Tranth, you might want to reconsider the formatting for your responses. A lot of people won't read what you've written just because it's not formatted the same way as other posts. Your 'creative' formatting will confuse them and make your post not worth reading.
Just a thought.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However since a blaster cannot stay at range indefinately due to the rooting nature of his attacks you cannot assume that blasters will not be in the same position that scrappers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Rooting makes you fight in melee? That's the exact opposite of what rooting does. You root the guy and then back away, ta-da you're at range and he can't get closer.
[/ QUOTE ]
He means we get rooted when we attack, because of animation times.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However since a blaster cannot stay at range indefinately due to the rooting nature of his attacks you cannot assume that blasters will not be in the same position that scrappers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Rooting makes you fight in melee? That's the exact opposite of what rooting does. You root the guy and then back away, ta-da you're at range and he can't get closer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nonono...they're referencing how when you attack, the animation keeps you from moving for a second or two or five. While you're immobile and shooting, the mobs close in and beat the stupid out of your poor blaster, and then mock his corpse for holding still that long.
EDIT: Orochi beat me to it, but...yeah. Consider this emphasis.
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ] Being able to outdamage other AT's and being allowed to outdamage other AT's are two independent truths. The problems that it seems blasters are really having is the latter, not the former. As I have conceded. The Blaster dependency on competent teammates may be out of whack, simply for the fact that the most critical role to blasters...tanks and defenders...are replete with players who do no such thing. There is a difference between having a Tank and playing a tanker. Defenders aren't as bad as tankers at eschewing roles, but some are pretty bad.
The other factor which is just as much to blame based on my experience is that many blasters, if not most blasters, dont' have the foggiest notion of how to modify their playstyle. We have at least three independent AT's who's competency, or lack there of, has the most detrimental effect on blasters. I am open to the idea that this could use some investigation. I would be infavor of penalizing the other AT's just as much for poor team play, but that is probably harder to do than just making blasters harder to kill.
[ QUOTE ]
C) You also have absolutly no idea what makes a scrapper better then a blaster, especially with your comment after this
[/ QUOTE ] lol...you're completely overlooking the purpose of the comment. What is it I'm trying to communicate?
[ QUOTE ]
my scrappers have died far less in the early game
[/ QUOTE ] Go play a claws/regen and get back to me. A class like BS/Inv is a comparative calk walk...
Btw, I am very excited by the changes to scrappers. I am amazed that they have made specific changes that I thought were totally necessary.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However since a blaster cannot stay at range indefinately due to the rooting nature of his attacks you cannot assume that blasters will not be in the same position that scrappers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Rooting makes you fight in melee? That's the exact opposite of what rooting does. You root the guy and then back away, ta-da you're at range and he can't get closer.
[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstood him. The blaster doesn't root the enemy -- he roots himself. When a blaster uses any of his attacks, he becomes immobilized during the entire attack animation. He can't move while attacking -- which means the mobs get to close to melee distance.
So he has a choice: run or fight. If he tries to do both, the mobs will catch up to him. Even with superspeed, most areas are not large enough or are too densely packed with enemies to make running and fighting a viable strategy.
It gets even worse at later levels when the range of enemy attacks is greater than that of the blaster. The blaster actually has to run back into the enemies range in order to attack. So the enemy gets a ranged attack and while the blaster is rooted for his attack, the enemy runs up to melee and voila. The blaster is now in melee battle and the enemy has received a bonus ranged attack against him.
[ QUOTE ]
The other factor which is just as much to blame based on my experience is that many blasters, if not most blasters, dont' have the foggiest notion of how to modify their playstyle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define modify our playstyle? do you mean from team to solo, or like when something dramatically shifts our abilities around.
Cause I can tell you my playstyle on each of my characters are quite different, I play me scrappers differently from my blasters, from my tankers, from my controllers, from my defenders, from my Khelds, and even in those I change my style based on power selections, my three main scrappers play differently from each other, my two tanks differently, my many blasters are different, etc, even teaming with different teams is another playstyle.
The thing you have to consider is, why are blasters about the only AT that has to so dramatically change their playstle for every different teammate, build and enemy they face, but most other ATs can (some exceptions, like Khelds and voids) just jump into the middle of stuff, mess it up and bound away with only one or two groups altering their playstyle?
[ QUOTE ]
Go play a claws/regen and get back to me. A class like BS/Inv is a comparative calk walk...
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have a BS/Inv, I have a Claws/SR, MA/Inv and Spines/Regen
It is very debatable if SR or Claws is worse in the pre-28 stage, from my personal experiences with the above two, the SR far FAR harder to level then the Spines/Regen.
Maybe it was because I actually slotted and used Reconstruction and Dull pain, or something, but my regen did not die from 12 to 21 (and possible before that, I got to 12 then stopped playing for awhile), and the only reason I died in the 20s was because of bad team.
[ QUOTE ]
Define modify our playstyle? do you mean from team to solo,
[/ QUOTE ] Solo to team. And yup, blasters have to undergo the most dramatic change in tactics. You want to lower the bar on what it takes to be a good blaster?
I think it does take a lot more skill to survive as a blaster compared with other AT's. The sad truth is that it seems the median player lacks a lot of those critical skills. Scrappers...especially old /Regen versions...were pretty idiot proof.
[ QUOTE ]
it was because I actually slotted and used Reconstruction and Dull pain, or something
[/ QUOTE ] Actually, that's a very valid observation. In one of my early experiments, I six slotted FH. It worked really well. My current one, I underslotted Recon...didn't take DP, and tried to go with a six slotted Swipe...like the only attack that has any significant damage insp.
So you are very correct to observe that currently, scrappers can be much harder to get right. This is also why you see such a wide range of opinions within the scrapper community on nerfing the various secondaries (/DA excluded).
[ QUOTE ]
Ever been a blaster grouped with an illusion controller and said to yourself.. why the heck am i doing anything wasting my endurance with the chance of getting aggro when the phantasms and phantom army will do all that for me? What it means is the Blaster has no role anymore because they can not stand up and do anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
looks like a double *yawn* response to this post and many others like it.
my obligatory post-relevant response:
Ever been a scrapper in a good team with blasters and defenders and tanks and wondered why you were bothering to attack when you could just stand around and nothing would change cause the blaster's killing everything, the tanks holding agro, the defender's keeping everyone alive...
yes, I will use your argument for my own means: "What it means is the <Scrapper> has no role <in a team> anymore because..." everything they attempt to do is already being done much more efficiently.
*yawn*
[ QUOTE ]
Ever been a scrapper in a good team with blasters and defenders and tanks and wondered why you were bothering to attack when you could just stand around and nothing would change cause the blaster's killing everything, the tanks holding agro, the defender's keeping everyone alive...
yes, I will use your argument for my own means: "What it means is the <Scrapper> has no role <in a team> anymore because..." everything they attempt to do is already being done much more efficiently.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you ever wonder why a set that can do a bit of everything is outshined by sets that specialize? Obviously you do. Are you saying that scrappers should be able to do both jobs as well? Or do you only want to do either the Tankers or the Blasters job as well? Why should you do either job as well when you are not taking the penalties they get for specializing?
While we are on the subject of teams have you ever been on a team where you had a scrapper, tank, defender, and a controller and no blaster? Did the team turn to you for damage? Yep, and you were able to provide that. Ever been on a team with no tank and a team wanted you to take the initial agro? I would not be surprised and you can do that too.
So you have a character that can fill two team roles and it also gets the additional role of boss killer. It can fill two team roles when the AT that it is filling in for is not around and it has its own role all of its very own.
Yet you are sitting here and whining that blasters are complaining about having their single team role usurped by scrappers?
Keep up the great comments like this because they are friggin hilarious.
[ QUOTE ]
You're thinking too small. If you have TF, why do you need bonesmasher?
[/ QUOTE ]
Me personally? I don't. Other blasters might want both, and I don't begrudge them that. For those that want bonesmasher, are you willing to take away bonesmasher and give them total focus at level 10, and call it even? Cause the people that took bonesmasher, I don't think they are going to be happy with "we took away bonesmasher, but don't worry, in 28 levels you can still have total focus."
I think you are thinking too "50"
[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.)
The basic problem with the 500/400 split is that Blasters have no hit points, AND they have no defenses. If anything, the advantage should go to Blasters. Scrappers do not take more of a risk than blasters, but a good deal less, and can often escape from a hairy situation. Once a blaster gets into the yellow, he's often finished.
Like I keep suggesting. Halve our bloody caps [that's right, +150% instead of +300%], and increase the base damage scaling so that in the 20's, when we'd start REACHING said 300+% levels normally, we instead cap out on enhancements [keeping buildup and Aim applied to base damage instead, and lowering their efficiency a bit to compensate], but deal as much damage.
Result I'm looking for: Same damage at level 20 with 200% as right now with 200%.
Same damage at level 25 with new cap as currently with 300%
Same damage at level 35 with new cap as currently with 300% and same for 45 and 50.
Buildup/Aim would apply to our base damage instead [so stay seperate and don't slam into the cap], but of course be reduced in effectiveness to compensate.
This would free up slots for either secondary effects boosting of our attacks, endurance or recharge improvements, or boosting the meager defensive powers we have a little more.
Same damage [ok a TINY bit more with buildup or aim on] as we currently do, just needing less enhancements to do it. That way we can focus on other parts of our offense without falling behind.
[ QUOTE ]
At the moment, Scrappers, and to a lesser degree, Tankers, are being analyzed. Once we establish a baseline, then we'll be in a better position to look at Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
In light of recent scrapper changes i'm concerned about what this will entail.
[ QUOTE ]
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. So much for that Scrapper Advantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh. My first character, Boltcutter, is level 40. After 480 hours, more or less, and 9 months or so.
Arcanaville said:
[ QUOTE ]
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).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm starting to get irritated when people talk about the top 5 levels like it's the entire game. I've been playing for NINE MONTHS and I don't have Hamidon enhancements. 460 hours- if I played 9 to 5 as a job that would be three months of work. On just that one character.
It's bad enough when people ignore the pre-32 game. . .
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
The main problem I see when statesman said that we are targeted by ranged is attacks is not always true. Minions are usually the target that will attack from range, but Lts. and Bosses after their initial ranged attack will close in to melle range immediately after. So sure, maybe ranged attacks in some cases is less damaging then melle attacks, but we do not get the luxury of attacking from range all the time when I have to run around a map screaming like a little girl when a rikti boss is on my tail with his huge sword ready to chop my head off. And in the later game the enemies become either ranged or melle type specific, if you try to stay at range while fighting the Skyraiders thats great for them, thats exactally where they want you, if you try to fight in a lot of the AV missions in your 40s you will get closed on by bobcat and her melle crazy pets or blasted by neuron and his bots. For a blaster either ranged or melle is a deadly area. To say that ranged attacks are less damaging is just not true and not in just some of the time, but most of the time. If an ememy is staying at range, it is because his strength lies in ranged attacks, either it be a chief mentalist that will hold you while his buddies take you out, or in pure damage output.
That really depends on the type. A Freaktank will fire a grenade from afar, close in, throw a buzzsaw on his way in if you were a bit far and then melee you if at all possible.
a crey crisis unit will often just stand there and keep you asleep... sometimes for a very... very... very long time... because while anything else would've killed you, HIS sleep grenade does no damage.
Rikti mentalists I've seen actually try to ESCAPE melee, and this on my blaster. of course as soon as they get out its sleepy holdy death time...
Hellion damned tend to stay far. they have a nasty fire-punch, and the laughable combustion [does them about as much good as it does us], but they'd rather just fireball.
Council archons I'd have to say are the most melee-agressive bosses in the early-game. THOSE are pretty much guaranteed to fire once, drop the gun and bumrush you, where they put those feet to most fiendish use (easily 3-hit kill you from full, and that first one's a knockdown).
Chief Soldier rikti seem just as content one way or another. sometimes they stay there and pump 350+ shots into my level 37, sometimes they close in. sometimes they give up on closing in and stick to the blasting... and usually that's when they win against me.
Ok Fulmens, I might see your point, but once you hit lvl 32 the game really starts getting interesting, and the game picks up again once you hit lvl 40 and start fighting AVs. I've been playing for 10 months and just got my 2nd lvl 50, I do not get to play as much as others or play religiously because I go to school full time and work and only get to play when I have a little time. But the one thing I noticed is that the people who know how to play the game better level quicker, I am not talking about just power leveling either. I do not know if you get to play much and that is the only reason or you are stuck in debt a lot. Either way, I hate it when people come onto the boards and say "i hate it when people talk about HOs and that stuff still counts before lvl 32" Yes the game still exists before lvl 32, noone in this post said other wise. What ticks me off the most is that it is usually people who have never made lvl 50 complaining about HOs.
[ QUOTE ]
The other factor which is just as much to blame based on my experience is that many blasters, if not most blasters, dont' have the foggiest notion of how to modify their playstyle.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most blasters modify their play style from encounter to encounter. In fact there is no other AT in the game that is even remotely as good as modifying their play style to fit the situation as blasters. Even a bad blaster will be better at this then someone who has never played one.
Take even a mediocre blaster who has played into the 40s and give them a regain scrapper and they will laugh at how easy it is even in the supposedly difficult time prior to instant healing. This is precisely because they know how to assess a situation and adapt accordingly. Short of being power leveled of leveling up on winter lords no blaster can get out of their 20s without learning these skills and no blaster can get out of their 30s without mastering them.
[ QUOTE ]
Go play a claws/regen and get back to me. A class like BS/Inv is a comparative calk walk...
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a level 40 DM/regain and it is simply the easiest character I have ever played from 1-30. It isnt quite as fast leveling after that due to the emphasis single target damage but all things considered its still easier to play in these levels even if it doesnt level quite as fast as my tank or controller.
I know a BS/regain who says exactly the same thing about these early levels, and play nightly with someone who has a level 50 claws/regain and freely says that getting to 20 wasnt hard at all.
Blaster AOE nukes need a hard cap on the quantity of mobs they can affect. However they should have a 500 percent damage cap.
I think the hardest character to play from 1 to 30 is "your first". Period. Of course, that's also the most fun, because everything's new.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
[ 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.
[ QUOTE ]
Pay attention to peoples responses and you wont be so off base with your counter arguments.
[/ 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. Even if it wasnt for the input of people with level 50 blasters who have also played other ATs there have been any number of analysiss performed that show blasters are less powerful then scrappers, tankers, controllers, and even some defender builds by a VERY wide margin.
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. 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.
Just to clarify some things you certainly didnt get probably because you have not read any of the discussion on what the problems are.
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?
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. The question is how can this be done other then by just a blanket increase to blaster damage. Of course Concerns proposals increase damage in some cases, this is exactly what they are supposed to do. They do not, however, come in the form of a blanket increase to blaster damage which is exactly the type of solution needed.
Traditionally, most of our suggestions for blasters are considered to be seperate ideas; that is, pick one or two and implement, to bring us almost up to par.
Most of the time, anyways.
[ QUOTE ]
Traditionally, most of our suggestions for blasters are considered to be seperate ideas; that is, pick one or two and implement, to bring us almost up to par.
Most of the time, anyways.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but this isnt something I subscribe to. There are a few consistent themes, but where blaster damage problems occur it is usually set specific. The solution therefore also needs to be set specific. I.E. all ice really needs is one more AoE, and possibly a shorter animation and recharge on freeze ray. Elec really needs one and possibly 2 more single target attacks and probably one more AoE because SC usually gets slotted for end drain. Eng needs a more damage and/or longer range on power burst, one more single target attack and to have energy torrent and explosive blast more team friendly. A shorter recharge may also help these attacks.
Fire is strong in both single target and AoE damage, so its a pretty well balanced set. AR is a little weak in the single target department but its cone attacks make it the best AoE damage dealer in the game other then a herding fire tank or spines scrapper. If AoEs were nerfed AR would need some single target love.
[ QUOTE ]
However since a blaster cannot stay at range indefinately due to the rooting nature of his attacks you cannot assume that blasters will not be in the same position that scrappers are.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Rooting makes you fight in melee? That's the exact opposite of what rooting does. You root the guy and then back away, ta-da you're at range and he can't get closer.