One very good reason why not:
No matter which power you remove to add in this ranged power, there are people that have/love/want to keep said power that would be removed. The complaints simply wouldn't be worth it, regardless of the quality of power they were replaced with (see Epic Pool changes.)
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
There was talk a long, long time ago about adding a tenth power to every powerset. I doubt it will happen, but if it did I could see some more melee sets getting a ranged attack.
[ QUOTE ]
One very good reason why not:
No matter which power you remove to add in this ranged power, there are people that have/love/want to keep said power that would be removed. The complaints simply wouldn't be worth it, regardless of the quality of power they were replaced with (see Epic Pool changes.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is why BAB pretty much doesn't want to change any existing animations (quite sure I saw him post this)... as there are some that will love it, some that will hate it, and no one wins. Heck even with the change made to Clobber in the Mace set, people were grumbling about the stun reduction even though it made the set work better (though I do miss the stun a bit).
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Some sets have ranged attacks, so giving all the sets one would balance them out in that regard. Plus, it would fill a hole in the power sets that really doesn't need to be there.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except, if the sets that have the ranged attacks are balanced around having those ranged attacks, then you've just unbalanced all of the other sets.
Tankers are supposed to be a Melee AT. Having a couple of sets be able to go around that makes them an exception, not a rule to be followed just because you want them to.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Is Super Strength unbalanced because it has Hurl? is Spines unbalanced because it has a ranged power? That argument holds no water because you just have to make the power added appropriate to the set, and appropriate relative to other, similar powers. It's not rocket science.
As for the notion that people would be irritated to see a power replaced with a ranged power, I suppose that's true. You're not going to please everyone. I guess that means they better not do anything to the game ever again, because SOMEONE might potentially maybe be upset for a day or two. Perhaps the best way would be to add that tenth power.
That Tankers are "supposed" to be a melee class is arbitrary. There is nothing in controlling the aggro of the enemy that requires melee only. This is what my last sentence in my previous post is about.
Again, WHY do tanks need this? How is it going to make them better? They're a melee class, and they already get access to some ranged attacks with their Epic pools. There is no reason to add more ranged options... heck, I like taking epic powers, but it's hard to justify it quite often, as powers from the primary/secondary/pools usually take up most of my picks.
I get that you want it, but your want is already in the game and it's not going to make things all that much different or better. I can think of a lot of other features I want more and would make a bigger difference.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
[ QUOTE ]
Is Super Strength unbalanced because it has Hurl?
[/ QUOTE ]
His point was that Super Strength is balanced around having Hurl already. One of the plusses to SS is that you get the ranged attack. Adding a ranged capability to other sets changes their equilibrium with regards to Super Strength.
I don't see why anyone would go to so much labor as to rebalance all the melee sets to pursue your vision of making them ranged sets.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
[ QUOTE ]
It's not rocket science.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're right, it's not. It's Game Balance! It may not be 'Roket Science' but do you think it is easy? That you can just slap some stuff together & everything is hunky-dory? This game have been around for 5 years and the Devs are still working out the kinks.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the notion that people would be irritated to see a power replaced with a ranged power, I suppose that's true. You're not going to please everyone. I guess that means they better not do anything to the game ever again, because SOMEONE might potentially maybe be upset for a day or two. Perhaps the best way would be to add that tenth power.
[/ QUOTE ]
In all things the Devs do they have to make a very important judgment: is the amount of time-and-energy (~money) that they invest in a change going to have a significant enough pay-off in-game* to justify the investment. From what I can see, there is little to no pay-off to this suggestion, particular to the 'replacment' version, to justify even a minor ammout of investment. Please, if there is more 'pay-off' here, show me it, show me why this is 'needed' for Tanks, or why it would be a positive enough change to justify the investment, cause I'm just not seeing it.
(phew, thats enough typing for me for a while 
)
*i.e. is it going to contribute enough to the happiness of enough players, in combination with the other things they are putting into the game, and not adversly effect the happiness of too many other players...
[ QUOTE ]
As for the notion that people would be irritated to see a power replaced with a ranged power, I suppose that's true. You're not going to please everyone. I guess that means they better not do anything to the game ever again, because SOMEONE might potentially maybe be upset for a day or two. Perhaps the best way would be to add that tenth power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Massive hyperbole isn't going to help you any, just so you know.
Take a look at the changes the Devs did to Frozen Aura and MoG. Both of these powers were pretty much universally hated on the forums. Certainly, there were many more people in favor of changing them than keeping them as is. When changes came to these two powers, there were a decent amount of complaints about the powers being changed. Heck, we even got some posters to the Tanker forums who had never been here before saying that they used Frozen Aura well before.
And these were powers that were seen as bad. Now, take out a power that isn't seen as bad, and you're going to get some outcry here. So, I'm going to give you a challenge:
Show us which power you would replace in each Tanker secondary to add in the Blast.
Rules:
1) Can't be the first or second tier power
2) Can't replace Taunt
3) Can't be the tier 9 power
Go!
[ QUOTE ]
That Tankers are "supposed" to be a melee class is arbitrary. There is nothing in controlling the aggro of the enemy that requires melee only.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's as arbitrary as having Defenders be ranged damage. It's as arbitrary as Controllers having controls and debuffs. It's as arbitrary as blasters not having debuffs as a secondary. So I'll ask you again:
Why should Tankers be given powers that let them change their roles, but not the other ATs? Why shouldn't Scrappers also all be given ranged attacks? Why should Debuff sets have a melee attack in them? Why shouldn't Blasters have an AoE debuff in them?
Giving Tankers a ranged attack is just as arbitrary as having only melee attacks. It's just an arbitrary way that makes you happy. Give us a real reason for why this should be done, but not the other changes I mention to the other ATs.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
The hyperbole was meant in jest.
Correct, it's every bit as arbitrary. You say NO! I say YES! and there's really no reason for either stance, other than to create a kind of balance between the sets. Is it necessary? No. Would it be nice? Absolutely.
Hurl has been changed, and recently. They didn't change the rest of the set, just THAT POWER. If they added new ranged attacks to the various melee sets, they would simply have to ensure to balance THAT POWER. It would not require reworking the whole set to add one power.
As for Epic pools, here's an analogy.
I want to play Hockey. I want to be a Goaltender. Now, I don't expect to be the best goaltender in the world, right off the bat, but I do have certain expectations. If the coach says to me, "Great, you want to be a goalie! Now, go be a forward, and in 2 or 3 years, we'll let you play goal," I'd be very disappointed.
Similarly, I come to CoH with a character concept in mind, much as I had a concept of a goaltender. I'm then told I have to wait several years before I can realize that concept. It's inadequate and disappointing. The Epic pools are a nice add-on, but they're not part of the core character.
[ QUOTE ]
You say NO!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the reason why people get annoyed with you. Aett did ALOT more then say "no." Yet this is what you took away from the post.
Either provide some substance or bugger off already.
[ QUOTE ]
I want to play Hockey. I want to be a Goaltender. Now, I don't expect to be the best goaltender in the world, right off the bat, but I do have certain expectations. If the coach says to me, "Great, you want to be a goalie! Now, go be a forward, and in 2 or 3 years, we'll let you play goal," I'd be very disappointed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see it more like this: you want to play soccer. You want to be the goaltender. You get told that you need to wait 2 to 3 years to play goalkeeper. You get told to be a forward. You petition to allow forwards to use their hands.
[ QUOTE ]
Correct, it's every bit as arbitrary. You say NO! I say YES! and there's really no reason for either stance, other than to create a kind of balance between the sets. Is it necessary? No. Would it be nice? Absolutely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, so you admit that there's no reason for your stance, but then you also dismiss all of the reasons for the opposing stance at the same time. Very nice.
Again, if the other sets are balanced AROUND having a ranged attack, and the other sets around NOT having a ranged attack, then swapping out a melee attack or control to add a ranged attack can throw off the balance of the sets. Balance between the sets does not mean that all of the sets have the same tools. It means that they have equivalent tools.
[ QUOTE ]
Hurl has been changed, and recently. They didn't change the rest of the set, just THAT POWER. If they added new ranged attacks to the various melee sets, they would simply have to ensure to balance THAT POWER. It would not require reworking the whole set to add one power.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, here is where you're not thinking about the big picture. Yes, the Devs can swap in one power for another. That part isn't all that hard. However, there are a decent amount of concerns that come WITH swapping that power out.
Say you swap out Bonesmasher for Energy Blast. Not only have you taken a power away from people who might like Bonesmasher, but you may have also replaced it with a power that offers less damage and less utility to a Tanker (replacing a stun with a KB effect). So, now what do you do? do the other attacks in the set get boosted to compensate for the lessened damage and utility? Do you increase the damage for Tanker ranged attacks? What do you do? This is not a trivial concern, Ultimo.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Since this:
[ QUOTE ]
Show us which power you would replace in each Tanker secondary to add in the Blast.
Rules:
1) Can't be the first or second tier power
2) Can't replace Taunt
3) Can't be the tier 9 power
Go!
[/ QUOTE ]
wasn't taken up, I'm going to show where the problems are
'Easily' swapped out powersets:
Dark Melee: Replace Touch of Fear with Dark Blast (however, this removes a lot of utility and mitigation to the Tanker, meaning that it's a significant loss for a Dark Melee character)
Energy Melee: Replace Stun with Energy Blast (again, removing a lot of mitigation from the set to get it)
Fire Melee: Replace Breath of Fire with Fire Blast (removes an AoE to get a single ranged attack)
Ice Melee: Replace Frozen Touch with Ice Blast (lose a lot of utility here, and likely less damage on a set that already suffers in the ST damage world)
'Harder' powersets:
War Mace: Replace Jawbreaker maybe? With what? What attack goes here? Is it a brand new attack? Does it cause redraw?
Axe: Replace Gash with something? Same problems as War Mace.
Potentially crippling powersets:
Dual Blades: Same problems as War Mace and Axe, with the additional problem of what would this do to the combo system.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Just to play Devil's Advocate:
[ QUOTE ]
Since this:
[ QUOTE ]
Show us which power you would replace in each Tanker secondary to add in the Blast.
Rules:
1) Can't be the first or second tier power
2) Can't replace Taunt
3) Can't be the tier 9 power
Go!
[/ QUOTE ]
wasn't taken up, I'm going to show where the problems are
'Easily' swapped out powersets:
Dark Melee: Replace Touch of Fear with Dark Blast (however, this removes a lot of utility and mitigation to the Tanker, meaning that it's a significant loss for a Dark Melee character)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this might hurt at the lower levels for Tankers who rely on Touch of Fear, but I've never missed it so I wouldn't be opposed to swapping that but I could see where some would (especially coupled with Dark Armor).
[ QUOTE ]
Energy Melee: Replace Stun with Energy Blast (again, removing a lot of mitigation from the set to get it)
[/ QUOTE ]
Because EM lacks for stuns
[ QUOTE ]
Fire Melee: Replace Breath of Fire with Fire Blast (removes an AoE to get a single ranged attack)
[/ QUOTE ]
I would replace the single target Fire Sword attack with Flares personally (or a dumbed down Fire Blast). But I don't think FM needs a ranged since it technically has one.
[ QUOTE ]
Ice Melee: Replace Frozen Touch with Ice Blast (lose a lot of utility here, and likely less damage on a set that already suffers in the ST damage world)
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
'Harder' powersets:
War Mace: Replace Jawbreaker maybe? With what? What attack goes here? Is it a brand new attack? Does it cause redraw?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes a brand new attack and yes causes redraw (or the equivelant animation of catching the thrown weapon). I think WM needs this more for thematic reasons (Thor's Hammer) then anything else but adding this would obviously be much more complicated then adding an existing power so I doubt this would see any traction. In lieu of that, you'd probably see one of the Freakshow animations I would think (flying disc or equivelant).
[ QUOTE ]
Axe: Replace Gash with something? Same problems as War Mace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Same answer as WM too although more for consistancy sake then thematic reasons.
[ QUOTE ]
Potentially crippling powersets:
Dual Blades: Same problems as War Mace and Axe, with the additional problem of what would this do to the combo system.
[/ QUOTE ]
No clue ... maybe the exception to the rule?
[ QUOTE ]
I would replace the single target Fire Sword attack with Flares personally (or a dumbed down Fire Blast). But I don't think FM needs a ranged since it technically has one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it can't be one of the first two attacks, since Brutes can chose between those. So, unless you meant the Greater Fire Sword, which comes at level 35, I'd say that's out. And if you replace GIS with it, you're only saving yourself 6 levels anyways on the true range front.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
No I wasn't talking about GFS.
Why can't you replace one of the two first powers? What difference does it make when a Brute can pick it (and for that matter, you could always reorder it for Brutes if it did)?
It'd be nice having a useful default secondary power for Tankers for a change
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't you replace one of the two first powers? What difference does it make when a Brute can pick it (and for that matter, you could always reorder it for Brutes if it did)?
[/ QUOTE ]
My thinking is that if Tanks get a ranged attacks, then you really need to give it to each melee AT. It's not like Tanks need the ranged attack, so we're just doing this because we want to, and therefore Scrappers and Brutes have just as much right to them.
As such, since Brutes and Scrappers have a choice of the first two powers, it can't be one of those.
Re-ordering for Brutes becomes even more of a headache, since then you can really screw with people's power picks and slotting. Better to just rule out the first two powers of the set, was my thinking. I mean, this whole thing is arbitrary. I just created the rules to show the difficulty here, especially with some of the sets.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Regarding War Mace and Axe: even if it's possible to "throw" a weapon and have an effect to have it return (an effect not altogether different from Twilight Grasp), it'd would probably run into issues since a) weapons are handled differently from "regular" effects powers (the hammer, etc. might be thrown, but still have a copy in the character's hand) and b) would have no way to have it spin correctly to land back in the hand correctly. There's also c) the fact that throwing boomerang hammers/axes is very much a speciality of only a handful of characters in known comic universes, and is...well...highly unbelievable, even compared to people who can sling energy and netherworldliness, at least IMO.
In other words, I'd be against having boomerang weapons in this game: it'd look bad, and boomerang weapons that actually hit targets...tend not to come back.
Also keep in mind that if Mace and Axe were to get thrown items, the thrown item would not be customized. As such, you might be holding a wrench or the warhammer, but you'd throw the basic mace only.
It's why we don't have customization for spines and such.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Failsight: The hard part isn't the difference of weapon versus melee power as the power is applied. Those are just number changes in a database which are very easy (e.g. weapon +acc, damage modifiers, etc ...).
As I said, the hard part with thrown weapons (and I say "hard" because its not as easy as changing a number in a field) is the animations involved which we seem to agree on. *IF* the devs were going to implement this, then that would be the most time consuming part out of all the ATs.
I also disagree with you about the "unbelievability" of thrown weapons. I mean seriously? Hellooooooo comic book genre.
Aett: I disagree with your line of thinking with regards to first and second powers (not that you didn't make a good point ... I just don't think it matters overly with regards to Brutes and Tankers), and Scrappers would have to be handled differently then Brutes/Tankers since their damage modifiers are higher and thrown weapons / abilities might infringe upon Blasters whereas we already have Tanker/Brute sets with ranged abiltiies (we also have Scrapper sets with ranged abilities so neither of our arguements might apply by the same logic however).
As for thrown weapon customization ... if you went as far as to come up with new animation schemes for thrown weapons, using the current weapon customization the player has selected would be the easy part to implement in all this (its just a skin difference ... one that's already made).
While if a ranged attack were ever implemented I think the devs would take the short cut with weapons and just use an already existing generic equivelant thrown weapon (i.e. spikes, stars, discs, etc ...) and the already existing animations for them. Now *that* I would have more of a problem with then Failsight's "unbelievability" factor of boomerang Hammers and Axes just from a thematic experience.
Aett did say more than NO!, and I did say more than YES!. It works both ways, I was summarizing the arbitrary nature of what we were saying. Try and keep up.
Your soccer analogy is well taken. I didn't suggest which powers might be best replaced, as I took that to merely be bait for the straw man, that is, I figured you were just trying to get me to say something you could easily shoot down. Considering the history of these boards, that kind of defensive thinking is becoming second nature. I'm glad to see you were actually in earnest.
If Bone Smasher was replaced, the challenge would be to replace it with a ranged attack that was as effective as the power it's replacing (this assumes the set was balanced to begin with). The effect of the stun, for example, might be deemed more useful than knockback, so the liklihood of knockback might be increased to compensate for the difference. It's just a matter of adjusting things in the new power. It doesn't require adjustments throughout.
I agree, some sets are easier to do this for than others. However, these sets were recently given ranged attacks in the MA. Granted, they're not great in many cases, but they are something to start with, at least. As you say, the weapon sets are the hardest to come up with something for. In my opinion, it just requires a little imagination.
Also, I would agree that ALL melee sets should have at least the one ranged attack, regardless of the AT (well, Blaster secondaries likely don't need them...).
[ QUOTE ]
As for thrown weapon customization ... if you went as far as to come up with new animation schemes for thrown weapons, using the current weapon customization the player has selected would be the easy part to implement in all this (its just a skin difference ... one that's already made).
[/ QUOTE ]
From what we've been told by the Dev BAB, it's not that easy. It's basically power customization at that point, instead of just costume customization, which is what Weapon Customization is. Weapon Customization is nothing like Power customization. Being able to swap out one costume piece for another is one thing. Changing out power graphics based on those costume choices is another. Again, it's the reason that Spines isn't customizable: the images that form the body can be swapped out, but the powers like Impale can't be easily swapped out. So, even if you made the spikes metal, you'd still be throwing a banana.
[ QUOTE ]
While if a ranged attack were ever implemented I think the devs would take the short cut with weapons and just use an already existing generic equivalent thrown weapon (i.e. spikes, stars, discs, etc ...) and the already existing animations for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would agree with you on that.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for thrown weapon customization ... if you went as far as to come up with new animation schemes for thrown weapons, using the current weapon customization the player has selected would be the easy part to implement in all this (its just a skin difference ... one that's already made).
[/ QUOTE ]
From what we've been told by the Dev BAB, it's not that easy. It's basically power customization at that point, instead of just costume customization, which is what Weapon Customization is. Weapon Customization is nothing like Power customization. Being able to swap out one costume piece for another is one thing. Changing out power graphics based on those costume choices is another. Again, it's the reason that Spines isn't customizable: the images that form the body can be swapped out, but the powers like Impale can't be easily swapped out. So, even if you made the spikes metal, you'd still be throwing a banana.
[ QUOTE ]
While if a ranged attack were ever implemented I think the devs would take the short cut with weapons and just use an already existing generic equivalent thrown weapon (i.e. spikes, stars, discs, etc ...) and the already existing animations for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would agree with you on that.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a HUGE post on Power Cust made by BAB. Unless it was recently purged some folks posting need to READ it FIRST. And one of those folks isn't Aett.
BAB's has THOROUGHLY explained why doing something such as making the spines on your body match what is thrown, IS NOT trivial. Go read up folks.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
What if a series of ranged power pools were created that could be selected like any of the others? They would have less effect than similar powers in existing primaries and secondaries.
As an example:
Energy Powers:
Energy Bolts (L6) 30 damage
Energy Blast (L6) 50 damage
Energy Torrent (L14) 30 damage
Exploding Blast (L20) 30 damage
These numbers are based on Mids', and would put the effect a bit below even Defender damage. Accuracy, endurance and so on would be the same as usual.
If there were power sets like this for several power effects, you could have your Broadsword guy toss Flares or Ice Bolts or whatever suited your concept. Do you think this could be balanced? I mean, if it's available to everyone, no one has an advantage. Do you think it would be too much? Are we treading into Tankmagery here?
[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Some sets have ranged attacks, so giving all the sets one would balance them out in that regard. Plus, it would fill a hole in the power sets that really doesn't need to be there.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a reason. If you wish to redesign all melee sets to now contain one ranged attack, then you need to formulate a argument that isn't "why not?"
Your last sentence...I'm not sure that even makes sense.