Statesman, issue with your position on blasters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've called for a Blaster nerf somewhere? My Defender plays just fine and I'm quite comfortable with its desirability in groups, but thank you for the failed attempt at psychoanalysis.
[/ QUOTE ]
You heard me and I think you got the point. If not, oh well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw you make a bunch of crap up. If you can't see that, oh well.
[ QUOTE ]
Why should I have AT envy when I play members of every AT?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. You are the psychoanalysis expert. You tell me. Why else are you posting and pissing everyone off?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't seem to be pissing everyone off, just those that want to cry that the end of the AT is upon us.
Under construction
Very well put Gemini. Nerfing the offense of a blaster is no different that nerfing the defense of a Defender or the control of a Controller. And Statesman's idea of upping mob hit points whether people realize or not is in effect nerfing damage output of heroes. It just hurts blasters a tad bit more than other ATs because that's the only area we really shine in.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've called for a Blaster nerf somewhere? My Defender plays just fine and I'm quite comfortable with its desirability in groups, but thank you for the failed attempt at psychoanalysis.
[/ QUOTE ]
You heard me and I think you got the point. If not, oh well.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw you make a bunch of crap up. If you can't see that, oh well.
[ QUOTE ]
Why should I have AT envy when I play members of every AT?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. You are the psychoanalysis expert. You tell me. Why else are you posting and pissing everyone off?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't seem to be pissing everyone off, just those that want to cry that the end of the AT is upon us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post, in a coherent and clear manner, what your thoughts on the blaster AT actually are? It's very hard to discern from your style of machine-gunning out posts full of one-line comebacks to dissected portions of other peoples' posts. I just want to know what you really think about blasters. Thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
1. I believe that defenders get a larger percentage than others for Manuevers along the lines of 12.5%, not 7.8%. That would be substantial difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Defenders get 12.5% on Tactics, on Leadership there has been no firm statement by a developer beyond the initial statement that Defenders get 25% more on buffs from the power pool than other do. Given the base percentage for Manuever is listed at 6.25%, 1.25*6.5% = 7.8125%.
[ QUOTE ]
2. Played with a same-level Fire/Fire blaster last night on Positron's TF. Six times, he was one-shotted and sent to the hospital. The last two times, we had him refrain from firing until our controller had everyone held, the scrapper had the mobs blocked in a doorway, and everyone was fully bubbled. As soon as the Fire let loose his Rain, he was dead and the mobs overran the scrapper....with the weak defense of the blaster, I truely do see the AT disappearing...
[/ QUOTE ]
I managed to stay alive facing multiple +3 level Bosses at one point in one pull (nice and purple to me) last night and shooting with reckless abandon. I very much thank the person providing the heals as well as the other members of the group who performed their parts quite well and didn't seem to have a problem with me hanging back while the Tank ran forward to grab initial aggro while I lined up snipes before running forward to dose the area with a bit of Chilling Embrace.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Defenders, Tanks and Scrappers all take defensive power pool selections to suppliment their already substantial defenses.
[/ QUOTE ]
Defender builds posted in the Defender forum rarely contain defensive power pool powers. There is some recent chatting over moving to more given Update 2, but we'll have to see what comes of that.
[ QUOTE ]
Just eliminate the class. To me, they seem worthless already. They are a one-shot wonder. All of their attractiveness lays in their ability to deal mass damage, and that has already disappeared from what I can tell. I don't know what blasters you've been teaming with, but I don't see them doing much of anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to make a character (or just join us) tonight on Justice, drop me a PM. I should be home in roughly two and a half hours. The majority of the group will show up later, but a certain Fire/Fire Blaster should be around and I'm sure she'll be willing to up our usual starting duo to a trio until others can show up.
And really, that should get to the root of the issue. . .I'm willing to invite anyone along (so long as there is room of course) to group with us and see what I'm seeing. Not really a lot of room for debate when we're all in the same place and have the same experience to work with.
Under construction
[ QUOTE ]
I've called for a Blaster nerf somewhere?
[/ QUOTE ]
The just what are you doing here? Did you say to yourself hey blasters want to call attention to the legitimate problems they have in this game, as someone who doesnt know how to play a blaster I feel I am obligated to crap in their thread?
[ QUOTE ]
Herding requires a group of at least two, one of which CANNOT be a blaster, and adding members to any herding group scales much better than adding members to a traditional group in terms of both xp gain AND skill utilization
[/ QUOTE ]
Many scrappers and tanks do it just fine all on their own, and the only teammates they need are the afk train sitters to get larger spawns in their missions. Other then map knowledge there is no real skill involved at any point.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite the repeated assertion, I can't recall ever seeing a Blaster kicked from a group for not dealing sufficient damage. For being reckless, yes. For being a jerk, yes. But for not using his AE as soon as possible? Never. For picking when it is best to take a shot? Nope.
[/ QUOTE ]
word.... I've kicked defenders for blasting and not defending. I've ditched controllers who had healing abilities that wouldn't use.... and I've kicked tanks who chased mobs down instead of drawing them to him. And I've been asked to use my AoE's. The first thing most tankers ask me?
You got Inferno? When I say yes they don't go don't use it. they go $%^#$ sweet.
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to know what you really think about blasters. Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. Blasters are neither obsolete nor do I suspect the developers are planning on driving the class to extinction. Claims of either are needless provocation given the very obvious and deliberate way in which the developers have taken to modifying the game, improving in the end far more than they have reduced or removed.
2. Specifically Update 2 has brought about a lot of new powers at various levels to mobs, making the game more difficult in accordance with some player demand and obviously as part of a multi-tiered approach to rebalancing the game and the standing of the ATs. Specifically Blasters have been made less easily solo in ways that they did in the past and given more incentive to seek out others who can help them. Some of the changes have been stated by the developers to be overdone and will be rolled back (meaning that part of the "doom and gloom" is truly needless), but part of it is here to stay, meaning that what went before will not necessarily be the best path to follow.
(3) Not being "needed" isn't a sign of uselessness. Do I need a spoon to eat chilli? No, a fork works just as well. Does that mean that I should throw away all more spoons? While Blasters were basking in the limelight, patting themselves on their backs for their power, other ATs were having the discussion of their relative need and the matter has been hashed out several times. "Need" implies requirement, and few want forced grouping. Being an advantageous addition to a group however means that there are reasons for taking you. Sure the group might be able to get by with someone else. . .isn't that what is desired in the first place? That nobody is absolutely needed? The issue is only the matter of the amount of relative advantage.
4. Controllers kicked off the "we're not needed ball" and the developers have been busy working on them (or working them over according to Controllers when a change comes around they don't like--see Fulcrum Shift, Imps, and PA in this last Update) ever since. Scrappers have had their turn at bat more than once, and Tankers are being addressed. Even Defenders have felt the passing of the developers in minor spillovers from elsewhere but like Blasters are waiting their turn for review. Go figure that Blasters would be near or at the tail end. . .the AT clearly didn't have the problems the others had. But given each of the other ATs have been addressed, especially when there was large consensus within the AT that there were AT-wide issues that needed to be addressed, I fail to see how Blasters feel that they are going to get some other treatment if problems are truly identified. That brings me to. . . .
5. The developers have moved at what some in other ATs have felt to be a galacial pace. They don't rush. Defenders literally begged for months for an adjustment to their endurance costs, and in terms of waiting I don't think anyone can trump the Dark Miasma folk who had a third of their powers non-functional and several others subpar from release to this most recent update. Beyond glaringly obvious problems, the developers seem to check, reverify, and then carefully consider what tact to take. So whatever else there is about Update 2 that isn't liked, you probably better be prepared to live with it for the near term becuase rather than hearing upset that things were changed (which is what a lot of it is) they are going to be looking for things that not only no longer work but can't be made to work in any fashion, and that takes some time to establish, especially in light of the fact that rebalancing is being done and some of what can't be done any longer isn't desired to be able to be done any longer.
I think that Blaster remains a fine AT and definitely wouldn't be playing one (and further than I've been able to find interest to do so in the past) now if I felt the AT was a hopeless time sink. In a way you can say I put my money where my mouth is each and every night I login and play my Blaster. I admit this is low level play and that I have not the experience of what certain things feel like from the driver's perspective. But I've been a passenger in the same car as I do play with Blaster players every night who don't evidence any of the concern given on these boards.
In any event, if that doesn't answer your questions feel free to let me know.
Under construction
I'd sooner bite my own nads off than team with you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"No it's not ridiculous that our melee attacks are the most damaging. considering the risks that we take using them. It's ridiculous that we have them at all."
Then what should their secondary be?
[/ QUOTE ]
It should be support like the set is entitled. I hardly see fire sword, or fire sword circle as "support" I see them as more damage.
Support is circle of fire.... an effective immobile that gives me room to breath.
Support isn't Blazing aura.... a low level DoT that equates to more melee range damage.
Support isn't Burn... a low level dot that equates to more melee range damage. If anyone tells you it's status protection... they've never used it in heavy combat. It's duration is to short to provide any meaningful status defense.
Support insn't combustion.... A low level DoT that equates to more melee range damage, and has a painfully slow activation time. (are we beginning to see a pattern here?)
And it's not Hotfeet. Yet another DoT... with a moderate slowing effect. the slowing effect is made largely useless by it's small perimiter area.... by the time the slow/fear effect has kicked in mobs have already attacked.
The fire secondary is overloaded with worthless DoT's... It's like the devs think that a fireblast dosen't work at close range. 
Between fireblast, fireball, firebreath, and blaze I have all the close range fighting support I need.
[/ QUOTE ]
When it says support, I believe that it means that they SUPPORT the rest of your powers. It does not mean that they should provide DEFENSE.
It sounds like some poeple want their Blasters to be well-rounded, but that is why there are different AT's! None of the AT's are well rounded! I play a Defender, and though I have a Ranged secondary I cannot do what a Blaster does. I can't tank either (even though I am a FF Defender)! I was just playing today, and I ran into a single orange, and a white, and I put up PFF, and still died in a matter of seconds.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've called for a Blaster nerf somewhere?
[/ QUOTE ]
The just what are you doing here? Did you say to yourself “hey blasters want to call attention to the legitimate problems they have in this game, as someone who doesn’t know how to play a blaster I feel I am obligated to crap in their thread”?
[/ QUOTE ]
You feel the following example of what you "true" Blasters (at least as you want to portray it) have to say is legitimate?
[ QUOTE ]
If Statesman goes through with his plans we won't be able to solo ANY groups with any resonable reliability.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fact of the matter is that I haven't crapped in the thread, others have taken things south because they didn't like their claims of doom and gloom being objected to. Half of what I've written has had to be correction of very poor and obvious distortions of what I've previously written including twits claiming "You're telling us not to use our AEs!!!!!!" or "You're trying to get use nerfed!!!" when in fact nothing I've written in this thread suggests either thing.
But you'll leap on me as opposed to your fellow hysterical blasters. But here, let me remind you of something you yourself wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact is, three whole AT’s, and even a large part of the blaster AT, become pointless if you can kill stuff with alpha strike AoE’s. The devs would be irresponsible to keep this in the game so people using two primary sets won’t have their feeling hurt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Retreating from that?
Under construction
I can see hotairus felt a need to reward one of my posts with:
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Bliss!
Under construction
Once again Erratic you are busy telling us what "should" happen and we are telling you what *has* happened. Thousands of other people can see what they want, but they are not blasters. I mean seriously the way i see it what your doing is like trying to tell a bird what the sky should be like.
Thats the difference. Your telling us what should happen. We are telling you what has happened.
Your next comment is totally off the wall. Here is the quote.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that as long as everything goes right, everyone is fine but if ONE thing goes wrong, its the Blaster that pays the price 99% of the time
[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow you took from this that i meant blasters are safe 99% of the time. What freak slip of your mind caused you to think this i do not know. What i was actually saying is that as long as the group operates flawlessly (how often does that happen?) the blaster is ok, but if the group slips up in the slightest bit, the penalty for that usually lands squarely on the shoulders of the blaster.
But the reality of the matter is that Blasters can get exp more safely and much of the time more quickly soloing or duoing then in a significant group. If you think that is arrogant or whatever i dont really care but that is the reality of the matter.
You are however somewhat correct about One Shot although it happens more then you say it does, it doesnt happen as much as a lot of people say it does. One shot is usually something that Purple Bosses with big melee attacks do. Tank Swipers, Paragon Protectors, Crey Power Tanks, Rikti Bosses, ppl like that. Usually the way a Blaster hits the dirt fast is by being 2 shotted. The list of mobs that even at evencon will cut a Blaster's hp in half is long. (you will probably try to say that this never happens but it happens a lot)
1. Read what I wrote. Especially in you infer slurs about not reading.
2. What brash responses?
3. What nerf to your damage?
Your blasts are adequate. my secondary skills are not.
what does your class get at level 38?
Freaking nukes. And don't say... their weak in comparison... I've seen elec secondary defenders thundrous blast large groups into chicken nuggets.
know what wonderous tool my secondary gave me at level 38? frikken hot feet. The ultimate expression of the fire manipulation set is a glorified caltrops that can be turned off when the rikti mentalist you engaged shuts you down with sleep.
big freaking whoop.
and btw how does anything in my secondary besides Circle of fire and build up support my other powers? they don't.
Consume maybe.... but after stamina who needs it? and it comes at level 28, by then you either have stamina or you're too stupid to play this game.
[ QUOTE ]
Once again Erratic you are busy telling us what "should" happen and we are telling you what *has* happened. Thousands of other people can see what they want, but they are not blasters. I mean seriously the way i see it what your doing is like trying to tell a bird what the sky should be like.
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again Punisher2020, you're off on some lark that says that only you can have any relevant personal experience and that you get to sit in judgement of what others claim, dismissing what doesn't fit with your world view.
[ QUOTE ]
Somehow you took from this that i meant blasters are safe 99% of the time. What freak slip of your mind caused you to think this i do not know. What i was actually saying is that as long as the group operates flawlessly (how often does that happen?) the blaster is ok, but if the group slips up in the slightest bit, the penalty for that usually lands squarely on the shoulders of the blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, the undefined flaws can't impact anyone else and somehow are flaws that slip past competent players. Again, nuking before the Controller lands his Hold is not good play. Not letting the Tanker Provoke is not good play. Not taking an AT designed to buff your defenses or weaken the opponent is your choice, but don't come crying when you get burnt for it.
[ QUOTE ]
But the reality of the matter is that Blasters can get exp more safely and much of the time more quickly soloing or duoing then in a significant group
[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to do so. And when it shows up in the datamining expect more incentives not to do so.
Under construction
[ QUOTE ]
Once again Erratic you are busy telling us what "should" happen and we are telling you what *has* happened. Thousands of other people can see what they want, but they are not blasters. I mean seriously the way i see it what your doing is like trying to tell a bird what the sky should be like.
Thats the difference. Your telling us what should happen. We are telling you what has happened.
Your next comment is totally off the wall. Here is the quote.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that as long as everything goes right, everyone is fine but if ONE thing goes wrong, its the Blaster that pays the price 99% of the time
[/ QUOTE ]
Somehow you took from this that i meant blasters are safe 99% of the time. What freak slip of your mind caused you to think this i do not know. What i was actually saying is that as long as the group operates flawlessly (how often does that happen?) the blaster is ok, but if the group slips up in the slightest bit, the penalty for that usually lands squarely on the shoulders of the blaster.
But the reality of the matter is that Blasters can get exp more safely and much of the time more quickly soloing or duoing then in a significant group. If you think that is arrogant or whatever i dont really care but that is the reality of the matter.
You are however somewhat correct about One Shot although it happens more then you say it does, it doesnt happen as much as a lot of people say it does. One shot is usually something that Purple Bosses with big melee attacks do. Tank Swipers, Paragon Protectors, Crey Power Tanks, Rikti Bosses, ppl like that. Usually the way a Blaster hits the dirt fast is by being 2 shotted. The list of mobs that even at evencon will cut a Blaster's hp in half is long. (you will probably try to say that this never happens but it happens a lot)
[/ QUOTE ]
This is truth, 99% of the time the blaster pays the penalty for a group slip up. Hence you'll find many blasters become disillusioned with grouping because they are the first to suffer. Not even Erratic can argue this. Even in his leet groups with the invincible blasters I am sure he can tell us that IF anyone dies it is almost certainly the blasters. Funny thing is, it isn't necessarily the blasters who screwed up. It's just that the blasters always has the majority of the aggro thus when a hole is found, an ff drops, a helaer falls asleep, a tanker isn't taunting...the blaster is the sacrifical lamb.
Well this thread certainly is it's own private little hell.
...Then again anything is - whenever you say that Blasters are overpowered because 1> There's so damned many of them and they're all so Varied. 2> A Majority of them MinMax out XP-Per-Hour and refuse to see themselves as "Fire-Support". You can tell a Group-Friendly Blaster because they have Melee Attacks Slotted up and Assist the Fight-Starters instead of Starting the fights themselves and then draining the Healer's END with their demmands to be kept alive.
Common sense tells us that only Certain Builds can do this "Alpha-Strike" (Mechwarrior Term that seldom ever equaled an Instant win unless you hit the jackpot and landed a missile in the other guy's cockpit) ....So Why not just give those couple of Builds extra Hurdles such as making Buildup/Aim only work with Melee attacks?... Thus forcing them to rely on Damage Buffs from Defenders/Controllers if they want to pull off a Ranged Alpha-Strike? They could also Alpha Strike if they Played with a Tank or AoE Controller and their Melee Attacks were given Cone-Damage. As a high level Scrapper, I can attest that Cone-Meele attacks are some of the most gratifying and challenging attacks in the whole game.
Yes/No?
[ QUOTE ]
This is truth, 99% of the time the blaster pays the penalty for a group slip up. Hence you'll find many blasters become disillusioned with grouping because they are the first to suffer. Not even Erratic can argue this. Even in his leet groups with the invincible blasters I am sure he can tell us that IF anyone dies it is almost certainly the blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
We jokingly refer to our Fire/Fire Blaster as The Grim Servant of Death because so very often everyone around her dies. But I'll be sure to ask her what her impression is of relative death ratios.
Under construction
[ QUOTE ]
Given you entered into an exchange over the nature of grouping an viability in groups, perhaps you'll address that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. Blasters aren't needed in groups. I mentioned that. They then have little to no ability to solo now. That's what I have been saying.
[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about forced teaming?
[/ QUOTE ]
I did. You said they are ok in groups, which I don't really agree with in the first place. A civilian with 95% def is 'good' in a group. I mention they have no choice, now. If you can't solo, your are forced to team.
[ QUOTE ]
Our group is our group. I don't hold it to be anything special and certainly I've worked in others (or other variations of our group depending on who is about).
[/ QUOTE ]
A group of blasters can't do it. Scrappers and blasters doesn't help the blasters live. Tanks help moderately (spamming provoke), but that didn't work in the trial. Would work in missions. Controllers help minimize it, as do defender buffers/debuffers.
You are a defender primarily, a scrapper secondary. There are no times when you do expierence this... Look at it from before the patch - not being able to find any blasters to group with you... Blasters are looking somewhat like that now. It isn't huge yet, but the gap is growing It really only shows up at 35, but by 40+, from what I can tell, it get nighmarish.
[ QUOTE ]
The issue WAS GROUPING. Nobody has said anything about forced grouping.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did. If you agree with my statements, which you said you did I think, about soloing - blasters now have to group. They are not 'on par' they are now in the middle of the pack... above defenders maybe, and maybe on par with tankers, but way behind scrappers and maybe even controllers, at the same gaming level (ie: optimal blaster vs optimal scrapper and fun scrapper vs fun blaster). I haven't played or seen a controller solo lately, so I can't attest to that.
[ QUOTE ]
Please read what was written. Did I say anything about survivability? No. I said their soloability was dropped to be in line with others. As to survivability, there seem to be quite a few Blasters claiming that things haven't changed for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can manage with a min max character too. I had to respec my character into something he as not before to accomplish it. Certain mixes can handle it, moderately well. That's like saying that Burn tankers have no problem killing things, so Tankers are doing fine. Its a lot more complicated than that... Even non-burn fire tankers would be axed... It isn't an 'AT' anymore, its an extremely narrow build that you need.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, its a hard mission. Members of my supergroup failed the first time on live and succeeded the next time (personally I was tired and had gone to bed before they started), and they indicated it was a difficult mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it was easy for the scrappers... definately hard for me. It is immensely difficult, worse before. What you aren't quoting is how unbalanced it is - balanced teams with blasters die. Unbalanced teams with minimal blasters is better. Each person adds something, and takes away something via increased spawns. It would appear that blasters are the least contributing member, now. In negative territory no more. I can see pulling one along after 32 to deal with minions... he can just leech until then. I must admit, I still feel impressive when FA does 18 ticks of 24 to a dozen mobs (5184 damage!). I don't even pull aggro from the scrappers with it, though. And I kill maybe 2-3 minions. And I still die to one hit from those things.
[ QUOTE ]
Good, though that would rather indicate that Blasters aren't at the disadvantage being portrayed.
[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand - Failed with all of the blasters, until the last. It was coupled together with "that was my first success, and I had done it 7 times with balanced teams". Good news is that I almost did it a couple of times... so it wasn't an 'automatic failure', but the difference between the success and the closest failure was immense.
[ QUOTE ]
While I wasn't there I'm near certain of the group make up that went from our SG and it would have included a Blaster, 2 Tanks, 2 Controllers, and either a third Controller or another Blaster (depending on which character a particular person was playing).
[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny... a blaster being a minority?
You could remove that blaster and it would of made very little difference... maybe even easier. It'll take time, but people will notice.
[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between being required and being advantageous. When people pull out the word "needed" they tend to mean more "required" than than "advantageous". I find it to be a good thing that specific ATs are not required, seeing a good player to be an advantage regardless of AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I wasn't required. And I wasn't needed. I increased the spawn level therefore no matter how good of a player, I was a liability. Hell, they even complimented me on being 'the best blaster they have played with' (which means nothing with blasters, heh)... mostly cause I didn't do anything, I think. I hit FA to pull some minions off of them. Then I ran around like a chicken with its head chopped off.
[ QUOTE ]
Our controller heavy team succeeded on their second attempt, which isn't bad for going in completely blind the first time around.
[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine that...
[ QUOTE ]
Understand please that I'm not saying that Blaster shouldn't be looked at for balance. . .that's not why I first posted in the thread. I take issue with, and continue to do so, the notion that Blasters are planned for obsolescence or are largely there already.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are hearing two sides - the blasters that can handle this by previous design, and certain blasters (AR/Dev being the worst right now) being forced into a single build to play this game at all reasonably. I have given up playing Solo... every evening (ie: 1 hour ish) I play alone, I have died at least once... normally right away, so I team up. I'm not talking Eden, but a mission. I got my 'work of debt' badge based on the debt I incurred in the first 24 hours of the patch... that's stopped now that I cap my defence with fortitude...
Um, just a side note here Erratic, i'm a level 41 Kinetic, and I assure you, there is nothing for us to do when it comes to keeping melee away from ranged, or perhaps you just weren't clear in this statement. Unless you mean using repel, but most Kinetic's if they do take that, will respec it out, and if a Kinetic after 26 is back with the support guys, then they aren't doing their job effectively to begin with.
Which, another point that leads me to. I find the argument Blasters need more defense a bit sketchy, cause by the logic being used here, I can argue Kinetic's should also get innante defenses. Guess what, we dont, aside from if we take leadership.
Mainly, because Kinetic's is /forced/ to be up in the fray, with the melee, if we wanna be truely effective and effecient Kinetic's are Melee specialists, it's our jobs. And for those who say Kinetic's can be played just fine at range, yes they can, but not near as effeciently. Why am I going to rob myself of my own abilities.
Also, before people start talking about defensive powers, Kinetic's can't buff themselves ..
So, by the logic used here on behalf of the Blasters, I can also apply that same logic to my own AT. It comes down to this. Blaster, Defenders, and Controllers are meant to be Squishy, Tanks are meant to take damage, and Scrappers are the balance in Defense/Damage between the extreme of the Tank ability to take and the Blaster ability to deal it. It's how it works, and I think it works fine how it is.
Peace.
[ QUOTE ]
We shouldn't have to design our builds around pools. Pools should accentuate our builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
hepheastus, you keep saying this and I wish it were true, but for every charactor I have made except the fire/dev and ar/dev blasters, I have had to design my builds around the pools. And even then, I have had some pretty gimped builds.
The fact that you are currently playing one of the 2 builds that don't have this requirement is meaningless. When the ATs are balanced (it will never happen, but I can hope they get close) then every build will be able to solo, every build will be a welcome addition to a group and every build will either require or not a design based on the pool powers you take.
[ QUOTE ]
Well this thread certainly is it's own private little hell.
...Then again anything is - whenever you say that Blasters are overpowered because 1> There's so damned many of them and they're all so Varied. 2> A Majority of them MinMax out XP-Per-Hour and refuse to see themselves as "Fire-Support". You can tell a Group-Friendly Blaster because they have Melee Attacks Slotted up and Assist the Fight-Starters instead of Starting the fights themselves and then draining the Healer's END with their demmands to be kept alive.
Common sense tells us that only Certain Builds can do this "Alpha-Strike" (Mechwarrior Term that seldom ever equaled an Instant win unless you hit the jackpot and landed a missile in the other guy's cockpit) ....So Why not just give those couple of Builds extra Hurdles such as making Buildup/Aim only work with Melee attacks?... Thus forcing them to rely on Damage Buffs from Defenders/Controllers if they want to pull off a Ranged Alpha-Strike? They could also Alpha Strike if they Played with a Tank or AoE Controller and their Melee Attacks were given Cone-Damage. As a high level Scrapper, I can attest that Cone-Meele attacks are some of the most gratifying and challenging attacks in the whole game.
Yes/No?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hell no. You may as well but the last nail in the coffin after a move like that. most of can't even "afford" those worthless melee attacks that you want to FORCE us to use.
Tankers/Scrappers= Melee attacks.
And since when does a 6 slotted fire ball mean I don't let the tanker wade in swinging first? since when does it mean I don't wait for the controller to hold, the defencder to buff, the scrapper to scrap.
This is bar none the dumbest [censored] post I've ever read on this forum. and that's saying a lot.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We shouldn't have to design our builds around pools. Pools should accentuate our builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
hepheastus, you keep saying this and I wish it were true, but for every charactor I have made except the fire/dev and ar/dev blasters, I have had to design my builds around the pools. And even then, I have had some pretty gimped builds.
The fact that you are currently playing one of the 2 builds that don't have this requirement is meaningless. When the ATs are balanced (it will never happen, but I can hope they get close) then every build will be able to solo, every build will be a welcome addition to a group and every build will either require or not a design based on the pool powers you take.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow... you addressed this to me like I designed the game. I didn't. Wasn't my idea to add a fitness pool then gimp every AT in the game into being forced to use it. Nope. I also didn't give blasters zilch defense or status protection thus leading to an over abundance of super jumping boxing blasters either. I'm also not the guy who cobbled the fire secondary from fire tanker left overs. You're addressing this to the wrong person.
If I had my way all classes would be soloable. In fact you wouldn't have AT's..... you'd have super heroes. But I don't have my way. I have an AT... And I will continue to advocate the viability of that AT and point out things that I think need improvement.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My evidence is that I'm out every night in a group team with Blasters who aren't dying in droves like is being portrayed here. They stay alive and I know how my group works. Hmmm, if our Blasters live and you're not. . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
Three problems;
1) That is not evidence of what I was talking about at all (soloing);
[/ QUOTE ]
Given you entered into an exchange over the nature of grouping an viability in groups, perhaps you'll address that.
[ QUOTE ]
2) That is *percisely* what other AT's don't want to have happen to them (forced teaming)
[/ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about forced teaming?
[ QUOTE ]
3) That is only within certain groups, tending towards very specific power-buffed groups. ie: Mandatory class selection.
[/ QUOTE ]
Our group is our group. I don't hold it to be anything special and certainly I've worked in others (or other variations of our group depending on who is about).
[ QUOTE ]
If your support for this system is to make us group, then what is utterly unfair is that blasters were turned from soloers (which is why I made my blaster - I have extremely erratic gaming schedules, from 5 minutes to 5 hours, randomly interrupted) into support, then you have destroyed the class that people built on.
[/ QUOTE ]
The issue WAS GROUPING. Nobody has said anything about forced grouping.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say they are no longer overwhelmingly superior units in a group and have had their soloability dropped into line with where others are, but the basic idea is the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
False. Tankers and scrappers... and even to some degree, controllers (though that pet change... erg) have higher survival and are now in line with the speed to kill... that is, the time it takes us to find a group we can handle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please read what was written. Did I say anything about survivability? No. I said their soloability was dropped to be in line with others. As to survivability, there seem to be quite a few Blasters claiming that things haven't changed for them.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you went sidekicked into a group situation with a lopsided group and died on a mission designed to be specifically extra hard. How is this indicative of more than questionable planning?
[/ QUOTE ]
False. This was the first successful group I had. I failed 3 times on test, 4 times on live first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, its a hard mission. Members of my supergroup failed the first time on live and succeeded the next time (personally I was tired and had gone to bed before they started), and they indicated it was a difficult mission.
[ QUOTE ]
I did it with my own blaster, with an energy blaster and a fire blaster, in groups of 4 to 8... Friends couldn't do it either... the amount of failures standing outside TV caused crashes on launch night. yet, we four completed it without breaking (their) sweat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good, though that would rather indicate that Blasters aren't at the disadvantage being portrayed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mission is known to be more than run of the mill and that should suggest covering all bases not just loading up with damage classes that have no ability to deal with several of the challenges that you'd normally find on a mission let alone the challenges an extra hard mission is guaranteed to bring.
[/ QUOTE ]
Percisely true. Blasters are the ones that aren't needed. They shouldn't have taken me with them, they would of done it faster. We are not, in any way, needed. They probably should have had a fourth scrapper, or maybe a debuffer for decreased kill time.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I wasn't there I'm near certain of the group make up that went from our SG and it would have included a Blaster, 2 Tanks, 2 Controllers, and either a third Controller or another Blaster (depending on which character a particular person was playing).
[ QUOTE ]
Know why they took me? They needed someone to shoot the explosives. Sigh. They had done it many times over already... successfully.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between being required and being advantageous. When people pull out the word "needed" they tend to mean more "required" than than "advantageous". I find it to be a good thing that specific ATs are not required, seeing a good player to be an advantage regardless of AT.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sleeps are currently broken by heals, but to your group a Sleep was as good as a Hold because neither Scrappers nor Blasters are known for their abilities to heal others. An Empathy Controller/Defender can break Holds, and a Storm Summoning Controller/Defender can immunize you from Sleeps and Disorients.
[/ QUOTE ]
There were no sleeps, only disorients (and the occasional hold). I could *not* have been healed. I was insta-killed. I could *not* have been rescued by an empathy because they also would be one hit (no debuff). I could *not* have been saved with only two scrappers because the number of bosses outnumbered the scrappers already by a huge number. They never came close to dying, empathy was useless to them, and me. Tried it already with controllers and defenders, it didn't go nearly as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Our controller heavy team succeeded on their second attempt, which isn't bad for going in completely blind the first time around.
[ QUOTE ]
You seem quite reasonable, but you are still ignoring the underlying theme here.
[/ QUOTE ]
SHHHH!!!! They'll brand you a heretic for saying things like that.
[ QUOTE ]
We die. Lots. We died before, tending towards a fair bit (always glossed over because of SG). Min/max characters using TM and FA did just awesome. Now, even they are having problems. Grinding, sure... but outside of that?
Blasters are now support and they aren't fun support, they die all the time and can't survive any status effects.
[/ QUOTE ]
Understand please that I'm not saying that Blaster shouldn't be looked at for balance. . .that's not why I first posted in the thread. I take issue with, and continue to do so, the notion that Blasters are planned for obsolescence or are largely there already.
Under construction