[ QUOTE ]
Of course. My fire tank runs around with SJ on (forgot to switch over to CJ), and it takes awhile before I even stop and realize *hey these are taking too long to die.*
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt really hurt fire tanks much because burn accuracy isnt affected by this change.
Statesman said:
[ QUOTE ]
Thought I'd post a further explanation about the Blaster damage explanation in "Ask Statesman."
That was - and is - the reason why Blaster damage is capped lower than Scrappers. I did forget to add that the ranged attacks of mobs deal less damage (typically) than melee attacks - and the Blaster is generally the target of raned attacks.
But many issues have come up - most notably, the perception that Blasters are too fragile at levels 35+. Their damage potential does not compensate for their low hit points.
And, of course, there's the complaint that some Secondaries have too many melee attacks - something that the Blaster avoids at all costs.
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 ]
Blasters do not have a range advantage.
Blasters do not have a range advantage.
Blasters do not have a range advantage.
There are several reasons for this:
- [*]Ranged attacks do less damage, but they hit just as often. (The chance to get hit doesn't go down with range.)[*]Many mez attacks are ranged.[*]Power Pool defenses aside from damage resistance do not mitigate ranged AoE damage.[*]Melee attacks require enemies to take time to move next to you in order to work. Enemy ranged attacks go off instantly.[*]Aggro makes all enemies instantly fire a ranged attack. Enemy mezzers make this an instant-death scenario if it wasn't before.[*]Firing ranged attacks locks you into position, giving enemies time to run up to you and use their more damaging melee attacks unless you can use Hover to advantage.[*]My energy/energy blaster (a "single-target" blaster) has only one single-target attack with a range of 80 feet that does decent damage (Medium) at a decent firing rate (8 second recharge). (Snipe does more, further, but is very slow; the minor damage attack is fast, but the damage is VERY minor, not worth slotting, and certainly not with only a 400% damage cap; Torrent doesn't have the range; Explosive blast has the range, but is AoE and weak on damage; Power Burst has good damage and rate, but has only 20 ft range; Nove has a very, very lowrate and is PBAoE; all secondary damage powers are melee). This means that in a team, as a "ranged blaster" I have one and only one decent-damage attack that doesn't generate tons of aggro and/or doesn't force me very close or into melee range. [*]The corrolary is that if I am in melee range, I have ALL of my attacks available, giving me a very fast firing rate, but with no defense other than knockback, the occasional bonecrusher stun, or the slow-but-reliable Total Focus.[/list]
Now, let me say for the record that I -do- enjoy having the melee attacks, and they are often worth the risk of melee, especially as a solo blaster, though they are useless in a team environment PvE where the enemy mostly fires AoEs. "Blapping" can be a fun part of the game and I would not want to see it removed.
The problem comes in with respect to the mental picture of the blaster archetype, flying around, avoiding melee, using power blasts to defeat enemies quickly. Blasters don't defeat enemies quickly at range, with the exception of the AoE-oriented power sets, and that's only because enough AoE attacks with enough buffs defeats large numbers quickly so long as the aggro doesn't kill the blaster.
Personally, I find Nova useless. I use it on occasion, just cuz. Against groups without bosses, it's nice to just take 'em down in one shot. However, it isn't fun because it is infrequent, very brief, leaves me crippled, and doesn't even work well as a panic-button. I would much prefer a very-high-damage single-shot power, not unlike snipe, but faster and without interruption, and perhaps with a high-magnitude effect of some type (knockback, disorient), perhaps kind of a ranged Total Focus.
To make blasters more range-oriented, they need more single-target ranged attacks or more damage on the couple of AoEs in those sets that don't focus on AoE. In the energy set, for example, giving Power Push more damage (Medium at least), and/or replacing Nova with a faster high-damage single-target power would help immensely.
Further, if range is supposed to be a defense, then the most "realistic" way to do that is to give all ranged attacks (with a few exceptions) a -20% ACC debuff (or corresponding buff on defense), AND counter it on blasters (only) by giving them +20% on their ranged attacks. Obviously this would require some tweaking/adjustment, and I don't intend 20% as a hard number, but just as a basic concept. This would truly give a good defensive advantage to range that corresponds both with reality and pencil-and-paper RPGs.
[ QUOTE ]
This would truly give a good defensive advantage to range that corresponds both with reality and pencil-and-paper RPGs.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I understand correctly:
- [*]Ranged Hero shoots a group of villains and ducks behind cover to avoid the counterattack.[*]Most villains immediately reciprocate with a ranged attack of some sort. Others may charge, if they're close enough.[*]The outcome of all villain ranged attacks are decided before the attack animation even begins.[*]Ranged Hero is shot/mezzed/etc. from behind cover, as (s)he simply cannot duck for cover quickly enough due to the combat system.[/list]
The way attacks are exchanged in CoH, using their excellent lag-skirting anticipatory AI, prevents blasters (et alia) from accomplishing what seems realistic: shooting from cover. It's likely a necessary evil to promote good gameplay.
What would assist game realism as well as accomplish the previous poster's goals is some combat element like:
"Base Accuracy is decreased in direct proportion to the amount of damage an attacker currently has."
This would simulate the shock/pain/annoyance of injury one would expect. It would enable blasters to have a form of defense against the mass retaliation from their AoEs.
I mean, if someone threw a grenade in a room full of me and my buddies, I doubt we'd have the immediate presence of mind to whip out pistols and fire back... much LESS be very accurate while doing so. If someone shot me with a sniper rifle, I doubt I'd be able to locate the attacker successfully nor return fire as if I were unhurt. The mobs in CoH have no problem with such things, even the lowly thugs.
Some attacks include forcing the mob to reel for a moment, and that's great. It's just not really enough.
Here's the scary part: it should probably work both ways. If a hero is hurt, he/she/it should likely take an -Acc. This isn't really a big deal as we have the capacity to instantly heal ourselves (green insps) or increase our accuracy (yellow insps).
Additionally, this would give us reason to slot more than one (or sometimes two) Accuracy enhancements if we so chose.
This would apply to all ATs, not just blasters, of course. There would be other details to consider like what happens to the Accuracy of MoG scrappers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would truly give a good defensive advantage to range that corresponds both with reality and pencil-and-paper RPGs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The way attacks are exchanged in CoH, using their excellent lag-skirting anticipatory AI, prevents blasters (et alia) from accomplishing what seems realistic: shooting from cover. It's likely a necessary evil to promote good gameplay.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that, according to Statesman, ranged attacks are supposed to be less effective than melee attacks because they do less damage. However, as foes go up in level, their increased damage counters this decrease. Eventually, a break even point is reached where the difference in survival time at range is so small as to be effectively the same as melee. (This is complicated by the fact that the enemy damage must also scale to compensate for increasing hero defenses)
As Bunny_Man suggested, if ranged attacks were less ACCURATE than melee attacks, there would be no problem. The additional damage would not counter the lower accuracy, and so although you would likely take a great deal of damage if you WERE hit (like an SR Scrapper) your survival time would be significantly greater, for the remainder of the time. You would still be at considerably more risk than you were at lower level, but at least there would still be a reason to avoid melee.
Your idea about cover is an interesting one, and reveals something about RPGs. You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to fire a shot and then duck behind cover. That's an FPS tactic, and has no place in an RPG, where to hit is based entirely on random number generation. The devs obviously made the chance to hit independent of position, because of the very likely possibility that lag would change your position, but also because of that rule that you, as the player, can't "dodge" an attack by moving your character.
Your CHARACTER, however, is perfectly capable of defending HIMSELF, and dodging in order to avoid a shot. And while you can't move in and out of range to allow yourself to attack and then avoid a counter attack, Tankers and Scrappers do have to be in melee range in order to MAKE an attack, even though it doesn't effect their chance to hit. So while you, as the player, can't make use of terrain and range, your character should be able to, even WITHOUT your specifically taking action. (For instance, a Super Reflexes Scrapper will dodge attacks directed at him, even though you don't physically move the character to dodge the blows)
So there is no reason why "cover" can't be a reason for a Blaster to reduce the CHANCE that he is hit. No Blaster-like character, in fact, would NOT use the terrain to his advantage, and hide behind cover if there was any available. So the idea that a Blaster would just stand out there in the open, defenseless, and wait for his opponents to shoot him is not realistic.
I don't think the idea about reducing accuracy due to damage taken is quite as good. For one thing, we're not talking about reality here, we are talking about the movies, and heroic figures rarely are significantly weakened by being hurt. In fact, they usually maintain their full strength and skill until the moment they drop. Villains aren't heroic figures, of course, but seriously, even if there was a loss of accuracy, it wouldn't be much. Again, you aren't just going to stand there out in the open and be a target, because you think a few burns or gunshot wounds are going to stop your opponent from shooting back at you.
Cover is an excellent way of thinking of a form of dodging that works ONLY at range. Tankers and Scrappers can't really use cover, because if they want to attack, they have to close. (They can use cover if they want to hide and NOT attack... sort of like what Elude used to be. But that's not very handy in a gameplay situation, you can just as easily duck out of LOS) Likewise, if a Tanker or Scrapper comes at you, you can't hide under cover, you'll probably be found. So you just want to stay out of range.
One idea I did have, some time ago, is the idea of "partial cover", where if you can put like a desk between yourself and your foe (or even just stand near it) you get a 50% or so chance to dodge ranged attacks. This would basically be a bonus to Defense. It's too dependent on the environment, though, to be truly RPG-oriented, it should either be a Power, or just an ability innate to the character.
Of course, once variation of your "accuracy is proportional to HP" idea is that whenever a foe is hit, you get a chance to dodge his ranged attacks. After all, you would fire a shot, then duck behind cover.
I think I would prefer a separate Power, though. For one thing, it would balance better with the other archetypes. And it's more in line with the RPG concept, that it's a skill of your character's, that can be developed.
[ QUOTE ]
As Bunny_Man suggested, if ranged attacks were less ACCURATE than melee attacks, there would be no problem. The additional damage would not counter the lower accuracy, and so although you would likely take a great deal of damage if you WERE hit (like an SR Scrapper) your survival time would be significantly greater, for the remainder of the time. You would still be at considerably more risk than you were at lower level, but at least there would still be a reason to avoid melee.
[/ QUOTE ]
When I was thinking about range, this was the obvious first thought. The problem with it is that a simple -acc on all ranged attacks effectively gives everyone ranged defense, not just blasters. The problem with that is that when it comes time for balancing, guess what's going to happen when the devs realize scrappers aren't taking enough ranged damage. Ranged damage will go up, or villains will start getting accuracy bonuses.
Making the -acc a flat penalty out beyond a certain range was the next thought, but then the problem with that was that since a lot of blaster attacks have short range, blasters would often be forced to close to within the range where the accuracy penalty disappeared, and blasters couldn't regain the advantage easily by slotting for range, because range enhancers are fairly weak.
Next stop: accuracy penalty based on the maximum range of the attack. When anyone with a ranged attack fires, their accuracy is based on how much of maximum range they are using for that attack. Long range attacks are penalized less than short range attacks, blasters can choose their arsenal, and range slotting might actually help more.
Its not a perfect solution; there are some valid criticisms involving balancing blaster net damage output against scrappers and tanks, but it does seem to work for the one-dimensional issue of allowing blasters to benefit from being at range. If such an accuracy penalty was put into place and blasters started to appear unbalanced relative to scrappers and tanks, boosting blaster range overall or adding small accuracy bonuses to blaster attacks would balance them again.
This time, the ranged accuracy penalty wouldn't help melee as much as blasters, because villains can easily close to inside the accuracy penalty range, while still being outside melee range; the AI would just have to be adjusted to make the villains want to do that.
[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 ]
When I was thinking about range, this was the obvious first thought. The problem with it is that a simple -acc on all ranged attacks effectively gives everyone ranged defense, not just blasters. The problem with that is that when it comes time for balancing, guess what's going to happen when the devs realize scrappers aren't taking enough ranged damage. Ranged damage will go up, or villains will start getting accuracy bonuses.
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point, Scrappers are mini-gods of death and destruction as it is, might as well just give them something if it benefits us more.
As it stands this will change nothing really for them but the run up is less harsh, and it was pretty mild as it is anyway, at some point the devs will actually go "oh look, Scrappers are just safer then blasters, period." and give us the 500% damage cap, or lower Scrapper's damage cap to 400.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I was thinking about range, this was the obvious first thought. The problem with it is that a simple -acc on all ranged attacks effectively gives everyone ranged defense, not just blasters. The problem with that is that when it comes time for balancing, guess what's going to happen when the devs realize scrappers aren't taking enough ranged damage. Ranged damage will go up, or villains will start getting accuracy bonuses.
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point, Scrappers are mini-gods of death and destruction as it is, might as well just give them something if it benefits us more.
As it stands this will change nothing really for them but the run up is less harsh, and it was pretty mild as it is anyway, at some point the devs will actually go "oh look, Scrappers are just safer then blasters, period." and give us the 500% damage cap, or lower Scrapper's damage cap to 400.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the game is being balanced around scrappers, changing the game mechanics in any way that helps them identically to us is not a good thing. If it benefitted them less, that might be ok, but - even though scrappers can tolerate the attacks better than we can - a blanket nerf on villain ranged attacks will eventually cause the devs to boost range, accuracy, or ranged damage of villains to balance them around the scrapper pivot point. Blasters are always going to get the short end of the stick when things go up up up. Even if they buffed blaster damage to compensate we'd still be just as dead if ranged attacks became harder hitting.
[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.)
Well that's one of the ways my suggestion of lower-cap/higher-scaling (post20) would come in handy.
Scale blaster damage so that starting in the early 20's, when SO's become available, base damage quickly shoots up within 2-4 levels to roughly twice that of scrappers.
"You crazy? that's sick!"
Ah, but not if you drop the cap to, say, 200~250% ! That's right, in one simple fix give us a mild range-boost, mild defensive boost, slight accuracy boost and whatever else the player himself can think of, by simple virtue of not having to 5+1 (or 6 for /dev) damage/acc in every attack!
This means the average power needs two or three SO's in damage to reach full effect with buildup,etc. This means you have either better range/effects on your powers (offensive boost), and/or a few slots to spare to improve defenses, recovery, protection, etc etc etc...
The simple act of having more slots to spare means we get all those minor improvements we're wanting with just one fix. And you don't have to worry about 'secondary' effects of the fix (like how particular boosts in one aspect might lead to uber-builds if combined with some other powers) since that's what you're giving off as the actual 'buff', nice and controlled by slotting!
Damage doesn't really change [right now blaster attacks are all pretty much slotted for that 266.6~300%+BU/AIM setup to reach 400 reliably all the time] since 200% of 200 is the same as 400% of 100... just with less enhancement slots required to hit it.
Also makes teams more valuable to blasters [compensating for the increased death they bring us] thanks to improved effect of power-boost/fulcrum-shift, and even defensive powers [since def/res stack up...]
(one problem though; since temp.powers are based on base damage, that would mean once the scale-up kicks in they'd deal double damage. should be a way around this though...)
ok - there's no freakin way I can read all these replies so please forgive if this has been stated a million times before. I just want to make sure that I've added my voice to the chorus:
My main alt character (yes that sounds like an oxymoron) is an E/E blaster. Since my main character (Ill controller) has been nerfed by the PA bug, I switched over to my blaster... only to find she's been nerfed even worse. She no longer does as much damage, she can't hit with her travel power on, and she's hemoraging endurance like water through a sieve.
- [*]The *only* reason to play an eng/eng blaster is the damage ratio. It's not like we enjoy hearing the tanks/scrappers and occasional controllers bitz and moan about the knockback.
[*]And somehow we aren't squishy enough, now we have to miss 50% more or sacrifice the only "defense" we really have which is to run away??
[*]Here's what I haven't found: is Stamina just nerfed in general or have the end costs of my powers gone up? or both? This I can see being almost reasonable (in the late 20s it seemed like end reduce SO's were pretty much worthless after you had Stamina even minimally slotted), but in combination with the other two nerfs it's infuriating.
[/list]Please please tell me you are going to fix this guys. My poor blaster picked up a bubble+ of debt in one night. That's just ridiculous and certainly no fun to play.
=(
the problem with your reasoning Nova is that with a 250% cap, even if that was the same damage wise as our 400% cap, means that if we can hit it with straight enhancers, teaming would be even less of an option, as we couldn't get use out of defenders or controllers, and Build Up and Aim would be worthless if we could just two slot all our powers for ACC. And of coarse this would actually make /fire the worst blaster set, period, with Build up no longer needed and Consume not needed because you can spare a spot for end reducers.
I don't think that the devs can give us a self buff cap and a separate other people's buff cap either.
I keep stating that 40+ is not a defense, but no one listens. Here's a math assignment for you guys:
Statesman believes that range is a defense. He beleives this because ranged damage is often less than melee, and this is true. A single plasma bolt hurts less than a rikti sword, on paper. Providing you keep the enemy using ranged attacks somehow, you effectivley have damage resistance, since attacks against you are doing less damage, right?
Satesman wants AT's to be balanced, correct?
Well, here's what you do: Take any blaster and an inv scrapper. Keep track of how much damage you take as the blaster, mainly trying to keep enemies at a distance. Include melee damage you take as a result of getting mezzed from range and then getting a beatdown. Also note the average time/how many attacks it took to take down each enemy.
Now, take the same villain group, same mission, and do the same for a scrapper. Write down how long each minion took to kill, how many attacks. Write down how much damage the scrapper took. Don't use invincibility, only rely on dmg resistance.
My bet? That when you classify range as damage resitance, and then compare that damage resistance we get to a scrapper's mez protection and killing speed, there will be no contest: blasters will get left in the dust.
Therefore, Statesman would have to see that his range is a defense idea is utterly wrong, and the blasters need some sort of buff to compensate.
Though my interest in this subject is wanning like my current interest in the game (lag concerns and my god Guild Wars did Story missions right, the one in the Northern wall where you have to run for your life at the end is just insanely cool)
Shouldn't the devs be doing those tests, why hasn't statesman provided evidence for us that we take less damage at range then scrappers do in melee? Is he scared of being wrong again? Just look at these threads he and the other devs post, they open it, then look at it without being interactive, I've seen threads where Statesman replied multiple times, yet there are threads like these where he insults the player base then runs off to La-La Land, RI and hopes we go away.
I know Cuppa says they read these things and I know that it hurts their feelings when they read us dogging on them, but do they realise that it does the same to us when we feel ignored, and even worse when our year of playing and taking intimate knowledge of our power sets are simply assumptions on something being horribly imbalanced and just plain broken. I don't think that cuts it all, Statesman or whatever dev has tunnel visioned on Scrappers and Tankers and totally forgot the rest of us even exsist.
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't the devs be doing those tests, why hasn't statesman provided evidence for us that we take less damage at range then scrappers do in melee? I
[/ QUOTE ]
Well we do, if you look at it purely on paper: A rikti plasma bolt hurts way less than a rikti sword. A skull pistol shot hurts alot less than a skull axe swing.
This goes all out the window once the 40's roll aorund though, because of the oodles of ranged mezzes, which are deadlier than just ranged damage any day of the week. Not only that, but many enemies are simply as equally deadly at range as they are in melee. Gunslingers and Titans come to mind, as do almost every damned Nemesis enemy.
Statesman really sounds like a person who hasn't tried to play a blaster in a pickup group or solo beyond level 15.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, here's what you do: Take any blaster and an inv scrapper. Keep track of how much damage you take as the blaster, mainly trying to keep enemies at a distance. Include melee damage you take as a result of getting mezzed from range and then getting a beatdown. Also note the average time/how many attacks it took to take down each enemy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dammit, while I agree with you, the dev's don't. Heck, I even know why.
Look at it the way the Devs do: A Blaster will never get "mezzed" because they are getting buffed by a Defender. A Blaster will never take melee damage because a Tank is absorbing it all.... see a pattern?
The Dev's don't care about balancing a "Grouping" AT to match a "Solo" AT. Blasters are going to be compared with Controllers and Defenders for balancing, that's about it.
Currently playing:
Infaerna Who knew Fire/Fire Brutes were fun to play?
[ QUOTE ]
The Dev's don't care about balancing a "Grouping" AT to match a "Solo" AT. Blasters are going to be compared with Controllers and Defenders for balancing, that's about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's fine, except Controllers become a soloing AT post 32, and from what I hear defenders are pretty self reliant as well. So if what you're saying is true, then blasters are going to get a roughly one thousand percent buff.
The problem is that blasters combine an early controller's dependance on teams with a scrapper's role. You have to balance them both. In terms of what we're good at, what we're there for, we share the spotlight with scrappers. In terms of survivability, we share the infamy pile with early defenders.
That's why we're currently hanging on by a thread... our ONLY saving grace is we have AoE damage, and that's something no other AT can do on the scale we can.
You want a quick blaster fix States, one you don't even have to wait until the next issue to do? Alter the AT selection text to read "The blaster is the most team dependant AT in the game. Post 40, he is extremely weak and replaceable. Play at your own risk". There, problem solved. If you want a blaster's role to be anything other than that, you've got your work cut out for you.
Personally, I think it's ridiculousness to have a team dependant damage dealing class when you have a non-team dependant damage dealing class. The only way to truly fix blasters is to make them more solo-self reliant. Why only have one AT that can solo reasonably through all the levels? Scrappers could be "easy solo mode" and blasters could be "hard solo mode" not the "don't even try solo mode" that they are now.
I also think it's utter ludicrousness to have a damage dealing, hate generating class without mez protection in this game. Why in the world would you even PLAY blasters with knowing how prevalent mezzing is?
Well, way I see it is that A) buildup and Aim can easily be modified to either alter base damage to a lesser degree instead of enhancing it so as to give that bonus independant of the cap (but still reasonable).
This DOES mean we can still cap with the enhancements, and unfortunately some WILL do that. This does allow people to do this, potentially reducing the use of Buildup and Aim or team damage buffs.
On the other hand, Defenses stack. This means that while we're an offensive juggernaut with or without the team, we're safer in teams, where our mildly-higher-than-current defenses would be bolstered substantially by even fortitude or increase density!
At the same time, since you cap at 95% accuracy, if you REALLY want to cap out your ACC in there like that you can, sure... but one's usually enough for the 95%, and you can always pop aim/buildup for heavier enemies. Besides, don't some scrappers slot two Acc in their attacks?
You could, on the other hand, put in that extra range slot, and a recharge reducer with no loss of damage performance.
I'd stick with the drone and Aim, throwing recharge and/or range into my attacks instead of ACC in the now-superfluous 4th~6th damage slots. I could always blow aim or pop a red when I needed that last 20% or so...
Obviously my idea has a few holes that would need taking care of, since it does alter things quite a bit, but I don't think making fire MORE useless would be all that bad a thing... not if we're all trying to get the set completely reworked.
SUMMATION: The "Blaster Role" is feasible, but flawed due to how the AI responds to massive damage. Details follow.
~~~~~
When a blaster is solo, missions spawn very small groups. The blaster can alpha-strike and neutralize at least one mob immediately, and then clean up with minimal risk.
When a blaster teams with a defender, the defender can help with an alpha-strike and then concentrate on keeping the blaster alive during the mob-retaliation phase.
When a blaster teams with a controller, the controller can lock down/distract the mobs and let the blaster get off AoEs in relative safety.
When a blaster teams with a scrapper or tanker, the melee hero is charged with the duty of maintaining aggro while the blaster concentrates fire on the melee hero's target.
When two blasters team, they should concentrate fire so as to share aggro and expedite the neutralization of their target(s).
Blasters teaming with the ever-variable Kheldians resemble one of the above conditions and will likely have to use the same tactics.
~~~~~
What seems to kick blasters in the teeth the hardest is the retaliation phase of combat. The blaster shoots, the surviving mobs shoot back, then the blaster is forced to stop shooting and run. As previously mentioned, if a mob responds with a ranged mez then the blaster is likely about to get gangbanged.
Most blasters know better than to initiate combat with their AoEs (unless they're pretty sure it'll one-shot the mobs), and many will try to Aim+Buildup+Snipe a straggler villain that has strayed too far from the herd... so as to decrease the amount of retaliation when the real fight starts.
Many blasters, it seems, rely on Stealth more than Hover nowadays so they can minimize accidental "adds".... and Hover is very dangerous when you start having to worry about getting mezzed. It ain't fun to fall down into the middle of a bloodthirsty batch of baddies, especially after you've been shooting them.
~~~~~
All that being said, there are some powerset-specific differences.
Fire blasters are also the squishiest aggro magnets ever. I don't know about you guys, but the "Mutually Assured Destruction" factor makes me outright scared to use my powers unless there are two controllers on the team. :P
Ice blasters, in proper converse, have a lot of great retaliation-prevention mojo.
Electrical blasters are noteworthy only if they're specced out to be blastrollers (i.e.: endurance drainers). It takes a lot of effort and slots to make that happen, and even then you're trying a darn silly thing by jumping into the middle of group of hostiles.
Energy blasters have the double-edged sword of knockback. Yay, I smacked some of the baddies away from me! Boo, they're all scattered now! Yay, I do great damage! Boo, the melee guys hate me! Their L32 nuke is also the most questionable one to use, for similiar safety reasons as the endurance-drainer electrical guys above.
Rifle blasters are all over the place in their attack vectors, which means they need to position themselves.... all over the place. I swear I feel like a yo-yo while my shots recycle: long snipe, close cone, long single-target, medium single-target.... ugh. Then there's the fact that some of the attacks have knockback, and some don't. I get more gripes from the melee folks when playing Rifle than when I was playing Energy, and I don't blame them.
~~~~~
So what am I getting at with all of this "We KNOW this stuff already" blather?
Well, I hope that I'm demonstrating to the devs that the life of a blaster is a hard one. I'm also hoping that they'll see that most of the secondary powers have very little use during actual gameplay.
Sure, sure, there are some "blappers" that will disagree. It's great that some blaster builds can support melee combat, but we all know that it's a long walk to get there without swimming in debt.
SUGGESTION: Allow damage taken to induce a degree of "shock and awe" in targets.
I mean, some guy just ran up and exploded at a bunch of thugs. Why are those thugs calmly pulling out their pistols and firing back, typically unfazed by this?
It's true that the AI will cause mobs to "chicken out" when most of their friends just fell over dead in a short space of time. That's great. It's also true that some attacks (Electrical blasts come to mind) have a chance to faze a mob for a brief moment.
Note that the mob's allies need to actually die before anyone gets scared. They seem to be perfectly okay with everyone going from full health to green-sliver the space of one heartbeat, but it takes villains hitting the floor before anyone starts to worry.
Heroes, bless it, has the same problem that tabletop games like D&D tend to have: It doesn't matter how damaged people are, they usually operate at 100% combat effectiveness until they're dead.
.... So it seems to make sense that the "special AT advantage" of blasters (other than the necessary cheaper attack costs) could be a higher chance of causing the targets to flee after soaking up a massive hit.
I mean, if some dude nearly one-shotted me, I'd be running like hell if I could.
Alternately (or in combination), everyone could start to suffer accuracy penalities based on their current health bar. I already mentioned this earlier in the thread, so I won't go over it again here.
~~~~~
Man, that was fun typing all of this in a little five-line entry window. 
That's pretty well written.
The safest I've felt facing ANYTHING is when that snipe opener causes that freak-tank to start RUNNING AWAY. This really only happens with them though, but considering I don't really mind all the 'scattering' (the only advantage of range over melee currently is not-having to tap the 'follow' key), I'd love to see things start to panic when I snipe them [from a measly 150ft... our sniper BB guns seem to go well with villains that can't seem to break a parking-meter if given an hour and cyber-upgrades], rather than turn around and frag me like a clay-pigeon...
[ QUOTE ]
Well that's one of the ways my suggestion of lower-cap/higher-scaling (post20) would come in handy.
Scale blaster damage so that starting in the early 20's, when SO's become available, base damage quickly shoots up within 2-4 levels to roughly twice that of scrappers.
"You crazy? that's sick!"
Ah, but not if you drop the cap to, say, 200~250% ! That's right, in one simple fix give us a mild range-boost, mild defensive boost, slight accuracy boost and whatever else the player himself can think of, by simple virtue of not having to 5+1 (or 6 for /dev) damage/acc in every attack!
This means the average power needs two or three SO's in damage to reach full effect with buildup,etc. This means you have either better range/effects on your powers (offensive boost), and/or a few slots to spare to improve defenses, recovery, protection, etc etc etc...
The simple act of having more slots to spare means we get all those minor improvements we're wanting with just one fix. And you don't have to worry about 'secondary' effects of the fix (like how particular boosts in one aspect might lead to uber-builds if combined with some other powers) since that's what you're giving off as the actual 'buff', nice and controlled by slotting!
Damage doesn't really change [right now blaster attacks are all pretty much slotted for that 266.6~300%+BU/AIM setup to reach 400 reliably all the time] since 200% of 200 is the same as 400% of 100... just with less enhancement slots required to hit it.
Also makes teams more valuable to blasters [compensating for the increased death they bring us] thanks to improved effect of power-boost/fulcrum-shift, and even defensive powers [since def/res stack up...]
(one problem though; since temp.powers are based on base damage, that would mean once the scale-up kicks in they'd deal double damage. should be a way around this though...)
[/ QUOTE ]
I would rather go the other way: leave base damage alone, give us a scalable build up (100% at level 1 scaling up to 300% at level 50, or just make build up boost net damage, not base damage), and increase the damage cap, or better yet, allow build up to ignore the cap the same way criticals ignore the scrapper cap.
Lowering the cap doesn't mean we get better on teams, it means we get worse, because defender buffs obey the cap - we'd be constantly capped, and therefore our damage cannot be buffed.
Higher base and lower cap means blasters get a big boost below 22 when I don't think they really need it much, and the sole advantage above 22 becomes freeing up slots. The problem is that we don't have enough beneficial things to burn the slots on to make this enough of a big boost. Especially things available to us in the 30s when blasters often first start to feel problems.
If we had a few more power choices and power pool options, the extra slots could have a significant benefit; also, if the devs added damage mitigation powers into our secondaries that required extra slots, this might also be a potential benefit.
[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.)
Actually if you look carefully you'll see every time I've suggested something like this, its been for SO-time and higher only. in other words the base damage is identical to scrappers until 22~24, at which point it quickly jumps up [in the span of 2-3 levels] to the new amount.
Thing about teams is that we're almost always already at or near the cap once we get our hands on SO's; so really, damage buffs aren't what we need in teams later on anyways even right now; 400% is 400%, and the most that defender can do for us is make save us an enrage or two, or make us need buildup somewhat kinda less often. So it wouldn't change that aspect of teaming all that much, while the small handful of extra defensive slots would get to stack with whatever forcefields, fortitude or other stuff they use on us.
Its true that there isn't much room left for those extra slots. Perhaps 3 or 4 by level 50 that find room in some defensive power that wouldn't otherwise be six-slotted, though that's already better than nothing.
The main effect would be to allow those other enhancements in the attacks. Yes, that could mean less dependance on hasten/stamina. Or a marginal range increase to at least equal the CoT.
I definitely WOULD love for buildup to be seperate from the enhancements... or perhaps a scaling base-damage modifier...
25% at level 1, 50% by level 50... but applied to actual base damage [like switching to nova-form], and thus affected by the enhancements...
Though that might be a rather nasty blow to Devices unless the drone gave a mild boost of its own.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually if you look carefully you'll see every time I've suggested something like this, its been for SO-time and higher only. in other words the base damage is identical to scrappers until 22~24, at which point it quickly jumps up [in the span of 2-3 levels] to the new amount.
Thing about teams is that we're almost always already at or near the cap once we get our hands on SO's; so really, damage buffs aren't what we need in teams later on anyways even right now; 400% is 400%, and the most that defender can do for us is make save us an enrage or two, or make us need buildup somewhat kinda less often. So it wouldn't change that aspect of teaming all that much, while the small handful of extra defensive slots would get to stack with whatever forcefields, fortitude or other stuff they use on us.
Its true that there isn't much room left for those extra slots. Perhaps 3 or 4 by level 50 that find room in some defensive power that wouldn't otherwise be six-slotted, though that's already better than nothing.
The main effect would be to allow those other enhancements in the attacks. Yes, that could mean less dependance on hasten/stamina. Or a marginal range increase to at least equal the CoT.
I definitely WOULD love for buildup to be seperate from the enhancements... or perhaps a scaling base-damage modifier...
25% at level 1, 50% by level 50... but applied to actual base damage [like switching to nova-form], and thus affected by the enhancements...
Though that might be a rather nasty blow to Devices unless the drone gave a mild boost of its own.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but devices was always the odd man out. Here's what I would give devices in exchange for lacking build up:
Trip Mine gets replaced by Grenade: change it from a drop to a ranged drop (ala caltrops) so you can lob it at range, its still triggered like trip mine.
Time Bomb stays time bomb.
Both get one more modification: the deployer, and only the deployer, can shoot them, ala explosive barrels. They can't benefit from Build Up or Aim, so add a little more utility to them to compensate.
[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.)
I just want you guys to give the Blasters a break, capping our Damage was a bad idea. Just like someone esle said, we have low hp and no Def, and now we have less DMG. So now when I log on to the game I now have to be extra carful when solo-ing....thats not so bad right?....WRONG. As everyone else is passing me by in leveling, im too busy be "EXTRA" careful not to get killed. Because my I cant deal the same damage as I use too. And then it just makes the game play slow, and then suddenly I start to get bored because it just takes forever to Level, just so I can take on harder Missions.
Bottom line is, I bought into the idea of the Blaster being the Offensive Juggernaught the book claim it to be. Which now turns out to be totally false, the real Offensive Juggernaughts are the Tankers and Scrappers. They can get a group and pound away and come out on top 9 out of 10 times. Put a Blaster in a group and he will die 9 out of 10 times. Blasters have no protection, Less Life, and now Less Dmg. You might as well just deleted the Blaster all together. Because what you made him out to be in the book, isnt even close to how he is in the game.
I now im just venting anger, but it just kills me when I have friends that have started the same time I did, have their main and alts pass me by. While im struggleing to make the next Level wihout getting to much debt from death.
Please give us some idea, on how you plan to improve our depleted Blasters, or that you have decided to delete them all-together. Something more in-depth than what you have posted.
I'm tired of every mmo I try, weakening ranged classes. I just had that problem in WoW with Hunters so I quit come to this game and I noticed after the very last patch that it's even harder now to play to the point of not even wanting to because it's not really fun... not to mention missing a lot more now.
I think there's some club for mmo devs or maybe they teach them this in some mmorpg 101 course, where they make a cool ranged class and everyone likes it, then they nerf it (usually damage). It's also not just one nerf, but they keep doing it and doing it to the point of where it feels like the class is hanging on extinction. Then patch after patch comes and there's no new changes for us, maybe bad ones but nothing actually better.
I really don't want to wait until the next issue to see blasters get fixed up. If this game was good I would be faithful to it, but so many new mmos are coming. I just hope if they don't fix it, they see the hurt when a lot of people move on (leave). Right now, it sucks to even log in and play and I don't want to make alts and do the same lame missions of killing a bunch of guys and clicking on glowing boxes or rescuing some hostages, it's so damn repetitive.
COV won't be anything special if they can't even get the act together in COH.
If you don't like the game then leave, these boards are for constructive criticism, not whining.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the acc losses hurt us blasters the most.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. My fire tank runs around with SJ on (forgot to switch over to CJ), and it takes awhile before I even stop and realize *hey these are taking too long to die.*
My blaster runs around with SS still on, attacks a mob, and instantly dies.
I'm glad the nerf is getting rolled back and replaced with something else.