Looking for a Blaster game Metric from a Dev

Not sure where to post this, because:

I have been a subscribing player that paused my subscription because I wasn't playing much anymore. Not that I am not longer a subscriber I believe I can only post in certain forums like this one. This post probably belongs in the Blaster forum, but I cannot post there it seems.

In any case, the new changes to blasters just announced seem intriguing, but alone they probably will not get me to resubscribe. I was really looking for the nuke crashes to go away this time. I understand that that wasn't in the cards for now, but that the devs are still considering it for down the line.

My question is this: What percent of blaster don't even take their nuke? And of those that take it, what percent barely use it? My guess is that the devs have access to this information through their datamining.

My thought is that while the current proposed I24 blaster changes are nice, they obviously aren't going to affect the desirability of one's nuke. Regardless of how much more fun is added to blaster via the currently proposed changes, does it not makes sense to go ahead and change the nukes to make them more desirable, IF my gut turns out to be factually correct, i.e., blasters in droves either skipping the power, or taking it but rarely using it? As a tier 9 power, it should be one of the *most* wanted powers, right?

So that's why I am asking - if the devs can confirm my sense that blasters skip or generally don't use their nuke, I will have some hope that *eventually* the devs will turn to fixing them and making them more worth using - hopefully by removing the crash. (Rain of Arrow rules!)

Thanks, devs.

The Devs don't usually respond to questions posed in the forums to them. Even if they did, they likely wouldn't respond to a question like this because of how loaded an answer it would seem to many. So, while you're free to ask this here or in a PM to one of the Devs, I highly doubt you'll get an answer to it.

Funny, because I am trying to find a way to give them my money! ;p

Seriously, though, this oughtn't be a sensitive issue or anything, this is math. I just would like to know if blaster peeps are taking or using their nukes. I'm not trying to kick anyone's puppy here, the way you are implying, heh heh. Or maybe you are implying that other people would get offended, but really, you can't get too worked up over every little thing that people go crazy over - that way lies terminal political correctness.

EDIT: How do I pm a Dev? Or is that not an option since my subscription ended?

Which I'm sure that the devs have already pulled datamining info to find out.

BUT - that sort of info is rarely shared here or anywhere else with the players. In fact, before the changes to blasters that resulted in Defiance 2.0, the only information from datamining that was shared by the devs was that "blasters were underperforming" at all game levels. Nothing specifically quantitative.

P.S. Whether I take my nuke or not depends heavily upon the primary powerset adn what are my other choices in the build. Whether I use it depends on whether I am soloing or teaming. I am much more likely to use it teaming because I have other players to cover me as I regain endurance. This does not apply to my AR blaster, who routinely uses her nuke, which probably supports the OP.

I should also note that for me, the interesting bit is about the use of the nuke from 32-49, not necessarily in the "OMG 50 I haz all mah Incarnatez." levels.

I do know that Rain of Arrows feels like pure win to me - largely because it has no crash. I also know that I dislike "timeouts" where the consequence of using a power is not to play for 10 or 20 seconds.

I am curious what the devs will see if they examine (through datamining other people's deeds, not what we all say on these forums) these numbers. I would feel very justified and supported if it turned out that of all blasters, relatively few actively use their nuke - or possibly even take it.

And my central point if that is the case is the blaster nukes ought to be changed, whether or not blasters as a whole are balance or fun, because an AT's Tier 9 Primary power ought not to be thought of a skippable my most.

And I am not necessarily saying to buff Blasters and their Tier 9's. I am OK if the devs want to use Archery's RoA as a model, **lessen** somewhat the damage of all the crashy nukes, but make it so that we can not crash as well as use them more often.

Either that, or if the devs are absolutely wedded to their crashes, make the nukes worth using by having them outright kill any minion, lt, or boss that it hits.

But I think the first option is the better one - remove the crash, and then maybe less the damage somewhat while decreasing the recharge. Also, while balancing against RoA, keep in mind that RoA is a Targeted AoE - most blaster nukes are PBAoE which require the PC to wade into the fight. Therefore for parity, assuming that you scaled the damage of the nuke (such as Inferno) down to RoA levels, you woul either need to turn it into a Targeted AoE as well, or you would want to scale the damage back up again to make up for it's lack of ranged component.

If any of this ever happens, I would be honored to resubscribe.

Edit: I can't PM a dev about this apparently (because I am not VIP), but I would be grateful if someone brought this post to Arbiter Hawk's attention. Thanks.

Here is the thing about Blasters. (Please Please keep in mind this is just MY opinion) They are not balanced. I applaud the changes that are (possibly) being made for i24. But Blasters are not fairly balanced against most any Scrapper or Brute. To give you an idea why i say that is I can take (almost) any Scrapper or Brute and build them into a nigh unstoppable killing machine that rakes in treasure and experience, wading through minions to Elite Bosses with not a care in the world. There is no hope of doing the same with a Blaster, at least not for me. (and yes I have tried.) Also, even making a Blaster for a team environment is a poor trade off (for me) If i did want to run a "squishy" I get far more mileage from a Dominator for damage, because a Dom can control as it kills. Or a nice Kin Corruptor that turns an entire team into a killing machine and can attack besides. But as it stands the Blaster gets little back for its "King of Damage" tin crown they gave it. The evolution of the game has made this even more true. As it is, if you have followed the Blaster idea thread, these changes are on the conservative end of what most people have suggested will help Blasters. The making the 40 attack actually hit 80 is about the only change I see as useful. The added regen everywhere? ROFLMAO. The Blaster gets mezzed by everything and killed by "the rock" power. Being able to regenerate its little pool of health slightly faster is an insult to anyone who has spent hours in task force combats. That dog will not hunt. Blasters need mez protection, more damage, and more changes like the added range on the tier 3. Because of Blasters secondaries they are designed from the ground up as "Blappers" yet every change the Devs make to the game make a mezzable squishy whose main job is to attack from the center of combat less viable.

In closing, please run Blasters. But do not think that they are 'balanced'. They are not. Run them because they fit your concept, and you have fun with them. But when you go to design something that takes advantage of the way the game actually plays please look to a less broken archtype than the poor old blaster. Again, this is just my opinion. This is just a game. Have fun.

Blue Centurion: I agree. However, in today's screencast Zwill (I think it was Zwill) sort of mocked the idea of trying for balance. Play for fun, he said, and don't worry if someone else can outperform you. (He did NOT say those exact words, that was what I got from whatever words he did say - and he also was quite clear that he was giving his won personal opinion, NOT the company line.)

I am with you. It hurts my fun to see other ATs mopping the floor with baddies and to look wimpy by comparison. That being said, the issue of AT balance is a HUGE issue, and I can't imagine that they will so radically rebalance blasters to fix it. Honestly, I think you could give the AT crashless nukes AND give them the ability to auto-crit for double damage on every third ranged attack, and not overpower them versus other ATs. Ideally, a blaster would be mowing through oodles of baddies, watch them melt like water, until the glass shatters (of the glass cannon) and he faceplants. We have the faceplanting part already figured out, we just need the cannon part.

However, that is not the intent of this post. I am not trying to drum up support for empowering blasters to stand as tall as other ATs, though I would prefer it. I simply think that even in their current state they could be quite a bit more fun if you remove the nuke crashing from the AT. Archery's RoA rocks. And if the data supports my contention, my instinct is to bring that fact front and center - that nukes are so underused as to render redesigning them something that ought to happen, and soon.

I have 4 blasters that are level 50. All of them use their nukes when teamed with a kin (for transference) or an emp (after AB is cast.)

On one blaster, I have Ageless, and will use Blizzard when ageless is recharged.

Oh, and let me remind everyone - the metric I am interested in is how many blaster actively use their nukes **before level 50**.

In the spirit of informal survey... I have 4 blasters.

1) Elec/Elec that uses the nuke with Power Sink sparingly when below level 45 and sometimes when the Ion is recharging. Her biggest problem with the nuke is that there aren't any enemies left to Power Sink after the blast.

2) An archer who uses his frequently although it seems everything is already dead by the time it finishes activating or, if solo, I'm half dead when it finally goes off.

3) An assault rifle who uses it as often as it comes up and I have more than 3 or 4 enemies to shoot at.

4) A fire blaster who didn't even take it.

GET RID OF THE CRASH... make the endurance expense high or whatever but get rid of the arbitrary time-out. But then I don't like endurance crashing on any power in any AT. I think there are better ways to balance those.

I'm going to reserve judgement on the proposals although the secondary power changes seem... weird.

BTW - I actually love playing my blasters and never particularly felt like they needed fixing in general although they have a lot of powers like snipes and nukes that need adjustment. I also think the secondaries are pretty blah and could use some attention.