Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, defender powers are aimed at reducing the effectiveness of a foe. Controller powers look more to incapacitate a foe [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT (Well, IMO truth)

[ QUOTE ]
2) "Controllers are about as good at Force Fielding as Defenders"- this is actually not true. If we consider the Proverbial White Minion [in I7, true for all badguys]:

Defender gives team 40% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 10 times.
Controller gives team 32% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 5.55 times.

FF Defender gives almost twice as much protection as FF Controller. . .excluding the Controller primary, that is. So "they bounce people around more" isn't that big a deal to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that:

1) You're talking about high level Defenders and Controllers here, not low level. Base level for the numbers you gave above would be Defender 25% for 1 hit in 4 times, and Controller 20% for 1 hit in 5 times. That's only an increase of 25%.

2) At high levels, most Tankers and Scrappers will have some form of Defense, too. In fact, only 4% Defense, which can be gotten from the power pool, will take your double damage and make it only 40% more damage. Once you hit the cap, both Defenders and Controllers are equal.

It can also be said that this is the same argument as about the increase in the cap for Bosses and AVs, in that twice as much of so small an amount of damage is not significant. You really have to compare that to how much damage the team is able to take.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's somewhat akin to the following:

A Scrapper using a Defense power that does damage would deal more damage than a Tanker using that power in his Primary.

A Tanker using an attack that raises his Defense would get more bonus than a Scrapper. (Unfortunately, the only attack for which this applies is Parry, and weapon Tankers don't get it)

A Defender using a Secondary that debuffs an enemy should get a greater (or longer duration) debuff. (Sonic Attack is probably the only real example of this, although Rad's -Def debuff would theoretically apply. Plus, Electric was intentionally changed to drain more End for Defenders)

Unfortunately, the issue is that most of the powers above have ANOTHER effect as well as the one that's getting a "boost", so for instance while the Parry might do less damage for the Scrapper, it obviously does more damage. The Defender Powers that are an issue, though, are those that have ONLY a Control element, or the other element is minor. (Like Force Bolt's damage)

In some cases, the solution might be to add a debuff element. Tar Patch, for instance, mentioned above, may not have a -recharge component, but it DOES have a -Res, which is quite useful. So there is something the Defender could be overall better at. (If Controllers got Dark Miasma, but this is just in general, here)

[ QUOTE ]
Drawing Aggro only applies in Teams. If you are teaming, try to get someone with Taunt to be on your team. So long as you aren't hunting +4's, Taunt should last long enough to mitigate this. As far as situational, that is by design.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the last three powers in Force Field being situational are "by design", why are Dark Servant, Recovery Aura, Regeneration Aura, Adrenalin Boost, Transferance, Fulcrum Shift, Choking Cloud, Clarity, Liquify, Tornado, Lightning Storm, Disruption Arrow and Oil Slick Arrow not situational? (Some of those Powers may still be classified as "situational" but I tried to eliminate all those that were obvious, like Inertial Reduction. The point is outside of FF, all Defender sets have at least one power in the last three which is useful in a general sense)

[ QUOTE ]
Not true. Defenders do slightly more damage, unless the controllers Containment is in effect. Knockback is not a Debuff, and Controllers have the same modifier as Defenders for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, "Defenders do more damage -- except when they don't". See below.

[ QUOTE ]
It is also arguable that they only have three powers worth slotting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said yourself that the final three powers were "situational". That may not be the same as "not worth slotting", but I think that's the point that was trying to be made.

[ QUOTE ]
No other Defender set provides the level of Defense as a Force Field Defender. The built in Status Protection is invaluable, especially with Scrapper and Tankers Status Protections reduced. Also, Defenders are more than Healers -- consider your 'Healing' the fact that your team is taking considerably less damage as a result of your protections. I do know that many of you will disagree with this, but short of rebuilding the powerset completely, it is not likely to change in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I feel is the big issue. Saying that Force Field has the most Defense is irrelevant. That's like saying "No other Scrapper set provides the same level of healing as Regeneration." Is that supposed to mean that Regeneration Scrappers are better at surviving than all other Scrappers? Of course not, they are supposed to be about equal.

It's not whether or not FF has more DEFENSE that is the issue, it is whether it has more DAMAGE MITIGATION. And what I and the other players of Force Fielders are trying to get across is that they DON'T. Any team with a Dark or Rad Defender will take considerably less damage as a result of THEIR protection. In the case of Dark, they can probably reduce that damage as much as we could. PLUS, they can HEAL on top of that.

If you can conclusively prove that a Dark Defender under normal playing conditions (and that includes all the complications of using anchored debuffs) cannot mitigate as much damage as a Force Fielder, then maybe I'll accept your point. But if Force Field is to compete with Dark and Rad then there should be NO QUESTION about how much damage it mitigates. It should be OBVIOUS that it is more. Because if Force Field is not to have the ability to heal, then it should mitigate FAR MORE damage to compensate for that. And if it is not to have the ability to boost offensive power, it should be EVEN MORE.

If we are even having this argument, then there is a problem. FF shouldn't compete with other defensive sets. It should leave them in the dust.

If that is an issue -- and I assume that it is -- then FF should be given more offensive capability, more damage mitigation of a different form, (not healing, but how about a damage debuff?) or both. Knockback is obviously a form of damage mitigation, but you said yourself those powers are situational. In the absense of knockback, what do we bring to the table?

Of course, I do expect FF to be somewhat better once the Def adjustment goes live. But anyone expecting that to be an overall change is going to be disappointed. The best thing that could be said about it is that at least FF will no longer just be ignored outright, if the foes are orange or red. They still have to compete with Rad and Dark, on equal footing.

As for Status Protection, an Empath should be able to easily match that protection. Or even a Sonic.

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers AT modifier for Slows is higher than Defenders. I'll talk to geko to make certain this is by design.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my final point. Slow may be regarded as a control power, but it is technically a debuff. A -Recharge, for instance, is quite clearly a debuff, so since Slow can be interpreted as -Speed, it could be considered a debuff.

The problem, of course, is that since Slow effects movement, it is connected to a Controller's primary role, which is controlling the position of enemies. Now, back before I had any real information about what capabilities the ATs would specifically had, I made a guess, based on some examples we had (mainly Storm Summoning) on what would be the difference between Controllers and Defenders. Controllers, of course, have absolute control over movement, they can hold and sleep, preventing opponents from either moving or attacking. Like Professor X, their specialty would be the "hard" control powers, over large areas.

The Defenders, on the other hand, I felt would have "soft" control powers, although again over a large area. They couldn't stop them from moving, but they could slow them down, they couldn't stop them from attacking, but they could slow them down. Slows and Knockback, I felt, would be the Defender's specialty, Slow because it really is nothing but a debuff, Knockback because, while it is a control power, is more chaotic and hard to control than a mez.

While I certainly agree that Controllers should be better at Control, as others have said, they have plenty of that in their Primary. A Secondary is supposed to be 75% of a Primary, that's the definition of it, and so even though the Controllers SHOULD get a boost, it should really be no more than enough to match the 75% reduction. At least in the areas of Slow and Knockback, and maybe even Disorient and Immobilize, I don't see why a full strength Buff/Debuff Primary should not outperform a Secondary version.

Now, of course maybe that's not possible. You often use AT modifiers to set the relation between the Primary and Secondary and not base values. Knockback is already the same for Controllers and Defenders, I think that you could make Slow the same, as well. It's the overall Set that should be 75%, not one individual power. But then, if a set is primarily control, like Trick Arrow, or even FF if you consider its Knockback to be a large part of its usefulness, then how DO you keep it from being just more suited for Controllers than Defenders? (Or even Corruptors)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that sounds nuts to me. Are you actually suggesting that we have Tanks with Illusion Control powers or Controllers with Stone Armor. How about an Empathy Defender with Super Strength?
IMHO we need more specific powers not less. Sure everyone wants to be the vaunted "Tank/Mage" with great armor, melee attacks and powerful ranged attacks plus lots of support spells... but if you allow that everyone would be 95% identical to everyone else.

And clean out your litter box!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think she means anything of the sort. But there are certain powersets that could certainly bridge between archetypes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dark is a perfect example of a power source (and note I'm calling it a source, not a Set) that bridges between archetypes. There are Dark Scrappers, Dark Defenders, Dark Brutes, Dark Corruptors, Dark Masterminds (Necro/Dark) and in I7 there will be Dark Stalkers. The same power, Dark, has very different EFFECTS depending on your Archetype. (Although in all honesty, there are some common elements that bridge Archetype limitations, such as Healing and Fear, abilities we would associate with Buff/Debuff and Control)

A Super Strength Defender might be a hard concept to follow, since SS is really a physical concept, and doesn't extend well to ranged defense. Then again, you might say that SS, Invunerability and Kinetics are all about physical, Kinetic energy. So maybe they are related. You can certainly relate Energy Melee and Energy Aura to Energy Blast and Force Field. (In fact, I was kind of thinking Energy Aura would put bubbles around you. I guess not, tho)

Tanks with Illusion I really can't come up with an idea for. But maybe a Stalker-like misdirection Scrapper, who uses illusions to make himself appear to be somewhere other than his actual position? He wouldn't have pets, exactly, but his powers would by similar to Super Reflexes. Actually, he would probably work much better as a Stalker.

[ QUOTE ]
Hover: We might buff it some, at some point. However, it should never be an effective travel power.

Flight: I'll talk to geko about it. No promises. (I got spoiled by the Holiday Jet Pack, too!)

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that the reason for the cap on Flight, Super Speed, and Super Jump was because of a maximum speed on the game engine. Since Super Speed's speed had to be superior to Flight, (since it had no vertical component) and Super Speed was capped at the game's limitation, Flight had to be capped, at 6 SOs, at a speed much less.

In fact, the cap ended up about 3.5 SOs. Which means that it can probably be raised a little, and still hit the cap at 3 SOs, which is now the limit. And since there IS a cap, there really isn't a big problem with raising it anyway, since it will always be slower than Super Speed.

Also, I've said since the beginning that Flying should start out slower than Super Jump, but I don't really think it would be an issue if it ended up slightly faster. It is the only travel power that increases in speed as you level (Well, I think maybe Sprint does, too) so you spend the majority of your time annoyed with how slow Flying is. The final speed which is being used for comparison is one that most players of the game have not yet reached.

As Flying is the only travel power that was capped at over 3 SOs, I think looking at it in light of ED changes wouldn't be a bad idea.

[ QUOTE ]
hey I just realized something...with buffing defence they nerfed accuracy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Only when going up against greens, if that. Do players get a to hit bonus when they attack a higher level foe? If not, then no, there's no difference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they get -50 points for making yet *another* fundamental alternation to their game engine without warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, this thread is the warning, since none of this is coming until I7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I picked up on the talk about it quite some time ago (I was discussing it in another thread when Statesman posted) so I'm guessing some people knew it was coming.

This may be wishful thinking, but Statesman said, "This change has no effect on a player who does not have any Defense." The converse of that would be that it DOES have effect on a player that has ANY form of Defense. Be it Power Pool, buff placed on him by a teammate, SR Secondary, FF Primary or Inspiration.

As I said above, this could be an overall buff to defense (as a general term) which may require some "balancing". Even so, I think we can all say that after I6 we need some buffing.

Oh, wow. That was so fast... I wasn't expecting it anywhere near this soon.

Damage Resistance shouldn't need an adjustment because by definition Damage Resistance scales to level. If you have 30% resistance, you take 70% of the damage, it doesn't matter if you foe is a white con, a red con, or a green con. Same goes with To Hit Debuffs I think, although I am not as sure about that. (To Hit Debuffs follow different rules than Def Buffs)

I suspect some adjustment may still be needed, as mixed sets such as Stone and Invulnerability will get a boost. But I'm just happy for my SR and FF characters...

(Oops, misunderstood, I thought were were talking about RESISTANCE Inspirations. I don't know whether Inspirations will be effected or not, but I'd hope all Archetypes ARE)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My primary powers should be PRIMARY, my secondary powers should be SECONDARY.

If you want to play a blaster, PLAY A BLASTER.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good guide, despite the above paragraph. . Offensive bubblers are a perfectly viable way to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention if you want to be an offensive bubbler, you HAVE to rely on the Secondary since you have no offense in your Primary.

Of course, your Primary will keep you alive to use your Secondary. So, Primary and Secondary are EQUALLY important, and neither will keep you alive very long if you play like a Blaster.

BTW, I'm going to start using Philotic Knight's technique of totalling up all my alts. That really makes me feel better, since I don't have any chars over 50.

(I'm... 32... plus about two lvl 10s... and that one... and... level 60! That's close to 63. )

[ QUOTE ]
OK - here's the most likely outcome...

If you own both games, you get all options - the new CoV sets will be accessible for your heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that heroes get nothing if they don't buy CoV. I'm disappointed. While I don't object to new costume options for villains if you don't get CoV, and I wouldn't even object to one or two "special" items, like the preorder helmets or the like, several whole categories of costume options is a different story.

If this is just laziness, then don't be lazy. I'd rather have the options added slowly, later, and available to everyone, than have them just handed out in one lump to the "priviledged few". If that means no new options until I7, then so be it. At least you can take the time to incorporate animal-like features and coats, which are what most heroes will want, in a way that still makes them look unique.

If you're going to go through with this, at least make the options available to everyone. There is absolutely no purpose to penalizing those who don't buy CoV outside of just that, penalizing them. This isn't like bases, which require interaction with villains to fulfill their purpose in the game, you can never meet a villain player and still want more options for your costume.

Well, the thing about the Endurance discount is that it is basically an admission by the devs that Recharge Enhancement is inferior to Damage Enhancement. If you just replace Damage with Recharge one to one, you end up paying more in Endurance. So the discount is basically covering up the problem.

The thing about the 3 Damage, 1 Recharge, 1 Endurance example one poster gave is that it takes advantage of the fact that different types of Enhancement stack better than the same type. For more than one Recharge, that advantage goes down. So you are stuck with the choice of balancing Recharge with Endurance, trading two Enhancements for one, or accepting the higher End cost.

The folks like me, who like efficient builds, might actually be able to get something out of the greater leeway in slotting Endurance, as the costs will probably be balanced with extra Recharges in mind. But it neither solves the underlying problem of Damage increasing DPS and DPE, and Recharge and Endurance increasing only one of them, nor gives a huge advantage to people who want to slot for efficiency since everyone will basically be efficient.

I probably should have asked this earlier, but why can't Damage just increase your Endurance cost, like Recharge? Then the most damaging combination will still be 1 Acc 5 Dam, but the End costs will be so great that you'll be better off adding some End Enhancers instead. You can deal the greater damage, if you're willing to exhaust yourself in the first couple of shots.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having played /SR to 50, and Ice/ to 48, alongside other equal level scrappers and tankers respectively, trust me when I say this is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect pirate, I think this shows itself not to be true. You made it to lvl 50 and probably could do so soloing easily. I doubt that easy soloing part can be said about a controller that specializes in defense debuffing or healing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Controller is not supposed to be able to solo with the same relative ease as a Scrapper. He IS supposed to be able to solo, or at least that is what the devs are trying to accomplish, but the Controller will never be as capable as the Scrapper. Therefore, to compare a Scrapper to a Controller and say that he is "not broken" due to that comparison is incorrect.

Most of the people in this thread are referring to Scrapper builds as compared to Scrapper builds, and Tanker builds compared to Tanker builds. SR Scrappers are not as capable as other Scrappers, and that's in PvE, not PvP. A number of reasons have been given for this discrepancy, and that Defense can be easily debuffed is one of them.

Force Fielders may be Defenders, but again that is an example of comparison of Defender to Defender. The Force Field Defender has many of the same issues compared to Sonic as Defense-based Scrapper/Tanker builds have against other Scrapper/Tankers. It has nothing to do with Controllers or the other kinds of Defenders.

There are mez issues with Controllers, and issues of survivablity with Blasters, but these are issues that need to be considered separately. It doesn't have anything to do with Defense Debuffs.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I have a belief if you are going to complain about something, bring a solution to the table. Here is what I think -
[suggestion deleted for space]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made that suggestion myself, and I think it's a reasonable addition to the concept. In the game "Monster Rancher", there's a concept called "Power", which randomly kicks in if your monster gets below 10% health. It lasts a considerable amount of time once it kicks in, enough for three or four attacks, and it gives you a last ditch chance to turn the fight around. Which I believe is what this "Defiance" is supposed to be.

The duration is something that can be balanced out with testing, but the basic concept should have a number of advantages over the current implementation. First of all, there is a visual indication that you are in "Defiance mode", even if it's just the word "Defiance!" appearing above you as in a Critical. You then have several seconds to react, whether it's using Accuracy Inspirations, setting up a massive attack, or getting an ally to heal you while you get ready.

The problem with Defiance is that if you deal rationally with the situation that got you into Defiance, you lose it. Whereas if you could deal with the situation and still have the Defiance, it would be far more useful. In some cases, I've even had the regeneration from my character's normal healing rate cause Defiance to disappear before I can even get the chance to use it.

Of course the other advantage of making it more random is that you could standardize the bonus to a single value, double damage. You would then be less likely to go into Defiance if you had more hit points. OTOH, it would work just fine to have Defiance levels of 40%, 80%, 100%, and so on just as with the current system. It's just once Defiance "kicks in", you are guaranteed to have it for a sufficient amount of time to use it.

[edit]

I will also add that even before Defiance was suggested, I had an idea for what I called an "Anti-Critical". Instead of being triggered when you attacked, it would be triggered when you were HIT. Your next attack would then be double damage. Except for the restriction that the attack has to put you below a certain hit points (and obviously there would be a very low random chance of it happening in my old system, while in yours its automatic) the two ideas are pretty much the same.

[ QUOTE ]
That's just not true. Blasters were NOT given a bonus to damage, EXCEPT when close to death. In fact, Blasters' initial damage output has been reduced, making them weaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware that Blaster damage had been reduced, however Scrapper damage has been INCREASED, which means that in a comparison of a Blaster to a Scrapper, the Scrapper still does more damage. About 21% more damage, to be precise, far more than the Blaster will be getting, on average, from Defiance.

I disagree that Defiance fits thematically with the Scrapper. The problem is that a Scrapper DOES have Defense, and thus has more control over his hit points. A Blaster has Defiance, more than likely, because he IS in extreme danger when low on hit points. A Scrapper, (other than SR) would be better able to exploit Defiance because he takes damage more predictably. (In smaller amounts due to Resistance, and less often due to Defense)

I think that one thing that needs to be done to "fix" Defiance is not to change how soon it activates, but to change its duration. Instead of having Defiance follow HP second by second, have it determined by the lowest HP has been for the last two to four seconds. So if you are hit by a massive attack that drops you into the red, FIRST you pop a Respite, and THEN you attack, knowing that you'll get the "benefit" of taking that hit for the next two seconds.

The other thing that needs to change is that Defiance needs to be based on total damage, not base damage, like Critical and Containment are. There's no sense in trying to compare Critical to Defiance when their damage bonus isn't even applied according to the same rules.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second...why are there never resources for things the players want, but always enough to nerf them? It had to take some serious hacking of the system to add clicks that automatically shut off after 30 seconds, but that was worth the effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geko and I were both surprised to find out that the powers system already DID this, so no extra coding was involved. Trust me. If it involved engineering, we would have found a different solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then can someone take a look into using this feature to enhance a power in a POSITIVE manner? (Like, say, Detention Shield?) I've often wondered why this wasn't an option, and now apparently, it was. It might not make the response less negative, but at least there will be some other powers that use this functionality, instead of just the ones that are percieved as "singled out".

I would like a clarification. Statesman says, "Critters see you". Later he says, "All enemies see you". I assume this means the same thing. WHICH enemies? How much is "all"? Does this mean all enemies within the now increased radius of the perception of the foes? Or does is mean only those that are alerted, and the others (not linked) have only a standard chance to see you? (For instance, they might still be out of perception range if their back is turned) If they don't see you, is it possible for them to go back out of perception range when the suppression ends?

More importantly, I would like clarification of how it DID work. My understanding was that if you attacked, anyone effected by your attack, or linked to the effected target, could see you, even if outside of the reduced perception range. Was this the case, or has stealth always been "suppressed" as some devs have claimed? Is this what is meant by "all enemies see you", above, or is this a change?

If your defense is suppressed when you attack, but not if you are hit by an attack, then this makes sense. You are basically hiding and ducking behind cover. Likewise, although I would prefer to be able to "pull" a foe into a dark corner and take him out without alerting his buddies, it would make sense if they were to fire blindly in my direction if alerted, even if they can't "see" me. They can see me, in Statesman's sense, but they don't know exactly where I am.

However, that would be stealth suppressing on attack or hit, but defense suppressing only on attack. If defense is to be suppressed whether you do the attacking or are attacked, then essentially the full effect of the defense will ever only be used once, when you are first shot at, and then will drop down to the half level, where it will remain as long as you are in combat. I cannot see this effecting combat in any significant way. You might as well just code defense permanently to half its current level and thus simplify the code.

After all, the purpose of stealth is not to be attacked. If it is working, you will not take any damage at all, thus defense is irrelevant. If the defense from Stealth should be less than Combat Jumping and Hover, then just make it less than Combat Jumping and Hover, and be done with it.

[ QUOTE ]
ps - just a little thought to the tankers out there since we all play a variety. i do intend to go on back and be a "launch tank" with provoke. i know i can make the numbers work with stacking and stacking, and min maxing, which it is sad that cryptic never wanted that .. and now it is all they push with their game changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I had the same thought. Since Provoke is random, it should now be better than Taunt. It won't hit the SAME 5 targets each time, but a random 5 targets, and thus will overall hold more targets better.

Off topic in this thread, but I just wanted to say I made the exact same leap in logic. Hopefully the devs will see the problem before we have to resort to that. (I gave one solution, which is as simple as all get out, just have Taunt skip anyone already taunted)

[ QUOTE ]
Batman or Ironman wouldn't go to the corner shop for supplies.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I bet the Punisher would.

While I like the concept of "desperation" as an idea, and I think it makes sense for Blasters, I don't think the implementation helps at all. It's been said before, I'll say it again, when you are getting the greatest bonus from the ability, you'll likely be running away.

Essentially, the devs are taking the archetype with the most risk, and rather than reducing that risk, asking them to accept INCREASED risk for greater damage. Essentially, the data mining is going to show that the debt rate for Blasters will increase. And their usefullness to a group will decrease since dead heroes can't deal damage.

Now, if "desperation" made a Blaster HARDER TO HIT, instead of harder hitting...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would truly give a good defensive advantage to range that corresponds both with reality and pencil-and-paper RPGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way attacks are exchanged in CoH, using their excellent lag-skirting anticipatory AI, prevents blasters (et alia) from accomplishing what seems realistic: shooting from cover. It's likely a necessary evil to promote good gameplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that, according to Statesman, ranged attacks are supposed to be less effective than melee attacks because they do less damage. However, as foes go up in level, their increased damage counters this decrease. Eventually, a break even point is reached where the difference in survival time at range is so small as to be effectively the same as melee. (This is complicated by the fact that the enemy damage must also scale to compensate for increasing hero defenses)

As Bunny_Man suggested, if ranged attacks were less ACCURATE than melee attacks, there would be no problem. The additional damage would not counter the lower accuracy, and so although you would likely take a great deal of damage if you WERE hit (like an SR Scrapper) your survival time would be significantly greater, for the remainder of the time. You would still be at considerably more risk than you were at lower level, but at least there would still be a reason to avoid melee.

Your idea about cover is an interesting one, and reveals something about RPGs. You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to fire a shot and then duck behind cover. That's an FPS tactic, and has no place in an RPG, where to hit is based entirely on random number generation. The devs obviously made the chance to hit independent of position, because of the very likely possibility that lag would change your position, but also because of that rule that you, as the player, can't "dodge" an attack by moving your character.

Your CHARACTER, however, is perfectly capable of defending HIMSELF, and dodging in order to avoid a shot. And while you can't move in and out of range to allow yourself to attack and then avoid a counter attack, Tankers and Scrappers do have to be in melee range in order to MAKE an attack, even though it doesn't effect their chance to hit. So while you, as the player, can't make use of terrain and range, your character should be able to, even WITHOUT your specifically taking action. (For instance, a Super Reflexes Scrapper will dodge attacks directed at him, even though you don't physically move the character to dodge the blows)

So there is no reason why "cover" can't be a reason for a Blaster to reduce the CHANCE that he is hit. No Blaster-like character, in fact, would NOT use the terrain to his advantage, and hide behind cover if there was any available. So the idea that a Blaster would just stand out there in the open, defenseless, and wait for his opponents to shoot him is not realistic.

I don't think the idea about reducing accuracy due to damage taken is quite as good. For one thing, we're not talking about reality here, we are talking about the movies, and heroic figures rarely are significantly weakened by being hurt. In fact, they usually maintain their full strength and skill until the moment they drop. Villains aren't heroic figures, of course, but seriously, even if there was a loss of accuracy, it wouldn't be much. Again, you aren't just going to stand there out in the open and be a target, because you think a few burns or gunshot wounds are going to stop your opponent from shooting back at you.

Cover is an excellent way of thinking of a form of dodging that works ONLY at range. Tankers and Scrappers can't really use cover, because if they want to attack, they have to close. (They can use cover if they want to hide and NOT attack... sort of like what Elude used to be. But that's not very handy in a gameplay situation, you can just as easily duck out of LOS) Likewise, if a Tanker or Scrapper comes at you, you can't hide under cover, you'll probably be found. So you just want to stay out of range.

One idea I did have, some time ago, is the idea of "partial cover", where if you can put like a desk between yourself and your foe (or even just stand near it) you get a 50% or so chance to dodge ranged attacks. This would basically be a bonus to Defense. It's too dependent on the environment, though, to be truly RPG-oriented, it should either be a Power, or just an ability innate to the character.

Of course, once variation of your "accuracy is proportional to HP" idea is that whenever a foe is hit, you get a chance to dodge his ranged attacks. After all, you would fire a shot, then duck behind cover.

I think I would prefer a separate Power, though. For one thing, it would balance better with the other archetypes. And it's more in line with the RPG concept, that it's a skill of your character's, that can be developed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Manticore is actually a Trick Arrow, Archery Defender.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope there's a giant boxing glove arrow that stuns.

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely knockback.

I agree, Archery can still be both a Blaster Primary and Defender Secondary. I don't think "trick arrows" would be part of a Ranged Power Set, because usually there is only one control power, at most (in Ice and Electricity) and the rest are all attacks. So maybe Archery will get a Net Arrow, and the rest will be all damage types, like fire, ice, explosive, and so on. The "trick arrows" would be like gasses and smoke clouds. Or even disarming shots.

[ QUOTE ]
rigggggght....

gambit is a blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I personally believe Gambit is a Scrapper. While he does have a ranged attack with his playing cards, cards are not exactly an aerodynamic missile. Therefore, I would expect them to only be short range, like Spines.

At this point, however, I think that everything I'm replying to is degenerating, and no one is paying attention to what I am saying overall, merely taking statements out of context. So I am out of this thread. It's late anyway.