Blasters surpurflous?

If I follow you arguements what I'm I think your trying to say is that damage is least important variable in determining overall performance and that survivability is the most important. An easy way to sum it up is that in the ages old tactical debate of Offense vs Defense you are on the side of and aparently always have argued on the side of defense.

However what you fail to take into account is that the enemies in the game have a set amount of survivability themselves just like they have a set amount of offensive capability. There is a point when building for offense were a character will only need minimal defenses because the enemies will be defeated before they will make enough of a difference. The realities of the game and the way set bonuses are set-up means it is easier to create a defensive advantage than it is an offensive advantage.

A strange sense of deja vu washes over me as I type this: I still don't understand what your point is.

You have forbidden the use of specific examples of effective blaster play because that doesn't represent Joe Everyblaster, an elusive character whose traits are murky at best. Those of us who report positive experiences with the archetype are said to be outliers, if not simple liars. Perhaps we don't understand the actual badness that we're really so immersed in. The fact that blasters are among the most popular archetypes is presented as evidence of their actual unpopularity. This whole discussion is beginning to look like a thinly disguised cover story for your secret passion of coming up with boxing-related analogies, A_F.

What could anyone present to you at this point that would have any chance of changing your mind?

Angry rant deleted after reading a post and coming to a new understanding.

You, Another_Fan, build for maximum efficiency and thus consider blasters the least viable of the archetypes because they are not very efficient in the terms of overall character stats. The one thing blasters do really well is damage but in overall build efficiency adding damage to a character who already does damage very well but doesnt do anything else very well makes very little difference in the overall efficiency when efficiency = offenses x defenses especially if the defenses variable is low.

Damage alone doesn't make much improvement I'll agree with you on that. It when it is used along with high amounts of recharge that it becomes a noticeable improvement. Your standard blaster wont gain much out the musculature alpha at any teir. A recharge focused IO build blaster approaching or exceeding permahasten amounts of recharge however improves much more.

It seems to me that you have convinced yourself that blasters are terrible and no amount of argument will sway you. That is totally fine, I have a similar irrational (well...actually, perfectly rational) hatred of kheldians, who I view as terrible, not worth rolling, and generally a liability on teams. I personally can't play kheldians and grumble mildly if forced to team with them. So I can sympathize.

It sounds like you prefer corruptors, which is a totally legitimate choice. Corruptors are a terrific AT and desirable on many teams. There's nothing wrong with not liking a particular archetype. Maybe you'd be happier just setting aside your blaster and playing a corruptor.


PS. EARTH FOR HUMANS!!

This thread has made me think. I wonder how overpowered a Ranged Damage primary/Control Secondary AT that got the blaster ranged damage modifiers would be.