[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
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. 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. 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?
Honestly you say that my ideas unbalance the set but then you want to have a friggin agro pet? The Tanker on tap? 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. 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.
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. I know I could anyway if I knew that it enhanced my ability to attack from range.
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.
[ QUOTE ]
i looked at your suggestions for blasters on the other thread and I found them borderline ridiculous. You uniformely want everything imporved without a single concession in power.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL! How can you possibly improve an AT if you take something away for everything you give it?
When you are nerfing an AT you cant do so by giving something back for everything you take away, and when you are building them up you cant take something away for everything you give it, that just leads to maintaining the status quo and that isnt what people are looking for.
[ QUOTE ]
When a red name comes on and says that we ran 100 team missions for 20 different lvl ranges and all 6 blaster primaries got outdamaged everytime, then come back to me. Until then it is propoganda.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do I get the feeling that even that would not be enough for you. Its already been pointed out that statesman himself has already said scrappers are the highest damage AT, now you demand he come here and prove to your satisfaction that that in fact is the case and if he does not simply expect us to assume otherwise.
Furthermore, a damage AT that is designed to be the most vulnerable in the game and have few other contributions to make should never be out-damaged. If it happens even once something is wrong. If you can find a set that isnt out-damaged great but that still does not mean there is no problem.
Finally, why would we have to assume your perception of blaster damage is the correct until proved otherwise to your satisfaction? What makes you so special that you are the final word on whether or not blasters do sufficient damage? Considering that its becoming quite clear you havent even played the AT to a high level, and possibly havent even played any AT to a high level while the people you are arguing with have played 3-5 different ATs all the way to 50.
[ QUOTE ]
What do scrappers have to do with blasters? This whole AT envy situation is nonsense.
[/ QUOTE ]
In case you havent noticed they fight the same mobs and have the same role on teams. It is not AT envy to expect them to be able to do so equally.
Frankly this line smacks of I know scrappers are fundamentally more powerful but I play a scrapper so I want to avoid people calling attention to that fact so it will not change.
What you have got to love is that we are supposed ranged AT and yet our primaries have powers that are melee range. Simply genius design there. Then when someone comes along and says "Hey why don't we make these abilities operate at range instead of melee for the ranged AT" people scream bloody murder and moan about how it will unbalance a set with no defense to have range in addition to damage. While Mieux is at it he should go and tell scrappers in the scrapper test thread that they should be nerfed because they are imbalanced in the player VS. villain world balance view.
Of course he really isn't interested in balance or he would have already done that. Instead he wants blasters to prove to him what Statesman has already said and has been tested many times. He seems to think that blasters should be forced to rely on another human being that is subject to change to be balanced. He seems to think that as long as a tank is around blasters are peachy.
Except that he acknowledges that all of those things are not true but when someone suggests improveing the AT in a way that supports its role he says that it is unbalanceing because there is no compromise.
What a joke.
[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? There is no way a controller solos as well as a scrapper from level 1-10. Furthermore we were treated to 9 whole months of incessant scrapper whining, despite the fact they were already vastly superior to every other AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
He's serious. Go roll up a Mind Controller some time.
It's called Dominate/Mesmerize. 2 differnet ranged, 10+ damage attacks.
Oh, and perma-sleep. I arrested Hellions all afternoon.
Sure, the damage doesn't scale, and yes, the teens will suck, but from 1-9th or so you'll do Scrapper damage with less risk.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
It's called Dominate/Mesmerize. 2 differnet ranged, 10+ damage attacks.
Oh, and perma-sleep. I arrested Hellions all afternoon.
Sure, the damage doesn't scale, and yes, the teens will suck, but from 1-9th or so you'll do Scrapper damage with less risk.
[/ QUOTE ]
With the correct power selection controllers can do ok, which is exactly what I said.
Neither is really at any risk; however the controller will simply will not keep up to a scrapper over that stretch because they do significantly less damage. While the controller is using dominate and mesmerize the scrapper can be using shadow maul and smite. These are a no contest win for the scrapper.
Why don't the dev's just impliment a crit system for blaster's that allows blasters to crit for up to 50% extra damage... this would be a good start.Maybe even a crit for double damage,but that might unbalance pvp.
P.S Also, why not make the enemies have the equivelant of archetypes.As it stands, all enemies have ranged, even if it's a level 1 throwing rocks, why not make some enemies true tankers/scrappers with little to no range at all?
Just give us dull pain and rage, and I would be happy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think "zero defense" was not the best decision.
[/ QUOTE ]
That might be the best summation of "The Blaster Problem."
For me, it's an ironically fortunate thing that many blaster secondary sets are melee-centric. This way I can ignore most of my secondary powers and use the slots instead for defensively-oriented pool powers.
That trend speaks poorly of the secondary sets, and further explains why Devices is so popular since it breaks formula by being useful.
[/ QUOTE ]
I quote this, because of all other complaints I have ever read about blasters, this is the one I remember seeing the most. The secondaries are too much of a grab-bag to really support themselves or the blaster primaries, is the impression I get - naturally, there are exceptions (energy and devices are both seen as fairly good).
The secondaries seem to need stronger internal consistency, as well as more tools to enable blasters to deliver their damage without faceplanting. Please, someone tell me if I'm just being dumb?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't think you're being dumb. Mostly because you're agreeing with me.
Many of the powers in */Devices and */Energy supplement the primary sets rather than diverge from them. Caltrops keeps an enemy at range longer; Fire Sword is useful only if you're in melee. Targeting Drone helps your ranged attacks hit more often; Shocking Grasp is for melee. Build-Up, present in many secondaries, supports the concept of ranged damage and is therefore often used.
A typical blaster in melee is a fish out of water. They're scrappers without any defensive secondary powers (and less hit points).
About 3 years ago when Cryptic went from a freeform "classless" system to an archetype system, they classified blasters according to the old MMORPG "mage" paradigm: You do damage, but you can't take damage. This unto itself is not revolutionary.
However, then they went and told the squishy mages that it was okay to get into melee because their swords would do tons of damage. Never mind that you still don't get to wear armor or cast any inherent defensive buffs. Sic 'em!
When the wife first read the CoH comic and saw War Witch using her fire sword in every fight, my little woman scrunched up her eyebrows and asked me "What, is she trying for the debt badge?"
[ QUOTE ]
With all do respect Statesman, the last time you posted about looking at Blasters, you said Controllers were in front of us - that's fine. However, now you're saying that Scrappers and Tankers are in front also? When exactly are the Devs going to actually take a look at Blasters? It seems we've had issues for quite some time, yet are being pushed to the back of the line in (terms of fixes) constantly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this person's post. Feels like we are the red-headed step-child.
/Agreed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With all do respect Statesman, the last time you posted about looking at Blasters, you said Controllers were in front of us - that's fine. However, now you're saying that Scrappers and Tankers are in front also? When exactly are the Devs going to actually take a look at Blasters? It seems we've had issues for quite some time, yet are being pushed to the back of the line in (terms of fixes) constantly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this person's post. Feels like we are the red-headed step-child.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. He's using the melee-ers as the benchmark for how the game should be played and balancing the MOBs against them. He wants them to be balanced against the MOBs. Once that's done he will bring us squishies to the same levels. It makes some amount of sense ESPECIALLY if he feels the melee-ers are currrently overpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. He's using the melee-ers as the benchmark for how the game should be played and balancing the MOBs against them. He wants them to be balanced against the MOBs. Once that's done he will bring us squishies to the same levels. It makes some amount of sense ESPECIALLY if he feels the melee-ers are currrently overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, no it doesn't, if he's balancing the way you're saying, then he's going to re-enact the +bosses before we're ready, and put the squisies back into the one shot hell hole we were come I3 (I think).
Warning: I'm going to be obnoxious now. Skip this post if you don't like anyone to state the obvious.
[ QUOTE ]
Currently, apart from Devices, those secondaries have anywhere from four melee attacks to seven melee attacks. Ditch some of 'em. Blappers will likely complain, but odds are they should be playing Scrappers instead if they want to melee.
[/ QUOTE ]
Niiiice! 
Let me get this straight: you're saying all Blappers should roll up Scrappers. I agree.
When You Get the Devs to Create a [censored] Elemental Scrapper Set There Won't Be Any More "Blappers"
You let me know when that's done, and I'll stop making melee Blaster, ok?
Thanks.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
With the correct power selection controllers can do ok, which is exactly what I said.
Neither is really at any risk; however the controller will simply will not keep up to a scrapper over that stretch because they do significantly less damage. While the controller is using dominate and mesmerize the scrapper can be using shadow maul and smite. These are a no contest win for the scrapper.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, with all due respect, you run Vahz missions at 5th level, right? Zombie Puke = Dead Scrapper/Tank.
Ranged Heroes, especially ones with mez attacks, do just fine....
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
i looked at your suggestions for blasters on the other thread and I found them borderline ridiculous. You uniformely want everything imporved without a single concession in power. Melee attacks that work at 20ft...hahahahaha.
That reads like someone who is out of touch with reality and only cares about making Blasters beyond uber.
[/ QUOTE ]
ZOMG, we'll be soloing AVs, no one ca... oh no wait, people do solo AVs, in fact every AT but Blasters solo AVs.
Ridiculous isn't asking for what Concern has suggested. ridiculous is asking to two shot AVs, which will be about the only thing that would balance us currently against the ability of other ATs.
[ QUOTE ]
When a red name comes on and says that we ran 100 team missions for 20 different lvl ranges and all 6 blaster primaries got outdamaged everytime, then come back to me. Until then it is propoganda. My blaster kills so much friggin faster than my scrapper at the same lvl, it's not even funny. In PvP, I can survive alphas from Scrappers. I've been totally worked by Energy and AR blasters in PvP. Their ability to keep hitting me while I run is incredibily effective. Go check the kills of blasters in PvP. They flat dominate every other AT, i'm talking double-digit domination.
The issue which I think does deserve some exploration is the ability to deliver that damage on teams is largely dependent on your teammates. If Tankers don't tank, which many of them don't, and defenders/controllers won't heal, which some seem to think is antithetical, they hamstring blasters. I've gotten my defender killed using Psychic Scream with no Tanker. With a tanker, my blaster is golden. Without... The fact is that blasters were made to be dependent on AT's doing their AT expected jobs in teams. To the extent that players eschew those roles, it hurts blasters most of all. Watching some defender lining up a snipe while my blasters is getting wailed on is largely perturbing.
There may also be issues with aggro for some sets like Fire. It occurs to me that maybe the DoT of fire my over ride a Taunt delivered after the initial blast. I'd have to test this to be sure. But to be honest I've not had mobs pulled off my Tank by blasters. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying that the devs should look into it and see if it is a matter of circumstances or coding.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, so when a red name comes and says Blasters aren't soloing 20+ 4+ Minions and LTs, would that make you happy? Or do you want us blasters to start tossing our poor selves into 4+ hazard zone spawns with demo record on?
I think I'm going to use your second paragraph in my anto-offender crusades...
Here's the thing, haven't all the other ATs complained about how they don't want to be dependent on Blasters for their damage, yet here you are spouting how we're dependent on other ATs to do our job. So we blasters are going to be tank mages and everyone will want to be a blaster if we don't want to rely on other ATs for our survivability? That seems off a little, don't you think?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sick of straight damage being the answer to nearly every problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
A) Just singling this phrase out
B) Then give us defence if damage isn't the solution
C) You also have absolutly no idea what makes a scrapper better then a blaster, especially with your comment after this
[ QUOTE ]
Funny, my Ice/El blaster did not die until like lvl 12. Being able to two and three shots a mob and then run is a world of difference when facing groups like the Tsoo and the Vahz. My Claws/Regen died so many friggin times I got disgusted and quit playing him for awhile. But so what? I don't play my blaster and expect it to ber like my scrapper.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, my blasters get in worse situations then my Scrappers, my scrappers have died far less in the early game then my blaster, it might have something to do with experience, or it might have something to do with knowing when to run because I played a blaster. There are more reasons then just those for why my scrappers live longer then my blaster, could be that some times there are more then one statusing mob, and status protection solves that. The massive boost in defence over my blasters even un-slotted might have something to do with that too though.
I just wanted to note that I for one am not a huge proponent of a cap increase as opposed to a base damage increase. Increasing that cap just makes /devices even weaker than it already is versus the other secondaries in terms of raw offensive power. I personally think every secondary should have a Build Up power, too, though perhaps the /dev one could come without accuracy boost or something of that sort to balance for TD.
I also do think the Blaster AT should deal more damage than the Scrapper AT. I think it's a bit bogus to argue that Scrappers take on more risk at the higher levels than Blasters do. Blasters already incur quite a bit of aggro, especially fire blasters, and they have no defences to speak of to help that out. On top of that, Blasters aren't really good for anything _but_ dealing damage - it's their specialised role. Scrappers don't face that dilemma or drawback, and it makes a lot more sense in terms of balance to give them weaker damage-dealing strength than Blasters and weaker defence than Tankers because, ultimately, they're still stronger on their own even then compared to either since they have stronger defence than Blasters and (optimally) stronger offence than Tankers. Giving them offence or defence on par with either of the other ATs introduces an unfair and imbalanced advantage for the Scrapper AT and introducing a claim like "greater risk" not only seems a bit spurious but, on top of that, doesn't take care of the problem that making Blasters less powerful is to take away the only thing that really makes the AT valuable vs. any of the others.
I mean, if you want to engineer the game so that Scrappers die as easily as Blasters do, go for it. Ergo, somehow design things in such a way that their combination of aggro-incurment and probability of being hit is roughly the same as Blasters, so that despite being in melee they incur similar fragility. I doubt anyone who plays a Scrapper is going to go for this, and it's because (most) people know that Scrappers are a great deal more resilient and enjoy greater longevity than Blasters, even despite being in melee, and especially when there is no defender to heal spam the Blaster. At this point, the Blaster AT is not only weaker than Scrappers, it's weaker than basically every other AT. The focus on the Scrapper AT is mainly because it is the one most clearly violating the specialised-role architecture (as it shouldn't have one, and shouldn't be given the competence in any area of one that does have one).
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.)
[ QUOTE ]
The max damage of a Blaster is 400%...a Scrapper is 500%. We did this because the Scrapper is involved in melee and thus in a riskier situation far more often. Blasters, on the other hand, can pick and choose their targets from a distance.
[/ QUOTE ]
A scrapper in melee is in a riskier situation than a blaster at range?!?!!
This is just flat-out wrong. It might have been the case if the scrapper AT had not been given a fine selection of defenses as a secondary set.
A blaster in melee is in a riskier situation than a blaster at range. But a scrapper? Come on.
[ QUOTE ]
Stop talking about the damage caps: no one cares. Neither class is going to hit it without 400 fulcrum shifts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I care. And 5dmg1acc slotting, plus Build Up, plus Aim is over the blaster cap. All blasters with BU and Aim can self-buff themselves over the cap, which means the cap actually is doing something to a significant proportion of solo blasters. And I don't need HOs to do it, either.
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of bickering about scrappers like children, what you should be doing is verbally hitting States on the damned nose with a six-slotted rolled up newspaper for his "melee attacks are fine" garbage. Yes, ONE melee attack is fine, not SIX. A heavy damage attack like TF is fine and good: A low damage melee attack like frozen fists is nothing short of retarded.
[/ QUOTE ]
And bonesmasher, a melee attack that hits as hard as a snipe, has a significant chance to disorient LTs, and (/en) blasters can get at level 10, unlike TF which you have to wait till 38 for, is...? If we are only allowed one, and its total focus, no melee until 38? Or do we get total focus at 10? Or do we get bonesmasher at 10 and we don't get to have total focus at all?
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a hint: until those minor melee attacks are replaced, blasters aren't fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a hint: since most */en blasters are not complaining about their secondary, we should leave it alone and go fix the ones with real problems first, then come back when we have nothing else to do.
For those people not familiar with the energy secondary:
Its probably one of the, if not the best blapper set.
energy punch, bonesmasher, total focus. Stun is not fantastic, but it isn't total crap for a blapper (its kinda crap for a conventional blaster). Power thrust is more useful for a conventional blaster, but even blappers need to occasionally blow off steam by grabbing the 3 iron and finding some clock gears.
And yet ironically, it has practically the best support powers also:
endurance management: conserve power
range effects: boost range
damage and accuracy: build up
DEFENSE: power boost
The only thing we don't have is stealth, and stealth is the cheapest thing for blasters to buy. There are no prerequisites for stealth from the conceal pool, we get stealth for free if we take superspeed, and stealth and superspeed stack to just short of pure invisibility and we can still attack.
Technically, we don't have droppable patches like caltrops or ice patch either, but I wouldn't say that breaks the set.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
And bonesmasher, a melee attack that hits as hard as a snipe, has a significant chance to disorient LTs, and (/en) blasters can get at level 10, unlike TF which you have to wait till 38 for, is...? If we are only allowed one, and its total focus, no melee until 38? Or do we get total focus at 10? Or do we get bonesmasher at 10 and we don't get to have total focus at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking too small. If you have TF, why do you need bonesmasher? Listen, I'd be more than happy to get rid of melee attacks if I just got some damned defense instead. But let's say we keep both those attacks. Do you ALSO ned energy punch AND stun? No, no you don't. Almost anything would be better put there.
Listen, blasters aren't going to get fixed with a damage cap increase and some unresistable damage. That's piddly. It's small potatoes. Secondaries need to be whole sale gutted and refashioned.
I know blappers are going to be upset, and i'm sorry. What it really comes down to is do we want to keep a broken AT so that a crazy minority subsection can hit things with a sword and then die, or do we want to have an actual viable AT that's not an utter joke?
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a hint: since most */en blasters are not complaining about their secondary, we should leave it alone and go fix the ones with real problems first, then come back when we have nothing else to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I said until things like stun and energy punch are removed, blasters aren't fixed. /EN blasters are still blasters. while they need to be done last, even they need to be fixed.
Argue all you want, but blasters aren't going to be fixed without some kind of minor self heal, minor defense, minor res, gutting of minor melee powers, and minor mez protection.
Not giving an AT that generates hate with no defense to mez is as ridiculous as scrappers not getting mez protection. Mezzes are ranged, melee class or not hasn't got a damned thing to do about it.
Statesman won't ever DO it, because he thinks that to be the weakest set, we have to rely solely on our damage and our tricks, which sounds nice on paper to someone who plays on broken test servers. He's wrong of course, we can still get some minor defense against damage and still be the weakest set. We can still have mez protection that's far lower than the powerful practiced brawler or integration, and not be tank mages.
Never mind that blasters need diversity bad. As of now, the situation is no one can be the human torch. Everyone has to sneak around liked a damned ninja. I see nothing wrong with having a set that relies on control, a set that relies on stealth, and a set that relies on minor defense in order to get some diverse heroes around here. Not everyone wants to be a mini-Sam Fisher.
Range is a defense, though States and I disagree to what degree it's a defense. I think if you gave us a minor shield and minor mez potection, that coupled with range would be equal to scrapper's greater shields and mez protection.
Look at it this way: Currently, a lesser devoured boss, orange con, would one shot my blaster. One hit, he's down. 50% dmg res would still mean half my health is gone, and it would still mean i'd want to get out of there in a hurry.
[ 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 ]
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.
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. 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. 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 ]
"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 ]
Here you prove that you did not read the ideas. 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 ]
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 ]
This is where you don't understand game balance. 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. 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 ]
Agree to disagree with you here is all I could say you ideas do indeed over power mine imho.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I am asking is through what rational process of deduction did you determine that my suggestions unbalance the AT. I know what your opinion is; what I want to know is why you hold it.
Okay, When I first got this game back in June of last year, I was so excited to play it. The first Toon I made was Mr. Nothing, A NRG/Fire blaster. At the time, I thought he was the cat's pajamas. Then again, I also thought that Origins mattered.
Anyway, I'm still playing him today, He has loged over 500 hours of game time. And yet, he is yet to reach level 50.
Infact, not even close. 41 after 8 months of playing.
Why? I was to level 20 with ease and level 30 not much longer. Then things, as they say, took a turn. I lost my ability to solo. I realized this after amounting very large amounts of debt. It took me about 2 weeks to get out of it. I spent nearly 2 months in the low 30s.
Why is it like this? Most people would have given up on a */fire by now, but He's my baby. I currently have 3 fire powers, and only because I ran out of Energy Blasts. Ring of fire, Build up, and combustion. Of which I only use build up, available in all pools.
In otherwords, my secondary is useless. Give me something I can use! Holds, sheilds, more ranged attacks, SOMETHING!
When you say that the melee stuff is useful, its not. This is comming from a seasoned veteran of the blasters. Fire swords, useless. Combusion, waste of endurance. If I get in a big Mob, I'm dead.
I mean I love a challenge, but this is kind of absurd.
At one point a few months ago, I teamed with a Scrapper. We were both high 20s. He has since Gotten to 50. Created a Kheldian, which passed me around 34, and is now Also 50 (with about 15 HO enhansements now). Ya think something might be wrong with this picture?
Blasters are worthless after level 30 and everyone knows it. With the exception of me Novaing in Hearding Situations, and dieing, I have no Heroic Duties.
Melee is useless to a Blaster, I don't care how anyone, Including the statesman, may defend that. It's not. Give us more Ranged attacks and/or holds, or just let us die.
And we will die.
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, When I first got this game back in June of last year, I was so excited to play it. The first Toon I made was Mr. Nothing, A NRG/Fire blaster. At the time, I thought he was the cat's pajamas. Then again, I also thought that Origins mattered.
Anyway, I'm still playing him today, He has loged over 500 hours of game time. And yet, he is yet to reach level 50.
Infact, not even close. 41 after 8 months of playing.
Why? I was to level 20 with ease and level 30 not much longer. Then things, as they say, took a turn. I lost my ability to solo. I realized this after amounting very large amounts of debt. It took me about 2 weeks to get out of it. I spent nearly 2 months in the low 30s.
Why is it like this? Most people would have given up on a */fire by now, but He's my baby. I currently have 3 fire powers, and only because I ran out of Energy Blasts. Ring of fire, Build up, and combustion. Of which I only use build up, available in all pools.
In otherwords, my secondary is useless. Give me something I can use! Holds, sheilds, more ranged attacks, SOMETHING!
When you say that the melee stuff is useful, its not. This is comming from a seasoned veteran of the blasters. Fire swords, useless. Combusion, waste of endurance. If I get in a big Mob, I'm dead.
I mean I love a challenge, but this is kind of absurd.
At one point a few months ago, I teamed with a Scrapper. We were both high 20s. He has since Gotten to 50. Created a Kheldian, which passed me around 34, and is now Also 50 (with about 15 HO enhansements now). Ya think something might be wrong with this picture?
Blasters are worthless after level 30 and everyone knows it. With the exception of me Novaing in Hearding Situations, and dieing, I have no Heroic Duties.
Melee is useless to a Blaster, I don't care how anyone, Including the statesman, may defend that. It's not. Give us more Ranged attacks and/or holds, or just let us die.
And we will die.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel your pain, man, but not all blaster melee is useless. /energy works quite nicely from what I've seen and /elec's not too shabby either when paired with elec/.
The problem with /fire melee is 1) too much of it and 2) No secondary effect. DoT is NOT the same level of protection granted by /energy's disorients, /elec's end drain or even /ice's slow, -rec.
It's almost a shame you went with energy. Consume is great after an Inferno...but not so much with the happy happy after a Nova 
Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on! You can't see how another AT doing more damage than a blaster under optimal conditions for the blaster is unbalanced? Then I guess their is no further point in bothering to talk to you.
I though you were interested in sincere discussion, you just want to preserve the status quo.
[/ QUOTE ] For like the sixteenth time...where is this true?
Optimal conditions for the blaster are dumpster full of an infinite number of held mobs. Is there some power that does more damage than Nova at damage cap?
[/ QUOTE ]
Inferno, I guess.
Although, against single targets, scrappers can do unholy amounts of damage if they HO themselves to +300%, use build up, and then score a crit (which bypasses the scrapper cap, btw).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
equivalent to the capability of Scrapper
[/ QUOTE ]
This is my issue Scott. What do scrappers have to do with blasters? This whole AT envy situation is nonsense. The problem that blasters should complain about it that missions don't confer enough advantage for Ranged damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
AT envy? Not at all. Scrappers are simply a convenient yardstick to use. We're talking about Melee damage vs Ranged damage.
The reason for my comparison is that the "Ability to Do Damage vs The Lack of Defense" equation is entirely out of whack. Blaster's don't do enough damage to compensate for thier lack of defenses. I don't want them to have more defenses; that would remove flavor from the game.
I want Blaster attacks (primaries in particular) to have about 2 brawls more of base damage.
It's a boost, sure. Game imbalance? Very little. Range would still fail to be more than slightly helpful, and status attacks would still have full effect. The chance to one-shot lieutenants without using a Inspiration, Build-Up, or Nuke would make the AT more survivable solo.....which is the real issue here.
Teaming problems and intra-AT comparisons are really not relevant.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?