[ QUOTE ]
ELECTRIC- not very familiar. Replace Lightning Field with a one-shot version- same animation, same name, PbAoE End drain with minor damage? It's a power worth fixing. It would stack nicely with Short Circuit [although probably not 100% End drain in combination]. Or make Lightning Field have 7.5% ranged Defense and 15% Energy and End Drain resistance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe at one point that would have been nice. However the AV/EB conversion brought the indirect end drain nerf which pretty much destroyed our inherint.
A month ago that woulda' been great for newbie ele blasters. Then as they get older they can 'stack' it with SC... then PS. Oh well. 
I've posted the following before, and I still stand by my idea:
Defiance should not be + damage + acc as the Blaster's health goes down. At later levels in the game, it is so situational to really make use of this benefit. Instead, Defiance should allow all Blaster attacks to have an unresisted portion of damage like PvP.
The baseline for unresisted damage should be 10%.
AoE = baseline so 10% of the AoE damage is unresisted.
Cones +5% unresisted damage for a total of 15%
Single target melee attacks: +10% unresisted damage for a total of 20%.
Single target ranged attacks: +15% unresisted damage for a total of 25%.
AR and Archery should be given an additional +5% unresisted damage in each category,
Further more, in lue of toggle dropping the way it is now, every attack that has a status effect should have a bonus for that status effect to occur which matches the % of unresisted damage. If the effect lands, the status effect is unresisted. This should be for both PvE and PvP.
Other changes would be as previously suggested by others, any power in a Blaster secondary that is a point blank status effect (Ice slick etc...) should be given a range.
/Fire is in need of serious help though. This secondary has very little utility powers.
Blazing Aura should be changed. Keep it a toggle and call it Smoke Screen. Give it a similar animation to Steamy Mist from the Storm set, but make the smoke darker. Smoke Screen acts like Steamy Mist in that it has a stealth component. The effects of the power should be simlar to that of Cloaking device.
Burn is a poor power for all the ATs that use it. Burn should be changed. Each burn patch that is laid should immediately cast a less damaging, but longer lasting version of Incinerate. This Incinerate effect should pulse 3 times throughout the duration of Burn: The begining, middle, and at its end. The fear effect can stay. This way any mob hit by Burn will still take damage when they leave it. The Tanker and Brute version should have a Taunt component to the Incinerate effect that lasts longer than the fear so that mobs return and stop outside the burn patch.
[ QUOTE ]
Defiance should not be + damage + acc as the Blaster's health goes down. At later levels in the game, it is so situational to really make use of this benefit. Instead, Defiance should allow all Blaster attacks to have an unresisted portion of damage like PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, that's a pretty good suggestion. If we actually wanted to keep Defiance in the first place.
I think this has been mentioned in this board before: The last thing a low-health Blaster wants is more aggro. I'm assuming that the blaster is grouped because ... well ... the only solo Blasters I know of either take forever to level up, or eat inspirations like chocoholics, or have a force field buff bot waiting outside the mission door.
As I was saying ... a blaster who's low on health (heck, at high levels, you take one good hit and you're halfway to the hospital) ... a blaster who's low on health will STOP attacking and let the aggro get held or taunted away.
The last thing the blaster would do is attack again.
And with Defiance, if it is active, attacking again means that the aggro might never get held/taunted away in time.
Want to fix the blaster? I now have to add a step in front of everything else...
1. REMOVE defiance.
now for the real fix ...
2. Give us real long range.
Give blasters hide as an inheirent power. That would shut a lot of us up, and make our first move called One Shot. Would be better then defience.
[ QUOTE ]
Give blasters hide as an inheirent power. That would shut a lot of us up, and make our first move called One Shot. Would be better then defience.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would prefer placate over hide.
BOOM!
"Ouch! Ooooh, pretty colors!"
BOOM!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not everyone is playing AGAINST the AT. I have a blapper 'toy'. I play him when I want a change of pace. I in no way take him seriously. Blasters are meant to be RANGED offensive juggernauts. Just because some people take advantage of the mistake that's the melee attacks doesn't mean that's what they're there for.
Asking me to suffer with blasters in their current form because your concept for your blaster goes AGAINST the AT isn't fair dude.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've had this argument before. Blasters were never advertised as "ranged" damage dealers until fairly recently by a Statesman post. Every AT description that the game has provided up to that point has never, to my knowledge, specified that Blasters were soley "ranged" damage dealers. Sure, it was implied, but that's the key. I'm paraphrasing here, but the first Blaster AT description I ran across while loading up the game stated that "Blasters are fragile, but are the masters of damage, be it from range or in melee."
Given the plethora of melee-based attacks in our secondaries, I'd say that if Blasters were "never meant to be in melee," we wouldn't have so many damn melee powers to begin with.
I don't view this as a "mistake" as you say. I would argue that this was completely intended.
Regardless, if a melee power exists... and I use it... how is this a mistake? They weren't "intended" to be used? 
Asking me to accept that powers I've loved and used for two years should be taken away because of your idea of what Blaster should be, isn't "fair dude." I just happen to enjoy using the powers that have been here all along... and using them the way they were obviously intended to be. Excuse ME if I take issue with them being taken away from me.
If the Devs want to go and change how Blasters operate, that's their perogative. I really take issue with them completely removing powers from the game after they've been around for so long and are detrimental to our (by "our" I mean those of us that actually enjoy the melee attacks) "fun."
Removing powers at this point is akin to deleting characters, IMO. I'd be like logging in to find my Tank has been changed to a Kheldian 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme..
[/ QUOTE ]
ED
[/ QUOTE ]
OK... removing powers and changing how powerful they CAN be are two completely different things.
How hard is this to understand?
EDIT: Sorry for de-railing the thread, Pilcrow. Blasters need love, but not at the expense of power removal. There, I've said my piece. Hijack done!
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Sorry for de-railing the thread, Pilcrow. Blasters need love, but not at the expense of power removal. There, I've said my piece. Hijack done!
[/ QUOTE ]
The blapper perspective needs to be represented, it's not a 100% hijack. And, as you said, the "ranged damage" role is a change in direction. It's not like blappers are playing the AT "wrong".
Where I disagree with you is here. I think that so long as melee atacks remain in the secondary, and so long as those melee attacks remain subtantially superior enough to justify closing to melee. The changing of some powers from melee to range would not destroy the blapper playstyle because a power usable at range is also usable at melee.
I don't think conceptual arguments based on what the animations will look like should be used to argue against giving the secondaries the range our new role calls for.
Regardless, as made clear in this thread, messing with the powers is just one possible solution. And there's always the option of grandfathering the existing sets for those who wish to retain access to the powers we'd be altering.
Try and stay true to your premise though. You want to keep it as simple as possible with the fewest amount of power changes or animation changes for that matter.
Look for the biggest way that you can positively help the Blaster AT playstyle both comparatively and intrisicaly useing the fewest possible changes.
Second, any suggestion should try and keep itself within the concepts of playstyle that the developers were shooting for with the blaster. (Since Statesman said that he was keeping melee ATTACKS I don't think suggesting changeing them or removing them to be in keeping with their playstyle concept)
I like melee attacks, but I think there are just some powers in practically every secondary that should get a second look. Heck, there are powers in most primaries that also need a look, but I think secondaries are the biggest problem. 
[ QUOTE ]
I like melee attacks, but I think there are just some powers in practically every secondary that should get a second look. Heck, there are powers in most primaries that also need a look, but I think secondaries are the biggest problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree. In general, I believe that until every power in every powerset is a strong choice and not something you think "Hey, I can drop this for the fitness pool powers and not miss anything worthwhile" the devs shouldnt be content.
Heroes
Dysmal
Lumynous
Sam Steele
Pluck
Wile
Slagheap
Pressure Wave
Rhiannon Bel
Verified
Stellaric
Syd Mallorn
Villains
Jotunheim Skald
Saer Maen
Jen Corbae
Illuminance
Venator Arawn
Taiga Dryad
Tarranos
[ QUOTE ]
Try and stay true to your premise though. You want to keep it as simple as possible with the fewest amount of power changes or animation changes for that matter.
Look for the biggest way that you can positively help the Blaster AT playstyle both comparatively and intrisicaly useing the fewest possible changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
There have been simpler suggestions than my OP. I don't dispute that. That was the point of the thread. Although, we really need the simplest solution that will both work for Blasters and sell in dev land and to the wider community. So really simple ones like "give Blasters mez protection" aren't going to win the day either.
There's a lot of ground between the extremes of my OP and that hough.
[ QUOTE ]
Second, any suggestion should try and keep itself within the concepts of playstyle that the developers were shooting for with the blaster. (Since Statesman said that he was keeping melee ATTACKS I don't think suggesting changeing them or removing them to be in keeping with their playstyle concept)
[/ QUOTE ]
But the concepts and playstyle the developers were shooting for when they first made the blaster are different than the ones they have today. Blasters used to be the best damage in the game, now they're ranged damage dealers. That's a revision in role that has not resulted in a revision of the AT to meet the new role. Since blasters have been changed (I'd say demoted) to ranged damage dealers, only one change (defiance) has occured (that I can recall) that actually improves their ability to deal damage at range, and that change was HIGHLY situational.
Compared to the changes applied to Scrappers when they were re-roled into Boss-killers, that's just sad. Especially since we're now two issues further on since the devs have said they'd look at the secondaries without yet taking action.
Stateman said "I have no intention of removing melee attacks". He didn't promise not to change them. Adding range is one change worth considering, even if that means that it's not "officailly" a melee attack anymore, it hasn't been removed. Its still usable in a blapping chain. Meanwhile if he actually removed a melee attack and replaced it with a control/debuff, it would completely break the blapper high damage playstyle.
As for people who would say "closing to melee and taking that higher risk is also part of the blapper playstyle", I would say: fine, that's why you don't call for ALL the melee attacks to get range. The hardest hitters should continue to require a close to melee. A blapper in melee should be able to outdamage a blaster at range.
I'm just saying the gap between the two needn't be as wide as it is today.
[ QUOTE ]
They need to rework Defiance so that it works like Vigilance: damage taken by teammates ups a Blaster's Defiance meter. Pow. Tankers have a definite role on the team and Blasters can be damage juggernauts. 90% of Blaster problems gone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except 90% of the time I solo making my 99% useless inherint 100% useless. Given the option I'll keep that 1% usability.
ANY inherint that is team or solo biased is flawed.
Gauntlet
Vigilance
Cosmic Balance
Dark Sustenance
Those only do good on teams and are useless outside of them. Every other inherint works the same in a team as solo.
The last thing we should do is encourage the devs to make more inherints that only do any good on a team.
Besides, as far as I've seen defenders aren't too thrilled with vigilance. Why would we be any happier with a blaster version?
I still vote for a blaster version of fury. However, instead of it building every time you attack/are attacked, it builds as you take hits but is NOT health dependant. So if you drop some health you don't lose the bar. However, it'd drain just as quickly as fury, so to keep your damage up you have to be taking damage. So the risk is there that to use your inherint you need to be under fire, and the reward is increased damage output.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, every other AT would react badly I'm sure if Blasters got even an ounce of mez protection.
[/ QUOTE ]
What, even the Khelds?
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the tank mages? Nah, I'm sure they could care less what happens to everyone else. I love my Warshade and don't care what anyone else gets, I have everything I will ever need.
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed
[ QUOTE ]
And I like that idea of +perception when using Aim, makes sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed /signed /signed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not everyone is playing AGAINST the AT. I have a blapper 'toy'. I play him when I want a change of pace. I in no way take him seriously. Blasters are meant to be RANGED offensive juggernauts. Just because some people take advantage of the mistake that's the melee attacks doesn't mean that's what they're there for.
Asking me to suffer with blasters in their current form because your concept for your blaster goes AGAINST the AT isn't fair dude.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've had this argument before. Blasters were never advertised as "ranged" damage dealers until fairly recently by a Statesman post. Every AT description that the game has provided up to that point has never, to my knowledge, specified that Blasters were soley "ranged" damage dealers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Instructions I got with the game (about 2 weeks after original release) clearly place blasters as ranged damage dealers.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it was implied, but that's the key.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the word RANGED in their description is merely implication...
[ QUOTE ]
I'm paraphrasing here, but the first Blaster AT description I ran across while loading up the game stated that "Blasters are fragile, but are the masters of damage, be it from range or in melee."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I think I remember that from the original instillation screen way way back in the day. I don't think it mentioned range/melee but was less general just stating master of damage, leaving the door open. However, the manual that came with the game...
[ QUOTE ]
Given the plethora of melee-based attacks in our secondaries, I'd say that if Blasters were "never meant to be in melee," we wouldn't have so many damn melee powers to begin with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) but weren't our secondaries kinda' just cobbled together when the game went to the AT system? Maybe we were never meant to have the melee attacks in there. However that's just speculation. The problem is they're there, they're high damage, and some people decided they want glass swords instead of glass cannons.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't view this as a "mistake" as you say. I would argue that this was completely intended.
[/ QUOTE ]
Intent has nothing to do with it. I think them putting the melee attacks in was a mistake, or at least a quantity of them. One solid melee attack as an 'oh crap' power would be fine iMo. The reason I think it's a mistake is now we have two camps. Blaster and blappers. If they make changes to turn blaster into the 'ranged offensive juggernauts' we're 'supposed' to be, that might affect the blappers. Alternatively, if they try to make changes that keep both camps happy it might take longer or result in changes that aren't exactly ideal for the ranged blasters.
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, if a melee power exists... and I use it... how is this a mistake?
[/ QUOTE ]
See above. (As an aside, not saying you USING them is a mistake.)
[ QUOTE ]
They weren't "intended" to be used?
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't say that.
[ QUOTE ]
Asking me to accept that powers I've loved and used for two years should be taken away because of your idea of what Blaster should be, isn't "fair dude."
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahhh... mockery...
Anyway, I'm not asking they take them away. However, blasters weren't designed or built to maintain sustained fighting in melee range. That's not saying they can't be SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to do it, but that's NOT what they're about. First and foremost blasters are ranged combatants... our primary pool is ranged. You are playing AGAINST the AT using the attacks from its secondary pool as your main-stay with support from pool powers. So... that being said any changes to blaster should be kept with "what is this AT?" in mind. Blappers are specialized variants of blasters. I want a better blaster, and the AT is called blaster, not blapper.
[ QUOTE ]
I just happen to enjoy using the powers that have been here all along... and using them the way they were obviously intended to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh, and where's the red-name post stating that the melee powers are there to turn blasters into blappers? That's your impression.
[ QUOTE ]
Excuse ME if I take issue with them being taken away from me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said... we're blasters. I want a better blaster. Blappers are something completely different and could 'potentially' complicate changes that would make better blasters because you're playing AGAINST the AT.
[ QUOTE ]
If the Devs want to go and change how Blasters operate, that's their perogative. I really take issue with them completely removing powers from the game after they've been around for so long and are detrimental to our (by "our" I mean those of us that actually enjoy the melee attacks) "fun."
[/ QUOTE ]
I use the melee attacks on ALL my blasters be they designed for it or no. A mob always gets through and it's nice to be able to smash his head down and out through his [censored]. The melee powers have their place and their purpose.
I'm also not opposed to blappers. The melee attacks are there. The pool powers are there. 2+2 = 4 and in this case 4 = blapper. You were given materials and tools and made something from them. Even if it's against the at, since you weren't restricted on what you were allowed to build then you built what you wanted.
[ QUOTE ]
Removing powers at this point is akin to deleting characters, IMO. I'd be like logging in to find my Tank has been changed to a Kheldian
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is where the problem comes in. If they hadn't made the mistake of putting in so many melee attacks we wouldn't have a blapper issue. However the mistake was made and now it's going to cause issues.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme..
[/ QUOTE ]
ED
[/ QUOTE ]
OK... removing powers and changing how powerful they CAN be are two completely different things.
How hard is this to understand?
[/ QUOTE ]
How hard is it to understand you're playing AGAINST the AT?
I understand potential vs powers. However... as a ranged BLASTER I'm not going to shed too many tears if they decide to whipe out the melee attacks or reduce the number of melee attacks if it meant I was a stronger ranged combatant.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Sorry for de-railing the thread, Pilcrow. Blasters need love, but not at the expense of power removal. There, I've said my piece. Hijack done!
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed
EDIT: I am NOT suggesting in any way shape or form the melee attacks be changed or removed. All I'm stating is MY personal oppinion that they are in *MY* oppinion expendable if it means making the AT better. I just wouldn't want to see blasters not get better because they couldn't get rid of the melee attacks due to blappers.
[ QUOTE ]
ANY inherint that is team or solo biased is flawed.
Gauntlet
Vigilance
Cosmic Balance
Dark Sustenance
Those only do good on teams and are useless outside of them. Every other inherint works the same in a team as solo.
The last thing we should do is encourage the devs to make more inherints that only do any good on a team.
I still vote for a blaster version of fury. However, instead of it building every time you attack/are attacked, it builds as you take hits but is NOT health dependant. So if you drop some health you don't lose the bar. However, it'd drain just as quickly as fury, so to keep your damage up you have to be taking damage. So the risk is there that to use your inherint you need to be under fire, and the reward is increased damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think any inherint that is team based is flawed, it just happens that those ATs work BETTER in a team and as such their inherint reflects that. Remember the Devs have been pushing for us to Team since pretty much launch.
Now what I DO have a problem with is an inherint that is based on damage recieved, on an AT that has almost NO defenses against said damage. Once that damage starts coming in there is almost no way to stop it except kill the ones dealing it, problem is that there is a good chance the critter already has another attack qued so even if we manage to get our attack off in the short span we are still alive, the killing blow is in route to us. To say nothing of if we aggro a group and they all turn and fire on us.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANY inherint that is team or solo biased is flawed.
Gauntlet
Vigilance
Cosmic Balance
Dark Sustenance
Those only do good on teams and are useless outside of them. Every other inherint works the same in a team as solo.
The last thing we should do is encourage the devs to make more inherints that only do any good on a team.
I still vote for a blaster version of fury. However, instead of it building every time you attack/are attacked, it builds as you take hits but is NOT health dependant. So if you drop some health you don't lose the bar. However, it'd drain just as quickly as fury, so to keep your damage up you have to be taking damage. So the risk is there that to use your inherint you need to be under fire, and the reward is increased damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think any inherint that is team based is flawed, it just happens that those ATs work BETTER in a team and as such their inherint reflects that. Remember the Devs have been pushing for us to Team since pretty much launch.
[/ QUOTE ]
**Reply sent in pm since it's a total derail and has nothing to do with thread.**
[ QUOTE ]
Now what I DO have a problem with is an inherint that is based on damage recieved, on an AT that has almost NO defenses against said damage. Once that damage starts coming in there is almost no way to stop it except kill the ones dealing it, problem is that there is a good chance the critter already has another attack qued so even if we manage to get our attack off in the short span we are still alive, the killing blow is in route to us. To say nothing of if we aggro a group and they all turn and fire on us.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's still a step up IMO. We need to take damage either way and it stays in States' vision. At least this way we could keep our health up, get healed etc and not see our inherint bar instantly vanish. The risk being the damage that could potentially kill us the reward being us standing up in Defiance of their onslaught and laying waste to them.
Just to note, in the original description for the Blaster it did say that they were masters of damage be it ranged or melee.
When the developers noticed that players were completely skipping the melee they then increased the melee strength so that it would be attractive. Again, this indicates that the developers did want blasters to use their melee powers. It should be noted that they didn't change the melee powers themselves but simply increased the base melee multiplier on blasters so it matched their ranged multiplier. This made it the equal of scrappers who originaly were the best class in melee and are now again the best melee damaging set.
[ QUOTE ]
It's still a step up IMO. We need to take damage either way and it stays in States' vision. At least this way we could keep our health up, get healed etc and not see our inherint bar instantly vanish. The risk being the damage that could potentially kill us the reward being us standing up in Defiance of their onslaught and laying waste to them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok now I understand what your saying. As we take damage our defiance bar goes up, however instead of instantly dropping when we get healed (inspiration or another player) it would slowly decay like Fury or Domination does. Now THAT is an Idea that I like. Mind you I don't like a damage based inherint an a defenseless AT but I don't forsee them changing defiance to something other then that (being damage based).
Fewest moves:
1) Make all Blaster primary attacks have range of 80-100.
2) Remove the delay on Snipe and make it a normal attack with a slightly longer recycle (20 secs).
3) On the Secondary side, transform one of the "melee" attacks from each power into a ranged attack (80-100 range).
-------
Three moves.... check.
Cheers,
SUN
PS-
4) Change nukes from 1-time all-or-nothing propositions, into useable AOE powers that can effeiciently be used (shorter timer, slightly less power, less end drain) in combat. -this is only an option, since many people like they way nukes work now... but it would make for enjoyable blasting (IMHO).
[ QUOTE ]
Energy: Energy Punch - Replaced with a longer ranged version of Power Burst (1)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooo you want to remove my favorite power from energy secondary..
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Energy: Energy Punch - Replaced with a longer ranged version of Power Burst (1)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooo you want to remove my favorite power from energy secondary..
[/ QUOTE ]
One of the issues I have with changeing melee attacks in the secondary is what the animation times of the secondary powers will be in relation to their damage and range. Energy and Electric melee are enjoyed in part due to their fast animation times. I just can't see the developers going along with fast animation times, good damage, and range. From the secondary.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Energy: Energy Punch - Replaced with a longer ranged version of Power Burst (1)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sooo you want to remove my favorite power from energy secondary..
[/ QUOTE ]
One of the issues I have with changeing melee attacks in the secondary is what the animation times of the secondary powers will be in relation to their damage and range. Energy and Electric melee are enjoyed in part due to their fast animation times. I just can't see the developers going along with fast animation times, good damage, and range. From the secondary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's not a shared secondary, it's specific to Blasters. And it's purpose is to support the main function of the Blaster, which, at current, is ranged damge.
By putting some attacks in the secondary that are better than attacks in the primary, they allow Blasters to get better attack chains than other users of the blast sets, which is exactly what Blasters should have. It's not like Blasters would be the only AT using powers in their secondary to amplify the DPS and DPE of the powers in their primary, they would just do it in the very Blaster-y fashion of amplifying those by putting a stronger attack in their attack chain, instead of by doing things like buffing/debuffing or self-buffing (or in addition to these).
Having a few high quality ranged attacks in there aren't going to make the secondary better than the primary. It will still be chock full of situational and support powers. There will be no way one could make a better ranged chain from one's secondary than from one's primary. There will simply be a couple of powers there one can mix into their chain to improve its DPS. It would also allow them to make fuller AE and fuller ST chains, so they could use more AE when AE is appropriate and more ST when ST is appropriate, instead of having to mix them together to have a complete chain (most sets cannot make a complete chain of both types without closing to melee today).
Basically, it's a matter of following the primary > secondary > pool rule on a set by set instead of a power by power basis. And, as that seems to be the way they apply the rule elsewhere in the game (to Defender's Chagrin), there's no reason not to apply it in the favor of Blasters (unless they feel Blasters are already ahead of the game compared to the 10 CoX ATs, but I would not share that perception).
Still, in all, messing with the powers appears to be a more complex manner of "fixing" the Blaster than we need. It's do-able, and might be the best road for other reasons, but not for the reasons I started this thread over.
It's rewarding to see that the notions contined in my OP have enough legs to be a solution, but it isn't the simplest one. I'm going to take the notion back to the drawing board a bit and try it in a different manner, but still think this topic is popping out some good ideas that deserve airtime.
Speaking of ideas that deserve airtime. Here's something that came in to my PMs from someone who would prefer to remain anonymous. I think they're wirth seeing (especially #2 )
1. Increase the range on all of the attacks shorter than 80 feet in the primary (at least 60 for all AoE and nukes, 80 for single target) and remove the inturrupt timer from snipe attacks while still keeping the two LoS checks.
2. Make every toggle other than Cloaking Device and every PbAoE in the secondary a ranged target toggle and a ranged AoE. This would mean that tripmines and other summons would still operate as they do now. However, Hotfeet and chilling embrace would be ranged. The range on all of these powers should not be more than 30' activate and of course they would be limited by the toggle leash the same as defenders. Recharge times would be increased on all of the powers changed.
3. Impliment the PvP mechanic for resistance bypass in PvE. This will help the lethal and /smashing sets even out with the pure elemental sets and will keep sets with a pure elemental set from being dinged as hard when they run up against a mob with very high resists to their elemental *cough* Infernal *Cough*.
Those three base changes would completely change the play style of blasters, still allow variety by leaving the melee in place and still very usefull but, would do so in a way that would make blasters overpowered in PvE. The important thing to note is the increased recharge times on powers like Hotfeet, Chilling Embrace and the like. I mean really slow to almost long recharge times on those powers. A blaster should not come close to a corruptor in providing defense to a team and those powers used offensively could do so, thus they must be balanced.
I popped open my manual and found the AT description you're talking about. You're right, it does say "Blasters specialize in delivering massive damage at range." So, I guess that makes us both right.
Whether the melee attacks were a mistake or not is up for debate. I believe that this was intentional. They exist. They've existed for a long time. If they were a mistake, then they wouldn't have been improved over time... you know, to make them more attractive.
It is simply not logically possible for someone to play "against" an AT when they're using strictly powers provided in their Primary and Secondary sets. If they weren't "about" melee, they wouldn't "have" melee to begin with. Sure, their emphasis is ranged, I agree, but to saythat Blasters "were never meant for melee range" is obviously not true. Unless you're goign to play the "look what they did not Controllers with multiple pets" card, but that's still not a power reversal, that's a downgrade.
It's not like we're playing pet-less MasterMinds here...
There doesn't need to be a red name post supporting the use of melee attacks. They're IN the damn secondaries! If players want to call them "Blappers," that's their perogative. They're still Blasters. Our AT description doesn't change simply because we empasize our secondary strengths.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
FYI: A blaster that makes use of his melee attacks is more of a glass "canon" than a strictly range-limited blaster could ever be. I understand that this is what people want to change and that's fine. I actually agree. To be honest, this conversation is moot anyway. Stateman has already stated that the melee attacks aren't going anywhere.
On a slightly different tangent... what's with the implication that Blappers rely on pool powers to be a Blapper? I've never had more than Fitness, Speed and Hover since I created this character. I've seen a few Blappers with Acrobatics, but I'd hardly say it's necessary.
EDIT: Post was unnecessarily rude. Apologies.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
But not everyone is playing AGAINST the AT. I have a blapper 'toy'. I play him when I want a change of pace. I in no way take him seriously. Blasters are meant to be RANGED offensive juggernauts. Just because some people take advantage of the mistake that's the melee attacks doesn't mean that's what they're there for.
Asking me to suffer with blasters in their current form because your concept for your blaster goes AGAINST the AT isn't fair dude.
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme..
[/ QUOTE ]
ED
[ QUOTE ]
and the Blaster problem is not "that" extreme.
[/ QUOTE ]
IYO. IMO my ele cubed blaster is for [censored] now. Add to that the varying ranges of my ranged attacks constantly forcing me to remaneuver etc...
[ QUOTE ]
Adding new power options is the way to go. Not removing them.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine and dandy but the second they start adding powers to our pools the other 4 non-epic AT's are going to be up in arms demaning their share.