[ QUOTE ]
I'm no god, just another guy with some ideas. Don't give deference to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Trashes his Pilcrow Shrine, complete with Dancing Jesus and Penguins, and starts building a new one to Lady Athyna.
Say, that actually works well. She's a lot easier on the eyes. :P :P :P
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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,
[/ QUOTE ]
Which means you're in NO position to say they're 'fine'.
[ QUOTE ]
but you can't help but see them a lot...
[/ QUOTE ]
And I see people with cancer a lot. Doesn't make me an expert on cancer.
[ QUOTE ]
The are one of the more popular ATs in the game. I have teamed with them.
[/ QUOTE ]
And? Teaming with them makes you an expert?
[ QUOTE ]
They always deal the highest damage,
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe at your already pre-admitted low level game. Wait until the high-end game when a scrapper is outdamaging them.
[ QUOTE ]
which is what they were made to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for agreeing with us. 
[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about them not having mez protection and that's why they are bad,
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the post before coming in and talking out the side of your mouth or do you just come in and say the first thing that comes to mind irregardless of how it makes you look and without having done any research?
Mez protection was one idea thrown out as a possible fix. It was NOT what our issue was though. The idea of adding it was thrown out as a possible fix to help balance the class out.
[ QUOTE ]
there's a few ATs with no mez protection.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay but we're talking about blasters in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
And I never told any one "They suck."
[/ QUOTE ]
And I quote:
[ QUOTE ]
And as for naming one villain that can kill a scrapper/tanker without using A/S strike... They all can... Apperently you just suck...
[/ QUOTE ]
You do know we can go back and see your entire post history right? Anyone can on anyone. I decided to look at yours last night after reading your post and found that little gem along with a few others.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a forum and I can express my opinion on as many issuse as I want as long as it is realivant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well your oppinion is not relevant. You don't have the practical experience with blasters (through your own admission) to make a relevant statement.
However, the topic of this thread is FIX BLASTERS... if you don't feel blasters need fixing feel free to NOT post in this thread.
Pil, sorry for the derail.
Derails happen, but mostly, I think you're battling an empty shirt here:
- [*]He said others were in more need of help. We asked who. No response.[*]We explained why Blasters were in need of work. He chose not to explain why that reasoning was wrong in his eyes.[*]We explained that even the devs have discussed the insufficiency of the secondaries. He's made no case that that analysis is wrong.[*]His only counter to the notion that Blasters need work seeme to be that he sees plenty of Blasters in the game and they seem to deliver enough damage for him.[/list]
We've substantiated why we believe Blasters need work. He has failed to counter that reasoning, or even respond to it for the most part.
Personally, I think whether or not he's played a Blaster directly in the late game is less relevant than his refusal to discuss the substantive issues that explain why we are calling for these kinds of changes.
[ QUOTE ]
Derails happen, but mostly, I think you're battling an empty shirt here:
- [*]He said others were in more need of help. We asked who. No response.[*]We explained why Blasters were in need of work. He chose not to explain why that reasoning was wrong in his eyes.[*]We explained that even the devs have discussed the insufficiency of the secondaries. He's made no case that that analysis is wrong.[*]His only counter to the notion that Blasters need work seeme to be that he sees plenty of Blasters in the game and they seem to deliver enough damage for him.[/list]
We've substantiated why we believe Blasters need work. He has failed to counter that reasoning, or even respond to it for the most part.
Personally, I think whether or not he's played a Blaster directly in the late game is less relevant than his refusal to discuss the substantive issues that explain why we are calling for these kinds of changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Well said. And in so few words too. LOL I gotta' learn to quit babbling on...
and on...
and on...
j/k. But I do go on sometimes. Oy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Ya I'd have to agree with that. Placate would be a great power to have. For those of you that may not play CoV. Placate is a power that basically distracts the target away from a Stalker. That way it doesn't attack the stalker again. Placate for blasters would be nice to an extent. It would have to be single target, because an AoE placate would make entire 5 man or so mobs not attack, hence takes the danger out of being a blaster and it's low defense. Or maybe make it a Cone AoE. We already have a Snipe attack, and if slotted right, can one shot LT's and almost 1 shot bosses. So placate would be a better option. But defiance is completely useless to 99.9% of blasters out there compared to the other inheirents that CoX has out there. Even the defenders inheirent is better then ours.
[ QUOTE ]
I like almost all of it. Only thing is that I do [not] 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).
[/ QUOTE ]
One of my goals is to allow Blasters to make a better ST attack chain at range with primary and secondary than they can do with primary alone. While 20' is technically range, I feel the supplemental ST ranged attack from the secondary needs to be at least middle range to get this job done. Ideally, better will mean either more damage, or getting damage and light control in one shot. Either of these would make the Blaster's ranged ST chain better than one formed from the primary alone (because they can either deliver more damage, or not have to stop delivering damage when they need a bit of control). With the exception
- [*]Devices: Taser - Pure Control. Essentially this is Beanbag. And it is the exception to the rule (damn you alphabetical order!)[*]Elec: Charged Brawl - Only 10% chance of disorient, but ~5 BI. This essentially amplifies damage only, as intended.[*]Energy: Power Thrust - Half and Half. ~2 BI+ 100% chance of knockback. It's Power Push, but with more damage.[*]Fire: Fire Sword - Pure Damage. As intended.[*]Ice: Frozen fists - Half and Half again. ~2 BI + Slow. Essentially, Ice Bolt.[/list]
I don't see Beanbag, Power Thrust or Ice Bolt being overpowered, even though you can essentially recycle them non-stop with some recharge. So, I don't think these capabilities will cause cross AT issues.
So it comes down to whether or not you like that goal of mine and whether or not 20 is "enough" range in your eyes. These are things where reasonable people can disagree, but that's why I think they should be medium range attacks.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
- [*]As to concept: Yeah, I love that, too.[*]As to strength: They currently do about 0.5 BI/tic. I think adding 1.0 BI (slotted) passive AE damage to my output would be reasonably nice to have. Seems strong enough to be worthwhile. seems not so strong that I wouldn't rather lay down a Fireball first, all things being equal.[*]As to aggro: This is what makes it fair and not overpowered. These are clearly team powers, you can't really use them solo for any length of time. With all that aggro, something will status you. But on a team where aggro is under control (or you are well protected) you can pump out the AE serious quick. Situational and strong. Seems perfect to me.[*]As to a drop field: If we're looking to buff DEFENSE, a drop field with damage and fear like caltrops would indeed be better. But my goal here is to give the Blaster a way to increase their AE damage output at range, not their protection. [/list]
Diving into the drop field thing a bit more. Most secondaries already have a kind of "keep away" power, Dev just gets it early. If you need to lessen the amount of aggro near you you can drop Caltrops or Lightning Clap or Ice Patch. The only two missing such an "Oh Crap" power are Fire and NRG.
For Fire, I'd suggest that Combustion cause Fear. And for energy, if such a power is needed, then we need Stun to act more like Thunder Strike. Main foe gets damage and disorient, but everyone gets knocked back.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
That made me laugh. In the middle of all this heavy discussion, it helps. Thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
* Ice: Frozen fists - Half and Half again. ~2 BI + Slow. Essentially, Ice Bolt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good News, actually FF does 4.5 BI. So it's essentially Ice Blast. I think there is a thread in the blaster section comparing /fire and /ice, and it's mentioned in there. Plus I've used it and it's true.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Ice: Frozen fists - Half and Half again. ~2 BI + Slow. Essentially, Ice Bolt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good News, actually FF does 4.5 BI. So it's essentially Ice Blast. I think there is a thread in the blaster section comparing /fire and /ice, and it's mentioned in there. Plus I've used it and it's true.
[/ QUOTE ]
W00t! Ice needs damage more than more control anyhow.
Is the slow on FF relatively minor? If it's not, maybe it IS overpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer placate over hide.
BOOM!
"Ouch! Ooooh, pretty colors!"
BOOM!
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya I'd have to agree with that. Placate would be a great power to have. For those of you that may not play CoV. Placate is a power that basically distracts the target away from a Stalker. That way it doesn't attack the stalker again. Placate for blasters would be nice to an extent. It would have to be single target, because an AoE placate would make entire 5 man or so mobs not attack, hence takes the danger out of being a blaster and it's low defense. Or maybe make it a Cone AoE. We already have a Snipe attack, and if slotted right, can one shot LT's and almost 1 shot bosses. So placate would be a better option.
[/ QUOTE ]
I *think* I'm happy with most of the blaster primary powersets. So I agree with most of you and agree with the devs that the secondary powersets are where the "fixing" will happen.
I would really like to see a Placate-like power in the secondary. It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct copy of the Stalker "distraction" power. Call it a detaunt. Something that lets us manage aggro.
[ QUOTE ]
But defiance is completely useless to 99.9% of blasters out there compared to the other inheirents that CoX has out there. Even the defenders inheirent is better then ours.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, to be fair: CoV's ATs were designed with their inherents in mind. Tanker punchvoke and Scrapper criticals already existed. And Controller containment is certainly a bonus put in to encourage more people to play controllers.
Defender Vigilance is something that the good Defenders will never really use, and the bad Defenders will mistakenly think they are properly using. (Because the good Defender will have enough endurance even before they got Vigilance. If anything, what Defenders really need in the time of crisis for the party is faster recharging powers.)
And Blaster Defiance? I still don't know where that came from. The description seems to hint that blasters were complaining about "if they could only get one more big hit in, they'd win"
Someone should point out to the Devs that the last thing a high level blaster looks for when he's under 25% hp is a damage bonus.
Well the damage in Ice goes like this:
FF - 4.5 BI
Ice Sword - 5.4 BI
That's it. No big BonesmasherHavokpunch power to really put the hurt on anything. It's got a good start, but no grand finale. That's why people are saying replace Frozen Aura with Greater Ice Sword. Mmmm, Greater Ice Sword.
As far as the slow goes on it, in my limited experience, it's not been that noticeable. Probably comparable to the slows on the blasts from the primary. Something that adds to all your other powers, but nothing you'd ever slot for.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
That made me laugh. In the middle of all this heavy discussion, it helps. Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
OMG I'm SO thick.
Do you realize I COMPLETELY 'missed' Pilcrows reply? I mean, I SAW it, READ it... MISSED it completely.
I'm going to go into the bathroom now, look in the mirror and yell DUH! at myself. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Fair enough. A 20' stun would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor.
And I think you're missing my point by a hair. I don't disagree that energy is one of the better-off sets and is certainly popular. However, it's popular for its blapping aspect -- you could say that it's popular *despite* not providing the immobilize for a ranged attack chain. That was mostly my point. If you're going to take melee-range attacks and bump them to short-range ones, of course you'll take the opportunity to allow power thrust pre-emption.. but does that necessitate leaving it a step below other secondary combinations' contributions to the short-ranged attack chain? Boosting both power thrust and stun would leave it low damage-wise, but would be a good tradeoff for short-ranged mitigation.
Well, let's see what my thoughts have evolved to at this point.
- [*]1) Blasters revised role as ranged damage dealer (vs. previous role of best damage dealer) calls for a boost in range[*]2) Blasters need to be able to make a better ranged attack chains (both ST and AE) with their primary and secondary combined, than could be made with just the primary. [*]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) Upping debuff and control a bit will lead towards AT homogenization, so a counterbalance needs to exist to keep ATs the best at fulfilling their roles.[/list]
Which leads to the following ToDo list
- [*]A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80m)[*]B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)[*]C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and make sure every blaster has an "oh crap" control power.[*]D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.[/list]
Now I want to get into the details, because some of these, while they sound simple, can get a bit hinky in the details. How do we make Frozen Fists a ranged attack, for example. That gets into Animation time and can get pretty ugly.
A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80')
Here's one we can just do. No changes to animations required, thankfully.
B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)
- [*]Devices: Taser - Make this the ranged ST attack. Animation: Use the Taser draw and stance, but steal the bolt and effect from Elec: Lighting Bolt[*]Devices: Time Bomb - Time Bomb is targetable and if it is damaged by Fire, Energy, or Smashing damage, it goes off early[*]Electric: Charged Brawl - Make this the ranged ST attack. Use the second half of Hurl Boulder animation, but instead of Hurling a boulder, you hurl a huge ball of Electricity. (Renaming is probably in order)[*]Electric: Lightning Field - This becomes an enemy targeted Electrical Aura. Put the effect that currently applies to the PC on the effected MOB instead. Nearby MOBs get the same animation as when hit by Ball Lightning.[*]Energy: Power Thrust - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use the Hurl Boulder animation again, only this time we make a ball of Energy instead of Electricity.[*]Energy: Boost Range - Increases the radius and max # of MOBs effected by an AE as well as the range of an attack. Radius increases by 50%. Max Mobs = 24.[*]Fire: Fire Sword - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use something like the spines: impale animation, but throw the sword instead.[*]Fire: Blazing Aura - Becomes an enemy targeted AE. Targeted MOB gets aura that is around PC now, nearby foes react as if they were near a fireball.[*]Ice: Chilling Embrace - Simply change this to Storm: Snow Storm[*]Ice: Ice Sword - See Fire Sword.[/list]
C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and buff controls where they are too weak.
- [*]Increase strength of debuffs in primaries by X% (50%?)[*]Add recharge debuff to most AR: Buckshot, Beanbag, Snipe[*]Add regen debuff to AR: M30 Grenade, Flamethrower, Ignite, Full Auto[*]Add recharge debuff to Archery: Snap, Aimed, Fistful, Rain[*]Add regen debuff to Archery: Flaming, Explosive, Stunning[*]Add recharge debuff to most Energy Blast attacks[*]Add regen debuff to most Fire Blast attacks[*]Energy Manipulation: Stun - Causes and AE knockdown around the target[*]Fire: Combustion - Causes run-away fear[/list]
D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.
Here's one we can just do. No changes to animations required, thankfully.
It's not the simplest plan, but it seems to me as simple a plan as I can see that puts the changes where the devs seem open to actually making changes (i.e. - primarily in the secondaries).
[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's see what my thoughts have evolved to at this point.
- [*]1) Blasters revised role as ranged damage dealer (vs. previous role of best damage dealer) calls for a boost in range[*]2) Blasters need to be able to make a better ranged attack chains (both ST and AE) with their primary and secondary combined, than could be made with just the primary. [*]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) Upping debuff and control a bit will lead towards AT homogenization, so a counterbalance needs to exist to keep ATs the best at fulfilling their roles.[/list]
Which leads to the following ToDo list
- [*]A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80m)[*]B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)[*]C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and make sure every blaster has an "oh crap" control power.[*]D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
I like alot of Pilcrow's summarized suggestions. In the order of simplicity -- which is probably also the order in which the Devs will accept our suggestions:
[*]D) Apply the irresistible damage (Blaster) and irresistible debuff (Defender) rules from PVP to PVE.
[*]A) Add range to primaries (Increase range of all ranged attacks there to the average of current range and 80m)
[*]C) Make the debuffs meaningful, and make sure every blaster has an "oh crap" control power.
[*]B) Make one ST and one AE power in each secondary medium ranged so they improve ranged performance (and without making them untenable for their current uses)
[/list]
I think we can really sell D, A, and C ... in that order. B will be where the debate will really start getting confusing. If we do make an official petition, I'd leave B for last and put a lot of emphasis on the rest. D, A, and C will go a long way to "fixing" blasters. B, for me, would be gravy.
........ but, we haven't addressed the issue of Defiance. And maybe we can't really address it until we find out where these first 4 points are going?
[ QUOTE ]
........ but, we haven't addressed the issue of Defiance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Defiance might be fixed by the anti "one shotting" code currently supposedly being implemented. I wouldn't suggest any modifications to Defiance (except fixing the numerous bugs, that sadly the Devs won't be able to find because their internal testing is flawed) until those changes are implemented.
Too many changes at the same time could cause balance issues. Some things, like Pilcrow#5 (sorry, I like that better than "D". It has a beat and you can dance to it), are so obvious that there is zero sane reason not to immediately implement it and just bring it Live. Adding range probably also fits in this category.
Other changes, such as modifications to powers creating debuffs and/or control powers, are deserving of extensive testing, and it would be nice if the various blaster secondaries were not "cookie cutter" in their effects.
Using /DEV as an example, a lot of people have suggested adding a damage buff to Targetting drone, in order to provide a similar effect as buildup over time. Instead, I think a better solution would be to make /Dev the "less offensive more defensive" secondary, something that perhaps could be done by restoring the pre-nerf +DEF of Cloaking Device, and making it not suppress. Such a change would not be unbalancing (we know this for a fact since it used to have even more +DEF pre-ED and wasn't remotely unbalanced then), and would help provide a more unique flavor than simply "more damage".
Similarly fixing smoke grenade (making it not supress) would go a long way towards fixing /DEV. In the case of many /DEV powers, what the developers need to do isn't quite so much fixing the set as much as it would be unbreaking it, since after the initial bug fixes (the 100% SG debuff bug that gave /DEV a much better reputation than it otherwise deserved post-fix) it was a decent (if still somewhat weak compared to alternatives) secondary.
If the Devs are so in love with suppression (maybe they want to avoid special case code?) that they can't stand to remove it from smoke grenade and cloaking device, then perhaps smoke grenade could have a minor placate chance (35% or so if AoE, or auto-placate the primary target) added so that it has some relevant game effect making it worth taking and the +DEF of cloaking device could be further increased. It would honestly not even be unbalancing to turn Cloaking Device into true invis (which goes away when suppressed) considering all the things that see through non-superior invisibility.
Trip Mines would be ok as is (even post ED) if they would just fix the numerous bugs (villains standing in the middle of them without them going off, people being able to always run through them without taking damage as long as they keep moving, etc).
There are many people who love Time Bomb. Ok, not many, but I'm sure some exist. Ok, I'm not sure, but I think... well, nevermind, just get rid of Time Bomb and replace it with Body Armor from the munitions Epic pool, and move Time bomb into the Epic to replace it. For those that would complain the munitions pool would no longer have an Armor power, tell them that variety is a feature, not a bug. And since Time Bomb is a "late" secondary power (and the +RES from Body Armor is pretty weak regardless) there would be no possibility of any unforseen balance issue.
Increase the range of auto-turret (and perhaps the duration), give it as 25% damage boost to partially make up for being broken by ED, and increase its recharge just a bit (to make it more of a deployable rather than situational power).
As others have mentioned, add the range to Taser that it deserves (somehow the Developer who made named the set apparently never saw one), and /Dev then becomes a balanced, if someone unique among the blaster choices, and useful secondary.
So while not as quick and painless as Pilcrow#5, I think /Dev could be fixed by
- [*]Web Grenade - no change[*]Caltrops - no change[*]Taser - make a short ranged attack like the name suggests[*]Targetting Drone - no change[*]Smoke Grenade - either eliminate suppression or add minor placate effect[*]Cloaking Device - either eliminate suppression or restore +DEF and turn into true invis[*]Trip Mine - no change except to fix the bugs[*]Time Bomb - eliminate and replace (swap) with the Body Armor from the Munition Epic Pool[*]Auto Turret - minor increase in damage and minor increase in range[/list]
Most of those changes would require little time, with only the Taser change having any artwork effort. I think similar "minimal impact" lists could be generated for each secondary, and the result would be better than "broad brush" changes to the game / combat engine.
[ QUOTE ]
Defiance might be fixed by the anti "one shotting" code currently supposedly being implemented. I wouldn't suggest any modifications to Defiance (except fixing the numerous bugs, that sadly the Devs won't be able to find because their internal testing is flawed) until those changes are implemented.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would the one-shotting code fix defiance?
An AS by itself can't 1-shot a blaster.
An AS with 3 (?) rages can, but you'd be left with so few hitpoints that a queued brawl would take you out before you could retaliate. Even if you could retaliate no 1 shot from you would be able to kill the stalker because of the 1-shot fix. It's a catch 22 for defiance. The 1-shot fix may give you a slightly increased chance of using defiance at full capacity, but the 1-shot fix will also prevent it from killing your attacker who will be killing you in the very next shot.
Conclusion: Defiance still sucks dong. It's easy to remember, because defiance and dong both start with d's.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Ok, you want to know what I think needs working on? These are good points. (Except, as I said, I disaggre w/ the blaster one. Blasters are not just ranged damage.) But you neglected a HUGE one that needs adressing... Brutes... They are severely underpowered. Not enough defense to tank, but not enough damage to be considered a damager... Another is the issue of Stalkers. A lot of people say they are no issue but a lot of people say they are... If they are causing that big a dispute, they will probably be changed in some way. That's 5 ATs not counting blasters.
And as for what you said Ball, I didn't say I play at low lvls, just said my blaster was low. I've teamed with blaster from 1-50 with my scrapper and I rarely outdamaged a blaster... but hey as you quoted me on... Mayb I just suck. :P They may have issues soloing. I won't know that til I get mine up in lvl a few weeks from now... Part of the flaws to blasters is that they have no Mez protection, if they get mez protection, they will own and it's back to City of Blasters. Same is the case if they get strong debuffing powers. They debuffs are, as of now, very weak. I agree with you on the holds. The hold are what little protection they get and they need to use them. On the issue of chains, I will be able to comment on that in a few weeks if this post is still going, but where my blaster is now the chains seem pretty sucessful...
SOCKERROCKER, I will say this to you... your posts are NOT constructive, we don't care about brutes in THIS thread with THIS topic, and your PERSONAL experience with blasters is non-existant.
If you can't come in and stick on topic maybe I need to point _Nomad_ in your direction.
If you would like to come in and offer some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to "Fix blasters in the fewest possible moves" you're welcome. Beyond that... the rest of your posts have been de-rails attempts or off topic.
Ok it does have to do with THIS topic if Pil asked me to say what I thought needed more help than blasters... which he did.
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the one-shotting code fix defiance?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it will; but it might. And I don't think Defiance should be changed until we see what happens when it goes Live. Most of your argument for why it won't might be (and probably are) valid, but are based purely upon PvP are are also based on assumptions on how the anti one-shotting code works.
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: Defiance still sucks
[/ QUOTE ]
Almost no one would dispute that right now, excepting a few inexperienced people who have only played at the low levels or people with a (very) few select builds where it can be made to work. But that is the situation now, and the situation in the future depends on how they implement the anti-one shotting code. Consider what happens if it introduces the same sort of lag before death that some people see in Defiance right now, and imagine the implications of being able to get off several attacks (in addition to burning an inspiration or two) before the server allows the death. Certainly such situations are unlikely, but since the Devs don't know how Defiance really works right now it could be possible for them to introduce similar abnormal behavior. It would better, in my opinion at least, for them to fix and roll out the "no brainer" solutions like Pilcrow#5 before they start playing around with changes that might take weeks or months to properly balance.
[ QUOTE ][*]Energy: Power Thrust - Make this the ranged ST attack. We use the Hurl Boulder animation again, only this time we make a ball of Energy instead of Electricity.[*]Energy: Boost Range - Increases the radius and max # of MOBs effected by an AE as well as the range of an attack. Radius increases by 50%. Max Mobs = 24.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll do you one better. Keep the power thrust animation, and merely add a "shockwave" to then end, emanating from the character's fist at full extension. You can crib the effect from claws/focus, or maybe shrink down and recolor an energy torrent shockwave to about a foot across. If you wanted, the same could be done for energy manipulation/stun.
[ QUOTE ]
... but since the Devs don't know how Defiance really works right now it could be possible for them to introduce similar abnormal behavior. It would better, in my opinion at least, for them to fix and roll out the "no brainer" solutions like Pilcrow#5 before they start playing around with changes that might take weeks or months to properly balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I can live with a useless Defiance by simply avoiding the situation in which it activates. That's certainly easier than watching the Devs try to rebalance Defiance with all the other changes we're suggesting.
And I definitely think we can push the "easy to do" changes: range and unresistable damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, you want to know what I think needs working on? These are good points. (Except, as I said, I disaggre w/ the blaster one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you disagree. How can you disagree that the Devs acknowledged that the secondaries weren't percevied as fun and needing to be looked at, for example? How can yuo disagree that the devs changed the intent of Blasters from prime damage dealer to ranged damage dealer? Those are simply facts.
If you disagree with the fact that those things imply a need to make changes to the AT, I have a hard time seeing that perspective given the changes other ATs have seen when their role changed (like in I5 when controllers lost control and in I2 wne scrappers became boss killers, those ATs got HUGE buffs when their role changed).
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are not just ranged damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly the problem. Their ROLE is now ranged damage, but their powers don't reflect or support that role. The only two secondaries the devs see as doing a good job of supporting that role and Energy and Devices, for reasons I think are so readily apparent I won't belabor them now.
[ QUOTE ]
But you neglected a HUGE one that needs adressing... Brutes... They are severely underpowered. Not enough defense to tank, but not enough damage to be considered a damager
[/ QUOTE ]
Brutes aren't meant to be a Tank. They're CoV Scrappers. And while they start low, Fury does indeed make them a worthy damage dealer to the team. Thee is an issue with the "must stay active" mechanism in Fury and Domination that needs to be looked at, but outside of that I don't see an issuw with Brutes. Mine play very effectively. Perhaps that falls apart late-game however. Mine main brute is in the 20s still.
I could see some issues when crossover comes, but within the context of CoV, Brutes don't strike me as being in trouble. Again, maybe that changes in the late game, or maybe that's something that gets better with the new Patron Powers. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and put them on the list. That doesn't mean that Blasters don't belong on the list of ATs that need help.
[ QUOTE ]
Another is the issue of Stalkers. A lot of people say they are no issue but a lot of people say they are... If they are causing that big a dispute, they will probably be changed in some way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stalkers are being addresed. A one-shot fix is being put up and, after they've had time to see how that works out, they will be making further changes if necessary. So A) they aren't underperforming and B) they are already being addressed co C) they're not a valid example of something that needs attention more than Blasters.
I'll leave the rest alone as I don't think failing to have a character at 50 DQs someone from speaking about them.
I do think that you are overly worried about raising the debuffs. Defenders get almost 2x the debuff strength on the exact same powers as Blasters do and it's not like people are running around saying "Hey, make sure the defender uses their blasts so that guy will be debuffed!" It's more typical for a team to not even notice that there ARE debuffs on the blasts. But the slight uptick in safety will still be meaningful for blaster survival, even if it is hard to notice. Frankly, that's an ideal change, one that really improves the Blaster's defensive lot, but in a way too subtle for a team to notice anything but his offense.
[ 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 ]
I disagree with your assessment. I see 4 ATs as performing Sub-par:
[*]Dominators[*]Tankers[*]Blasters[*]Defenders[/list]
YMMV
[/ QUOTE ]
Two. Dominators and Blasters.
Some more have specific problems:
Defenders are great in team but really weak solo or PvP.
Tankers are great solo and play well in teams, but fail to have a "purpose".
MMs are really weak in PvP except for some very specific builds.
The Devs have acknowledged that Blasters have a problem for nearly a year now. I think that's clear enough to prove a point of some sort.