//I'm not sure where you got you numbers for the various attacks. Here are the numbers from the brawl index (formatted to match your tables above):
The scrapper numbers I posted were multiplied by 1.25 (125% blaster base dmg). The Energy/Energy numbers you provide aren't terribly different from mine (which all came from the sherksilver hero planyer, as far as I've tested has been accurate for blaster attack dmg). The reason the scrapper numbers appear high is because I wanted to put them on the same scale as blaster numbers.
Hmm I thought it was pretty well accepted that scrapper base damage is 125% of blaster base? If that's not correct and it's lower then I am even more skeptical about scrapper damage brags.
[ QUOTE ]
//I'm not sure where you got you numbers for the various attacks. Here are the numbers from the brawl index (formatted to match your tables above):
The scrapper numbers I posted were multiplied by 1.25 (125% blaster base dmg). The Energy/Energy numbers you provide aren't terribly different from mine (which all came from the sherksilver hero planyer, as far as I've tested has been accurate for blaster attack dmg). The reason the scrapper numbers appear high is because I wanted to put them on the same scale as blaster numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. I hadn't caught the normalization of Katana BIs. That explains most of it. The one that originally caught my eye was Bone Smasher, which I was certain had a snipe level BI.
Sorry about the confusion.
Z.
"I don't have an angel and a devil on my shoulder, I have Rocky and Bullwinkle." - Lore Sj�berg
I am sure you're correct about bonesmasher's BI if you've checked it yourself (I have not).
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm I thought it was pretty well accepted that scrapper base damage is 125% of blaster base? If that's not correct and it's lower then I am even more skeptical about scrapper damage brags.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought it was 12.5% but it's easy enough to check. My blaster's Brawl does 20.01 damge at 50. Does anyone with a 50 Scrapper want to post their Brawl damage?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Issue 8 rolls around with this issue still unaddressed (resolving it seems unlikely but at least another bone or two thrown our way might appease us) and the devs will have a riot as the six or seven people who still play blasters rise up in outrage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Six or seven people... Blasters are the most populous hero AT in the game right now. I know, because I just checked. And since I know some blaster is inevitably going to say "OMGTHEIRALLUNDER30~~~," I checked... there were still more 30+ blasters than anyone else (they beat scrappers by 1). Defenders, of course, were the lowest.
[/ QUOTE ]
I7 will be toning down toggle dropping to appease the tankers and brutes. Watch the FOTM ice/energy and ice/elec PvP-blapper numbers plummet. The only reason the numbers are that high is that blasters are currently fairly formidable in PvP. Take away some of the toggle dropping capability, and you'll see a migration to scrappers for PvP juggernauts and those who wish to play them.
Front_Loaded: Scrapper Brawl went from 1.0 [tested by me and posted here] to 1.125 [not tested by me] of Blaster Brawl.
Ohms: We've had this discussion. At least three times. For the new guys in the audience, my quick bullet points:[*]"500% of base" happened approximately 1% of the time for Scrappers. [*] We are now 3x as tough, not 18x+ as tough, as Blasters.[*] Burst damage is better than sustainable damage in 80%+ of fights [median length of a fight with a Blaster in it is 7-12 seconds.][*] Scrapper ranged attacks are slow, infrequent, and rare.
I think that just about covers my side of the argument.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
At LVL 50, my controller not only can unload incredible holds (that stack), but can also debuff (stack as well) my opponents into blobs of jello AND unload a great amount of damage.
At LVL 50, my scrapper can unload incredible amounts of damage and also has great survivability (full status protection).
At LVL 50, my tanker can unload a great amount of damage and has incredible survivability (full status protection).
At LVL 50, my blaster can unload a great amount of damage and has a fair amount of survivability (but no status protection).
At the end of the day blasters are at the bottom of the food-chain in PvE, because they aren't needed. Why aren't they needed? SIMPLE: because Holds and Debuffs stack. Because Holds and Debuffs STACK, Fenders and Trollers reign supreme in both GROUP PvP and PvE. .
***If you doubt my words Statesman, please ask your Dev team to assemble a diversified 6-8 man team and meet me on Pinnacle... my Troller/Fender group will change your mind in just 20 minutes of play.***
The problem isn't necessarily the balance of ATs, it is the global mechanics of holds, buffs, and debuffs. These powers Must Not STACK to the present degree that they do.
Why take an AT that does 15-20% more damage, when one debuff can make up that difference? Even without the debuffs, the stacking holds, buffs, heals, and pets make the argument even easier.
Seriously, have you even seen containment, fulcrum shift, and epic attacks in group use? Even better, take a look at multiple applications of speed boost, fulcrum shift, pets, containment, and aoe attacks... IT IS BROKEN. There is a reason OTHER MMOs have a thing called diminishing returns or redundant disqaulifiers! Hello, is anyone home?
Cheers,
SUN
[ QUOTE ]
Ohms: We've had this discussion. At least three times. For the new guys in the audience, my quick bullet points:[*]"500% of base" happened approximately 1% of the time for Scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing as Scrappers have a better defensive capacity than Blasters, this should happen 0% of the time.
[ QUOTE ][*] We are now 3x as tough, not 18x+ as tough, as Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
3x or 18x, it still means Scrappers didn't pay for the offensive capacity they enjoy. It just means they're no longer AV-soloing tankmages. The moment Blaster offensive capacity is 3x that of Scrappers, you'll have a point.
[ QUOTE ][*] Burst damage is better than sustainable damage in 80%+ of fights [median length of a fight with a Blaster in it is 7-12 seconds.]
[/ QUOTE ]
The ability to "take it" > The inability to "take it". The moment something goes wrong for a Blaster, be it a key miss, additional mobs, or getting mezzed, burst damage means exactly squat. Been thru way too many high-level battles where the Scrapper is still going as if nothing is happening while the rest of the team is either getting the crap stunned, or kicked, out of them or are simply faceplanted to buy into this bullet point.
[ QUOTE ][*] Scrapper ranged attacks are slow, infrequent, and rare.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't care. I'm not one of those folks that think the range from which an AT does or takes damage means anything.
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm I thought it was pretty well accepted that scrapper base damage is 125% of blaster base? If that's not correct and it's lower then I am even more skeptical about scrapper damage brags.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scrapper base brawl is 1.125
A Beta board redname post demonstrated that criticals hit enough to make the real differential 1.2:1.0 instead of 1.125:1.0.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But still...; Explain this one to me everyone...
How come my scrapper; who is imho rather decently balanced, can do an Extreme damage attack with an improved chance of critting, a minor AoE to it, -Def... etc... in melee (where I live);
But a Blaster can *only* do Extreme damage with *no* chance to crit *AND* a chance to be interrupted with a long wait time to fire; with their snipe. Which generally has no secondary effect but maybe knockdown.
[/ QUOTE ]
The words don't mean especially much, they aren't scaled the same way between sets. "Extreme" damage for Dominator for example (Total Focus e.g.) at 65% base blaster damage is left in the dust by most of the upper-BI blaster moves.
You are mistaken about high damage just on the snipe. Many moves in blaster secondaries do very high damage. No it isn't ranged damage, but it's very high damage none the less. In /Electric there is a lot of 100% AOE knockback, some %chance of sleep and disorient and a 100% hold at the end. /Energy has a lot of %chance disorient and single target 100% knockback and a 100% disorient at the end with high mag. /Ice has -recharge and -speed. Not too bad imo, and the scrapper is almost completely limited to smashing/lethal damage except for Dark Melee.
Particularly for /electric and /energy, blasters are pretty well ahead of scrappers in my experience, and it's easy enough to see if you just take the scrapper attack BIs and multiply them by 1.25 (125% base blaster dmg). If you blap, you have access to many attacks that compare very favorably to scrapper attacks, and you retain ranged and AOE damage too. You just don't have any real defenses, which to me is acceptable.
Since you're a katana scrapper, here's a comparison:
Sting... 4.025L
Gamblers... 2.91L ST
Flashing... 3.45L Melee cone (5 targs)
Divine... 2.91L ST
Lotus... 4.51L PBAOE (10 targs)
Soaring... 6.25L ST
Golden... 7.91L ST
And that's all lethal damage, every bit. And that's if you took every attack, which you might not have chosen to do; your alternatives would be to take attacks from pools, which generally suck except for Air Superiority. By comparison here's an Energy/Energy blaster (not my favorite and imo not optimal for damage, but very popular):
Bolt... 2.22E + .55S ST (2.77 total)
Blast... 2.77E + 1.77S ST (4.55 total)
Torrent... 1.83E + .83S Rng Cone (10 targs) (2.66 total)
Burst... 3.11E + 2.11S ST (5.22 total) - note this is at level SIX
Snipe... 5.55E + 2.11S ST (7.66 total) - note this is at level EIGHT
Explosive... 1.11E + 1.38S (2.5 total) Rng AOE (16 targs)
Nova... Some very random amount that is around 12.05, PBAOE, once every 6 minutes or less depending on slotting (yuck)
And we haven't touched the secondary yet, where the real damage is:
Thrust... 1.11E + 1.11S ST (2.22 total, 100% knockback)
Punch... 1.94S + .833E ST (2.77 total, %stun)
Bonesmasher... 2.77E + 1.77S ST (4.55 total, higher %stun)
Stun... 100% stun (you don't take this for dmg)
Total Focus... 2.77S + 7.11E ST (9.88!! total and 100% stun)
[ QUOTE ]
If they even just made the snipes into normal attacks... *that* would help alot of things.
[/ QUOTE ]
they already are (see secondary attacks)...
[ QUOTE ]
My AR/Energy; Dead at 19; I can't stomach going further. My Elec/Elec...... don't ask. My Elec/Eng Blapper... dead; can't stomach an Ice/Eng; Fire/Energy is fun for now but I expect to quit her soon somehow; it just can't last. Impossible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like you simply do not like blasters. If you think Cryptic is going to rework - let's count - six sets that you mention above (and I expect many more that you didn't try because you weren't attracted to them in the first place) - that's pretty unrealistic, maybe you're better off sticking with scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I need to explain better then.
Here's the problem ok...
Scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can at range.
Blasters deal fairly good damage at range, and massive damage in melee.
Back up a second.
Do you see the problem?
The secondaries *don't count*.
Why? Because for all the insane damage they have, a blaster is A) Not a melee AT; they are *defined* (Repeatedly) as a Ranged AT; and B) because they lack the survivability to live in melee without some pretty choice pool spending.
And what about /Fire blasters hmm?
/Devices?
The problem is with the primaries though; largely.
They are difficult to chain together; being "at range" means absolutely nothing (The advantages to being at range are so miniscule in comparison to the drawbacks of having *no* protection; that its not even worth considering); and to make it worse, a blaster can't even stay AT range; because many of their moves require them to get close.
Thats ignoring the secondaries.
I'm talking about all the "Close" attacks in the primaries.
Alot of it is left over from back before ATs existed, when they grouped powers together to form sets.
Blaster Primaries *look* like a Hodgepodge, and in fact they *are* a hodgepodge. They aren't "Blast" sets by and large; they are "A little of this, a little of that".
Electric (Example)
2 Single Target damage attacks
1 Single Target Hold
PBAOE End Drain (Pretty mediocre damage)
Ranged AoE DOT
A summoned Pet (I've not used him, so I won't comment beyond that I've heard he's not all that good; but again, reserving judgement; haven't picked up Sparky with an Electric yet)
A snipe
A ranged nuke (Haven't used it; but I hear wonderful things);
That primary consists of 2 'real' single target attacks.
Thats it.
2.
Everything else is either utility, situational, or near-melee.
And look at the Electric secondary; one of the *GOOD* secondaries for blasters.
Tell me this, what is *lightning field* doing in there?
I'm sorry but I'm not buying the whole 'use the melee attacks or stick to scrappers' thing *at all*. Just because Scrapper is my main doesn't mean I don't have alot of experience blasting, it just means my blasters haven't attained the same level. Thats it.
I actually have more blasters than Scrappers if you go for number of characters; and while their levels might not be huge, they've seen a good variety of what can be done to a squishy AT at the lower levels.
(For reference, I've also played many defenders, trollers, corruptors and dominators as well; so I've got the squishy angle figured better than you may realize.)
//Scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can at range.
//Blasters deal fairly good damage at range, and massive damage in melee.
Uh, in my experience blaster ranged damage always exceeds scrapper ranged damage. You seem to think otherwise. I don't see how you can think this. I suppose you could intentionally make as gimped a blaster as possible and never take any ranged or AOE.
In melee, in my experience, blaster damage exceeds scrapper damage handily (by a bigger margin than I actually thought, as others have pointed out).
//The secondaries *don't count*.
Okay, then scrapper secondaries *don't count* either - which is pretty stupid but if that's how you want it, there it is. Scrappers are gimped damage dealers with irrelevent secondaries. I'd ask what you thought you were getting at by saying such a thing, but I don't particularly care.
If you truly believe Cryptic is going to junk half the powers in all Blaster primary and secondary sets and replace them with entirely different ones, just to please you, you're on the wrong planet. Software companies don't work that way. It's way too late in the development cycle of the product for that. And I guess that people who are happy with their sets should just be shafted to please you.
//...because they [blasters] lack the survivability to live in melee without some pretty choice pool spending.
This differs from my experience all the way through the game, with the sole exception of some AVs. I have no pool powers for defense except Acrobatics and I have no huge complaints about a lack of defenses vs. any mobs from 1 to 50+. I melee, mobs die, I generally do not. I have seen scrappers and tanks die more than I do while teamed with them. I would agree that a blaster meleeing is less forgiving of stupidity than perhaps tank or scrapper is.
//I'm sorry but I'm not buying the whole 'use the melee attacks or stick to scrappers' thing *at all*. Just because Scrapper is my main doesn't mean I don't have alot of experience blasting, it just means my blasters haven't attained the same level. Thats it.
I'd say you have extensively proven to yourself that you do not like playing blasters. If you've discovered this many things about the AT that you hate and want junked/replaced, seriously move on to another AT, there's only 11 more.
Bye now.
[ QUOTE ]
//Scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can at range.
//Blasters deal fairly good damage at range, and massive damage in melee.
Uh, in my experience blaster ranged damage always exceeds scrapper ranged damage. You seem to think otherwise. I don't see how you can think this. I suppose you could intentionally make as gimped a blaster as possible and never take any ranged or AOE.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, there's a word missing. Big deal. The intent was to say that scrappers deal massive damage in melee, and some sets can deal a bit at range when it's advantageous to do so (runners, for instances). You have to look at blasters in two lights -- a pure-range build and a blap build that mixes range and melee. The ranged-only blaster is pretty sorry damage compared to a scrapper or a blapper, its only saving grace is that a couple of them on a team -- provided they're the right sets -- can put out impressive minion-sweeping AE damage. Unfortunately, not all sets are like this, and it's a very narrow role that requires an entire team's support.
The blapper, on the other hand, can do a good deal in melee -- but not enough to mirror the survivability differential between a scrapper and a blapper.
[ QUOTE ]
In melee, in my experience, blaster damage exceeds scrapper damage handily (by a bigger margin than I actually thought, as others have pointed out).
[/ QUOTE ]
You did a straight-up comparison of damage per attack, while ignoring recharges. Take a scrapper vs a blapper over time -- say, on a team facing large spawns rather than solo facing his 3 even level minions -- and those recharge differences play a BIG difference. The entire katana set that you listed recharges in less time than bone smasher, save Golden Dragonfly. Even dipping into their far less spectacularly damaging ranged attacks to mix in with their melees, a blapper can't really flesh out a full attack chain, and this means that the constant good dps from a scrapper set will catch up and often even surpass the blapper. Again, I repeat -- the blapper's dps advantage (even assuming best builds) in melee doesn't reflect the size of the gap in survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
//The secondaries *don't count*.
Okay, then scrapper secondaries *don't count* either - which is pretty stupid but if that's how you want it, there it is. Scrappers are gimped damage dealers with irrelevent secondaries. I'd ask what you thought you were getting at by saying such a thing, but I don't particularly care.
[/ QUOTE ]
The poster to whom you're responding is (and has been, the whole post) analyzing the ranged blaster. As such, the melee attacks don't count. If you want to compare the ranged blaster and tout range as a defense to close the scrapper/blaster survivability gap, you don't get to include the melee attacks to make the scrapper/blaster damage gap look smaller, too.
I must have chosen the wrong primary/secondary(AR/Dev) as many times the scrapper has dispatched the foe before I can fire a second shot and sometimes my first shot will just go off just as the foe is hitting the ground. I might be able to outdamage any scrapper....given the proper time....but that's time I usually don't have in the team scenario.
I don't see the problems with scrappers. The ones I've played with outdamaged me handily due to my DoT powers and long animation times. Not everyone(well, hardly anyone) will wait for Trip Mines and beyond that I have no strong melee damage.
If scrappers are gimped, then you better inform many of the ones I've played with as they saved me from taking a lot of damage, not by being able to absorb it but from being able to take foes out quick and 9 out of 10 times quicker than me.
can i just state real quick, I'm so tired of tanks telling me not to use my mele powers in missions, it drives me insane, and rarely do I die when using them; I wonder are they just jealous because my Total Focus does more damage then thiers esp when I turn on BU and AIM?
Sigh 
(ice/nrg blaster, only 3 mele attacks but I love them all, but use them only to supplement my freezes, and ice blasts, (and blizzard).)
//The ranged-only blaster is pretty sorry damage compared to a scrapper or a blapper, its only saving grace is that a couple of them on a team -- provided they're the right sets -- can put out impressive minion-sweeping AE damage.
And yet, practically any build of this type that you describe will be better ranged damage than any scrapper - and what power picks were spent on other things rather than shotrange attacks? And why should refusing to take attacks that are demonstrably very efficient and powerful be rewarded?
//You did a straight-up comparison of damage per attack, while ignoring recharges. Take a scrapper vs a blapper over time -- say, on a team facing large spawns rather than solo facing his 3 even level minions -- and those recharge differences play a BIG difference. The entire katana set that you listed recharges in less time than bone smasher, save Golden Dragonfly. Even dipping into their far less spectacularly damaging ranged attacks to mix in with their melees, a blapper can't really flesh out a full attack chain, and this means that the constant good dps from a scrapper set will catch up and often even surpass the blapper.
Uh, I have to disagree from experience. I have enough recharge to run attack continuously if I had infinite endo - which of course I do not and need someone else to buff me for. Power Sink mitigates this but not completely. I am simply not waiting on attacks to rercharge that I have ever noticed. This includes extended brawls with AVs where I'd expect it to be most obvious - never has been, bang bang bang bang bang.
//The poster to whom you're responding is (and has been, the whole post) analyzing the ranged blaster. As such, the melee attacks don't count.
I don't think that's the case at all, and moreover the same poster has been citing that plain old damage is the goal and range is not useful. If I may refresh your memory:
[ QUOTE ]
*WHEN*; just once tell me *when* is "ranged" damage any more important than 'damage' period? The only situation in the *ENTIRE* game where I've found I *really* needed ranged damage was in the Ernesto Hess TF; with the ring of sentry guns.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what's the point of this same person discounting the very high damage in the melee range attacks if they admit that range is not especially useful? Making the blaster fight with one hand tied behind their back seems to be the goal here?
The original post by Statesman noted, but it's pretty obvious that long ranged damage is weaker than short ranged damage across the board, for every AT and every set. What now?
Assume this balance was changed for some reason - blaster ranged damage is upgraded to the point where it is very comparable DPA and DPS with the melee attacks. Why would anyone with any sense take the melee attacks then?
Assume Blaster ranged damage is put on par or made superior to scrapper melee. Why would anyone with any sense play a scrapper at that point?
Sorry, I just see little point in demanding massive changes to something that clearly, Cryptic never has and will never spend a lot of effort changing - seems to me it's a pretty sensible design anyway. Good luck with that windmil though...
//If scrappers are gimped, ...
You missed the sarcasm, sorry. My point was never that scrappers are gimped, I don't think that at all. Was just expressing some irritation at someone dismissing half of a set of data simply because they thought it strengthened their argument.
[ QUOTE ]
//The ranged-only blaster is pretty sorry damage compared to a scrapper or a blapper, its only saving grace is that a couple of them on a team -- provided they're the right sets -- can put out impressive minion-sweeping AE damage.
And yet, practically any build of this type that you describe will be better ranged damage than any scrapper - and what power picks were spent on other things rather than shotrange attacks? And why should refusing to take attacks that are demonstrably very efficient and powerful be rewarded?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting that a blaster be rewarded for not taking melee attacks -- I'm suggesting that without them, they aren't very good damage dealers, and thus fail at their role. However, with them, my assertion is that they are not appreciably better than scrappers at damage dealing -- at least, not sufficiently so to compare with the appreciable survivability advantage scrappers enjoy. A blapper should do more damage than a blaster. But a blaster isn't balanced, and neither is a blapper. The blaster might have some level of safety (less still than a scrapper) by taking non-melee secondary powers and defensive pools and such, but will not compare favorably to the damage that a scrapper puts out with greater safety. The blapper has no level of safety, and might (with some pool melee filler) put out damage on a level with scrappers -- but enjoys none of the safety available to a scrapper while doing the same.
[ QUOTE ]
//You did a straight-up comparison of damage per attack, while ignoring recharges. Take a scrapper vs a blapper over time -- say, on a team facing large spawns rather than solo facing his 3 even level minions -- and those recharge differences play a BIG difference. The entire katana set that you listed recharges in less time than bone smasher, save Golden Dragonfly. Even dipping into their far less spectacularly damaging ranged attacks to mix in with their melees, a blapper can't really flesh out a full attack chain, and this means that the constant good dps from a scrapper set will catch up and often even surpass the blapper.
Uh, I have to disagree from experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since it's not apparent from your sig, experience with what? Mine's an electric/energy, what's yours, for frame of reference? The next part makes it apparent you're /elec, what's your primary?
[ QUOTE ]
I have enough recharge to run attack continuously if I had infinite endo - which of course I do not and need someone else to buff me for. Power Sink mitigates this but not completely. I am simply not waiting on attacks to rercharge that I have ever noticed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm impressed, then. Though, I would suggest that you're speaking from the perspective of the best-off secondary when it comes to filling out a chain. Electric manipulation has 5 very good damage powers -- fence, charged brawl, havok punch, thunder strike, and shocking grasp. Without knowing your primary, it's tough to make a good assessment (I'm counting a 4 second recharge fence, 9 seconds on brawl, 15 on havok punch, 20 on thunderstrike, and I don't recall shocking grasp's recharge -- color me skeptical, but I don't think you'd disagree that a scrapper's much, much better off in the recharge arena? meaning they can make a chain with fewer attacks and fewer slots invested, leaving room not only for pool power supplements to whatever floats their boat, but slotting their defenses, as well), but let me tell you, I have a rough time forming a complete attack chain. I burst through about two minions at a time, and then get to wait for recharges. Three at a time, I suppose, when TF comes into play.
[ QUOTE ]
This includes extended brawls with AVs where I'd expect it to be most obvious - never has been, bang bang bang bang bang.
//The poster to whom you're responding is (and has been, the whole post) analyzing the ranged blaster. As such, the melee attacks don't count.
I don't think that's the case at all, and moreover the same poster has been citing that plain old damage is the goal and range is not useful. If I may refresh your memory:
[ QUOTE ]
*WHEN*; just once tell me *when* is "ranged" damage any more important than 'damage' period? The only situation in the *ENTIRE* game where I've found I *really* needed ranged damage was in the Ernesto Hess TF; with the ring of sentry guns.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what's the point of this same person discounting the very high damage in the melee range attacks if they admit that range is not especially useful? Making the blaster fight with one hand tied behind their back seems to be the goal here?
The original post by Statesman noted, but it's pretty obvious that long ranged damage is weaker than short ranged damage across the board, for every AT and every set. What now?
Assume this balance was changed for some reason - blaster ranged damage is upgraded to the point where it is very comparable DPA and DPS with the melee attacks. Why would anyone with any sense take the melee attacks then?
[/ QUOTE ]
*shrug* Should there be any melee attacks to begin with? Or maybe just ones with dual purposes, like stun, total focus, freezing touch, etc.? I don't blap by choice. I rolled up a ranged blaster when I started. I just found that I stunk at my job, and I found this odd way to be better. I wouldn't cry if I could do something closer to blap or scrap damage at range, and actually make use of this ethereal "range as defense" argument.
[ QUOTE ]
Assume Blaster ranged damage is put on par or made superior to scrapper melee. Why would anyone with any sense play a scrapper at that point?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Actual defenses? Status protections? They just like being up-close and personal?
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just see little point in demanding massive changes to something that clearly, Cryptic never has and will never spend a lot of effort changing - seems to me it's a pretty sensible design anyway. Good luck with that windmil though...
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the implication that I'm perceiving an imaginary problem. Disguising an insult in a literary reference doesn't make it any nicer a sentiment, nor any less condescending.
In any case, when the current incarnation of blasters receives almost no thought, of course the fix will require more effort than they've bothered to put in. That doesn't make striving for, devising, and advocating such a fix any less noble, nor less worthy a cause or pasttime.
//*shrug* Should there be any melee attacks to begin with?
A moot point because there are, in fact, lots of melee attacks. If you were the lead designer, "should" might be an appropriate word to use here. "What I want" is probably more correct.
//Thanks for the implication that I'm perceiving an imaginary problem. Disguising an insult in a literary reference doesn't make it any nicer a sentiment, nor any less condescending.
The point was not that your unhappiness is with an imaginary thing, but rather that fighing it is futile.
For reference, my blaster is 46, fire/electric; just came from killing Adamastor with a full team, largely with melee, and at no particular time was I waiting on recharge of attacks. Excuse me I have to get back to my team 
[ QUOTE ]
Assume Blaster ranged damage is put on par or made superior to scrapper melee. Why would anyone with any sense play a scrapper at that point?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, not this old [censored]ing song. Blaster damage, any of it, ranged, melee, melee-ranged, single-target, AoE should be better than "on par" with Scrapper damage output. Period. There isn't a [censored]ing Blaster build that has the defensive capacity that even the piddliest Scrapper build has. Since Scrappers never paid the price for their offensive capacity the way Blasters have, they in no way should even come close to dishing out the damage Blasters should be doing.
Returning the rightful, bought-and-paid-for, role of unquestioned "Kings (or Queens) of Damage" will in no way make Blasters any less squishy. Returning the rightful, bought-and-paid-for, role of unquestioned "Kings (or Queens) of Damage" will in no way make Blasters any less prone to getting the living crap mezzed out of them.
Why should anyone play Scrappers? It's simple. They want to be a "Jack of all trades" when it comes to dishing it out as well as taking it. And like all Jacks of all trades, they should be masters of neither. Unfortunately, they are, and too damned many people want to keep it that way.
There is that odd word "should" again. Hmmmm!
Edit: Bear in mind I am not arguing that blasters should never be upgraded - merely observing that it is unlikely that it will happen in a way that will make everyone happy. Would I object to having my damage doubled (or quintupled!) - no, I wouldn't mind that. Will it happen?
[ QUOTE ]
There is that odd word "should" again. Hmmmm!
Edit: Bear in mind I am not arguing that blasters should never be upgraded - merely observing that it is unlikely that it will happen in a way that will make everyone happy. Would I object to having my damage doubled (or quintupled!) - no, I wouldn't mind that. Will it happen?
[/ QUOTE ]
Screw doubling or quintupling our damage. That's a pipe dream and I think we all know it. I'd be happy if our inherent was 30% unresistable (like in PvP) instead of the pimple on Recluse's behind that is Defiance.
Ohms raises a perfectly logical point--that if Blasters supposedly traded defense for damage, and Scrappers do nearly as much damage plus have significant defenses, then shouldn't Blasters do more damage than what they do? Somehow?
FWIW, the bottom line for me is this...
Scrappers initial role in the game is the solo class, with no team role.
That didn't work out, so the devs made them boss-killers. They received adjustments to two lackluster sets, an inherent to help them in their role, and (eventually) the highest base damage in the game to make sure they were the best at their role.
Blasters initial role in the game was "damage juggernaut" (alternatively King of Damage), the team damage dealer who is a glass cannon in order to need a team.
That didn't work out, do the devs say he is the "ranged damage" dealer class. But unlike Scrappers, Blasters have received almost no changes since this role was announced, and neither of those changes directly improved blaster performance in that role. Further, the secondaries (or at least most of them) have been acknowledged as lackluster without being fixed.
Blasters need buffs to imporve their performance in their new role. Blasters need their lackluster secondaries fixed. Those fixes are going to threaten Scapper's a bit. Scrapper's will simply have to remember that they already received their buffs to be best at their role and already had their lackluster sets fixed.
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the bottom line for me is this...
Scrappers initial role in the game is the solo class, with no team role.
That didn't work out, so the devs made them boss-killers. They received adjustments to two lackluster sets, an inherent to help them in their role, and (eventually) the highest base damage in the game to make sure they were the best at their role.
Blasters initial role in the game was "damage juggernaut" (alternatively King of Damage), the team damage dealer who is a glass cannon in order to need a team.
That didn't work out, do the devs say he is the "ranged damage" dealer class. But unlike Scrappers, Blasters have received almost no changes since this role was announced, and neither of those changes directly improved blaster performance in that role. Further, the secondaries (or at least most of them) have been acknowledged as lackluster without being fixed.
Blasters need buffs to imporve their performance in their new role. Blasters need their lackluster secondaries fixed. Those fixes are going to threaten Scapper's a bit. Scrapper's will simply have to remember that they already received their buffs to be best at their role and already had their lackluster sets fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Am i the only one that read STates comments that its scrapper testing that is going on. Seems funny to me that in order to fix the blaster sets they are testing scrappers, chances are blasters are not going to get a damn thing, its scrappers that will be buffed or nerfed accordingly to make blasters feel better about themselves. So again, blasters will get nothing accept a more favorable personal glow when making comparisons to another AT.
[ QUOTE ]
Issue 8 rolls around with this issue still unaddressed (resolving it seems unlikely but at least another bone or two thrown our way might appease us) and the devs will have a riot as the six or seven people who still play blasters rise up in outrage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Six or seven people... Blasters are the most populous hero AT in the game right now. I know, because I just checked. And since I know some blaster is inevitably going to say "OMGTHEIRALLUNDER30~~~," I checked... there were still more 30+ blasters than anyone else (they beat scrappers by 1). Defenders, of course, were the lowest.
The Titantic Tiberian Fiend