Martial Arts for Blasters

qft!

historical note:

'blapping' substantially predates IO's.

I seem to remember they responded to long ago complaints about the uselessness of blaster melee attacks by giving them a substantial damage buff & that gave rise to Blappers...don't remember exactly when, but it was well prior to IOs.

Agreed, Ice/Enrgy Blapper was one of my 1st toons...way before IOs.

Arent the heavy hitters in Energy's secondary basically a version of that comic book martial arts guy, Iron Fist?

I think I am going to ramble a bit; if after rambling, if I still have energy, I may try for a TL;DR statement (I did!). I partially want to discuss each quote separately but I think everything may tie together, so rambling it is.

First, I do not think blasters should ever be designed with a secondary that keeps them from dying horribly. More specifically, it should not be LEFT TO secondaries to have that job. Blaster secondaries can (and should) certainly have powers that help mitigate damage, but they should never be viewed the same way as armor sets, buff/debuff sets, or control sets. Blasters powers, primary and secondary, should possibly help mitigate more than they currently do, especially if it is decided that blasters should be less fragile.

Second, a blaster secondary's basic function should be melee damage. There is nothing inherently wrong with that core design. Therefore, EVERY melee attack set that gets designed should automatically have the blaster version designed right away. It has long irked me, but I think I've finally found a way to say what I have been feeling. When the devs design a new set, like Street Justice they think about the basic concept, crank it out for brutes and tankers; usually scrappers just need one difference and with a few small tweaks stalkers usually get it as well

That same process should continue right into blasters. But it's not a straight port! True, but neither are stalkers, and blasters just need the same type of tweaks. Keep three to six attacks (generally you keep more attacks if the attacks also offer control, especially AoE control). Keep Build Up (Soul Drain, Build Momentum, Rage, whatever that set uses or replace with Build Up as happens to stalkers). The first tier power (which can often use a concept or animation from the tanker version) needs to be some type of single target power that can aid with maintaining range while not being a true hard control: immob, KB, repel, a push off (fast cast enemy KD, short range self TP), a short duration afraid (the kind that makes them run away), maybe knock up; a short duration (think ~4 second) hard control might work (stun, hold, placate, etc) but may not be preferable.

Then you cannibalize whatever utility/control powers exist that can make thematic sense to fill it out (or make one in the same vein). Drain Psyche, Power Sink, Consume, Hot Feet, Lightning Clap, Dark Pit, Conserve Power, Caltrops, Cloaking Device, Touch of Fear, Stun, Shiver, Ice Patch, etc. are all examples of the type of utility and control that currently exist. The basic concept of the following powers could all work as well: any single target mez, Quick Recovery, Quickness, Oppressive Gloom, Energize (sans heal), Energy Cloak, Energy Drain, Shield Charge, Detention Field, Jolting Chain, Conductive Aura, Wormhole, short duration Telekinesis sans hold, Carrion Creepers, and many more.

Some sets would be easier than others:

Stone Melee. I've wanted an Earth set on blasters forever. I finally got my darks, and they are fun, and I have an Earth Assault Dom that is awesome. /Earth for blasters is basically already made (and could be made multiple ways with the plethora of powers that fit that theme in existence).
1. Stone Prison (Rech 4, End 7.8, 12.51 Sm x 5, Mag 3 Immob for 17.88s, -14% Def for 12 seconds)
2. Stone Fist (Rech 8, 8.53 End, 91.2 Sm, 20% chnc Mag 3 stun for 9.54s)
3. Tremor (Rech 16, 15.18 End, 12' radius, 58 Sm, 75% chnc 0.67 KB)
4. Heavy Mallet (Rech 15, End 14.35, 153.48 Sm, 75% chnc 0.67 KB)
5. Build Up
6. Sapping Spears (Rech 120, End 0.52, 20' radius, 44.49 Sm, -14% Def for 16s, 20% chance of mag 2 KU; 15% End (self), 20% Regen for 30s (self), 8% regen debuff resistance for 30s (self)) Use the first 1.5 to 2.5 seconds of the Self Destruct animation and the targets get hit with the Stone Spears FX. You must be on the ground to use, targets must be near the ground to be affected.
7. Mud Pots (End 1.04/sec, radius 15 feet, 11.12 Fire, -50% Speed, Chnc for mag 2 Immob)
8. Seismic Smash (Rech 20, End 18.51, 198 Sm, Mag 4 Hold for 11.92s)
9. Fault (Rech 30, End 21.47, Range 20, Radius 15, 88.29 Sm, 0.67 KB, 50% chance for Mag 2 Stun for 9.54s)

Street Justice might be harder to design.
1. Push Off (Rech 6, End 7.8, 73.41 Sm, 0.67 KB, -50% speed for 9.54 seconds; Teleport (self) range 40 feet, +1 Combo) (this power may not be doable, but this is concept stage)
2. Heavy Blow (Rech 8, 8.53 End, 91.2 Sm, 40% chnc 0.67 KB, +1 Combo)
3. Rib Cracker (Rech 6, End 6.86, 73.41 Sm, -7.5% Res, -11.25% Dam, +1 Combo)
4. Sweeping Cross (Rech 12, End 11.86, 126.79 Sm, Arc 50, 20% chance Mag 3 Stun for 7.152s, Finisher)
5. Combat Readiness (Rech 90, End 5.2, +15% tohit (self), +62.5 dam (self), set combo level to 3)
6. Bloodied (Rech 90, End 10.4, 7.6875% Def (all) for 15s, +250% regen for 15 seconds, +20% recovery for 30s, +1 Combo)
7. Spinning Strike (Rech 16, End 15.18, Radius 6, 85.64 Sm, 50% chnc 0.67 KB, Finisher)
8. Rebuke (Rech 60, End 13, 20' radius, Mag 2 Fear for 11.92s, 30% chance for Mag 1 Fear for 7.152s, -21% dam for 12s, +1 Combo)
9. Crushing Uppercut (Rech 25s, End 14.35, Range 13, 176.84 Sm, 7.789 KU, Mag 3 Stun for 8.94s. Finisher)

The examples are there just to illustrate the thought process. While designing the blaster secondary after the fact means development time has to be spent rehashing something old, if it were lumped into the design process of the melee sets to begin with, it would not add as much time and the thought process would be fresh and include the concerns of the time (as an example of how that might work, I originally envisioned Push Off to be real KB, maybe mag 2 or 3, but thinking about what else was in the works for StJ, I realized Shin Breaker's animation could work with the concept, but that animation makes more sense for KD, so I adjusted).

Blasters are a Melee AT. When designing Melee attack sets, they should be included just like Stalkers. Yes, they are different than brutes, scrappers, and tankers, but not so different that they should be ignored. It also follows that if blasters are a popular AT, as they still were just one year ago, then you increase the chances of powerset purchase if blasters are included (as one lone example, I have not yet bought Street Justice, but if a blaster version had been made I would have).

/Fire and /Electric are already Melee attacks + Build Up done heavy and I would argue Dark is as well. Many people also like to use /Nrg for this, even though it has tools that allow for less reliance on the melee powers. I know I am going to be looking at the new Psi Melee set and see so many attacks I wish a blaster could use. I like /Mental, but it lacks the visceral feel and smash that Nrg, Elec, Fire, and even Dark bring (which is a good thing, but I also sometimes wish there were more smashy Psi attacks). I bet the new Psi Melee wil not lack it at all (I expect those bracer "blades" Penny has will be crunchy, for example).

I am curious what this means. What do you believe their original playstyle was intended to be? What different style of play do you believe newer powersets (and a player base) are encouraging? (If this was the blapper thing that you thought was a more recent phenomenon, than you already anwered my questions, feel free to ignore them and I will conclude it was the blapper thing )

Since you summarized your post, I'll respond to the summary.

You raise some good points in your post, but I have to take issue with the part I have highlighted. Blasters are not a melee AT. They have melee capabilities, just like the Dominator has melee capabilities, but Blasters are not under the "melee" umbrella (nor is the Dominator for that matter). If you note, both of those archetypes have their melee abilities in their secondary power sets. A Blaster's primary function is ranged damage, as represented by the Blaster's primary power sets.

Basically, the placement of primary and secondary power sets within a certain archetype is not arbitrary. Their primary power sets represent the archetype's primary function, while the secondary power set is meant to give the archetype a three-dimensional functionality, so that they are not one-trick ponies. To use your example: the Tanker. The Tanker's primary function is durability and aggro management, but to have left them with just that would have made for a rather boring playing experience, especially solo, and since they would most likely be in close range anyway, melee damage was a logical choice for a secondary power set.

As I have described above, the original design for Blasters was to have them be ranged damage kings with some melee abilities to pull out when enemies got too close. In simple terms, blasting from range was to be their function. The design of the second version of Defiance supports this, since Blasters are allowed to use their tier 1 and 2 blasts, as well as their tier 1 power from their secondary (which are designed to keep enemies at a distance). When you combine Defiance's design with the Blaster's lack of access to decent armor powers prior to level 35, it should be clear that this is not an archetype designed to survive for long periods of time in close range combat. That privilege is reserved for actual melee archetypes.

Yet, the last two Blaster secondaries to have been released have come with powers that are most effective when used against a large group of enemies. Large groups of enemies usually exist at the beginning of a fight, and therefore it serves the Blaster most to jump into melee distance first. Thus, the Blaster has been receiving tools that encourage close combat, rather than tools to deal with close combat when the situation arises. While I have no way of knowing the Devs' reasoning behind this design, I can infer that data-mining has shown that many Blasters enjoy getting up close and personal, since the Devs have made 2 power sets with better tools for that style of play.

Which brings me back to the why the Devs need to figure out exactly what they want the Blaster to be. The archetype's inherent traits (Defiance, low hit points, etc.) are designed with ranged damage in mind as the primary function. But, as I said, the last two secondary power sets have encouraged close range play. So the Blaster needs redefining. If ranged damage is to remain its primary function, then future secondaries need to be designed to support (the word currently used to describe Blaster secondary sets) ranged damage. If the Blaster is to evolve into, as you suggest, a hybrid ranged-melee damage archetype, then the inherent traits of the archetype need to be modified to fit that play style. Because right now, the Blaster is not doing either of those roles as well as it should be.

This makes more sense to me. Although there would be a difference in price since, as they have made known, it is never as easy as "copy and paste" with powers. Even in using an existing power with the same animation, numbers have to be tweaked, and some times secondary effects as well. The price may well have doubled to get a StJ bundle that included a Blaster and Dominator secondary.

And unfortunately, since we already have Mental Manipulation and Psionic Assault, I would not hold your breath on the Psychic Melee powers becoming available to Blasters and Dominators. The Devs seem to prefer to want every power set to do something unique from any other power set in a particular category. Personally, I would rather have three unique looking power sets (i.e. way different animations/graphics) and have them all have the same secondary effect. I understand the Devs' point of view, I just dislike it.

You speak with a lot of confidence about original blaster design for someone who only a short time ago posted this:
Original AT design thought process from 2003. It looks like this may soon be lost to us, my original link to rpgvault is dead.

Here is a good quote from that article to sum up the intent.
"The Tanker, Scrapper and Blaster were good in combat - but they needed the help of Defenders and Controllers to allow them to survive."

As far as primary and secondary are concerned, I used the tanker as my example hoping people would realize on their own that that line of reasoning would be fruitless, but alas, it did not help. Secondary powersets are just as much a primary focus for the AT, they just come later. Scrappers have to take and frequently (almost always) utilize their secondary to function best. Every AT does. EVERY AT DOES, INCLUDING BLASTERS.

Blasters do not get a pass because they want to play at range most of the time. That is like a regen scrapper who only takes the passives, toggle, and Dull Pain but still expects to perform as well as one who also takes all the other clicks. Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you really think about it), for blasters, you can choose to play without utilizing your secondary fully and still be sort of alright (some might say defenders and corruptors can ignore their attacks and still do alright, I wouldn't, but some might).

Well aside from the fact that you are basing your entire argument on set of design concepts that are no longer in place, and yours is an extension of the original flawed reasoning.

Lets so if you can have personal defense, melee damage and ranged damage you are a tank mage ? That pretty much describes brutes, scrappers, and stalkers at the moment. Whats more all three are out damaging blasters.

At this point its much more important for blasters to actually be contributing to teams, than worrying they might be tank mages.

Which argument are you talking about? The one where I propose blasters are a melee AT? Heck, Winterminal is proposing that the devs have moved in that direction MORE with the recent additions of /Mental and /Dark. All I am saying is that is the direction blasters have always had, not some new thought process. /Fire and /Electric are more melee focused than either /Mental or /Dark.

The discussion I am having with Winterminal is about the ORIGINAL design of blasters. Your point that those design concepts may no longer be in place is irrelevant (and incorrect).

I actually did not find your response to be rude, nor malicious. Simply pointed and assertive, and the civility is well-received.

While the final page may list the Blaster as being "Primary - Ranged, Secondary - Melee," I want to cite a quote from page 2 of the diary:

• "...we decided to break down the combinations into a primary and a secondary role. In particular, we found that melee heroes came in two particular flavors - the big, strong type that could absorb enormous amounts of damage, and the master fighter type. So, we created two combinations, one where Defense was primary, the other where Melee was primary."

The Blaster falls into neither of those categories, so it is odd that the Devs chose to call the Blaster's secondary role "melee." That said, the original secondary power sets (with the exception of Devices) have melee and PBAoE powers as the majority of the options. With the boost to their melee numbers that came early in the game's life, it is clear that this was an archetype intended to "do tons of damage" close or far away, regardless of how they defined melee characters above.

Your chosen quote of summation suggests that, at the beginning, this game was designed with the assumption that players would be teaming for the majority of the time. Having known IOs for my entire playing career, I do not know what it was like back then, but from what I have heard and read, that statement holds true. (i.e. If a Blaster was going to get up close, his/her best bet was to have either a Tanker there holding the attention, or a Controller/Defender there to make him/her stronger or the enemies weaker.)

But the game has evolved since then, in so many ways. I do not need to go into those, you are obviously observant and you know what they are.

Taken straight from ParagonWiki's page on Secondary Power Sets which, if memory serves, is pretty much the description you'll find in the character creator: "The Secondary Power Set of an Archetype is designed to support and complement the Primary Power Set." So no, they are not just as much a primary focus for the AT, at least not according to the definition given to them by the Devs. But really, that's just me picking on syntax, so feel free to ignore that

I agree with what you are saying: according to that article, the Scrapper is a "hand-to-hand specialist." A scrapper's function is high damage at close range, and will function best as a damage dealer provided it can survive long enough to deal the damage. The only way it will survive is by taking and using its secondary power set. I think it is safe to say we are on the same page there.

If the above is true, then according to that article a Blaster "does tons of damage" as its role, ranged or melee, and will fulfill that role best by taking and using both its primary ranged attacks and secondary melee attacks. Like the Scrapper, in order to function best as a damage dealer, the Blaster needs to survive long enough to deal the damage. But unlike the Scrapper, the Blaster is left with next to nothing in terms of defense, and inherently low hit points. Considering that NPC melee attacks are stronger (and usually more plentiful) than NPC ranged attacks, it is only logical that the best way for a Blaster to survive is to use ranged combat the majority of the time. In other words, a Blaster will most likely function best as a damage dealer while using ranged attacks, because they will survive longer.

Which, once again, brings me back to how Blasters are defined. The inherent traits of the AT do not mesh with what is apparently their role. Normally, I'd cite that article as too old to be relevant to today's game, but look at our most recent secondary! Unlike other secondary power sets, that set has nearly no useful tools for a Blaster who would like to survive at range, not even the standard Build Up. (For most other sets, you can say, "Well, yes, I am going to miss out on those powers, but at least I have Build Up!")

I'll say it again: I am all for a bare-fist secondary power set for Blasters. But if Blasters are going to continue getting sets that encourage close range play (as opposed to just responding to it), they need some better inherent tools to deal with it. Otherwise, I would rather have secondary power sets that better "support and compliment" the ranged primary sets.

The design concepts weren't even relevant then. The only design concept that blasters live up to is being breakable like poorly made glass.

Indeed. The article even mentions the imperative they placed on team roles:
"Players want to feel that they have something unique to contribute to game play; if everyone is capable of having everything, it's impossible for any single hero to feel that he is distinctive and useful to a group."

While it could be argued CoH now allows many to have everything (and actually has for quite a long time), many still feel the strengths of individual ATs are distinctive enough to allow for feeling useful. I still think a blaster's best bet is to have a something else manage aggro and/or buff/debuff to alter the odds (to be honest most of my scrappers prefer that too, although they can certainly take much better care of themselves than my blasters).

Are blasters more team "dependent" than any other AT? I think so. Is that a problem? That is a subjective call, unless it is really hurting the popularity of the AT (in which case you have objective data to show that the subjective call of allowing them to be team dependent is not a good one). I stress really hurting it, because there is plenty of room in the game for some stuff that is less popular than other stuff.

I prefer to think they function best when mixing range and melee (many of the ones I witness do, but not all; it is possible those who try to use melee are worse off, but I cannot know which is true across the playerbase). I don't think most blasters should stand toe to toe and trade blow for blow. But they should float in the 30 to 40 foot range a lot. Range, range, melee, melee, range attack in melee, jump out, range, range, move to runner lt., melee.

This is much easier on teams of course, since enemies are not automatically running at you. With anyone else eating the alpha (even if that other person is not actually capable of surviving it, although for lots of reasons it is better if they are) a blaster can get solid contribution from melee attacks with much less fear (Fulmens understands removing blaster fear well and IME buffs are better at that than aggro control or debuffs).

Indeed! Considering my love of melee on blasters, you can imagine how happy /Dark has made me. It has flaws and there should have been considerations for blaster reality made to specific aspects of some of the powers, but the general concept and the powers chosen were excellent, IMO.

Well, people like corruptors for a reason! Their secondaries are much better at supporting ranged play for the most part. As for whether or not blasters need to be improved to utilize their secondary better (or for many other reasons), I leave that to the many other threads where it has been discussed.

That's sort of like saying that Controllers are a damage AT (look at Fire/*) so every time Blasters get a new primary it should be developed for Controllers as well.

Calling something a fact doesn't make it one.

How about "really hurting" the performance? Because Blasters get KILLED A LOT AND LOSE A LOT OF FIGHTS compared to all other AT's. I saw a stat a few years back, can't cite it now, about how Blasters were most common at level 10, and nowhere near #1 at level 50.

I don't care if you make a character that requires a team to do well-I can't even COUNT my force field defenders without going to the login screen, and those guys solo like Stephen Hawking- but if you're going to do that you damn well better give them something nice for their trouble.

A bare-handed, natural-feeling, melee-attack-heavy secondary is an interesting idea for a secondary but if you give it nearly nothing but attacks with small or ineffective secondary effects, you're going to make it suck worse than any other Blaster secondary on the shelf.

You want something that looks stylish and fills an RP hole? Done. You want something that fills a niche and pushes a slightly different style of play? Done.

Now make it something that doesn't actively punish players, from a numbers standpoint, for taking it instead of... well, anything else.

(And "slightly different style of play" wouldn't really apply if you gave them Axe, Sword, Mace, and Katana.)

EDIT: Giving a Blaster something like Parry, melee-only defense if you have to nerf it, might be enough to support that different style of play. Now you might survive to unload a bucket of melee attacks. But those better be some fast, hard-hitting melee attacks. Cause I'm not sticking around for Shadow Maul.

Actually if you go to create a melee damage character from the creation screen blaster is not an option. This was discussed quite extensively here http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=289215

In general simple ports of melee primaries are not what blasters need. We need sets with actual survival utility. Mental and dark are bare minimum sets as is having things lean back the other way would just insure an ever greater number of players disappointed with blasters.

I'll start with this:
So, yeah, controllers are a damage AT, but we have multiple types of damage delivery in this game: Ranged, Melee, Control (generally ranged but with mez effects added), and Pets. Ranged blast sets are not similar enough to Control sets to make your proposition as clear cut. Melee attack sets ARE what blasters have as their secondaries with slight changes.

Looking at Fire control from a "damage" perspective I see two tier 1 single target blasts and one crappy AoE attack, then I see 4 powers that deal no or almost no damage, a summon, and an awesome melee damage/control aura; 2 of the 9 could translate directly to a blast set, 2 more could translate with modest changes, add Aim; we now have 5 of 9 powers done and still need 4 more. I believe that in the case of powerset design, four is significantly different than one or two.

The specifics of my proposal matter. This is not a case where you can generalize my point, take it to another level, and then say my point is wrong.

Sigh. What about when almost all evidence supports the assertion? Do not confuse being a melee AT with being an armored AT. Blasters are a melee AT that lacks armor. They are not solely a melee AT. They generally should not live in melee all the time, but that doesn't mean they are not a melee AT. I have already put forth much evidence in this thread of their melee nature, I am certainly not simply stating the fact without also backing it up. Vitally keep in mind, the primary point I am making is that blaster secondaries share enough power types in common with brute primaries that any new melee attack set design should include blaster secondaries.

Dominators, VEATs, and Khelds are melee ATs as well (the latter two have a lot of options, to be more precise). A large part of me wants to argue this same case for dominator secondaries, but THAT is truly a departure. Assault sets are NOT nearly as melee oriented as Blaster secondaries. While I see the transformation of a brute primary set to a stalker primary set as about the same level of change as the transformation of a brute primary set to a blaster secondary set, dominator secondaries are much different.

From what I can tell you actually agree with me. You have already stated that you think blaster secondaries are Build Up, a bunch of crap powers (most of which happen to be melee), and melee attacks (which also happen to be melee) that do not work for the AT. You are free to think they are crap and do not work well, but all the evidence demonstrates they are mostly melee. You may not think they have enough other tools to back up the high amount of melee they currently have, but they are designed with melee in mind (maybe poorly done in your opinion, but it is still integral to their nature).

This will likely be the last post I make in this thread regarding overall blaster performance. I do not disagree with anyone who states blasters have real issues surviving and keeping up with the other ATs, especially solo. BUT...

Blaster secondaries alone are not where you solve the problem (but that isn't to say I wouldn't make some mods to blaster secondaries if the imperative came down to make blasters more survivable). Blaster secondaries are not and from the bottom of my heart I hope they never will be armor sets or buff/debuff sets (I am not opposed to some elements of those sets being in a few blaster secondary powers, Drain Psyche, Chilling Embrace, Ice Patch, Burn, etc. nor am I opposed to maybe adding a little armor or some more buff/debuff, but not at the expense of the melee attacks, rather in addition to). I am certainly not going to suggest a secondary set design for blasters that goes well outside of the current rules until the devs change those rules.

That said, I would try to make sure most sets are more like /Mental (although with at least one more solid melee attack and I don't get all the /Dark love from people who normally complain of blaster deficiencies; I know why I like /Dark, but /Fire is my favorite secondary).

Ramble on!!!!!

StratoNexus... I had no idea... You speak for me!!!

I love everything you said. I am right there with you on this.

It's funny, really... the Blaster secondaries somewhat bleed into being more like additional primary powers, as I see it.
I think all the players that love Shield Charge and Lightning Rod probably understand and relate a little better to this feeling that some of us Blasters have with our secondaries.
I mean, I think most/all ATs and powersets have this to a certain degree, but, obviously, when it is in the form of damaging attacks (or really effective holds or special powers) they just become that much more of a blur as to what we really consider primary or secondary.

The Blasters, especially... they really have two primaries, as far as I am concerned.

And, I think you saying that Blasters are a melee AT is less of an absolute statement, but more of a hey, don't you toss us aside when you think of melee... we are damn-well equal parts melee and ranged!
That's how I play, anyway.

Good stuff, mate!!

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

At least energy can be very useful if you pair it with a good primary match and epic set that can benefit from its unique features. The martial arts ideas on the table have about as much extra survivability as fire, and less utility and damage.

Perhaps for the people who like blasters the way they are, the devs might give you a free powerset respec into the 9 horrible death animations that kill you secondary.