By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2012-07-12 15:30 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Targeting drone already increases the power of snipes for devices.
|
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
No it doesn't. It increases the damage of Sniper Rifle but not the snipes in other sets (and even for Sniper Rifle it's only a 19.4% damage buff).
|
I like what ClawsandEffect said. I rebuilt my AR Device for this up coming changes and if they go through I have to say I'm happy to see Device get a bump. But regardless, if these changes never happen my AR Device toon is much, much better off then it was a month ago running the old build. All this did was open the door to something else, if and when it comes out.
My issue is I think they used this Sniper changes to give Device a bump and to me that is the wrong way to go about it.
I think Device should be addressed separately and apart of any Sniper Changes.
Sadly some players don't get it and will ruin perfectly good builds in an attempt to achieve this goal.
Has it occurred to anyone else that certain ATs and powersets being able to fast snipe all the time while others can't was intentional?
Which is more valuable to an Assault Rifle character:
1) The ability to fast snipe whenever they want.
-or-
2) The ability to use Build Up before Full Auto?
Electric/Devices was seen as the most gimped Blaster combo possible....now it will actually be able to put out respectable single target damage.
This change will also give Devices ONE THING it is better at than any other Blaster secondary.
Are you all really so selfish that YOUR secondary must remain superior to Devices in every way? Lets look at Devices' drawbacks:
-Devices doesn't get Build Up to use before a big AoE, including the soon-to-be-no-longer-crashing nukes.
-It doesn't get any powers that are useful on a fast paced team.
-Its ST immobilize is the only one in a Blaster set that deals no damage.
-It gets no melee abilities whatsoever.
-Its survivability is almost entirely dependent on remaining undetected while setting up the battlefield. One Rikti Drone = advantage gone.
-Its final 2 powers are widely viewed as 2 of the worst powers in the entire game.
-The most widely used power in the set is an area denial power that deals nearly no damage at all.
-In order to actually be useful, Devices demands a much slower playstyle than other secondaries. This leads to Devices players either leveling slower, or outright ignoring their secondary the vast majority of the time.
Devices has ALL those things going against it, and you're complaining that it isn't fair that it gets to have permanent fast snipes. As of i24 that will be the ONLY thing it has that another secondary cannot do better. And other secondaries will still deal more damage with their fast snipe, because it will come with a +100% damage boost when Build Up is used to get it.
I don't think the Snipe thing was deliberately used to give Devices a bump while shafting other sets. If that was their intention they would have just attached the fast snipe mechanic to Targeting Drone specifically, instead of making it any time your to-hit bonus is above 22%.
Seems to me like fast snipes weren't meant to be an all the time thing for the sets reliant on Aim and Build Up to achieve it. Those sets have huge advantages over Devices in just about every other category. So why can't you let Devices finally be better at something than other sets? Why is it so important that everyone else have the same ability as a set that has been regarded as a joke for 6 years? Can't you let the people who have continued to play Devices in the face of your derision have this one thing without wanting the same toy for yourself?
"Waaaah! Devices gets something we don't!"
Yes, they do. Now stop and look at all the things you get that they don't. Does it still seem unfair? Not from where I'm standing.
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Has it occurred to anyone else that certain ATs and powersets being able to fast snipe all the time while others can't was intentional?
|
I like Adeon's suggestion. (I nearly suggested the same, but the thought needed more time to ferment.)
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Seems to me like fast snipes weren't meant to be an all the time thing for the sets reliant on Aim and Build Up to achieve it. Those sets have huge advantages over Devices in just about every other category. So why can't you let Devices finally be better at something than other sets? Why is it so important that everyone else have the same ability as a set that has been regarded as a joke for 6 years? Can't you let the people who have continued to play Devices in the face of your derision have this one thing without wanting the same toy for yourself?
|
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
Snipe changes: For blast sets. AT be damned, if this change was separated by 6 issues from the other blaster changes, and the devs had never mentioned blaster AT improvments, maybe then there would be a chance people could look at this objectively instead of constantly muddying the waters.
Blaster AT survivability changes: For blasters. These are the changes being made because blasters die. Not fast snipes. Repeat: Fast snipes are not being created to assist blasters in surviving. Fast snipes are not being made for "just blasters" in any way shape or form. They are being made for all blast set users, and as such, all changes to snipes are being considered ENTIRELY outside of the realm of blaster survivability changes, because: Fast snipes are for all AT's that use blast sets and are given balance considerations as such.
Crashless nukes: A welcome change for blast sets, being done because players do not like the function of relic designed blast powers. Newer nukes have been designed without a crash, old ones are getting converted into the new. Note: Crashless nukes are not being done for blaster survivability. They are also not being done "just because of blasters". It is a blast set change, for all AT's that use a blast set, so it will be balanced in this fashion.
To summarize:
Snipes and nukes are changes to blast sets, COMPLETELY SEPERATE to other I24 changes.
Blaster AT changes are changes to JUST blasters, because they die a lot.
I am so sick of "blasters should get perma fast snipe cause they need more help" mindless drivel. You are correct!! They do need help!! THATS WHY THEY ARE GETTING CHANGES TO THEIR SECONDARIES!!! man i hope the dev team can take all this illogical, non- objective feedback being spewed on the forums and sift it out, otherwise we are going to get a watered down meh change that leaves snipes, blasters, and nukes in the same uninspired rut they are in now.
|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
I am so sick of "blasters should get perma fast snipe cause they need more help" mindless drivel. You are correct!! They do need help!! THATS WHY THEY ARE GETTING CHANGES TO THEIR SECONDARIES!!! man i hope the dev team can take all this illogical, non- objective feedback being spewed on the forums and sift it out, otherwise we are going to get a watered down meh change that leaves snipes, blasters, and nukes in the same uninspired rut they are in now.
|
|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
Snipe changes: For blast sets. AT be damned, if this change was separated by 6 issues from the other blaster changes, and the devs had never mentioned blaster AT improvments, maybe then there would be a chance people could look at this objectively instead of constantly muddying the waters.
|
| I am so sick of "blasters should get perma fast snipe cause they need more help" mindless drivel. You are correct!! They do need help!! THATS WHY THEY ARE GETTING CHANGES TO THEIR SECONDARIES!!! man i hope the dev team can take all this illogical, non- objective feedback being spewed on the forums and sift it out, otherwise we are going to get a watered down meh change that leaves snipes, blasters, and nukes in the same uninspired rut they are in now. |
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
EDIT: I'm also not a fan of having AT specific ToHit bars since that would end up favoring Time Manipulation which has the ability to stack Farsight and Tactics.
|
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
EDIT: I'm also not a fan of having AT specific ToHit bars since that would end up favoring Time Manipulation which has the ability to stack Farsight and Tactics.
|
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
One would still be prompted to wonder why the Snipe changes are practically tailor-made to benefit Corrupters and Defenders more than Blasters, when the former ATs are notoriously too good (per Developer statements over the years), and the latter AT has been riding the short bus for lo these many years.
Unless you can explain why the Snipe changes should benefit support ATs more than Blasters, your point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the change is explicitly aimed at Blasters or not; the change should still make sense within the context of the existing balance framework. The Blaster Secondary buffs are a welcome change, but we have no reasonable expectation that they will be sufficient, in and of themselves, to correct the existing balance problem, which is that Blast sets (yes, sets) have been unduly penalized since day one, relative to their melee counterparts. The reason that Blasters are particularly injured by that design flaw is that Blasters don't have the supplemental resources of other blasting ATs. Blasters deserve special attention, and an Energize-style regeneration buff ain't gonna do the job by itself. You correctly identified the nuke changes as a general buff for blast sets, not particular to Blasters. So if the rest of us really are just too stupid to understand the difference between a blast-set buff and a Blaster-specific buff, then why aren't people complaining about the nuke changes? I'll tell you: because in the case of nukes, the general buff is generally and evenly applied to all relevant ATs. Huh. Maybe people not named Eldagore can identify the blindingly obvious, after all. Baseless insults are an excellent way to emphasize your intellectual superiority. Bonus points if you make an unsupportable, doom-crying prediction after accusing other people of irrationality. |
|
Originally Posted by Another_Fan
Also pain which has world of pain
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
NB: Time Manipulation is also unusually well-insulated against ToHit debuffs, due to its obscene +DEF values. Likewise, support ATs in general are less likely to get hit by fast-snipe-disabling ToHit debuffs than Blasters are.
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
You correctly identified the nuke changes as a general buff for blast sets, not particular to Blasters. So if the rest of us really are just too stupid to understand the difference between a blast-set buff and a Blaster-specific buff, then why aren't people complaining about the nuke changes? I'll tell you: because in the case of nukes, the general buff is generally and evenly applied to all relevant ATs.
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
Siphon Power, Sleet, Freezing Rain, Enervating Field, Fulcrum Shift, Tar Patch, Melt Armor, Slowed Response, Acid Mortar, Acid Arrow, Disruption Arrow -- just to name a few powers that leap to mind.
Support ATs lack Build Up? That's a shame. |
|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
Funny that isnt it, how a support AT would have an easier time getting perma snipes, USING TEAM BASED POWERS, so you know, they would have an easy way to grant that same bonus to every snipe user on the team, thus, supporting the team. Crazy stuff.
|
| I have stated in other threads that IMO, the devs do not consider a boost to ST DPS to be a major event. |
| As for the blaster changes, the dev team has already stated if the proposed changes end up falling short, then they will add more buffage until they do not fall short any longer. |
| This is why they should be considered objectively, not as some kind of tag along to crashless nukes and snipe changes. |
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
You keep using the word, "Objectively," as if your invoking the concept of objectivity automatically renders any disagreement subjective. That's not how it works. You brought up a point that is only tenuously relevant to the topic at hand -- namely, that the snipe changes are not explicitly targeted at Blasters in particular -- and then declared everyone who doesn't like the Snipe changes an irrational fool for not understanding the blindingly obvious. The problem? Your point does nothing to address the appropriateness of the Snipe buff.
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
As to why the issue is important? Because Blasters have been bottom of the barrel pretty much continuously for eight years (the Smoke Grenade hiccough at the beginning notwithstanding). It'd be nice if the buffs that are rightfully targeted at Blasters actually reach Blasters, instead of arbitrarily buffing two support ATs that were already just fine. Personally, I don't give a rat's furry rear end whether any Snipe buff goes through to the live servers; what's important here is that the AT(s) that is slated for upward balance tweaking receives its due attention. Cause, you know, eight years.
Whether that due attention includes a buff to Snipe powers is unimportant. |
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
Unless you can explain why the Snipe changes should benefit support ATs more than Blasters, your point is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the change is explicitly aimed at Blasters or not; the change should still make sense within the context of the existing balance framework.
|
).
|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
This is kind of a misnomer. The reasoning behind the postulation that fast-cast snipes work better for defenders and corruptors naturally leads one to the conclusion that faster recharging nukes also work better for defender and corruptors.
|
|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
You would have greater weight on this matter if you hadn't said this:
|
| It is my opinion that the snipe and nuke changes are MORE important than the blaster changes. I couldn't care less if blasters didn't get any other changes, because blast sets desperately needed these powers to be more useful and that fixes main powers for THREE ATs (with some other ATs getting a small benefit). |
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Has it occurred to anyone else that certain ATs and powersets being able to fast snipe all the time while others can't was intentional?
|
|
-Devices doesn't get Build Up to use before a big AoE, including the soon-to-be-no-longer-crashing nukes. -It doesn't get any powers that are useful on a fast paced team. -Its ST immobilize is the only one in a Blaster set that deals no damage. -It gets no melee abilities whatsoever. -Its survivability is almost entirely dependent on remaining undetected while setting up the battlefield. One Rikti Drone = advantage gone. -Its final 2 powers are widely viewed as 2 of the worst powers in the entire game. -The most widely used power in the set is an area denial power that deals nearly no damage at all. -In order to actually be useful, Devices demands a much slower playstyle than other secondaries. This leads to Devices players either leveling slower, or outright ignoring their secondary the vast majority of the time. |
| Devices has ALL those things going against it, and you're complaining that it isn't fair that it gets to have permanent fast snipes. As of i24 that will be the ONLY thing it has that another secondary cannot do better. And other secondaries will still deal more damage with their fast snipe, because it will come with a +100% damage boost when Build Up is used to get it. |
| I don't think the Snipe thing was deliberately used to give Devices a bump while shafting other sets. If that was their intention they would have just attached the fast snipe mechanic to Targeting Drone specifically, instead of making it any time your to-hit bonus is above 22%. |
| Seems to me like fast snipes weren't meant to be an all the time thing for blasters reliant on Aim and Build Up to achieve it. Those sets have huge advantages over Devices in just about every other category. So why can't you let Devices finally (and Corruptors and Defenders) be better at something than other sets? Why is it so important that everyone else have the same ability as a set that has been regarded as a joke for 6 years? Can't you let the people who have continued to play Devices in the face of your derision have this one thing without wanting the same toy for yourself? |
|
"Waaaah! Devices gets something we don't!" Yes, they do. Now stop and look at all the things you get that they don't. Does it still seem unfair? Not from where I'm standing. |
|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
IMO, if you choose to solo an AT designed for team play, it is OK to have a fast snipe. if you team up with your fast snipe, then the people you team with will also have fast snipe, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT BUILD FOR IT.
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
What difference does it make that Tactics is a team-based power? I could just as easily say that the putative damage-specialist AT should get perma-fast snipes from solo-based powers. Whether you realize it or not, you are only reinforcing the idea that Support ATs are getting fast snipes by using a pool power (Tactics) that they're likely to have already.
What you're really saying is that Corrupters and Defenders should get a solo benefit that Blasters do not, even though Corrupters and Defenders are already markedly better (the best) in teams, and already capable, on average, of soloing more difficult challenges in greater safety than the average Blaster. You're saying that Corrupters and Defenders should get that extra solo benefit as a natural consequence of using a team-biased build, too. Your tone suggests that you've just found some sort of trump card in this discussion, but if you had a convincing point to make, I'm afraid it got lost somewhere in the translation. Energy Transfer would like a word with you. More to the point, you can't have it both ways: either the buff to single-target DPS is insignificant (either in magnitude or simply by virtue of its single-targeted-ness), in which case you shouldn't be arguing so strenuously that Blasters don't deserve it, or the buff is significant, in which case you can't argue that it's an unimportant addition to support ATs. With all due respect to the current development team, which I believe to be comprised of earnest and hard-working people, vague assurances of future buffage might carry more weight if the balance problem we're discussing weren't eight years old. A lot of players have understandably looked forward to a balance pass of Blasters, and we (also understandably) would like to see it done right (or as close to right as is reasonably possible) in I-24. We've had enough of long-term half measures like Defiance and Defiance 2.0. How long ago were those again? I honestly can't remember. You keep using the word, "Objectively," as if your invoking the concept of objectivity automatically renders any disagreement subjective. That's not how it works. You brought up a point that is only tenuously relevant to the topic at hand -- namely, that the snipe changes are not explicitly targeted at Blasters in particular -- and then declared everyone who doesn't like the Snipe changes an irrational fool for not understanding the blindingly obvious. The problem? Your point does nothing to address the appropriateness of the Snipe buff. And even now, you seem to be arguing from the almost laughably tenuous position that the developers' thought process is unassailable by default My disagreeing with your argument by assertion doesn't necessitate that I'm not objective. If anything, my prodding you to refine your argument into something resembling relevance is the very opposite of unreasoned subjectivity. The remainder of your post rests on the assumption that the proposed buffs to Blasters and blast ATs will be subject to revision going forward, in Beta and whatnot. All of that is true, but it's worth pointing out any flaws we see now, if for no other reason than to refine our own reasoning before the upcoming testing phase. Or, you know, maybe we'll even give the devs food for thought. Kinda like that giant proc changes thread. |
Just a side note it is obvious that players that have an issue with it being so high in ToHit bonus seem to be solo players. I know mostly I am.
But as was mentioned Team players should have no issues obtaining perma Snipe.
Adeon did give a good rebuttal. I think we are forgetting that this buff of sorts was suppose to be for Blasters. Coming from the Developers themselves. But sadly it seems other Arch Types can obtain this much easier then every blaster and only a select few blaster can achieve this successfully on a regular basis.
So on one hand I like what this does for Device. I've always liked Device and I am all for giving Device a bump. I know there are a few names in this thread that I constantly see in a Device debate.
But this Snipe change should be a boon for all in the Blaster AT. Maybe they should just remove this bonus for other ATs that benefit from other things that Blasters do not. Example Defenders get increase defense and debuff numbers which Blasters do not.
Maybe this should be a Blaster only benefit straight and simple. Or make it 18% for Blasters and 22% or 25% for other Arch Types.
I picked 18% because I think that is Tactics + Kismet + slot enhancers in Tactics when I was messing around with Mids. But if you have to jump through those hoops to get it, it should be a very impressive power. Give someone a reason to drop one power to pick up Tactics and then free up a slot to put a Kismet in it and then on top of all of this purchase slot enhancers if they don't already have them.
|
Originally Posted by Eldagore
Corruptors and defenders can have that solo benefit because they are a team AT. You say they solo better, possibly, then blasters. Maybe thats why we are getting blaster buffs in I24?
|
| LOL, at your rebuttle to my ST dmg point. A change made to one power, BEFORE there were even any rewards to gain? Well, unless you count PvP kills i suppose. Pretty sure IO's have changed the reward/time balance tool since issue 7. We can revisit this again if you can, say, find something to point out to me changed from incarnates forward. |
| Blasters dont need the ST DPS buff. |
| As for objectivity, you bring up blaster changes like defiance, which points to the changes coming to the secondaries, and then say snipes, which is a change to all AT's, is relevant to be considered in an objective view of blaster survivability because support AT's can get it easier. And so we return to my first post. You see, you keep saying how you hold no hope for the blaster changes, hence, it is very important that the snipe stuff is done right. I find that to be an illogical transition. Blasters need to be propped up defensively, which is the goal of the coming changes to the AT. |
| Snipes, and yes nukes, need to be changed, because the current versions are simply clunky and not fun. |
| It is also not going to give those two AT's a megaton advantage in dmg output, and will give no advantage when teamed. |
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
|
Originally Posted by Miladys_Knight
Small flaw in the reasoning. If I can't achieve perma-fast snipe reasonably while solo I'm unlikely to have snipe in my build at all, meaning that while teamed I won't have access to it because I didn't select the power in the first place. Teams don't really need the help, its the solo blaster that needs the consideration.
|
|
Originally Posted by Obitus
No, I said that Corrupters and Defenders are the best teamers, and that they solo more safely than Blasters. At the high end, they can arguably solo more difficult stuff. To say that Corrupters and Defenders are unreservedly better soloists would be an oversimplification, because a Blaster has a higher kill speed. Assuming the Blaster doesn't die, s/he will tend to progress faster than a support AT.
But the support AT has an undeniable and unrivaled specialty. The Blaster is unique, because it simultaneously pays the highest price for a presumed specialty (damage), but in fact the Blaster doesn't have a specialty worth mentioning; Blaster damage isn't unambiguously the best in the game, and in any case, everyone is capable of doing damage. In a team scenario, a Blaster can certainly be useful, but it needs team support way more than the team needs a Blaster, or really any damage specialist. Your point about ST damage scarcely deserved a rebuttal, frankly. You said, basically, that "IMO" the developers don't think single-target damage is a major issue. Whether your statement has or hasn't any truth to it, it's not a point you made any attempt to support. I'm not terribly impressed by your vague attempt to read the developers' minds, given that their actions in the past tend to contradict your ESP-derived assertion. The developers do go to some lengths to balance single-target attack powers. The snipe change is clearly a single-target-slanted change. So you say. It must therefore be true. It is only illogical if you assume that the Snipe change is not intended to buff Blasters as much as it buffs Defenders and Corrupters. We've been over this. If the devs came out and said, "Hey, we think support ATs deserve more damage from snipes," then that would be one thing. If the devs came out and said, "We think it's important to put the snipe changes through as-is, but we're also going to add something else to aid Blaster single-target offense," I'd be cool with that too. There are any number of things the developers could do or say that would be great. But proposing, sans reasoning, a supposedly generalized snipe buff that arbitrarily benefits buff/debuff ATs most when Blasters are the red-headed step child of both blast-set constituents and the game in general? Not so much. A lot of us got by just fine for years without even taking those powers. In principle, sure; it'd be nice if all powers were attractive -- but if the proximate problem is the performance of blast-set ATs, and especially one blast-set AT, then it doesn't make any practical difference how you go about buffing those ATs. Teaming is irrelevant for the purpose of this conversation. The support ATs in question are already miles and miles ahead. Who gives a crap if the Defender can do 20% more single-target damage on a team? Or even the Blaster, for that matter? This is, and always has been, a discussion about self-contained performance. |