[ QUOTE ]
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I may ask: in what way are secondaries being made ineffective?
Note that I do not agree with any notions that Blaster melee powers should suck "because they aren't a melee AT." I think people get too hung up on the phrase "melee AT" when it's really a slang used for "armored AT". I know that when I say "melee AT" causally, I'm using it to refer to an AT with a "protective" set and an attack set, with the attack set usually made primarily of melee or short-range attacks.
All that said, I don't happen to think that melee-strong Blaster secondaries do suck, even with zero toggle dropping. (A separate issue is that some secondaries do just plain suck, but lets concentrate on the offensively strong ones, like EnM and ElM.) I'll readily admit that, to take full advantage of such powers, a Blaster is going to want help in the form of protective buffs (or offensive debuffs) to protect them from the negative effects of entering into melee. But given those, I really don't see this as a PvP armageddon (intentional hyperbole, don't go off on it please) for Blasters in particular. I honestly believe that their tools are powerful enough that they are going to remain dangerous weapons in PvP. I just don't think they'll be able to go it alone.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
[
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]Last time I checked, those Blaster melee attacks still did a heck of a lot of damage. Far as I can tell, the toggle drop rate changes didn't remove any of that damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]Last time I checked, those Blaster melee attacks still did a heck of a lot of damage. Far as I can tell, the toggle drop rate changes didn't remove any of that damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so it sounds like blasters melee-based secondaries are considered effective in PvP.
So then why are so many melee players saying that its unfair for blasters to be effective in melee range? (Not singling out Uberguy or Snakegandhi as saying this.)
I guess its this point Im interested in addressing.
I understand the many posters who are saying that current toggle dropping levels are too high. I can see that now. Yes, I have actually come around to agree with the other side in a forum debate! I think that the proposed changes are too much, but I can see that some change is necessary.
Still, that doesnt address what I see as a significant problem with the perspective of many (not all) melee players here. Thats the attitude that says blasters should not be as good at melee as I am. or I am a brute, squishies must all fall before me or theres something very wrong with game balance.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should look to the Defender and Dominator boards for a more comprehensive appreciation of what it means to have 'useless' secondary powers. Even if Blaster secondaries had 0% chance of toggle drops, they're still arguably the most useful damage-based secondaries in the game.
Not that I agree with the new toggle drop numbers -they're a bit too low- but I think a little blapper humility will be good for the game. ((Don't hurt me Bayani! 
))
SparrowhawkHummingbirdDungeon MasterCapricornHour WomanQueen NefariaJunkyard GirlDoll FaceStitchbladeRed MinstrelMimic
[ QUOTE ]
Still, that doesnt address what I see as a significant problem with the perspective of many (not all) melee players here. Thats the attitude that says blasters should not be as good at melee as I am. or I am a brute, squishies must all fall before me or theres something very wrong with game balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Melee players (well, most anyway) aren't saying that Blasters shouldn't be able to deal a huge amount of damage in melee. They do, and should. What we are saying is that we shouldn't have our defenses negated. In many cases, the defenses are the reason we chose the melee AT in the first place, not the damage capability. If I wanted straight damage I would play a Blaster because that's what they do. A mechanic like TD that renders my defenses useless takes away the whole reason I chose my AT, in which case I might as well go make a Blaster. Try to understand it from that perspective. If I had an uncounterable ability to turn off Blaster attacks, don't you think they would be up in arms about it? It amounts to about the same thing.
Of course, none of this helps the poor Doms that actually needed TDs to function in PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]Last time I checked, those Blaster melee attacks still did a heck of a lot of damage. Far as I can tell, the toggle drop rate changes didn't remove any of that damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, so it sounds like blasters melee-based secondaries are considered effective in PvP.
So then why are so many melee players saying that its unfair for blasters to be effective in melee range? (Not singling out Uberguy or Snakegandhi as saying this.)
I guess its this point Im interested in addressing.
I understand the many posters who are saying that current toggle dropping levels are too high. I can see that now. Yes, I have actually come around to agree with the other side in a forum debate! I think that the proposed changes are too much, but I can see that some change is necessary.
Still, that doesnt address what I see as a significant problem with the perspective of many (not all) melee players here. Thats the attitude that says blasters should not be as good at melee as I am. or I am a brute, squishies must all fall before me or theres something very wrong with game balance.
[/ QUOTE ]Because Blasters have Range and Melee. Scrappers, Tanks, and Brutes have Melee and Defense.
I don't think its to unfair to ask that the AT's that are made for and restricted to melee fighting be the best at it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No my stance boils down to, Blasters shouldn't outmelee melee based ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is the attitude that Ive challenged here and elsewhere.
Blasters shouldnt outmelee melee based ATs? Then why oh why did the devs put so many melee attacks into blaster secondaries? The brute players in this thread repeatedly say Why should my whole secondary be negated? Well
why should blasters secondaries be negated?
Lets look an */energy, since thats one that gets so much attention.
You have:
Power Thrust
Energy Punch
Build Up
Bone Smasher
Conserve Power
Stun
Power Boost
Boost Range
Total Focus
Out of 9 powers, thats 5 melee attacks. And ZERO ranged attacks.
The other blaster secondaries are also heavily weighted toward melee attacks, except for devices. And even those blaster secondary attacks that are not, technically, beating on someone with your fists are zero or very close to zero range.
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]
And your point is????????
Some Tanks have AoE attacks in their secondaries. Spines and Claw Scrappers have ranged attacks. Ranged attacks are available in the PPP's as well. They do damage. Should they out-damage a Blaster's ranged attack or AoE? No. Why? Because Ranged, AoE, and PBAoE attacks are not the specialties of Melee fighters. Those attacks are Blaster Specialties.
You mentioned Brutes. Without Fury, Brute base damage is LESS than a Tanker. In those cases, a Blaster's secondary does MORE damage than a Brute's primary. Is that OK with you? Probably is. As a Brute player, I frankly think that bites!
Many Blaster melee attacks (Secondary) have HIGHER BI numbers than a Scrapper, Tanker, or a Brute (Primary). Do you have a problem with that? Probably not.
Most Tanks, Brutes, and Scrappers deal primarily S/L, which is far more resisted than your typical ENG Blapper's Bonesmasher. In the case of the Brute and Tanker, the damage is Fully Resistable. In the case of the Scrapper, you get the occasional Crit. Blaster damage is ALWAYS 30% unresisted. Do you have a problem with that? Probably not.
Blaster melee attacks ARE NOT being made more ineffective. Necessary corrections are being made so a MELEE AT can actually be BETTER at MELEE than a non-Melee AT. Do you have a problem with that? You shouldn't.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No my stance boils down to, Blasters shouldn't outmelee melee based ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is the attitude that Ive challenged here and elsewhere.
Blasters shouldnt outmelee melee based ATs? Then why oh why did the devs put so many melee attacks into blaster secondaries? The brute players in this thread repeatedly say Why should my whole secondary be negated? Well
why should blasters secondaries be negated?
Lets look an */energy, since thats one that gets so much attention.
You have:
Power Thrust
Energy Punch
Build Up
Bone Smasher
Conserve Power
Stun
Power Boost
Boost Range
Total Focus
Out of 9 powers, thats 5 melee attacks. And ZERO ranged attacks.
The other blaster secondaries are also heavily weighted toward melee attacks, except for devices. And even those blaster secondary attacks that are not, technically, beating on someone with your fists are zero or very close to zero range.
So heres my challenge:
(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.
(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brutes secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but its OK for blasters secondaries to be made ineffective.
[/ QUOTE ]
And your point is????????
Some Tanks have AoE attacks in their secondaries. Spines and Claw Scrappers have ranged attacks. Ranged attacks are available in the PPP's as well. They do damage. Should they out-damage a Blaster's ranged attack or AoE? No. Why? Because Ranged, AoE, and PBAoE attacks are not the specialties of Melee fighters. Those attacks are Blaster Specialties.
You mentioned Brutes. Without Fury, Brute base damage is LESS than a Tanker. In those cases, a Blaster's secondary does MORE damage than a Brute's primary. Is that OK with you? Probably is. As a Brute player, I frankly think that bites!
Many Blaster melee attacks (Secondary) have HIGHER BI numbers than a Scrapper, Tanker, or a Brute (Primary). Do you have a problem with that? Probably not.
Most Tanks, Brutes, and Scrappers deal primarily S/L, which is far more resisted than your typical ENG Blapper's Bonesmasher. In the case of the Brute and Tanker, the damage is Fully Resistable. In the case of the Scrapper, you get the occasional Crit. Blaster damage is ALWAYS 30% unresisted. Do you have a problem with that? Probably not.
Blaster melee attacks ARE NOT being made more ineffective. Necessary corrections are being made so a MELEE AT can actually be BETTER at MELEE than a non-Melee AT. Do you have a problem with that? You shouldn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not entirely wrong, Julio, but you're not entirely right, either. Blasters SHOULD do more damage: it is, after all, what they do. And some (although perhaps not a full 30%) should be unresistable. I'm a blaster player, and I still think 30 may be high...something more like 15...but that may be too low...but you get the idea. I agree, Blasters having TD in their secondaries made them an uncounterable way to drop what Brutes and Tankers have going for them: defense and resistance. I also think that the EXTREME reduction of TD is way extreme (I feel sorry for those poor Doms...and I don't even play them...). So yes, you should be more surviveable in melee and combat in general...it's why you have a defensive set. Blasters being able to basically drop 1+ toggle with every hit, no contest is kind of extreme...but not being able to even drop one when handing out 10s of attacks is also a problem. Once more, in the interest of satifsying players, the devs tipped the scale too far (which is exactly what they did when they made the 100% for at least one toggle dropped in the first place...). So, it's a knee-jerk to a badly thought out ability.
Final result: Blasters SHOULD out-melee DAMAGE the "melee" ATs on average ([examples of exceptions that SHOULD be definitely better: Scrapper Crits, high Fury (which needs its own PvP fix like Domination, but that's its own thing, and seems to be at least half of what you are actually mad about)...] otherwise Blasters are not able to do anything, really). Blasters SHOULD NOT be able to almost completely ignore the defenses of those ATs (otherwise, those ATs are not able to do anything, really). Lobby for balance, not for more overcorrection.
Some folks have both toggle-dropping ATs, and melee ATs on their account. Surely there can be some middle ground here.
In particular, the numbers for the toggle drops have been changed into some really wonky percentages that don't seem to take into account the power that percentage is tied to. For example, the blaster /dev de-toggle chances, time bomb in particular. Given the highly mobile nature of PvP, such powers won't hit all that often. When the toggle-drop chance is that low, it may as well not be there at all.
Similarly, brawl at 5% chance to detoggle 1 toggle. 20 hits to knock a toggle off, and players will be running multiple toggles, the one toggle that gets knocked off may not even be useful. So the power doesn't really have a point aside from Brutes charging fury on mobs.
I can understand arguments for making controllers weak at detoggling, but defenders? They deserve a reasonable shot at detoggling.
"Defender Storm Summoning: Thunder Clap: 12% and 2% for 1 Toggle; 0.4% chance of 2 Toggles "
It's on a 45 sec recharge, 2.35sec animation, has an accuracy penalty, and is a moderate-sized PBAoE, note that it's a PBAoE so it's also not easily applied. It'll take roughly 6 applications before Thunderclap drops 1 toggle. Assuming it's 3-slotted with recharges for a rough 20ish second recharge time, it'll be 120 seconds before this power will knock off 1 toggle. Also, it might not even be an important toggle. There's no damage component in Thunderclap either, just a minor disorient.
The disorient is useful for the controllers to help deal with hotspots and such, controllers are effective with mezzing. However, for the defenders, this power lost the bulk of it's usefulness against enemy players.
De-toggle powers that also do something useful like damage will still be highly desired. Thunderclap's main contribution was toggle-dropping.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think its to unfair to ask that the AT's that are made for and restricted to melee fighting be the best at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. They aren't all restricted to melee ranged fighting.
2. Jousting makes the definition of "melee range" itself somewhat suspect.
3. So long as blasters have low defense, they should have high damage. If they are at higher risk in melee range, they should have higher damage in melee range. This supercedes "melee fighters should do the most damage in melee range." That sentence is *not* synonymous with "melee fighters should be the most effective fighters in melee range."
Its specifically #3, though, that always made me uneasy about toggle dropping. I believe blasters are functioning "correctly" when their melee attacks are outdamaging their scrapper and tanker opponents, but it leaves them vulnerable to counterattack. Toggle dropping reduces that risk of effective counterattack, especially if the toggle that is dropped is mez protection.
If toggle dropping is going to be the main way to balance damage vs damage mitigation in PvP, then I feel comfortable saying the old numbers were way too high, and the I7 numbers might be somewhat low for certain sets.
But unfortunately, given that the devs are concerned about teamed PvP over 1on1 PvP, giving low damage sets high toggle dropping percentages has serious issues with low damage ATs dropping something's toggles and allowing a high damage AT to finish the job much faster than intended.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
3. So long as blasters have low defense, they should have high damage. If they are at higher risk in melee range, they should have higher damage in melee range. This supercedes "melee fighters should do the most damage in melee range." That sentence is *not* synonymous with "melee fighters should be the most effective fighters in melee range."
[/ QUOTE ]I'd agree with Blaster doing more damage in melee, as they don't have a defensive secondary and therefor have more risk entering melee comabt.
However, the prevelence of toggle dropping pretty much removed those defenses from play, which removed the Scrappers, Tanks, and Brutes supposed advantage.
Hell, when a dev posts and says Scrappers and Tank should fight like their defenses aren't there, something is seriously wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand arguments for making controllers weak at detoggling, but defenders? They deserve a reasonable shot at detoggling.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't simple, however. Remember that people will just do what is most useful, and not what is neccessarily the most fun.
I'm going to make up an example. I'm not saying it's the best or the only way to do something like this. Lets say you give Defenders a ... 33% chance to drop a toggle on their smallest blast. Seems vaguely reasonable. They can spam the attack often, if they drop a toggle maybe they can follow up with a bigger attack...
Except now you've recreated the problem for "melee" types in a new form. You've just required a new third party to do it. Now you get Defenders in there not because they're defenders and their buffs and debuffs are useful, but because if they can drop enough toggles then a Blaster buddy can rip some melee guy a new one. And now the "melees" are frustrated again because a core part of their character keeps getting shut off.
Making an unfun mechanic take more people to implement doesn't make it any more fun for the target.
The problem with toggle dropping, and the reason many of us never liked it and call it a kludge, is because it's so binary. It's similar to the whole thing with mezzes. Either it works and the target is screwed or it doesn't and the controller is screwed. Net result, one side or the other isn't having much fun. The key difference with Blasters is that I think they do have a much more viable role than a mezzer who can't mez anyone.
Also, why, exactly, are we worried about Defenders killing anyone? In PvE, yeah, rock on. I am all over people being able to solo. But in PvP I think that's just not gonna work out unless they just plain make those sets do more damage with some sort of PvP-only damage boost, similar to how Controllers do extra containment damage. Barring that I have to say that I think a Defender's job is to make other ore capable people better at killing, or helping keep their own teammates alive.
Dominators are broken. Toggle Dropping is not the answer, IMO. I believe Dominators are too weak in both the control and damage departments. They need either stronger control, more damage, or more secondary effects (either on their holds or their attacks - I'm partial to more secondary effect on the holds), or possibly all three.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
No anger here, just a little righteous indignation 
.
I've railed against the injustices of extreme TD ever since ED and GDR.
If a Blaster has extreme Damage attacks in his Secondary that are better than my Primary, MY Defensive secondary shouldn't be able to be completely bypassed through TD.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, any 100% TD attack is ridiculously overpowered in the CoX world we currently live in.
Edited to add the following: IMO, the proposed change isn't an overcorrection. It's the required correction (2 issues too late) to fix a defensive inequity that no longer existed after I5 and GDR.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still, that doesnt address what I see as a significant problem with the perspective of many (not all) melee players here. Thats the attitude that says blasters should not be as good at melee as I am. or I am a brute, squishies must all fall before me or theres something very wrong with game balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Melee players (well, most anyway) aren't saying that Blasters shouldn't be able to deal a huge amount of damage in melee. They do, and should. What we are saying is that we shouldn't have our defenses negated. In many cases, the defenses are the reason we chose the melee AT in the first place, not the damage capability. If I wanted straight damage I would play a Blaster because that's what they do. A mechanic like TD that renders my defenses useless takes away the whole reason I chose my AT, in which case I might as well go make a Blaster. Try to understand it from that perspective. If I had an uncounterable ability to turn off Blaster attacks, don't you think they would be up in arms about it? It amounts to about the same thing.
Of course, none of this helps the poor Doms that actually needed TDs to function in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this ladies and gentlement, is exactly what I was thinking about when I posted the first time in this thread. It is the reason my DM/FA brute will remain in retirement until I7 goes live.
Blasters are designed around damage, in many forms, they should have it and they still do(30% unresistable as a matter of fact!).
Brutes are designed around posessing the defensive powers necessary(their secondaries) to fulfill an offensive role with their primaries. Brutes are not tankers, and hence not the reason that blasters inflict 30% unresistable damage, or TD's, yet they "suffer" for it. It's out-moded and the game needs to evolve to something more fitting the post-ED enviroment.
The bottom line is that nobody likes being steamrolled, especially not when what I consider 90% of the pvp population brings their egos with them into the zone.
[ QUOTE ]
How much ranged damage can they provide?
[/ QUOTE ]
My Fire/Stone? About 1 BI/sec, after enhancements.
Why's that matter? I've got Fault for easy mezzing/knockup, and if they stay out of that (which isn't easy, it's not as predictable or slow as Freezing Rain), they'll eventually have to attack, and then I can port in.
[ QUOTE ]
How much unresistable damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
In 1v1? Somewhere between 80% of S/L, and 100% of non-S/L.
UberGuy, think for a second. You just asked me how much damage a tanker provides that won't be resisted by a blaster.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you consider it a problem that the toughest AT in the game is so hard for one person to kill?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because if it's impossible for one person to beat you, by definition, you are overpowered.
In addition, the two resulting metagame results, either that no one will fight you, or that they will only fight you when they have enough people to pop you like a zit, are not what I consider acceptable.
[ QUOTE ]
Why should PvP be that functionally different from PvE?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because in PvE, 90% of your threats are minion or LT-tier.
Why should Blasters have to treat Tankers like Bosses, Elite Bosses, or Archvillains, depending on build, while Tankers treat Blasters like minions (and not even dangerous ones)?
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers, Brutes and Scrappers don't get to drop one anothers' toggles either. They never got to, except with Brawl.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bold added. Brawl is the only reason my Claws/Regen scrapper had a chance of taking down an Invuln Tanker. Well, I should say was.
[ QUOTE ]
They don't get any irresistable damage, with the exception of Scrapper crits, which is rare enough to be a non-factor for most purposes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Other than, you know, the part where 200+ points of irresistable damage at once is enough to kill someone that would have otherwise saved dull pain for another couple of seconds.
[ QUOTE ]
Having the "tank" be tough is not unique to CoH/V. Having the "mage" be fragile isn't either. Nor, I might add, is having buffs from other people make the mage really, really scary.
[/ QUOTE ]
In World of Warcraft, a Warrior (tank character) can be popped like a zit within a good ten seconds of a Mage firing instants quickly. The Warrior only needs to get one good (and often mezzing) shot off to kill the Mage, but he risks getting beaten during that time.
In Guild Wars, an Elementalist (Mage) typically does well against Warriors without hefty interrupt skills and a series of Adrenaline-building powers.
In UberGuy's Dream City, no single player can kill a Tanker.
Which one doesn't fit the pattern.
[ QUOTE ]
No anger here, just a little righteous indignation .
I've railed against the injustices of extreme TD ever since ED and GDR.
If a Blaster has extreme Damage attacks in his Secondary that are better than my Primary, MY Defensive secondary shouldn't be able to be completely bypassed through TD.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, any 100% TD attack is ridiculously overpowered in the CoX world we currently live in.
Edited to add the following: IMO, the proposed change isn't an overcorrection. It's the required correction (2 issues too late) to fix a defensive inequity that no longer existed after I5 and GDR.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then I guess we're on the same wavelength, it's just the extent of TD on which we differ...although I think we all agree that Blasters need it least, and Dominators need it most!
[ QUOTE ]
No anger here, just a little righteous indignation .
[/ QUOTE ]
Well
please try to be a little more careful. Righteous is in the eye of the beholder. Im trying reeeeal hard to not stir up unnecessarily harsh emotions over this emotional issue. (Eight ? was excessive. Six would have been plenty. )
[ QUOTE ]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, any 100% TD attack is ridiculously overpowered in the CoX world we currently live in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im not arguing against that at all. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to agree with this opinion. But Im saying that the current percentages are so low as to give melee-going blasters little hope. And make no mistake
my blaster is supposed to go into melee (5 out of 9 power choices in my secondary, after all)!
Even now melee ATs are better at melee than blasters. Stronger defenses, more hit points, the same availability of stun and toggle-dropping attacks as many blasters, high damage, and more useful inherent powers too. (Brutes may complain about not building fury fast enough in PvP
but defiance doesnt even start until Im knocking on deaths door.)
I predict that even after the toggle-dropping nerfs we will still be seeing melee types complaining that a blaster was able to defeat them. And we will still be hearing the same attitude that says When a brute has to run from a blaster, thats just sad. (An actual quote from another thread.) For many melee, even one defeat at the hands of a blaster is unacceptable.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
I predict that even after the toggle-dropping nerfs we will still be seeing melee types complaining that a blaster was able to defeat them. And we will still be hearing the same attitude that says When a brute has to run from a blaster, thats just sad. (An actual quote from another thread.) For many melee, even one defeat at the hands of a blaster is unacceptable.
[/ QUOTE ]
there's always idiots on any side of the issue.
i don't mind having a blaster kick my [censored]. I do mind mechanics that make me unable to properly defend against that blaster.
but again, they've nerfed toggle drops way too hard in too many places. That's their style. I think we all agree that certain blasters don't need to rely on drops as much as others. Drop chances should be adjusted accordingly. That goes double for other ATs that may require more frequent toggle drops.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
In 1v1? Somewhere between 80% of S/L, and 100% of non-S/L.
UberGuy, think for a second. You just asked me how much damage a tanker provides that won't be resisted by a blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
I honestly have no idea why the only way you're looking at this is Blaster vs. Tanker. I most certianly asked you no such thing. Tankers have to fight Brutes and Stalkers and, in the arenas and base raids, other Tankers and Scrappers. When it comes to actually dealing daming to those targets, who's going to do it better: a Tanker or a Blaster?
[ QUOTE ]
Because if it's impossible for one person to beat you, by definition, you are overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's preposterous. Why? Because we have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over that this is not balanced for one-v-one. By definition, that means that one-v-one is imbalanced for some pair-offs. I don't remember anyone saying that Blasters had a special place as an AT that could take on just enyone else and win.
[ QUOTE ]
Because in PvE, 90% of your threats are minion or LT-tier.
[/ QUOTE ]
One at a time? What PvE game do you play? There are teams you know. A Tanker on a team of more than about 3 is taking on way more than a LT or a minion in incoming damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Why should Blasters have to treat Tankers like Bosses, Elite Bosses, or Archvillains, depending on build, while Tankers treat Blasters like minions (and not even dangerous ones)?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's hyperbole. Moreover, I think a Tanker that does that is asking for a whupping. If you think you're Blaster's damage output is worth so little, I think you're doing something wrong. And if there are just two of you, I think he's toast if he doesn't run. I think if you have a Defender with you he's toast if he doesn't run (assuming he can).
[ QUOTE ]
Brawl is the only reason my Claws/Regen scrapper had a chance of taking down an Invuln Tanker. Well, I should say was.
[/ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the world of tomorrow. Your partially irresistible damage has a place!
[ QUOTE ]
Other than, you know, the part where 200+ points of irresistable damage at once is enough to kill someone that would have otherwise saved dull pain for another couple of seconds.
[/ QUOTE ]
I might win the lottery tomorrow. My odds of a crit are significantly better. I don't plan on either one.
[ QUOTE ]
In World of Warcraft, a Warrior (tank character) can be popped like a zit within a good ten seconds of a Mage firing instants quickly. The Warrior only needs to get one good (and often mezzing) shot off to kill the Mage, but he risks getting beaten during that time.
In Guild Wars, an Elementalist (Mage) typically does well against Warriors without hefty interrupt skills and a series of Adrenaline-building powers.
In UberGuy's Dream City, no single player can kill a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you smoking? No, really? Where did I say that? I didn't say that. You did, and I'm telling you that you're wrong.
If my freaking Ice/Dark Corruptor can kill a Tanker, if you can't then you're doing something bloody well wrong.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
yeah? well, you're a poopyhead.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
Definitely.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
i don't mind having a blaster kick my [censored]. I do mind mechanics that make me unable to properly defend against that blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh. You know, this is almost exactly verbatim what Ive said many, many times with regard to stalkers. But when blasters complain about stalkers, were universally told Stop whining! Grow up! Learn to play! There are Things You Can Do to counter stalkers! It's your problem, because you just suck!
Im not trying to threadjack. But someday later on, when toggle-dropping changes are a done deal, all the reasonable melee players will see blasters complaining about stalkers AS'ing them and auto-placating and not being able to defend themselves. On that day, I would ask members of the melee community to say to themselves, Hmmmm
thats exactly how we felt when dealing with toggle dropping. And on that day I would ask our melee cousins to join ranks with us and demand a change to correct another game-breaking, unreasonable mechanic. 
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
Because we have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over that this is not balanced for one-v-one. By definition, that means that one-v-one is imbalanced for some pair-offs. I don't remember anyone saying that Blasters had a special place as an AT that could take on just enyone else and win.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be really nice if melee remembered that they need a team too. Even now in SC it is incredibly easy to get kills with a BRUTE if you have a team behind you. A couple of corruptors and toggle drops are laughable since the blaster that attacked you in melee is dead before he figures out why your not.
Thats okay though, just keep telling blasters to get a team. Remember when Tanks got extra damage? Remember when they took away the lack of mobility? There is always a flip side. Enjoy being overpowered while you can, cry when the other shoe drops like melee always does.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't mind having a blaster kick my [censored]. I do mind mechanics that make me unable to properly defend against that blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh. You know, this is almost exactly verbatim what Ive said many, many times with regard to stalkers. But when blasters complain about stalkers, were universally told Stop whining! Grow up! Learn to play! There are Things You Can Do to counter stalkers! It's your problem, because you just suck!
Im not trying to threadjack. But someday later on, when toggle-dropping changes are a done deal, all the reasonable melee players will see blasters complaining about stalkers AS'ing them and auto-placating and not being able to defend themselves. On that day, I would ask members of the melee community to say to themselves, Hmmmm
thats exactly how we felt when dealing with toggle dropping. And on that day I would ask our melee cousins to join ranks with us and demand a change to correct another game-breaking, unreasonable mechanic.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm already there. I feel the exact same way about the whole stealth/perception arms race and its brother, the alpha strike.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
So you want 50/50 in melee and a 100% chance at range....sorry no.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your tanks really are dying 100% of the time - hell, at all - to blasters when you let them stay at range, in these immortal words: "Your a donut". I shouldn't bother explaining the tactics for dealing with this again, I've already described them once or twice and you don't appear to get them - you'd like to just stand there and do nothing and magically win anyway, it seems. There is no way a blaster can reliably kill any tank or brute purely from range unless the tank/brute just doesn't do anything to prevent it. The blaster can not maintain range and continue to attack. If you haven't got the snap to hit F and jump, I don't know that game mechanic changes will help you win more often anyway.
Anyhow the changes are going in, like it or no, so no use disussing it further that I can see. Toodles kids, see you in the funny papers.