Why A Blaster?

Since this thread started I have been wracking my brain on how to the AT could be improved without wrecking it. One of the things I like about it, is that it is without doubt harder to play solo at any given difficulty level than anything except possibly a defender.*

My first thought was that if the devs actually did try and put in a risk/reward system into the game and weighted xp rewards, and drops appropriately it would go along way fixing the lack of balance between the various ATs. For teams there could be an overall weight. The problem is of course people would optimize the heck out of that.

So I find myself thinking the blasters description should be changed to the solo challenge AT. The inherent should be changed to work the reverse of defenders so the larger the team the more mitigation they would get. A small measure of ranged defense and maybe some sort of actual mezz protection, mag 1 or mag 2, that kicked in when the team hit a certain size. This would help with the problem of blasters dieing because they were doing their thing while a defender decided to get a drink, or my favorite the defender that just pays attention to the tank.

There are some other needs that have been blaringly obvious for a long time. Fix snipes for all that have them, Fix devices, adjust the damage sonic does upward, it pays for its secondary effect with higher endurance costs. Then maybe as QoL change drop the recharge on Aim and Build Up to 60 seconds blasters only.

So instead of taking 4 times the damage its only 3 times the damage its going to take far to long using the tier 1s and 2 to take the boss out.

Id really have to look at the build. Building for ranged defense has always been expensive slot wise



* Defenders seem considerably improved post the vigilance change, I just haven't leveled that many up, post change, to be sure.

(Emphasis mine.)

Definitely not safer, you mean. And given the scaling in this game, there quickly comes a point after which more offense does almost nothing to save you -- and thus very little to improve practical kill speed. Rightly or wrongly, complaints like the one in this thread are based on high-end (and usually solo) capability, not on anyone's subjective idea of what is or isn't enough for them.

That said, Blaster control cannot be entirely ignored in practical gameplay, but it's difficult to gauge how meaningful it is in any survivability comparison. Just because Blasters rely on what control they have -- perhaps moreso than any other AT barring Controllers -- it doesn't follow that Blaster control is an advantage or even a worthwhile consolation prize for the AT relative to others.

It just means that Blasters have very little else going for them, from a defensive standpoint. Bringing up Controllers and Doms is an obvious loser; Controllers and Doms are orders of magnitude better than Blasters are at control. To say that both Controllers/Doms and Blasters use control is a little like saying that both Bill Gates and I have disposable income; the observation may be technically true (is, in fact, a truism), but it's so spectacularly misleading an over-simplification that it doesn't even satisfy the lowest standard of relevance.

In terms of by-the-numbers control abiility, Blasters are much closer to Defenders (who also have an entire Primary devoted to buff/debuff -- which is often very control-like in purpose), and even Scrappers/Tankers (who also have an entire powerset devoted to defensive abilities, which are effectively multiplied by any proactive mitigation you can layer on top of it).

Of the above ATs, Scrappers have the closest-to-Blaster levels of damage.

So with that in mind, we basically have two choices in pursuing this sidebar about control. We can either hash out endless comparisons between this-or-that Scrapper/Defender/Tanker build and this-or-that Blaster build, or we can stipulate that on the whole, the two parties are comparable if not exactly equal in terms of the control effects they can bring to bear, either selectively or as a natural consequence of attacking.

In other words, if Archetype A has X attribute going for it, and Archetype B has X and Y, then to compare them we simplify by eliminating X. It isn't disingenuous to disregard like terms in a comparison; it's just convenient.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Edited for the same statement, but leaning it toward the other side of the argument. It isn't difficult to make one sided arguments and ignore facts is it?

The issue with taking the stance of 'popularity' is that blasters have never suffered in numbers. Even when the entire AT was under-performing and got the once over with defiance 2.0 they never once lacked in numbers.

Fun and popularity are separate qualities from balanced. They can certainly intersect, but none of those qualities are necessarily causal of any of the others.
Tanks/scraps/brutes are much better balanced against each other. There are still some issues here and there, but by and large they follow a pretty logical ordering of survivability and damage output.

I really don't see the issue of blasters being the clear damage kings. They are blasters after all. The only AT that should be approaching blaster damage is maybe stalkers in terms of single target take down because that is sort of their gimmick. Of course stalkers being crushed by brutes and scrappers in single target damage is a different discussion for another time.

Lets back up and look at this from another angle. MM's are the best pet class. If controllers/doms could perform better than them at being a pet wrangler in a variety of scenarios then there would be a legitamate problem. Doms and controllers are the best crowd control AT's; if corrs or blasters could outcontrol them in various scenarios they'd have a legitimate complaint. Tanks are the toughest and aggro spongiest AT; if some other AT was more at home in that role they'd have a legitimate complaint (the legitamacy of this particular complaint was certainly put on the table in the GR beta when the brute max resistances were dropped down a notch in testing, additionally we saw a max hp increase go through for tankers helping clearly establish their dominance in this area).

Yet here we are saying it is ok that other AT's are capable of infringing well into blaster damage territory. It isn't just scrappers either, they just happen to do it with a lot of their combos. Doms, trollers, corrs, mm's, brutes and who knows who else all have combos that can get uncomfortably close to the damage a blaster can produce. In some cases they may well be able to surpass them. In all cases they bring far more than just 'damage', which blasters are largely restricted to doing.

Ah thank you! I didn't realise that

Still your damage is tremendously low, because it'll still make it an 1161 damage Lightning Rod, for instance, while you are saying 856. Likewise Shield Charge is actually 607 to your 304. There's some very serious errors in your calculations.

I think that this pretty much sums up one side of the argument that has been running thru this thread.

How I see this:
Scrappers DO have that extra mitigation at the outset and can improve on it, but their AoE capabilites come slowly and mature later. Even when they do mature, most powerset combinations are going to rely on single target damage to "mop-up" while their AoE attacks recharge. Additionally, most scrapper combinations have near "zero" control and range to capitalize on while they take down a spawn. Blasters are squishy as hell, especially early game. But their AoE abilities mature early and can generally be relied on every spawn with little effort to recharge them. Then, to top it all off, you can CHOOSE to limit your enemies ability to deal damage thru control powers and staying at range.

Just to remind myself that I am not crazy, after reading this thread I developed a concept character (who I just may keep) that derives his powers from the Sun. He is a Rad-Fire Blaster and he has access to multiple AoE powers prior to level 10. Not ONE, Not TWO, but FOUR AoEs by level 10. He can blow thru his blue bar and a spawn in an eye-blink. At level 10 my scrappers are sucking wind and trying to figure out how to survive when they accidentily aggro an extra spawn and taking at least 50% more time to down a spawn. My blaster (on a combination I have never played before) was looking for orange and red mobs while running around Galaxy between doors.

Obviously, at level 50 your builds will be matured and, hopefully, your character will do everything that you want and more. But the main argument of Scrappers stepping on the toes of the Blaster AT seems highly exaggerated to me. You play scrappers if you want an all-around Damage Dealer with decent Defense, or many other ATs (long list) if you want an all-around Defensive character with decent Damage. You play a Blaster when you want The Best Damage dealing in the Largest Area possible and dont care about defense, because speed is your defense.

Let's just call it for what it is. Blasters are hard to play well and may not appeal to everyone.

Look again.

Take a clean elec/shield build from mids, and grab BU, LR and SC. then enable BU, and slot 3 SOs worth of damage into LR and SC. The numbers match up pretty closely (3 SOs worth of damage is actually 94.93%, i did a straight 95% in my math..)

Neither power is being affected by AAO, or any outside damage bonuses.

Most people use Lightning rod and shield charge with a saturated aao. This allows the spawn to be shaped for maximum damage as well

The range factor is not insignificant. I don't really feel it makes up for the extra survivability of armored toons, but it is a point in blasters favor. Blasters are not totally eclipsed just because everyone can deal damage.

Big AoEs and strong single target attacks from range matter. This can be especially true when you do have an aggro soaker. We have all seen scrappers die because they were in melee and the AoEs and maybe a stray aggro takes them out, even though a tanker was doing a good job. We have all seen blasters live through the same situation because they are way over there shooting off attacks. Once again, I am not saying it is balanced in favor of the blaster here (after all, the scrapper usually survives that scenario, and a blaster who may try to get into melee at the wrong time often does not), I am just saying that the ability to have that gobs of damage from range is not negligible and cannot just be brushed off. It counts for something.

I say that despite the fact that my personal preference is to be in the center of the spawn with most of my blasters (I like /Fire Manip... a lot). Even I get significant benefit from the range factor.

The shift tends to take place well before level 50. The toons that are capable of providing damage that can approach blaster levels tend to offensively mature in their early 30's. More pile on the bus in their 40's of course.

The shift is not only in damage, but also other half of the battle which is surviving well enough to do damage. Most AT's have a fairly linear progression of both their damage and their survivability as they gain new abilities even though mobs get tougher both in their own skills, the hp scale relative to pc damage, and our tendency to increase +cons as we reach certain progressive milestones. Basically, even though the game gets tougher, most AT's accumulate power at a great rate.

Blasters however, spike up rapidly in early levels due to gaining so many offensive powers so quickly. As a result they are one of the more potent early game AT's. Sadly though, they tend to peak very early as well. And as the game shifts and mobs get more and more difficult (for the reasons above) blaster mitigation falls off rapidly relative to them. The early spike is actually followed not by a linear increase in power, but by a decline as their damage gets weaker relative to mobs and their survivability plummets both to what they are used to experiencing against lesser difficulty mobs and relative to the other AT's.

IO's can certainly do a lot for the AT, but that isn't really central to this particular discussion.

It's not so much that blasters are a more difficult AT to play well because for many levels they aren't. It's that they peak very early and tend to actually get worse as the game goes on whereas everyone else gets stronger and stronger*

*for clarity blasters DO get stronger as well, but the rate of their power increase is lower than the game gains power, whereas most other AT's gain power faster than the game.

They are more difficult than other AT's in late game, that is fairly certain, which unfortunately is compounded by the fact that their role as 'offensive juggernaut' is very viable through much of the earlier game and they clearly ARE the offensive kings in pretty much every capacity during that period.

Analogy time: blasters are like a short geared car. They accelerate quicker as a result, but hit their top speed much earlier. Everyone else has taller gearing. This causes blasters to blow them away during the beginning of the race (ie earlier levels), but by the mid point of the race the other cars start catching up (30-40's), and toward the end of the race their higher top speed leaves the blaster car in the dust.

Perhaps if there were more corners in the race the shorter gearing would be more beneficial, but in terms of CoX the raceway is pretty much as straight as an airplane runway.

Range can certainly be an advantage. Sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes not at all. But blasters aren't the only AT capable of delivering damage from range. It is a distinguishing feature for them against scrappers at which point it largely comes down to whether range > armor. For most encounters that doesn't hold true, but for some it does.

Are blasters the most damaging AT from range? While the obvious answer is yes based solely upon their much higher damage modifier, the more accurate answer is sometimes and it depends. For burst ranged damage they are certainly tops. For ranged dps the long duration debuffs/buffs found on corrs and MM's can certainly surpass the short duration buffs that blasters posses. For actually surviving long enough to unload damage...well yes/no/maybe so.

I don't think the Dragon's Den would be impressed with the valuation this game attributes to ranged damage. It is an asset, but the tendency of mobs to collapse in upon themselves across almost every faction can quickly erase much of that advantage.

I was going to take only part of your response and discuss it, but I don't want to come off as disingenuos. So instead let me just bold the part of your reply that I disagree with. As for the rest, we probably just play our characters differently and focus their builds differently. As my RL brother says, you can "emphasize your strengths or overcome your weaknesses". I ALWAYS choose the later of the two. Thats just me.

Anyway, on to my point.

My very first IOed toon was a Blaster. When I retired him, he was running with over 30% defense, nearly all of which came from IOs. If he did not have these bonuses, he MAYBE could have squeezed 10% defense out of pools. Maybe. There is a HUGE difference in survivability between 10% and 30%+. I realize that IOs may not be what powers are designed around, or that comparing SO-only Blasters to SO-only Scrappers could very well prove your point beyond a doubt. But you cannot discount them completely.

In 2004, when I first played CoH I tried Blasters and I really liked the idea of them, but they were waaaaay too breakable for me (back then). Nowadays, I still see them as "squishy", but if you really and truely care about your character, I think you will spend the time and effort to IO him out. And I would begin doing it as soon as influence permits.
My first high level blaster didn't start until his mid 30s on IOs, but within 10 levels and dozens of set bonuses, it was like a completely different character. He went from being a "flying glass cannon" to a "hi-tech jet fighter" that feared almost nothing ALL DUE to IOs.

Not saying your viewpoint is wrong, just that throwing IOs out of any AT discussion seems wrong to me.

Which of course I didn't do. My exact words were that IO's are not central to this discussion, which they aren't. Blasters are central to this discussion. Their receptiveness to being IO'd is worthy of some discussion of course, but considering from what I've read this thread has ranged from solo, to teamed, to recharge+damage capped I feel that any special focus on IO's, or more heavily weighting them is probably unwarranted.

FWIW blasters don't gain nearly as much from IO's as some other AT's though. I'd say trollers and dom's gain the most. Trollers because they gain the ability to enhance both damage and control without sacrifice resulting in them being pretty potent at both. Dom's because no other AT gains more from recharge.

Taking a blaster up to 30% is awesome (my own is at 34% ranged), but it isn't as powerful as taking an sr or shield up from 30% to softcap def. Because blasters have so many attacks they often gain less from +rech compared to many other AT's. And because they have no base defense they have to focus harder on mitigativie IO's to reach high levels of survivability, which other AT's (all of them) have to focus less IO's on defense, which still leaves them with the ability to add additional offensive IO'ing.

That said, sure IO'd blasters are awesome, but what IO'd AT isn't? Many of which go from being strong already to absolutely absurd power levels like cakewalking RWZ challenges, blazing through x8 content, or even running solo MOx TF's. Blasters aren't necessarily excluded from such crazy activities while pumped up on IO's, but no one is. IO's are just that good.

You can add a supercharger to a blaster (IO'ing), but their top speed is still lower due to their gearing. Whereas supercharging the other AT's allows them to retain their top speed, but they can also accelerate much faster than they could before.

IO'ing allows other AT's to close the damage gap, but IO'ing doesn't allow blasters to close the survivability gap. In fact the latter gets more cavernous. However, most encounters in the game don't allow for the additional survivability to come into play, but it is there. Like an invuln scrapper tanking 9 or so AV's at once without support. That is ultimately hundreds of times more survivable than they started out. A blaster can't gain that kind of increase in survivability through IO's, though they can indeed become survivable enough for a lot of content.

Neat. I have a job and I pay my bills. My statement carries as much meaning as yours. Which essentially, boils down to none.

Ok I will concede this point. Not because I don't believe IOs are irrelevent, but simply because any mathematical comparison between the two ATs would have to be conducted on base power values, and survival mitigation amounts.

One thing that I have often felt about blasters is that as much as you CAN play them in melee range, they function so much better AT RANGE. What if their tier one power in the secondary was an AoE immobilize, and their version of AIM recharged fast enough to be near-perma with alot of slotting. Lets say bring the recharge down to 30-40 seconds base. I realize this does not address the concerns of some about their toughness in general, but by adding more ability to KEEP critters at range, it's a great way to point Blaster newbs in the right direction.

That's true, it is pretty good. But, I was thinking if they got something like Fire Cages, things would get pretty crazy.

Between Incarnates and inherent fitness, I think just about everything except maybe defenders has become the next farm ATs and I am not all that sure about defenders being left out anymore.

We shall see. If you consider my main (Empathy/Electric) as one of the worst farm-capable choices for defenders, Incarnate means that my difficulties should go up. Currently, I can run +3/x1, +0/x3, or-1/x4 without too much difficulty. Against non-mezzing villain types I can run +1/x4. The only thing standing in the way of +0/x8 is a little more defense (currently at 20%S/L and 23%E/N) and some way to improve my susceptibility to Mezz effects.