Proposed Snipe Changes - Please no "Magic Number" for useful snipes

Well, considering I am saying insta-snipes are more powerful than I would like, if you add even more features, I am likely to think that makes the situation worse, not better (although it does mitigate the gating issue somewhat, I want to reiterate that I have no problem with this gate in general, just that I don't want such a large buff behind the gate, that is nearly AT wide). That said, if the insta-snipe animations all got 1 second longer as I suggested, then I could see possibly adding something else to snipes (although, I'd still prefer not making snipes so integral and would rather see buffs spread across significantly more powers in blast sets).

Then I'm afraid I don't understand your position enough to comment around it. You say Assassin's strikes are acceptable among other things because the changes aren't gated around mechanics, but even if a substantial amount of the power of snipes isn't gated you'd still object because of the general problem of power concentration. But you're ok with power concentration in many other cases including but not limited to stalkers. That leaves no logical room to maneuver for the sniper changes, beyond I think that you just don't prefer any approach that focuses on them.

Isn't the logical room for maneuver to not focus on snipes?

This is the equivalent of putting a scrapper buff in Confront. No matter what the buff is, it isn't really the right place for doing anything more than making the power useful.

And not having enough time to get something right (IE: Changing lots of powers) isn't really an excuse for making a bodge of something (And I take your comment about there not being enough time to make changes to loads of powers as admittence you don't think this is the best solution). Not enough time to do something important means it either isn't important, or someone is managing something wrong.

Princess Darkstar - Proud Member of the Handprints of Union, the #1 ranked SG in Europe!
British by act of union, English by grace of God, Northern by pure good fortune!

Originally Posted by Aggelakis PrincessDarkstar: "RAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH SOMEONE IS *WRONG* ON THE INTERNET!"

Keep in mind, I desperately want snipes improved and I very much like the general idea of how Hawk is improving them. I just don't like the extent of the improvement. But it is true that I don't want improved snipes to have a significant impact on character DPA, in either direction; current snipes have a large negative impact on DPA, the proposed snipes have a large positive impact on DPA.

I think the fast snipes should have a very modest positive impact. Most people really want to take the snipe, but skip it because of the large negative DPA impact and the inability to use it mid-combat thanks to the interrupt. Make it DPA neutral and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think the snipes will be much more popular. Make it slightly DPA positive and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think snipes will be very popular. Make it have a large positive impact on DPA and remove the interrupt, even part time, and I think it becomes too much of a can't skip power.

I don't dislike can't skip powers, sometimes things should be that good. I just don't think snipes should be in that category.

Did I say that? I may have mis-wrote, but going back and reading my posts I think you mis-read. But either way, allow me to clarify. I think Assassin Strike is acceptable AS a gated mechanic. While I don't personally prefer so much of an AT designed around that one power, stalkers always were, so I am not going to complain if they continue to improve that one power. Sure, you could have skipped AS, but using it while hidden was always potent enough to make it worthwhile. When they made it a decent attack out of hide, it got even better. Then, adding the focus stacks gate worked, since the power was already gated a different way.

I said part of this was subjective. Blasters (and blast sets in general) have had eight+ years where they have not had this type of gate and where snipers have been an optional attack. I want them to have another eight+ years where the snipe is still optional, just a much better option than it is now. I also will be happy with eight+ years with a nifty gate, that is on an optional power. I don't want eight+ years where snipes are no-brainers and where most blast sets depend on a nifty gate to be DPA competitive.

Its fine if its subjective. Its just that if that subjective judgment doesn't have an explicit logical framework underpinning it, I would just be shooting in the dark attempting to think up alternatives that would alter that subjective judgment.

However, its worth considering this. If blaster improvements aren't "concentrated" on a power, and instead distributed among many powers, that doesn't automatically make no power mandatory. Its equally likely you've just made *all* powers mandatory instead. That's what happened to Super Reflexes for example. And this is actually more likely to occur with attack sets, because of the way our attack mechanics work. There are lots of games you can play with defensive powers to make them powerful but not synergistic. You could argue, for example, that Cloak of Fear and Oppressive Gloom together are a bit less than the sum of the parts because of mechanical non-synergies. But that's much more difficult to do with attack powers. You make one really good power, and that power might be mandatory. But you make four better than average powers, and to get to the intended level of offense you'd have to take all of them. Conversely if you make any two strong enough to reach the intended level of offense, taking all four will be stronger yet without some weird lockout or momentum-like mechanic that makes the attacks anti-synergistic.

You yourself I believe said that one problem with granting snipes too high a buff was the worry that it would leave less room to buff everything else. But if that's true, its equally true that a buff spread out will have to obey the same rule, and whereas blasters could reach damage level X with just the snipe, they would only now reach it by taking four or five separate attacks, and anything less and they would reach a significantly lower damage level. Forcing people to take more powers to reach the same level of damage is equally unpalatable.

You mean like adding a range boost to follow up attacks when a snipe is used?

May-be.

True, which is why I like that they concentrated the mitigation buff into one power. That seems like somewhat of a contradiction, but it makes sense when you think about how blasters have worked and are designed. Traditionally, blasters don't have/get to take a lot of (non-attack) mitigation powers, so if it is needed, I'd rather it be concentrated into as few powers as possible. They do, generally, get/desire to take a lot of attacks though, so spreading an offensive buff out, so to speak, is not problematic, in my mind.

Defenders and corruptors might prefer one big attack they can rely on, but I still maintain that the snipe improvement should make snipes a DPA neutral or only modest positive, even in the case of the other ATs with snipes.

I likely wouldn't have a problem if they buffed all available tier 3 attacks (and maybe Voltaic Sentinel and pick something something from Assault Rifle (and leave Blaze as is or lower it some)). Legacy says the tier 3s should be that really good power, even though animation time problems have prevented some of them from being what they were intended to be. It would not be my preference to just buff tier 3s, but it would be more acceptable than making snipes integral.

It is the combination of factors that makes snipes not the right power to be such a focus for blast sets. They are supposed to be tactical, so they should be optional. The gate is cool for snipes, but I don't want blast set's big buff centered on a gate mechanic (or at least not this gate, I could likely be convinced about some gating mechanic, even though I would not prefer it). And I don't prefer focusing so much buff into one power. Any one of those objections alone and I'd likely be fine, but all of them together is what makes me fret.

I kind of already discussed this, but I will expand a bit. Most builds will already take 4 or 5 attacks, so it doesn't seem like an issue. Blasters, specifically, will often have even more attack powers. Granted, focusing buffs into 4 or 5 specific powers may be an issue, but even that could be done in a somewhat logical way. However, I'd not advocate for such a time consuming review of each power set in that fashion.

Well, it all depends on what X is? Do the proposed fast snipes snipes get blasters to X? Is there room to grow even if they keep the really fast snipes? Even if there is room to grow, I still don't like the snipes becoming quite that good a DPA power, it was just one of the concerns I had.

Consider what I have posted elsewhere:
Is 1.25 range mod for blasters enough? Perhaps it should be 1.3 or 1.4 even? None of those reach into a problem area where the damage gets too high, but they would add a nice increase that could help against bosses and certainly lift them against the really hard targets.

Given your suggestions for the corruptor and defender mods? At least. I'm moderately ok with the current gap between blaster and corruptor and defender ranged mods. I would not be ok with that gap materially shrinking.

That would be true with or without the sniper changes.

Well, I've never really thought the damage was as close as people make it out to be, especially when you add in the melee attacks.

1.125 / .75 = 1.5
1.125 / .65 = 1.73

1.25 / .9 = 1.39
1.25 / .8 = 1.56

Corruptors creep 8% closer and defenders dance 11% closer. That seems enough to be materially closer, so your concern exists, but I don't believe it to be a large move closer.
I find 39% more than corruptors and 56% more than defenders to still be a strong spread, and that is before adding in the melee DPA. When I originally suggested the ranged mod change for defenders and corruptors, I did mention that making scourge be +80% instead of +100% might be a good idea, but back then I didn't think we fought enough AVs for it matter. With the intro of trials and more EBs in regular content, reducing Scourge (in conjunction with the mod increase) is likely more important.

Changing the mods are simple changes and would have a strong impact for all the blast sets. A problem is that it affects so very many powers it might be viewed as difficult for QA (especially the scourge reduction, even with a script to make the change, it is still a lot of stuff that would change).

I do admit I am being conservative on the blaster mod increase, mostly because I am concerned about how it affects AoEs. But even at 1.35 I don't see a problem with some rough calculations of a few blaster AoE sequences.

Currently (at 50), Build Up+Breath+Ball can kill lvl 52 minions. If the range dam mod was 1.35 they could get 53s.

Currently (at 50), Build Up+Torrent+Explosive will barely kill lvl 48 minions. If the range dam mod was 1.35 they could get 50s (and are so close to 51s it makes me stare at 1.37 wistfully).

Rain of Arrows does move into killing even con Lt. territory after Build Up, but not after Aim. I don't find that problematic, but it might concern others.

You have left out the effect of the corruptor and defender secondaries.

For example a cold domination corruptor can achieve a 1.6 multiplier (from heat loss and sleet)

So you would have

for AoE
1.125/(.9*1.3)= .96

for ST
1.125/(.9*1.6) = .78

That is before scourge

I did. When discussing damage comparisons, we generally base our assumptions on damage over units of time. Taking out the units of time makes the comparisons less meaningful, but it is sometimes useful if done with care. Plus, there is value in just looking at the blast sets alone, while being cognizant that that the ATs have other powers available, such as Sleet, Fire Sword Circle, Enervating Field, Healing Aura, Drain Psyche, and Charged Brawl.

If you are going to use my suggested corruptor value of 0.9, you really ought to use my suggested blaster value 1.25 in your comparison.

1.25/(.9*1.3)=1.07

Dropping Sleet onto a pack of enemies takes over two seconds. It is an awesome power and I use it constantly on my Cold defender (Heat Loss adds another 2+ seconds, but is on a longish recharge), but it does eat up units of time.

Granting a blaster can unleash their AoEs a second or two sooner than the corruptor, what does that mean? The corruptor took the extra time to deal similar damage to the blaster, and now both have to continue attacking (unless they were able to spawn melt). Of course, teamed, that same 1.3 from Sleet applies to the blaster attacks and the blaster never has to spend time animating Sleet; I think the team factor matters just as much as the solo factor.

Yes, and it is before the +30% from vigilance or defiance too.

I love defender debuffs (and buffs). Defenders and Blasters are my two favorite ATs. Defenders are more "useful" against hard targets and that is not going to change unless they seriously nerf buff/debuff, which seems very unlikely (and I don't think it is necessary). Blasters still have a wildly popular playstyle AND in general put out more damage than either corruptors or defenders (their popularity may suffer due to being too squishy, but the playstyle outside of that problem is well liked). I do not believe blaster design needs to fear corruptor/defender damage levels even if they got 20% closer, much less my suggested 8-11%, because the playstyle is key to their difference, while the damage level is of lesser importance to why those ATs would be chosen by players.

True enough I must have gone a little cross eyed. But either way I can't see a small damage advantage outweighing the advantages a buff/debuff character brings to the team or for soloing.


So do aim and build up. Sleet and Heat loss provide instant mitigation and in heat loss's case a team buff as well as the debuff.

Are we really talking about having 2 sleets/spawn vs having 1 sleet and blaster ?

Teamed the debuff is even more powerful and that ignores the fact that 2 colds are going to do insane things to the teams defense.

But that is irrelevant. Blasters deal more damage under the same conditions is what is relevant. We are not going to change the value buff/debuff brings so pointing at it isn't likely to be helpful, but we don't need to bring 8 buff/debuff characters to have a good time and to finish game taks in reasonable time frames. Blasters need to be fun, they need to have a distinct playstyle from corruptors and defenders (and other ATs), and it seems it is important they are reasonably survivable as well.

While I think blasters should deal the most damage, I don't think they need to be massively higher once we start bringing all abilities to bear, there is value in being able to bring the pain without also needing to lay out a debuff first.

I play on lots of duos with my wife. Two defenders is a small bit safer, but one defender and one blaster is almost always faster. On larger teams the buff/debuff gains some advantages, but on smaller teams, what blasters bring is valuable.

I don't doubt that, I just think in that case the question should be how does the duo compare to a scrapper/defender or a brute/defender combo ?

This I agree with and is part of why I don't fear lifting corruptor and defender base damage in conjunction with lifting blaster base.

I am not saying I think 1.3, or even 1.4, is too high for blasters, but I am comfortable at 1.25 (and 1.125 for melee).

Great! Lets see your blaster with +33% to hit buff up 100% of the time for perma insta snipe.