Pilcrow

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know, I don't really think pets are as much the problem. It's that the controller secondaries are almost as powerful as defender primaries once they have access to all the powers.
The largest benefit a defender has is that they get the powers earlier, but come level 40, a controller has all the same powers, fully slotted if they want, and almost as effective. There is a difference but it's just not enough to make a large difference most of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only problem I have with this statement is that we focus on one AT and compare it to another and make statements like this. When the truth is that at high level all AT's start to overlap and or prove they can do anothers job almost as good or better then the other. Point in case, with a good high level scrapper you don't always need a tank. With a good high level tank, you don't always need a controller. Wtih a good high level controller, you don't always need a Defender. With a good high level Defender, you don't always need a Blaster. The point being that at high level, Each AT brings to the table something that the others do just maybe not quite so good. The devs can't look at the 40+ game only when making choices.. nor the 32+ game for controllers with pets... nor the 15+ game. They have to look at everything. Early on all AT's differ, but high levels we are all the same to some degree. Not much they can or should do about that.

[/ QUOTE ]


/em applause

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After all, Defenders are all about buffs (and debuffs). Every Archetype should be extremely happy when the Defender provides a resistance or defense buff...


[/ QUOTE ]

Jack, let me hit a nail on the head:

So long as ANY archetype can hit a resist or defense cap (or equivalent) on their
own, merely by their own power choices and slotting, you will never achieve this
goal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations, you did hit a nail on the head.

I don't know about your solutions, but you nail the problem brilliantly.

Really liked your post:

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers are superior to Defenders at providing team defense.

The problem is that defenders must often take numerous powers to provide adequate defense.

A controller often only need one, some form of lockdown. To add that the controller gets secondary team defense in defender secondaries.

A controller can one shot hold a minion/lieut, and with two quick recharging holds can remove a boss from a fight. Defenders cannot compare in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as "wrong". Controllers have two sets dedicated to defense, and should be betterprotectors. But you nailed the problem in that, combined with the shared sets, it leaves Defender's role very blurred. Too blurred.

I think your solution has potential.

[ QUOTE ]
The best solution is to tamper with Controller secondaries, making them more offensive, and less defensive.

The result is that controllers are not as good at healing/buffing/debuffing, but are more offensive, this will increase the value of defender buffs.

This increases contorller soloability at lower levels, and increases defender importance across the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is that if you look at the two sets that are bufferiffic (FF and EMP) lots of defenders don't want all their defenders to be like that. So there is a potential to overcorrect in that direction. But I think some differentiation between controllers and defenders on the shared sets is needed. Controllers need low level damage and if you chose which powers to trade-out wisely you could make Defenders more distinct.

I also think a problem lies in the secondaries. People should want Defenders using both sets, but instead people want Defenders to "save their end" for their primary.

So I don't see the issues as simply set-based. Some issues are AT-wide, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Still here...been busy with visitors this week. Plus - we've got E3 around the corner and, of course, City of Villains (though I'm not saying anything other than "this year" for a time estimate).

And I've been working some on the Arena (playtesting) and even Issue 5 stuff. Oh - and whatever comes AFTER City of Villains. Wouldn't you like to know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, E3 has come and gone. CoV has been announced and demoed. The arenas are out. We know about new sets and a new zone coming in I5, so...

WHAT COMES AFTER CITY OF VILLIANS?!?!?!?

FrigginTazer Asked...
[ QUOTE ]
My memory is a little shaky: who did the "Capes not available until level 20 will be the end of this game" rant in style?

[/ QUOTE ]

...and in the very next post KeilinAlyr says...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My favorite: anything by PuffyShirt. *Snifff* I miss good ole' Puffy. He always put a smile on my face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa... if someone was inane (or maybe insane) enough to warrent being remembered by States himself... damn, who was this Puffy legend, and what crazy things did he post to be universally remembered with such "fondness"?

*glances around and removes the "Do Not Feed the Newbies" sign from in front of the zoo cage door*

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing is: PUFFYSHIRT started the "no capes until 20 will kill CoH" thread! It was liteally, the longest thread on the boards at the time. Well over 2,000 posts. At the time AASQ was only, like 1,500 posts. It was unbelievable.

Puffy had this habit of stating something as fact, being proven inaccurate or insane, and then devolving into throwing insults at you while calling you a fanboy. Needless to say, ScaryJapan's posts on this thread are enough to remind me why I don't miss Puffy.

But he was the best dooooooomsayer we ever had. He'd rally the flag for the minions of doom, and then lead them right over the edge of the cliffs of rationality into a sea of insanity like a herd of 13375p33king lemmings.

In a sense, it was nice to have somebody so easy to debunk leading the dooooom brigade.

I'd be glad to help you out testing this base raid thing.

We can name Kublai's team the red shirts and Statesman's team the red-whit-n-blue shirts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
STATESMEN FOR TEH WIN

[/ QUOTE ]

Them's fighting words! I'll see you at the base raid!

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget to post the demo.

[ QUOTE ]
im voting for "Red Shirt"

[/ QUOTE ]

/sign

[ QUOTE ]
Give him/her a name like one of the NPCs. There are plenty of them available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well than it's obvious: "[null]"

[ QUOTE ]
I say you call him "Charybdis", because without a name, he may well just be a hole in the ocean.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's Scylly

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me, Lord Recluse, Ravenshadow, Poz, Another programmer (no cool handle), Capt. Mako.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, get that poor ******* a cool handle before E3. You dont want him to be embarrassed do you?



[/ QUOTE ]

Will s/he let us pick a handle for him/her?

What about "Hexadecimator"?

/renews his dues to the CuppaJo fan club

[ QUOTE ]
No recent response to an issue -

Many times, if you do not see a response from the dev team about an issue then either investigation is ongoing and no conclusions have been made yet or the dev team is satisfied with the issue as it is. I want to stress that even though this may be the case, they are always reading your feedback and taking it into consideration.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is important for there to be an official post when the "dev team is satisfied with the issue as it is". Not to every post that comes up, but for items "they're looking at".

For example, I assume that the devs aren't done fixing controllers yet, I'm expecting more changes in I5. But if the devs decide that controllers are OK as is in I4, we sure would appreciate a post to that effect.

[ QUOTE ]
I begin to understand your lack of understanding. Take two mobs with no resistance. Which are the majority of mobs in the game. Current blasters would do 100 pts of damage. Blasters with the PvP change would still do 100 pts of damage.

If the mob has resistance, lets say 30% the mob would still take 100 pts of damage. Wait thats not more damage is it? No its consistent damage.

[/ QUOTE ]


TECHNICAL CORRECTION, HAS NO BEARING ON CENTRAL PONTS

I concur that a blaster does not do "more damage" when he has the 30% piercing. More damage gets through, though. And that's a very balance fix, IMO.

However, if it works like in PVP then I believe it's a guaranteed 30% through DMG RES. A floor is you will. So that 100 HP attack would do the following:

DMG RES -> HP
0%->100
10%->90
20%->80
30%->70
40%->60
50%->50
60%->40
70%->30
80%->30
90%->30

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the formula that you're missing: Risk (should) Equal Reward.
Melee is a Risk for Blasters, so the Reward is Awesome Melee Damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you 100%, and I understood why the melee's were so deadly. I just think the reward for melee range should be status effects as opposed to more damage.

Blasters are pure offence.
Tankers are pure defence.
Scrappers are in between.

The secondaries should be offensive support, just not pure damage only.

Cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

So the risk of melee is that you might not get the first punch off fast enough to keep them controlled while you melee them?

Doesn't seem like a lot of a risk. Unless you're talking about adding these statuses to single target attacks only and they have very short durations - which isn't far removed what Blasters have already in the secondaries.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With all do respect Statesman, the last time you posted about looking at Blasters, you said Controllers were in front of us - that's fine. However, now you're saying that Scrappers and Tankers are in front also? When exactly are the Devs going to actually take a look at Blasters? It seems we've had issues for quite some time, yet are being pushed to the back of the line in (terms of fixes) constantly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with this person's post. Feels like we are the red-headed step-child.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. He's using the melee-ers as the benchmark for how the game should be played and balancing the MOBs against them. He wants them to be balanced against the MOBs. Once that's done he will bring us squishies to the same levels. It makes some amount of sense ESPECIALLY if he feels the melee-ers are currrently overpowered.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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 ]
Well if a Blaster's role is ranged attacks, why can defenders snipe from a longer range then Blasters? Why do Blasters do less damage then Scrappers? Why do Blasters have less defense then support folks like Controllers or Defenders?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the less damage than Scrappers portion, let's review the history of how we got here.


#1) Melee was supposed to be, and is, more dangerous than range because the MOBs have more attacks to choose from in melee and the melee only attacks are generally 1/3 more damaging, with faster recharges, more secondary effects and lower end.
#2) Melee was supposed to be tactically disadvantageous because you could not switch targets as easily as at range, nor could you retreat as easily, and runners would be time-consuming to chase
#3) Melee-ers are supposed to be aggro-ing more MOBs therefore increasing the amount of DPS incoming in quantity.
#4) Blasters were supposed to be more damaging than Scrappers despite having the same damage base because:
#4a) Scrappers typically do Lethal and Smashing damage, and Blasters do the more rarely resisted fire, ice, elec, etc. damage types
#4b) Blasters have more AEs than scrappers to let them decimate large numbers of minions rapidly for more rapid XP gain, while still having nice single-target shots to take on the big guys
#4c) Blasters have more high/severe/extreme damage attacks than scrappers, so they output more "brawls" even though the base brawl is the same as a scrapper (Surprised me, too, but look here!)

So what happened:

#1) Melee attacks remain more dangerous, but MOBs got enough ranged attacks in the late game to make that moot. Melee-ers can absorb the increased DPS they suffer twice as long as squishies can absorb the lower DPS they are subject, to, EVEN IF THE SQUISHIES MANAGE TO REMAIN AT RANGE.*
#2) Travel powers negated most of the tactical disadvantages of melee, and the "runner code" simply exacerbated the lack of this supposed tactical disadvantage.
#3) The increase in MOB ranged attacks and the damage trump-card over proximity in aggro production made Blasters not subject to significantly fewer "playmates" than a similar melee-er. Regardless, melee-ers can still last 30% longer with even 2x as many MOBs aggroed on them.
#4a) Resistance to these "rare" damage types is not at all rare in MOBs. So the "piercing" quality of these damage types does not exist.
#4b) See #3. 'Nuff said.
#4c) One of the few that may be working. While the faster recharge time of Blasters negates this somewhat, builds that slot for recharge can fill their attack chain with higher powered attacks in the same period for better DPS. It would put the well built Blaster clearly ahead on DPS if it weren't for CRITICALS, which close that gap and do so without adding any time to the attack chain.

So how do you fix it?

#1) Keeping us dependent on leveraging range to be safe is a smart decision in my opinion, but please, make range more leverage able as a defense tactic. There has to be more leverage to range than the current simplicity of, "we both can shoot", "one of us can shoot", "neither of us can shoot", ESPECIALLY on indoor maps.
#2) Let us fortify our positions so the decision to close to melee range becomes as tactical for our opponents as it is for us.
#3) Fix aggro so that in some cases proximity trumps damage dealt. Combat is confusing, and ranged attacks should be able to take advantage of that.
#4a) Give blasters a wider variety of attacks so they are more likely to find one that can penetrate the resistance of their opponent's defenses. Making them the king of damage because more of their damage GETS THROUGH
#4b) See #3)
#4c) Let us leverage this opportunity better by decreasing animation times for blasters and raising recharge times to break even. That way a well-built blaster can build up to a better attack chain than his Scrapper cohort at exactly the place in the game where Blasters are currently hurting.

* - Scrapper at 75% DMG RES, 115 HP, absorbing 60 HP attacks every 8.5 seconds, from 3 minions with 10% DEF vs. Blaster 0% DMG RES, 100 HP, absorbing 40 HP attacks every 9.6 seconds from 3 minions with 10% DEF. (Both with 0 regen). Scrapper lives 42.5 seconds, Blaster 19.2 seconds). Comparison of Tanker to FF Defender/Controller produces similar ratio.

[ 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 ]
"What can blasters do that scrappers can't?" Apparently they can be ignored better than scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

He certainly ignored them today. :P

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is almost no other AT, even defenders and controllers (well, poor Emps and FFs, and I'm all for them getting some help as well) need others to fight things that most blasters would never even try.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, that is so post-32 thinking.

Not a dig or anything. You're very reasonable. But pre-32 is the same murder for controllers that post-32 is for Blasters.

Post-32 is a worse place to have it, but it sucks either way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would anyone be up to giving up melee powers for status protection. Maybe nothing as huge as the Melee protection, but something to prevent the occasional mez attack.

I would not mind it, but I know some people love the melee attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for it, but I think I've made my feelings on the excess melee quite clear in this and other threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they couldn't add some status defense to powers like build-up instead of getting rid of melee attacks to offer it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered? We're talking about blasters being to controllers as controllers are to defenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh, ouch, I wouldn't go there
There's a whole platoon of folks in the Defender forum quite unhappy with the actual Stats on that whole situation.

Infact My own controllers have lead me to be rather disgusted with the situation as well as I was simply a "BuffBot with pets. No one wanted CrowdControl, they just wanted a Defender that summoned Mini-scrappers

...Odly enough here's a bunch of Blasters saying that they'd be Balanced if they got more Ranged Control. ...Well here's what ya do, dig around the low level areas and find one of the dozens of controllers Looking for a Team for the last hour and SK him up to help you "solo" your mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, thats so obvious it's brilliant! Controllers of our level can't be bother, but those 16s brawling for hour after hour in Steel Canyon would sure love a helpful friend. And they'll be a huge help.

Be a Blaster. Adopt a controller. Hell, maybe after you've helped him get to 32, he'll even let you still hang out with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sad fact I noted in another of these Blaster Woes threads. In an ideal world Mr. Defense/Defense and Mr. Offense/Offense should want to team with each other, and the two of them together should make any two Offense/Defense ATs look like pikers.

But, that's not how it is. The two ATs need help in the exact opposite ends of the game. The low level powers controllers have do little to assist blasters even if they wanted help, and the same is true of what blastters are good at the point where controllers get their pets.

Controllers often say "the best pet in my arsenal is a scrapper". God, if only we could replace scrapper with blaster in that sentence!

[ QUOTE ]
blasters exsist to take the one shot kill that would have killed a more valuable squishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was the tanker's job.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters are supposed to shine in a team. That means two things. #1 they shouldn't be able to reach their full potential without a team and #2 when on a team, they should be able to.

Sadly, #2 is not true, but that's what needs to be fixed. You seem to want to change #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me? No. I just didn't see a problem in that, as it seems every other AT is about as good solo as in a team in the late game, besides blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see them be able to team as well as all the other ATs. Solo-wise I'm less concerned. Every AT has a solo sweet spot. Blaster's solo sweet spot comes earler. I'm more worried about their poor teaming capability in the late game, BUT if they could fix both in a balanced way, I'd be all for it.

[ QUOTE ]
I like the secondaries they have now, I just would like them made more effective, so that blasters can have a hope of soloing as well as every other AT, and give some minor control value to a team. After all, should "support" sometimes apply to the team as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if they want to provide non-damage support to the team, they should roll a Defender. Blasters support the team by taking the MOBs out, not by controlling them. Support is self-support.

But here's another place where Blasters and Controllers share a problem. One of the main attributes of controls is they drop toggles, but the MOBs have too few toggles to make that a big deal.

One of the main things an AT chock full of ranged attacks can do is interrupt powers, but the MOBs don't have enough interruptable powers to make that a big deal.

Not that adding a bunch of interruption would fix things, but there's a way a ranged AT can support a team much better than a melee one - if only they made it mean anything.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is ranged/control overpowered?

[/ QUOTE ] How do you make a control power 75% (or 66%) as effective, then they have a simple 2-4 scale of magnitude? If you lower it by one, you make them horribly weak. If you don't lower them, controllers become useless by comparison.
I think what you end up doing is severely limiting the targets. I think there wouldn't be much problem with blasters having some single-target control effects in their secondary...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about mezz length? That seems about right. To bad none of the control primaries fit my concept. BE would probably be a defender if that is what had happened. FF/elec.

[/ QUOTE ]

How bout weaker controls. Like immobilizes, slows and single target holds, but not AE holds.

Oh, right, Blasters already have those and IT'S NOT ENOUGH!

Nor will it ever be enough and be balanced because if you give blasters enough defense to deliver their full offense solo, why would they want to do anything but solo?

Blasters are supposed to shine in a team. That means two things. #1 they shouldn't be able to reach their full potential without a team and #2 when on a team, they should be able to.

Sadly, #2 is not true, but that's what needs to be fixed. You seem to want to change #1.