[ QUOTE ]
blasters don't have to reposition themselves?
you're smoking the good [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not arguing that as an absolute. Rather, he's saying that Blasters don't have to meticulously position himself because of a small range (PBAoE compared to the larger AoE of a Blaster target AoE attack, 5ft cone range compared to 40ft cone range)
He is also saying Blasters don't have to move around as much to acquire, and fire on, new targets. Read again this part:
[ QUOTE ]
When fighting a large group, the blaster can continuously pump out ranged attacks without spending much time positioning himself. This (plus their noteable disposition towards AoEs) suggests that blasters are better suited at doing damage to multiple minions. Overall the blaster is throwing more raw damage downrange than the scrapper, usually multiplied over groups of targets.
When fighting a single target, a scrapper excels over a blaster as the scrapper must spend an initial period closing with the target, then may hope to remain there. Switching targets and repositioning for melee reach slows the scrapper's attacks down, decreasing DPS
[/ QUOTE ]
Another thing that slows down scrapper DPS is executing an attack on a villain only to have it die before the damage is registered - something that happens to me all the time when I'm teamed with blasters.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that slows down scrapper DPS is executing an attack on a villain only to have it die before the damage is registered - something that happens to me all the time when I'm teamed with blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is one that cuts both ways as well. The only one where this really does not happen is Elec blasters single target attacks that hit instantly. The animations on AR also end up making me go through an animation only to see the target die before I attack. Especially if I have to re-draw the gun.
on the other hand, BECAUSE this does not happen, retaliation is brought onto us while we're still in the middle of the attack animation. you're rooted for almost 2 seconds AFTER Zapp goes off; which makes avoiding counter-alphas rather difficult.
Same with AR
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blasters don't have to reposition themselves?
you're smoking the good [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not arguing that as an absolute. Rather, he's saying that Blasters don't have to meticulously position himself because of a small range (PBAoE compared to the larger AoE of a Blaster target AoE attack, 5ft cone range compared to 40ft cone range)
He is also saying Blasters don't have to move around as much to acquire, and fire on, new targets. Read again this part:
[ QUOTE ]
When fighting a large group, the blaster can continuously pump out ranged attacks without spending much time positioning himself. This (plus their noteable disposition towards AoEs) suggests that blasters are better suited at doing damage to multiple minions. Overall the blaster is throwing more raw damage downrange than the scrapper, usually multiplied over groups of targets.
When fighting a single target, a scrapper excels over a blaster as the scrapper must spend an initial period closing with the target, then may hope to remain there. Switching targets and repositioning for melee reach slows the scrapper's attacks down, decreasing DPS
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, Rooftop. While my [censored] is indeed good, that's exactly what I'm saying.
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you, Rooftop. While my [censored] is indeed good, that's exactly what I'm saying.
[/ QUOTE ]
I try. 
I don't think the damage is our problem. We do plunty of damage. The problem is the No Defence, No Resistance, less health, No mez Protection for Scrapper amount of damage. Give us a little resistance, a little Defence, a little mez protection and you have balance.
Granted, I havent played much as a blaster, but what I would like to see is a kind of overhaul to the secondaries. Switch up some powers...less melee, maybe some powers that can boost Endurance recovery, and then a few defensive shields against smash/lethal.
It wouldnt be very hard to incorporate a shield into the secondaries
Devices- Some sort of vest, like bulletproof, only better
Energy- Energy shield
Fire- Fire Aura/Shield
Electricity- Electric field
Ice- You incase yourself in Ice
etc, etc
Like its probably been said a million times. If the secondaries would offer less melee and more damage resistance and/or defense, and maybe a little bit more End. recovery to deal with the whole blaster/scrapper damage drama, that would be cool.
JS
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that slows down scrapper DPS is executing an attack on a villain only to have it die before the damage is registered - something that happens to me all the time when I'm teamed with blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is one that cuts both ways as well. The only one where this really does not happen is Elec blasters single target attacks that hit instantly. The animations on AR also end up making me go through an animation only to see the target die before I attack. Especially if I have to re-draw the gun.
[/ QUOTE ]
Back in the glory days of my Kheld's nova form (the teen levels), I was able to routinely cause the scrapper on my team to stab corpses. I was able to do the same with the Ice/Energy version of Maidenfrost (sadly no longer part of my character stable).
It naturally has more to do with fast activations vs slow activations, it's just that melee tends to have many more slow-activating attacks and ranged tends to have many more fast-activating attacks.
To be honest, I don't think there's a strong semblance of balance in terms of how long an attack takes to activate vs. the damage it does.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blasters don't have to reposition themselves?
you're smoking the good [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not arguing that as an absolute. Rather, he's saying that Blasters don't have to meticulously position himself because of a small range (PBAoE compared to the larger AoE of a Blaster target AoE attack, 5ft cone range compared to 40ft cone range)
He is also saying Blasters don't have to move around as much to acquire, and fire on, new targets. Read again this part:
[ QUOTE ]
When fighting a large group, the blaster can continuously pump out ranged attacks without spending much time positioning himself. This (plus their noteable disposition towards AoEs) suggests that blasters are better suited at doing damage to multiple minions. Overall the blaster is throwing more raw damage downrange than the scrapper, usually multiplied over groups of targets.
When fighting a single target, a scrapper excels over a blaster as the scrapper must spend an initial period closing with the target, then may hope to remain there. Switching targets and repositioning for melee reach slows the scrapper's attacks down, decreasing DPS
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, Rooftop. While my [censored] is indeed good, that's exactly what I'm saying.
[/ QUOTE ]
and as someone who relies on a cone pbaoe combo I disagree.
besides. scrappers move to engage. blasters move to save their damned lives. At worst the scrapper has to chase his foe. with the blaster enviromental control and awareness are paramount. one mistake and you're pushing up more flowers than an FTD gift shop.
(responses to concern in) ()
[ QUOTE ]
Tranth you still have not supported your position. You have repeated your opinions again but have not supported
your statement that the ideas are overpowered
[/ QUOTE ]
(Hello Again Concern, Yes I have supported my claim my opinions and arguments do support my claim just like yours do neither one of us has hard facts here only I realise that however appearantly. What you need to grasp to understand both our arguments and positons is that they are based on personal experiance and opinions only.)
[ QUOTE ]
yet unless it is your contention that a blaster being able to deliver damage from range quickly is unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Nope that is a ridiculos statement and both against what I stated and what Statesman has clairfied as his vision for the arch type.)
[ QUOTE ]
Let me clarify that when I say I would not mind a little button to kill all the mobs, I would not mind it on any AT because frankly I enjoy seeing mobs die.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Fair enough Concern consider it clairfied now to clairfy from my view I think simmilarily to a poster 2 above or so that the combination of all your changes is tantamount to a form of god mode and I don't want to see it personally. A couple of em sure, the 20 foot melee and nukes from afar sans Electric hell no.)
[ QUOTE ]
This is a vice and it is one of the reasons why I enjoy playing max payne 2 with god mod on just so I can stand still and slowly shoot people in the head and enjoy every slowed second of it. A little sick? Maybe but it has no relevance
[/ QUOTE ]
(This is your playstyle and it makes sence to me but it is outta whack with my own. I personally despise god modes and other so called "cheats" I feel they cheapen my experiance.
Now that said I don't care if you use em if your changes where lets say optional and not all blasters had to use them. In such a case I would be fine with them as I would just aviod your type of player but since they would be all encompassing for the AT I am very much against more than a few of them getting implemented all at once.)
[ QUOTE ]
because when I suggest an idea of mine is balanced you had better believe that I am suggesting it to balance the game and not to give a single AT a god mode.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Well I Can see you might mean for that to be your goal or percive it as balanced in say the same way a player of "the way of the closed fist" in Jade Empire would justify thier actions. Still I for one choose hold the torch against such folly. If you think all your changes being implented at once would begin to balance the archtype of Blasters then you Sir are out of wack with the vast majority of what players would consider to be balanced needs of the Archtype.
Sure we blasters need love but we don't need or want a god mode. )
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly if I was looking to make the game easier you wouldn't see me supporting a nerf to enhancements trying to make the game harder.
[/ QUOTE ]
(This is possibly untrue as it is entirely possible that you would do just that. I mean I don't know you from adam and as this is not black and white stuff we are discussing but rather opionated player styles and changes.
Also your second post I happen to agree on (regarding the enhansement changes.) This is a all encompasing change that is likely long in the coming as the Perma powers where till the last patch.)
[ QUOTE ]
Okay enough defending my credibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Agreed in truth I was never in doubt of your credibility. Just your reasoning and logic behind your propsed changes.
as I even agree on alot of your posts plus you've been around longer I just happen to disagree on this one and still do.)
[ QUOTE ]
You want to agree to disagree on alot of points without actually debating on them fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Your want to percive it that way so you feel better is also fine.
I have very much backed up my posts you choose not to agree to my backing statments or to ignore them and that's fine too, but claiming that you somehow did more or used a differant tact to defend your own points is just as flawed in my eyes. You used opinions and misdirections to my responses and to state otherwise is flat out poppycock. Show me facts from your previous posts actual facts not opinions Concern.)
[ QUOTE ]
Lets see if we can take issues one at a time and find out what is so unbalancing about each one.
[/ QUOTE ]
(sure thing.)
[ QUOTE ]
No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay so you are against all ranged 32 nukes.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Ok Concern heres a classic case of misdirection at hand Here you take a part of my quote and weakly attempt to manipulate it. If you honestly thought that the paragraph above somehow meant I was against all AOE attacks on blasters even after I told you I liked them on electric blasters then I got nothing for ya. Your either wrong or daft or both.)
[ QUOTE ]
However you don't say why it is unbalanced. You simply say that it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Ok here you are right I don't say why HERE and do you know why that is? It's because I have already done so in the last 4 posts and you ignored it no need to repeate the same argument aside from saying we diagree on this.)
[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand why I am saying that you are not making a case?
[/ QUOTE ]
(No And I have made my case go back and reread it if you want since you ignored it the first time.
Also My case can be easily supported with simple logic actually just with the #'s if you think about it you propose 9 some changes as a start and I propose 2 that would balance the AT in my eyes.
The math is gonna likely swing in my favour here bud as most often 9 changes are going to equvialiate toomore then the sum of 2. So theres a new take on it for you.)
[ QUOTE ]
You said previously:
[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
Nah I am fine with thunder Blast man if you want that play electric, its one of the things that adds flavor for electric blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this ranged 32 nuke okaybut the rest are not? What makes this nuke balanced? Is there some compromise you are looking for? Is there a compromise that comes along with this nuke? Does it do less damage? Does it have a smaller AoE? Please explain why you think that ranged nukes are unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Good question,
Well for my part and playstyle its ok because it promotes variance in the Archytypes. Being a blaster yourself you likely know that electric's secondarys are oft considered underpowered and these guys are rarer then say and ENG or Fire Blaster even with thier AOE nuke from afar. Also Unlike you I dont want all blasters to play and act the same or have a god mode.)
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, One thing that really peeved me is in regards to your comment about having ranged manipulation powers
Explain to me how being able to summon and drop Hot Feet takes out more risk than an agro management pet. You have absolutely no concept of how overpowering your idea is.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is what I said.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Feeling is mutual other than pointing out that your post didnt mention only hot feet but many more powers in this change I need not further clarify myself to you as you will miss or igore it most likely anyhow.)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is your response. You notice that you have not given any reason why any of the manipulation powers being ranged will be unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Acutally I did give a reason in previous posts and if you want to know that badly go back and really read em this time. Suffice to say that this change alone wouldn't bother me really it's when its coupled with all the others. Not trying to peeve you but if you take it that way thats your call, we have very differing viewpoints that much is obvious.)
[ QUOTE ]
What you have said is that they are unbalanced in your opinion with no supporting arguements.
[/ QUOTE ]
(See above you have seen and ignored my arguments quit claiming there where none its folly.)
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I am totally aware that I included more than just Hot Feet.
[/ QUOTE ]
(I figured as much you just seem to like quoting bits of things that folks can take out of context to solidify your arguments but when the whole of them are presented as you originally laid themout. Then they are filled with holes like a slice O swiss cheese. Hey don't blame me for the weakness your own arguments ok.)
[ QUOTE ]
I was merely giving you an example as to what I was talking about considering that you may have misinterpreted it.
[/ QUOTE ]
(No you where only qouting a section of your own idea so as to lend more creedence to your current defensive argument in truth but its ok I am on to your tatics.)
[ QUOTE ]
So I give you a power to work with and instead of showing how it is unbalanced you come back and say "Ha! Your only useing one power as an example and your idea includes more than that and that is why it is unbalanced." Try again.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Que? why would I try again looks like you got the point finally. So I got what I was looking for.
The reason for that response was to show you that I knew your tactics but that you could not disprove your own original words from your own posts.
You can't just take a part of your post and cut it out of context and say its ok now this is what I really meant guys please don't look back at my original idea anymore, unless you flat out state you've changed your postion.
Something you have not done. You still claim to want all these changes and that the combination of getting all these changes would be a "START" to fixing the blaster archtype.
Look thats a argument you just can't win and I would wager frankly isn't gonna happen.)
[ QUOTE ]
(The agruments are all there for you in black and white this is matter of opinion on both sides and we are not like to agree on it is all.)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The arguements are like the ones above, opinions and not arguements.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Who died and made you the lord of what constitues an argument? I got news for you opinions can by definiton indeed be the whole some of arguments and in this case on both your side and mine indeed are with the small additon of personal experiances we've both had in game.)
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to say in your opinion something is not balanced that is fine. If you make a flat declaritive statement then please back it up with some nice supporting arguements.
[/ QUOTE ]
(Look man I did... alright? Like I said you don't really appear to understand what you read in them anyhow.)
(Now if you'd like to take this to pm's to aviod hijacking your thread any longer thats ok with me as this is damaging to your thread at this point and I had no intent of playing this much badmittion with you when I made my intial post and apologize to the folks who could careless for either of our ideas. Otherwise we agree to disagree and let things go. Tranth)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
blasters don't have to reposition themselves?
you're smoking the good [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
He's not arguing that as an absolute. Rather, he's saying that Blasters don't have to meticulously position himself because of a small range (PBAoE compared to the larger AoE of a Blaster target AoE attack, 5ft cone range compared to 40ft cone range)
He is also saying Blasters don't have to move around as much to acquire, and fire on, new targets.
[/ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are wrong. So a scrapper has to switch targets, hit Follow, and suddenly he's in range. Big deal. I weep for you.
You refer to AoE attacks. Have you actually used cone AoEs? In a perfect world, all the mobs would stay in one nice clump where they can all be easily mowed down by Full Auto. But it isn't like that. Past the initial attack (and sometimes even on the initial attack) a blaster has to constantly reposition (hopefully they have SS!). Otherwise, they risk wasting endurance, drawing too much aggro while they're immobilized, hitting mobs in the group behind the group they're targeting, etc.
An AoE blaster has to constantly worry about range, angle, timing, etc. to make sure that they only hit what they mean to hit and that they do hit all that they want to -- all while trying to avoid mobs that can easily mez them and kill them.
Scrappers have no harder of a time positioning and repositioning than Blasters do.
Doubly so for energy. Add "extra repositioning to compensate or allow for knockback to not scatter everything", and I'd have to say us blasters reposition just as much, if not sometimes more [repositioning != "tab+follow", its actual moving around to get to the right spot] than scrappers.
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers have no harder of a time positioning and repositioning than Blasters do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually...
If you have a blaster and a scrapper on the same team, the scrapper's need to move typically means wasting attacks on corpses because the blaster can and does rapidly shift targets and deal out a lot of high-damage fast-animation attacks. Yes, AR is an exception to that, but you guys are not the victims in every possible scenario that can be devised.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the damage is our problem. We do plunty of damage. The problem is the No Defence, No Resistance, less health, No mez Protection for Scrapper amount of damage. Give us a little resistance, a little Defence, a little mez protection and you have balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I'll differ just a little bit here. 
Our problem is that we can't sustain an attack chain at range. And AoE's are a poor way of sustaining a single target attack chain. Even with Perma Hasten and a single target-specific set like Energy I still have pauses between Power Bolt, Blast and Burst.
For me to have a steady attack chain, I have to stop being a ranged specialist and add in melee attacks.
I think that's something the Devs can address.
I honestly don't believe the Devs are going to give us any actual defense or status protection anywhere in our sets. That's a problem we're going to have to live with. Statesman even said the protection in Burn was an oversight, and that was iffy at best. I think the APP's is the best we're going to get in that regards. They want this to be a team-centric game and I'd be highly surprised if they shifted focus like that.
[ QUOTE ]
and as someone who relies on a cone pbaoe combo I disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a lvl 45 MA scrapper too, and you're welcome to disagree. Doesn't bother me in the least.
[ QUOTE ]
besides. scrappers move to engage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. And Blasters don't have to move nearly as often as scrappers for positioning.
[ QUOTE ]
blasters move to save their damned lives.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a separate issue. Blasters have to move less to position themselves, need to close distance less often. Let's keep the "Blaster has no Defense" issue out of the "Who does more closing in and positioning" discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
At worst the scrapper has to chase his foe.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what's the problem recognizing that Scrappers have to position themselves more than Blasters? Dragon's Tail, Spin, Whirling Sword have less radius than target AoE attacks like Fire Blast and Ball Lightning. Melee cones like Shadow Maul, Slice and Eviscerate don't compare to Flamethrower, Fire Breath, Frost Breath and Energy Torrent.
Tell me Heph, what is more effective for taking out a group? Fire Breath and Fireball, or Dragon's Tail?
[ QUOTE ]
With the blaster enviromental control and awareness are paramount. one mistake and you're pushing up more flowers than an FTD gift shop.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, and that's a separate issue. But it's incorrect for anyone to claim that scrappers don't have to spend more time positioning, closing in, and chasing mobs than Blasters do. This is an arguement about damage, not damage vs defense. Clearly Blasters have an advantage by having AoE's and cones with much larger range and area of effect. Blasters don't have to move around as much to acquire, and fire on, new targets because of this.
Going back to your pet idea, have you ever seen how phantom army is used against the Psychic clock king? They throw them out on the opposite side to draw the Kings initial Alpha strike away from the group then the rest of the group goes in and tackles the king. Same tactic is used on alot of the psychic mobs by players because there are no defenses against psychic other than regen and SR.
So the blaster is in a similar position all the time. He is facing mobs that he has no defense against. How is he going to use this pet I wonder? Considering that a blaster that unleashes his AoE can kill a mob in a few seconds (usually no longer than 10 seconds from personal experience) and that mob attacks typicaly recharge in 8 seconds or higher unless they are brawl attacks it is reasonable to assume that after the alpha strike has landed on the poor hapless pet that the blaster can clean up with almost no fear of reprisal.
This is a supporting arguement why your pet idea is over powered. The pet idea alone. Do you understand what I am talking about when I say a supporting arguement? I made this same case earlier but you claimed that I did not support my arguements which is clearly false.
[ QUOTE ]
No And I have made my case go back and reread it if you want since you ignored it the first time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay lets go back and see just what kind of case you make.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the first response that I see to my ideas and it includes a flat declaritive statement that in your opinion it would be "uber". Why you think it would be "uber" you don't say just that all those ideas would be "uber" as if just saying it makes it true. No past experience refrenced and no scenario or example given. Just a flat statement as though it were truth.
Now in your second response you respond to my request to range in our primaries with this little nugget of a response. Which I address in a later post but will do so here again.
[ QUOTE ]
(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 ]
Okay Statesman said that he was not going to remove melee attacks from the secondaries and that was all. He said nothing in regards to our primaries. In fact our role has been changed from damage to range. This would imply that our primary should be ranged attacks however you seem to be confused about the issue.
You then come back and basically sum up your responses after talking about your pet with [ QUOTE ]
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.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Again you have this flat declaritive statement with no supporting arguement. You don't give any examples why having all the changes are bad you simply say that they are. You don't refrence past experience in any way for that matter indicating how such a change would unbalance the AT in regards to the mobs that they face. You rely on this as a fact in and of itself instead of simply seeing it as an opinion and useing facts to support it. Much like your comment about the devs disagreeing with me. A statement that had no factual support. Just an opinion.
Now in your next post rather than attack the idea you attack a statement I made about damage and misdirect the arguement into a playground of your choosing.
However, when it comes down to the idea of giving the PbAoE status effects range and making them either targetable toggles or Summon Drops you come back with this:
[ 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 ]
How this applies to the PbAoE in the secondary I have no idea but you seem to think that it does. Are you begining to see why I am saying that you are not supporting your arguements? I mean you come back with this to counter ranged hot feet or ranged lightning field in the secondaries? A single pet cannot kill so fast, what the hell are you talking about? This was taken completely in context. Is this one of the arguements you refer to later?
Again later you show your complete misunderstanding of reality.
[ 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.)
Yes all those melee attacks. Those melee attacks have nothing to do with the PbAoE status effects and toggles that I am talking about. They also have nothing to do with the primaries. I really don't think you have understood what you have read. At least this is what it seems like from what you are posting.
After this post you continue to go into whether or not I add damage to the blaster set as you seem dead set on proving that in a way you were right and end up proving that both of us were right depending on how you looked at it. You begin once again making declartive statements with no supporting arguements. You simply seem to assume that something is obvious. [ QUOTE ]
(No I am saying that if all 32 nukes where ranged aoe's that would be far more unbalancing to the set then my Ideas.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously you did not actually look at the idea. You would have noticed that the idea did not call for ranged level 32 nukes. Glossing over that I will just point out that this was the entire arguement against them. Just an opinion. When I ask you to support your opinion you say that you have except that as I go back and look all I see is flat statements with no examples or for that matter any supporting sentences much less facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Finally we end with this lovely post.
[ QUOTE ]
I have very much backed up my posts you choose not to agree to my backing statments or to ignore them and that's fine too, but claiming that you somehow did more or used a differant tact to defend your own points is just as flawed in my eyes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I went back and looked. You don't have any supporting arguements other than your opinion. You have not even tried to set up a scenario or an example that shows why your opinion is correct which is something that I have done. The one time that you did try to set up an example it was about lobbing some AoE around a corner (Something that blasters do already) and that would somehow unbalance blasters. I am not sure if that qualifies as a scenario as it was evident that you were not looking at what the suggestion suggested. I mean anyone that thinks that lobbing Lightning field or Chilling embrace around a corner is going to do anything other than piss alot of mobs off clearly has no concept of balance. Especially when they are comparing that to the concept of a disposable pet.
[ QUOTE ]
You, sir, are wrong. So a scrapper has to switch targets, hit Follow, and suddenly he's in range. Big deal. I weep for you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I am just stating facts, not getting emotional. I think you instigating flames doesn't do anything for your arguements. The key thing is, you don't deny that a scrapper has to close range to attack targets. How can you say that is wrong when you agree to it?
[ QUOTE ]
You refer to AoE attacks. Have you actually used cone AoEs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Another classic Appeal to Authority question. We must be having a special this week on pithy comments. Bill O'Reilly would be proud. 
[ QUOTE ]
In a perfect world, all the mobs would stay in one nice clump where they can all be easily mowed down by Full Auto.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure but Full Auto is still going to do much more damage over a greater area than Shadow Maul. Either that's right or wrong. What is it? I expect you to support my claim with your answer, too, followed by a statement that trivializes Full Auto.
The bottom line is that Blaster cones cover a much larger area than melee cones. For Scrappers to get that level of effectiveness they need all the mobs around them for the PBAoE's like Dragon's Tail, or stack all the mobs in front of them for cones like Shadow Maul, Slice, etc. You can't sit here and tell me I'm wrong but a) back up my point on one area then b) sidestep it in another.
[ QUOTE ]
Past the initial attack (and sometimes even on the initial attack) a blaster has to constantly reposition (hopefully they have SS!). Otherwise, they risk wasting endurance, drawing too much aggro while they're immobilized, hitting mobs in the group behind the group they're targeting, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if the mobs scatter a little bit, the much larger area effect attacks still require the Blaster to reposition themselves less. I think that issue has some legs with regards to knockback AoE's like Energy Torrent and Explosive Blast. But even then a scrapper would have to run about far more often in order to attack those scattered mobs than a Blaster would, or try to herd them up to fit in his melee cones and PBAoE's.
This is a simple issue of math. The square footage of Blaster AoE's is dramatically greater than the melee AoE's. The distance of 80ft is much greater than the distance of 5ft. The advantage of instantly switching the targets and not needing to closing in (an arguement you ceded) is still there even if you trivialize it. That's all I am saying. Decrying simple facts just because you don't think they are that important to you doesn't make those facts go away. Don't tell me I'm wrong and then cede or acquiesce to what I've said.
[ QUOTE ]
An AoE blaster has to constantly worry about range, angle, timing, etc. to make sure that they only hit what they mean to hit and that they do hit all that they want to -- all while trying to avoid mobs that can easily mez them and kill them.
[/ QUOTE ]
None of that counters the argument that Blasters are much more effective at damaging large areas than scrappers. None of that counters the arguement that Blasters have to close range much less often. All that does is argue that there are times when Blasters are going to be in unsafe situations where they can't always use their AoE attacks.
The whole point of AoE's is to hit as many groups as possible with them to do more damage. Blasters have alot less to worry about with range, angle, and timing than scrappers do because their AoE's have much greater area and range. If a Blaster is trying to blast with no control or aggro management from the team, then he better defeat those mobs with his attacks.
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers have no harder of a time positioning and repositioning than Blasters do.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would have helped you so much to not drop a bombshell in your own arguement.
[ QUOTE ]
Doubly so for energy. Add "extra repositioning to compensate or allow for knockback to not scatter everything", and I'd have to say us blasters reposition just as much, if not sometimes more [repositioning != "tab+follow", its actual moving around to get to the right spot] than scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay now have a Scrapper chase down all those mobs blown about by Energy Torrent and Explosive Blast.
See the difference?
there's no comparison RR. Dragon's tail, why? it's being used by a hero who can deal it with damn little risk son.
And you might want to ask some other scrapper. Mine has invincibility. I can get a whole rooms attention and deal out my one pbaoe with impunity.
[ QUOTE ]
Tell me Heph, what is more effective for taking out a group? Fire Breath and Fireball, or Dragon's Tail?
[/ QUOTE ]
Spine burst, throw spines, ripper, and quills?
Combustion, breath of fire, and fire sword circle?
Compare apples to apples here, when you compare the AOE sets AR and fire are a bit ahead of spines and fire melee, but not much, and the latter two have an order of magnitude better ability to deal with return fire.
If you're going to compare non-aoe focused sets, I don't think you'll find much arguement that even claws, broadsword, and katana can pretty much wipe the floor with elec, ice, or energy in effective pre-nuke aoe damage.
I don't think you get it, yet. The arguement is that Blasters have to position themselves less than Scrappers do in combat. Blasters have to run around less to attack new mobs, or runners.
I'm asking you guys to disprove that. What you are doing is saying, I'm wrong, but the reason why I am wrong is because of defense. That's a totally separate issue.
[ QUOTE ]
there's no comparison RR. Dragon's tail, why? it's being used by a hero who can deal it with damn little risk son.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can always tell when you're on edge. 
Son.
Anyhow, you're still evading the point that Blasters do more damage across much larger areas with their attacks. Bringing up defense is a red herring. Either Dragon's Tails is a more damaging attack or it isn't. It's not. Either Power Blast has greater range than Storm Kick, or it doesn't. Either Full Auto has a greater range than Shadow Maul or it doesn't.
[ QUOTE ]
And you might want to ask some other scrapper
[/ QUOTE ]
You'll do wonderfully for me. Fireball alone does more damage than Dragon's Tail, and covers a wider area. Add Fire Breath to that, and Dragon's Tail can't compare. When I ask you which does more damage, you can't sit here and argue Dragon's Tail does, and expect anyone to believe you.
[ QUOTE ]
Mine has invincibility. I can get a whole rooms attention and deal out my one pbaoe with impunity.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, and a Blaster will be done with it in 3 seconds with Inferno, and move on, and you'll still be there for a minute or more spin-kicking.
I, for one, think it's funny that arguements on what is a more powerful attack, are being deflected by arguements by "well Scrappers have more defenses."
I'm not evading jack.
I Just think you guys are nuts. know what my scrapper does in combat? wraps mobs around him like a security blanket and stands in one place going toe to toe with anything dumb enough to step up and get beat down.
My blaster is flitting about like he's on crack..... 2 attacks... fireball and fire breath... then it's time to make like someone put jumping beans in my pants to deal with the survivors. I'm I'm standing still it's on a bonfire patch that I layed before starting the attack. My scrapper isn't repositioning. he's standing there while I dole out pain. If he's jumping it's because something flew away. and what flew away had better be a sapper because otherwise it's not important enough to go after.
[ QUOTE ]
Spine burst, throw spines, ripper, and quills? ombustion, breath of fire, and fire sword circle? Compare apples to apples here, when you compare the AOE sets AR and fire are a bit ahead of spines and fire melee, but not much, and the latter two have an order of magnitude better ability to deal with return fire.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, and that's not what I am arguing. I am merely explaining that Blasters have longer range and much larger areas of effect than Scrappers do, which show how Blasters don't have to run around positioning themselves to get all the mobs in a short little cone or PBAoE.
I'm not arguing who has better defenses. But instead of others refuting my points about range and AoE radius, the issue is deflected to "well scrappers have better defense."
Seriously, tell me something I don't know.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to compare non-aoe focused sets, I don't think you'll find much arguement that even claws, broadsword, and katana can pretty much wipe the floor with elec, ice, or energy in effective pre-nuke aoe damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
In a tight area, where all the mobs are herded into the 5-melee range of influence that scrappers have, yes those sets will compare well, and certainly Scrappers will do better with their defense than a Blaster would surrounded by those mobs.
That's a totally separate arguement. I think it's silly to tell me I am wrong on something, and the counter arguements have nothing to do with disproving Blaster attacks have much greater range and area than Scrapper attacks.
Defense is a red herring in this issue of range and positioning.
blasters don't have to reposition themselves?
you're smoking the good [censored].