My "old school" memories (I'm not through the 20's yet on my blaster/scrapper pair) are of blasters are starting to fade around 21 (everyone does, but I think Blasters fade more), then at 22 SO'd damage keeps their heads above water for another 5 to 8 levels. By 32 nearly everyone else is fully powered up and Blasters are well behind.
I know at level 21 I went into every fight on my new Scrapper paying attention, but went into every fight on my new Blaster wondering how I was going to survive.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Blaster have his role define already!
Is to deal dmg in different ways(ST,AoE,Cones,Ect), No need to overthink or to change it! There is no way to change that because they already have it. The problem is that player are getting nostalgic, they want a game break AT like they where in the bigining of the game. Since Blaster only deal dmg PLayer get bore and want to change then but that not goin to happen.
After all this year why ppl try to define the role? They do DMG and should keep doin it.
Accept blaster how they are already
I want /Fire stalker. Because nothing says stealth like dumping a can of gasoline on yourself and lighting a match. -Morac
Quote:
I didn't start playing until Issue 2, so I don't have any nostalgia for what is a myth anyway.|
Originally Posted by Yorukira
The problem is that player are getting nostalgic, they want a game break AT like they where in the bigining of the game.
|
What I might want is for blasters to be a game break AT like controllers are NOW. Who cares about what the game was in Issue 1?
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Quote:
perfect description, Ful.|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
I know at level 21 I went into every fight on my new Scrapper paying attention, but went into every fight on my new Blaster wondering how I was going to survive.
|
I've been playing a psi/psi blaster as part of my lowbie rotation lately and I've noticed he's the *only* character who regularly burns inspirations pro-actively, before he engages a spawn.
Everyone else I burn 'em reactively, or before big fights.
That blaster, inspirations are practically part of his attack chain.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
Well I don't think we're going to come to any kind of consensus about Blaster's role (besides doing damage which is a purely 'DUH!' answer). So when are we going onto the next phase thread?
I'd actually like a chance to outline some ideas of how I'd add/adjust Blasters. There's inspiration in the theurge and warlock class that I could see making a Blaster somewhat strategic but still effective in its own right. And sort of like Dominators, recharge buffs should disproportionately help the classes with the most high powered powers. Beyond that, we've got instant-recharge procs that could also be incorporated into a Blasters' inherent offense. Mmmm, there's a lot of ideas...
Lots more damage and accuracy. We don't have the defense and/or resistance like brute, scrapper, and even stalkers. So we should be killing like no tomorrow. All blaster tier 9 power should not have the crash. Think it's silly IMO the way the game is now. Longer range attacks would be nice but I would settle for faster recharge and a steady flow in attack chain.
Quote:
This is exactly the level of control I want out of the secondary as well. Having small area status effects would be a strong step in the right direction. As it is now, the immobilizes are basically an extra damage power and the mezzes are things like a single target fear with no damage.
|
Originally Posted by Starsman
Blasters already are heavily dependent on their secondary effects for survival... it may be a huge amount of work but perhaps we can convince the devs to amp up the level of control blasters get. May be an easier task if the new amplified control tools are restricted to the secondary set (since there are way fewer of those.)
I always think the Tier one Immob power all blaster get should be an AoE that affects up to 5 foes, for one. |
Quote:
Crashless nukes for all just isn't going to happen. Niether are massive damage increases on AOE's. |
Originally Posted by Morgan78
All blaster tier 9 power should not have the crash.
|
Even slight bumps end up being huge at the higher performace edges of the game.
300-400% damage buffs is quite a bit (500 is the cap). If a blaster is running around without a couple hundred points of damage buffs at least 1/3 of the time I don't think that is using what is available.
Reworking them?? Or just letting them fade away... There is most likely something in the works.
Tru
Great game while it lasts.
Quote:
Hey, there's an idea!!|
Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Seems self evident- ranged damage.
It's pretty much all they do well, unless we're talking some kind of radical re-imagining of the whole AT....at which point you might as well just leave them be and make a new AT. |
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=278037
But even with that, the blaster AT would need an adjustment. However, it would be OK for the blaster AT to be challenging to solo, and excell on teams(as it mostly is now) IF there were this new AT that was designed to solo well with ranged blast sets, and was moderatly useful on teams.
This new AT would take the massive dilema of how to make blasters solo well and still be damage masters on teams and divide it.
So, roles:
New AT= for ranged blasting solo, with moderate usefulness to the team. Specifics can be discussed elswhere.
Blasters= solo more difficult, very solid team performance with ranged dmg.
How to do it:
I actually like the idea of the suppressive fire thing someone mentioned in concept. In a way, the secondary effects do this already, but they fail in that they are too weak to notice. I would propose the blaster AT gets those secondary effects amplified. The effects should be made much more reliable in the case of things like KB in energy blast, and have the effects increased in potency, but reduced in duration as others have mentioned.
It is important to mention that changes to these secondary effects would be for blaster AT only. So, for instance, energy blast gets its chance moved to 100% for seconary effect. It is likely that some of the powers would need to be altered to KD for playability on the team. Not all, but some. To hit debuffs, -def debuffs, slows, should be increased dramatically, with duration reduced. Supression-mild team utiliy through attacking, with the possibility of becoming significant if it is focused on- for instance during an EB fight, the effects of the ST attacks would be focused here and the short duration of effects nulified. Thus giving the blaster a "second" role of deminishing the foes abilities through attacking it. Not nearly as potent as dedicated AT's, but noticable over time. The effects potency could be varied between aoe and ST attacks also if concerns about "too much aoe debuff" come up.
Solo wise, this gives the blaster At a marginal increase in survivability by making the effects more reliable themselves. Where other AT's have buff/debuff sets or control for this, the blaster has less dedicated but built in mitigation. This to me is the crux of it, blasters need reliability. Glass cannon is fine, but right now the frustration comes from not being able to know if your actions will prevent the glass from taking that hit- from your fate being in the hands of random numbr generators regardless of your actions. Other At's know when they use a dedicated power they are giving up dmg(mostly) for that survivability edge. Blasters' tiny amount of built in mitigation is totally out of the players hands in many cases.
one other thing- I think the secondary melee attacks should be altered as well. They should get a much higher recharge. then, the blaster melee mod should be increased dramatically. Huge damage for the poor sucker that approaches you, but balanced because you cant make a melee attack chain(thats what melee AT's are for). This in turn then becomes part of a blasters range is defense motto, by quickly eliminating a foe that gets through your range so you can maintain that gap. It also IMO balances the risk- reward of putting your squishy self in harms way. It turns the odd "moar dmg" secondary into a type of "moar dmg is moar defense!" in a backdoor sort of way.
Thats my take on the situation. I do not believe there is a way to make the blaster both a team and solo ranged dmg dealer without compromising balance. by splitting these two issues, it becomes much, much easier to tweak the AT into a satisfactory role and modify certain aspects of the blaster mods and powersets to fit the role better.
Liberty server
Eldagore lvl 50 Inv/ss, co-founder of The Legion of Smash
3.5 servers of alts....I need help.
May the rawk be with you.
Arc #'s
107020 Uberbots!
93496 A Pawn in Time
Quote:
They should. Making them crashless doesn't mean they need to recharge in one minute like Rain of Arrows. Leave them at the longer recharge, just make them not incapacitate the character (although I think at least the blaster versions should recharge in 240 seconds instead of 360).
|
Originally Posted by __Tru__
Crashless nukes for all just isn't going to happen.
|
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Quote:
Is there a logical chain of deduction behind that sentence and I just overlooked it?
| Crashless nukes for all just isn't going to happen. |
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
Every archetype both has and fulfills this role, without exception. |
Originally Posted by Yorukira
Blaster have his role define already!
Is to deal dmg in different ways(ST,AoE,Cones,Ect), No need to overthink or to change it! |
Quote:
| There is no way to change that because they already have it. |
Quote:
|
The problem is that player are getting nostalgic, they want a game break AT like they where in the bigining of the game. Since Blaster only deal dmg PLayer get bore and want to change then but that not goin to happen. After all this year why ppl try to define the role? They do DMG and should keep doin it. Accept blaster how they are already |
No, I will not accept how blasters are. I will discuss blaster changes because I think its worth of discussion, but no amount of discussion will convince me to accept that the known structural problems with blasters are not worth eliminating. I know, probably better than anyone, that blasters have been sacrificial lambs to game balance over the years: I won't be a party to preserving game balance at that expense any longer. Every archetype must pay equally, and blasters are long overdue for a refund.
[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:
well, that isn't the way it is now, so obviously it can never be changed.|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
Is there a logical chain of deduction behind that sentence and I just overlooked it?
|
DUH, Fulmens!!!1 =P
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
I don't think blasters will see a significant role change. Really the only combo of roles left to pair with ranged damage is passive mitigation, and the devs have already said they don't want tank mages. Even if they did, there are too many problems with changes to existing characters to really make large scale changes to blaster secondaries.
The best we can probably hope for is either a new inherent power, bits of mitigation added to existing powers, and/or a snipe upgrade.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
Quote:
There exist other options to modify the blaster role that have no game integration, balance problems, or cottage rule issues whatsoever.
|
Originally Posted by Moonlighter
I don't think blasters will see a significant role change. Really the only combo of roles left to pair with ranged damage is passive mitigation, and the devs have already said they don't want tank mages. Even if they did, there are too many problems with changes to existing characters to really make large scale changes to blaster secondaries.
|
[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:
or you can run hero stats and graph and see the actual average damage you do and how fast you attack....and can even have timers to see how long until your long recharging power is back.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
One area of ... disagreement I guess you can call it between myself and the dev team - I should say, every iteration of the powers team - has been the fact that the devs have rarely spent significant time exploring the notion of normalization without homogenization.
One area in particular is the fact the devs are perfectly fine using a damage/recharge/endurance formula that we all now know is almost completely worthless and doesn't really do what the original designers intended, but have been extremely reluctant to examine DPA-based balancing that doesn't involve just setting everything to be identical - blaster tier1/2 attacks and PvP specifically. In both cases there were better ways to do that, but I don't think the devs are comfortable with non-linear balancing. Here's what I would have done - and I proposed this to the devs several times (a hint of such a system Castle tried to experiment with shows up in Claws and Widows, albeit not exactly the same). You start with the cast time and the recharge time of the attack. Then the standard formula asserts what the damage of the attack should be: (Recharge * 0.16 + 0.36) in scale units. So a 4s attack has damage 1.0, and an 8s attack has damage 1.64. Then you calculate the DPA of the attack as Damage/Cast (or Arcanatime, if you like). Now, the balancing part. We pick a "standard DPA" for each archetype, based on that archetype's focus on damage. On the low end, it might be 0.8 for defenders and controllers. It might be 1.2 on the high end for blasters. These numbers are subject to debate. We then perform a DPA-compression step whereby attacks are "compressed" towards that standard DPA in the following way: AdjustedDamage = SQRT[(Damage/Cast)/Standard] * Cast In other words, we find the DPA of the attack (dmg/cast), and then we divide that by the standard dpa for that archetype. Suppose that's 1.0 for simplicity purposes: then the term drops out. We then take the square root of that normalized DPA, and then multiply by the cast time. What we're doing is calculating a DPA, and then "squeezing it" by taking its square root. High DPAs get lower, low DPA's get higher. But if A's DPA is higher than B's, its still higher after this step. This compresses the range of DPA, but it retains the order. Things get closer together, but advantages and disadvantages remain. That adjusted DPA is then multiplied by the cast time, to come up with a new adjusted damage. That becomes the damage of the power. Assuming a standard DPA of 1.0 for the moment, this means attacks whose recharge and thus damage imply higher than 1.0 DPA get that DPA lowered a bit. If its greater than 1.0, it will still be greater than 1.0. But its DPE will drop a bit relative to normal, because its endurance is being calculated based on a slightly higher damage level. Higher DPA pays for itself with lower DPE (or higher endurance burn). Lower DPA (then 1.0) gets the benefit of higher than normal DPE. Also, the very very high and the very very low get closer to the standard. There are less excessively good or bad attacks in a DPA sense. But there are still good and bad ones, and you can still make blockbuster attacks while obeying this formula. You just have to pay for it with DPE. What should "standard DPA" be? My suggestion: mostly, take the square root of the archetype's relative damage modifier times 1.1 as standard DPA, with some adjustments for special cases (brutes in particular). For reference, this is what that would mean for a few representative archetypes: Defenders: 0.65 ranged modifier, 0.89 standard DPA Blasters: 1.125 ranged modifier, 1.17 standard DPA Tankers: 0.8 melee modifier, 0.98 standard DPA Dominator: 1.05 melee modifier, 1.13 standard DPA This is a global, massive rebalancing of attacks the devs would never do on this scale, but it would have partially addressed how Blasters could have an additional edge in offense: they would have higher standard DPA modifiers, and that would tend to automatically, without the devs having to decide anything, make their attacks deal better effective DPS overall. |
Thus trying to make an equation based on poor test choices can easily be noticed.
Quote:
You're going to have to explain why this isn't a complete non-sequitor, since this has exactly nothing to do with the post you quoted.
|
Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
or you can run hero stats and graph and see the actual average damage you do and how fast you attack....and can even have timers to see how long until your long recharging power is back.
Thus trying to make an equation based on poor test choices can easily be noticed. |
[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.)
Just thinking about Arcana's little DPA experiment there- two things jump out. First, blasters DPA would increase. This may in itself be acceptable to the devs, or at least i do not think it would put them off immediatly as they could experiment to make the advantage relative to the other AT's.
However, the other result of that little scenario would be the inherently higher DPS, brought about simply by matter of the mechanics. When you put those two things together, higher DPA and inherently higher DPS, IMO it throws a big red flag up to the devs.
Looking at what they have decided is acceptable power creep, like massive recharge reduction, high acc bonuses, relatively high recovery and plus HP, and of course the abundance of def bonuses- it stands out that there is no way to make really noticable dmg bonuses stack up. IMO, that is the one thing they have drawn the line in the sand about(well, there is certainly no abundance of +res either, but the devs have been scared of resist since I2 when they were scrambling to figure out how to stop tankers from map herding)
So, when we discuss blasters, and how they should do dmg, I think it is important to keep in mind the devs will be very reluctant to give them any kind of significant dmg increase. I think fixing snipes is probably on the table, and crashless nukes would probably be ok(provided the recharge doesnt change) but big changes to AT mods or even dmg formulas for the AT are probably out.
Liberty server
Eldagore lvl 50 Inv/ss, co-founder of The Legion of Smash
3.5 servers of alts....I need help.
May the rawk be with you.
Arc #'s
107020 Uberbots!
93496 A Pawn in Time
Quote:
Soldiers of Arachnos don't count?
|
Originally Posted by Moonlighter
Really the only combo of roles left to pair with ranged damage is passive mitigation, and the devs have already said they don't want tank mages.
|
The Bacon Compels You.
Quote:
I didn't propose it as a specific fix to blasters but as a comment on whether numerical balancing has to be homogenizing, but having said that the last time the devs adjusted Blasters they added a stacking damage buff that realistically speaking stacks to in the range of +50%, and they also increased the blaster base ranged damage modifier by 12.5% from 1.0 to 1.125.|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
Just thinking about Arcana's little DPA experiment there- two things jump out. First, blasters DPA would increase. This may in itself be acceptable to the devs, or at least i do not think it would put them off immediatly as they could experiment to make the advantage relative to the other AT's.
However, the other result of that little scenario would be the inherently higher DPS, brought about simply by matter of the mechanics. When you put those two things together, higher DPA and inherently higher DPS, IMO it throws a big red flag up to the devs. |
Also, whether that type of game design rule would actually increase the damage of blasters overall depends on the archetype tuning parameter, which can be set to whatever value the devs want, based on the relative DPA edge they want each archetype to have relative to each other, and the absolute DPA values they want to see in the game.
Its also worth noting that the devs experimented with similar systems twice already and the results still exist: VEAT Widows have a different balancing rule in some attacks, and Claws also implements a different balancing rule (and the misapplication of that rule is what accidentally granted Claws blockbuster AoE - and that change was never reverted). So there is precedent for implementing changes like this, precedent for their results being preserved, and precedent for them being applied in only limited environments to address specific problems or to implement new design intentions.
[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:
The nukes that do have a crash are rather big per application. Maybe not DPS wise currently. |
Originally Posted by Fulmens
Is there a logical chain of deduction behind that sentence and I just overlooked it?
|
If folks want T9s like Full Auto, Rain of Arrows and Overcharge. Faster recharging and unbuffed {base} damage of 200{+/-}. (178-234), (225), (219) {respectively}. Okay {with me}.
If folks think they are getting Inferno or Blizzard with no crash. Thats just silly.
Already without too much effort {using aim+build up+IOs}, up every two minutes, Inferno 2350+ or blizzrd 2040+. No procs, no incarnates, no temps, no outside buffs. With them, pushing 3000.
A bit more mezz protection. Yay.
Some more reliable single target mitigation. YAY!
Sniper upgrade. YAY!
Crashless nukes...
Reworking them? Cool. Just seems unlikely beyond some adjustments and thats a bummer. Upgraded 'counter measures' would be great.
edits in { }
Tru
Great game while it lasts.
Quote:
I think you're going to want to refamiliarize yourself with how much damage Rain of Arrows does. And I'm going to want you to not compare base damage to damage capped damage.|
Originally Posted by __Tru__
The nukes that do have a crash are rather big per application. Maybe not DPS wise currently.
If folks want T9s like Full Auto, Rain of Arrows and Overcharge. Faster recharging and unbuffed damage of 200. (178-234), (225), (219). Okay. If folks think they are getting Inferno or Blizzard with no crash. Thats just silly. Already without too much effort, up every two minutes, Inferno 2350+ or blizzrd 2040+. No procs, no incarnates, no temps, no outside buffs. With them, pushing 3000. A bit more mezz protection. Yay. Some more reliable single target mitigation. YAY! Sniper upgrade. YAY! Crashless nukes... Reworking them? Cool. Just seems unlikely beyond some adjustments and thats a bummer. Upgraded 'counter measures' would be great. |
Blizzard does more damage than any other tier 9 by design, because it delivers that damage over time. Inferno does bonus damage above the base due to Fire's ubiquitous DoT. But Inferno doesn't have a longer recharge than Nova or Thunderous Blast for having that DoT, just as no other fire attack pays for its DoT damage.
A better comparison would be to Nova, which has no bonus DoT. Nova does 4.875 base damage on average, given the chance for each wave to trigger. Rain of Arrows does 3.6 on a normalized damage scale. On average, therefore, RoA does 74% of the damage of Nova, while recharging six times faster.
Now, you think Nova is *supposed* to have the crash, because of its awesome damage? Well lets test that theory. If Nova was just any attack it would have an AoE factor of 4.75, and deal 4.875 average base damage. That implies it should cost about 120 points of endurance according to the damage/recharge/endurance formula.
Nova actually costs 20.8 end to activate it, then crashes to zero, then suppresses recovery for 20 seconds. Since you can't activate it if you have less than 20.8 end, the average amount of end you could have upon activation is (100+20.8)/2 = 60.4. The average endurance burn of the power is thus about 60.4 endurance. Then, the cost of suppressing recovery for 20 seconds is the same as normal recovery for 20 seconds. Since stamina is now inherent, we'll presume 3-slot stamina on average, and normal recovery for 20 seconds is 100/60 * (1 + 0.25 * 1.95) * 20 = 49.6 endurance.
Therefore, the net total endurance cost on average for Nova is 60.4 + 49.6 = 110.
This assumes *none* of the damage Nova does is in any way bonus damage that doesn't count under the formula. Such as the boosted criticals of many Scrapper tier 9 attacks. And this is for the power that is probably most analogous to defensive set tier 9 powers, all of which are designed to be *better* than normal powers, not worse.
What's more, normal powers' endurance costs can be slotted for endurance reduction. If Nova's calculated end cost is 120, then it ought to be possible to at least single-slot that cost down to 90 end. But its not. At best you can slot for end reduction and shift the initial cost downward, reducing the total cost by about 2.6 end to about 107.4. By the rules the game launched under, Nova's endurance cost is about 17.4 endurance too high. Another way of putting that is that the crash is about 1/3rd too long: it should be no more than 13 seconds long, not 20.
And lets see what happens when you look at recharge. What should Nova's recharge be, if it followed the formula? Also easy to calculate: (4.875 * 4.75 - 0.36)/0.16 = 142.5.
In other words, just for Nova to follow the formula - and it should do better than that - its crash should be cut by a third and its recharge should be cut *to* about a third its current value. That's just to break even with the rules the devs are supposed to follow.
So the rationale for why the crashing nukes crash is apparently that Blasters are such dangerous high-performing characters that the devs had to take their most powerful attack and triple its recharge and increase its endurance cost, and do so in a way that made the most vulnerable archetype even more vulnerable for an extended period of time.
I would like to see someone attempt to make this case objectively, as opposed to just matter-of-factly.
[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 trying to over generalize I guess and be brief.
Tru
Great game while it lasts.
Quote:
This isnt objective like you want, but...|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I think you're going to want to refamiliarize yourself with how much damage Rain of Arrows does. And I'm going to want you to not compare base damage to damage capped damage.
Blizzard does more damage than any other tier 9 by design, because it delivers that damage over time. Inferno does bonus damage above the base due to Fire's ubiquitous DoT. But Inferno doesn't have a longer recharge than Nova or Thunderous Blast for having that DoT, just as no other fire attack pays for its DoT damage. A better comparison would be to Nova, which has no bonus DoT. Nova does 4.875 base damage on average, given the chance for each wave to trigger. Rain of Arrows does 3.6 on a normalized damage scale. On average, therefore, RoA does 74% of the damage of Nova, while recharging six times faster. Now, you think Nova is *supposed* to have the crash, because of its awesome damage? Well lets test that theory. If Nova was just any attack it would have an AoE factor of 4.75, and deal 4.875 average base damage. That implies it should cost about 120 points of endurance according to the damage/recharge/endurance formula. Nova actually costs 20.8 end to activate it, then crashes to zero, then suppresses recovery for 20 seconds. Since you can't activate it if you have less than 20.8 end, the average amount of end you could have upon activation is (100+20.8)/2 = 60.4. The average endurance burn of the power is thus about 60.4 endurance. Then, the cost of suppressing recovery for 20 seconds is the same as normal recovery for 20 seconds. Since stamina is now inherent, we'll presume 3-slot stamina on average, and normal recovery for 20 seconds is 100/60 * (1 + 0.25 * 1.95) * 20 = 49.6 endurance. Therefore, the net total endurance cost on average for Nova is 60.4 + 49.6 = 110. This assumes *none* of the damage Nova does is in any way bonus damage that doesn't count under the formula. Such as the boosted criticals of many Scrapper tier 9 attacks. And this is for the power that is probably most analogous to defensive set tier 9 powers, all of which are designed to be *better* than normal powers, not worse. What's more, normal powers' endurance costs can be slotted for endurance reduction. If Nova's calculated end cost is 120, then it ought to be possible to at least single-slot that cost down to 90 end. But its not. At best you can slot for end reduction and shift the initial cost downward, reducing the total cost by about 2.6 end to about 107.4. By the rules the game launched under, Nova's endurance cost is about 17.4 endurance too high. Another way of putting that is that the crash is about 1/3rd too long: it should be no more than 13 seconds long, not 20. And lets see what happens when you look at recharge. What should Nova's recharge be, if it followed the formula? Also easy to calculate: (4.875 * 4.75 - 0.36)/0.16 = 142.5. In other words, just for Nova to follow the formula - and it should do better than that - its crash should be cut by a third and its recharge should be cut *to* about a third its current value. That's just to break even with the rules the devs are supposed to follow. So the rationale for why the crashing nukes crash is apparently that Blasters are such dangerous high-performing characters that the devs had to take their most powerful attack and triple its recharge and increase its endurance cost, and do so in a way that made the most vulnerable archetype even more vulnerable for an extended period of time. I would like to see someone attempt to make this case objectively, as opposed to just matter-of-factly. |
The devs are scared of "too much dmg" like they are of "too much resist". I am with you, the current nukes are wrong. but man, they have been wrong for a long time. I usually lump stuff like this together and call it "still in time out from issue 3" . In this specific case, time out was applied because players were wiping plus 6 and 7 spawns, solo, on a blaster, with inferno and blizzard in brickstown and creys folly. Solo blasters one shotting spawns in hazard zones designed for full teams? ZOMG nukes are so broken!! Naughty!! Time out for you!!
And then like 7 years later poor nukes are forgotten. On the bright side, if we wait a few more years, nukes will be old enough to jimmy the lock on the door and sneak outside and steal the devs car and get away by themselves.
Liberty server
Eldagore lvl 50 Inv/ss, co-founder of The Legion of Smash
3.5 servers of alts....I need help.
May the rawk be with you.
Arc #'s
107020 Uberbots!
93496 A Pawn in Time
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.