[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, off the top of my head, look at Cyclops. Sure, he's got blasts out the wazoo. He's also a fair unarmed combatant. Not Bruce Lee by any stretch of the imagination, but he seems more than capable in a melee with non-superpowered foes when need be. Or take a look at Iron Man. He's also got blasts to spare, plus if things get REALLY in his face, he's got super-strength and basic martial arts training from Captain America himself. Most comic blasters seem to at least be marginally capable in a fight--at least long enough to gain a bit of breathing room and unleash ranged doom on their foes once again.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:
Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control
[/ QUOTE ]
The Range/Control combination, along with the Range/Defense combination, is what broke freeform power selection and made them switch to the AT system in the first place.
That said, I suspect some of the observations made in that article (about how Range/Defense and Range/Control make things too easy) might not necessarily hold in the game today.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
The devs did it for Scrappers/Tanks, why not the squishies also?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Cyclops. He's a trained martial artist, but he doesn't attack hand to hand unless he has no choice.
Punisher. One quote I recall him using, when asked "Why do you carry a gun" is, "I have to constantly face superhuman opponents. It's to level the playing field". But against common thugs, he often just uses his fists.
Starfire. She has superhuman strength, and in fact, is remarkably resiliant for a Blaster. She's been driven through floors a couple of times. She still stays away from melee and even hover snipes.
Green Arrow. In one of the episodes of JLU, he took on Wildcat hand to hand. Although he didn't defeat him, he was still able to hold him off for some time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 was referring to the Moonfire AV. The one that uses a version of Dark Regen.
EDIT: who I didn't see flying at any point, incidentally, but we had control effects mixed in
[ QUOTE ]
I went away from the computer to check on some CoV stuff and *wham* I received 5 or so PM's asking "what is the Blaster's role?"
Answer - Ranged damage. Now, the issue is more specifically - what does a Blaster do that a Scrapper can't already do? Or, even worse, is a Scrapper inherently "stronger" than a Blaster. We want each Archetype to have a well defined role, and part of our Scrapper testing is aimed directly at this.
Secondly, I have no intention of removing melee attacks - it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation. This is a rather frequent refrain in PM's (and the occasional forum post). This is something that we should also explore...we want all the Secondary sets to be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.
[ 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 ]
No, the real reason you don't want Scrappers for Arakahn is that she has a heal that's based on the number of characters in melee range. She'll shoot back up to full health every time she uses it if there are too many people in melee with her.
[ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered?
[/ QUOTE ] How do you make a control power 75% (or 66%) as effective, then they have a simple 2-4 scale of magnitude? If you lower it by one, you make them horribly weak. If you don't lower them, controllers become useless by comparison.
I think what you end up doing is severely limiting the targets. I think there wouldn't be much problem with blasters having some single-target control effects in their secondary...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I went away from the computer to check on some CoV stuff and *wham* I received 5 or so PM's asking "what is the Blaster's role?"
Answer - Ranged damage. Now, the issue is more specifically - what does a Blaster do that a Scrapper can't already do? Or, even worse, is a Scrapper inherently "stronger" than a Blaster. We want each Archetype to have a well defined role, and part of our Scrapper testing is aimed directly at this.
Secondly, I have no intention of removing melee attacks - it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation. This is a rather frequent refrain in PM's (and the occasional forum post). This is something that we should also explore...we want all the Secondary sets to be fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well +1 isn't "vast". 3 bad, 2 good. At worst. Otherwise, the majority turns around, and it is equally "vast".
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
How bout the martial arts skills Storm used to defeat Cyclops and become leader of the Xmen when she lost her powers, for one example? Cyclops removing his visor for PBAE goodness. Dazzler's PBAE Flash. Gambit's Staff.
Didn't have to even leave the X-men, though if that's not enough, Hawkeye and the Green Arrow could throw a mean haymaker as I recall.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well +1 isn't "vast". 3 bad, 2 good. At worst. Otherwise, the majority turns around, and it is equally "vast".
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the "some" he's taking issue with is "some Blasters," not "some Secondaries."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered?
[/ QUOTE ] How do you make a control power 75% (or 66%) as effective, then they have a simple 2-4 scale of magnitude? If you lower it by one, you make them horribly weak. If you don't lower them, controllers become useless by comparison.
I think what you end up doing is severely limiting the targets. I think there wouldn't be much problem with blasters having some single-target control effects in their secondary...
[/ QUOTE ]
How about mezz length? That seems about right. To bad none of the control primaries fit my concept. BE would probably be a defender if that is what had happened. FF/elec.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well +1 isn't "vast". 3 bad, 2 good. At worst. Otherwise, the majority turns around, and it is equally "vast".
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he means the vast majority of the PLAYERS, not the POWER SETS.
Now I have to be concerned about Statesman's original quote. I mean, I love Fire Manipulation, I use it myself. But I know for a fact that I don't need Combustion, Fire Sword Circle AND Blazing Aura. I'm not going to take all of them. I'm not even going to take ANY of them.
Assuming I'm not in any way unusual in that, and that the datamining backs me up on that, in that the majority of people playing Blasters are taking less than 50% of the powers in their Secondary, then how the heck can Statesman look at that and say it's just a "perception"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, off the top of my head, look at Cyclops. Sure, he's got blasts out the wazoo. He's also a fair unarmed combatant. Not Bruce Lee by any stretch of the imagination, but he seems more than capable in a melee with non-superpowered foes when need be. Or take a look at Iron Man. He's also got blasts to spare, plus if things get REALLY in his face, he's got super-strength and basic martial arts training from Captain America himself. Most comic blasters seem to at least be marginally capable in a fight--at least long enough to gain a bit of breathing room and unleash ranged doom on their foes once again.
[/ QUOTE ]
With Energy Manipulation I can somewhat create that effect.
Of it's attacks I have Energy Thrust, slotted purely for Accuracy. A successful hit and then follow with Sniper Rifle is a fairly reliable combination.
[ QUOTE ]
How bout the martial arts skills Storm used to defeat Cyclops and become leader of the Xmen when she lost her powers, for one example? Cyclops removing his visor for PBAE goodness. Dazzler's PBAE Flash. Gambit's Staff.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably should have been clearer in my question. I'm taking issue with the idea that the comic-book blaster melee attacks are always a "last resort", and so Blasters in COH should always have to stay out of melee.
[ QUOTE ]
The max damage of a Blaster is 400%...a Scrapper is 500%. We did this because the Scrapper is involved in melee and thus in a riskier situation far more often. Blasters, on the other hand, can pick and choose their targets from a distance.
[/ QUOTE ]
-Statesman, Ask Statesman #6
States? What's so "risky" about having all Scrapper secondaries entirely devoted to Defenses, Resistances, Healing, Status-effecting the enemies, boosted Hit Points, and pool powers that give Scrappers more Defense and Resistance than it does to Blasters? Must be my backwoods south-Texan education that makes me see that as the precise opposite of "risky".
Enemy Resistances - Damage, Mez and Defense
Enemy XP Mods
(Drag my avatar into your mp3 player!)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
The devs did it for Scrappers/Tanks, why not the squishies also?
[/ QUOTE ]
They did do it for squishies. It's called a Defender.
They even have a blaster-flavored one (Rad/Rad) and a Controller flavored one (Dark/Dark).
If you want ranged defense/offense, that's your AT.
Turning Blasters into that is not the solution.
[ QUOTE ]
How about mezz length? That seems about right.
[/ QUOTE ] That feels like something that would be extremely problematic. If they were just as effective, but didn't last as long, wouldn't that mean that one or two slots would put you right back into the controller's realm?
And if not, would anyone use them?
I'm completely against removing all of the melee from the secondaries. They're too situationally useful--keeping one or two, or even three, around from each one would be just dandy. The self-buffs in the secondaries are also gravy--keep those too. With what's left, provide us with SOMETHING to help us manage aggro so the enemy alpha strike doesn't blow us into our component atoms--whether it's misdirection, stealthy shots, a straw man for the enemy to shoot while we open fire...even if it only lasts long enough to be safe from the alpha strike, we can handle it from there (the enemy then splits up and some try to close to melee, others continue to take potshots from range, but it's no longer synchronized firing squad blasts of doom). Add to that a minor increase to our range--to avoid hover-snipes, give us range equal to the enemies. Then, toss a bone to those who feel our damage is totally sub-par and give us that 30% unresistable boost that the arena has.
There you have it--significantly improved "ranged damage" capabilities, plus better survivability without giving us actual defense, resistances, or super-range. I think it's worth losing one or two melee powers for that.
EDIT: This wasn't REALLY in response to Pilcrow--he just happened to be the last post when I clicked reply to start my post. Pilcrow, as it happens, has some amazingly well-constructed ideas for aggro mitigation and so forth that the devs would do well to take a long, hard look at.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well +1 isn't "vast". 3 bad, 2 good. At worst. Otherwise, the majority turns around, and it is equally "vast".
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he means the vast majority of the PLAYERS, not the POWER SETS.
Now I have to be concerned about Statesman's original quote. I mean, I love Fire Manipulation, I use it myself. But I know for a fact that I don't need Combustion, Fire Sword Circle AND Blazing Aura. I'm not going to take all of them. I'm not even going to take ANY of them.
Assuming I'm not in any way unusual in that, and that the datamining backs me up on that, in that the majority of people playing Blasters are taking less than 50% of the powers in their Secondary, then how the heck can Statesman look at that and say it's just a "perception"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct Jade. The vast majority of players
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Fire has..
Single Target Immob: good damage, short range, fast recharge.
Build up: +Acc, +DMG
Consume: AoE, +end
Burn: Short loc based AoE, fear(hey, it keeps things out of melee!)
Devices has
Single Target Immob: -fly, -rchg, fast recharge
Caltrops: Good slow, and FR type fear
Taser: Disorient
Targeting Drone: +acc
Smoke Gren: -acc, -visibility
Cloaking Dev: +stealth(invis strength), +def
Trip Mine: Triggered Knockback
Energy has
Single Target Knockback
Build up: See above
Conserve Power: halves cost of all powers
Power Boost: Double power secondary effects
Boost Rage: Doubles range
4 Single target disorients(TF, Bonesmasher, Energy Punch, Stun) of varying effectiveness
Elec has
Single target immob: decent damage, fast recharge, good -end
2 single target sleeps(havok punch/charged brawl) of varying effectiveness
Lightning Field: PBAoE -endurance
Build up
Lightning Clap: PBAoE knockdown, disorient
Thunderstrike: Disorient, knockback
Power Sink: PBAoE auto hit -end, self +end
Shocking Grasp: single target hold
Ice has
Single target immob: Good damage, fast rchg, -spd,-rchg
Chilling Embrace: PBAoE -spd, -rchg
Build Up
Ice Patch: PbAoE knockdown
Shiver: cone, -rchg,-spd
Freezing Touch: single target Hold
Frozen Aura: PBAoE sleep.
All 5 secondaries have utility, some have more than others, some have less, some work better with some builds (Frozen Aura works much better with the ice primary and doing single target damage only than it does with fire primary for instance[method is AoE Sleep group, then hold bosses with ice primary holds and ice secondary holds, then go to town, one minion at a time, while continueing to hold bosses or enemies missed by sleep, re-appling AoE sleep as nessesary])
There is utility in each of the sets, you just choose to ignore it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about mezz length? That seems about right.
[/ QUOTE ] That feels like something that would be extremely problematic. If they were just as effective, but didn't last as long, wouldn't that mean that one or two slots would put you right back into the controller's realm?
And if not, would anyone use them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they'd never reach a similarly slotted controller, and they'd get the powers later to boot. That was the old justification for scrappers/tankers.
As said, I like the "support" secondaries. I just think a few of the powers in them need to be made more useful (if say the blaster Ice Patch was the same as the controller one, and Lighting Clap was more effective, and Hot Feet freakin' did something then I would be content). I just said it seemed to fit the same kind of reasoning as tanker/scrappers.
First... Starfire is no blaster. she's a ranged scrapper. She has superhuman strenght, and can take a lot of damage.
Next... you rarely EVER see cyclops use a melee attacks. his blasts can penetrate steel, pulverize mountain tops, and crush whole buildings. he has control of his power down to the most minute level. A richocheting blast that can clock enemies from any angle... and he CONTROLS his knockback.
And yeah.... green arrow held his own for about 20 seconds... then that old man made a mockery of him. he could have easily have put him to waste in 3 or 4 shots. hell the black canary could have cleaned his longjohns in the same amount of time.
Blasters in comics "blast" that's all they have to do... hell if you were havock would you bother with an uppercut? super heated cosmic plasma...helllllooooooooo?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered?
[/ QUOTE ] How do you make a control power 75% (or 66%) as effective, then they have a simple 2-4 scale of magnitude? If you lower it by one, you make them horribly weak. If you don't lower them, controllers become useless by comparison.
I think what you end up doing is severely limiting the targets. I think there wouldn't be much problem with blasters having some single-target control effects in their secondary...
[/ QUOTE ]
How about mezz length? That seems about right. To bad none of the control primaries fit my concept. BE would probably be a defender if that is what had happened. FF/elec.
[/ QUOTE ]
How bout weaker controls. Like immobilizes, slows and single target holds, but not AE holds.
Oh, right, Blasters already have those and IT'S NOT ENOUGH!
Nor will it ever be enough and be balanced because if you give blasters enough defense to deliver their full offense solo, why would they want to do anything but solo?
Blasters are supposed to shine in a team. That means two things. #1 they shouldn't be able to reach their full potential without a team and #2 when on a team, they should be able to.
Sadly, #2 is not true, but that's what needs to be fixed. You seem to want to change #1.
IRT no one in paticular.
You know a really easy fix for most of the secondaries would be:
1. Reduce activation time of all melee attacks to 1.
2. Make all control powers ranged(short).
3. Add fear type effect to Chilling Embrace and Hot Feet(similar to Freezing Rain on test)