[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your assessment. I see 4 ATs as performing Sub-par:
- [*]Dominators[*]Tankers[*]Blasters[*]Defenders[/list]
YMMV
Oh, and after reading V for Vendetta the comic, I have a much greater appreciation of the Wachowski brothers latest endevor.
The prisoner in room number 5 expanded my mind.
Limiting myself to one idea:
Add a melee-only Defense power to each secondary. Since range is considered a "defense", it makes sense Blasters should get something to compensate when using their melee attacks.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post...
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're not. There is an area of the game where they're fine, and it is understandable that those people who have only experienced this portion of the game might think they are fine. But the people proposing solutions (such as Pilcrow's #5) are doing so because they have seen some of the problem areas.
When a level 32 power slotted for max damage can't kill grey minions, that is not "fine". If you've never experienced that situation, it only shows that you lack knowledge of the problem domain and that your opinion has less merit than that of those attempting to propose solutions to the problem.
I know I said I'd drop the topic, but there have been many good and valid points regarding the Blapper style that should continue to be discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
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".
[/ QUOTE ]
Dingly_Dang touched on this in an earlier post, but I feel it needs to be expanded.
Currently, Blaster secondaries are primarily melee-based. Yes, primarily.
The melee percentages listed in Dingly_Dang's post are somewhat skewed. He only focused on "damage" powers. If you really look at them, it gets much, much bigger.
Devices - Is the only set with one melee-based power: Taser.
Energy Manipulation - 5 melee-based powers (Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Stun, Total Focus) and 4 self buffs (labeling self-buffs as support powers is stretching it).
Electricity Manipulation: 7 melee based powers (Charged Brawl, Havoc Punch, Lightning Field, Lightning Clap, Thunder Strike, Power Sink, Shocking Grasp) only one of whcih (Lightning Clap) is an obvious "oh crap, get me outta here" power. It also has one self buff and one ranged immob.
Fire Manipulation - Same as Electricity. 7 melee powers, one self buff, one ranged immob.
Ice Manipulation - 5 obvious melee powers and one questionable melee (Ice patch). One short range cone debuff (Shiver), one self buff and one ranged immob.
That's 5 Blaster secondaries - 45 powers total - 25 which are specifically melee based powers. Over half of the secondary powers available to Blasters are melee-based. 55% to be accurate. Considering three of these sets actually emphasis melee combat, I'd hardly say that Blasters were always meant to be purely ranged damage dealers.
Hell, if we take Build-Up (and Targeting-Drone) out of the equation (powers which boost ranged AND melee damage and accuracy), that number jumps to 62%.
I'd say Blasters were definitely meant to be part-time melee combatants.
The title of "Support" was the mistake, not the Secondary design.
All of this, of course, does not take into account the game's progression since release. Blaster secondaries have changed very, very little since their original conception (post AT system in Beta). However, status effects are much, MUCH more prominent in the game now than they ever were prior. This alone is reason enough to question today's validity of a Blaster's place in melee combat. I will certainly agree with that. Say nothing of lower self-damage potential a la ED.
So, to say that Blasters were not meant to be in melee range is, IMO, a delusion. The secondaries speak for themselves. Unless, you're suggesting that Blasters were never "meant" to take those powers to begin with... or it was a design "mistake '... or are supposed to be used only "situationally" (an entire secondary full of situational powers? Unlikely) ... none of which makes any sense at all.
The Blaster's role has changed to a degree... not due to any sort of "original" conception, but because of the game's own evolution. So, instead of clinging to this notion that Blasters were meant to be this or that, the focus (as Picrow has stated many times) should be on where Blasters are NOW.
I'll freely admit that a Blaster in melee TODAY is at a far greater risk than in the past. As such, something definitely needs to be down to emphasize the ranged portion of what Blasters do. However, I strongly feel that this change should not come at the expense of what has already existed in the game for two years. This is important.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post...
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously.
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they're not. There is an area of the game where they're fine, and it is understandable that those people who have only experienced this portion of the game might think they are fine. But the people proposing solutions (such as Pilcrow's #5) are doing so because they have seen some of the problem areas.
When a level 32 power slotted for max damage can't kill grey minions, that is not "fine". If you've never experienced that situation, it only shows that you lack knowledge of the problem domain and that your opinion has less merit than that of those attempting to propose solutions to the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow.... every blaster I've ever teamed with at lvl 32 must be Gods of the blaster AT then... They've all been able to kill grey with ease.. Does anyone else have a problem killing greys? My blapper's only 20 so I don't really know if this is true.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and after reading V for Vendetta the comic, I have a much greater appreciation of the Wachowski brothers latest endevor.
The prisoner in room number 5 expanded my mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
"And within that one inch, you are free"
I love Alan Moore. Such a shame that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was slaughtered, but I have high hopes for V for Vendetta. The Wachowskis and that material seem to be a good fit.
So sad the Watchmen lost Gilliam.
[ QUOTE ]
There are others that need changing more.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you be so kind as to share with us what ATs you think need attention more and why?
Here's mine:
- [*]Blasters role has been redefined as ranged damage dealer, but they have not received buffs to help them fulfill this new role since its definition by the devs. They are continually denied access to protections because they are supposed to leverage range and teammates as their protection, and yet their secondaries do almost nothing to improve their performance at range. The devs have admitted multiple times that the secondaries are an issue, and have not yet changed them. [*]Defenders have some primary sets that overall work nearly as well for Controllers as they do for Defenders. With Controllers having comparable damage and a more team-friendly set to supplement the buff set, Defenders are severly blurred in role. Their secondaries are weak enough that teams would rather have them save END by doing nothing than spend time blasting.[*]Tankers have a team role that has been whittled away by the changes made to make sure everyone can solo and the descision to keep them from being able to tank for a team of 8 on their own has led to their role on a large team being overshadowed by Defenders/Controllers, meanwhile, on a small team, a Scrapper will usually do their job well enough and with more damage to boot[*]Dominators secondaries are too weak in the early game to make the climb to the late game decent. In some cases, the damage from the control powers in the primary exceeds the damage from the pure attack powers in the secondary. They level like controllers used to, slow in the early game, only coming into their own once they get their pet or mass confuse. But with no buff powers to make them interesting to teams in the early game and a pet class that outperforms their ultimate power, they offer neither the team-friendly path to help them level to 32 quickly, nor the reward to make it worth the effort to do so slowly.[/list]
Clearly, you think I'm misguided. And yet, when someone tells yuo that you are misguided, they usually point you in what they think is the right direction.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I only counted direct attack powers.
Example: Yes SC does damage but it's role is endurance drain. ::holds back his outburst of laughter:: Oh endurance drain... that's rich. 
However...***
[ QUOTE ]
I know I said I'd drop the topic, but there have been many good and valid points regarding the Blapper style that should continue to be discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
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".
[/ QUOTE ]
Dingly_Dang touched on this in an earlier post, but I feel it needs to be expanded.
Currently, Blaster secondaries are primarily melee-based. Yes, primarily.
The melee percentages listed in Dingly_Dang's post are somewhat skewed. He only focused on "damage" powers. If you really look at them, it gets much, much bigger.
Devices - Is the only set with one melee-based power: Taser.
Energy Manipulation - 5 melee-based powers (Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Stun, Total Focus) and 4 self buffs (labeling self-buffs as support powers is stretching it).
Electricity Manipulation: 7 melee based powers (Charged Brawl, Havoc Punch, Lightning Field, Lightning Clap, Thunder Strike, Power Sink, Shocking Grasp) only one of whcih (Lightning Clap) is an obvious "oh crap, get me outta here" power. It also has one self buff and one ranged immob.
Fire Manipulation - Same as Electricity. 7 melee powers, one self buff, one ranged immob.
Ice Manipulation - 5 obvious melee powers and one questionable melee (Ice patch). One short range cone debuff (Shiver), one self buff and one ranged immob.
That's 5 Blaster secondaries - 45 powers total - 25 which are specifically melee based powers. Over half of the secondary powers available to Blasters are melee-based. 55% to be accurate. Considering three of these sets actually emphasis melee combat, I'd hardly say that Blasters were always meant to be purely ranged damage dealers.
Hell, if we take Build-Up (and Targeting-Drone) out of the equation (powers which boost ranged AND melee damage and accuracy), that number jumps to 62%.
I'd say Blasters were definitely meant to be part-time melee combatants.
The title of "Support" was the mistake, not the Secondary design.
All of this, of course, does not take into account the game's progression since release. Blaster secondaries have changed very, very little since their original conception (post AT system in Beta). However, status effects are much, MUCH more prominent in the game now than they ever were prior. This alone is reason enough to question today's validity of a Blaster's place in melee combat. I will certainly agree with that. Say nothing of lower self-damage potential a la ED.
So, to say that Blasters were not meant to be in melee range is, IMO, a delusion. The secondaries speak for themselves. Unless, you're suggesting that Blasters were never "meant" to take those powers to begin with... or it was a design "mistake '... or are supposed to be used only "situationally" (an entire secondary full of situational powers? Unlikely) ... none of which makes any sense at all.
The Blaster's role has changed to a degree... not due to any sort of "original" conception, but because of the game's own evolution. So, instead of clinging to this notion that Blasters were meant to be this or that, the focus (as Picrow has stated many times) should be on where Blasters are NOW.
I'll freely admit that a Blaster in melee TODAY is at a far greater risk than in the past. As such, something definitely needs to be down to emphasize the ranged portion of what Blasters do. However, I strongly feel that this change should not come at the expense of what has already existed in the game for two years. This is important.
[/ QUOTE ]
***... you guys are technically right. While SC might not be designed necessarily as an ATTACK it does require me to get close enough to get tickled in all the wrong places.
HOWEVER... all THAT being said. That is where the melee's come in great. In fact, on Balls that's part of his (now defunct) drain chain.
Run in, SC, PS, TS one mob then TC to knock away anyone who resisted the TS' knockback... backpedal a little, shoot.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...
[/ QUOTE ]
Four questions:
1) When did you get CoH?
2) When did you start playing the blaster AT?
3) What level is your highest blaster?
4) What sets does it use?
Only fair you answer those considering the nature of your post. After all... if you registered to the forums approx same time that you got the game... no offense but you in NO WAY have the practical experience to back your post VS people who have been playing blasters just shy of two years.
Doesn't matter what level your blaster would be at that point either. One, two months doesn't compare to the experience the majority of us have and we're speaking out of experince earned in blood (read debt).
EDIT: Fifth question. What makes you think blasters are fine? Expand upon that please. If you read this whole post (and the MANY like it) there are many many issues covered... but they're generally the SAME issues. Electric in its current state is a perfect example.
Most of the blaster sets have a viable secondary. Electric was great for its endurance drain. Short of AV's there wasn't much I couldn't disable. I did as much for my teams with my end drain as controllers and defenders did. Once aggro was out on others I could easily sneak in and rip their endurance out of their bodies before they could react. Now... well electric isn't the strongest of the blaster sets to begin with (which was fine considering the sheer control ability I had) nor was the range that great (but again, I have excellent control [3 holds alone not to mention other stuff] so never felt truly 'cheated') but the one thing that made electric really stand out (endurance drain) is now useless.
So... how is my blaster fine? I'm not mocking... I honestly don't get your statement vs the facts I've put forward.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya' know... considering your determination to make a blapper... I'd think you'd be in support of blaster love. Could only make your toon better. 
Also dude... tone down your posts. 75 posts in and already asking for a ban. Telling people they suck etc won't get ya' too far... especially since Cuppa (who's pretty lenient) is away and _Nomad_ (who doesn't put up with any [censored]) has the ban bat.
ANYWAY... after having reviewed your posts... my OPPINION is you think you know a lot more about stuff than your experience can back.
You've gone into the stalker threads and mocked many who have a lot more experience than you. You run into the NERF BLAPPERS thread and start antagonizing people there, telling them they suck...
Don't sweat answering the questions in my last post... I already know all I need to know.
[ QUOTE ]
Wow.... every blaster I've ever teamed with at lvl 32 must be Gods of the blaster AT then...
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that pretty much proves the point I was trying to make. If your only experience with blasters is the low levels, then you never run into the sort of problems a lot of the posters are trying to resolve. In the low 30s, you probably haven't run into any of the major problems blasters have. You probably haven't experienced perma-hold from Rikti or Carnies, or perma stun from any of a variety of minions. You can still usually two shot whites and yellows. And you don't get one-shotted by much of anything at that level. At that level and below, playing a blaster is easy and it is understandable that you wouldn't be aware of the problems because you've never faced them.
[ QUOTE ]
My blapper's only 20 so I don't really know if this is true.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as you recognize your ignorance of the situation, then that's ok. Just realize that most of these people offering solutions are doing so because a real problem exists. As for the "can't kill greys", try an AR/Dev against Praetorian robot minions. At level 47 with 50 SOs (max slotting), you won't quite kill them with Full Auto. The reason that problem, and similar problems, exists is because a great number of things have high resists against lethal damage in the higher level game. This is why Pilcrow's solution (using the PvP code, since the same meta-problem exists there) was so elegant.
Okay, I've been thinking about this and have had issues since my primary is an electric... I'm currently fixated on the current end drain issue so it's hard to 'generalize' things.
Range increase I sign for.
--However I don't think this alone is a fix. It would help us put together better attack chains at a distance but mobs can close distances so fast regardless...
Migrating the PvP code over to PvE I'll also sign for.
--Again however... I think this is going to benefit some blasters more than others.
I know Pilcrow didn't want to necessarily touch on the inherint but I think it's a necessity. Even if they implemented those two fixes above I'd still think blasters need work. Yes we'd be better but I don't see those two above as a 'universal fix-all'.
I think States really really really needs to listen to us about Defiance and it's questionable usability.
An inherint we can better utilize along with the two above (and maybe a slight damage boost just to show us how sorry you guys are for taking so long to address blaster issues ) would IMO do a lot more than 'one or two' fixes that are going to cater to this set more than that set and vice versa.
[ QUOTE ]
I know Pilcrow didn't want to necessarily touch on the inherint but I think it's a necessity.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm no god, just another guy with some ideas. Don't give deference to me.
The reason I'm avioding working on the inherent is that the devs say they are happy with Defiance.
They didn't say the same thing about the secondaries.
But if you think it's essential, go for it. They listen. They've changed their mind before.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
To be honest I hadn't. But if the two powers are combined into one you know as well as I do that one or both will have to be nerfed. Unless we can slot it for Range and/or Damage. I don't want to have to slot it that way, but I suppose I could live with that.
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"
- Abraham Lincoln
[ QUOTE ]
I think States really really really needs to listen to us about Defiance and it's questionable usability.
[/ QUOTE ]
*looks over at the new one shot code*
It will be fixed after they see how the new code works with Defiance. If anything, it will be nerfed. Seriously.
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have admitted that the Blaster secondaries are sub-par and promised again and again to fix them. But they haven't yet because, I suspect, they see it as a lot of work.
So, this thread is about fixing the blaster in the easiest ways possible. The quickest, dirtiest set of changes you could imagine to make Blasters what they should be. Imagine you're Statesmand and you have decided to fix the whole AT over in time for I7, so you have limited development time. What would you consier that needs to be changed and how would you change it?
What I think
- [*]1) Blasters need to be able to make a better ranged attack chains with their primary and secondary combined, than could be made with just the primary.[*]2) Blasters need to be able to deliver more AE, or at least more of it at range.[*]3) Controls and Debuffs are part of a Blaster's arsenal for a reason, and if they need more protection, that is where it should come from[*]4) It is more appropriate to share more of a Blaster's Defensive "strengths" (control, debuff) with other blasting ATs than to share more of a Blaster's Offensive strengths with other blasting ATs.[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
Pilcrow, as many people have before me in this thread, I fully agree with your four points above. However, I do not agree with your changes because you bend one of your own points to achieve them.
The one thing I'm talking about is adding a 10th power to the primary to be available at level 16. This is a massive coding change and structure change to the AT, a change to how Blasters match every other AT in structure (except for Kheldians, who have their own structure entirely). Throwing out that change, your changes have merit, but they are not as a whole fully acceptable to many people.
What would I do? I would stress points 1 and 3 of your listing by doing something that Statesman once agreed with me when I had a conversation with him at E3 last year on the topic. Blaster secondaries are named as "Support"; however, all of them but Devices are based on the "Melee" beta sets. He expressed his opinion that Devices are, in fact, the closest to all of them being "working as intended" out of all of the secondaries, and I wish to stress the parts of the set that are working as intended to the other secondaries in small changes. As well, I have never liked Defiance, although to change it would take a redesign of the Defiance concept, and that is for another time. (I have pressed my ideas for a "Burst" power in the past in other threads, but this is not the place for it.) To summarize: I would make the secondaries more "Support" in nature through minor changes to powers within the sets that reflect what already does work within those secondaries.
After reading posts within this thread, I have been able to revise my own ideas with some of those suggested, and I like some of yours personally, Pilcrow. You don't mind if I borrow them, do you? Anyways, all of the sets would all revolve around a common theme - as they currently do, but stressing that theme even further. As well, you'll see a common change in all of the Manipulation sets: the loss of one of the least powerful melee attack powers for a new power meant to supply additional mitigation or support ability to the set.
Devices:
- Caltrops: Fixed so that in PvE, enemies cannot jump out of them (in the same way that Heroes cannot jump out of NPC caltrops).
- Targeting Drone: Add a small +DMG buff (~+25%), unenhancable. No increase to endurance cost.
- Time Bomb: Time Bomb is targetable and if it is damaged by Fire, Energy, or Smashing damage, it goes off early. (I liked this idea so much, I'll keep it!)
Explanation Devices has always been a "trap" theme set with decent self-buffs. I loved the ideas you suggested, Pilcrow; I just need Caltrops to actually be useful in PvE. (Damnit.)
Electricity Manipulation:
- Charged Brawl: Removed.
- Havoc Punch: Add a short duration (5 seconds?) where target's endurance recovery is stopped entirely. Moved to Charged Brawl's previous position (#2).
- Lightning Field: Change from a PBAoE aura to an Enemy Targeted Aura (similar to Defender debuff toggle auras). Stats of power (damage, high endurance cost) remain unchanged.
- Build Up: Moved to Havoc Punch's previous position (#4).
- Shocking Grasp: Moved to Build Up's previous position (#5).
- New 9th Power: Melee range single target attack that does minimal damage but performs massive endurance drain and kills target's endurance recovery. Long recharge time.
Explanation: Electricity already has damage mitigiation via a combination of a variety of control powers and endurance drain. Enhancing that is simply a natural progression of that theme - and it requires an enhancement to the endurance drain components of the set to make it work. The powerful melee moves are left at melee range to make up for their strengths.
Energy Manipulation:
- Energy Punch: Removed.
- Bonesmasher: Moved to Energy Punch's previous position (#2).
- Stun: Increase damage, to mirror melee mezz moves in other sets (Frozen Touch, Shocking Touch). Moved to Bonesmasher's previous position (#4).
- New 6th Power: Energy Cloak (from Brute's Energy Aura). Should function similarly to Device's Cloaking Device.
Explanation: Energy's theme is all about self-buffs and powerful melee strikes. There are very few problems with the current set - it's one of the most popular due to the strengths the set currently boasts. Adding another kind of self-buff - an inherent stealth power - is not only done in another secondary, but matches the theme well from another "Energy" set.
Fire Manipulation:
- Combustion: Removed.
- Build-Up: Moved to Combustion's previous position (#2).
- Hot Feet: Increase effect radius (30ft, from 20). Moved to Build-Up's previous position (#4).
- Blazing Aura: Change from a PBAoE aura to an Enemy Targeted Aura (similar to Defender debuff toggle auras).
- Burn: Change from a Self-Placed Location-based AoE to a Targetable Location-based AoE (Ignite, in essence).
- New 9th Power: Melee range single target high-damage DoT with Fear (Retreat version). Fast animation, sets enemy on fire.
Explanation: Fire Manipulation desperately needs help, more than any other set, and adding a sense of mitigation to the set is the easiest way to do this. Damage over time is the common Fire secondary effect, so we keep it in practically everything while changing powers to allow for a level of mitigation. The new power reflects a long-sought after visual effect: an enemy panicking because they have been set on fire, which serves as a wonderful mitigation power.
Ice Manipulation:
- Frozen Fists: Removed.
- Ice Sword: Slow duration increased slightly. Moved to Frozen Fists' previous position (#2).
- Chilling Embrace: Increase effect radius (30ft, from 10). Moved to Ice Sword's previous position (#3).
- New 4th Power: Ice Sword Circle, as per the Dominator power.
- Frozen Aura: Changed to Flash Freeze (from Ice Control).
Explanation: Ice, naturally, is about soft control and slows. What better way of doing so than improving the few powers that suffer in the set to bring them in line with the others? Chilling Embrace matches Hot Feet, except without damage or the higher endurance cost that comes with damage auras. Frozen Aura becomes ranged, which is a change it desperately needs to become more useful.
So, what do you think? A vast number of changes that greatly increase the "support" effect - or usefulness of the "support" effects that are already there - with only two powers - the new final powers for Electric and Fire Manipulation - requiring any new animation work, if they don't just recycle animations that the game already uses for them! Yes, I know many people do like the melee attacks that I propose removing for these additions - I use Energy Punch on my blapper, myself - but I would think that the powers being put in their place and the other changes would justify them.
@Shenalia
Triumph: Ion Force (SG)
Victory: Evil Triumphs (VG)
Proud member of the Triumphant Defenders Coalition.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...
[/ QUOTE ]
Four questions:
1) When did you get CoH?
2) When did you start playing the blaster AT?
3) What level is your highest blaster?
4) What sets does it use?
Only fair you answer those considering the nature of your post. After all... if you registered to the forums approx same time that you got the game... no offense but you in NO WAY have the practical experience to back your post VS people who have been playing blasters just shy of two years.
Doesn't matter what level your blaster would be at that point either. One, two months doesn't compare to the experience the majority of us have and we're speaking out of experince earned in blood (read debt).
EDIT: Fifth question. What makes you think blasters are fine? Expand upon that please. If you read this whole post (and the MANY like it) there are many many issues covered... but they're generally the SAME issues. Electric in its current state is a perfect example.
Most of the blaster sets have a viable secondary. Electric was great for its endurance drain. Short of AV's there wasn't much I couldn't disable. I did as much for my teams with my end drain as controllers and defenders did. Once aggro was out on others I could easily sneak in and rip their endurance out of their bodies before they could react. Now... well electric isn't the strongest of the blaster sets to begin with (which was fine considering the sheer control ability I had) nor was the range that great (but again, I have excellent control [3 holds alone not to mention other stuff] so never felt truly 'cheated') but the one thing that made electric really stand out (endurance drain) is now useless.
So... how is my blaster fine? I'm not mocking... I honestly don't get your statement vs the facts I've put forward.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was in Beta...
I haven't played blasters much, just stared recently.
20 as I've already said.
Ice/Electric
And I forgot my old forum account so I made a new one is why this one was made so late.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya' know... considering your determination to make a blapper... I'd think you'd be in support of blaster love. Could only make your toon better.
Also dude... tone down your posts. 75 posts in and already asking for a ban. Telling people they suck etc won't get ya' too far... especially since Cuppa (who's pretty lenient) is away and _Nomad_ (who doesn't put up with any [censored]) has the ban bat.
ANYWAY... after having reviewed your posts... my OPPINION is you think you know a lot more about stuff than your experience can back.
You've gone into the stalker threads and mocked many who have a lot more experience than you. You run into the NERF BLAPPERS thread and start antagonizing people there, telling them they suck...
Don't sweat answering the questions in my last post... I already know all I need to know.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I've said... new to the balster class, but you can't help but see them a lot... The are one of the more popular ATs in the game. I have teamed with them. They always deal the highest damage, which is what they were made to do. If you're talking about them not having mez protection and that's why they are bad, there's a few ATs with no mez protection. And I never told any one "They suck." It's a forum and I can express my opinion on as many issuse as I want as long as it is realivant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Which is the worse problem, ignorance or apathy?
Who knows? Who cares?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Three reasons:
1) I think that of the two, Power Thrust really needs the boost, while Energy Punch can use it.
2) Energy Manipulation is good enough, pretty clearly the best secondary now, that there is no justification for improving TWO of its powers. And of the two, clearly Power Thrust is the one that most deserves it.
3) If I were going to improve two attacks from Energy Manip, it would be Power Thrust and Stun, operating on the principle of "boost the weakest powers first". Stun is much less popular than EP, therefore it pretty clearly could be boosted with less worry about overpowering what's already the best secondary compared to the others.
[ 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 like almost all of it. Only thing is that I do like a 20' range on the secondary attacks, both to keep them separate from the "true ranged" attacks of the primary, and also to keep with risk vs reward. Generally the secondary attacks are much heavier on control effects, and I like the idea of making Blasters weigh the risk of approaching to control vs staying back to blast (and vs approaching all the way to control/blap).
Also, I'm not sure about that toggle field idea. I mean, I love it in concept, but I can't see such a field as being STRONG, and meanwhile, it's a constant aggro-pull to the Blaster. Is that really desirable? Would we be better served by a "drop field" like a stationary electric field, that we could use either on controlled mobs or to deny approach like Caltrops?
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. This would explain why there are melee attacks in the secondaries. Especially control-type attacks like Power Thrust and Bonesmasher and Freezing Touch.
It would not, however, explain why there are SO MANY melee attacks in the secondaries. Including pure-damage DoT attacks like those in the Fire secondary. Nothing there really screams "get off me" except maybe Hot Feet.
With like 3+ melee-range attacks/controls in all the secondaries except Devices, it's pretty clear that they are meant for a real set of melee attacks, not just one or two hits to escape trouble.
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...