-
Posts
2397 -
Joined
-
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smite doesn't one-shot white minions. Shadow Maul might with HOs, and Midnight Grasp can, but it's not really a one-shot as it takes several seconds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your experience meshes with mine but I would add that Full-Auto and Flamethrower both take several seconds to "one shot". Several Seconds that can lead to death.
[/ QUOTE ]
Completely agree. I also dislike how, when hitting things with holds/sleeps they seem to launch a counterattack before the control takes hold. -
[ QUOTE ]
I still maintain that, say, %80 of the aggrivation with Blasters could be dealt with by the following two changes:
1) Ranged attacks in the primary power sets no longer root while activating. Don't even need to change the actual activation times, simply make it so you can continue to dodge/run while firing. This can't be impossible to implement, as you can already do so with a proper leap-joust. And even Ice, with its fast animations, needs to hold still for the second they take to fire. With this, you'd actually be able to keep enemies at range, and thus have range be a viable defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Several toggle and click powers already have non-rooted animations. Surely it can't be that hard to do it for attacks.
It'd make a nice perk for blasters, too.
[ QUOTE ]
2) Scale Blaster damage upwards as they level so that net effectiveness remains the same. Post SOs, Blasters actually decrease in effectiveness, as mob HP and resistances continue to rise, while there's no further way to self-improve damage. This leads to being able to obliterate yellows with a snipe at 22, but only being able to one-shot whites with a snipe at 50. Since offense=defense for blasters (more or less), this steady decrease in objective effectiveness is a big harm.
[/ QUOTE ]
This, on the other hand, is true for everyone - it's probably just more noticeable with blasters.
That said, I agree that giving better post-30 damage scaling to blasters would help. -
[ QUOTE ]
rememeber, way back before smoke grenades got nerfed, and everybody was whining about how */dev blasters were tankmages, because they had awesome defense and awesome damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, still bitter?
The distinction (one I don't really agree with, but it's there) is awesome damage at range. -
[ QUOTE ]
My DA scrapper can 1 shot a yellow minion. Crits can 1 shot a red minion. This is without using Soul Drain. With, enemies fear, as Smite 1 shots whites.
[/ QUOTE ]
Smite doesn't one-shot white minions. Shadow Maul might with HOs, and Midnight Grasp can, but it's not really a one-shot as it takes several seconds. -
For the record, I didn't intend to name you as an attack, I wanted to point out that "yes, people are asking for these things, and yes it can make communication harder." My own reaction to your use of 75% as a suggestion is a good example - I completely didn't notice you also said "or 80 or 85." I'm not blaming you, because my reaction didn't help.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm against tank mages, at least as far as not everyone in this game is a tank mage (maybe if everyone was I wouldn't have a problem with tank/scraps/post 32 controllers)
[/ QUOTE ]
I can sympathize with this - I used to get frustrated playing blasters through the early levels and never running into adversity after playing a relatively painful first character. I think that my troubles were a combination of my secondary's shortcomings (DA) and inexperience with the game, and my perception of my blasters having an easier time were a combination of me knowing better how to play, the game actually being easier for blasters at low levels, and the whole "City of Blasters" perception that was prevalent at the time. So, while my perception of how good blasters were at the time was inaccurate, it does give me a sense of where you're coming from.
[ QUOTE ]
As it currently stands Tankers have the best defences in the game, and the highest single target attack in the game, with the only downfall of that being that if you herd and stack too many mobs at one place you can accidentally kill yourself, it also has a set designed to protect itself through killing everything around it, which means it's fairly safe and very damaging.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quite true. I've pointed out on the tanker forum that burn is likely going to come up for another nerf. Also, I think Statesman's statement that they're evaluating scrappers and tankers will see an overall reduction in defenses across the board. I hope it doesn't come to that, and that the devs instead evaluate each set individually for what needs to be done to make it easier to balance a playing environment that includes invuln/stone tankers (who are nigh-unkillable) and blasters of any variety.
Scrappers are about the same as that.
[ QUOTE ]
Post 32 controllers are what really get me in the risk/reward senario, the worst offender, gets an invincable tank team, and summonable energy blasters, the others, except mind (and maybe gravity, I'm not sure on it's damage output with the sings.) can do about the same, and once they summon these pets, they can just Phase shift and let the pets go to town, or die, who cares, no XP debt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, while pets are a great tool to help controllers solo, I can't see them (Illusion and Fire) not getting toned down. Especially if Geko's statement of what made regeneration overpowered is an accurate statement of what the devs want from the game.
I don't care if the entire game gets recalibrated if the ATs end up on relatively even ground in terms of capabilities. Not identical, of course, because that's silly and impossible - but, like, a good build from every AT should be able to solo Invincible missions after 25-30. I think that's a good balance goal. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think "zero defense" was not the best decision.
[/ QUOTE ]
That might be the best summation of "The Blaster Problem."
For me, it's an ironically fortunate thing that many blaster secondary sets are melee-centric. This way I can ignore most of my secondary powers and use the slots instead for defensively-oriented pool powers.
That trend speaks poorly of the secondary sets, and further explains why Devices is so popular since it breaks formula by being useful.
[/ QUOTE ]
I quote this, because of all other complaints I have ever read about blasters, this is the one I remember seeing the most. The secondaries are too much of a grab-bag to really support themselves or the blaster primaries, is the impression I get - naturally, there are exceptions (energy and devices are both seen as fairly good).
The secondaries seem to need stronger internal consistency, as well as more tools to enable blasters to deliver their damage without faceplanting. Please, someone tell me if I'm just being dumb? -
[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest thing that needs to be looked at is how every other AT can up their difficulty once they hit their mid-30s while blasters sometimes can't even complete missions on heroic without teammates.
Make it so we can at least solo effectively enough to handle anything tenacious gives us. If a defender can do invincible with his debuffs alone, I should be able to at least to +1 enemies with my "superior damage."
[/ QUOTE ]
You are pretty modest in your demands, Taser. I'd go all the way. If defenders can handle Invincible, so should blasters.
I dunno, maybe I'm being unreasonable. -
[ QUOTE ]
Er... and who would that be exactly?
[/ QUOTE ]
Orochi and Filburt come immediately to mind. That's not complete list, just the two names that I can recall (Orochi because it's very recent, Filburt because that's apparently his favorite thing in these threads). -
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you assumed HT was lvl 50, and slotted BA heavily, and had Fire Shield, I could see him ignoring "bullets" (something few seem to have at high level, and one of the worse damages there), and foes being reluctant to approch because of BA's wrath. Of course, the F4 don't fight Rikti or Malta.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you're talking about a seriously concept character there with that blazing aura.
I wonder if BA and its ilk would work better if they had a greater chance to cause villains to flee the damage and stay at range. Then again, I realize the best answer is, "what if there were a power in that slot that was cool." -
[ QUOTE ]
yeah that nerf to cloak of fear was harsh. they really need to make it lest costly for a dark armor scrapper to do his job... hich is obviously to make sandwiches in the midst of his enemies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cloak of Fear didn't make it safe to stand in the midst of my enemies, unless they were white or maybe yellow. And I know, it's awful that a defensive set actually makes fights safer for those who have it.
The Cloak of Fear nerf makes Cloak of Fear practically useless until the 40s. -
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly nothing. But then again, it doesn't really need to have to do with anything. Any time Blasters want positive improvements to the AT, it sets off waves of "They're calling for our AT to be nerfed!" and other bits of paranoia from non-Blasters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, also, Statesman said that they're rebalancing scrappers and tankers, and I suspect that's what prompted the statement.
That's beside the point, though - you do have a handful of vocal posters here in the blaster forum who seem to think that nerfing the Hell out of scrappers will make blasters all better (not a majority, but a vocal minority). It's frustrating to read past and difficult to ignore. -
[ QUOTE ]
I imagine the scrappers who cant are either dark or invuln, and relying on their decreased resistance caps? or is 75% enough to take on reds and make sandwiches? I don't know, maybe not. But then dark gets cloak of fear for added defense, and invuln gets invincibility for added defense... so.... I don't know if its true that not all scrappers can do this.
let us not forget: everyone loves sandwiches.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, my experience on test when trying out the new resistance to end drain on Dark Armor was that I couldn't go away in a crowd of oranges, even after I took out the sapper. Yes, that was with the not-yet-nerfed cloak of fear.
Now if I'm running FA, Tough, Weave, Cloak of Darkness, all three resist shields, and Cloak of Fear, I can probably safely leave...but I can only slot two attacks.
75% resists aren't necessarily enough to do this alone, you also need fairly good +Def (but enough of that will make a huge difference). -
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to play like that, pick devices and be done with it. However, other blaster types should be able to play like an actual superhero, blazing down from the sky and destroying all. The Human Torch is a non-stealthed, non-superspeeding blaster, and he's not gimp. Cyclops, while he usually fights in a team, doesn't use stealth or invisibility either.
[/ QUOTE ]
It does need to be pointed out that the Human Torch's fiery aura melts incoming bullets, and people tend not to punch him because OH MY GOD IT BURNS.
But these are hard to emulate for blasters currently.I think "zero defense" was not the best decision.
-
[ QUOTE ]
Higher damage cap, criticals, higher single damage attacks, and enough defense to ignore red mobs and make a sandwich. You tell me who's inherently "stronger".
[/ QUOTE ]
Please don't generalize. Not all scrappers can do this.
edit: I don't disagree with your overall points, btw. Sorry I didn't initially make that clear. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was - and is - the reason why Blaster damage is capped lower than Scrappers. I did forget to add that the ranged attacks of mobs deal less damage (typically) than melee attacks - and the Blaster is generally the target of raned attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dear Statesman: We are not worried about ranged damage. We are good about keeping enemies at range. We are worried about RANGED MEZZING, which negates EVERYTHING and which we have no defense against except break frees. And no, that's not enough, don't start.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a big issue: There's too much mezzing in the game. It's what the villains get as trump cards (except where mezzing fails and then the mez-heavy faction also gets endurance drains). -
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there WAS a very long thread in the Defender Forum a while ago that had tons of testimony on why most of them, myself included, prefer not to team with Blasters. If we needed AoE, it was much easier and Endurance-Efficient for us to get a BurnTanker or Spines/Rgn Scrapper, allowing us to take on tougher Mobs and avoid babysitting a Blaster who for all we know could be a total n00b since so many newer players "cut their teeth" on Blasters.
Eventually word got out to many Blasters that we had this thread going and it got real ugly when so many poor disillusioned Blasters suddenly realized that the AT's they thought were there just for their sake, hated playing with them because they were too Squishy and usually had to be Saved from Themselves.
Having a Team-Blapper myself, I know that's simply not the case, however the sheer amount of skill required to play a good Blaster who gives 100% in every fight at later game is simply not a realistic requirements for a build that is supposed to introduce newer players to the Wonders of CoH.
[/ QUOTE ]
I read that thread (among others) and, wow, some of the attitudes expressed were pretty depressing. -
[ QUOTE ]
Can I kill a boss faster than a scrapper? No. However, when there's four bosses in a group (which I see all the damn time in our big groups) I can cycle between them at speeds scrappers can only envy. I MIGHT rival a scrapper in boss killspeed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've teamed with another ice/ice blaster and I have to say that his killing speed was definitely rivalling mine. It's arguable as to who was taking them out faster. -
[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't meant as a counter to the "lack of teaming opportunity for blasters" point. Just a reminder that it's not AS bleak as painted in his initial post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was agreeing with you and saying mean things about people who build teams on a purely mercenary basis. It doesn't mean that I think there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed, though. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's how you can tell blasters are generally useless. Try to think of a single team, a single situation, a single time in game where a team trying to decided between two potential teammates would say "No, lets not take the scrapper, let's take the blaster!"
[/ QUOTE ]
As a controller, my answer is: every time I form a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer to have blasters over scrappers on my team when I'm playing my tanker. With my scrapper, it literally doesn't matter to me - have one or the other, and we'll do fine.
But saying this (as true as it is) doesn't help, because people are convinced that no one wants blasters on their teams. It may very well be that there are [censored] idiots out there who are so mercenary in their team-building that they kick blasters for not having as much defense as scrappers.
This is not dissimilar to the tankers' claims that they had no place on teams before issue 3. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, I'm also kinda disappointed that it was only five that got sent...
[/ QUOTE ]
was napping before they got sent, and woke up with over 10 pages of the stuff already on... you people write a LOT
[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't a condemnation - at the time that the PMs were sent out, lots of people were already serial-posting. I'd just like to think that the entire blaster AT could muster more PMs than the entire dark armor population. -
[ QUOTE ]
I fought for Dark Armor to be improved right along with Ice Armor. Frankly I think the set still needs some tweaks. The main reason I did not go gung ho with DA like I have with blasters is that the blaster issues are AT wide and not set specific. If there was just a problem with one blaster set then I would try and get that set improved.
[/ QUOTE ]
You may notice that I am more than slightly interested in blasters getting a boost...but I'm also interested in trying to ensure that Dark Armor gets balance.
I'm just frustrated at how many PMs it took to get Statesman's attention for the Cloak of Fear and overall Dark Armor issues (three from me alone, several more from others), but he remarks on getting bombarded with five whole PMs about blaster issues.
To be honest, I'm also kinda disappointed that it was only five that got sent...
Anyway, I was referring to the degree of effort it took to get a quick response after new information was posted (the Q&A). I'm not asking anyone here to run over and support Dark Armor's current situation. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, just be glad you're not getting the Dark Armor treatment...
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like being able to stack your armors, and having a horrid power turned into something over powered, then having that said power cranked down a bit because it basically made it so they didn't need to run their other toggles, or giving it one of the few fear protections in the game for PvP, or having one of the few toggle toxic protections?
I wish...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, how about: Having the best power in your set nerfed to the point that it can't reliably do what it's supposed to do, get a thread pinned up about it, and send (collectively, among all the players) a few dozen PMs asking for clarification, and get the barest acknowledgement, including an inaccurate summary of what the power does on live. Cloak of Fear wasn't overpowered in PvE, and barely arguably overpowered in PvP. You could escape it with one break free, and it would only last for a second or two after you were out of the radius anyway.
Then, a few days later, you can see Statesman express how he was bombarded with five whole PMs about blaster issues...
So, no, the DA treatment is to get ignored, to get a bandaid fix that, while it helps DA somewhat, is somewhat countered by other newly introduced issues.
The toxic protection in DA is pretty irrelevant. It's the lowest resist in the set and only matures after the most dangerous toxic-using enemies are out of the picture. Scrapper Invulnerability gets the same amount of toxic resistance in a toggle (Unyielding), and of course tanker invulnerability gets even more.
Stacking armor is great, except it results in DA scrappers spending more endurance than any other scrapper for less protection than any other scrapper.
While I have disagreed with you, I still respect you. If that matters at all, I'd like to ask you to stop frothing at the mouth in my direction. I'm not your enemy. I want blasters boosted too. -
[ QUOTE ]
However if the Devs let blasters slide into obscurity again, you can bet that I will call upon blasters to once again start the crusade. I may not be able to defend my arguements but dang if I am not loud shouting them. 3B Blaster all the way
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, just be glad you're not getting the Dark Armor treatment... -
[ QUOTE ]
On the Tf I mentioned, my tank buddy had Invincibility, Taunt, Provoke, and his punchvoke going. The Stone tank had mudpots, taunt, and whatever he had slotted into his melee attacks and they were still unable to keep the blasters standing. All they had was their Energy Torrents and one had Explosive blast....not enough damage there to warrant causing the tanks to lose aggro.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what to say - I haven't lost aggro to anyone but other tanks as a normal thing, it only happens if I forget to use taunt, if I miss something nearby, or if the team starts alpha-striking before I can get aggro.
That said, I'm not trying to say that this doesn't happen, and I think that it might help to adjust game mechanics to make it harder for blasters to take aggro from tankers. I don't think the game should make it too easy to punish you for using your powers in a team situation. -
[ QUOTE ]
Once you get hit with 3-4 of them, people hit you more, debuff you more, drop you even faster. This is pretty trivial to test, if you don't belive me- get a mission with lethal dominant foes, and watch as 40 of them start to do pretty astonishing runs and debuff chains on you.
[/ QUOTE ]
A really good way to test this is against Praetorian blue clocks. They use radiation blast, which also debuffs your defense. Round up a couple spawns and see how long it takes (my experience? Not very).