BallLightning

/momentary derail

[ QUOTE ]
Thee is an issue with the "must stay active" mechanism in Fury and Domination that needs to be looked at, but outside of that I don't see an issuw with Brutes. Mine play very effectively. Perhaps that falls apart late-game however. Mine main brute is in the 20s still.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) IMO as someone with several DECENT level dominators, Domination's timer is pretty good. It drops slow enough to really not hurt you. In fact I know some Dominators who's main issue is that Domination doesn't recharge fast enough to keep up with the bar!

2) I know in beta, after the level bump my 24 brute went from merely OK to... "Yeah, and what are you going to do to me little man?" Once he had stamina to keep his toggles running he was ALMOST as good at taking damage as a tank (maybe not LONG term but in the short battles he excelled) AND his damage rocked. Once my fury was up, with the defenses I had the mobs didn't last long enough to get through them.

/derail over

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<reduced to "soccer boy talking out the side of his mouth">

[/ QUOTE ] <recuded to "Pilcrow replying"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude see... now I had written out this loooong reply myself but thought back to your 'beating empty shirt' comment and reduced it to that one paragraph reply. And here you are replying. :P

Bad Pilcrow Bad!

SOCKERROCKER, I will say this to you... your posts are NOT constructive, we don't care about brutes in THIS thread with THIS topic, and your PERSONAL experience with blasters is non-existant.

If you can't come in and stick on topic maybe I need to point _Nomad_ in your direction.

If you would like to come in and offer some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to "Fix blasters in the fewest possible moves" you're welcome. Beyond that... the rest of your posts have been de-rails attempts or off topic.

[ QUOTE ]
No other industry allows unsatisfied customers to attack and harass someone working for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never worked for Avis Rental Car.

[ QUOTE ]
Where's the Carnival MM set States mentioned once? Evil clowns FTW! The summoning animation for the clowns (States mentioned the minions as being clowns, strongmen, and acrobat) could be a little clown car that races up to you then all the clowns pile out.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOL That'd be great.

And while the car comes screeching up you'd hear the carnival music in the background... de de da de da da de de da de da or whatever I suck at writing music :P

[ QUOTE ]
What the heck is War Witch doing alive, fighting in Grandville?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either some kind of content or... it's a PvP zone... she's there on the internal test server testing. :P

[ QUOTE ]
LOL dont even think of having SS as a travel and goign to this zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude they already stated it'll be friendly to people with non-vertical travel powers. They have elevators and such that'll get you from level to level.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pil, Concern... do you think sometimes ignorance is bliss?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does ignorance mean?

OTOH, don't tell me, I might be happier not knowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the worse problem, ignorance or apathy?

Who knows? Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

That made me laugh. In the middle of all this heavy discussion, it helps. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG I'm SO thick.

Do you realize I COMPLETELY 'missed' Pilcrows reply? I mean, I SAW it, READ it... MISSED it completely.

I'm going to go into the bathroom now, look in the mirror and yell DUH! at myself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. We'll be putting in a check that prevents "one shotting"; if anything occurs within a fraction of second that brings a player from 100% Hit Points down to 0, we instead give the player 1% Hit Points.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about DoT caused by that one attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

He already answered that. "In a fraction of a second..."

Basically... that 1% hp leaveover is your chance to heal yourself or get healed.

HOWEVER... even a tank with 2500 hp would only have 25 hp left... wouldn't take much for a DoT to drop them in a second or two.

[ QUOTE ]
Derails happen, but mostly, I think you're battling an empty shirt here:

[*]He said others were in more need of help. We asked who. No response.[*]We explained why Blasters were in need of work. He chose not to explain why that reasoning was wrong in his eyes.[*]We explained that even the devs have discussed the insufficiency of the secondaries. He's made no case that that analysis is wrong.[*]His only counter to the notion that Blasters need work seeme to be that he sees plenty of Blasters in the game and they seem to deliver enough damage for him.[/list]
We've substantiated why we believe Blasters need work. He has failed to counter that reasoning, or even respond to it for the most part.

Personally, I think whether or not he's played a Blaster directly in the late game is less relevant than his refusal to discuss the substantive issues that explain why we are calling for these kinds of changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Well said. And in so few words too. LOL I gotta' learn to quit babbling on...

and on...

and on...

j/k. But I do go on sometimes. Oy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya' know... considering your determination to make a blapper... I'd think you'd be in support of blaster love. Could only make your toon better.

Also dude... tone down your posts. 75 posts in and already asking for a ban. Telling people they suck etc won't get ya' too far... especially since Cuppa (who's pretty lenient) is away and _Nomad_ (who doesn't put up with any [censored]) has the ban bat.

ANYWAY... after having reviewed your posts... my OPPINION is you think you know a lot more about stuff than your experience can back.

You've gone into the stalker threads and mocked many who have a lot more experience than you. You run into the NERF BLAPPERS thread and start antagonizing people there, telling them they suck...

Don't sweat answering the questions in my last post... I already know all I need to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said... new to the balster class,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means you're in NO position to say they're 'fine'.

[ QUOTE ]
but you can't help but see them a lot...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I see people with cancer a lot. Doesn't make me an expert on cancer.

[ QUOTE ]
The are one of the more popular ATs in the game. I have teamed with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Teaming with them makes you an expert?

[ QUOTE ]
They always deal the highest damage,

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe at your already pre-admitted low level game. Wait until the high-end game when a scrapper is outdamaging them.

[ QUOTE ]
which is what they were made to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for agreeing with us.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about them not having mez protection and that's why they are bad,

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the post before coming in and talking out the side of your mouth or do you just come in and say the first thing that comes to mind irregardless of how it makes you look and without having done any research?

Mez protection was one idea thrown out as a possible fix. It was NOT what our issue was though. The idea of adding it was thrown out as a possible fix to help balance the class out.

[ QUOTE ]
there's a few ATs with no mez protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay but we're talking about blasters in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
And I never told any one "They suck."

[/ QUOTE ]

And I quote:
[ QUOTE ]
And as for naming one villain that can kill a scrapper/tanker without using A/S strike... They all can... Apperently you just suck...

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know we can go back and see your entire post history right? Anyone can on anyone. I decided to look at yours last night after reading your post and found that little gem along with a few others.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a forum and I can express my opinion on as many issuse as I want as long as it is realivant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well your oppinion is not relevant. You don't have the practical experience with blasters (through your own admission) to make a relevant statement.

However, the topic of this thread is FIX BLASTERS... if you don't feel blasters need fixing feel free to NOT post in this thread.

Pil, sorry for the derail.

Okay, I've been thinking about this and have had issues since my primary is an electric... I'm currently fixated on the current end drain issue so it's hard to 'generalize' things.

Range increase I sign for.
--However I don't think this alone is a fix. It would help us put together better attack chains at a distance but mobs can close distances so fast regardless...

Migrating the PvP code over to PvE I'll also sign for.
--Again however... I think this is going to benefit some blasters more than others.

I know Pilcrow didn't want to necessarily touch on the inherint but I think it's a necessity. Even if they implemented those two fixes above I'd still think blasters need work. Yes we'd be better but I don't see those two above as a 'universal fix-all'.

I think States really really really needs to listen to us about Defiance and it's questionable usability.

An inherint we can better utilize along with the two above (and maybe a slight damage boost just to show us how sorry you guys are for taking so long to address blaster issues ) would IMO do a lot more than 'one or two' fixes that are going to cater to this set more than that set and vice versa.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya' know... considering your determination to make a blapper... I'd think you'd be in support of blaster love. Could only make your toon better.

Also dude... tone down your posts. 75 posts in and already asking for a ban. Telling people they suck etc won't get ya' too far... especially since Cuppa (who's pretty lenient) is away and _Nomad_ (who doesn't put up with any [censored]) has the ban bat.

ANYWAY... after having reviewed your posts... my OPPINION is you think you know a lot more about stuff than your experience can back.

You've gone into the stalker threads and mocked many who have a lot more experience than you. You run into the NERF BLAPPERS thread and start antagonizing people there, telling them they suck...

Don't sweat answering the questions in my last post... I already know all I need to know.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok... I don't really understand this post... Blasters are fine. They are one of the more balanced ATs. There are others that need changing more. When they major problems are resolved that's when these little things will be considered...

[/ QUOTE ]

Four questions:

1) When did you get CoH?

2) When did you start playing the blaster AT?

3) What level is your highest blaster?

4) What sets does it use?

Only fair you answer those considering the nature of your post. After all... if you registered to the forums approx same time that you got the game... no offense but you in NO WAY have the practical experience to back your post VS people who have been playing blasters just shy of two years.

Doesn't matter what level your blaster would be at that point either. One, two months doesn't compare to the experience the majority of us have and we're speaking out of experince earned in blood (read debt).

EDIT: Fifth question. What makes you think blasters are fine? Expand upon that please. If you read this whole post (and the MANY like it) there are many many issues covered... but they're generally the SAME issues. Electric in its current state is a perfect example.

Most of the blaster sets have a viable secondary. Electric was great for its endurance drain. Short of AV's there wasn't much I couldn't disable. I did as much for my teams with my end drain as controllers and defenders did. Once aggro was out on others I could easily sneak in and rip their endurance out of their bodies before they could react. Now... well electric isn't the strongest of the blaster sets to begin with (which was fine considering the sheer control ability I had) nor was the range that great (but again, I have excellent control [3 holds alone not to mention other stuff] so never felt truly 'cheated') but the one thing that made electric really stand out (endurance drain) is now useless.

So... how is my blaster fine? I'm not mocking... I honestly don't get your statement vs the facts I've put forward.

[ QUOTE ]
I know I said I'd drop the topic, but there have been many good and valid points regarding the Blapper style that should continue to be discussed.

[ QUOTE ]
So technically speaking, looking at all the melee attacks as being there "so that we can get into melee" isn't necessarily true, especially since they fall into our secondary which is labeled "support".

[/ QUOTE ]

Dingly_Dang touched on this in an earlier post, but I feel it needs to be expanded.

Currently, Blaster secondaries are primarily melee-based. Yes, primarily.
The melee percentages listed in Dingly_Dang's post are somewhat skewed. He only focused on "damage" powers. If you really look at them, it gets much, much bigger.

Devices - Is the only set with one melee-based power: Taser.

Energy Manipulation - 5 melee-based powers (Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Stun, Total Focus) and 4 self buffs (labeling self-buffs as support powers is stretching it).

Electricity Manipulation: 7 melee based powers (Charged Brawl, Havoc Punch, Lightning Field, Lightning Clap, Thunder Strike, Power Sink, Shocking Grasp) only one of whcih (Lightning Clap) is an obvious "oh crap, get me outta here" power. It also has one self buff and one ranged immob.

Fire Manipulation - Same as Electricity. 7 melee powers, one self buff, one ranged immob.

Ice Manipulation - 5 obvious melee powers and one questionable melee (Ice patch). One short range cone debuff (Shiver), one self buff and one ranged immob.

That's 5 Blaster secondaries - 45 powers total - 25 which are specifically melee based powers. Over half of the secondary powers available to Blasters are melee-based. 55% to be accurate. Considering three of these sets actually emphasis melee combat, I'd hardly say that Blasters were always meant to be purely ranged damage dealers.
Hell, if we take Build-Up (and Targeting-Drone) out of the equation (powers which boost ranged AND melee damage and accuracy), that number jumps to 62%.
I'd say Blasters were definitely meant to be part-time melee combatants.

The title of "Support" was the mistake, not the Secondary design.

All of this, of course, does not take into account the game's progression since release. Blaster secondaries have changed very, very little since their original conception (post AT system in Beta). However, status effects are much, MUCH more prominent in the game now than they ever were prior. This alone is reason enough to question today's validity of a Blaster's place in melee combat. I will certainly agree with that. Say nothing of lower self-damage potential a la ED.

So, to say that Blasters were not meant to be in melee range is, IMO, a delusion. The secondaries speak for themselves. Unless, you're suggesting that Blasters were never "meant" to take those powers to begin with... or it was a design "mistake '... or are supposed to be used only "situationally" (an entire secondary full of situational powers? Unlikely) ... none of which makes any sense at all.

The Blaster's role has changed to a degree... not due to any sort of "original" conception, but because of the game's own evolution. So, instead of clinging to this notion that Blasters were meant to be this or that, the focus (as Picrow has stated many times) should be on where Blasters are NOW.

I'll freely admit that a Blaster in melee TODAY is at a far greater risk than in the past. As such, something definitely needs to be down to emphasize the ranged portion of what Blasters do. However, I strongly feel that this change should not come at the expense of what has already existed in the game for two years. This is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

***... you guys are technically right. While SC might not be designed necessarily as an ATTACK it does require me to get close enough to get tickled in all the wrong places.

HOWEVER... all THAT being said. That is where the melee's come in great. In fact, on Balls that's part of his (now defunct) drain chain.

Run in, SC, PS, TS one mob then TC to knock away anyone who resisted the TS' knockback... backpedal a little, shoot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Devices Secondary: No melee
Electric Manipulation: 3 melee attacks
Energy Manipulation: 4 melee attacks (not counting stun)
Fire Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
Ice Manipulation: 2 melee attacks


[/ QUOTE ]

Just an FYI

Considering that an attack is anything that does damage, and melee is 5' or less (including PBAOE's with a range >5'):

Devices: 1 maybe attack --Taser - .6944 BI

Electric: 5 attacks --Lightning Field, Charged Brawl, Havok Punch, Thunder Strike, Shocking Grasp

Energy: 4 attacks -- Power Thrust, Energy Punch, Bone Smasher, Total Focus - also not counting stun

Fire: 7 attacks -- Fire Sword, Combustion, Fire Sword Circle, Blazing Aura, Consume, Burn, Hot Feet

Ice: 3 attacks -- Frozen Fists, Ice Sword, Freezing Touch

It seems that melee attacks make up anywhere from 11 - 78% of blaster secondaries. That averages to 4 melee attacks per secondary, which is ~ 45% of a blasters secondary attacks are in melee.

This is actually a lot less than the percent of blaster secondary powers that are to be used in melee. That number would be 26/45 powers that are to be used in melee. That means ~ 58% of blasters' secondary powers are to be used in melee. That seems like quite a bit for a ranged AT.

Lets look at the amount of ranged powers a blaster has available.

My count is 61 total powers blasters have that are ranged (>5').

Total Blater primary powers: 7*9 = 63
Total Blaster Secondary Powers: 5*9 = 45

Total powers: 108

Melee powers: 29 (26 secondary, 3 primary)
Ranged Powers: 62
Other powers (Aim, BU, etc...): 17

*Note Other include Trip Mine, Timed Bomb, Cloak, TD, etc

Percent Melee: ~ 26.9%
Percent Ranged: ~ 57.4%
Other: ~ 15.75%

Ration of ranged to melee: ~ 2.13:1

Now, using the idea that blasters are Ranged Damage, and a Scrappers are Melee Damage let's take a look at their power breakdown.


Code:[/color]

---

 

                Ranged              Melee             Other

Blaster         57.4%               26.9%             15.75%

Scrapper        8.9%                56.6%             34.4%

---

This raises some questions:

If blasters are ranged and scrappers are melee, why do blasters spend over a quarter of their time in melee, while scrappers spend less than 10% of their time at range?

Apparently from the numbers, ~55% is about the amount of powers it takes for an AT to survive it's specialty. Then what makes scrappers more surviveable in a more dangerous situation (their specialty - melee) than blasters in a less dangerous situation (their specialty - range)? It appears the other category is what is providing the difference - which is obvious because that has most all of the scrapper shields.

Now if it is the Devs intention to make blasters a ranged damager, then they will need to rework about 20% of blaster powers into other type powers to increase surviveability. That seems like a lot of work, remaking 1 out of every 5 powers.

That isn't the point of view I hold to. I generally hold to the blaster = damage from anywhere. Which I think looking at the numbers would be eaiser to fix in terms of total changes needed. Mostly these fixes would be tweaks to database numbers and placement, and not a new power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only counted direct attack powers.

Example: Yes SC does damage but it's role is endurance drain. ::holds back his outburst of laughter:: Oh endurance drain... that's rich.

However...***

Pil, Concern... do you think sometimes ignorance is bliss?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em rolleyes

Weren't you going to drop this?

[/ QUOTE ]

D'oh! I hate when my hypocrisy is called out!

About the rudeness:
[ QUOTE ]
If it was it went over my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "your opinion is irrelevant" comments were uncalled for, so I removed them. That, and my dumb statement about yellow polka dot skies didn't make much sense lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. And nope, it didn't. :P

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Post was unnecessarily rude. Apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was it went over my head.

[ QUOTE ]
I popped open my manual and found the AT description you're talking about. You're right, it does say "Blasters specialize in delivering massive damage at range." So, I guess that makes us both right.

[/ QUOTE ]

/em rolleyes

Weren't you going to drop this?

And both right? That's a stretch at best. Emphasis you on specialize. :P When *I* emphasize it it's to back my point. "See? See? It straight out says our specialty is ranged! The melee is just there as an OH [censored]!"

[ QUOTE ]
Whether the melee attacks were a mistake or not is, IMO, irrelevant. I believe that this was intentional. They exist. They've existed for a long time. If they were a mistake, then they wouldn't have been improved over time... you know, to make them more attractive.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were improved because compared to the other attacks in blaster sets and scrappers they were viewed as underpowered. They were improved to bring them in line with the concept of 'offensive juggernaut'.

It is simply not logically possible for someone to [ QUOTE ]
play "against" an AT when they're using strictly powers provided in their Primary and Secondary sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't use the pool powers to round out your attack chain? To add defense?

[ QUOTE ]
If they weren't "about" melee, they wouldn't "have" melee to begin with. Sure, their emphasis is ranged, I agree, but to saythat Blasters "were never meant for melee range" is obviously not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Devices Secondary: No melee
Electric Manipulation: 3 melee attacks
Energy Manipulation: 4 melee attacks (not counting stun)
Fire Manipulation: 2 melee attacks
Ice Manipulation: 2 melee attacks

If blasters were meant to melee you wouldn't see such disparity amongst the number and type and damage of melee attacks. The melee are almost an afterthought. Just because they threw in 2 melee attacks here or even 4 there (maybe because they couldn't think of anything elese to do with the set?) doesn't mean they're there to turn blasters into melee masters.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're goign to play the "look what they did not Controllers with multiple pets" card, but that's still not a power reversal, that's a downgrade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, oppinion. Not all controllers consider the change a downgrade or bad. Just because the 'crybabys' are the most vocal doesn't make them the majority. (Nor does it make them the minority either.)

[ QUOTE ]
There doesn't need to be a red name post supporting the use of melee attacks. They're IN the damn secondaries!

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't ask for one.

[ QUOTE ]
If players want to call them "Blappers," that's their perogative. They're still Blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a REASON they're called blappers. And it's because they're the blaster AT (ranged specialists) but they fight like scrappers (melee).

[ QUOTE ]
Our AT description doesn't change simply because we empasize our secondary strengths.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're just going against your at. Blaster = ranged specialist. By focusing on your melee you're going against that. It's that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

As are you.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that they sky is yellow with pink polka dots. That doesn't make me right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank God for that. HOWEVER, that's not an oppinion. It's at best an ignorance to the facts (in this case regarding the color of the sky). The color of the sky is an established fact. Saying a blue sky is yellow with pink daffodils...

I do get what you're saying though.

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: A blaster that makes use of his melee attacks is more of a glass "canon" than a strictly range-limited blaster could ever be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glass cannon? I thought that was me. You're a glass sword.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that this is what people want to change and that's fine. I actually agree. To be honest, this conversation is moot anyway. Stateman has already stated that the melee attacks aren't going anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was supposed to be moot when you said you weren't going to carry it on.

Anyway I could really give a [censored], honestly if you build 1000000000 blappers. (The melee attacks are pretty fun.) My ONLY concern is that people making blappers makes it that much harder (and possibly longer) for devs to make improvements to what is an that [italic]specializes[/italic] in range.

[ QUOTE ]
On a slightly different tangent... what's with the implication that Blappers rely on pool powers to be a Blapper? I've never had more than Fitness, Speed and Hover since I created this character. I've seen a few Blappers with Acrobatics, but I'd hardly say it's necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

My ignorance then. I didn't think you could effectively maintain melee without some additional attacks from the power pools and some of the defense.

EDIT: Fixed a couple typos and some tone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANY inherint that is team or solo biased is flawed.

Gauntlet
Vigilance
Cosmic Balance
Dark Sustenance

Those only do good on teams and are useless outside of them. Every other inherint works the same in a team as solo.

The last thing we should do is encourage the devs to make more inherints that only do any good on a team.

I still vote for a blaster version of fury. However, instead of it building every time you attack/are attacked, it builds as you take hits but is NOT health dependant. So if you drop some health you don't lose the bar. However, it'd drain just as quickly as fury, so to keep your damage up you have to be taking damage. So the risk is there that to use your inherint you need to be under fire, and the reward is increased damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any inherint that is team based is flawed, it just happens that those ATs work BETTER in a team and as such their inherint reflects that. Remember the Devs have been pushing for us to Team since pretty much launch.

[/ QUOTE ]

**Reply sent in pm since it's a total derail and has nothing to do with thread.**

[ QUOTE ]
Now what I DO have a problem with is an inherint that is based on damage recieved, on an AT that has almost NO defenses against said damage. Once that damage starts coming in there is almost no way to stop it except kill the ones dealing it, problem is that there is a good chance the critter already has another attack qued so even if we manage to get our attack off in the short span we are still alive, the killing blow is in route to us. To say nothing of if we aggro a group and they all turn and fire on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still a step up IMO. We need to take damage either way and it stays in States' vision. At least this way we could keep our health up, get healed etc and not see our inherint bar instantly vanish. The risk being the damage that could potentially kill us the reward being us standing up in Defiance of their onslaught and laying waste to them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, "Blappers" would no longer exist... as you just turned all of our key melee attacks into ranged ones. Losing the melees would completely kill my character concept. Some of us don't care about attack chains.

[/ QUOTE ]

But not everyone is playing AGAINST the AT. I have a blapper 'toy'. I play him when I want a change of pace. I in no way take him seriously. Blasters are meant to be RANGED offensive juggernauts. Just because some people take advantage of the mistake that's the melee attacks doesn't mean that's what they're there for.

Asking me to suffer with blasters in their current form because your concept for your blaster goes AGAINST the AT isn't fair dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had this argument before. Blasters were never advertised as "ranged" damage dealers until fairly recently by a Statesman post. Every AT description that the game has provided up to that point has never, to my knowledge, specified that Blasters were soley "ranged" damage dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instructions I got with the game (about 2 weeks after original release) clearly place blasters as ranged damage dealers.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it was implied, but that's the key.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the word RANGED in their description is merely implication...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm paraphrasing here, but the first Blaster AT description I ran across while loading up the game stated that "Blasters are fragile, but are the masters of damage, be it from range or in melee."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think I remember that from the original instillation screen way way back in the day. I don't think it mentioned range/melee but was less general just stating master of damage, leaving the door open. However, the manual that came with the game...

[ QUOTE ]
Given the plethora of melee-based attacks in our secondaries, I'd say that if Blasters were "never meant to be in melee," we wouldn't have so many damn melee powers to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) but weren't our secondaries kinda' just cobbled together when the game went to the AT system? Maybe we were never meant to have the melee attacks in there. However that's just speculation. The problem is they're there, they're high damage, and some people decided they want glass swords instead of glass cannons.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't view this as a "mistake" as you say. I would argue that this was completely intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intent has nothing to do with it. I think them putting the melee attacks in was a mistake, or at least a quantity of them. One solid melee attack as an 'oh crap' power would be fine iMo. The reason I think it's a mistake is now we have two camps. Blaster and blappers. If they make changes to turn blaster into the 'ranged offensive juggernauts' we're 'supposed' to be, that might affect the blappers. Alternatively, if they try to make changes that keep both camps happy it might take longer or result in changes that aren't exactly ideal for the ranged blasters.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, if a melee power exists... and I use it... how is this a mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. (As an aside, not saying you USING them is a mistake.)

[ QUOTE ]
They weren't "intended" to be used?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't say that.

[ QUOTE ]
Asking me to accept that powers I've loved and used for two years should be taken away because of your idea of what Blaster should be, isn't "fair dude."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh... mockery...

Anyway, I'm not asking they take them away. However, blasters weren't designed or built to maintain sustained fighting in melee range. That's not saying they can't be SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to do it, but that's NOT what they're about. First and foremost blasters are ranged combatants... our primary pool is ranged. You are playing AGAINST the AT using the attacks from its secondary pool as your main-stay with support from pool powers. So... that being said any changes to blaster should be kept with "what is this AT?" in mind. Blappers are specialized variants of blasters. I want a better blaster, and the AT is called blaster, not blapper.

[ QUOTE ]
I just happen to enjoy using the powers that have been here all along... and using them the way they were obviously intended to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh, and where's the red-name post stating that the melee powers are there to turn blasters into blappers? That's your impression.

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse ME if I take issue with them being taken away from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said... we're blasters. I want a better blaster. Blappers are something completely different and could 'potentially' complicate changes that would make better blasters because you're playing AGAINST the AT.

[ QUOTE ]
If the Devs want to go and change how Blasters operate, that's their perogative. I really take issue with them completely removing powers from the game after they've been around for so long and are detrimental to our (by "our" I mean those of us that actually enjoy the melee attacks) "fun."

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the melee attacks on ALL my blasters be they designed for it or no. A mob always gets through and it's nice to be able to smash his head down and out through his [censored]. The melee powers have their place and their purpose.

I'm also not opposed to blappers. The melee attacks are there. The pool powers are there. 2+2 = 4 and in this case 4 = blapper. You were given materials and tools and made something from them. Even if it's against the at, since you weren't restricted on what you were allowed to build then you built what you wanted.

[ QUOTE ]
Removing powers at this point is akin to deleting characters, IMO. I'd be like logging in to find my Tank has been changed to a Kheldian

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is where the problem comes in. If they hadn't made the mistake of putting in so many melee attacks we wouldn't have a blapper issue. However the mistake was made and now it's going to cause issues.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the Blaster debate. However, drastically removing and altering powers at this stage of the game with this magnitude is extreme..

[/ QUOTE ]


ED

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... removing powers and changing how powerful they CAN be are two completely different things.
How hard is this to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

How hard is it to understand you're playing AGAINST the AT?

I understand potential vs powers. However... as a ranged BLASTER I'm not going to shed too many tears if they decide to whipe out the melee attacks or reduce the number of melee attacks if it meant I was a stronger ranged combatant.

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Sorry for de-railing the thread, Pilcrow. Blasters need love, but not at the expense of power removal. There, I've said my piece. Hijack done!

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed

EDIT: I am NOT suggesting in any way shape or form the melee attacks be changed or removed. All I'm stating is MY personal oppinion that they are in *MY* oppinion expendable if it means making the AT better. I just wouldn't want to see blasters not get better because they couldn't get rid of the melee attacks due to blappers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, every other AT would react badly I'm sure if Blasters got even an ounce of mez protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, even the Khelds?

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the tank mages? Nah, I'm sure they could care less what happens to everyone else. I love my Warshade and don't care what anyone else gets, I have everything I will ever need.

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed

[ QUOTE ]
And I like that idea of +perception when using Aim, makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed /signed /signed

[ QUOTE ]
They need to rework Defiance so that it works like Vigilance: damage taken by teammates ups a Blaster's Defiance meter. Pow. Tankers have a definite role on the team and Blasters can be damage juggernauts. 90% of Blaster problems gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except 90% of the time I solo making my 99% useless inherint 100% useless. Given the option I'll keep that 1% usability.

ANY inherint that is team or solo biased is flawed.

Gauntlet
Vigilance
Cosmic Balance
Dark Sustenance

Those only do good on teams and are useless outside of them. Every other inherint works the same in a team as solo.

The last thing we should do is encourage the devs to make more inherints that only do any good on a team.

Besides, as far as I've seen defenders aren't too thrilled with vigilance. Why would we be any happier with a blaster version?

I still vote for a blaster version of fury. However, instead of it building every time you attack/are attacked, it builds as you take hits but is NOT health dependant. So if you drop some health you don't lose the bar. However, it'd drain just as quickly as fury, so to keep your damage up you have to be taking damage. So the risk is there that to use your inherint you need to be under fire, and the reward is increased damage output.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol, I still need an emoticon for rolled eyes!

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, a friend of mine and myself put in a petition to have "the finger" added as an emote....doubt we'll get it

[/ QUOTE ]

There's one in WoW. You make the gesture without the actual finger.

Personally I'd love to see /em moon.

But you know every horny hetro teenage male would be sitting in atlas doing moonfests for hours on end.