Here's how you can tell blasters are generally useless. Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can attack from range. No, some of the scrappers can do that as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scrapper ranged output is nothing compared to blaster ranged output, and scrapper range is at best half of the range of bread and butter blaster attacks.
Yes, some scrappers can do damage at range. No, it does not compare to blaster ranged damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's something I touched on in my thread.
It doesn't matter that it isn't exactly Blaster level damage, it's good enough to the point where a Blaster isn't needed.
[/ QUOTE ]
No AT is "needed".
Worring about the small number of Scrapper ranged attacks is focusing in the wrong place.
"Blasters have way more range and have more cones/AEs than scrappers, and it's not enough because..."
There's how you begin a reasonable discussion on this topic. 
While Mantid already pointed out Scorus's post, I thought this one sentence summed it up perfectly:
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't it just be "you can do damage at a greater distance, but if you get too close you are toast"?
[/ QUOTE ]
As for Blasters having some melee attacks, I look at it the same as Tankers or Scrappers having ranged attacks, Defenders having control powers, or Controllers being able to do damage. It's "crossover" powers. It's not the Blaster's primary ability, but it's there if needed.
If a Blaster had to stay away from melee, then his melee attacks would be more like the melee attacks of comic book Blasters. Something they use as a last resort, but would really rather avoid using. Plus, those who WANT to build in a little extra melee defense (or get some from a Defender) can use melee, if they want to.
Q: So what's a Blaster's role?
A: To keep the Empathy Defender awake. 
Well...
A girlfriend of mine and I sat down to compare notes. She's a MA/SR Scrapper 20 and I'm a AR/EM Blaster 23.
Here's what we came up with:
1) Range is largely irrelevant.
The superior range of the Blaster is only a factor for the first sequence of attacks. After that any enemy that decides to get close can.
(In my experience it is possible to psudeo-kite; if one leaps from concealment to concealment and the attack animation executes while in transition, by queing up the attack, you can escape immiediate retribution. However, that strategy is largely terrain dependant and so is a non-factor. Addtionally leaping back out for another will commonly result in a massive counter-volley as all the enemy's own qued attacks will trigger at once.)
The utility of this design is obvious: most heroes fight in melee ergo enemies should close to engage. Simple enough, and highly appropriate. However, coupled with the reality that most enemies out-range the Blaster than it becomes true that range isn't a serious factor in combat.
2) Blasters are the flip side to Controllers, hence the comparisons by States and Co.
Both specialize in mob managment. Blasters do it through destruction, Controllers through obfustication. Not unlike how Tankers and Scrappers complement each other.
To endlessly contrast Blasters to Scrappers is to somewhat miss this point. Yes, Blasters are excellent for just punching holes in anything. But Scrappers are expected to enjoy the pleasure of personally recieving as well as they give so they get appropriate counter-measures. It seems fairly intuitive, and when some torqued-off AV one shots my heroine I understand the lesson: I shouldn't have been drawing it's fire. Not that circumstances frequently trump theory, I've commited Build-Up+Flamethrower seppuku multiple times because at the time it just had to be done, but it seems to me that it is so none the less.
3) The weakness of Blasters is that they have a team role with no mercy.
Aggro errors mean defeat. Being knocked down means
death; you won't live to activate your back-up Dramatic Recovery. My GF mentions that one of her constant duties is watching for strays who rush the Blasters, and even that's wasting time as by the time she's there the unfortunate hero is cold cuts.
So what Blasters need is more HP, not more resistances; while those would be handy I don't see them infringing upon that territory any time soon. They need HP, they need a way to ablate the currently suicidal nature of their role.
I can't honestly comment on Blaster damage; I am, after all, AR/EM and Anything+Build-Up makes for quicker combats. I don't feel like I need more damage.
I just need staying power; some kind of latitude for when things go wrong. Too much of being a Blaster is just being the first to die because chaos theory suddenly made me a target.
How "Ranged Damage" oriented are blasters in general anyway?
Out of 90 powers available to blasters 44 are ranged powers that deal damage. 37 of which are 80 ft. or less.
For Melee and PBAoE damaging powers Blasters have 25 attacks.
Which leaves Blasters with 21 other utility powers (self buffs, "control" etc).
I would have expected blasters to have a far greater number of ranged attacks if that is intended to be their primary focus.
Defenders support in a variety of aspects, controllers control and support, tanks can certainly tank and scrappers can deal damage and take it. In general, they all seem to have power sets more focused on their roles in comparison to blasters which are simply supposed to deal damage at range.
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to play an AT with defensive capacity that does pretty darn good damage, roll a Scrapper. If you want to play an AT that can't take much damage but can dish out a truly sick amount of damage, roll a Blaster.
At least that's the distinction as I see it. Rather, the distinction as I feel it should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
the problem is that, the distinction isn't there. blaster damage isn't "sick". Scrapper damage is huge, especially at higher levels when they start getting Hami-O's. Not to mention with things like Focused Accuracy, they have better accuracy on top of their higher damage and ability to take/avoid metric [censored]-tons more damage than a blaster can ever take/avoid... and being a scrapper is just all around better.
I watch my spines/regen friend do amazing things. His missions are set to Invincible. My missions are set to Heroic, and I have no chance of ever stepping up. 3 even con minions of the wrong type could get me into the yellow before I got Temp Invulnerability.
Anything more than 4 minions when i can't hover is going to be either very difficult, or consist of me running around with super speed on hoping to stay out of melee range until i get one or two down so i can use my vastly superior melee attacks.
if you're looking for a balance between scrappers and blasters, stop. there isn't one. I'm not saying scrappers need to be nerfed at all... far from it. i love scrappers. just comparing them is pretty weak.
[ QUOTE ]
Dark Consumption (hey if we're just counting AoE damage here, minor or not, it's AoE and damage, had enough people holding Rain of Fire against me as "damage," pfft...)
[/ QUOTE ] Really, you would have been better off not even mentioning a minor-damage attack with a three minute timer. I was almost agreeing with you until that one.
[ QUOTE ]
This is an outrage, Scrappers whine cause they can't take on multiple 4+ bosses and AVs, and can't herd as well any more and they get a written apology
[/ QUOTE ] Please be careful with these generalizations. I'd like to see Blasters helped out, but when I see that kind of blind overgeneralizing and lashing out, it makes it really hard to stay supportive...
[ QUOTE ]
Well, we can hold. Scrappers can't. Though they can get immobs, I think. Not sure on this.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only reliable Scrapper Immob is Impale. Crippling Axe is is Described as immobilizing, but we Crit with it more than we Immob with it.
Now if you're talking real Holds, Ie, ones that Stop the mob from attacking you back completely... My MA/DA has Chain-Held TWO bosses at once and can run WirlWind to hold a 3rd boss while CoF can theoretically hold Dozens of Lts(Worked fine on those All-Captain Raider-spawns in TerraVolta). ...That even beats Ice Blasters for Holding power.
Can't hold... indeed.
[ QUOTE ]
"Blasters have way more range and have more cones/AEs than scrappers, and it's not enough because..."
There's how you begin a reasonable discussion on this topic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right!
It's not enough because being at long range doesn't buy you much. The enemies generally do less damage at range, but blasters have minimal protection. If the blaster does less damage than the scrapper and gets killed more often, then a choice between a blaster and a scrapper for a team should result in scrapper just about every time (player skill being equal).
It seems to me that either blaster aggro should be reduced or ranged protection increased, or both. Also a damage boost in the high levels would probably be appropriate.
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[ QUOTE ]
Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ] Arakhn. You were trying to make a point that I'd like to agree with...but you overdid it a little.
[ QUOTE ]
If a Blaster had to stay away from melee, then his melee attacks would be more like the melee attacks of comic book Blasters. Something they use as a last resort, but would really rather avoid using. Plus, those who WANT to build in a little extra melee defense (or get some from a Defender) can use melee, if they want to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which comic book Blasters are you referring to? What "last resort" melee attacks do they use?
THEY DON'T....
They shoot an explosive arrow up your nose and keep trucking.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ] Arakhn. You were trying to make a point that I'd like to agree with...but you overdid it a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? AoEs? So in effect the scrapper will die as fast as the blaster? I'm still not seeing preference.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can attack from range. No, some of the scrappers can do that as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scrapper ranged output is nothing compared to blaster ranged output, and scrapper range is at best half of the range of bread and butter blaster attacks.
Yes, some scrappers can do damage at range. No, it does not compare to blaster ranged damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's something I touched on in my thread.
It doesn't matter that it isn't exactly Blaster level damage, it's good enough to the point where a Blaster isn't needed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that's the reason Scrappers are preferred on a team over Blasters. Assuming the damage is the same, there is no reason to pick a Blaster over a Scrapper. Just pick whichever comes first, or flip a coin. There's no reason to say, "I'm always going to take the Scrapper".
No, the reason the Scrapper is preferred over the Blaster is because he doesn't have to be protected, like the Blaster does. He can attack freely, and even assuming he pulls some aggro off the Tanker, he can still survive it. The Blaster, on the other hand, can't survive if he draws any aggro. So more effort and energy is required to protect him. Yet, he does no more damage.
The other thing to remember about Scrapper ranged attacks is that while he can attack at range, he doesn't have enough range to keep his OPPONENT at range. The Scrapper usually uses his ranged attacks in melee, or just while closing. You aren't going to see a Scrapper "kite". It just doesn't happen.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's what we came up with:
1) Range is largely irrelevant.
The superior range of the Blaster is only a factor for the first sequence of attacks. After that any enemy that decides to get close can.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is why I can't agree with all the people who seem to think that if only our powersets were more focused on range, we'd be doing great. If we don't go into melee, melee comes to us--ditching the melee attacks or making them ranged isn't going to change that.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
Because ranged/control is flipping overpowered.
At the moment its ranged/utility, with some sets being utilized better.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ] Arakhn. You were trying to make a point that I'd like to agree with...but you overdid it a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? AoEs? So in effect the scrapper will die as fast as the blaster? I'm still not seeing preference.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Arakhn flies. Hovering scraps exist, but we aren't common.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
Because Ranged/Control allows what is called "root and shoot", and the devs disallowed that from the start.
However, note that a Blaster's control powers are usually single target, instead of multiple target like a Controller. I think that concept can be extended to other Powers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
Because ranged/control is flipping overpowered.
At the moment its ranged/utility, with some sets being utilized better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered? We're talking about blasters being to controllers as controllers are to defenders.
Is ranged/control any more overpowered than ranged/melee (regardless of how you want to dress it up) like it is now?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ] Arakhn. You were trying to make a point that I'd like to agree with...but you overdid it a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? AoEs? So in effect the scrapper will die as fast as the blaster? I'm still not seeing preference.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Arakhn flies. Hovering scraps exist, but we aren't common.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I haven't done her yet, but so what? She's in an outdoor map or something? Or a cathedral? What prevents the scrappers from superjumping up to her?
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
Because that looks like this:
Controller: Defense/Defense
Defender: Defense/Offense
Blaster: Offense/Defense
Blasters are meant to be extreme offense, controllers extreme defense, and defenders the middle ground.
Just as that doesn't mean that controllers should get NO offense, it doesn't mean that Blasters should get NO defense, but giving them an entire secondary devoted to defense just means we should merge the Defender and Blaster ATs.
Right now Blasters are ranged offense/melee offense, but that doesn't work too well. I think if should be ranged offense/tactical offense, personally, but I know it should NOT be control. Talk about turning 3 ATs into one!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
Because ranged/control is flipping overpowered.
At the moment its ranged/utility, with some sets being utilized better.
[/ QUOTE ]
ranged utility?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...."wheeze" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
What utility? two sets have it. the rest are crud.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ] Arakhn. You were trying to make a point that I'd like to agree with...but you overdid it a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? AoEs? So in effect the scrapper will die as fast as the blaster? I'm still not seeing preference.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, Arakhn flies. Hovering scraps exist, but we aren't common.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I haven't done her yet, but so what? She's in an outdoor map or something? Or a cathedral? What prevents the scrappers from superjumping up to her?
[/ QUOTE ]
They don't have that either. Or a lot don't. It is one time you might not want one, but hardly a "balance". I mean, who brings a blaster to the sewer trial except out of pity?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PS - States: This is one of the rare times that a post of yours actually left me MORE confused than before.
[/ QUOTE ]
What, you've never seen any of those posts that demonstrate why they're called "Cryptic"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you can't exceed infinite confusion