Quote:
qft
|
Originally Posted by lord_thanatos
if you want specific power-sets improved/buffed, focus on those, not by stating that the entire at is weak and underpowered.
|
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
I can't believe this thread is still going, or that I read most of it.
It boils down to this:
- Blasters are a viable AT for some people.
- Blasters are not a viable AT for some people.
- If you fall in 1., play a Blaster.
- If you fall in 2., don't play a Blaster.
- Until there's a completely objective metric of fun, it's all subjective.
My Arc: The Power From Out Of Space, ID# 64800
Mrs. Spoon's Arc: Shades of Betrayal, Acts of Salvation, ID# 59147
Blasters are a team AT. Sure they can solo (many of them very well), but that doesn't play to their strengths. Scrappers can also team, but they're designed to be more self sufficient. Comparing the two are comparing two different things IMO.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fury Flechette
Blasters are a team AT. Sure they can solo (many of them very well), but that doesn't play to their strengths. Scrappers can also team, but they're designed to be more self sufficient. Comparing the two are comparing two different things IMO. |
Well seeing as the question was why a blaster, and you want to take the position they are a teaming AT its interesting to see a comparison of what they actually bring to a team relative to what adding any of the other ATs does.
From personal experience its usually much less on the positive side and much more on the negative side than virtually any other AT with the exception of kheldians.
As to soloing well for the post 20 game about the only thing blasters solo better than are defenders and and I would stack certain defender combinations against the average blaster combination.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrSpoon
I can't believe this thread is still going, or that I read most of it.
It boils down to this:
|
Would have been nice if that was the attitude taken re:brutes by the developers.
I played blasters back with the old defiance, that required you to live on the edge of your seat, and if you died, well, you just weren't blasting enough. I actually miss that, because it required you to budget between your green bar, and you defiance bar. I loved hitting a BF, having that gunslinger pop me down to 5% hps, and then hitting blaze and finishing him off with a massive big hitter. That was the reason i played blasters. Its not as simple as 'run up to the mob, beat his face in, and pray he doesnt hit you back' there's much more required to it, and thats why i have more blasters then any other AT.
I have had zero problems leveling my blaster from 1 to 50, solo. and i up the difficulty as soon as i can to 0/2/bosses, and just go. If that becomes to easy, i up it again, which is usually around the SO range.
I have a 50 of basically all the ATs, and i've actually found blasters to be the easiest at leveling. They are their AoEs much sooner, most are targeted AoE, and not cones, so it requires very little aiming, just click and boom. Yeah, it may require inspiration, but have you tried leveling up a /regen scrapper recently? or a invuln? good luck taking on 3 or more mobs in melee before SOs, and even once you get 32 and get your big attacks, mobs still hurt ALOT.
A blasters trick is to keep things at range, as most melee attacks hit MUCH harder then ranged attacks. This could be as simple as hover blasting, or just 'move away from the mob' You know need direct Line of sight to throw off that fireball, or bullet rain, you just need the range, and at 80ft, you got alot of ground for the enemy to cover before they can start smacking you in the face.
Yeah, some ranged bosses can be difficult, talking the previous example of gunslingers, but if your quick enough on your feet, even those are easy.
I find defenders and controllers to be much harder to solo then blasters, due to part to damage vs time, and just sheer durability. again though, your mileage may vary, but that doesn't require yet another buff to the blaster class.
Quote:
Huh?|
Originally Posted by m3lon
You're right, a scrapper/brute can be built to be very survivable and very high damage, and like in every RPG ever the melee DPS classes win at soloing. Subsequently they'll beat any thing else on most solo metrics.
|
In many RPGs I've played, it's been people with more troller-like abilities, or healers, that were best at soloing. There's a particular fight that comes to mind which could be soloed easily by a mildly-geared tank, with some effort by a moderately-geared non-squishy healer, and was virtually impossible for all but the very best-geared melee DPS. And a lot of others like that.
In general, tanks can solo a ton of stuff. Also often ranged DPS -- simply because they can often kill things before the things can reach them. I'm not convinced that it is "every RPG ever" in which melee DPS win at soloing. In fact, it's a sort of surprising claim to me -- the cases I know of where melee DPS do well at soloing, it's specifically because they're designed to be functional as tanks.
As it happens, that fits CoH pretty well -- the winning soloing ATs are the ones that are intended to be able to either tank or off-tank.
Quote:
No, that's exactly wrong. Being able to solo is fine in the realm of soloing but when your main contribution to the team is being able to do it without them you're not being as helpful as the guy who can help the team do it better. Simple example, compare a blaster teamed with a bubbler to a scrapper with bubbler. The scrapper goes about on his normal routine except invincibler with a comrade helping out is damage a bit. The blaster benefits from the buffs becoming invincible and can use his powers to full affect, which would mean that the blaster is out damaging the scrapper and the survivability difference has gone away.|
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Why the constant need to dumb down the discussion? This isn't purely about any one aspect of the AT. It's about over all performance. Besides, if you're able to solo the world you're also more than likely to put any of you teammates to shame unless they also are world beaters. Capiche?
|
In the solo world the Scrapper's advantage is huge since they can focus entirely on their offense. In the teaming world the blaster's survivability disadvantage is much less meaningful, because they can easily be made survivable with team play.
To put it more blatantly in terms of overall performance; Blasters are on the weaker scale of things solo, but with team play they're amazing. Scrappers have a stronger baseline solo, but don't become amazing with good team play.
@Seebs
Every RPG ever is probably a tiny bit hyperbolic, but its been my experience that with melee DPS it's easy to become survivable enough to solo a few things that are bigger than you while still having the dps to do it quickly. But to justify this in such general terms I'd be using such broad strokes I could paint a barn in to swipes, so I'll end with this: melee healers ftw!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by m3lon
No, that's exactly wrong. Being able to solo is fine in the realm of soloing but when your main contribution to the team is being able to do it without them you're not being as helpful as the guy who can help the team do it better. Simple example, compare a blaster teamed with a bubbler to a scrapper with bubbler. The scrapper goes about on his normal routine except invincibler with a comrade helping out is damage a bit. The blaster benefits from the buffs becoming invincible and can use his powers to full affect, which would mean that the blaster is out damaging the scrapper and the survivability difference has gone away.
In the solo world the Scrapper's advantage is huge since they can focus entirely on their offense. In the teaming world the blaster's survivability disadvantage is much less meaningful, because they can easily be made survivable with team play. To put it more blatantly in terms of overall performance; Blasters are on the weaker scale of things solo, but with team play they're amazing. Scrappers have a stronger baseline solo, but don't become amazing with good team play. @Seebs Every RPG ever is probably a tiny bit hyperbolic, but its been my experience that with melee DPS it's easy to become survivable enough to solo a few things that are bigger than you while still having the dps to do it quickly. But to justify this in such general terms I'd be using such broad strokes I could paint a barn in to swipes, so I'll end with this: melee healers ftw! |
If you are going to build teams that will take something to incredible you are in most cases better off adding another defender of some kind than either a defender or a blaster. In the case of amped to awesome by buffs the scrapper still wins out as that AT allows the team to divide up more than adding a blaster would.
Quote:
Why stop there? VEATS provide buffs like defenders and can do damage like scrappers with some inherent protection! Who needs defenders and scrappers? Just add more VEATs, the other two ATs are not worth it. |
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
If you are going to build teams that will take something to incredible you are in most cases better off adding another defender of some kind than either a defender or a blaster. In the case of amped to awesome by buffs the scrapper still wins out as that AT allows the team to divide up more than adding a blaster would.
|
Wait it minute I think i heard this before........
"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of BS." -General George Patton
-Lord Azazel
My issue is that EVERY AT can bring value to a team and IMO it is unfortunate that some will throw away the contribution a well played blaster will bring to a team based on some number crunching, misgivings, trepidation and misinformation regarding the Blaster AT.
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
Quote:
Very true. People who care what people bring to a team are in the same category as the people who has to have a tank, has to have a "healer", has to have a rad, etc. When people start discriminating at that point, it's a message to me to find another team or get rid of the crybabies.|
Originally Posted by Airhammer
My issue is that EVERY AT can bring value to a team and IMO it is unfortunate that some will throw away the contribution a well played blaster will bring to a team based on some number crunching, misgivings, trepidation and misinformation regarding the Blaster AT.
|
There's really no content in this game with one or two exceptions that can't be overcome with just about anything.
My lvl 35 fire/fire blaster is squishy hand to hand but thanks to an emphasis on recharge rates and some good frankenslotting I can pour on some good, accurate ranged damage. I'll admit I prefer the safety of a group though. If I'm surrounded I'll almost always jump across to the other side of the melee pile and keep firing. If in an outdoor area I'll keep SJ activated at all times for a quick escape. Every AT plays differently. If you rush into the front lines of any battle with a blaster you are probably going to die. Just hang way back, wait for the tanks and scrappers to get aggro and fire away! If solo use a snipe, plan each mob out carefully and don't be afraid to run away and go back for another round.
Quote:
No, this is not the case in most circumstances. I've ran a number of all-Defender TF's, and while they are great fun and can steamroll everything in their path, adding even one blaster to the team amps up the damage output to incredible levels, when combined with all the -res and +dam the defenders provide. The speed difference between a team of 8 defenders and 7 defenders + 1 blaster is huge.|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
If you are going to build teams that will take something to incredible you are in most cases better off adding another defender of some kind than either a defender or a blaster. In the case of amped to awesome by buffs the scrapper still wins out as that AT allows the team to divide up more than adding a blaster would.
|
A damage capped defender does barely more damage than a completely un-buffed blaster. Defender ranged damage scale is 0.65. Blaster is 1.125 for ranged damage. Defender damage bonus caps at 300% vs. 400% for blasters.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airhammer
My issue is that EVERY AT can bring value to a team and IMO it is unfortunate that some will throw away the contribution a well played blaster will bring to a team based on some number crunching, misgivings, trepidation and misinformation regarding the Blaster AT.
|
Every AT brings something. Some just bring more than others.
I do admire the changeup, going from Blasters are a more team oriented AT , then to it doesn't matter what you bring to a team is pretty impressive.
Quote:
If you are adding -resistance you are adding to the total damage, if you haven't hit the cap on +damage the +damage is X8. Once you are at the point where spawns are going down quickly the key factor becomes how much you can divide up the team to accomplish things in parallel rather than serial.|
Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen
No, this is not the case in most circumstances. I've ran a number of all-Defender TF's, and while they are great fun and can steamroll everything in their path, adding even one blaster to the team amps up the damage output to incredible levels, when combined with all the -res and +dam the defenders provide. The speed difference between a team of 8 defenders and 7 defenders + 1 blaster is huge.
A damage capped defender does barely more damage than a completely un-buffed blaster. Defender ranged damage scale is 0.65. Blaster is 1.125 for ranged damage. Defender damage bonus caps at 300% vs. 400% for blasters. |
If you are at the damage cap, and have the resistance of whatever you are facing floored, and have the teams defense covered adding a blaster would be the preferred choice.
First, let's get accurate when describing this. Blasters are not "broken" because broken things don't work. Your car breaks down, it doesn't work. Your refrigerator breaks, it doesn't work. Blasters? I make one, I play it, I see mobs die, I get experience, I level up, I hit 50. That sure doesn't seem broken to me.
It took pages of discussion to finally get to why some people think blasters are "broken". They set their difficulty to +2 or +3 mobs for an 8-man team, and can't run a mission solo. That's very different from being "broken". For one thing, when you're solo, you don't have to set your difficulty that high. You're basically saying "if I set the difficulty higher than what my character can handle, I do badly". Well, don't set it that high. You're solo. You have that option. If you're on a team, it doesn't matter what the difficulty is because you have other characters grabbing aggro and debuffing mobs and buffing you up. If tanks and scrappers are able to solo the highest-difficulty content meant for the largest teams, then it doesn't mean that it's the standard for all characters. It more likely means that the game is "broken" because some archetypes are too powerful to have any significant challenge regardless of difficulty level.
I'm comfortable playing my blaster with +1 or +2 content set for three or four players (with bosses). It offers a good challenge and while still letting me actually run the missions. If other characters like scrappers and tanks can run through more difficult content just by mashing attack buttons, well, good for them. It's not a playstyle I find particularly engaging. I happen to enjoy that I use strategy for my battles.
And also, I fully disagree that blasters don't bring much to a team. On every team I've been on, blasters bring lots and lots of damage, which ultimately is what completes the missions.
Arc ID#30821, A Clean Break
The only problem with defeating the Tsoo is that an hour later, you want to defeat them again!
"Life is just better boosted!" -- LadyMage
"I'm a big believer in Personal Force Field on a blaster. ... It's your happy place." -- Fulmens
Quote:
QFT. Pretty much says what I think. Blasters can solo well, and add a lot to teams. I'll take ranged damage over melee damage any day... if I was a min/maxxer. As it is, I like all ATs just fine on my teams.|
Originally Posted by Barata
First, let's get accurate when describing this. Blasters are not "broken" because broken things don't work. Your car breaks down, it doesn't work. Your refrigerator breaks, it doesn't work. Blasters? I make one, I play it, I see mobs die, I get experience, I level up, I hit 50. That sure doesn't seem broken to me.
It took pages of discussion to finally get to why some people think blasters are "broken". They set their difficulty to +2 or +3 mobs for an 8-man team, and can't run a mission solo. That's very different from being "broken". For one thing, when you're solo, you don't have to set your difficulty that high. You're basically saying "if I set the difficulty higher than what my character can handle, I do badly". Well, don't set it that high. You're solo. You have that option. If you're on a team, it doesn't matter what the difficulty is because you have other characters grabbing aggro and debuffing mobs and buffing you up. If tanks and scrappers are able to solo the highest-difficulty content meant for the largest teams, then it doesn't mean that it's the standard for all characters. It more likely means that the game is "broken" because some archetypes are too powerful to have any significant challenge regardless of difficulty level. I'm comfortable playing my blaster with +1 or +2 content set for three or four players (with bosses). It offers a good challenge and while still letting me actually run the missions. If other characters like scrappers and tanks can run through more difficult content just by mashing attack buttons, well, good for them. It's not a playstyle I find particularly engaging. I happen to enjoy that I use strategy for my battles. And also, I fully disagree that blasters don't bring much to a team. On every team I've been on, blasters bring lots and lots of damage, which ultimately is what completes the missions. |
Every character is going to be different, too. Some can handle more than others, and the definition of being able to solo for the devs is still the default that we get with a new character, or when you're set at +0/x0. If you're doing more than that, great. If you can't do more than that, you're not necessarily broken, though you can argue if such a character is too team-oriented.
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:
|
Originally Posted by Barata
It took pages of discussion to finally get to why some people think blasters are "broken". They set their difficulty to +2 or +3 mobs for an 8-man team, and can't run a mission solo. That's very different from being "broken". For one thing, when you're solo, you don't have to set your difficulty that high. You're basically saying "if I set the difficulty higher than what my character can handle, I do badly". Well, don't set it that high. You're solo. You have that option. If you're on a team, it doesn't matter what the difficulty is because you have other characters grabbing aggro and debuffing mobs and buffing you up. If tanks and scrappers are able to solo the highest-difficulty content meant for the largest teams, then it doesn't mean that it's the standard for all characters. It more likely means that the game is "broken" because some archetypes are too powerful to have any significant challenge regardless of difficulty level.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
QFT. Pretty much says what I think. Blasters can solo well, and add a lot to teams. I'll take ranged damage over melee damage any day... if I was a min/maxxer. As it is, I like all ATs just fine on my teams.
Every character is going to be different, too. Some can handle more than others, and the definition of being able to solo for the devs is still the default that we get with a new character, or when you're set at +0/x0. If you're doing more than that, great. If you can't do more than that, you're not necessarily broken, though you can argue if such a character is too team-oriented. |
In this context Broken= Out of balance and in need of rebalancing. If you thought rebalancing the brute vs the tanker and scrapper was needed then blaster rebalancing is much more needed.
I like my blasters, but when it comes down to where to put inf, time and effort into developing a character, its a no brainer.
Blasters being more team oriented is a bit of a red herring. The idea seems to come from the idea that blasters are the kings of AoE damage output which is as often not the case as it is the case. Most of the blaster primary sets have 3 AoEs one of which is the crashing nuke. AR is the exception in that it has 4 or 5 depending on how you count ignite.
You can't compare melee "set x" to blast "set x", but if you look at the AoE heavy melee sets to the AoE heavy blast sets, The melee sets do very well.
Take a look at fire blast vs spines. These are the classic heavy hitters for their respective ATs.
Fire Blast
Fire Ball 78.8 Damage, 16s recharge, 16 targets
Fire Breath 109.8 Damage 16s Recharge, 10 targets.
Spines
Spine burst 82 damage , 16s recharge, 10 targets
Ripper 167 damage, 11s recharge, 7 targets
Throw Spinse 100 damage, 12s recharge, 10 targets
The only blaster sets that actually pull ahead are those with a mini nuke , AR or Archery specifically, sorry DP too slow, too little damage. Even then they need the nuke on high recharge.
Blasters make up some of the difference with Aim for sets that do have it but its pretty sad when an AT that is defined as the glass cannon, has so much glass and so little cannon.
You know I think I've finally figured out my biggest problem with this thread, two of them actually, that inane other DP thread kinda helped too.
#1 People really need to stop treating this like a math exam again, whether your pro or con on the blasters = broken somehow argument. Comparing Fire and Spines for example. It's an apple and oranges deal because it doesn't put the numbers in the context of actual in game experience or different power choices. Against a static practice dummy (Or rikti pylon if you want to go that extreme, though I think it's stupid to do so) Obviously a lot of blast sets look weak on paper compared to a few melee counterparts DPS wise. But this assumes perfect DPS, max targets, and perfect setups, and how often do we actually see that inside the game vs a spreadsheet? Also if damage was the only factor devices would be the worst set on the planet, when any smart blaster who has played it can tell you that's anything but the truth.
Just from a soloing perspective since that is part of the thread (teaming being a whole other can of worms) How much damage is the scrapper who just got pegged by that malta sapper doing? Granted from my own experiences abusing the AI I'm sure there's plenty of sets that can build up and either one shot or two shot a minion class mob, even with that oh so evil "redraw penalty" *pokes that other silly thread* but i know that's not 100% perfect either.
But what's a lot more reliable (barring the odd miss, same as a scrapper) is a freeze ray to the face or insert blaster mezz of your choice here. Or a good ol fashioned build up plus ranged attack of your choice from far enough out that the sapper is dropped before he can even think of attacking you. Heck or from right in his face too after the mezz if you're /energy or /elec.
To throw out another how much DPS is that scrapper going to be doing stuck in a KoA caltrop patch of doom when he can't even get to half his targets, as opposed to the blaster hovering above it raining death? Or the one sitting back at range behind his own caltrops, or an ice patch, waiting to deal with any approaching mobs with a mezz, or melee smack, or a burn patch with hot feet going, or stand under a point blank rain attack as mobs get confused between melee attacks or trying to escape the damage, or a blaster aura like chilling embrace and world of confusion, or be neutered by power sink and short circuit, should i go on here?
That's #2 A good chunk of this thread probably is based on the faulty premise that damage and only damage seems to matter, when blasters soloed or team bring a lot more mitigation through pri and sec both. Unlike a lot of the Primary vs Primary arguments in the thread. Which only seem to focus on the damage aspects of powers, not the others in our powersets, and never the secondary effects (negligible yes compared to defs, but we still have them, just ask sonic)
That's why I think I can't play scrappers worth anything (though I don't think they're broken) All they have going for them is what many people seem to be ragging on blasters for. Just pure damage, and hoping they have enough HP or Def/Res (depending on sec choice) To tough it out through the fight. And have to rely on luck from a crit vs the easy to exploit defiance mechanic upping damage consistently. Run into heavy debuffing or drain, or just sheer numbers though when things go south, and enough lucky rolls will = dead scrapper or running scrapper. They don't have any tactic to me beyond walk up, melee till mob is dead, repeat. No pulling ability, no real ability to capitalize on stuns or debuffs, and most of all no defiance making every attack I pull off harder hitting then the first, something my new sonic blaster is loving. In short, I find them boring to play and lacking the flair that tanks have, so I don't play them, doesn't mean I hate them though or am gonna go whining in the scrapper forum about how busted they are.
Though I will concede one point, when things do go really bad that extra hp does give the scrapper a slight advantage in getting away, same with built in mezz resistances. And a blaster suffers the same problems, but the blaster also has more tools in my opinion to make sure things don't get that ugly as opposed to just hitting the attack chain nonstop. That and as has been beaten to death too, a smart blaster doesn't get mezzed, or knows that insps are part of the game and emergency break free is your friend when defiance aint hacking it.
Either way if this thread is going to stay alive, can we please try to focus on blasters as a whole, and how things work in the real fake world of paragon then in math class?
Quote:
Oy. Seriously? Yes, Scrappers can do damage. If they couldn't, they'd rightly argue why they didn't have more mitigation out of the box like a Tanker or even a Brute. |
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
In this context Broken= Out of balance and in need of rebalancing. If you thought rebalancing the brute vs the tanker and scrapper was needed then blaster rebalancing is much more needed.
I like my blasters, but when it comes down to where to put inf, time and effort into developing a character, its a no brainer. Blasters being more team oriented is a bit of a red herring. The idea seems to come from the idea that blasters are the kings of AoE damage output which is as often not the case as it is the case. Most of the blaster primary sets have 3 AoEs one of which is the crashing nuke. AR is the exception in that it has 4 or 5 depending on how you count ignite. You can't compare melee "set x" to blast "set x", but if you look at the AoE heavy melee sets to the AoE heavy blast sets, The melee sets do very well. Take a look at fire blast vs spines. These are the classic heavy hitters for their respective ATs. Fire Blast Fire Ball 78.8 Damage, 16s recharge, 16 targets Fire Breath 109.8 Damage 16s Recharge, 10 targets. Spines Spine burst 82 damage , 16s recharge, 10 targets Ripper 167 damage, 11s recharge, 7 targets Throw Spinse 100 damage, 12s recharge, 10 targets |
That little comparison between Fire and Spines was rather cherry picked, too. Not every Blast set has as much AOE as Fire, but most of them are pretty good, and not THAT far from what Fire can do. Spines is pretty up there for AOE when it comes to Scrappers... most Scrapper sets don't even come close to it: especially for range. Which is actually pretty important. Most Scrappers can't attack things from the range that Blasters have, and you can't ignore it when comparing the two.
Because of that range, they don't really have to worry too much about where mobs are in a group, especially when compared to Melee characters (and it's far easier to move around a mob that you are not inside, than when you are out of it). Having a large cone or AOE to work with is a large boon when it comes to pure damage output. You hit more stuff and don't have to work hard at it. A Fire Blaster has none of the issues even a Spines Scrapper would have with hitting lot's of stuff.
Can Scrappers survive things Blasters can't? Sure. But that's an overall design decision: Scrappers are great soloers, while Blasters are more team oriented (that's not a "red herring" as you called it, that's design). I'm not sure what all you and others are arguing that needs to change for Blasters, but they already do sick amounts of damage and do that very well. The developers aren't likely to change that setup, because it works well.
Shield Charge was arguably encroaching on a Blaster's territory without giving anything up (before its nerf), but that was due to a wrong number/table being used. It's back to more reasonable levels but still does good damage. Doesn't change my Blaster being able to do the same to every spawn (and I'm not even counting nukes with that).
The Blaster AT is fine. We can attack while mezzed, we have a good amount of health for the AT, and we can do lots of damage up close and from far away. You can argue for certain sets needing improving (Devices is pretty clear, I would say), but there's nothing wrong with the AT.
I seriously have to wonder if people are making the classic CoX blunder with this. You don't need any one AT to accomplish anything, so they think overlap between ATs is a problem. It isn't. If you need damage on a team, you can grab a Blaster or a Scrapper, or even most of the ATs in the game. That's not really a problem, but how the game works. I'd rather that than have to find the holy trinity of ATs to accomplish anything in game.
Stop trying to create problems where none exist. Find sets that need help, sure, but don't make out that the Blaster AT is in need of help. I can't even believe this discussion is going on for so long.
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:
Given that no one is considering the blaster's minimal mezz protection and the effect it has on damage output, the scrapper pulls further ahead the more realistic the scenario is.|
Originally Posted by Dragonkat
Y
#1 People really need to stop treating this like a math exam again, whether your pro or con on the blasters = broken somehow argument. Comparing Fire and Spines for example. It's an apple and oranges deal because it doesn't put the numbers in the context of actual in game experience or different power choices. Against a static practice dummy (Or rikti pylon if you want to go that extreme, though I think it's stupid to do so) Obviously a lot of blast sets look weak on paper compared to a few melee counterparts DPS wise. But this assumes perfect DPS, max targets, and perfect setups, and how often do we actually see that inside the game vs a spreadsheet? Also if damage was the only factor devices would be the worst set on the planet, when any smart blaster who has played it can tell you that's anything but the truth. |
Quote:
| That's #2 A good chunk of this thread probably is based on the faulty premise that damage and only damage seems to matter, when blasters soloed or team bring a lot more mitigation through pri and sec both. Unlike a lot of the Primary vs Primary arguments in the thread. Which only seem to focus on the damage aspects of powers, not the others in our powersets, and never the secondary effects (negligible yes compared to defs, but we still have them, just ask sonic) |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
Oy. Seriously? Yes, Scrappers can do damage. If they couldn't, they'd rightly argue why they didn't have more mitigation out of the box like a Tanker or even a Brute.
That little comparison between Fire and Spines was rather cherry picked, too. Not every Blast set has as much AOE as Fire, but most of them are pretty good, and not THAT far from what Fire can do. Spines is pretty up there for AOE when it comes to Scrappers... most Scrapper sets don't even come close to it: especially for range. Which is actually pretty important. Most Scrappers can't attack things from the range that Blasters have, and you can't ignore it when comparing the two. Because of that range, they don't really have to worry too much about where mobs are in a group, especially when compared to Melee characters (and it's far easier to move around a mob that you are not inside, than when you are out of it). Having a large cone or AOE to work with is a large boon when it comes to pure damage output. You hit more stuff and don't have to work hard at it. A Fire Blaster has none of the issues even a Spines Scrapper would have with hitting lot's of stuff. |
The ability to attack at range is not as large a matter as you would think. Ranged classes in this game don't in general outrange their opponents.
The AoE area is also only relevant in comparing blaster AoE vs Blaster AoE. Blasters have to deal with spread spawns scrappers can easily concentrate them.
Quote:
| Can Scrappers survive things Blasters can't? Sure. But that's an overall design decision: Scrappers are great soloers, while Blasters are more team oriented (that's not a "red herring" as you called it, that's design). I'm not sure what all you and others are arguing that needs to change for Blasters, but they already do sick amounts of damage and do that very well. The developers aren't likely to change that setup, because it works well. |
Quote:
|
I seriously have to wonder if people are making the classic CoX blunder with this. You don't need any one AT to accomplish anything, so they think overlap between ATs is a problem. It isn't. If you need damage on a team, you can grab a Blaster or a Scrapper, or even most of the ATs in the game. That's not really a problem, but how the game works. I'd rather that than have to find the holy trinity of ATs to accomplish anything in game. Stop trying to create problems where none exist. Find sets that need help, sure, but don't make out that the Blaster AT is in need of help. I can't even believe this discussion is going on for so long. |
Quote:
It took pages of discussion...and you still didn't get it (not surprising, willful blindness over the issue is pretty prevalent). Let me clue you in; it's certainly not about how the Blaster solo at level 50 with a full IO-set complement. It is, however, about how other ATs can infringe on the only thing Blasters get - damage in all shapes -, sometimes surpassing us, while these ATs benefit from significantly better survivability, control or utility. |
Originally Posted by Barata
First, let's get accurate when describing this. Blasters are not "broken" because broken things don't work. Your car breaks down, it doesn't work. Your refrigerator breaks, it doesn't work. Blasters? I make one, I play it, I see mobs die, I get experience, I level up, I hit 50. That sure doesn't seem broken to me.
It took pages of discussion to finally get to why some people think blasters are "broken". They set their difficulty to +2 or +3 mobs for an 8-man team, and can't run a mission solo. I'm comfortable playing my blaster with +1 or +2 content set for three or four players (with bosses). It offers a good challenge and while still letting me actually run the missions. |
Certain developments have made the issue more pressing; how spawns are more spread out in initial encounters making ranged AoEs without sufficient AoE control less effective, then Going Rogue bringing Corruptors and Dominators to the mix.
Quote:
| If other characters like scrappers and tanks can run through more difficult content just by mashing attack buttons, well, good for them. It's not a playstyle I find particularly engaging. I happen to enjoy that I use strategy for my battles. |
This could be achieved in any number of ways. Metagame changes like making offensive/hostile toggle powers resume automatically after being shutdown would make such toggles constantly dropping due to mezzing and nuking less of a hassle.
Front-loading damage on immobilizes is another small change that would make single target immobilizes more viable as a multipurpose tool.
Softening the crash of the old school nukes would also be good.
Increasing the radius of the smaller toggle auras is another good change. These are much less useful for Blasters than melee toons. Defenders benefit from such with their Opressive Gloom version for instance. Why not Blasters who need such even more?
Dominators benefit from better snipes than the ranged specialist AT does. Does this even begin to compute other than as an attempt to make snipes viable for Dominators. Why hasn't Blasters gotten the same consideration? And it's not purely about snipes, it's about powers like Power Push, Telekinetic Thrust and others.
Adding damage or secondary effects to single target controls would make these more viable. Only the extreme squishiness of the AT makes these decent choices. Compare our single target control powers with such powers belonging to any other AT. Just about all ATs (Corruptors and Defenders share these powers, but usually have far better options) have so far better choices they're not even in the same league. This despite manipulation at the very least being partly about control.
Other ATs, like Corruptors and Defenders benefit from Blaster damage scalars on certain blast powers. Yet, the Blaster version of Frozen Aura was neglected when the Tanker version got buffed and made useful. For me this is an example of the neglect developers have shown Blasters.
Quote:
| And also, I fully disagree that blasters don't bring much to a team. On every team I've been on, blasters bring lots and lots of damage, which ultimately is what completes the missions. |
Quote:
I'm sorry but what part of my post you cherry picked right there was even talking about mezz protection? And doesn't seem to notice the defiance arguments raging through this entire thread about that very topic? *Is actually a little confused in that regard* What I was talking about was how spreadsheets =/= real game knowledge of mobs, as evidenced by the two realistic scenarios below that part of the post. Which I note you've conveniently ignored. Now if you want to give me a realistic scenario where scrappers pull ahead rather then simply saying that's the case I'm all ears. I'm not a huge fan of people who get opinions mixed up with facts.| Given that no one is considering the blaster's minimal mezz protection and the effect it has on damage output, the scrapper pulls further ahead the more realistic the scenario is. |
Just for giggles lets throw one more out there, and go with nemesis this time, bout a scrapper friendly blaster hating group as they come given virtually every attack is a ranged one. But given that a lot of mobs like to stay at range and unload rather then close in, how would a spines scrapper bunch them up for his aoes short of a corner pull? something a blaster could do in a much easier manner with range, then go to town with his own aoes.
Quote:
| Scrappers don't have secondary effects ? If you want to make the comparison you need to compare to other primary damage dealing ATs. Just going back to the spines vs fire, fires secondary effect is extra damage, spines secondary effects are immobilization and -recharge -movement speed. |
But, what you did miss was the point of the paragraphs above and below. Spines and fire don't work in a vacuum. There's secondary sets to consider, and while a scrapper gets zilch but defense or resistance the blaster brings a lot more to the table for his sets. If you went fire/fire for instance you just tacked on two extra aoe's for the blaster, and I'm not counting burn or hotfeet as they are a bit more specialized.
fire/ice? All those nems just got corner pulled into an ice patch for a virtually damage free killing field for the blaster while the scrapper tries to herd them and get shot at.
fire/dev? Smoke grenade cloak pulls for easy single kills, or just herd them onto caltrops same as ice. That's before we even start throwing out trip mines.
fire/eng? Before total focus I probably would fit stun into my build for an LT at the start. Then Build up, bone smasher, power thrust maybe = dead minion. Energy punch plus a T2 Attack = dead minion thanks to defiance helping out. (Two attacks out damaging anything in spines except impale and ripper) remaining powers in chain finish off remaining minions, which i can do with the oh so crappy dual pistol set by the by [/sarcasm] much less fire here.
EDIT: And by two attacks I meant bone smasher and energy punch, not a T2 blast.
Quote:
|
I stated in the comparison I had picked high end AoE sets to compare, but most blaster AoE is damage is about on the same model with the exception of the rain powers. The ability to attack at range is not as large a matter as you would think. Ranged classes in this game don't in general outrange their opponents. The AoE area is also only relevant in comparing blaster AoE vs Blaster AoE. Blasters have to deal with spread spawns scrappers can easily concentrate them. |
As for the middle of it, as GP said, we do outrange scrappers, something that is still being ignored. Just saying we don't outrange mobs doesn't make his point any less valid.
And spread spawns? As i already said, it's called a simple corner pull, use it, learn it, love it. Instant bunched mobs which = instant aoe death by a blaster. Or maybe just realize that most mobs love to close to melee range, so why not let them do the bunching for you, then fire off the aoes after single target shots and/or some mitigation, so the aoes are further boosted by defiance bonuses?
Quote:
| Then they should be doing more for the team, be it total damage output, AoE damage or other. If by sick damage, you mean about the same as other ATs do well yes. |
And also when it comes to teaming I'm just going to point to blaster secondary powers, many of which assist a team a whole heck of a lot more then the scrapper secondary, which only assists the scrapper. If we look back to that other silly argument in this thread about how defender and corr buffs/debuffs should be credited to them over the blaster, can we credit all the extra mitigation a blaster brings to those mobs he left stunned, confused, sleeping, flopping or debuffed for the scrapper the same way? =p
and FYI.. http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Caps#Maximum_3 Blasters, scrappers, Corruptors, and Stalkers all have the same damage caps.
Blasters however have higher AOE caps then both scrappers and stalkers, and more pure damaging attacks then corruptors.
I love my fire/kin corruptor if i want a to play a safe, yet damaging toon, cuz really, its hard to kill a kin. But she can't handle nearly what my fire/fire/fire blaster can. I play him when i just want sheer death.