Quote:
I always pick the most simple example, Frozen Aura from /ice blasters. The power being identical to tank ice melee, yet tanks get damage equal to footstomp, blasters.. well still no damage. I still dont know the reason behind this, specialy since /Mental actualy has the same T9 power with damage (except no sleep).
|
Originally Posted by Rigel_Kent
I kind of like the idea of modifying nukes based on AT, except blasters are likely to get the short end of the stick.
"Let's make it do this AND that for corruptors." "Okay!" "And let's make it do this AND that for defenders." "Okay!" "But it can only do this, for blasters, because they're blasters and not allowed to do anything else." "Of course." See also: Proliferated blaster primaries. |
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Quote:
This is unfortunately not far from the truth. Blasters are the only archetype, in my opinion, that is defined more by their limits than by their capabilities. Until that changes, I don't think the devs will ever genuinely be in a position to grant performance parity to blasters.|
Originally Posted by Rigel_Kent
I kind of like the idea of modifying nukes based on AT, except blasters are likely to get the short end of the stick.
"Let's make it do this AND that for corruptors." "Okay!" "And let's make it do this AND that for defenders." "Okay!" "But it can only do this, for blasters, because they're blasters and not allowed to do anything else." "Of course." See also: Proliferated blaster primaries. |
I recognize that one of the major hurdles is a balance-significant one. Of all the things players can do, only one of them really earns rewards: damage. Kills generate rewards. Buffs don't, debuffs don't, and not even unlimited survivability can generate rewards in the general case. Only damage can do that. All the other things can do is help damage. So if your target for defense is X, and you end up giving someone 100 times X, or worse Granite Armor, that is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of things: Granite Armor doesn't show up as even a blip in their data mining statistics.
But you give blasters twice the damage they have now, and that would create a game-breakiingly large spike in their performance numbers. So its for Blasters, and *only* for Blasters that the devs' aim must be true. And I don't think they trust their own aim in that context.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Never say never or in your case ever. Alot of things they said we would never see but we got it eventually. Just saying.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You're never going to balance a conventional powerset power around +4 anything. Ever ever ever ever. Ever ever? Ever.
|
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
For some strange reason they think players actually pick it for control stacking. It should do damage and alot more than foot stomp. Blasters as a whole need alot more damage.
|
Originally Posted by SinergyX_EU
I always pick the most simple example, Frozen Aura from /ice blasters. The power being identical to tank ice melee, yet tanks get damage equal to footstomp, blasters.. well still no damage. I still dont know the reason behind this, specialy since /Mental actualy has the same T9 power with damage (except no sleep).
|
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
I disagree with you. Blasters are still gonna face plant just as much as they do now on teams. Solo things might actually get better if you can manage to kill them before they kill you but on teams its not going to be that way. Look at every other mmo out there that has a range AT that is similar to blasters in every instance I have seen they are way more survivable than blasters by far. They either have pets or actual control abilities that do something to save you instead of just get you plucked off (shakes fist at all blaster single target immobilize). In other games the mobs do not out range you so yeah range is actual defense for them instead of the lie that range is defense for blasters when all mobs have range attacks that either meet or exceed our range. So until they fix this they can not justify the blaster squishieness vs defenders/corrupters survivability. Either give blasters the damage they deserve or fix the issue of them having no defenses.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This is unfortunately not far from the truth. Blasters are the only archetype, in my opinion, that is defined more by their limits than by their capabilities. Until that changes, I don't think the devs will ever genuinely be in a position to grant performance parity to blasters.
I recognize that one of the major hurdles is a balance-significant one. Of all the things players can do, only one of them really earns rewards: damage. Kills generate rewards. Buffs don't, debuffs don't, and not even unlimited survivability can generate rewards in the general case. Only damage can do that. All the other things can do is help damage. So if your target for defense is X, and you end up giving someone 100 times X, or worse Granite Armor, that is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of things: Granite Armor doesn't show up as even a blip in their data mining statistics. But you give blasters twice the damage they have now, and that would create a game-breakiingly large spike in their performance numbers. So its for Blasters, and *only* for Blasters that the devs' aim must be true. And I don't think they trust their own aim in that context. |
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
That about sums it up.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This is unfortunately not far from the truth. Blasters are the only archetype, in my opinion, that is defined more by their limits than by their capabilities. Until that changes, I don't think the devs will ever genuinely be in a position to grant performance parity to blasters.
I recognize that one of the major hurdles is a balance-significant one. Of all the things players can do, only one of them really earns rewards: damage. Kills generate rewards. Buffs don't, debuffs don't, and not even unlimited survivability can generate rewards in the general case. Only damage can do that. All the other things can do is help damage. So if your target for defense is X, and you end up giving someone 100 times X, or worse Granite Armor, that is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of things: Granite Armor doesn't show up as even a blip in their data mining statistics. But you give blasters twice the damage they have now, and that would create a game-breakiingly large spike in their performance numbers. So its for Blasters, and *only* for Blasters that the devs' aim must be true. And I don't think they trust their own aim in that context. |
The thing that's funny is that CoH is one of the few (only?) MMOs out there that doesn't have high-end boss fights where DPS is heavily emphasized. So the damage-is-the-only-rewarded-attribute thing holds true for most of the game, but there's really no content that emphasizes damage as a specialty. I tend to think that a huge boost in Blaster damage, a boost that corresponds with and compensates for Blasters' defensive shortcomings, would break the leveling curve in typical or low-end content, but it would still only make Blasters competitive with buff/debuff in terms of team attractiveness at the high end. It would even be unlikely to make Blasters (unreservedly) the best soloists, though they probably would be the fastest to level.
Anyway, yeah, I agree with your assessment and understand why Blasters are unlikely to get a significant offensive boost anytime soon. What I don't understand, though, is why at this late point in the game's development -- when we have Dominators and VEATs and whatever else running around at comparable-to-Blaster levels of damage output on top of massive advantages elsewhere -- it's somehow forbidden to give Blasters some sort of defensive/utility/whatever boost.
I also don't understand why ranged damage still pays such a high premium. Blaster ranged DPS is by no means uber; depending on what set you play, it can be rather anemic in the grand scheme of things. It's only when you consider things like AoE or melee attacks that Blasters really begin to shine offensively, and those aren't strengths universal to the AT -- nor is the AT, ironically, particularly well-suited to leverage AoE damage even ignoring survivability, given Blasters' general lack of options to prevent scatter.
(Yes, I've considered taking Provoke on my Fire Blaster.
)This is all barely relevant though. Apologies for the tangent. Nukes obviously pay too high a price for the damage they do. The fact that they basically force you to be detoggled, on top of the 6 minute recharge timer and the 20-second recovery debuff, seems gratuitous in an age when mezzes no longer even detoggle player characters. Personally and for what little it's worth, I'd be happy if the crash were simply reduced to 99% of your end instead of 100% -- but there's no good reason not to see nukes improved more than that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
Quote:
If they stopped doing that, this would significantly change game and power balance. The game is not balanced around fighting things that are +4 for regular powersets. They've started going for this with Incarnate content (where we are now seeing level 55 AVs), but that's a whole new ballpark with more powers and extra levels, probably requiring that kind of design.|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Never say never or in your case ever. Alot of things they said we would never see but we got it eventually. Just saying.
|
Arcanaville is more than safe in making that statement, considering going against it would go against the design goals of the game from the start, and the new Incarnate system. Why would the devs possibly shake that boat now? To do so would be silly.
Yes, there are outliers that can handle it, we all know that. But we're not talking about that with this statement.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I'd still favor getting rid of the crash for all nukes. I'd also like to argue that all the nukes should still be competitive or better than Judgement powers, though I could see having two nukes (over one) as being better than just one.
I understand what people like Arcana are saying, where increased damage to justify the crash would be nice, but I'd rather have the utility of a big AOE attack without the crash. Any power with a crash just slows my character down, rather than being useful, in my estimation. I know not everyone will agree with that, though.
On a slight tangent that people brought up, I would say Full Auto could use for a little boosting, either in cone size or target caps (or both).
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
Simplest buff to full auto: rename to "Rain of Full Auto," give players Primal Duray's signature attack. In exchange for the buff, maybe bump the recharge up to 75 seconds.
Quote:
I'm Rock Crag and I approve this bolded text.
|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
On a slight tangent that people brought up, I would say Full Auto could use for a little boosting, either in cone size or target caps (or both).
|
Full Auto in my view aint that bad, i have the cardiac (the end-reduction alpha) wich gives range increase from T2 onwards, boosting both cone and range it is quite usefull.
That is, untill i got RoA on my new blaster. Dispite the big delay, i suddenly felt my FA is considarable weaker then RoA. That said, i do prefer the sound/animation of Full Auto, huge smile 'DODGE THIS!' move 
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Quote:
Regardless of how you can buff Full Auto, it starts out smaller and weaker than the other comparable nukes, hence my suggestion. |
Originally Posted by SinergyX_EU
Full Auto in my view aint that bad, i have the cardiac (the end-reduction alpha) wich gives range increase from T2 onwards, boosting both cone and range it is quite usefull.
That is, untill i got RoA on my new blaster. Dispite the big delay, i suddenly felt my FA is considarable weaker then RoA. That said, i do prefer the sound/animation of Full Auto, huge smile 'DODGE THIS!' move |
I do get a kick out of the animation, though.
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:
I love this suggestion. That to me is what they should have done to this power.
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Simplest buff to full auto: rename to "Rain of Full Auto," give players Primal Duray's signature attack. In exchange for the buff, maybe bump the recharge up to 75 seconds.
|
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
Basically after the creation of the VEATs the game changed. VEATs broke the mold pretty much. There is no excuse or reason why support ATs have to be crippled. The VEATs paved the way for the dom revamp. As a result of that and the addition of the judgement powers it pretty much made blasters loose alot of their purpose when everyone else on the team can nuke too. So if support ATs are doing so well why not allow pure damage to be so much better.What needs to happen is give them the huge damage increase. I do not see blasters leveling faster simply because they are going to still die alot. Faster level speed is going to easily be countered by more debt they get. I will admit the new defiance has helped alot but its no where near enough for the squishieness they must endure.|
Originally Posted by Obitus
That about sums it up.
The thing that's funny is that CoH is one of the few (only?) MMOs out there that doesn't have high-end boss fights where DPS is heavily emphasized. So the damage-is-the-only-rewarded-attribute thing holds true for most of the game, but there's really no content that emphasizes damage as a specialty. I tend to think that a huge boost in Blaster damage, a boost that corresponds with and compensates for Blasters' defensive shortcomings, would break the leveling curve in typical or low-end content, but it would still only make Blasters competitive with buff/debuff in terms of team attractiveness at the high end. It would even be unlikely to make Blasters (unreservedly) the best soloists, though they probably would be the fastest to level. Anyway, yeah, I agree with your assessment and understand why Blasters are unlikely to get a significant offensive boost anytime soon. What I don't understand, though, is why at this late point in the game's development -- when we have Dominators and VEATs and whatever else running around at comparable-to-Blaster levels of damage output on top of massive advantages elsewhere -- it's somehow forbidden to give Blasters some sort of defensive/utility/whatever boost. I also don't understand why ranged damage still pays such a high premium. Blaster ranged DPS is by no means uber; depending on what set you play, it can be rather anemic in the grand scheme of things. It's only when you consider things like AoE or melee attacks that Blasters really begin to shine offensively, and those aren't strengths universal to the AT -- nor is the AT, ironically, particularly well-suited to leverage AoE damage even ignoring survivability, given Blasters' general lack of options to prevent scatter. (Yes, I've considered taking Provoke on my Fire Blaster. )This is all barely relevant though. Apologies for the tangent. Nukes obviously pay too high a price for the damage they do. The fact that they basically force you to be detoggled, on top of the 6 minute recharge timer and the 20-second recovery debuff, seems gratuitous in an age when mezzes no longer even detoggle player characters. Personally and for what little it's worth, I'd be happy if the crash were simply reduced to 99% of your end instead of 100% -- but there's no good reason not to see nukes improved more than that. |
One of the biggest mistakes in this game that I wish they would address in CoX 2 if we have one is that they get rid othe grand canyon size gap in soloing speed where its not justified. I think this as a whole has lead to the infinite spiral of nerfs we have had over the years. Players should play sets for the look and feel of it all not because one solo's so much better than the others. Kill speed should only be drastically different in the case of blasters simply because they are naked in terms of defense compared to the other ATs. Blasters should be the only ones with huge gap in solo or kill speed. Lastly the debt system should have been made to scale based on how survivable you are. Tanks should get more debt for dying than say blasters. And also for the love of Gawd make debt actually mean something instead of being so watered down like it is now.
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Quote:
Yeah... no, not so much.
|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
And also for the love of Gawd make debt actually mean something instead of being so watered down like it is now.
|
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:
Actually, that's not entirely true. The problem is that Blasters are *not* the *only* damage specialists. They are the damage *exclusionists* (or nearly so in most cases). There are (at least) three other archetypes that also specialize in dealing damage: Scrappers, Stalkers, and Brutes. But they specialize in *melee* damage. Blasters are the ranged damage kings, but not the total damage kings.|
Originally Posted by Obitus
The thing that's funny is that CoH is one of the few (only?) MMOs out there that doesn't have high-end boss fights where DPS is heavily emphasized. So the damage-is-the-only-rewarded-attribute thing holds true for most of the game, but there's really no content that emphasizes damage as a specialty.
|
But getting back to the whole "critters tend to clump up" thing, range is an offensive advantage only when getting into melee range is a significant disadvantage. And if the critters are all mostly in one place, its not: once you are in melee range of one critter, you are usually only a couple of footsteps away from all the other critters.
And even when you look at the tools blasters have in terms of damage, you see oddities. Its the *melee* archetypes that have AAO, not blasters. Its the melee archetypes that have Fiery Embrace, not blasters. The melee archetypes get Power Siphon, they get Rage, they get Follow Up. I find it peculiar that *most* of the self buffs related to offense are powers that *melee* archetypes get, but not blasters. That's not counting any of the ally buffs that happen to buff the caster also, like say Fulcrum shift. Leaving those aside, the best damage utility powers are in the melee archetypes, not blasters. And the *only* explanation that fits the facts is that the devs are afraid to buff blasters, but not afraid to buff melee. There is no other logical explanation. And I think some of that fear is justified, but most of it is not.
Honestly, I think so long as Fire Manipulation has Build Up and Fiery Aura has Fiery Embrace, you cannot make the case that the devs honestly, genuinely want blasters to be the best damage specialists. They want them to be damage exclusionists. They want blasters to only deal damage. They don't care how much.
And not to sound like I'm piling on here, but I don't think the devs have ever actually cared all that much. At least, not enough to make it a priority to resolve. Even when they were crafting Defiance 2.0, it seemed they were tentative about giving blasters too much damage. I have never seen them to be tentative about giving anyone else too much damage. In beta, things always seem to do too much damage and then are dialed down. Except blaster primaries, and except for Defiance 2.0.
Sometimes, knowing the numbers intimately gives you a perspective into the design you don't necessarily want to have. Question: how many targets do you need to average within the radius of AAO before it outperforms Build Up on average? Answer: slightly more than one. One??
Of course, Shield Defense is more offensively focused than, say, Super Reflexes. Is it more offensively focused than Energy Manipulation? Apparently so.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Heh, damage exlusionists; I like that. You're right; what i should have said is that there aren't damage specialists here in the same way there might be in other games. Generalists can have as much damage as Blasters can, and even (relatively) low-offense builds can have enough to get the job done -- certainly enough when combined with buff/debuff support, which is the real mover and shaker when it comes to defeating hard targets.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, that's not entirely true. The problem is that Blasters are *not* the *only* damage specialists. They are the damage *exclusionists* (or nearly so in most cases). There are (at least) three other archetypes that also specialize in dealing damage: Scrappers, Stalkers, and Brutes. But they specialize in *melee* damage. Blasters are the ranged damage kings, but not the total damage kings.
|
Blasters seem to be a holy-trinity AT in a game that has gone out of its way to deny the holy trinity.
Quote:
| And even when you look at the tools blasters have in terms of damage, you see oddities. Its the *melee* archetypes that have AAO, not blasters. Its the melee archetypes that have Fiery Embrace, not blasters. The melee archetypes get Power Siphon, they get Rage, they get Follow Up. I find it peculiar that *most* of the self buffs related to offense are powers that *melee* archetypes get, but not blasters. That's not counting any of the ally buffs that happen to buff the caster also, like say Fulcrum shift. |
Almost as amusing as your tidbit about Against All Odds. Very interesting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Quote:
I've never been particularly good at remembering the specific timing of events in the game's history, but the trend towards making everyone at least damage-capable has been going on for years (see Containment, new Vigilance, and so on), and as a matter of principle I think it's a good thing; the idea is, as you yourself advocate later on in the above-quoted post, to smooth the leveling curve for everyone.|
Originally Posted by EvilRyu
Basically after the creation of the VEATs the game changed. VEATs broke the mold pretty much. There is no excuse or reason why support ATs have to be crippled. The VEATs paved the way for the dom revamp. As a result of that and the addition of the judgement powers it pretty much made blasters loose alot of their purpose when everyone else on the team can nuke too.
|
Unfortunately, Blasters' designed schtick is supposed to be damage and very little else. So the devs are in a bit of a pickle: do we homogenize the ATs further by making Blasters into generalists, or do we blow up the leveling curve by vastly increasing their damage so that it truly is a worthy specialty?
The problem with the latter option is that it wouldn't just affect Blasters; it would move the goal posts for everyone. With respect, I think you underestimate just how much difference extra damage makes; Blasters would still be squishy, but their practical death timer (that is, the length of time they have to survive to kill the opponent) would be cut drastically.
A 100% buff to Blaster damage wouldn't just double their kill speed, in other words; it would effectively double their hitpoints and provide them a kind of pseudo mez/debuff protection to boot (because they'd only be exposed to those effects for half the time). And in teams? Blasters would be desired, all right -- desired to the point where they'd be mandatory. And groups with Blasters would skyrocket through levels (and Incarnate/Invention rewards) even faster than they do now. The game's content just isn't designed for that kind of damage output; eventually the content itself would have to adjust, and soon enough you'd find the same cries from all the other ATs' advocates for boosts to their damage, and ... well, the endless cycle of inflation would continue.
As much as I like to bemoan the seemingly obsolete design paradigm that handcuffs Blasters, Arcana's right: you can't get around the fact that killing stuff is the only activity that directly earns rewards. Once damage starts significantly to outstrip the average encounter's hitpoints, all other considerations become almost irrelevant. And as fun as it may be to point to all of the damage increases lavished on all ATs over the years, the fact remains that every one of those increases has been constrained by a pre-existing upper bound -- namely, Blaster/Scrapper damage. Heck, even the increase to the Blaster damage scalar/cap was counter balanced by Enhancement Diversification. There's no precedent for vastly increasing the upper bound on all player damage.
You seem to prefer a design that minimizes strict AT roles. Giving Blasters the kind of damage buff that they'd realistically need to compensate for their weaknesses would do the opposite. If Blasters are ever to see significant improvement, the answer lies in broadening their capabilities, not in narrowing their speciality.
None of the above has all that much to do with nukes, though; given all of the current inflation, it's fair to say that nukes could be given more damage to compensate for their penalties -- or, as I prefer, nukes could have their penalties (and damage) reduced a little bit to make them more regularly useful. Either way, a nuke buff could boost Blaster offense in a viscerally appealing, but not-balance-threatening kind of way. I don't for a minute think that a nuke buff would be a final and equitable solution to Blaster balance, but it'd be a nice gesture.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Quote:
Why not give them the oposite of Defenders viligiglfigngience? To balance solo play they still are what they are today, while in teams (in avarage they are pretty safe there anyway) they could get damage boosts to become more of a powerhouse. As difficulty rises but their HP doesnt, trials and sortlike still can be deadly (specialy BAF) but they do become 'on par' with their damage-counterside, scrappers and brutes.
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
You seem to prefer a design that minimizes strict AT roles. Giving Blasters the kind of damage buff that they'd realistically need to compensate for their weaknesses would do the opposite. If Blasters are ever to see significant improvement, the answer lies in broadening their capabilities, not in narrowing their speciality.
None of the above has all that much to do with nukes, though; given all of the current inflation, it's fair to say that nukes could be given more damage to compensate for their penalties -- or, as I prefer, nukes could have their penalties (and damage) reduced a little bit to make them more regularly useful. Either way, a nuke buff could boost Blaster offense in a viscerally appealing, but not-balance-threatening kind of way. I don't for a minute think that a nuke buff would be a final and equitable solution to Blaster balance, but it'd be a nice gesture. |
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
I tend to agree with most of what has been said here about Blasters being damage "exclusionists." IMO though they are not the only archetype that has been pigeonholed this way. I feel Tankers, Stalkers, and Defenders fall very heavily into this category as well.
For example, I personally consider the recent-ish buff to Defender damage extremely bad for the archetype. Defenders need something to push them further apart from Corruptors. They need something to solidify them as the best of the best support characters, and to recognize the fact that there is another archetype that has identical powersets, as well as Controllers nipping at their heels in terms of survivability. Giving them more damage pushed them into even more danger of simply being Corruptor clones. Right now I feel Corruptors and Defenders are among the two most dysfunctional archetypes not because they are technically low performers but because they are so similar that they render competing sets obsolete.
All of that said, one thing that can be said for Blasters is that at least they do damage. That is a significant underside to this discussion that I think we need to recognize. Incarnate abilities have set a torch to late game Task Forces in terms of support. The only thing that matters on a TF at this point is damage, -Resist, -Regen and maybe the ability to keep enemies still for a few seconds. With no incentive to play at higher than base difficulty and the outrageously overpowered Destiny powers in play any character who is not good at dealing damage is taking a pity spot. As frustrating as it is to be a Blaster, something like my Force Field/Ice Defender is in a whole new, rapidly expanding world of obsolescence any time he plays on an end game TF. What purpose is there in being a support character in a game where no one needs support anymore? IMO the developers banked far too heavily on Incarnate content providing meaning to the core game and set fire to the Task Force system in order to do it. Blasters, at least, have something to do during a Lady Grey or ITF. Scrappers and Brutes meanwhile have become teams unto themselves.
[EDIT: Note I'm not saying support is worthless in all contexts; I'm saying that in terms of late game Task Forces specifically support that isn't backed by damage capability is increasingly unviable. I still do find plenty of uses for support characters on other kinds of tasks, and for the iTrials.]
Of course, this is still fixable, because the game is always adding new content. We are in dire need of incarnate difficulty versions of the existing Task Forces. One "solution" to the melee overpoweredness issue that has specifically backfired, for example, is loading up enemies with powerful PBAoE attacks. These dent a Scrapper but obliterate a blapper or Ice Controller, intending to give melee something difficult to deal with but ending up macing squishies who already have it rough.
In any case the developers have my sympathies. This is a very difficult issue to detangle. I feel the game does function pretty well in spite of the imbalances, although in some cases (like Blasters vs Scrappers) it does feel pretty glaring.
Quote:
Spot on. Those who bemoan their blasters as one trick ponies should consider that it's a pretty good trick they've got.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
IMO though they are not the only archetype that has been pigeonholed this way. I feel Tankers, Stalkers, and Defenders fall very heavily into this category as well.
Right now I feel Corruptors and Defenders are among the two most dysfunctional archetypes not because they are technically low performers but because they are so similar that they render competing sets obsolete. All of that said, one thing that can be said for Blasters is that at least they do damage. That is a significant underside to this discussion that I think we need to recognize. |
Quote:
| [EDIT: Note I'm not saying support is worthless in all contexts; I'm saying that in terms of late game Task Forces specifically support that isn't backed by damage capability is increasingly unviable. I still do find plenty of uses for support characters on other kinds of tasks, and for the iTrials.] |
Quote:
| Of course, this is still fixable, because the game is always adding new content. We are in dire need of incarnate difficulty versions of the existing Task Forces. One "solution" to the melee overpoweredness issue that has specifically backfired, for example, is loading up enemies with powerful PBAoE attacks. These dent a Scrapper but obliterate a blapper or Ice Controller, intending to give melee something difficult to deal with but ending up macing squishies who already have it rough. |
You might be right about ice controllers but then I'm of the opinion that control as a game mechanic is one of the most severely devalued things in even normal high end content, much less incarnate stuff. This is not to say that controllers are devalued, simply the ones who lean too heavily on their control at the expense of their damage dealing potential.
Quote:
| In any case the developers have my sympathies. This is a very difficult issue to detangle. I feel the game does function pretty well in spite of the imbalances, although in some cases (like Blasters vs Scrappers) it does feel pretty glaring. |
As for the high end potential of a scrapper versus a blaster, it doesn't seem that hard to come up with a very competitive blaster. Yeah, it's likely going to be /MM, but that's a fairly trivial hurdle to hop. Anyone who can build a partially softcapped resistance set meleer ought to be able to manage it pretty well.
The meleer that should raise more eyebrows is the SS/FA brute. Not brutes in general, just that one. Virtually every high level team has one lately and if I were a dev I'd ask myself if it seems correct that one archetype has become so dominated by one set combination. Perhaps other brute sets need buffs?
Quote:
[EDIT: Tone and clarity]|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
I find this example pretty comical because the frame for the debate leading up to your post has been, "Well who cares about ranged damage?" Most blappers should still be able to fall back on a ranged chain, sidestepping the pbaoe dangers entirely, no? Indeed, much incarnate content has been focused on the idea of area denial in the hands of the enemy, and this is one place where blasters specifically shine. Blue patches, polarity shifts, pbaoes meant to one-shot tankers, none of it is relevant to someone who can continue applying DPS at long range.
|
I disagree that Blasters are "ranged" characters. I think they are characters pigeonholed to do damage whether that is ranged, PBAoE, or what have you. Increasing the dangers of melee range endangers Blasters and some other ATs precisely because they are not built to withstand those pressures. In another kind of game that would probably mean they wouldn't be given powers that ask them to risk melee range, but this game is designed differently. When the risk is low or moderate things can work out, but when it is sky high and designed to endanger characters who are much more survivable and essentially have immunity to "shutdown" powers like holds or stuns, it is much harder to justify. When a War Walker falls on top of you, it deals a stun, and I can guarantee that Stun isn't aimed at Scrappers or Brutes, so who else could it be?
In other words, what I am saying is that this is more complicated than just throwing more damage at melee characters and calling it a day. A significant portion of a Blaster's supposed damage advantage comes from close range powers, and if a Scrapper is being pushed out of range some of the time, chances are the Blaster is being pushed out much more frequently.
Quote:
Yes, the design is all over the place; I'm not blaming the devs for that mind you, just observing that the game has gone through various paradigm shifts over the years that make some of the original design decisions seem mystifying in retrospect. |
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I disagree that Blasters are "ranged characters." I think they are characters pigeonholed to do damage whether that is ranged, PBAoE, or what have you. Increasing the dangers of melee range endangers Blasters and some other ATs precisely because they are not built to withstand those pressures. In another kind of game that would probably mean they wouldn't be given powers that ask them to risk melee range, but this game is designed differently. When the risk is low or moderate things can work out, but when it is sky high and designed to endanger characters who are much more survivable and essentially have immunity to "shutdown" powers like holds or stuns, it is much harder to justify. When a War Walker falls on top of you, it deals a stun, and I can guarantee that Stun isn't aimed at Scrappers or Brutes, so who else could it be?
In other words, what I am saying is that this is more complicated than just throwing more damage at melee characters and calling it a day. A significant portion of a Blaster's supposed damage advantage comes from close range powers, and if a Scrapper is being pushed out of range some of the time, chances are the Blaster is being pushed out much more frequently. |
Blasters are perhaps the most obvious example of that, still shackled to a design wherein things like cast time were ignored (and thus, having access to a dozen situational attack powers might've seemed an advantage), wherein range was considered such an end to itself that even the supposed glass cannon AT has (relatively) uninspiring damage potential outside of melee range, wherein Blast sets don't even allow for continuous attack chains without outside supplement (you often need global recharge and/or Hasten; blast sets tend to come with ~3 bona-fide ST attacks, whereas melee sets usually allow you to pick and choose which of the really good ones you want to use), wherein (originally) the best damage available to a single-target ranged attack was constrained by a 20 foot range (now 40').
Anyway, the thing that strikes me about the passage you quoted is the phrase, "fall back on a ranged [attack] chain." In the game's current state, why is a ranged attack chain by default a fall-back posture? Though it's true that range is a defense of sorts, and though it's true that there are situations where range is most definitely an advantage, range is not so spectacular an advantage on its own merits in today's game that it cancels out an entire defensive set. (In fact, and as noted previously, melee ATs with taunt auras can have a sizable offensive advantage relative to Blasters because they don't have to deal with mobs scattering out of AoEs.)
Nor is it precisely true that Blasters "specifically shine" even in contrived ranged-biased situations like the Apex Battlemaiden fight, because Blasters aren't the only or even the far-and-away best AT at delivering ranged damage. The fact that the devs have started designing high-end encounters with gimmicks that bypass defenses completely is not an argument that melee ATs are having a hard time, these days. You could easily take the same evidence to argue the opposite. Encounter-dependant designer fiat is not a substitute for, or even particularly relevant to, game balance.
Melee attacks are given, apparently, a bonus because of the extra risk that they require, but melee ATs are also given massive defensive bonuses because of that extra risk. And ironically -- in part because of those massive defensive bonuses ladeled out to melee ATs -- Blasters are perhaps the only AT for which the melee-attacks-are-high-risk-high-reward concept stands up; the content has been balanced around melee-range characters with significant defenses and near-impenetrable mez protection. Which would be fine, except that the AT whose entire purpose is to deliver damage, and who explicitly gives up access to personal defenses in return for that lofty specialty, also needs to be in melee range to start pulling clearly ahead in DPS comparisons.
Regardless, it's not like Blasters as a whole AT are in an especially good position to dictate the range of their engagements. Even if you perma-Hover, a lot of the mission maps simply don't allow you to float above the fray. Controllers/Dominators/Corruptors/Defenders are much, much better off in that regard, which is just one of the reasons that all of the lovely IO +DEF bonuses that Blasters can get are actually more valuable on other ATs; the DEF might represent a larger tangible leap in performance for a Blaster because the baseline for Blasters is so low, but as with melee ATs, mitigation is more valuable if you have something else with which to layer it. In the case of melee ATs, we usually mean layering DEF with RES and healing/regen, but the same principle applies when layering DEF with more proactive tools like control/debuff.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Quote:
Anyone who happens to be in range? I find that power much more dangerous to my support characters than to my blasters. As I said, the blaster always has the option to leave melee and continue doing (quite good) damage. Assuming that the devs feel that meleers should be immune to status effects is a mistake, incidentally, especially in light of recent content.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
[EDIT: Tone and clarity]When a War Walker falls on top of you, it deals a stun, and I can guarantee that Stun isn't aimed at Scrappers or Brutes, so who else could it be?
|
Quote:
| A significant portion of a Blaster's supposed damage advantage comes from close range powers, and if a Scrapper is being pushed out of range some of the time, chances are the Blaster is being pushed out much more frequently. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
Blasters are perhaps the most obvious example of that, still shackled to a design wherein things like cast time were ignored (and thus, having access to a dozen situational attack powers might've seemed an advantage), wherein range was considered such an end to itself that even the supposed glass cannon AT has (relatively) uninspiring damage potential outside of melee range, wherein Blast sets don't even allow for continuous attack chains without outside supplement (you often need global recharge and/or Hasten; blast sets tend to come with ~3 bona-fide ST attacks, whereas melee sets usually allow you to pick and choose which of the really good ones you want to use), wherein (originally) the best damage available to a single-target ranged attack was constrained by a 20 foot range (now 40').
|
The part I find especially weird is criticizing blaster primaries for having most of their single target chain baked into three powers. How can that possibly be a disadvantage? The goal of any IOer is coming up with a good chain and stripping out unnecessary powers. This is amazingly simple on blast sets and it leaves you with plenty of room for the "situational powers" that interest you. The majority of blast sets also have very good aoe compared to any other AT's attack sets. Look at fire melee, for example. A good build will skip two of its five single target attacks and one of its two aoes because there's simply no use for them. It's a popular set and I doubt either of you fellows would speak ill of it. Why is that?
Quote:
| Anyway, the thing that strikes me about the passage you quoted is the phrase, "fall back on a ranged [attack] chain." In the game's current state, why is a ranged attack chain by default a fall-back posture? Though it's true that range is a defense of sorts, and though it's true that there are situations where range is most definitely an advantage, range is not so spectacular an advantage on its own merits in today's game that it cancels out an entire defensive set. (In fact, and as noted previously, melee ATs with taunt auras can have a sizable offensive advantage relative to Blasters because they don't have to deal with mobs scattering out of AoEs.) |
Melee ATs with taunt auras can have offensive advantages in certain specific circumstances. It is generally true neither that a taunt aura will bunch up every enemy nor that the time spent doing this will result in faster kill speeds. Speaking of self-contradiction,
Quote:
| Nor is it precisely true that Blasters "specifically shine" even in contrived ranged-biased situations like the Apex Battlemaiden fight, because Blasters aren't the only or even the far-and-away best AT at delivering ranged damage. |
Quote:
It has been an interesting and polite discussion thus far; it's unfortunate that you've decided to be so contentious. Sorry, but if you read for context none of what I said is self-contradictory:|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Sorry, but most of this is false and much of it is self-contradictory. In the same breath you say that blasters don't have enough powers to form good attack chains and that blasters have too many attacks. You complain of blasters' woeful ranged damage and the devs' catering to melee only while pointing out that tier 3 blasts had their range doubled long ago. You claim hasten is mandatory for a solid chain which I simply find baffling - the few sets that lack a conventional tier 3 blast typically have shorter recharge on their tier 1 and 2 blasts, electric blast being the one exception.
|
I was commenting on a bias against ranged attack sets baked into the original design of the game. If you weren't in such a rush to dismiss disagreement, you would clearly have seen that, as I know you to be an intelligent person. The point isn't that Blasters as a whole have a lack of attacks; the point is that, without supplement, many Blast sets are designed not to have access to a contiguous attack chain from range. Or, if they are designed to provide a contiguous attack chain with three ranged attacks, that's only because the attacks in question have terrible DPA.
There were no IO sets at the launch of the game, and though it's true that the range on third-tier attacks was justly boosted, their range is still very short, a tangible and revealing reminder of the devs' original premise that range is an end in itself. It was intended, originally, that using Blaze would be an extra and significant risk -- and by extension, that the ranged characters who want fully to leverage the positional advantage you think is so important should be content with chaining two low-tier ST attacks.
To put it another way: A Scrapper Primary will typically have access to a continuous attack chain without Hasten or IO bonuses. A Blaster is expected, per the underlying design, either to seek +recharge elsewhere or to use both Primary and Secondary to create an attack chain, usually an attack chain that requires melee range. Without melee range attacks, Blaster offense -- certainly single-target offense -- was not designed to be particularly impressive,
And then they (the original devs) went ahead and gave melee ATs compensation for the very same melee disadvantages for which blast sets were already penalized, in the form of defensive power sets. That's a double compensation, or a double penalty for Blasters, depending on how you choose to look at it. Oh, and sorry (your word), but I defy you to find a quote of me complaining that the devs have only ever catered to melee ATs; read back through the thread and you'll find I've explicitly acknowledged areas where Blasters were buffed. It's very easy to accuse someone of self-contradiction when you distort what they say, though, isn't it?
Quote:
| The part I find especially weird is criticizing blaster primaries for having most of their single target chain baked into three powers. How can that possibly be a disadvantage? The goal of any IOer is coming up with a good chain and stripping out unnecessary powers. This is amazingly simple on blast sets and it leaves you with plenty of room for the "situational powers" that interest you. |
Quote:
| Really? You're going to say situations where ranged damage is useful are contrived and biased to bring up after what you said in the previous sentence? Okay dude! Anyway, please name all the ATs that you think are more useful than blasters on the battle maiden fight and we can run down the list point by point. |
In the above quote you acknowledge that I don't believe the Battlemaiden fight is terribly relevant, and then in the next breath you respond by challenging me to an exhaustive point-by-point debate about that very fight? Given the tone of your response here, what makes you think I'd be interested in doing that? Why should I help your insulting-dismissive position along by allowing my original arguments to get drowned out further by the minutiae of one encounter?
I'll indulge you just enough to cut to the chase: Do you really think that there aren't more useful ATs than Blasters in the Apex Battlemaiden fight? If you answer yes, then there's no point in discussing anything with you, because we have irreconcilably different experiences.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
I kind of like the idea of modifying nukes based on AT, except blasters are likely to get the short end of the stick.
"Let's make it do this AND that for corruptors." "Okay!" "And let's make it do this AND that for defenders." "Okay!" "But it can only do this, for blasters, because they're blasters and not allowed to do anything else." "Of course."
See also: Proliferated blaster primaries.