then you can for me I think none the less this doesn't overpower the blaster anymore then the combined ideas you had with team buffs would infact it does less.)

[ QUOTE ]
My final thing to say on your comments. [ QUOTE ]
5. (stolen idea) Give each single target attack a -10% res that lasts 5 seconds. This not only helps boost the blasters damage a minute amount but also allows the blaster to help a team. Thus encouraging teaming.

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



( I know you mentioned you would give up this idea I just want to point out again that you forgot this would in effect increase damage.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course its not my idea. I put it up there because I don't expect all of my changes to even be considered or done all at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Fair enough but that was not your tune a few posts back where you wanted them all as a start for fixing blasters, if that as changed then I'd say good for you.)

[ QUOTE ]
So I am throwing out the most reasonable ideas that I can see being implimented with the least amount of coding so that something has a chance of being considered.


[/ QUOTE ]

(This makes good sence and yeah I agree with you there this is how you feel.)

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I would like to see all the changes made. I would like to have a little button that lets me kill all the mobs on a map but I don't think I will get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Right well at least you admit here you want an easy mode. I don't I too want help for blasters just not that all you do. We are both entitled to our opinions )

[ QUOTE ]
Yet another refrain of “I’m not saying it, but I really am”. Sorry, but I am just not buying it.


[/ QUOTE ]


(Bully for you man since you were way off the mark anyhow it doesn't mind me a bit what you do or do not buy I am not here to convince you only to respond to your cluess post atm and to state what my opinions for fixing blasters are.)

[ QUOTE ]
You are mistaken. Scrappers and do as much if not more raw damage and can survive the attacks of 10+ times as many mobs. With the multiplying effect of AoE’s this amounts 10 times greater survivability and much more damage the gap between them is, to put it simply, insanely large. Large to the point that it makes zero sense for them to even be on the same team fighting the same mobs.



[/ QUOTE ]

(Zero sence to you perhaps, one example of sence to the sane is that scrappers cant possibly do as much damage from range. Another is plain out variance of archtypes or balanced teams. I dont personally have trouble finding good teams with any archtype. Also I never argued that other archtypes where not more survivable at all only said that survivabitly is the issue here not damage and my ideas lend strength to survivability, which by your way of thinking increases DPS somehow.)

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you are talking about DPS without deaths your way off base here.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No I am not. Statesman has outright said scrappers are the highest damage AT. You may want to look at this thread where I compared the attacks of a spines scrapper vs a fire blaster. Even though the fire blaster is often cited as having the best damage output of any blaster it does not win even a single match up.

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...b=5&o=&fpart=3

From my own personal experience I have 3 level 50 characters, a tank, a controller and a blaster. The blaster has the lowest damage output by far even going full out. In fact it isn’t even a close comparison. The controller does 2-3 times the sustained damage while the tank wins by an even larger margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Don't know what to tell you the Energy blaster I team with does the most damage of us all and yes Spiners are bad [censored] AOE as bad or better the fire perhaps but again it doesn't bother or hamper the blasters I play that a scrapper can do this. Personally I am for buff the blaster reasonably. )

Nova I am with you on that I just would perfer it to be its own Archtype and not force the human torch to shoot his flaming fist off..

Responses to Moridin in ( ),

(You didnt read enough of my posts Man,

I am for an increase in blaster power and suggested 2 things a pet and a damage shield. So since you didn't read all my posts you must have misunderstood and thought I was against a Blasters getting love I am not.

I am for it just not the 9 items + Concern mentions whilst thinking that the 2 I suggest are out of balance.)



[ QUOTE ]

(Pay attention to peoples responses and you wont be so off base with your counter arguments.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When those responses are based on the fundamental principle that blasters are fine, need no improvement and should have to “trade” something to have any adjustment made then there is not really any point in taking that person seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Point is you thought I was against blaster's getting love this is your mistake you may start taking me seriously again not that you ever should not have.)


[ QUOTE ]
Even if it wasn’t for the input of people with level 50 blasters who have also played other AT’s there have been any number of analysis’s performed that show blasters are less powerful then scrappers, tankers, controllers, and even some defender builds by a VERY wide margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I dont agree it's very wide, I agree it is noticable and needs adjustment I would perfer buffs to blasters over nerfs to others as I play all archtypes personally)

[ QUOTE ]
If you wish to debate this do so in an appropriate thread instead of coming to one where the discussion centers on what to do about the problem and try to deny it even exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm gonna let you in on a little secret I never denied it exsists you need to read back and understand what you qoute ere you still your foot in your mouth Sir, and btw I will debate here as it was here I was asked to defend my position by Concern so I make no apologies to you.)

[ QUOTE ]
It does exist and it starts to get very annoying when you try to have a discussion about what to do about it and trolls drop by and try to derail that discussion by insisting 300 pages of posts rehashing things that have already been discussed at length in order to prove to them personally that a problem actually exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

(What can I say here? Your way offbase and I can't find a care that you where annoyed by something you misread.

I am for the blaster changes perhaps its you who is troll.)

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify some things you certainly didn’t get probably because you have not read any of the discussion on what the problems are.

[/ QUOTE ]

(You are a funy person saying I don't read posts with nothing to back up your one liners.)

[ QUOTE ]
Range: Blasters are a ranged AT that have far more melee and short range attacks then they do ranged attack. Only 1 blaster set has more then 2 non interruptible single target attacks with a range of more then 20 feet. How well do you think scrappers would do if they were limited to just 2 attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

(Hell I am with you here thing is your not limited though.

Your just put in a risky situation that you dont want to be in and again I am trying to suggest ways to make it easier for Blasters to melee without shooting thier fists off like a Voltron arm.)

[ QUOTE ]
Damage: three of the 5 blaster sets need to do more damage as they are regularly out damages by tanks, scrappers, controllers and some defender builds.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Unless you are talking about DPS without deaths your way off base here.)

[ QUOTE ]
The question is how can this be done other then by just a blanket increase to blaster damage. Of course Concern’s proposals increase damage in some cases, this is exactly what they are supposed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Yeah I made suggestions for that too a Pet and a damage sheild. Also I am for some of concerns points just not all of them together and then some. Go back and try actually reading what you qoute.)

[ QUOTE ]
They do not, however, come in the form of a blanket increase to blaster damage which is exactly
the type of solution needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Maybye so your entitled to your opinions and wants. I certianly would be bummed to see all of concerns ideas get implemented at once cause as he suggests as that would throw balance and the archtype out the window.)

[ QUOTE ]
(Bully for you man.
it's lines of thinking like this that have folks who generally agree with the fact blasters need help up in arms about your ideas you are suggesting an easy mode. If all of your suggestions where to get implemented they would cause much more unbalance then my own 2. )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you straight out. How do the suggestions I have unbalance things more than your idea of defense and an agro shunt for blasters. Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Sure Thing Concern, first off you;ll need to go back and read your own posts where you clearly state a mulituide of changes that when combined would by far over power my suggestions. )

(Here is your list again for easy referance and response Sir.)

[ QUOTE ]
1. Impliment PvP damage resist bypass in PvE.

[/ QUOTE ]

(What's this I thought you said no increase in damage? hmm 30% unresistable damage to mobs = damage increase, did you not Sir in another post claim to be a lawyer in training?
Where then is your atteniton to detail with your own percivied facts?)

[ QUOTE ]
2. Increase the range of all primary powers to be greater than the Diameter of Foot Stomp. Greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

(This one seems fine really and as I have stated before most of your suggestions are fine in and of themselves. My issue with your suggestions is your sence of balance, you still think that all of you changes combined are less unbalancing then the 2 I suggested. *boogle* Let me again remind you Sir that I agree blasters need help just not 7 some bloody changes for a start as you claim.)

[ QUOTE ]
3. Take all PbAoE status effects and toggles in Blaster Secondaries and make them summonable drops or target toggles. Other than cloaking device of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Here is where I can apply the same holes in my argument you used with my pet suggestion. A solid argument by the way, since I again did not make it detaild enough for you.

I am talking about one pet with blaster hp's not perma with some range and some small aggro managment. This would be about no differant then teaming with a second blaster except it would protect you.

You are concerned about the risk mitigation of my blaster hp pet idea. Yet you clearly think all of your changes plus this one above would be less of a damage mitigation factor?

I call Shennanigans Sir,

This abiltiy above your suggest alone takes out as much risk then one Pet with blaster hit points.

Think about it the aoe you lob from a safe range kills all but 2 while you run around a corner. A single pet cannont kill so many so fast, it has no aoe. The pet would not be able to mitigate damage to the level that this change of yours alone would do. Mull that over and if you use reason you should see the light.)

[ QUOTE ]
4. Make all current melee attacks have a range of 20 feet, either by changing the animations or just letting them have the range. Increase the damage on Melee AoE attack powers again.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Again you forget that you claimed that your changes make no damage increase in your most recent post to me Sir, Not only is this a damage increase for melee aoe it also has the strong possiblity for lameness effect.

I have already stated I dont personally want to see things hit from 20'foot away ten as you put it is bad enough. I mean hey don't get me wrong if they make a shogun warrior/voltron archtype with flying rocket fists then fine you roll one up and cry hadoken till the cows come home. Till then lets keep it within the realm of melee beilef please.)

[ QUOTE ]
5. (stolen idea) Give each single target attack a -10% res that lasts 5 seconds. This not only helps boost the blasters damage a minute amount but also allows the blaster to help a team. Thus encouraging teaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

( I know you mentioned you would give up this idea I just want to point out again that you forgot this would in effect increase damage.)

[ QUOTE ]
6. Swap the damage caps of blasters and scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Hmmm Increase Damage ? Could be!)

[ QUOTE ]
7. Remove the rooting effect from blaster attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Ok I like this one except for snipes as it just makes sence not to run and snipe.)

[ QUOTE ]
8. Faster activation times on powers for blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Sure thing but btw this would up DPS and thus hmm well Increase Damage!)

[ QUOTE ]
9. Making level 32 nukes into more useable AoE powers like Head Splitter or Full-Auto and less situational all end consuming powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

([censored] ? As I reread this one I realize that I glossed over it without enough thought myself. It alone is insane. I gotta say this alone is better then a small resistance to one power and a blaster hp pet.

You Sir Have no concept of balance if you cannot see that.

And BTW it is the now soon to be non perm click powers that scrappers get which sucks thier endo and are becoming O' Crap powers like Blasters booms and not the other way around.)


[ QUOTE ]
If you can explain how allowing a blaster to attack from range with their primaries is unbalanced then maybe you can begin to say that my suggestions are unbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Acutually I have more then begun to show just how out of scope with balance your suggestions are Sir. And whats more your idea that i need to explain "how allowing a blaster to attack from range with their primaries is unbalanced" shows how out of touch you are to others points.

I never even claimed anything of the sort this is just your perception or lack thereof, hell your own proposed changes do far more that just allow blasters to attack from range with thier primarys. This again points to you not paying attention to facts even those you present yourself.)



[ QUOTE ]
If you can explain to me how adding no damage to the set is unbalancing then again maybe you can begin to say that my suggestions are unbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Again with this telling folk when they can begin to make sence to you, I am afraid that may be never....See above this claim of yours is proved absurd by the fact that you think your changes do not increase damage.. Nuff said.)

[ QUOTE ]
Please just explain how the suggestions I have made are unbalancing. I have seen both yourself and Mieux claim this but with absolutely no supporting arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Your Wish is granted I can't speak for Mieux other than to say he does listen better to others points and opinions then you appear to Sir.)

[ QUOTE ]
"If we are ranged damage then by all that is holy our primary should not have a single friggin ability that is closer than 30' in range.

(Well both myself and Developers dissagree with you here concern. #1 they likely didn't intend for blasters not to enjoy the melee aspects as many here in this post claim they do, risk and all. # 2 State's has said in a further post that they will not be removing all of them so this point of your's is very likely both wrong and dead sir.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Here you prove that you did not read the ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Coming from you this is a good joke. whats more I read State's post which clearly says they will not be taking away all melee powers again this point of your suggestions is moot.)

[ QUOTE ]
When I refer to range over 30', I was referring to our primaries. If you notice in my ideas that I posted I left secondary attacks at 20' which is only 10' farther than they are currently or did you not know that your melee really activates at a slight range anyway and you don't actually have to be in melee to melee?

[/ QUOTE ]

(Yes I did and I don't particularily like it as I have stated. I really wouldn't like it if we where doing crouching tiger hidden dragon type melee on non MA scrappers but hey thats just me I'll admit it some folks might.)

[ QUOTE ]
(As far as the pet is concerned I most definatley do not want it to be anything like a tank, rather just another target for your foes wih blaster type hit points and only one out at a time. Perhaps the golem referance through you off there I did not mean to imply a tank strength pet.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where you don't understand game balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

(See my joke referance above.)

[ QUOTE ]
It does not have to be a tank strength pet. It only has to soak the alpha strike or soak two or three attacks in a team setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Hmm well put This very well could be true Concern, see I do listen. But again it does not compare one Iota to you lobbing your nova from behind a pillar now thats damage mitigation and little to no risk.)

[ QUOTE ]
What you are doing is basically completely negating damage that would be going the blaster way. That is one hell of a defense. On top of that you also wanted defense for blasters. Do you begin to see why it just may unbalance blasters?

[/ QUOTE ]


(I am not completely migitagating damamge by a long shot.

Pay attention to peoples responses and you wont be so off base with your counter arguments.

I am again suggesting one Blaster HP non perma Pet that takes a small amount of agg trying to protect you and one small resistance added to blasters such as a fire shield to a fireblaster which if you think on it only makes sence. Infact a great deal more sence then a punch hitting folks from 20' away.)


[ QUOTE ]
(Agree to disagree with you here is all I could say you ideas do indeed over power mine imho. )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is through what rational process of deduction did you determine that my suggestions unbalance the AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Now you know and knowing is half the battle) This message sponserd by G.I Joe

[ QUOTE ]
I know what your opinion is; what I want to know is why you hold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Now we both know each others opionions Sir and must needs likely agree to dissagree. Again I say to you your suggestions by far would outstrip mine own in terms of Balance.)

Tranth.

Concern responses to your responses below in ( )

Tranth.

"The only one I would retract is the -res idea. That was not my idea anyway. Everything else though would only start to fix blasters."

(Bully for you man.
it's lines of thinking like this that have folks who generally agree with the fact blasters need help up in arms about your ideas you are suggesting an easy mode. If all of your suggestions where to get implemented they would cause much more unbalance then my own 2. Also you readily admit that you feel this would only start to fix things for blasters. Thus it is easy to draw the conclusion that you are going overboard Sir. If you had your way you'd be getting blasters nerfed back down after your own changes or causing the other archypes to need to be boosted again. Think long and hard on all of your proposed changes getting applied and you should indeed see how more massive a change this would be then the additon of a pet and one form of resistance. Neither of which do I feel are musts, as you pronounce they are for your points.)

"If we are ranged damage then by all that is holy our primary should not have a single friggin ability that is closer than 30' in range.

(Well both myself and Developers dissagree with you here concern. #1 they likely didn't intend for blasters not to enjoy the melee aspects as many here in this post claim they do, risk and all. # 2 State's has said in a further post that they will not be removing all of them so this point of your's is very likely both wrong and dead sir.)

Can you honestly say that you wouldn't want your PbAoE to be a ranged power? Do you think it is unbalancing for blasters to have range?

(I can and do as there is not enough risk there Imho, however if I wanted an aoe that was not I'd roll up an elect blaster. Also my defenders AOE is PBOA and I like that as is just fine.)

Honestly you say that my ideas unbalance the set but then you want to have a friggin agro pet? The Tanker on tap?

(This bodes some more detail on my part I did not state that your ideas in and of themselves where unbalancing and in fact I agreed with you blasters needed help even going so far as saying that some of your ideas are indeed good and could work just not all of them and then some as you greedily seem to demand. As far as the pet is concerned I most definatley do not want it to be anything like a tank, rather just another target for your foes wih blaster type hit points and only one out at a time. Perhaps the golem referance through you off there I did not mean to imply a tank strength pet.)

Sorry but the best part of my ideas is that not one gives the blaster defense and every one of them adds to ability of the blaster to do damage without increasing the strength of the attacks themselves.

(This is true . I agree the worst part however is you want them all and then some and thus have little concept of the scale of such a change.)


Except for the melee. If we are going to have a melee AoE then it needs to be damn powerfull. Of course since we won't be getting in melee that often it can have a long recharge time, somthing like the recharge on Total focus would be good. However the melee AoE really needs to be worth the risk of the agro in teams.

(I am fine with your thoughts on this you may indeed be correct here.)


As for animations not looking right I think we can live with some wierd looking animations for the same amount of time that Katana scrappers did.

(Live with yes but the last thing I want to see personally is a friggen power punch or Hadoken flying when I toss out an enegry punch personally.)

I know I could anyway if I knew that it enhanced my ability to attack from range.

(Fair enough glad you could many would not wish to I am one.)

I have a hard time understanding how someone can say that the ideas I put forth are overpowering in the slightest when they are putting up ideas for adding to a blasters defense which even as blasters stand now would be me far more overpowering than anything I have suggested.

(Agree to disagree with you here is all I could say you ideas do indeed over power mine imho. and whats more mine make more sence to me (course no suprises there ) also mine add more variance and interest to the sets. Tranth.)

Concern while Miluex may go overboard the general thought he has rings true man, if you where to get all the things you listed changed with Blasters they would be too uber.

Which is not to say that any one fo them or even a few would be bad its just all of them would be too much.

While I do agree blasters need something I am for a single pet to mitiagate aggro and a single damage resistance power of the blasters choice replacing the (generally considered lamest melle power in thier secondarys.)

I.E. Ice blaster with a Frost golem and resistance to ice at a 20-30% base in his secondarys.

I am not for mez protection personally as I remeber mezzin to be a major weakness in comics for blaster types...

think Johnny storm after being hit with water (knock back) or Cyclops after being locked up in a steel mask by magneto.

The 20 foot melee range idea while effective would be if nothing else lame looking so I hope that one atleast does not get implemented.

This from an earlier poster...

"Hmm...what if Sparky became a targetable pet for electric blasters? That would create 50% damage mitigation and might help them....what about pets for the other sets? Wouldn't be infringing on trollers, because we could only have one out at a time, but would be nice to help survive a lil better. "

Agree that would be kool to see say an efreet for fire blaster but make it so even with perma haste on ly one out at a time and have it genorate aggro and be a guard.

Also I really feel as has been suggested before that if you did the above and added one res power at say unyielding strength (cap 75%) to each blaster secondary you'd have a lot more happy blasters..

They get #1

Damage and agg mitigration in the pet

and

#2 Damage resistance to any one type of damage they choose at a decent level.

I don't use haste so the end drop does not double for me I *Love* the new Rage and I've been using rage in all it incarnations. The only problem I have is that there should be an animation to represent your exaustion I actually missi the stumbling around. If they would add that animation back sans the toggle drops it would be perfect!