Unanswered Pummit Questions
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2011-11-19 19:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I think the idea of lowering the Brutes Resist Cap to 85 and rasing Scrappers to 80, and then upping Stalkers damage is a great idea by keeping them at the 75% mark.|
Originally Posted by Dispari
That's an issue I've raised countless times. In theory it should work like this:
Best to worst Defense: 1) Tanker 2) Brute 3) Scrapper 4) Stalker Best to worst Damage: 1) Stalker 2) Scrapper 3) Brute 4) Tanker Unfortunately, it actually works like this: Best to worst Defense: 1) Tanker 2) Brute 3) Scrapper 4) Stalker Best to worst Damage: 1) Scrapper/Brute 2) Stalker 3) Tanker Brutes do a ton of stuff for their role. Not only do they get more HP (which means more health per regen and more health from heals), but a higher RES cap, and still pretty much do comparable damage to Scrappers. Stalkers, despite being the easiest to kill, are largely considered to do less damage than the leading two ATs. And Tankers, while technically existing in the correct order, are essentially made unnecessary simply because Brutes exist. There are tons of ways to approach the situation and plenty of room for error. Personally if it was my job to balance the ATs I'd start by making Stalkers have 1.125 damage scale and their BU doing 100%. Yes, they'd do more damage than Scrappers at all times. Which in my opinion they should, considering they're easier to kill. Some other options I've thought of would include nerfing Brute RES caps (personally I feel the RES caps should be 90%, 85%, 80%, 75% for the ATs respectively, following the defensive list), buffing other AT HP caps (and probably nerfing Brutes' HP cap since they're the only non-epic AT with a cap more than twice their starting HP). Other people have tossed around other ideas like making Hide and/or AS inherent and restoring some lost Stalker powers. So there are a lot of ways to approach it. It just depends on what the devs' eventual goal for Stalkers even is. And it's also best to take it one small change at a time, since overcompensating and later nerfing usually makes for unhappy players. |
Saddly, lowering the Brutes Resist Cap didn't go over well with many players during the GR Beta testing.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
Then don't we have Scrappers wondering where they fit?|
Originally Posted by Dispari
Stalkers, despite being the easiest to kill, are largely considered to do less damage than the leading two ATs. And Tankers, while technically existing in the correct order, are essentially made unnecessary simply because Brutes exist.
There are tons of ways to approach the situation and plenty of room for error. Personally if it was my job to balance the ATs I'd start by making Stalkers have 1.125 damage scale and their BU doing 100%. Yes, they'd do more damage than Scrappers at all times. |
Quote:
| Which in my opinion they should, considering they're easier to kill. |
The only survivability difference between Scrappers and Stalkers is Health. Base HP at 50 for Stalkers is 1200; for Scrappers its 1338. Scrappers have a cap of 2409 and Stalkers 1606, IIRC. Now granted that's a significant cap difference (although it will narrow significantly after the I22 changes), but the base is only 138.
By contrast Brutes have a base of 1499 and a cap of 3200. The cap difference is about the same, but the base difference is slightly more (161). But Brutes also have resistance caps of 90% and that's meaningful in a lot of situations.
And Brutes can still do roughly equivalent damage to Scrappers and exceed it on average with some sets like Claws.
The buff you proffer would have Stalkers have all attributes of the Scrapper AT in addition to their own mechanics from Assassination. Really, I think it would be better to simply equalize the two ATs Health. Then with the changes the devs intend, Stalkers would be ST specialist and Scrappers on average would be better AoE specialists. Of course, with every melee having access to Fireball, none of them are hurting for AoE in the endgame.
Quote:
| So there are a lot of ways to approach it. It just depends on what the devs' eventual goal for Stalkers even is. And it's also best to take it one small change at a time, since overcompensating and later nerfing usually makes for unhappy players. |
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
Speaking as a Brute player whose main character for farming is a Brute, I'm still in favor of it. It depends on when players and devs are willing to admit that Brutes can do too many things at once, or are too good at too many things at once.|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Saddly, lowering the Brutes Resist Cap didn't go over well with many players during the GR Beta testing.
|
Also, in beta I think the real problem was that for some reason Castle felt he had to increase Brute base RES in order to decrease their RES cap. For one, that led to an overall buff to the Brute AT which was a bad idea, and two, it unfairly targeted some Brute sets and not others. Though there are still people who will not accept a nerf of any kind no matter what, and I know some of those people spoke up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Quote:
I have a couple of Brutes at 50, admittedly I have more more Scrappers. But while the 5% reduction to Resist Cap would hurt all of 2 Brutes (FA and ELA) it wouldn't have been that big of a deal. And I think the ones against it where blowing it out of proportion.|
Originally Posted by Dispari
Speaking as a Brute player whose main character for farming is a Brute, I'm still in favor of it. It depends on when players and devs are willing to admit that Brutes can do too many things at once, or are too good at too many things at once.
Also, in beta I think the real problem was that for some reason Castle felt he had to increase Brute base RES in order to decrease their RES cap. For one, that led to an overall buff to the Brute AT which was a bad idea, and two, it unfairly targeted some Brute sets and not others. Though there are still people who will not accept a nerf of any kind no matter what, and I know some of those people spoke up. |
I also didn't think they needed the Resist Buff added in. Unless it's proven their damage is really that much lower than a Scrappers (so far it's looked almost even for the most part with a few exceptions between them).
Personally I would of done that, and increased the Stalker damage mod at the time. It'd also give people more of a reason to prefere Tankers over Brutes (just a little more survivalable).
Yes it would of upset people, but I think most of them would od realized it wasn't that big of an effect on them, or already knew it wouldnt be, but wanted to stop it from happening.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
Depends; Scrappers still get a lot of advantages. More AoE attacks (even if this has been lessened with some of the recent sets), more availability of damage buffs (AAO, Fiery Embrace), and in some cases just better damage buffs (Follow Up, Soul Drain). Some Scrappers can also serve as pseudo tanks if you like that particular role.|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Then don't we have Scrappers wondering where they fit?
|
Their health/defense advantage is still important. The HP difference between Scrappers and Stalkers is about 11.5%. The HP difference for Scrappers and Brutes is about 12%. Stalkers regen and heal for less. And with some sets that's a big part of their durability. Stalkers also drop a couple defensive powers here and there. Although it's hard to quantify the contributions of Hide and Placate.
Also I suggested raising Scrapper RES to cap to 80% which would help a little.
If the health/defense difference "isn't that much" then neither would be the damage increase. They'd do the same base damage but with Stalkers critting at 10% base while Scrappers do 5% on minions and 10% on everything else (and then your guaranteed crit from Hide). Stalkers would go up a little in teams assuming people are standing near them, but that difference would still be pretty small overall. Throw in the variables of number of AoE powers available and they'd be pretty comparable.
It isn't something I'd do lightly, it would need to be checked out and tested first. I still think it would work out though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Quote:
Actually, mez itself makes this false even on paper. Because blasters don't have mez protection, they are in danger the moment mez lands. So "kill so fast he's never in danger" means killing before any foe can use a mez. And as a practical matter, that is very close to being able to instantly kill everything. Blasters are never going to get that ability, so they can't really get that "kill before being killed" ability designed into them.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
After bringing three Blasters to 50 through blood, sweat and tears, that's precisely what I ended up learning the hard way. In theory, a Blaster can kill stuff so fast he's never in danger. In practice, a Blaster dies LONG before he has the time to pump out even a fraction of his damage.
|
In practice blasters tend to survive not by using abilities they are designed to have, but rather abilities they are allowed to have, to a point. Mez and debuff, for example. Ice blasters survive on their holds and slows. Energy blasters survive on their knockback. These are not things blasters *must* have - Fire/Fire blasters don't in large part - but are *allowed* to have so long as its not too much.
[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:
That's exactly the point. Most Blasters can take out 50%-60% of trash mobs with a simple Aim + Build Up. (The only Stalker that may do that is Lightning Rod + Fireball but that's higher level stuff and again some of Stalker's major problems come from which primary you choose)|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But conversely, if one blaster can take out 75% of the spawn, then your offense doesn't really matter either.
|
The change for Stalker is to make them more attractive on a competitive/very good team as stated by Synapse.
Assuming Tanker is going to grab most of the aggro, Blaster has a better role than Stalker. Stalker has almost "no role". It's the worst melee for tanking and its damage potential is less than Scrapper/Brute and many other ATs (less than SoA and some Dominators). And in an AV fight where there's tons of pbaoe that can kill you (ie. Bobcat in Apex or Stateman SF against 4 Patrons), Blaster has a better advantage at fighting at longer range. As great as Banes are, I can still die during Statesman SF with those four AVs using aoe/pbaoe attacks or I sometime die in one hit (if I am defense based like ninjitsu) by an Incarnate boss.
Blaster at least has one role that does pretty well and I agree their melee rating needs to be higher to justify the risk.
What's left is to normalize all Assassin Strikes and improve Stalker's old sets (Claw, MA and EM)! You don't need to bring back the missing PbAoE attack. You just need to make the existing ones better! For example, make Slice a WIDER and LONGER cone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
Most well-built Brutes can tank for a team. Especially if they have some support behind them (support, mind you, that is good enough on a Corruptor, Controller, or Mastermind in most cases). Adding even more HP, RES, and DEF isn't going to make you die less than "not at all." There's a cap on survivability, where you aren't dying (which is the goal of survivability after all). Once you hit that point, adding more does nothing. Except maybe allow the support to slack off more. Although I have Brutes who can do x8 by themselves with no support (one of them +4/x8, even though I don't because it's slow)..
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
It's nice and all, but this game for better or worse has become more about obliterating large spawns in seconds. The few times where strong single target damage is useful (i.e. big game hunting like pylons, AVs, GMs) sustainable high DPS is preferable to burst.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Look at Tankers. They have more survivability than anyone, yet in any situation where another AT with better damage can survive, having 'superior' survivability really doesn't matter, does it? And the more powerful all of the ATs become (via Incarnate system, IOs, temp powers or what have you), the fewer the number of situations exist in the game they can't survive.
|
I've said many of the same things in relation to FF defenders over the years -- the lack of ST, tactical game frequently makes spreading out mobs via KB and repel counterproductive; the prevalence of +def bonuses and buffs makes inherently having (or being able to give) huge amounts of def less useful than, I'm assuming, intended (for the record, I recently did a BAF where my Trapper was hard-capped for over 50% of the AV fights, and over 75 for the rest).
What's interesting to me is that FF exists in such an odd place-- it was intended to be a heavy KB / keep-away set (perhaps the best, but Storm gives it a run for its money) , but is rarely brought up in discussions about KB by anyone but me (I guess it's because Force Bubble and Repulsion Field are so rarely used); it's the king of +def buffing, but rarely, if ever, gets brought up in learned discussions about mitigation and how mitigation has evolved since IOs.
Put another way, a lot of the faulty design decisions the devs have made over the years come home to roost in FF.
So what if Stalker does better Melee ST Burst Damage AND better Melee ST DPS? Is that really broken?
Stalker is the worst survival of the four melee and Stalker has less access to aoe. Is that so wrong that the new Assassin Strike allows Stalker to do the best Single Target Melee Damage?
It's correct that AoE has taken over this game but since we don't want Stalker to turn into "another Scrapper", we should at least allow Stalker to excel one thing which is ST Melee damage. If Stalker can't even do that, what is the point of this AT?
This is exactly what Stalker is suffering right now. It has the least survival among the four melee ATs. It is terrible at tanking. It doesn't do the best ST damage and it certainly doesn't do the best AoE damage. And because of all the above reason, Stalker is the worst at soloing really tough enemies like AVs and Pylons.
With the new change, Stalker still has the advantage to start the fight with BU + AS and after that, the new Assassin Strike allows Stalkers to take down ST targets quick. Just because you can unleash good ST damage, it doesn't mean you shouldn't use your AoE. If you are Spines, you can can/should use your Throw Spines.
Stalker needs a better role in prolong fights too since Stalker isn't likely to be the meatshield or to be the debuff/buff machine like Corr/Defender/Controller/MM. The new Assassin Strike will make sure Stalker delivers extreme ST melee damage. Is this so bad?
Some of you brought up Energy Melee and I agree that set should just need a big change.
What's left is to normalize all Assassin Strikes and improve Stalker's old sets (Claw, MA and EM)! You don't need to bring back the missing PbAoE attack. You just need to make the existing ones better! For example, make Slice a WIDER and LONGER cone.
Quote:
If the tanker has all the aggro and the blaster is killing everything, your role is comedic relief. Its the only role left. You could have enough damage to one-shot every foe you target, and you'd still be contributing basically nothing. For that matter, all other blasters are also contributing basically nothing. |
Originally Posted by Jibikao
That's exactly the point. Most Blasters can take out 50%-60% of trash mobs with a simple Aim + Build Up. (The only Stalker that may do that is Lightning Rod + Fireball but that's higher level stuff and again some of Stalker's major problems come from which primary you choose)
The change for Stalker is to make them more attractive on a competitive/very good team as stated by Synapse. Assuming Tanker is going to grab most of the aggro, Blaster has a better role than Stalker. Stalker has almost "no role". It's the worst melee for tanking and its damage potential is less than Scrapper/Brute and many other ATs (less than SoA and some Dominators). And in an AV fight where there's tons of pbaoe that can kill you (ie. Bobcat in Apex or Stateman SF against 4 Patrons), Blaster has a better advantage at fighting at longer range. As great as Banes are, I can still die during Statesman SF with those four AVs using aoe/pbaoe attacks or I sometime die in one hit (if I am defense based like ninjitsu) by an Incarnate boss. Blaster at least has one role that does pretty well. |
All this is a paper discussion. In practice, what we learned before the Defiance 2.0 changes was that blasters were dying far more often than any other archetype solo or on teams. So this role you think blasters should just automatically be the best at, I know for a fact they weren't reasonably fulfilling it at least prior to D2.0. And the paper argument doesn't account for D2.0, so that's irrelevant. The paper argument clearly overlooks something if on paper blasters should have no problems with aggro, be completely free to unleash their ranged damage with impunity, and in the actual game were dirt napping themselves into high debt.
Even if I concede the role issue, though, its still the case that leveling slower than everyone else presumably implies a worse problem than not having an good role on all teams. At one time, that was the blaster problem. I don't know for a fact if they still have that problem to the same degree, but I do know most of the structural problems blasters have *can* cause that problem, because prior to D2.0 they had it. And by default, that trumps "vague team role." Being dead is worse than lacking team synergy.
[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:
To bolded: No it's not bad, but in a game where everything is AOE now, it's kind of pointless in a fast moving team. But I'll keep my skepticism until I see how they peform during the I22 beta.
|
Originally Posted by Jibikao
So what if Stalker does better Melee ST Burst Damage AND better Melee ST DPS? Is that really broken?
Stalker is the worst survival of the four melee and Stalker has less access to aoe. Is that so wrong that the new Assassin Strike allows Stalker to do the best Single Target Melee Damage? It's correct that AoE has taken over this game but since we don't want Stalker to turn into "another Scrapper", we should at least allow Stalker to excel one thing which is ST Melee damage. If Stalker can't even do that, what is the point of this AT? This is exactly what Stalker is suffering right now. It has the least survival among the four melee ATs. It is terrible at tanking. It doesn't do the best ST damage and it certainly doesn't do the best AoE damage. And because of all the above reason, Stalker is the worst at soloing really tough enemies like AVs and Pylons. With the new change, Stalker still has the advantage to start the fight with BU + AS and after that, the new Assassin Strike allows Stalkers to take down ST targets quick. Just because you can unleash good ST damage, it doesn't mean you shouldn't use your AoE. If you are Spines, you can can/should use your Throw Spines. Stalker needs a better role in prolong fights too since Stalker isn't likely to be the meatshield or to be the debuff/buff machine like Corr/Defender/Controller/MM. The new Assassin Strike will make sure Stalker delivers extreme ST melee damage. Is this so bad? Some of you brought up Energy Melee and I agree that set should just need a big change. |
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
The other reason why I think blasters really are in more serious need of a rethink is because many (not all) the arguments for reexamining stalkers are of the form "stalkers have less survivability than scrappers, ergo they should do more damage." Even when you factor range into the equation, that logic should be amplified massively for blasters. But we've already buffed everyone's damage so much that there's virtually nowhere left for Blasters to go. If we keep buffing everyone's damage and do Blasters last, we *won't* have anything left to do to Blasters. We'll have given everyone else all the interesting damage mechanics, high burst, high sustained damage, and all that will be left will be tinker toy concessions.|
Originally Posted by Jibikao
So what if Stalker does better Melee ST Burst Damage AND better Melee ST DPS? Is that really broken?
Stalker is the worst survival of the four melee and Stalker has less access to aoe. Is that so wrong that the new Assassin Strike allows Stalker to do the best Single Target Melee Damage? |
Any edge blasters had in offense is now at best measured in percentage points. Its survivability gap is measured in orders of magnitude. And this squeeze gets worse as time progresses, because the *one* archetype the devs do not protect against encroachment is blasters, because the devs have already conceded that *all* archetypes must be able to do good damage, the one thing blasters were supposed to be better at.
In fact, you could argue its the Defender complaint on a massive scale. Defenders often complain that what they are supposed to be best at (buff/debuff) Controllers are pretty good at. Blasters can argue that what they are supposed to be best at everyone is pretty good at. And the longer everything else is tweaked, the more wedged into a corner blasters will get.
[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:
In another thread it was suggested that the Blaster damage cap be raised to 600% and in another the melee damage modifier increased; at a 600% damage cap they'd outperform every other AT at their respective damage caps relative to the scale of the power.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The other reason why I think blasters really are in more serious need of a rethink is because many (not all) the arguments for reexamining stalkers are of the form "stalkers have less survivability than scrappers, ergo they should do more damage." Even when you factor range into the equation, that logic should be amplified massively for blasters. But we've already buffed everyone's damage so much that there's virtually nowhere left for Blasters to go. If we keep buffing everyone's damage and do Blasters last, we *won't* have anything left to do to Blasters. We'll have given everyone else all the interesting damage mechanics, high burst, high sustained damage, and all that will be left will be tinker toy concessions.
Any edge blasters had in offense is now at best measured in percentage points. Its survivability gap is measured in orders of magnitude. And this squeeze gets worse as time progresses, because the *one* archetype the devs do not protect against encroachment is blasters, because the devs have already conceded that *all* archetypes must be able to do good damage, the one thing blasters were supposed to be better at. In fact, you could argue its the Defender complaint on a massive scale. Defenders often complain that what they are supposed to be best at (buff/debuff) Controllers are pretty good at. Blasters can argue that what they are supposed to be best at everyone is pretty good at. And the longer everything else is tweaked, the more wedged into a corner blasters will get. |
While I don't think it's an end-all-be-all solution for Blasters, it does at least address the issue where Brutes and Scrappers at their caps deal more damage over time with the same attacks than Blasters do. For that reason I think it would be a good place to start.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
Guys check out the Ustream right now they are going into more detail about the stalker, dark affinity, dark control, dark assu, sets.
Quote:
They could certainly do that and I would most certainly love it if they did...They could also raise the values that defiance buffs damage. So, there is some wiggle room for blaster "improvement" short of doing an across the board reduction of everyone else by 10%. Of course, buffs are always popular while reductions are never well liked.
|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
In another thread it was suggested that the Blaster damage cap be raised to 600% and in another the melee damage modifier increased; at a 600% damage cap they'd outperform every other AT at their respective damage caps relative to the scale of the power.
While I don't think it's an end-all-be-all solution for Blasters, it does at least address the issue where Brutes and Scrappers at their caps deal more damage over time with the same attacks than Blasters do. For that reason I think it would be a good place to start. |
H: Blaster 50, Defender 50, Tank 50, Scrapper 50, Controller 50, PB 50, WS 50
V: Brute 50, Corruptor 50, MM 50, Dominator 50, Stalker 50, AW 50, AS 50
Top 4: Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Corruptor
Bottom 4: (Peacebringer) way below everything else, Mastermind, Dominator, Blaster
CoH in WQHD
Quote:
I'm kind of a newcomer to the whole Ustream thing, but are they always this bad? I'm trying to check it out, but the feed keeps lagging or stalling or whatever else. Is there any intention of uploading these things later? As it is, I can't watch them at all live.| Guys check out the Ustream right now they are going into more detail about the stalker, dark affinity, dark control, dark assu, sets. |
Not to mention the huge obnoxious ads that block the slides they're showing that also work to break the stream when you try to minimize them...
Quote:
It certainly can't hurt, but I don't think that should happen except as part of a larger revamp. There are some issues. For one thing, the ranged modifier was increased but explicitly not the melee one to balance out a perception that blapping was a more effective mode of blasting than ranged attacking, since it usually was coupled with much better counter-mez and much higher DPA attacks, albeit single target ones. The notion that blapping was a better strategy was problematic because it was only so for players experienced in blapping. In combination with Defiance 1.0 it was just getting players killed.|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
In another thread it was suggested that the Blaster damage cap be raised to 600% and in another the melee damage modifier increased; at a 600% damage cap they'd outperform every other AT at their respective damage caps relative to the scale of the power.
While I don't think it's an end-all-be-all solution for Blasters, it does at least address the issue where Brutes and Scrappers at their caps deal more damage over time with the same attacks than Blasters do. For that reason I think it would be a good place to start. |
If we want to maintain that ranged/melee skew to counterbalance intrinsic melee offense advantages, boosting the melee modifier would seem to indicate a boost to the ranged one as well. But I'm not sure how much higher the devs really will feel comfortable going.
Just in passing, a trick question. Who has the highest melee modifier? Scrappers of course (1.125), followed by Dominators (1.05) followed by Blasters (1.0). Now who has the highest ranged modifier? Its Blasters, but not exclusively: they are *tied* with Scrappers at 1.125.
Trick question because the Scrapper ranged modifier is actually 0.6. But they don't use it, ever. By decree, ranged Scrapper attacks always use the melee modifier. All melee archetypes, scrappers, stalkers, brutes, and tankers, use their melee modifier for all attacks, whether they are ranged attacks or not. Which makes the whole notion of them having higher melee modifiers and lower ranged modifiers moot, and essentially mocks the notion of a "ranged archetype" having a ranged advantage.
Really, what I want more than anything else is an answer to the question "what are blasters supposed to be?" And "they do damage" is not an answer to that question: everyone does damage. To me, its not really a numbers problem. Its more of a "why does this archetype exist" problem. Even stalkers have a reason to exist: they support a particular playstyle (stealth, alpha) that doesn't really exist without them. Whether everyone likes that style of play or thinks the game doesn't need that style of play is a separate issue. Its obvious, though, that the current best reason for blasters to exist as an archetype is to die. That's not an exaggeration: they are defined by what they don't have as much as they are defined by what they do have. They are defined to be weak to damage, weak to mez, they trade "being in jeopardy" for dealing presumably more damage. And that trade isn't a real trade unless blasters actually die. Although the devs don't actually want blasters to die far more often than everyone else, I also think that hidden in the way they see the archetypes, they kinda actually do.
Above all else, I want to break that notion. The rest is numbers fiddling.
[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.)
I was originally going to post about how to differentiate Scrapper, Stalker, Brute, Tank damage and survivability roles, which included an idea for changing Brute's Fury to allow the player to choose a damage or tanking role but the more I thought about it, the more difficult it would be to implement.
Reading through the thread, I saw Arcana's Blaster posts, and I thought that my idea may be more relevant if it were changed to suit Blasters.
So, we're at an issue where the Blaster AT is being marginalized by every AT's ability in the game to deal damage at a relatively decent scale. Or, survive better in order to deal enough damage to defeat mobs.
I wonder if by changing Defiance to allow it to not only build damage, but also mez protection. The more a Blaster attacks, the more difficult it is to affect him with mez effects. Once mezzed, the Blaster may continue to attack, but only with it's earliest powers (as it works currently). Only now, the Blaster isn't just building up damage, but may attack long enough to break free from the effects and continue the fight.
Incidentally, I have no problems with the devs looking at Stalkers now. I mentioned which archetypes I thought were most deserving of attention, but that's not the same thing as which ones should be looked at first. I think if the devs have some relatively straight forward proposals for stalkers, we should hit the low hanging fruit. I think both Blasters and to a lesser extent Peacebringers have a complicated web of small problems rather than one easy to correct big problem, and that makes them potentially more complicated to address. They may not be as easy to divide and conquer.
A holistic pass at blasters would look at a ton of things, including damage modifiers, strength caps, mez, tier 9s, secondary definitions, and that would take time.
The secondaries are the thing I'm not even really 100% certain what in general should be done. When you look at blaster secondaries, they cover such a wide range of powers and abilities they look more like a set of big power pools than a set of powers in a single archetype category.
[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:
At one point I was rooting for more Scrapper/Brute nerfs because I think Stalkers do "enough" damage (but Assassin Strike is just terrible). Anything higher just seems "broken" to me. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Even if I concede the role issue, though, its still the case that leveling slower than everyone else presumably implies a worse problem than not having an good role on all teams. At one time, that was the blaster problem. I don't know for a fact if they still have that problem to the same degree, but I do know most of the structural problems blasters have *can* cause that problem, because prior to D2.0 they had it. And by default, that trumps "vague team role." Being dead is worse than lacking team synergy.
|
It is really those odd-ball combos like SS/Fiery, Spine/Fiery or Elec/Shield that give Scrapper/Brute aoe-damage edge on top of survival. Like I said, I mostly only play Stalkers. I once saw a SS/Fire Brute in ITF and I was truly amazed by how much damage Burn does with high Fury. T_T
I also find that my two new blasters (beam/fire 30 and dark/mental 39) solo better than most of my corruptors and in some cases, even faster than Stalker. Of course I can't make the setting too high. When I solo, I mostly only do x1 (for one player) because I want to make sure I don't die while mowing through the missions fast.
I think you and I have a bit different perception on roles. I think Blaster has a better "role" than Stalker. Both of them suffer from identity crisis because other ATs can deliver "good" damage while doing other things better (survival, support, controls). Unless we do a global damage nerf on all the other ATs, Stalker/Blaster (the supposed King of Melee Damage and King of Range Damage Specialist) are mostly going to have a narrow role.
And also, other games don't usually have that many "stealth" class. Rift, WoW, Lord of the ring..they only have one class that can stealth well. In this game?? Almost anybody can stealth if they want to. That really doesn't make Stalker that special. In fact, I find Brute with unsuppressed stealth a better "assassin" in some cases and Bane is just a superior Stalker in many ways.
I think the dev can start by making Blaster melee stronger. How in the world they feel Blapper is more efficient than Range?? I don't plan on taking any melee attacks on my new blasters. I also think they should modify "true nukes". Fortunata's nuke is a great version of what Blasters should have IMO. Decent damage, mez control and NO ENDURANCE crash. :P
What's left is to normalize all Assassin Strikes and improve Stalker's old sets (Claw, MA and EM)! You don't need to bring back the missing PbAoE attack. You just need to make the existing ones better! For example, make Slice a WIDER and LONGER cone.
Quote:
That's definitely an interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would play out, simply because critters' AI seems, over time, to have been adjusted so as to use mezzes as opening moves. An unprotected Blaster is therefore almost always looking at starting an engagement against mezzing foes with being mezzed until they can build up enough protection to break loose - which is probably harder with just their 1st two attacks to build protection with. They also have the challenge now of staying alive while being unable to move, the ease of which depends on a lot of things. If you're solo, it's a lot harder. Depending on how this protection decays, it could lead Blasters (particularly solo ones) to want a run-and-gun playstyle, sort of like what Brutes and Dominators have now. Both those ATs, though have fairly strong mitigation tools, so I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
So, we're at an issue where the Blaster AT is being marginalized by every AT's ability in the game to deal damage at a relatively decent scale. Or, survive better in order to deal enough damage to defeat mobs.
I wonder if by changing Defiance to allow it to not only build damage, but also mez protection. The more a Blaster attacks, the more difficult it is to affect him with mez effects. Once mezzed, the Blaster may continue to attack, but only with it's earliest powers (as it works currently). Only now, the Blaster isn't just building up damage, but may attack long enough to break free from the effects and continue the fight. |
But it does sound interesting.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
Reducing a 30-second stun to a 20-second stun doesn't really help you when you're dead in 10 seconds.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
I wonder if by changing Defiance to allow it to not only build damage, but also mez protection. The more a Blaster attacks, the more difficult it is to affect him with mez effects. Once mezzed, the Blaster may continue to attack, but only with it's earliest powers (as it works currently). Only now, the Blaster isn't just building up damage, but may attack long enough to break free from the effects and continue the fight.
|
Not that I think 30-second stuns have any reason to exist in the first place, see above.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mordakar
I'm kind of a newcomer to the whole Ustream thing, but are they always this bad? I'm trying to check it out, but the feed keeps lagging or stalling or whatever else. Is there any intention of uploading these things later? As it is, I can't watch them at all live.
Not to mention the huge obnoxious ads that block the slides they're showing that also work to break the stream when you try to minimize them... |
The weekly Ustreams they usually record and you can watch them at any time (just go to their Ustream site and usually the last recorded one auto plays (if there isn't a live ustream going at the time).
As for the ads; well I'll do my "plug" for firefox + noscript +adblocker...no issues for me.
Leader of The LEGION/Fallen LEGION on the Liberty server!
SSBB FC: 2062-8881-3944
MKW FC: 4167-4891-5991
Quote:
Eh, I'm not sure I agree here. The distinction I think the CoV devs were looking for was a combination of strong stealth, which other ATs can have, but usually only with more investment in powers or slots. No SoA gets perfect stealth against most PvE critters "out of the box". But in addition to that stealth, they gave Stalkers mechanical advantages that are uniquely tied to them being in a stealthy state. Sure, Banes and Widows can deliver critical hits from a hidden state, but they are noticeably weaker (+2/3 instead of +100% base damage). While it was not always this way, a Stalker's hidden status returns much faster. And then there's Assassin's Strike.|
Originally Posted by Jibikao
And also, other games don't usually have that many "stealth" class. Rift, WoW, Lord of the ring..they only have one class that can stealth well. In this game?? Almost anybody can stealth if they want to. That really doesn't make Stalker that special. In fact, I find Brute with unsuppressed stealth a better "assassin" in some cases and Bane is just a superior Stalker in many ways.
|
I play both a Stalker and a melee Widow, and I really notice how much more effective the Stalker is at leveraging hidden status for critical hits. SoAs definitely impinge on the Stalker role, but in limited ways.
As many folks have observed, the most discussed problems relate to whether those advantages really do much for a team, or even for a Stalker themselves when on a team. Does anyone care how much SoAs impinge on the Stalker's role, if it's a role that's not particularly valued?
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Really there are two ways to buff an AT, and the devs use both methods depending on their goals. Either one is acceptable, it just depends on what exactly they're trying to accomplish.
The first is just to increase their numbers. For instance, raise their damage scale by 12.5%. They've done this with Blasters in the past. And they did it with Doms when they rebalanced Domination. Speaking personally, I prefer this method because it's a lot more predictable and straightforward. It's easier to predict the outcome and leaves less room for wildcards. It's also easier to implement as there's no brainstorming process. From a dev standpoint though, it's very unimaginative and can bore players into not really checking out the changes, or just overlooking them entirely.
The second is to add special effects and gimmicks. They do this more often as of late. Instead of buffing Tanker damage they gave them a -RES power. And they're buffing Assassin Strike to be useable outside of Hide. The devs seem to prefer this method because it expands on the possibilities of an AT and can make them more engaging and unique. The downside is this introduces tons more wildcards and can produce unexpected results. It can also be difficult to balance, and can even be difficult to prove and compare balance, when there are extra variables that you can't even assign a value to (what exactly is the value of Hide in a spreadsheet?).
Either one is good. But we'll have to see if it eventually makes Stalkers a desirable AT. Personally I'd love to have a reason to make one.