I24 Snipe Alteration Suggestion

Do you expect the new defensive powers in Blaster Secondaries to be competitive with the defensive powers in Scrapper or Brute secondaries? Do you expect those Blaster defensive powers to rival the damage-mitigation potential of a Dominator's Control Primary? Will we perhaps see some comprehensive status protection added to Blasters, according to your crystal ball?

Just curious, cause, you know, it's not unambiguously true that Blasters have a marked damage advantage over those ATs. It is unambiguously true that those ATs have a freaking enormous survivability advantage over Blasters.

So clearly, if you believe so strongly that Blasters don't deserve an offensive buff, you must also believe that Blasters will be given a bleeping ton of survivability improvement in I-24. Of course, the statements I've seen from Arbiter Hawk point to only a moderate survivability boost, but surely you know better.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

We are discussing inter-AT balance. Why the hell wouldn't single-target damage be relevant in a discussion about a buff to single-target damage, shared among different ATs?

Seriously, you either need to think more carefully before you make your arguments (and I use the term loosely), or you really need to reign in your condescending attitude.

If a support AT is already unrivaled in a team setting, then why the hell would the support AT need a single-target damage boost in that setting? I'm doing you a favor by ignoring the team setting; the team setting argument is deleterious to your case.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

First, your feelings are irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of truth or a moderator on this forum. Your assertions, based on nothing more than your subjective impressions, are not facts.

(I'd be a little less critical of your arguments, though, if you were less pompous and abrasive in expressing them.)

And no, I'm saying that if a Blaster can't get perma-fast snipe by using the same team-based pool power that the Corrupter/Defender uses, a power that the Blaster is less likely to want to take in the first place than the Corrupter/Defender, then the Corrupter/Defender shouldn't be able to achieve perma-Fast snipes either.

There is no obvious reason for that disparity. If the developers explain their reasoning, then I'm open to correction, but your simply saying things like, "IMO Blasters don't need damage," or the classic, "Corrupters/Defenders are team ATs and therefore they should get better solo performance out of team powers," isn't a rationale for the snipe changes as they've been proposed so far.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Hyperbole. Blasters dont need to have defenses on par with scrappers or brutes. because they can kill faster. They just need enough of a boost to not eat carpet so often, so that they can keep rampaging through spawns. They will still die more then the others, but they will also defeat spawns faster, and have the advantage on teams of not being in the fray getting pounded unless they want to. Despite the hyperbolic ramblings of many on the forums, scrappers and brutes do not dish out AOE destruction(outside of a very select few builds) like a blaster can.

LOL, again. Do you not remember your own argument? Its only a page back. You brought up a single power that was changed to conform to the then new DPA formula(alongside a lot of other animation changes because weopon redraw was removed, etc) as an argument to my statement that ST dmg is not nearly as important under the new reward/time balance metric the devs favor as the overall governer to the game.
So yeah, it got changed, so that it would compare to powers in other sets. Are we comparing moonbeam to psi lance or somthing? How does anything about ST DPS really become supremely important here when AOE dmg totally trumps anything we could discuss when it comes to reward/time? Even between AT's? Is fast snipe fire/time corruptor going to break the rewards/time metric because of a 20% ST DPS increase, when compared alongside a claws/elec brute in AE? So, again, I am not sure why you brought up Energy Transfer in relation to this.

Err, because said support AT will, by design, pass the snipe buff along to every person on the team, even if they do not build for the snipe change? Blasters wont. Sure appears to be a notable difference.

Blasters cant get fast snipe from tactics because: Build up.
Lets say we turned the tables. Lets say blasters could get it from tactics too. Would people be on here gnashing teeth because def/cor dont have build up to go along with fast snipe like blasters get? "And they get build up/nuke too!!" just curious on your stance on that one.

Because, if you say "no, because blasters need the buff" then you are ignoring the potential of the defensive changes and placeing more importance/result on a ST DPS increase of 20% or so above new powers that give recovery better then slotted stamina, significant regen buffs, etc. If you say "yes" then I do not understand what the problem is.

I'm grateful you finally admit that your arguing so strenuously that Blasters don't deserve a single-target damage increase is a pointless endeavor.

You didn't read my argument. You latched onto my sarcastic remark about Energy Transfer and totally glossed over the real point, which is that you can't simultaneously argue on the one hand that single-target damage doesn't matter, and on the other hand that Blasters don't deserve a single-target-damage buff, or alternatively that the single-target buff to Defenders/Corrupters is important.

Regardless of rewards/time, you honestly believe that the developers don't care about the relation between different ATs' single-target damage? I guess that must be why they gave every set in the game copious AoE damage. Oh wait.

(Whether you think it's important or not, if Blasters are to be the damage specialists, then they should be great at both AoE and single-target damage. And they're not obviously great at single-target damage, across the board. Fire's performance should probably be the baseline. And yes, any buffs that would bring other blast sets up to Fire's single-target-damage potential would naturally have to be proliferated to other blast-set users. Ranged attack sets as a whole class have been unfairly penalized in this game since day one; it's just that the non-Blaster ranged ATs happen to have other perks that diminish the practical influence of that penalty.)

If you say so, it must be true. I'm glad you're here to preserve me from the idiotic ramblings of forum posters, though. Thanks!

I simply posed the logical extension of your argument, which is that Blasters definitively don't deserve a damage buff (even a single-target-damage buff, even though single-target damage doesn't matter) because Blasters are getting a defensive buff in I-24. My point was that Blasters are vastly outclassed defensively right now, and only have a marginal damage advantage, which means that clearly you expect the defensive buff in Issue 24 to be massive.

But now you assure me that Blasters have a massive and unconditional kill-speed advantage over every AT in the game. Good to know! Oh wait. You said, "outside of a few select builds?" Bummer. I guess some ATs do deserve Scrapper/Brute/Dominator-level survivability along with Blaster-comparable damage after all.

Do I really have to go back and requote my list earlier of Defender/Corrupter powers that boost damage and/or debuff resistance? To say that support ATs' lack of Build Up is the definitive factor in the Snipe changes is to admit that the snipe changes are short-sighted.

Also, Energy Manipulation: it has Build Up, and it can achieve perma-fast snipe.

And now I really am done. Feel free to take the last word.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Hmmm let's see then. An 80' tier 3 blast (after the changes) that doesn't EVER interupt, animates just a bit slower than fast snipe and does just a bit less damage and all it needs is 6 slots and its ready to go.


Take a power I don't really need (Tactics), use 3 (or more) slots I can't spare, and endurance that I would rather use for slinging pain, change my slotting on Aim and Build up potentially costing me more slots I can't spare all to take a power that will give me 70 feet extra range, a tiny bit of extra damage and animate faster than my tier 3 only part time? Kind of a no brainer there.

Besides I'm a blaster, I have attacks in my tray that never see use because all I have is attacks in my tray and there will be a better power to use recharged and ready to go.

I tend to use Aim and Build Up together each spawn because I want to unload my AoEs with the most damage possible to eliminate all the minions and even the lieutenants and leave only the bosses to finish off with single target damage. THAT is my safety (provided I can figure out a way to survive the alpha response). By the time I get my AoEs unloaded there's nothing left of Aim and Build up to get a fast snipe in and little reason to hit what may be left with the snipe anyway.

On a team its the same deal. Aim + Build Up + AoEs while the scrappers finish off any bosses that are left. The only difference is on a team I NEED the Tank, and Defenders, and Controllers to keep me alive because as a blaster I'm the only AT that is most affected by damage because I have little to no mitigation and no way to avoid mez.

Net result, solo or teamed there is no point for me in picking up the snipe. It is still too situational to be cost effective, especially considering its opportunity costs.

A note on bias:

(Emphasis mine.)

I could very easily take the bolded clause out of context to argue that you're clearly biased against Blasters. After all, if you are (at best) indifferent to the idea of Blaster-specific buffs, then you are clearly not familiar with, or unwilling to acknowledge, the AT's manifest and myriad weaknesses. Or, I could look at the thread linked in your signature, in which you ask for huge Defender buffs, to demonstrate that you're biased in support ATs' favor.

But I don't believe you really think that support ATs deserve buffs as much or more than Blasters, in I-24. I'm familiar with your post history, and I'm capable of reading between the lines of your post, which is clearly intended to take a tepid if not a neutral position on the topic at hand.

Now that we've gotten the personal-credibility attacks sorted, let us return to the topic: You're right; the fast-snipe advantage for support ATs, relative to the standard non-Devices, non-EM Blaster build is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. In that sense, all of this discussion is much ado about nothing. But the fact that the Snipe buff explicitly precludes most Blasters from benefiting as much as Defenders and Corrupters says something about the direction of the Blaster Balance pass. In the absence of any evidence of other offensive buffs, the snipe change implicitly tells players that Blasters deserve a single-target damage buff less than Corrupters do. Moreover, the character of the snipe change suggests to me that the devs are prone to fall into the very same trap they've fallen into in the past -- that they're unduly afraid of Blasters.

"Oh noes, what will we do if this still-brittle ranged AT clearly outdamages ATs with superior utility and/or survivability! Quick, rein in any buffs that might apply to Blasters!"

That idea couldn't be more wrong, in my estimation. If the Snipe change were simply designed to give Defenders and Corrupters an additional 'job,' if you will, an additional perk that they could provide to (Blaster and/or Dominator-laden) teams, then that'd be fine. But no game-balance change occurs in a vacuum. Give the Defenders/Corrupters their extra raison d'etre, sure, but also leave the door open for supplemental Blaster buffs.

Because I gotta tell you: even with the absorb/regen buffs upcoming in I-24, Blasters shouldn't be outdamaged, even if only in a single-target context, by Nightwidows, Scrappers, Brutes, Dominators; hell even some Tanks can make certain Blaster builds look downright anemic. Everyone seems to handwave the high-damage non-Blaster builds as outliers, while simultaneously pretending that either Fire or Archery (depending on the context) are the only Blaster Primaries in existence.

But there are Blaster sets that put out underwhelming single-target damage. There are Blaster sets that put out mediocre AoE damage, too (although that will change somewhat with the nuke buff). Even the really good AoE Blasters may find their practical kill speed hampered by scatter, whereas many of their competitors have an innate abilities to stop runners (taunt auras, Aoe controls).

The Blaster has no role, and no bona-fide specialty. The Blaster only has penalties for a presumed specialty. And although it's nice that I-24 will soften those penalties a bit (with the addition of a regen/absorb power in every secondary), the penalties will still persist in broad strokes, and the justification for those penalties will likely remain unconvincing.

Defenders and Corrupters? Say what you will about 'em; they have a distinct role that is well rewarded by the game. If they need help, they need it less than Blasters do. And as it happens, they're due to receive whatever generalized buffs the devs see fit to lavish on blast sets generally.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Pssst. My only /Devices character is Sonic/Devices. I get squat from all of this.

Where did I say it fixed any of those issues? I didn't even imply that it did.

My point was that those issues existed, and that players of other secondaries did not have to deal with them. I was illustrating that it is a little messed up to begrudge a set a nice bonus from a new mechanic when it's been getting dirt kicked in its face for 8 years.

Soloists never use Aim or Build Up? Ever? They skip those powers entirely? I find that idea unlikely in the extreme.

Build Up before an AoE is a larger benefit than permanent fast snipes will EVER be. Hell, Build Up before a fast snipe is a larger benefit than permanent fast snipes.

The only sets that cannot have permanent fast snipes can use Build Up prior to firing off their AoEs for +100% damage. They can also use the same fast snipe after Build Up or Aim, getting that same +100% damage. Devices does not, and never will, get the benefit of having Build Up.

I'm still confused about this. Why does everyone seem to be under the impression that because some Blasters cannot have fast snipes permanently, they are getting ZERO benefit from this change? It's not like the devs said "If you have Build Up in your secondary you're excluded from this".

I'll spell it out:

-The fast snipe change works exactly the same for everyone who has a snipe power.

-Blasters who have Targeting Drone can make that change permanent, but they still cannot make that snipe hit any harder than they could before.

-Blasters who have Build Up instead of Targeting Drone cannot make that change permanent, but they can add a 100% damage boost to the exact same fast snipe Devices gets.

So, what you have is: most Blasters can make their snipe fast on occasion, and can boost its damage in the process. One specific Blaster secondary can make its snipe fast all the time, but has no real way of boosting its damage. How is that not a fair trade-off?

In the Blaster's case, those things are also self-contained within their primary and secondary. They do not require pool powers to do.

-Defenders and Corruptors can also make it permanent. BUT...in most cases they will have to make very specific build decisions to do so. Only a couple sets can do it self-contained like the Blasters. I find it difficult to believe that a significant number of people will alter their build to the degree necessary to achieve permanent fast snipes, especially if it compromises their build in other areas.

Maybe a few Corruptor and Defender combos will get a little better at soloing AVs and GMs, and a couple sets might actually be worth playing now (Defender Electric Blast, I'm looking at you).

I really don't see how it is so game-breaking and unfair that only Blaster combos with Build Up instead of Targeting Drone don't get permanent fast snipes. Especially seeing as how they still can use the fast snipe, just less frequently and with a damage bonus attached.

Again, my solitary /Devices character is Sonic/Devices. I don't benefit at all from the changes. Not even a little bit.

My other Blaster is Fire/Fire...he already has too many attacks to use, and is more AoE focused. A snipe power is useless to him, especially since Blaze is going to have the same range as everything else.

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 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.

You said, "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." The counterpoint that is trying to be made is that the snipe buff affects blasters positively, but is not targeted at blasters. The snipe buff affecting other ATs is desirable. If the snipe buff is more effective on other ATs, as long as the disparity is not great, it is a non-issue.

The fact that blasters need more improvement than other ATs, does not need to factor into the snipe change. Other changes can and should be made to blasters if blasters need help. If I were a proponent of blasters, I'd focus my attention on other areas, rather than worry that some defender might get 4% more return on the snipe change.

Considering how poor snipes are, I simply disagree with your position. I think snipes have long been in need of improvement. I don't think they should be made integral to the ATs that have them, but they should be more reasonable choices than they are currently.

The bias comes from your viewing everything through the fact that you feel blasters should be buffed. Other changes that happen to help blasters are not acceptable to you unless they are "rightfully targeted at Blasters." You sometimes seem to be able to understand that not all changes are made solely to buff blasters, but you don't seem to be able to actually accept it and view the snipe change in that light. Your position seems to be, "If it doesn't help blasters the most, then it is not done right."

That is a fine goal, but I don't believe a design is invalid if that is not true. Again, I would be OK if a change came along that made fast-cast snipes harder to achieve on corruptors and defenders, but it is not a big deal either way.

You'd be sort-of right! Hey, I can acknowledge that blasters seem to be the weakest AT, the tools they have are inadequate to defend themselves since they were designed specifically so that teammates would be their defense. I also seem to see a lot more blasters online at any time than I see defenders and corruptors (again anecdotal, only the devs know the truth).

I think tepid is the perfect word for my position. I may think the support ATs deserve a buff more than blasters. I don't have the correct information to determine this, only the devs do. Since they are changing blast sets AND blasters, I lean towards the belief that all ATs with blast sets need help, but blasters need it the most.

All ATs with blast sets need help, but blasters need it the most. From there, I can see that some changes might benefit corruptors and defenders more than blasters and be OK with that, as long as blasters also get other changes.

Calling you biased is a personal credibility attack? Hmmm, I guess it could be if I were trying to convince others to give your points less consideration. I didn't mean people shouldn't listen to you because you are clearly compromised. I was simply trying to communicate to YOU. Your base position that blasters need the most buffs is not allowing you to look at the whole picture very well. You keep viewing the snipe changes as if they must be best for blasters and downplaying the belief that other blaster changes are what really needs to be focused on.

And while you may have always felt this way, it took this much for you to communicate your agreement. However, it is also possible it took this much talking to get you to see this point.

But, sadly, you still view the world from the same place, so you are not fully convinced. The fact that the snipe buff may be easier to use for corruptors and defenders says nothing about how the devs feel about changing blasters. It tells us nothing (well, it may communicate that small variances and minor, unintended results are sometimes acceptable). It is likely merely an acceptable side-effect of an interesting change.

Blasters clearly outdamage corruptors and defenders (in most cases). They do not clearly outdamage brutes and scrappers, which is a problem IMO. Maybe everyone can get behind my desire to increase the damage mods on all three ATs that use blast sets!

Agreed! Let's buff the damage mods on the blast set ATs and stop worrying about snipes.

I would increase the blaster ranged dam mod to 1.25 (or 1.3) and the melee dam mod to 1.125 (and I'd consider increasing the blaster cap to +500%). Increase the corruptor ranged dam mod to 0.9. Increase the defender range dam mod to 0.8 and give defenders scrapper base HPs and the stalker HP cap.

While I agree the support sets have their role, one could say it will be somewhat diminished when the last AT that really needs them becomes less squishy. Granted, I agree blasters are not becoming all that much less squishy, but, uhm... I don't really have a point, just a thought exercise I guess. Also, even after the changes, blaster's role will still only be damage (they may even lose their role of extreme vulnerability that is so despised) and even if they are clearly higher than scappers, scrappers will still bring enough to get the job done.

Or or or...(okay, just hear me out on this...it'll be long and may be rather confusing so bear with me here...)....you can just take the snipe power, slot it as a regular attack and....use it. No change to the rest of the build or powers chosen.

I mean, Snipes are great tools to use for pulling solo...I know I have recently on my Rad/Dark. Sure, you can slot a ranged attack for range to get the same effect or you can 'joust' some distance after a ranged attack, but snipes are still good for when you only one to deal with some of the foes or one of them and want breathing room before they turn and shoot back at you. And even then, if you have Aim, you can occasionally get a quick snipe in mid-combat for some extra fast and good damage.

Then, if you join a team with a SoA or defender or corruptor or tanker or whoever that has ToHit buffs for the team, you suddenly have always-fast-snipe for no extra cost but to take and slot an extra attack. And beyond all that, all those yellow inspirations that you may tend to ignore or just chomp on to get them out of the way (or combine them into something else) suddenly have more a purpose as they can also get you a quick sniping attack.

Seriously, I wonder if some of you people arguing about the snipe changes have any perspective at all. I'm actually looking forward to testing these changes and have rolled multiple new corruptors and blasters in preparation and most of them (namely, not the Arch/Dev) will not have perma-snipe solo...even the corruptors. Why anyone would see this as some travesty is beyond me as, with these changes, more likely than not, you will see more players throwing around ToHit buffs because now they actually matter. Whether it's achievable solo or not seems wholly irrelevant since it's going to require a change in the build to make work (how many Defenders run overslotted Tactics now anyway?). Holding up that change, big or small, as the ignition factor against the change seems dumb when you inherently *DO NOT* need to change anything to take advantage of it.

Actually, now I think I know, after reading my post, why people seem adamant about arguing the snipe fix. It's not because they can take advantage of the changes without needing to change their builds, it's that they can't EXPLOIT the changes by twinking their builds.

Key words there: EXPLOIT and twinking.

Really just what under the sun do you mean by EXPLOIT ?

In terms of the existing conversation EXPLOIT = USE.

What most people that play blasters are upset about is that the snipe changes are fricking useless to them. Their builds are already twisted like pretzels to get survivability they desperately need and trying to fit in a power that ISN'T SITUATIONALY USEFUL BUT DOWNRIGHT UNRELIABLE, just isn't something they can manage.

While I agree with the sentiment that people shouldn't be so worried about the difference between perma fast-cast and occasional fast cast builds, you take it too far by using the term exploit. Exploit is a fine word, but has a pretty specific meaning in online games. And twinking is irrelevant (I think, isn't twinking when you give resources from a rich character to a poor character?)

And changes are in the works to improve their survivability.

Also, don't pretend you don't know what the term 'exploit' means in the context of a video game.

And I say exploit, Strato, because it's a meta buff that the player wishes to collect on even in situations where the buff isn't needed. Like double stacked Rage, perma-dom and the like. It's not a game exploit, but it's a gameplay exploit: an attempt to overpower the game even when one isn't required to.

I don't have beef with anyone that wants to go with double stacked rage or perma their hasten, but that's not what those powers were designed for (which isn not the point I'm making) which can trivializing the content and/or bypass other balancing goals of that or other powers/ATs.

It's up to the devs to decide what's an exploit or not, but anyone can see when something is a gameplay exploit...like when someone repeats the same unblockable move over and over in a fighting game...it's just cheap and dumb but the game leaves you the option to be cheap and dumb.

Fine, I misstated. I've also said the following, or some variation on it, multiple times:

"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."

The fact that you'd spend so much energy ascribing bias to me on the basis of one sentence, pulled from a sarcasm-laced paragraph that was posed in response to a purely emotional appeal -- well let's just say that I spent some time last night trying to show you how unproductive your line of word-game argument is, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.

So let's leave it at this: my supposed bias is irrelevant. It would be trivially easy to accuse you of bias, as I showed last night, but it serves no purpose.

The more relevant argument here is one that you've glossed over entirely. What you're calling a counter is not a counter at all; it's gotcha-game nonsense. So the snipe buff isn't aimed particularly at Blasters. Making that observation says nothing about the appropriateness of the snipe buff. At best it's a tautological truism: "The Snipe buff shouldn't give equal benefit to Blasters because it's not intended to give equal benefit to Blasters." Scintillating. Now explain why.

(Of course, I'm not asking you in particular to explain why the snipe change is good, because you've already gone out of your way to disclaim that you don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Sure am glad you stuck around to detail my raging bias, though. The insults flying around from the other side weren't worthy of comment for some reason. Huh.)

That's an extraordinarily easy thing to say, but it rings hollow in the midst of a thread where we have people insisting at the top of their lungs that Blasters require nothing further than the sight-unseen survivability buffs proposed for I-24. In case you missed the point: This whole debate serves the purpose of shining a light on Blasters' need.

I've stated repeatedly that the Snipe changes in particular are not important to me. But unless someone says something here about Blasters' need, there's a chance that everyone will just shrug their way through I-24 and call it good. Just as Defiance 2.0 was called good, lo these many years ago.

Your sermonizing speculation as to my state of mind is irrelevant.

Eureka. That is exactly the point -- but it's not like I've said that very thing like seven times already or anything. If the developers came out tomorrow and assured everyone that additional single-target damage buffs for Blasters aren't off the table, then I'd zip my lips. Until that happens, it is worth pointing out that I (and others) don't believe the AT is finished. We've waited a long time for this balance pass.

History's on my side, here. You're telling me that I shouldn't be suspicious when, after eight years of the developers treating Blasters as if they're radioactive, the developers seemingly go out of their way to moderate the Blaster's benefit from a buff aimed at Blast sets, with basically no indication that other offensive buffs are on the table? After eight years, I can be forgiven for a little skepticism.

Very few ATs have a distinct role, but almost all of them (with the notable, glaring exception of Blasters) have distinct strengths that aren't necessarily offset by corresponding weaknesses. What makes the Blaster unique is that the Blaster is explicitly penalized as if Blaster damage is undisputedly the best, but in fact Blaster damage comes nowhere close to that lofty standard.

So when I say that support ATs have a distinct role or niche, I'm not saying that Defenders are necessarily well off as compared with, say, Corrupters or Controllers, or that Defenders cannot be outperformed at their role by any of the above ATs. What I'm saying is that at least Defenders are within a subset of ATs that are supreme in teams. Blasters are neither particularly good at teaming nor particularly good at soloing. As you point out, Blasters basically exist at this point to boost support ATs' egos. The Snipe change, incidentally, only serves to reinforce that stereotype.

I have no illusions that Blasters will suddenly be given a unique role that separates them clearly from all of their peers. That would be unrealistc. What I do hope is that Blasters will stop getting penalized for an advantage they do not unambiguously have -- or that the developers will find a way to improve Blaster's supposed advantage such that the corresponding penalty is no longer so glaringly unjustified.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Ascribing unflattering motives to your opposition -- an excellent way to demonstrate the superiority of your position.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

Tactics is not an off-the-wall power pick for a Defender or a Corrupter. Support ATs have the best scalars in the game for the Leadership pool, after all. With the possible exception of VEATs, support ATs are the most likely to have already selected Tactics, or at least to have already bought into the Leadership pool.

Or maybe your point is that Defenders will have to give up a more worthwhile power pick to select their snipe? That is probably true, but it's only true because support ATs generally have a much larger selection of compelling powers than Blasters do. That's not a disadvantage.

And you think the Blaster version of Electric Blast is less deserving ... why, exactly?

In order for a proposed balance change to be objectionable, it doesn't follow that it must be game breaking. It doesn't even necessarily follow that a given balance change must be objectionable in a vacuum, because no balance change occurs in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

The above quote, by the way, is exactly the opposite of the truth: by investing billions, I can craft a Blaster build that reduces the downtime on my Aim/BU cycle down to 5 or 6 seconds. By investing billions and using my imagination, I can do that while maintaining my previous levels of IO-conferred defense too. IO Snipe sets are, in fact, quite attractive in their own right; if I'm trying to wring every set bonus I can out of a build, then a Snipe becomes fairly attractive just as a mule, before we even consider the utility of the power itself.

Through a combination of expensive IOs and Incarnate powers, I can benefit quite well, thank you very much, from the snipe change on a non-Devices (and non-EM) Blaster. It'll be annoying to maintain BU and Aim religiously just to use a relatively consistent ST attack chain -- but in principle, I can work around the limitations of the snipe change on a heavily IOed Blaster.

What I can't do is justify the power and slot investment in a Snipe for an SO Blaster build, and certainly not for an SO Blaster build that isn't yet in the high level range.

It is on the low end that blast sets are weakest. Without IO-enhanced recharge, it is not a given that a blast set can even construct a seamless single-target attack chain (sans perma-fast Snipe), whereas melee sets usually achieve that goal by the 20s at the very latest. That is just one of the arbitrary disadvantages with which blast sets have been saddled since the launch of the game, and Blasters have been most heavily penalized by that design flaw. Instead of making a ranged attack posture competitive, the devs have repeatedly contradicted themselves, insisting on the one hand that range is a defense comparable to melee-AT defensive power sets, but insisting on the other hand that ranged ATs should be required to use supplemental (usually melee) attacks to flesh out their attack chains.

(Support ATs obviously don't have secondary-set attacks, but they have other powers to activate during lulls in their attack strings. Still, it's telling that the best damage buff in the game, Fulcrum Shift, is melee-slanted -- both requiring a squishy support AT to incur extra risk to leverage on his own, and naturally benefiting melee ATs most in teams.)

Hell, tier 3 blasts originally had a range of twenty feet. Then they were upgraded to forty feet. Now, finally, eight years later, the devs are increasing the range to the standard eighty feet. They finally admit that a ranged attacker shouldn't have to incur extra risk just to use their best single-target ranged attack.

In any case, historical grievances aside -- support ATs can have perma-fast snipes with just one IO (Kismet). This isn't a matter of haves-versus-have nots.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

From a qualitative standpoint, the idea that anyone should have to alter their single-target attack cycle on the fly based on something as volatile (and opaque) as external ToHit buffs (or debuffs) is -- well let's just say it's less than attractive. There is virtually no precedent for such developer-enforced convolutions; you might be capable of a better attack chain with Speed Boost, for example, but your attacks function the same way regardless of your team's recharge buffs, whereas a Blaster who accidentally activates a slow snipe when he intended to activate a fast one -- well he ends up losing DPS, which is his presumed specialty, because he has to cancel the lengthy animation or get interrupted by his opponents.

And as far as Inspirations go, Blasters are already the most Inspiration-dependent (and support-dependent) AT in the game. To say that we can use yellows to achieve fast snipes on a temporary basis is technically true, but it's also extraordinarily unconvincing.

Ironically, the Dominator -- which generally cannot achieve fast snipes even on a temporary basis unless s/he makes huge build sacrifices (to take the generally sub-optimal Psionic Mastery APP) -- is a bigger winner than the Blaster. For the Dominator, there is no middle ground; you either skip the snipe entirely, which is fine because Dominators are already preposterously strong as it is, or you sell out to make the Snipe work consistently (or you take the Snipe as a set mule, and basically ignore the power otherwise). If we needed a clearer example as to why Blasters shouldn't be given heavily context-dependent buffs, this is it in a nutshell: like the computer in War Games, the Dominator understands that he wins the snipe sweepstakes by refusing to play in the first place.

Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze Nice build

If you only said it once, I may not have spent so much effort on it. You have repeatedly used the fact that in your opinion the snipe changes being slightly preferential to corruptors and defenders means that the snipe changes are wrong. Your bias is (or at least was) relevant. And I note, that despite your repeated statements that the snipe changes are not that important to you, you still bring them up as an issue, even in this latest post.

Here is where you fail to see how your bias is working on this issue. I don't need to explain why the snipe buff doesn't give equal benefit to blasters, because it is not important that it does. That is the counter and it is not gotcha-game nonsense. Only from your biased position that any blast set changes need to benefit blasters most or at least equally does that explanation need to exist.

The snipe buff makes snipes more attractive. They are situational powers, but will now be useful in more situations. They also have been improved to not punish DPS situationally (and they actually increase it in those situations). That makes the snipe changes very good, in my opinion. If corruptors and defenders have a small advantage in making those situations occur, I don't find that a compelling argument that the snipe changes are inappropriate. I do agree it is not the best situation, but none of the alternate gating ideas appeal to me as much as the to-hit buff idea.

Because you are the more interesting person to discuss this with? Maybe because I am a Phillies fan and love the Roy Halladay image (and, Yay! He is back tonight)? I didn't even think I was commenting on anyone's insults. I don't care to comment on the insults, just the issues. I will comment on the bias thing, because I do not mean it as an insult, knowing our biases helps us all understand and think about our points.

Sure. But you are not arguing that point with me. You are and have been stating that the snipe changes are improper because they do not address blaster issues (enough, specifically, fairly, etc.). You acknowledge that the blaster improvements do not have to come through the snipe changes, yet still feel the snipe changes should benefit blasters the most.

Fear is a funny thing. I agree that discussing and asking for further changes to blasters is proper. I just don't agree that the snipe changes are relevant to that discussion outside of the fact that it will be a small improvement for blasters. And while you have evolved to the point where you say the snipe changes are not important to you (a place you likely have always been in your own head), this conversation started because you clearly stated, "if they favor improving Snipes just for flavor, then they ought to say so, rather than allowing us to assume that the Snipe changes are the single-target-damage buff for which Blasters in particular, and blast sets in general, have waited."

That statement sounds like you want the snipe changes to be a significant buff to blast sets and particularly to blasters. The clarification and discussion in our ensuing posts has been valuable (at least to me).

Your fear that the I24 blaster buffs will be inadequate is not unwarranted, but at the same time I have never seen this much real and significant change made to blasters, so I think I have reason to be more optimistic.

Sure. But I still don't feel the snipe changes are relevant to that beyond the fact that they will be a minor improvement to the sets (a major improvement to the snipes themselves, I hope, but only a minor one for each powerset with a snipe).

I guess, but it seems like a lot of skepticism, rather than a little. I forgive you, though. I also do not see how they went out of their way to moderate the buff. They wanted the power to remain situational. They went out of their way to allow it to remain situational, not specifically as a way to moderate the power level, although it accomplishes that as well.

I can't begrudge you the attitude that the changes we know about may be all we are getting for years so they better make the snipes as awesome as possible for blasters. I don't agree with it, but I can see where you are coming from.

Sure.

Lol. I guess Eldagore's point on that could be seen that way; support ATs can help blasters get perma-fast cast snipes! Even still though, I still don't find the snipe change as relevant to overall balance.

I will admit, my bias for teaming does indeed like the aspect that teams will increase the viability of perma-fast cast snipes for any AT with a snipe.

Sure.

Hmmm. I can't justify snipes right now either. However, if I can also occasionally use that snipe without an interrupt and if it is DPS neutral or DPS positive in those situations, then I can, even if I still occasionally use it with the long animation.

You shouldn't have to go to all that trouble to get solid use out of the proposed snipes. If you can't justify taking the snipe as a long range, pre-fight attack that can also occasionally be used as a solid DPA attack in the midst of combat, that is fine. That doesn't mean they are useless. I believe a lot of people almost take the snipe, but just can't quite justify it. Occasional use in combat is all that is needed to make them a solid choice, still skippable, but not outright skipped like they are now. The argument that you have to go through all the gyrations you mention in order to get good use out of the new snipes is wrong.

It is not a contradiction and one cannot ignore the melee attacks. I also do not recall the devs stating that range is a defense comparable to melee-AT defensive power sets (useful, but I don't recall them going quite to the level of saying they were as strong as you imply they said).

Blasters and Doms are the two ATs that get plenty of attacks early (except /Dev, but they get Caltrops early, so that is wash). You can frequently use melee attacks and still have a strong range advantage. Not as strong as if you stayed at 70 feet with a full chain, of course, but the advantage doesn't disappear just because one regularly stays close to melee and I would even say the majority of the advantage remains (not that the range advantage is all that special, but simply using the melee attacks doesn't make it disappear as you imply).

Much to my sadness. One day blaster secondaries will be armor sets (look at me getting all slippery-slope crazy). Seriously, I like the range increase, but like increasing the range damage mod and not the melee one, it is a step towards relegating the melee attacks to being poor choices. That I am very much biased against.

I would argue the opposite. I think that type of responsive combat system is extremely attractive and based on recent designs and the devs own comments, I think I have a lot to look forward to. So if you want static, predictable situations where your same attack sequence can be repreated all the time, I think you are going to be facing a lot of disappointment as the game progresses.