[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um...which, exactly, of my comments was falsified? Seriously...look back at my posts and point them out to me.
I think you're a bit "confused" now... 
[/ QUOTE ]
This wil help you:
Clicky
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...you're attempt to be witty helped me realize you're full of sh*t. Good job.
Way to make a bogus claim and not back it up too. 
[/ QUOTE ]
pwnt 
I hope they do some internal testing before it goes to I7 because they will find that snipe for stalkers isn't that bad if the hero is teamed and Web Nade will definately be very very very Overpowered. Corruptor control will rival if not surpass Dominator's and controller's ability to controll the other/enemy PvP team
[ QUOTE ]
I see alot of talk about Focused Accuracy...I guess you'll have that on auto click eh? though I'd find Hasten better to have set for it...
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering it's a Toggle, I don't think there'll be a conflict there.
it's a toggle? didn't know that then ignore that part of my post ^_^
(notes to respec w/ Focused Accuracy on Tank when/if I7 gives a free respec)
funny though...I dunno the name just makes it seem like a clickie
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters do have the ability to 'penetrate' non-squishy toggles when they close to melee range(guaranteeing all opponents the opportunity to retaliate).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how to take your comment about "non-squishy" toggles. It sounds like an attempt to mislead or purposefully fabricate a misconception, but for general principle and for the sake of following Hanlon's Razor, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this to a simple case of botched communications.
However, for the sake of clarity, I feel it necessary to clear the air. There is no difference between a "non-squishy" toggle, or a "squishy" toggle, or any other status protection toggle in this game currently. As far as I am aware, Acrobatics (as an example) has the same effect taken on a level 50 blaster, as it does a level 20 Fire Armor Brute, or a level 40 Corruptor. The magnitudes, the protections , and the costs are all universal. With regards to AT specific Defensive toggles - specifically those granting resistances, defense, or status protections(mez resistance) - those toggles have no greater or lesser chance at being deactivated "de-toggled" than any other generic (power pool)non-AT specific defensive toggle. All toggles have their own level of protection magnitudes, but other than the inherent mechanics within those powers, there is no distinction between them that affects the ability to de-toggle them. I think you are either misconstruing the mechanic of overcoming a toggle, and the de-toggling effect, or are ignoring it all together. They are most emphatically NOT the same thing.
If I have a mag 3 Knockback protection toggle on my Brute - as an example - with successive applications of a high magnitude knockback, that toggle protection can be overcome by applying a greater magnitude or more of a lesser magnitude (from different sources) knockback effect. The defenses could be overcome or "penetrated" by cumulative instances of the "mez" effect. The De-toggle effect has nothing to do with this. It is a completely separate mechanic. A de-toggle effect does not break or penetrate a defensive status protection toggle, it simply shuts it off. It does not defeat it, but nulifies it outright. There is no roll, or calculation when it comes to de-toggle strength or magnitude, it simply works, or it does not ( This is based off of a percentage chance unique to the individual power) .
Ergo, a blaster's(the same as some other AT powers) ability to de-toggle with certain powers as a separate effect, not as a defeat of that toggle through succesive applications of status effects, sees no difference between Unyeilding, or Acrobatics, or Sprint, or any other toggle power. Whether it's a squishy toggle or non-squishy toggle, it makes no difference when you are talking about the de-toggle effect.
A de-toggle effect is completely random(so they say) and could shut off a Mind Control Dominators Telekenesis, the same as it could the Unyielding toggle on a Invulnerability Brute. Its all based on chance. I'm not sure where you got the idea to make or allude to any sort of differentation between defensive toggles based on the AT that has it, but let this be the end of it please.
Secondly, your comment seems to indicate that Blasters are incapable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles on Melee classes, otherwise why make that distinction between squishy or non-squishy? A Energy melee secondary blaster can drop a level 40 Invulnerability Brute's toggles, just as he could a level 25 Stalker, Corruptor, Dominator, or Mastermind, if they had toggles to be dropped, using the Bone smasher for example.
Again, there is no distinction here, so let's stop indicating that there is or might be a difference, whether we meant to or not. The wording you used indicates that there is in my mind at least, and I consider my reading comprehension to be quite good. Regardless of the intent, my real concern, is that someone could read that statement and come away from it with totally inaccurate assumptions.
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?
If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have, would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well? If the most defensive ATs and power-sets are able to be bested by the comination of Aim, Build Up, the bonus DeToggle effect(1 at 100%, 2 at 75%, 3 at 25%) present in the Bone Smasher power(as an example since you cited melee Blasters), and with Power Boost - the 100% chance of disorient when doubled from the normal 50% chance with the blaster version of that power...
Where pray tell, does that leave every other AT at exactly?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I think the snipe is a good thing, do you know how annoying it must be to not have any chance of killing a stormie...EVER. The only stalker that can is nrg/ and maybe /SR and whatnot can avoid being hit by it but I'm not sure. At least stalkers will have a chance now.
[/ QUOTE ]
In a PvP environment balanced for teams, it's important for one archetype to trump all rock/paper/scissors interactions. That's balance, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
0.o
Uh-oh pisghetti-os! You seem to be under the impression that Melee Blasters are already quite capable of handling all melee AT's, and by my logic, if they can do that, then they could probably handle any squishy fairly "handily". So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.
But, didn't you imply that wasn't balanced or right? Oh dear oh dear...
Either I'm confused as to what you meant, or you were so confused, that you thought Stalkers trumped everything. Which is it? I'd be happy to know either way.
[ QUOTE ]
Consider the effect that finding a teammate with Clarity, Increase Density, Stimulant, Thaw, or Antidote would have on that kind of interaction:
Blasters have neither defense nor resistance.
Blasters have no mez protection.
Blasters can't take punishment as well as they can give it.
Most blasters close immediately to melee range.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have considered that for some time. Now please consider this:
Consider the effect of that blaster finding a teamate with:
Clear mind, Fortitude, Recovery and regeneration Aura, Adrenalin boost, Insulation and deflection shields, Increase Density, Clarity, Stimulant, ah hell...you get the point, need I go any further?
If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all. It's the only fair and reasonable way to do it. Mind you, this is not to say that Villain Buff potential is anywhere near the Hero AT buff potential, because by no means is it, but that's an entirely different arguement...and not something I want to get into.
In your counter post here:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the blaster's fault.
It's yours.
Where is your mez protection? If you're not /SR or /nin you need a non-toggle buff.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to ignore this idea of a level playing field - "all things being equal" - only as it pertains to your argument and that is why I felt the need to quote and offer another perspective. You offer that the counter to the Blaster AT's extreme offensive capability, especially with deToggling or mez effects, is basically:
"Get a team, get buffs."
Yet in this instance, it is an oversimplification to counterattack "Sexified"s points with (the basic and too-often used opener) "just more exageration of blaster power" with the often used closer of "blasters have shoddy defense so its balanced". If anything can be said truthfully - all things being equal - a Blasters defense is oftentimes heavily augmented, almost to the point of being a non-issue in a team play environment, due to some if not all and more of those buffs you cited for villain team use. In an even team numbers types of consideration, the counter argument of a lack of defense for a Blaster, is near nonexistant due to the presence of teammates of his own! You can't argue for defense against a blaster citing teamwork, and then say blasters are defenseless and ignore teamwork there! Seriously dude, you made me chuckle there. That has to be covered somewhere on the fallacy.org website! Come on...
The very arguement against it, becomes one that supports it instead, because it instantly nullifies those inadequacies and in turn makes any counter argument involving a lack of defense...
nonexistant.
With a team, A blaster - much like any AT in the game -is quite a bit more capable than you admit to in your counter-post. You want to talk about Solo Blasters against teams of villains? Thats fine. They'll get smacked hard, that's a fact, but so will any AT in that gross and un-even of a matchup, defenses or not. But A blaster, backed up by a team, attacking with even numbers against a similar Hero or villain team, has little of those weaknesses, because they are made irrelavent by the presence of ATs that fill that void already, as they fit the role of defense, or by the application of team buffs as you cited.
The cliffs version: Nice attempt, but you're still arguing about Apples and Oranges. Comparing a solo blaster - sans defenses, to anything, villain or otherwise, with the team buffs present on the field that you listed, is a tenuous position at its best, and a bit too obtuse at its worst. If you only cited it as a reference, why only mention teamwork as it applies when used against blaster offense? Why not apply it to blaster defense as well? Seems only reasonable.
Lastly, a bit of humor. How do you counter ultimate offense? With ultimate defense. What does that mean for Villains in CoV?
Hire a Tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
You'd know for a fact that you wouldn't be disabled over the course of your fight. Depending on your build, you may be able to disable the blaster with a single mez.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depending on your build, quite true. You may be able to take that blaster out very quickly. As we've previously admitted freely, Blaster defenses are - without a team for support - virtually non-existant. However, A blasters Offensice capabilities, in many instances, are their greatest defense. I do agree with the blaster community on this arguement 100% - Range does not equal defense. It never has, nor will it ever. Running, is not a defense, unless you already have defenses. That aside, the Blaster AT's ability at dispensing quick, and sustained high damage, is outdone in Melee only by the Scrapper AT, By the Brute AT situationally (in my experience those situations never occur, and thats a lot of experience talking), and in ranged combat they are without equal.
So my question is this, now that we've had some declaration of truth between us:
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.
If you can, I'd like you to go even further. What do you think the bane of Blasters are? I can safely say with conviction, from my experiences with the Brute AT at least, that I fear no AT/Build in PvP, greater than the EM Blaster.
What AT do you Blasters worry about totally confounding you and reducing your AT to dead status in a few short seconds?
[ QUOTE ]
All the tools you need to PvP aren't available in your primary/secondary. Some are only available through teamwork.
[/ QUOTE ]
I very much agree. As a matter of fact, lets extrapolate that out to get some basic conclusions. Hopefully we can wrap it all up here shortly.
In a non team environment, such as the arena, What powers are available to all other ATs, that put them on the same offensive level of a Blaster? Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?
I cordially await your reply.
(please go easy on me though, this is my first post on the Blaster Forums)
[ QUOTE ]
why do I have this nagging voice in the back of my head saying people will cry about EM Stalkers again...
also if Castle is the Stalker Rep...gee...what AT will you think he'll work on more? Hmm...this is such a brain buster...damn I think I gave myself a hernia trying to figure this out @_@
I love how people say Stalkers are broken and I'm 100% sure it's based off of AS, cause nothing else is really "broken" in a Stalker AT unless you want to start complaints about Plactate which is there are ways around just as Hide...
[ QUOTE ]
Every single patron power pool has a snipe AND a single-target hold.
[/ QUOTE ]
the Hold I can see it giving every Stalker AT some bit of balance since MA and EM have a "hold" of there own, namely a stun. Though once again w/ EM Stalkers...I hear more complaints coming about them. The typical Stalker in PvP Zones don't have Stealth...it's really only the PvP dedicated ones that grab Stealth to stack w/ Hide. So pretty much and /Device Blaster or a Blaster w/ Tactics will see through the typical Stalker, like me
Steathed Blappers? um...Ninjitsu, Super Reflexes have a +Perception power...there goes your Stealth...EA has Repel...there goes your melee unless you do a death from above on them. You're only real fresh meat is /Regen since they don't have a +Perception power.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it would be a good idea for a Stalker to give away his position, that would go against their strengths.
[/ QUOTE ]
well depending on your situation, would you want to give your position away in melee combat w/ AS or from ranged w/ a snipe where they will have to look for you?
Though I can picture this happening w/ Stalkers now...Snipe, Teleport, Hold/Stun/Fear, Plactate, death
[/ QUOTE ]
At least on my server, it doesn't take long at all for a stalker to respec into stealth. The ones who do have it far outweigh the ones who don't.
Although not a hold dont forget impale.
//I see alot of talk about Focused Accuracy...I guess you'll have that on auto click eh? though I'd find Hasten better to have set for it...
Toggle powers cannot be autocast as far as I have ever found. There may be some trick that I'm not aware of but I'm pretty sure not.
edit: I see this was addressed but it wasn't really stated clearly why, so I'll leave this.
yeah, I botched my second respec and forgot to get Stealth for my Stalker @_@ but I still go into PvP like once a month
Dues...did I just read a manual? o.o
Front...typically when there's a conversation and a Stalker's Hide+Stealth situation comes up, Focused Accuracy isn't too far to follow. I never used the power cause I thought it was just anothe click power like Conserve Energy.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how to take your comment about "non-squishy" toggles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Take it in context. I was responding to a frustrated poster, who simply didn't understand the mechanics of toggle drops, or who had a penchant for gross exaggeration.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this to a simple case of botched communications.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't bother. My wording was a deliberate choice on my part. I was responding to a poster that claimed he or she was getting completely detoggled and mezzed in a single hit from every blaster he or she faced.This is profoundly unlikely - and would be completely impossible if they had minimal team support. I did not precisely describe the mechanics of toggle-drops, but I didn't feel I had to, considering who I was responding to.
Instead, I chose to offer offer a specific, tested suggestion(team for a mez protection buff) to vastly improve the quality of their PvP experience.
I'm sorry if this led to some confusion on your part.
I stand by the analogy that toggle drops approximate the penetration of proactive defenses in PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you got the idea to make or allude to any sort of differentation between defensive toggles based on the AT that has it
[/ QUOTE ]
I was responding specifically to the experiences of the poster (who plays a stalker). I tailored my remarks specifically to him.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, your comment seems to indicate that Blasters are incapable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles on Melee classes
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me give you the quote that led to my response:
[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime
[/ QUOTE ]
My comment indicated that a non-toggle mez protection buff is guaranteed to prevent a one-hit total-toggle-drop-and-mez from a blaster. I think your argument is stemming from inclusive/exclusive AND confusion. From experience, I know that my Brute suffers more from being mezzed, than from losing his toggles over the course of the fight(since he has much more HP than the blaster). Blasters are perfectly capable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles - that doesn't mean you have to be mezzed when you lose them.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?
If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have....
[/ QUOTE ]
You're expanding my argument to suit your needs. I was specifically referring to a solo /em blaster vs. a solo brute/scrapper/stalker/tank interaction. I've got the feeling that we agree on many levels, regardless. Expanding the scope of my points to suit your needs isn't necessary. Just give your opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. I do not concede the point, because the facts don't support it. Tankers have 156% of Blaster HP. Blasters have 125% of Tanker damage. If we take a best-case /EM tank vs /EM blaster comparison, and the tank is actually working on a minimal team(that is, he's managed to round up a single non-toggle status protection buff), the melee blaster has no chance. The tank can(but won't) start the fight with no active toggles, and would still put the blaster at a disadvantage.
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. To be clear:
In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).
Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)
[ QUOTE ]
So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In an even team numbers types of consideration, the counter argument of a lack of defense for a Blaster, is near nonexistant due to the presence of teammates of his own! You can't argue for defense against a blaster citing teamwork, and then say blasters are defenseless and ignore teamwork there! Seriously dude, you made me chuckle there.
[/ QUOTE ]
At this point in my post, you should no longer hold that opinion.
If the blaster has mez protection, he is able to deliver an uninterrupted stream of melee damage, and with toggle drops(and /ems mezzes) can put any unprepared opponent without debuffs/soft control at an extreme disadvantage.
If the brute/scrapper/tank the blaster is facing has a non-toggle mez protection buff, the brute/scrapper/tank can deliver an uninterrupted stream of damage right back - and due to the HP differential, the blaster is at a disadvantage. everytime. Even though he can drop toggles.
[ QUOTE ]
I didnt come here to start a war I'm just saying 9 outta 10 blasters are /nrg /electric on my server and I'm telling you the Bone smasher from the blaster set is 100 percent diff from Brutes/tanks/stalkers its totally diff everytime I get hit I lose all 3 of my toggles and I'm stunned instantly it totally negates mez protection (I run integration) having played both sides of the PVP war for quite sometime now I know blasters are a bit over powered when it comes to detoggling they do not need to detoggle to kill remember you do 30 percent unresistable damage with each attack I beleive I wish I had an attack other then AS that dropped 3 of your toggles and stunned you everytime in 1 hit.....I thought that was a controllers job? I can have 5-6 holds from a controller stacked on me...but 1 bone smasher kills all my toggles AND stuns me If they were to nerf detoggling by half of what it is now it would probably still be over powered.....I liked issue 4 when one of the main and only detoggle powers was brawl in the arena
[/ QUOTE ]
Regen has one toggle, integration. There is a good chance it will be detoggled by bonecrusher, it has the chance to detoggle 2 and if integration goes first you can be hit by the disorient turning off the third. With Resilence, you can't be stunned easily if integration is off and clicking on instant healing can make you difficult to be killed by a blaster.
[ QUOTE ]
Take it in context. I was responding to a frustrated poster, who simply didn't understand the mechanics of toggle drops, or who had a penchant for gross exaggeration.
[/ QUOTE ]
Duly Noted. I am not personally aware of that posters penchants or his reputation as it were. I generally try to approach every post in a like manner, and never put a "face" or personality with motives and goals to an individual poster. I find that this tendancy often sets up a person for having a perception about someone, and rather than simply evaluating his/her words, people have a tendancy to let this perception interfere with their ability to be open-minded or impartial. I try not to judge a posts content based on perceptions about them the poster, since those perceptions would be derived from a rather blank medium such as forum boards.
Thanks for the explanation though.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry if this led to some confusion on your part.
I stand by the analogy that toggle drops approximate the penetration of proactive defenses in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's perfectly acceptable to admit to being confused or unsure about something, and in this case I fully admit that I was, hence my questioning. I am convinced now that you are well aware of the mechanics in both cases, and I now understand why I was initially unsure of this. Thanks for the clarifications.
[ QUOTE ]
Let me give you the quote that led to my response:
[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime
[/ QUOTE ]
My comment indicated that a non-toggle mez protection buff is guaranteed to prevent a one-hit total-toggle-drop-and-mez from a blaster. I think your argument is stemming from inclusive/exclusive AND confusion. From experience, I know that my Brute suffers more from being mezzed, than from losing his toggles over the course of the fight(since he has much more HP than the blaster). Blasters are perfectly capable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles - that doesn't mean you have to be mezzed when you lose them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, you don't have to be mezzed when you lose status protection toggles, unfortunately with the current mechanics of Bone Smasher, It's very hard "not" to end up mezzed in the process. Take for an example a level 30 Invulnerability Brute, since you play a Brute as you stated, I'm going to assume you can understand the finer points of this example. Typically, an Invulnerability Brute of that level can or will be running about 4 or 5 toggles at most. The ones that comes to mind are Temporary Invulnerability, Unyielding, Sprint, their travel power or the ever popular combat jumping, and perhaps if they have selected it yet, Invincibility. 3 of these toggles are probably a given: Unyeilding, Temp Invuln, and the travel power. The other two could be, but just as well could not be present. Many Brutes simply do not use Sprint in PvE as it is a noticeable endurance drain, and simply do not change this for PvP.
Let's assume that Solo brute goes up against a lone EM blaster, without the presence of a team. Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all
of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster? If that Blaster gets in the first hit, it's almost a given that said Brute will never recover enough to pull out a win, but also, even in the instance the Brute is able to strike first, unless he has a built in Mez into his attack, the blaster will still likely be around to counter it because of the lackluster front loaded damage of the Brute(75% base Blaster melee damage)? Remember, a Brutes melee damage in this case would be without Fury, and only 75% of a Blasters "Base" damage? Totally ignoring inspiration usage, if you further figure in the ability to boost this damage, does that not also favor the blaster in question, as he will almost asuredly have both Aim and Build-up whereas the brute will not have access to Aim?
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?
Just curious as to your opinions on that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?
If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have....
[/ QUOTE ]
You're expanding my argument to suit your needs. I was specifically referring to a solo /em blaster vs. a solo brute/scrapper/stalker/tank interaction. I've got the feeling that we agree on many levels, regardless. Expanding the scope of my points to suit your needs isn't necessary. Just give your opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
My needs? My only "need" was to have that question answered, which you did, but in the process you gave a highly contradictory and illogical rebuttal, thus I was unable to reconcile it any further.
Here is why I am confused, yet again:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. I do not concede the point, because the facts don't support it. Tankers have 156% of Blaster HP. Blasters have 125% of Tanker damage. If we take a best-case /EM tank vs /EM blaster comparison, and the tank is actually working on a minimal team(that is, he's managed to round up a single non-toggle status protection buff), the melee blaster has no chance. The tank can(but won't) start the fight with no active toggles, and would still put the blaster at a disadvantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't concede the point, yet you already have. In fact you expanded the argument yourself previously, and at the same time for whatever reason, ended up accusing me of it instead? I plainly asked: in a one on one basis, could it not be inferred from your post that you believed that a solo EM blaster could in fact trump all melee classes in a both sides being solo scenario? To rebutt this you cited an example using a Tanker in a NON-SOLO situation. How is this not evasive to my question? In a previous post by you, which by the way I can no longer find (was it edited out?), you stated:
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, let me restate what I think is obvious. You previously stated that a lone brute/tank/scrapper/stalker will at a disadvantage against a melee Blaster, yet in your example above, you countered my logical assumption as a result of your statement(this is not expanding the argument to suit my needs, as you had previously already argued the point at the same level), by citing a very thin instance involving an EM melee Tanker with, and i quote: "actually working on a minimal team"
I sincerely hope this isnt an attempt at making a Strawman out of this debate, and that yet again, it is me who is sorely confused beyond my ability to conjecture logically. Honestly, please tell me how I should read these statements? Are they not totally contradictory, or is this some kind of Orwellian "Double-think"?
Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion - on the strength of a lone EM blaster against all lone melee classes.
Perhaps now you see why I dont share my personal opinions? It is because that while the opinion is present this does not mean that I in turn, must be opinionated or equate to me being Biased in any regard. Everyone has opinions. My opinions are not convictions, they are simply educated guess work based off of perception or experience. If I assume that your opinions are also based off those factors, as they very well may be, does that present the possibility that what you said about an EM Blaster being a Trump to the other melee classes in the game IS being based off of experience? Is not experience a better indication of reality, rather than unfounded and untested conjecture? I think it is. Perhaps thats an argument for a different post.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. To be clear:
In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).
Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, here it is again. This premise that a Blaster will certainly die against these melee ATs, does not chime in with previous statements that you made. Im simply asking for clarification so that I can move beyond this state of perpetual confusion.
Were you correct when you made the statement that: I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster., or were you correct just now when you basically said that only Brutes and Stalkers are disadvantaged?
In my experience, when someone doesnt question something, that is either because he is adamantly convinced in its accurateness, or that he has some sort of blind faith. Im going to assume that it isnt the latter. You dont seem like the type to eschew logic for the sake of blind acceptance.
That is why I said this:
[ QUOTE ]
So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.
[/ QUOTE ]
To which you responded:
[ QUOTE ]
At this point in my post, you should no longer hold that opinion.
If the blaster has mez protection, he is able to deliver an uninterrupted stream of melee damage, and with toggle drops(and /ems mezzes) can put any unprepared opponent without debuffs/soft control at an extreme disadvantage.
If the brute/scrapper/tank the blaster is facing has a non-toggle mez protection buff, the brute/scrapper/tank can deliver an uninterrupted stream of damage right back - and due to the HP differential, the blaster is at a disadvantage. everytime. Even though he can drop toggles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, that isnt so much my opinion as it is an attempt to either figure out your own. You see, I am only basing that statement above, on what you said. It is no more a representation of my opinion on the matter, which I have yet to express, than it is an accurate representation of your own. That is what I am after here. I seek an end to these contradictions, not a perpetuation of them. No need to interject my opinions to further lose my overall point in, agreed?
Furthermore, I realized you may not have the time, but I really would like to hear further opinions from you. Specifically on these questions that I previously asked:
[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.
If you can, I'd like you to go even further. What do you think the bane of Blasters are?
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason why I feel an extreme need to answer this question is this point you made earlier, and here it is again, so that you dont have to scroll up:
[ QUOTE ]
In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).
Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)
[/ QUOTE ]
Please note, Ive taken the liberty to do some highlighting. It appears to me that you answered my question inadvertently. The question I posed above appears to have been answered by you, with the answer that only situationally, do villain teams or solo ATs have any chance against countering the Blaster AT.
You said that a Tanker and a Scrapper will almost certainly, to very likely in the least, be able to best the Blaster. You stated that against a Stalker, a Blaster will very likely succeed. So that leaves the Brute as the only AT that could situationally defeat the blaster, according to the scenario you laid out. Am I taking your words out of context? No, I do not believe so, because I am still presenting them in the context that was given in response to my post, even if the response wasnt to the exact question it probably should have been. So if I took nothing out of context, can I assume from your replies, that currently the only chance that Villain teams have of protecting themselves against a Blaster, is to have a Brute along with them?
Does that not go against every instance in this thread that cites the Stalker AT with being primary concern of Blasters? I see no quantity of posts about Brutes being the Bane of Blasters
if anything I see more of the exact opposite. If youd simply peruse through the Brute forums, Im sure youd also pick that up from casual posts.
So my question remains for you to ultimately clarify:
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
Still cordially awaiting your reply.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um...which, exactly, of my comments was falsified? Seriously...look back at my posts and point them out to me.
I think you're a bit "confused" now...
[/ QUOTE ]
This wil help you:
Clicky
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...you're attempt to be witty helped me realize you're full of sh*t. Good job.
Way to make a bogus claim and not back it up too.
[/ QUOTE ]
pwnt
[/ QUOTE ]
ok THIS boggles my mind.
I have never once said any untruths about anyhting (unless you want to consider my opinion on the subject an untruth). Darth seems to believe I have and as such, he posted this without anyhting to back it up.
I guess i just missed the part where *I* was pwnd. meh.
@TheBro
solo pvp?
Cooler than every single owl EVER.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess i just missed the part where *I* was pwnd. meh.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't feel bad. I purposefully "miss" - read ignore - any post that includes that kind of terminology also.
[ QUOTE ]
You said that a Tanker and a Scrapper will almost certainly, to very likely in the least, be able to best the Blaster. You stated that against a Stalker, a Blaster will very likely succeed. So that leaves the Brute as the only AT that could situationally defeat the blaster, according to the scenario you laid out. Am I taking your words out of context? No, I do not believe so, because I am still presenting them in the context that was given in response to my post, even if the response wasnt to the exact question it probably should have been. So if I took nothing out of context, can I assume from your replies, that currently the only chance that Villain teams have of protecting themselves against a Blaster, is to have a Brute along with them?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I can offer my own experiences:
Versus a smart brute or tank, who doesn't choose to just stand there and eat all my attacks, it is not a given that they lose. Aim and Buildup are only 10 seconds, and if I can't kill them in that window then it is likely I can't kill them at all, because I can't put enough damage in them to put them on the ground before they get away and retoggle - and come back during aim/buildup downtime and hurt me pretty bad. Versus a scrapper, the same is true.
They can see the blaster coming, and you can watch for the aim/buildup animation; even if not you know to expect it. If the blaster stands next to you for 2 seconds without throwing any attack, simply move out of melee range and wait out aim/buildup. I do "okay" versus tanks, scrappers and brutes. I am completely dependent on breakfrees or outside buffs to only achieve "okay" - without ready breakfrees I consistently lose, due to being stunned/held and killed quickly. Reverse is not true, tank/scrapper/brute with NO breakfrees/mez buff can kill me consistently - IF he does not stand there and eat my entire alpha, which will pretty much kill anybody if they just stand there. But nobody does this (duh).
Versus a stalker, I can't see them without outside buffs or a lot of +acc inspirations. I don't think it's a reasonable tactic to eat 4 +acc every time I SUSPECT a stalker is in the area, but if I have them then this does work. The overwhelming majority of the time, I simply am never engaged by stalkers unless I basically stand there and allow them to AS me first. I can't flush them out of hiding with my current build, and many popular builds have no potential to do this either (e.g. energy/energy, elec/energy, many combos with /electric as well). Blasters without some autohit toggle e.g. Chilling Embrace or Hot Feet (pretty sure) are at great risk from stalkers unless support by outside buffs.
[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa?
[/ QUOTE ]
On a cold day in hell, sure. That is really way different from my experience. If only everyone just stood still and let me see them and aim/buildup/execute entire attack chain, too bad they jump or fly or teleport around like meanies.
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, you don't have to be mezzed when you lose status protection toggles, unfortunately with the current mechanics of Bone Smasher, It's very hard "not" to end up mezzed in the process.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no quantity of posts about Brutes being the Bane of Blasters
if anything I see more of the exact opposite. If youd simply peruse through the Brute forums, Im sure youd also pick that up from casual posts.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the prevailing attitude on the Brute board: "Stimulant is too hard. It's too inaccessible. A single teammate is too much. Buffs, though able to prevent mez and provide a mez resistance that's totally immune to toggle drops, just aren't 'worth it to me."
I refuse to make measured judgements about an AT by giving any weight to the mutable 'prevailing attitude' of a minority of (mostly inexperienced) PvPers, especially when my experiences as a brute(when working on an organized team in PvP) are contrary to the community's.
[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that Solo brute goes up against a lone EM blaster, without the presence of a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
And we'll limit the scope of any conclusions we can reach with arguments that are predicated on this assumption through the understanding that the devs have abandoned 1v1 balance in a PvP designed to accomodate specialization and teamwork.(*note: I expect readers to subject arguments I make within this scope to the same caveat)
[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all
of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
I could honestly say that, if Bonesmasher didn't have a static, un-improvable 50% chance to mez. I'm very comfortable saying that the odds of a blaster dropping all a Brute's toggles at once with a single Bonesmasher are at the very most 50% - and most likely less than that.
I'm also not comfortable constructing an ideal blaster vs. brute 1v1 interaction without consideration being given toward a brute's self-heal. 4 of 5 brute secondaries feature them. 3 of 5 increase the brute's max HP. If we're going to ignore blasters without Aim/BU(because they're rare and not an 'ideal' PvP blaster) it would be unfair to ignore brutes without a self-heal. We'll ignore the self-heal, too, I suppose.
[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
If a brute can't defeat a blaster during the 8-second base disorient duration of Total focus and we ignore self-heals and we ignore passives, then yes, the brute is simply a squishy blaster with higher hitpoints and less base damage. What conclusions can we draw from such a stacked comparison regarding CoX PvP?
[ QUOTE ]
I plainly asked: in a one on one basis, could it not be inferred from your post that you believed that a solo EM blaster could in fact trump all melee classes in a both sides being solo scenario?
[/ QUOTE ]
I said they'd be at a disadvantage in a 1v1 conflict. It could certainly be inferred, if you felt that trumped was an acceptable synonym for disadvantaged.
[ QUOTE ]
In a previous post by you, which by the way I can no longer find (was it edited out?)
[/ QUOTE ]
It's still there, perfectly unchanged.
[ QUOTE ]
To rebutt this you cited an example using a Tanker in a NON-SOLO situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
But they were in a 1v1 situation.
I used a tanker vs. a blaster in a 1v1 situation, but teamed (and having access to minimal buffs). Can you imagine a situation where two teams interact, but 2 individual players interact independent of their respective groups(where all other teammates are busy dealing with other discrete encounters as a part of the team v. team interaction). I hope you can. I felt comfortable drawing up such a situation because such 'microbattles' are common in team v. team open PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, let me restate what I think is obvious. You previously stated that a lone brute/tank/scrapper/stalker will at a disadvantage against a melee Blaster, yet in your example above, you countered my logical assumption as a result of your statement(this is not expanding the argument to suit my needs, as you had previously already argued the point at the same level), by citing a very thin instance involving an EM melee Tanker with, and i quote: "actually working on a minimal team"
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion
[/ QUOTE ]
Eureka! I do! (and it's my own fault for using such vague verbage interchangably - my failure to differentiate between a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a solo meleer) and a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a teamed meleer))
It amounts to me expressing 2 different opinions about the same subject. If I could go back and edit my posts, it would no doubt prevent confusion.
In multiple posts, I used the term 'solo blaster' and described a 1v1 interaction featuring a blaster without a team, and then featuring a blaster with a team. From post to post, I used the same term interchangibly. The reader can't tell where I draw the distinction.
And dass'not vinegar!
Now that I re-read my posts(reading what I wrote, and not what I meant), I easily see a confusing double-standard.
[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is an "I-win" formula to open PvP currently. Three spines/sr stalkers. They work at the stealth cap, are ranged, and bring the burst damage to insta-kill squishies with uninterruptable Impale crits-from-hide. Their limitions are set by the time needed to retreat after the kill, rehide, and recast grant invis. I don't accept this as an acceptable counter, because it's absurdly overpowered and unfun for both sides, and it marginalizes the contributions of Corruptors, Doms, MMs, and Brutes.
From personal experience, my teamed SS/EA brute has good odds of success against blasters - but only when he has a non-toggle status protection buff.
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
No - and there should not be, because no other AT is as limited, as weak, and as specialized as a blaster.
[ QUOTE ]
Versus a smart brute or tank, who doesn't choose to just stand there and eat all my attacks, it is not a given that they lose. Aim and Buildup are only 10 seconds, and if I can't kill them in that window then it is likely I can't kill them at all, because I can't put enough damage in them to put them on the ground before they get away and retoggle - and come back during aim/buildup downtime and hurt me pretty bad. Versus a scrapper, the same is true.
[/ QUOTE ]
This just goes to further the point that, disbarring personal perception completely, it is nigh impossible to come up with a logical argument for the presence of balance, when considering solo, or on one mechanics. There simply is no question in my mind. How two people playing the game can have such vastly different personal experiences, just goes to show that those experiences are what shapes our perceptions of how the game really works, and not vice versa.
I could tell you that in all my experiences I have been killed more times by an EM blaster, than I have managed to kill them. Although this is my factual reality, without being there to experience it, it seems incredulous. Just as your post with your experiences seem incredulous to me, I'm sure mine does not at all ring true to yours.
Simply, there are too many dynamic factors that play a role in PvP; far too many to even begin to discuss in any manner of absolutism. That is why I posted here in the first place. Perception is reality. Regardless of what the truth of the matter is, because there is in fact no universal truth.
We tend to think there is, and in a game we have mechanics that give us some sort of sense of the way things work, but in a game like this, there are thousands of factors that shape those experiences. Experience is the only teacher, but yet it can also be the most misleading and incomprehensible one available to us because it is not based on any sort of universal unifying factors.
Just remember.
Perception is reality.
[ QUOTE ]
They can see the blaster coming, and you can watch for the aim/buildup animation; even if not you know to expect it. If the blaster stands next to you for 2 seconds without throwing any attack, simply move out of melee range and wait out aim/buildup. I do "okay" versus tanks, scrappers and brutes. I am completely dependent on breakfrees or outside buffs to only achieve "okay" - without ready breakfrees I consistently lose, due to being stunned/held and killed quickly. Reverse is not true, tank/scrapper/brute with NO breakfrees/mez buff can kill me consistently - IF he does not stand there and eat my entire alpha, which will pretty much kill anybody if they just stand there. But nobody does this (duh).
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember this because it applies to everyone. Running, in any kind of engagement, but especially in team play, is not defense. It is the polar opposite. So what if that Brute runs away to prevent the Blaster from two shotting him...The blaster simply turns to the Corruptor next to him, and puts the Build up and Aim to good use anyways. Is the Brute fulfilling any role for his team at the moment? No, and the corruptor that dies for it will remember only how he was one shot because he had no defense. His perception, is that the blaster went after a less defensive opponent because it was "an easy kill". Was that what happened? Depends on who you asked I'd say.
My point, is that matters are never "that" simple.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa?
[/ QUOTE ]
On a cold day in hell, sure. That is really way different from my experience. If only everyone just stood still and let me see them and aim/buildup/execute entire attack chain, too bad they jump or fly or teleport around like meanies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking from experience I feel the exact way towards most Blasters that i come across as you do towards most brutes. I wish you ranged types would stay still and not jump around or teleport like meanies as well.
Does that mean range really is a defensive manuever? Sorry had to throw that one back in.
//There is an "I-win" formula to open PvP currently.
Another bad one is stacking Vengeance, which boils down to unhittable characters of ANY archetype. I have 2x acc on my attacks, and aim/buildup is still not enough to hit people configured like this when Vengeance is up (4+ misses in a row). When it is not up they simply retreat until it is. Considering that Fear is also a very useful status effect in PVP, it's a pretty effective choice of power pool.
//This just goes to further the point that, disbarring personal perception completely, it is nigh impossible to come up with a logical argument for the presence of balance, when considering solo, or on one mechanics.
Oh of course it's not balanced, I didn't think that was a real question. Solo is very imbalanced, and in teams it can only get worse - more variables. People talking about PVP balance live in a dream world, it's impossible to achieve in a game with mixed abilities like this one. You don't have true balance unless you're playing a real FPS or a card game or something like that, the playing field is inherently imbalanced at all points and is impossible to level.
//I could tell you that in all my experiences I have been killed more times by an EM blaster, than I have managed to kill them. Although this is my factual reality, without being there to experience it, it seems incredulous. Just as your post with your experiences seem incredulous to me, I'm sure mine does not at all ring true to yours.
No, it rings perfectly true - but I can suggest you alter your tactics and you will kill more blasters. Don't stand there and get pounded is a great deal of it, and carry breakfrees like everyone else is forced to. If you find your travel power is getting negated by things like Web Grenade, take teleport instead, it's un-trumpable. There is simply no excuse for a tank/brute to regularly be killed in solo PVP, you have high hitpoints/def/resist/selfheal and unless you stubbornly refuse to eat breakfrees you ALWAYS have the option to flee. The reverse is not true for the blaster at all, with far lower hitpoints and effectively no resist/def. This is all very much aside from the fact that toggle dropping powers are being nerfed next issue.
//Remember this because it applies to everyone. Running, in any kind of engagement, but especially in team play, is not defense. It is the polar opposite.
I must be blunt - that's stupid. You're saying that when someone you face has Overload or stacked Vengeance running you will just stand there and bang away at them while they will kill you? Rotten tactics. Mobility is KEY in any conflict, thousands of years of military history should make this obvious. In chess, what are the most powerful pieces? The knight and the queen, because of their powerful mobility. Sensible retreat is a core concept of avoiding defeat.
//...blaster simply turns to the Corruptor next to him, and puts the Build up and Aim to good use anyways.
Maybe the corruptor shouldn't stand there like a moron and eat the damage.
[ QUOTE ]
This is the prevailing attitude on the Brute board: "Stimulant is too hard. It's too inaccessible. A single teammate is too much. Buffs, though able to prevent mez and provide a mez resistance that's totally immune to toggle drops, just aren't 'worth it to me."
I refuse to make measured judgements about an AT by giving any weight to the mutable 'prevailing attitude' of a minority of (mostly inexperienced) PvPers, especially when my experiences as a brute(when working on an organized team in PvP) are contrary to the community's.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you had a chance to drop by. I agreed with all of your points to an extent. PvP is currently not balanced for solo play. It is balanced around team play. This makes sense to some, and none at all to others. Depends on perception of how it should work really. Can we safely say that solo 1 on 1 PvP is horridly imbalanced because of that? I think we can admit that with some reservation or caveats.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly about prevailing supposition and attitudes being often ignorable. I do not support many of the attitudes expressed by other players on the Brute boards either. For example, any poster on the Brute forums can tell you that I think half the people playing the AT are basically playing their AT entirely wrong. I even coined a term we use to dismiss this prevailing attitude with regards to PvP Brute Mentallity:
"Blah-Blah-Blah Burst Damage"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
I could honestly say that, if Bonesmasher didn't have a static, un-improvable 50% chance to mez. I'm very comfortable saying that the odds of a blaster dropping all a Brute's toggles at once with a single Bonesmasher are at the very most 50% - and most likely less than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good, because thats the starting point for addressing the problems inherrent in the De-Toggle effect mechanic. It's a sore spot with a lot of people, and some folks say that "their" AT needs it, but when that Stalker Assasin Strikes them and drops two of their toggles(if they have any) automatically, somehow and somewhere along the way, it suddenly becomes "unfair"
I'm not one for contradiction, or Irony of that caliber.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
If a brute can't defeat a blaster during the 8-second base disorient duration of Total focus and we ignore self-heals and we ignore passives, then yes, the brute is simply a squishy blaster with higher hitpoints and less base damage. What conclusions can we draw from such a stacked comparison regarding CoX PvP?
[/ QUOTE ]
That it's either very dynamic, or that we are all kidding ourselves into thinking that it is. Either way, we might be onto something regardless. The problem that arises is that we have no standardized or qualiatative methodology by which to evaluate our only realy clues, those clues being individual experiences.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said they'd be at a disadvantage in a 1v1 conflict. It could certainly be inferred, if you felt that trumped was an acceptable synonym for disadvantaged.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eureka! I do! (and it's my own fault for using such vague verbage interchangably - my failure to differentiate between a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a solo meleer) and a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a teamed meleer))
It amounts to me expressing 2 different opinions about the same subject. If I could go back and edit my posts, it would no doubt prevent confusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Well thank you for the clarification. It took a bit of grease, but eventually the cog broke free. I'm glad it wasn't my crazy pills causing my ineptitudes.
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I re-read my posts(reading what I wrote, and not what I meant), I easily see a confusing double-standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Simple enough, and really just a problem with semantics. I'm glad we figured it out. I was starting to wonder there for a bit...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is an "I-win" formula to open PvP currently. Three spines/sr stalkers. They work at the stealth cap, are ranged, and bring the burst damage to insta-kill squishies with uninterruptable Impale crits-from-hide. Their limitions are set by the time needed to retreat after the kill, rehide, and recast grant invis. I don't accept this as an acceptable counter, because it's absurdly overpowered and unfun for both sides, and it marginalizes the contributions of Corruptors, Doms, MMs, and Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that marginalizing overall contribution to team effort at the cost of one AT or powerset is ultimately destructive to the overall goal of diversification. Sadly, this is what we get with Rock, Paper, Scissors combat. Am I the only one that thinks this type of interaction is counterproductive? instead of making one AT a Rock, how about giving every AT some base diversification so that they are "able" to be whatever they want?
This is a whole different argument I realize, but it goes to motive I think. Why is it, that in this game, which the devs claim to be inherrently "Balanceable", oftentimes "unbalanced"?
Are we just not playing the game the way you want us to Devs?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
No - and there should not be, because no other AT is as limited, as weak, and as specialized as a blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
If blasters are weak, limited, and specialized, then sign me up for some of that. Having all that damage potential at my disposal would be a real awesome feeling. Just think of it, I would have the "potential" to literally take down anything...
Something I can't do with any AT I currently play. Perhaps I should give Heroes a try, because from my unique experience - that of having at least one level 40 character of many villain ATs (with the exception of MasterMinds and stalkers) built strictly for PvP - every AT in CoV pales significantly in the department with regards to my perceptions of Blaster level offense. Ironic indeed, when you consider that Villains were designed to eschew defense for offense. Even more odd, is that one could make an argument for Heroes having the best offensive ATs and the best defensive ATs. Blasters and Tankers...hmm. Now that's interesting.
In any case, I'm not confused anymore, so cheers.
And thanks for not bringing up the "Stalkers own us, so blasters need more defenses and protections!" argument. It really was refreshing to not hear it for once. I can clearly see that you understand that that argument can only be made from a soloists perspective, and is not something that should ever be given considerations for overall balance issues. Perhaps you should be the Blaster unofficial/official spokesperson? I'd recommend you, and I don't even play a blaster...
yet.
[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no excuse for a tank/brute to regularly be killed in solo PVP, you have high hitpoints/def/resist/selfheal and unless you stubbornly refuse to eat breakfrees you ALWAYS have the option to flee.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're preaching to the choir, really you are. But, as you stated, after the de-toggle mechanic gets fixed, I'm sure this will be more reality and not fanciful thinking. As it stands now, A brute without his defensive toggles, is just a corruptor with 500 more hitpoints, as most brutes do not take passive resists, because the cost effectiveness of them are in the bottom of the barrel. Is this the blasters fault? Of course not. Is it the systems fault? You're darned right it is. Who do we have to rely on to fix these imbalances? The developers. Lets unite this player base so we can get things fixed.
Not bicker amongst ATs like a bunch of children. Seriously.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember this because it applies to everyone. Running, in any kind of engagement, but especially in team play, is not defense. It is the polar opposite.
[/ QUOTE ]
I must be blunt - that's stupid. You're saying that when someone you face has Overload or stacked Vengeance running you will just stand there and bang away at them while they will kill you? Rotten tactics. Mobility is KEY in any conflict, thousands of years of military history should make this obvious. In chess, what are the most powerful pieces? The knight and the queen, because of their powerful mobility. Sensible retreat is a core concept of avoiding defeat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps now I'm being semantic, but Running/ Fleeing, in my mind is an unorchestrated, non-tactical, tail between your legs, run for your life, trip your friend if necessary proposition.
A tactical withdrawl as you might be alluding to, is nigh unaccomplishable without solid communication. The only groups that can pull that off in MMOs, are SGs with voice comms.
And I was in the military, so for me the difference is key. Perhaps why I said "Running" isn't a defense. I could have added that a tactical withdrawl is fine, but, that still doesn't ignore the fact that since the field is pretty level when it comes to mobility between villains and heroes, this is much harder to pull off because the other side simply has to give chase. Kinetics for the win I suppose.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...blaster simply turns to the Corruptor next to him, and puts the Build up and Aim to good use anyways.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the corruptor shouldn't stand there like a moron and eat the damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. The Brute should.
Wait...what?
PS - quotes are your friends. ask someone to teach you about them. Just some friendly FYI that makes your posts much easier to read and understand.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should be the Blaster unofficial/official spokesperson? I'd recommend you, and I don't even play a blaster...
[/ QUOTE ]
Screw that!
/e points at Pilcrow, and goes back to playing the game.
[ QUOTE ]
If blasters are weak, limited, and specialized, then sign me up for some of that. Having all that damage potential at my disposal would be a real awesome feeling. Just think of it, I would have the "potential" to literally take down anything...
[/ QUOTE ]
The trade-off is that you have to share all reputation and bounty with your status-protecting/buffing benefactors. I can't deny that specialization is rewarded heavily in team PvP.
Musings:
Do you want to know my big, overarching beef with CoX PvP in its current form? (if you don't, stop reading)
CoH and CoV have two different, unequal paradigms, that meet in an unbalanced way in open PvP.
CoH focuses on synergy: Each archetype has several specific weaknesses, and one(or two) tremendous strengths. Various archetypes team, and in doing so the holes in their build are filled, and their strengths magnified. It fits well with an heroic theme - strength through cooperation. The synergy is multiplicative.
CoV's paradigm is one of self-sufficiency: each individual archetype has all the tools to solo, in a way that's much easier and intuitive relative to CoH's archetypes. (Note: This is a weaker thesis with several outliers that can present a meaningful counter-argument) When the 5 CoV archetypes team in Open PvP, their synergy is often only additive, and weaker than their CoH counterparts.
Worse, stalkers(unlike other villain ATs) have a specialization-level ideal for a PvP environment. High burst damage. High stealth(which translates to defense(all)). If a small enough team of stalkers(like Spines/) can work together to insta-kill squishies - they've found a synergy-multiplier of CoH-levels, to the detriment of the other CoV ATs. Other ATs are marginalized.
That's the root fundamental imbalance facing the devs. They're combining 2 games with 2 different 'rules' into one.
(that, and the need for extremely high burst damage in a PvP environment supporting instant-escape travel powers --- it's not necessarily imbalanced, but it creates a daunting learning-curve for new PvPers).
You pretty neatly wrapped up the entire crux of the problem Logarithm. It also greatly helps explain the disparity between epic pools.
For instance, a CoH Troller lacks major forms of damage. So to balance this out, the epic pools give them a form of damage.
Now look at the CoV dominator.
They have decent damage and decent control. Because they don't lack a major component in their AT, the Devs, at a loss for what to throw in, put in stuff they already have(Damage, Pets).
The stalkers on the other hand, since they are much more specialized, recieved epic powers that will help balance out some of their weak points.
I have to say, one of the best written and thought out posts on the current state of balance.
Thorizdin
Lords of the Dead
Old School Legends
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um...which, exactly, of my comments was falsified? Seriously...look back at my posts and point them out to me.
I think you're a bit "confused" now...
[/ QUOTE ]
This wil help you:
Clicky
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...you're attempt to be witty helped me realize you're full of sh*t. Good job.
Way to make a bogus claim and not back it up too.