[ QUOTE ]
[*]Energy: Boost Range - Replaced with a click version of PFF that cannot be perma'd
[/ QUOTE ]
You can have my Boost Range when you pry it from my cold dead hands, you damn dirty ape. 
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"
- Abraham Lincoln
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
/em rolleyes
Weren't you going to drop this? 
And both right? That's a stretch at best. Emphasis you on specialize. :P When *I* emphasize it it's to back my point. "See? See? It straight out says our specialty is ranged! The melee is just there as an OH [censored]!"
[ QUOTE ]
Whether the melee attacks were a mistake or not is, IMO, irrelevant. 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
They were improved because compared to the other attacks in blaster sets and scrappers they were viewed as underpowered. They were improved to bring them in line with the concept of 'offensive juggernaut'.
It is simply not logically possible for someone to [ QUOTE ]
play "against" an AT when they're using strictly powers provided in their Primary and Secondary sets.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't use the pool powers to round out your attack chain? To add defense?
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Devices Secondary: No melee
Electric Manipulation: 3 melee attacks
Energy Manipulation: 4 melee attacks (not counting stun)
Fire Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
Ice Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
If blasters were meant to melee you wouldn't see such disparity amongst the number and type and damage of melee attacks. The melee are almost an afterthought. Just because they threw in 2 melee attacks here or even 4 there (maybe because they couldn't think of anything elese to do with the set?) doesn't mean they're there to turn blasters into melee masters.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, oppinion. Not all controllers consider the change a downgrade or bad. Just because the 'crybabys' are the most vocal doesn't make them the majority. (Nor does it make them the minority either.)
[ QUOTE ]
There doesn't need to be a red name post supporting the use of melee attacks. They're IN the damn secondaries!
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't ask for one.
[ QUOTE ]
If players want to call them "Blappers," that's their perogative. They're still Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a REASON they're called blappers. And it's because they're the blaster AT (ranged specialists) but they fight like scrappers (melee).
[ QUOTE ]
Our AT description doesn't change simply because we empasize our secondary strengths.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're just going against your at. Blaster = ranged specialist. By focusing on your melee you're going against that. It's that simple.
[ QUOTE ]
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.
[/ QUOTE ]
As are you.
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that they sky is yellow with pink polka dots. That doesn't make me right.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank God for that. 
HOWEVER, that's not an oppinion. It's at best an ignorance to the facts (in this case regarding the color of the sky). The color of the sky is an established fact. Saying a blue sky is yellow with pink daffodils...
I do get what you're saying though.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Glass cannon? I thought that was me. You're a glass sword.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It was supposed to be moot when you said you weren't going to carry it on.
Anyway I could really give a [censored], honestly if you build 1000000000 blappers. (The melee attacks are pretty fun.) My ONLY concern is that people making blappers makes it that much harder (and possibly longer) for devs to make improvements to what is an that [italic]specializes[/italic] in range.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
My ignorance then. I didn't think you could effectively maintain melee without some additional attacks from the power pools and some of the defense.
EDIT: Fixed a couple typos and some tone.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Post was unnecessarily rude. Apologies.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it was it went over my head.
On the blapper vs. blaster issue: I currently play blappers. When I got the game and rolled up a character, I created a blaster. As the game progressed, I became dissatisfied with the damage my electric blast was capable of putting out at range, and when freespecs started going in, I experimented on test and discovered that I could do some serious damage in melee. I lucked out in that I had some controls available to me to mitigate the risk, so I respecced to blapping and haven't looked back.
I've since come to enjoy blapping. It's pretty fun in that "screaming in-your-face balls-to-the-wall hyena" way, closing in and hoping your shock-and-awe campaign will overwhelm them enough that they don't manage to get a couple solid hits in. It's an exhilerating rush, I admit.
However, it's not what I originally made the character for, and even subsequent blapping alts have been made with the knowledge that this is probably a fringe playstyle that may or may not continue to be supported.
As such, I'll probably miss blapping if it goes by the wayside to make way for more effective blasting. But I'd welcome the shift and revel in blasting if I found it equally effective. I do think it would be bothersome if they didn't leave a signature melee attack per secondary, though -- let those fire and ice folks keep their swords, leave me my bone smasher, etc. One, serious melee attack is a good fall-back for even a ranged specialist.
[ QUOTE ]
/em rolleyes
Weren't you going to drop this?
[/ QUOTE ]
D'oh! I hate when my hypocrisy is called out!
About the rudeness:
[ QUOTE ]
If it was it went over my head.
[/ QUOTE ]
My "your opinion is irrelevant" comments were uncalled for, so I removed them. That, and my dumb statement about yellow polka dot skies didn't make much sense lol
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em rolleyes
Weren't you going to drop this?
[/ QUOTE ]
D'oh! I hate when my hypocrisy is called out!
About the rudeness:
[ QUOTE ]
If it was it went over my head.
[/ QUOTE ]
My "your opinion is irrelevant" comments were uncalled for, so I removed them. That, and my dumb statement about yellow polka dot skies didn't make much sense lol
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh. And nope, it didn't. :P
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[*]Energy: Boost Range - Replaced with a click version of PFF that cannot be perma'd
[/ QUOTE ]
You can have my Boost Range when you pry it from my cold dead hands, you damn dirty ape.
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't notice I had put it into Build Up?
You know? I've got another set of ideas, MUCH simpler. Not as good as the others, but probably much easier to make.
1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by adding 20 to their range, except for cones.
2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 20' range. BTW, that would be Power Thrust for Energy, not Energy Punch, making it a true "keep away" rather than a "get away" power.
[ QUOTE ]
I think Defiance is the Dev's "fix" for Blasters' secondaries.
[/ QUOTE ]
I HOPE TO GAWD THAT WAS A JOKE !!!!!!!!!!
/em head explodes right into orbit
Psynder LVL 51 Fire/Fire/Scorpion Blaster
KnightWidow LVL 51 NightWidow
Shiver LVL 50 Ice X3 Dominator
Knight'Shade LVL 47 DP/Dark/NRG Corrupter
Currently Marking Out For: Chris Sabin, Player Dos, Daniel Bryan, Portia Perez, CM Punk
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Defiance is the Dev's "fix" for Blasters' secondaries.
[/ QUOTE ]
I HOPE TO GAWD THAT WAS A JOKE !!!!!!!!!!
/em head explodes right into orbit
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way. Castle is going over the Blaster stuff right now and I am willing to wait and see what he says, even if I fear his two most common responses will be 'As intended' and 'Would require an animation change which we don't have the manpower/time for'.
[ QUOTE ]
I like my Ice Sword how it is thanks. I'd much rather replace Frozen Aura with Ice Sword Circle, or better, Greater Ice Sword.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, Frozen Aura is quite useless. I'd happily take Greater Ice Sword >
[ QUOTE ]
Devices Secondary: No melee
Electric Manipulation: 3 melee attacks
Energy Manipulation: 4 melee attacks (not counting stun)
Fire Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
Ice Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
[/ QUOTE ]
Just an FYI
Considering that an attack is anything that does damage, and melee is 5' or less (including PBAOE's with a range >5'):
Devices: 1 maybe attack --Taser - .6944 BI
Electric: 5 attacks --Lightning Field, Charged Brawl, Havok Punch, Thunder Strike, Shocking Grasp
Energy: 4 attacks -- Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Total Focus - also not counting stun
Fire: 7 attacks -- Fire Sword, Combustion, Fire Sword Circle, Blazing Aura, Consume, Burn, Hot Feet
Ice: 3 attacks -- Frozen Fists, Ice Sword, Freezing Touch
It seems that melee attacks make up anywhere from 11 - 78% of blaster secondaries. That averages to 4 melee attacks per secondary, which is ~ 45% of a blasters secondary attacks are in melee.
This is actually a lot less than the percent of blaster secondary powers that are to be used in melee. That number would be 26/45 powers that are to be used in melee. That means ~ 58% of blasters' secondary powers are to be used in melee. That seems like quite a bit for a ranged AT.
Lets look at the amount of ranged powers a blaster has available.
My count is 61 total powers blasters have that are ranged (>5').
Total Blater primary powers: 7*9 = 63
Total Blaster Secondary Powers: 5*9 = 45
Total powers: 108
Melee powers: 29 (26 secondary, 3 primary)
Ranged Powers: 62
Other powers (Aim, BU, etc...): 17
*Note Other include Trip Mine, Timed Bomb, Cloak, TD, etc
Percent Melee: ~ 26.9%
Percent Ranged: ~ 57.4%
Other: ~ 15.75%
Ration of ranged to melee: ~ 2.13:1
Now, using the idea that blasters are Ranged Damage, and a Scrappers are Melee Damage let's take a look at their power breakdown.
Code:[/color]
Ranged Melee Other
Blaster 57.4% 26.9% 15.75%
Scrapper 8.9% 56.6% 34.4%
This raises some questions:
If blasters are ranged and scrappers are melee, why do blasters spend over a quarter of their time in melee, while scrappers spend less than 10% of their time at range?
Apparently from the numbers, ~55% is about the amount of powers it takes for an AT to survive it's specialty. Then what makes scrappers more surviveable in a more dangerous situation (their specialty - melee) than blasters in a less dangerous situation (their specialty - range)? It appears the other category is what is providing the difference - which is obvious because that has most all of the scrapper shields.
Now if it is the Devs intention to make blasters a ranged damager, then they will need to rework about 20% of blaster powers into other type powers to increase surviveability. That seems like a lot of work, remaking 1 out of every 5 powers.
That isn't the point of view I hold to. I generally hold to the blaster = damage from anywhere. Which I think looking at the numbers would be eaiser to fix in terms of total changes needed. Mostly these fixes would be tweaks to database numbers and placement, and not a new power.
I like this analysis ...
[ QUOTE ]
(Melee Secondary attacks)
Devices: 1 maybe attack --Taser - .6944 BI
Electric: 5 attacks --Lightning Field, Charged Brawl, Havok Punch, Thunder Strike, Shocking Grasp
Energy: 4 attacks -- Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Total Focus - also not counting stun
Fire: 7 attacks -- Fire Sword, Combustion, Fire Sword Circle, Blazing Aura, Consume, Burn, Hot Feet
Ice: 3 attacks -- Frozen Fists, Ice Sword, Freezing Touch
... Code:[/color]
Ranged Melee Other
Blaster 57.4% 26.9% 15.75%
Scrapper 8.9% 56.6% 34.4%
This raises some questions:
If blasters are ranged and scrappers are melee, why do blasters spend over a quarter of their time in melee, while scrappers spend less than 10% of their time at range?
...
Then what makes scrappers more surviveable in a more dangerous situation (their specialty - melee) than blasters in a less dangerous situation (their specialty - range)? It appears the other category is what is providing the difference - which is obvious because that has most all of the scrapper shields.
...
That isn't the point of view I hold to. I generally hold to the blaster = damage from anywhere. Which I think looking at the numbers would be eaiser to fix in terms of total changes needed. Mostly these fixes would be tweaks to database numbers and placement, and not a new power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right. If we agree with the Dev's thinking that:
1. Scrappers need defense/resistance because they need to survive in melee combat ...
2. Blasters don't need def/res because they _can_ do a lot in ranged combat ...
Let's accept the above two as things that the Devs will not be willing to change, and suggest other ways that will improve our own survivability as Blasters.
Our number 1 method of damage mitigation has always been do deal out more damage -- an arrested mob does no damage. But that method has pretty much gone down the tube with all the nerfs, especially ED.
I think Defiance is the Dev's poor solution to the nerfs ... they gave us a way of dealing more damage ... but nevermind the fact that we have to be willing to do it with just half of our health (heck, at half of our health, the defiance buff is not even noticeable ... give me an inspiration instead).
A lot of us have cried out for longer range. I still think that is the simplest solution. No need to add powers. No need to tweak defense. No need to do graphics.
But if we're really looking for a change in our powers, why not add to the effectiveness of the debuffs in some of the powersets? Increase the duration of some debuffs. Increase the amount the debuff applies.
[ QUOTE ]
You know? I've got another set of ideas, MUCH simpler. Not as good as the others, but probably much easier to make.
1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by adding 20 to their range, except for cones.
2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 20' range. BTW, that would be Power Thrust for Energy, not Energy Punch, making it a true "keep away" rather than a "get away" power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity, why not both? I agree, power thrust would be greatly improved by this change -- but if other sets get stuff like charged brawl and frozen fists at 20', why not energy punch as well -- power thrust's damage isn't even in the same league as the other attacks you're talking about, so energy manipulation wouldn't be capable of adding the same oomph to a short-ranged (but not quite melee) attack chain.
Stealing a bit from you here:
1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by increasing their range to current_range + (80-current_range)/2.
(10'->45', 20'->50', 30'->55', 40'->60', 50'->65', 60'->70', 70'->75')
2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 45' range.
#3) Change the first PBAE Toggle (if existant) in each secondary set into an enemy-targeted Aura power (akin to DN and EF)
#4) Increase the strength of the all debuffs (primary and secondary) by 50%.
#5) Apply the irresistable damage (Blaster) and irresistable debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE. (Controllers already got their PVP rule migrated to PVE!)
I think that's a way to get all 4 of my objectives in 5 bullets.
[ QUOTE ]
Stealing a bit from you here:
1) change all of the primary attacks that are shorter than 80, by increasing their range to current_range + (80-current_range)/2.
(10'->45', 20'->50', 30'->55', 40'->60', 50'->65', 60'->70', 70'->75')
2) change the first melee attack in each secondary set (including Taser) to have a 45' range.
#3) Change the first PBAE Toggle (if existant) in each secondary set into an enemy-targeted Aura power (akin to DN and EF)
#4) Increase the strength of the all debuffs (primary and secondary) by 50%.
#5) Apply the irresistable damage (Blaster) and irresistable debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE. (Controllers already got their PVP rule migrated to PVE!)
I think that's a way to get all 4 of my objectives in 5 bullets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I could see that working out.
This concept gets the Concern Approval rating of "FRO MASTER". (Watch the final episode of Excel Saga to get the refrence)
I especially liked #5.
Pil, Concern... do you think sometimes ignorance is bliss?
[ QUOTE ]
Pil, Concern... do you think sometimes ignorance is bliss?
[/ QUOTE ]
What does ignorance mean?
OTOH, don't tell me, I might be happier not knowing.
[ QUOTE ]
#5) Apply the irresistable damage (Blaster) and irresistable debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is such an obvious change that I can't understand why the Devs would go to the trouble of having the code diverge in the first place.
Ignoring the other suggestions (making no judgement upon their validity), this change alone would go a great way in solving the worst of the blaster problems. Since the code already exists, the only thing implementing it would do would be to get rid of some worthless bloat in the code base. And assuming their code base isn't completely brain dead, making this change shouldn't consume more than a few minutes of a developer's time, either.
While not a complete solution, it is a perfect one.
It certainly would help the corner case of AR/DEV a lot.
[ QUOTE ]
I feel the same way. Castle is going over the Blaster stuff right now and I am willing to wait and see what he says, even if I fear his two most common responses will be 'As intended' and 'Would require an animation change which we don't have the manpower/time for'.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't "have the manpower/time" to implement Pilcrow's point #5 then someone sell NCSoft stock short, since their code base would have to be pretty terrible for that change to require more than a minute or so of a programmer's time.
[ QUOTE ]
It certainly would help the corner case of AR/DEV a lot.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't miss the bit about defenders.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It certainly would help the corner case of AR/DEV a lot.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't miss the bit about defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, they need love, too. Why not two birds with one stone.
Well, 5 stones.
Can I just point out that even though the secondaries have a lot of melee powers, that doesn't mean that you run into melee to use them. Consider this:
You're standing outside of a mob with your team and shooting away like a good blaster. Suddenly someone turns on you and starts charging your way. You try to run back and shoot at him to whittle his life down, but he catches up, so now he's in melee and he can hit you for a lot more than when you were at range. You need to take this guy out fast. So what do you use? Your ranged attack that deals regular damage or that melee attack (i.e. Bonesmasher) that does sick damage? Well the choice, I would hope, would be the melee attack. Boom, he's dead with one hit.
Now, in this scenario, was the melee attack used to go rushing in and start blapping away and trying to outdo the scrapper or tank or anyone else? No, it was used as support. Support in the form of high damage to mitigate a threat in melee range. So technically speaking, looking at all the melee attacks as being there "so that we can get into melee" isn't necessarily true, especially since they fall into our secondary which is labeled "support". You can call [censored] all you want on it, but it is logical. No one ever said that you had to run into melee at first because you have melee attacks. If a Blapper dies, he knows it's because he can't stick it out in melee like a Scrapper. If a Blapper dies and calls foul for not having mez protection or resists or defense to help him survive in melee, well then he's not thinking the way a real squishy should.
Blapping is a playstyle and not the base vision, I feel, of what the AT is supposed to play out like. Because so many took the route of Blapping, then we had the issues come up with the Scrappers and the need for them to be able to compete with our high damage attacks. Furthermore, the logic above about melee attacks being support throws out any kind of argument about attack chain improvement when in melee. The melee attacks, in the above scenario, are not supposed to be our prime form of damage output and thusly do not have to support some kind of attack chain for maximum efficiency.
Just thought I'd through out a different prespective to think about.
[ QUOTE ]
)
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting ideas. About the PBAoE idea... powers like Lightning Field and Blazing Aura would need to be changed. a ranged-toggled damage aura would draw aggro to the Blasters like crazy. I'm not sure what to do about BA, but LF could lose the damage and have it's end drain increased maybe.
I'm not too hot about losing my LF, but hey... compromise should be made somewhere