StratoNexus

I prefer mediocrity. It makes teaming more fun for me.

It is very difficult to change any of the animations now. People have grown attached to them. Changing them in beta is really when it needed to be done. I still hope for ES to be shortened, but the devs must tread carefully now that it is live.

Hurl, Hurl Boulder, and Propel. CoH has it. It may not be smooth and organic, but it is a lie to say it doesn't exist. Period.

.

While I have long been an advocate of shortening the animation time of ES, I would be very sad if they removed my ridiculous gun toss animation from PR. I have no issue if they make alternate animations for any or all of the powers to support a more natural, realistic looking style, but I needs mah gun toss (especially when I time it right with leaping)!

I think it really comes down to personal preference. I prefer tankers or scrappers to brutes myself, but I can see the appeal of brutes.

As a Fire blaster, I prefer playing with tankers. I have played with a few brutes that can do nearly as well as a tanker, but most can't save me from myself as well. Also, brutes seem to die more than tankers when I play with them.

I tend to think of brutes as damage dealers that also happen to be pretty dang tough. I tend to think of tankers as tanks that also deal modest damage.

It is more due to dying a lot than an increase in amount per death, I think.

It is funny, while I was playing it felt like a lot more death than while I was crunching the vids.

That is cool; it has four AoE effects, which appeals to me greatly, although all of them but Dragon's Tail are on long recharges. While I love /Fire, which lacks a big single target attack completely, I'd miss the early crunch I've always envisioned MA would have (some 14ish second recharge attack). Of course the bonus damage you get out of Disrupt Chi would more than make up for it numerically, but not viscerally.

Did you penalize Crane Kick's damage on purpose due to the 2 extra effects? I've never understood why Power Thrust's damage is so low. I know they did the same thing to Repulsing Torrent, but then reverted that power back to its calculated DS.

Serpent's Reach has an 80% chance for knock vs. Power Burst's 60%. Serpent's Reach has (slightly) better DPA. Serpent's Reach has a (slightly) faster recharge and (slightly) lower end cost. Serpent's Reach has bonus Accuracy. Granted, PB does knockback instead of KD, but that lone advantage weighed against all the others makes me a little sad (OK, the woo-woo-woosh and FX for PB are great too, but I like the animation for Serpent's Reach better, so it is a close call).

Stats as of the listed level. My hours in game are not very useful, I've spent time with XP turned off, standing around while doing any number of household activities, etc.
Blaster
Level 25, 6.5 bubs in - 25 hours
162,245 damage taken
26,850 debt (the vast majority of this was post 20 and I think even post 22)
616 seconds mezzed
500,998 infl

Level 28, 2.5 bubs in - 30 hours
217,968 damage taken
67,950 debt
784 seconds mezzed
724,810 infl

Scrapper
Level 25, 8 bubs in - 28 hours
116,724 damage taken
4,960 debt
126 seconds mezzed
395,657 infl

It is interesting to think about.

A level shift, in essence, provides +to-hit, +dam, +mez duration, +KB, +debuff value, +resistance (but a form that is not limited by the cap), +def, +resistance to mez, KB, and debuffs, and likely other stuff I am forgetting.

And it will do nothing against an entity that uses the GM code, which is actually the thing that concerns me the most about including it and one of the reasons I suggested adding something extra to Jumpstart.

That would violate the cottage rule.

"not change the execution mechanics of a power"

But never forget this:
"without a balance-significant reason for doing so that cannot be satisfied in any other practical way"

For example, changing Instant Healing to a click broke the cottage rule because of a balance issue and there wasn't another practical way to solve that issue.

That is cool. Ironically, even my version of the MA set (which had the least "support" of the suggestions in here) would likely look better to you than /Dark. It has Build Up and Quick Recovery (and if one of the attacks was removed, as I would likely do now that they added damage to Cobra Strike, possibly another utility power).

twitch, twitch

Aye. Which is why an option to choose your defeat pose could be cool. Each would get their own. This certainly isn't anything I really want, but I know I would use it on at least a few characters. I am not sure if I'd pay for it though. I might, but it is iffy (I mean, if it was 200 PP or less, I'd get it without thinking, but I figure it would have to be more than that).

It is a good thing I never said that. I said AoE Immobs messed things up worse and more often. At least with KB the enemies can get back up and recollapse, an AoE immob makes sure they stay spread out.

Adding Parry to your attack selection is lower damage than using one of your other attacks. It lowers your damage output and you know it (at least I hope you do).

All the stuff you admit it gives and no more. In many, if not most, cases, KD would be better, I am not denying that. But if you admit KD provides something, well KB provides all the same but one and can provide one thing KD doesn't (which can be good or bad depending).

You are in error.

Hatred666's had 1 single target KB, 2 single target stuns, 1 AoE slow/damage/fear patch, 1 AoE high chance KD, 1 ranged AoE Dmg, 1 Cone AoE mez, Build Up, and 1 +speed/recovery power.

Mine had 1 single target KB, 2 single target stuns, 1 AoE high chance KD, 1 single target immob/slow, Build Up, and 1 passive +recovery power (and I've already acknowledged one of the attacks from mine could be dropped for another utility power).

Simian_Stalker's had 1 single target KB, 3 single target disorients, 1 single target hold, 1 +end reduction power, 1 +spd/rech power, Build Up, and either a +special power or an AoE high chance KD.

I love /Fire and I'd hope it would continue to far out-damage an /MA set, because any good /MA design would have tons of utility, just like all of the proposed powersets I listed.

M30 Grenade is like most other KB powers and always knocks away from the player. You misremember.

This is likely simply due to a perception error but it also may be willful ignorance. I have seen and been on both ends of an Ice blaster "messing crap up" just as bad as KB ever could. When that Ice Storm and Frost Breath hit a whole spawn while they are still spread out, the scatter doesn't go away quick. I still say AoE immobs are worse and more often a detriment than I have seen KB be used poorly. Hell, I have seen KD do the exact same thing. Gotta put that Ice Slick or Earthquake out right away, don't you? Why let the spawn collapse first?

But that doesn't change your point. KB can have drawbacks. What you seem to not be willing to accept is that sometimes powers with drawbacks are good design (especially if they have some counterbalancing benefit). Parry lowers your damage output. Maybe its damage should be increased? A Parry with higher damage would always be better than a Parry with lower damage. In all my years of reading the forums, no one has ever been able to prove that Parry with lower damage is more effective than Parry with higher damage. KB can cause scatter, it should all be KD. That way we can control the spawns and still do full AoE damage. The fact that KB is control, mitigation, and spawn positioning should not be balanced by potentially lowering our damage output (and armored toons should not have to press movement keys too much either! ).

And this IO addition has me curious about the following:

From level 1 to 20, it is average, above average single target and below average AoE (although the lower AoE is partially offset by the fact that there is very little recharge in these levels, so the painfully long animations are not as big an issue for damage output (although it can hurt for other reasons)).

From 20 to 32 it is below average. Other sets have gotten better AoEs and single target powers. Pistols got Executioner's Shot. They did also get a solid mez, but so do most other sets.

From 33 and up it is average or above average depending on your priorities and level of recharge. Its single target stays in the same middle of the road (as long as you use Incendiary) but the AoE becomes very strong, especially if you pour on recharge.

I'll start with this:
So, yeah, controllers are a damage AT, but we have multiple types of damage delivery in this game: Ranged, Melee, Control (generally ranged but with mez effects added), and Pets. Ranged blast sets are not similar enough to Control sets to make your proposition as clear cut. Melee attack sets ARE what blasters have as their secondaries with slight changes.

Looking at Fire control from a "damage" perspective I see two tier 1 single target blasts and one crappy AoE attack, then I see 4 powers that deal no or almost no damage, a summon, and an awesome melee damage/control aura; 2 of the 9 could translate directly to a blast set, 2 more could translate with modest changes, add Aim; we now have 5 of 9 powers done and still need 4 more. I believe that in the case of powerset design, four is significantly different than one or two.

The specifics of my proposal matter. This is not a case where you can generalize my point, take it to another level, and then say my point is wrong.

Sigh. What about when almost all evidence supports the assertion? Do not confuse being a melee AT with being an armored AT. Blasters are a melee AT that lacks armor. They are not solely a melee AT. They generally should not live in melee all the time, but that doesn't mean they are not a melee AT. I have already put forth much evidence in this thread of their melee nature, I am certainly not simply stating the fact without also backing it up. Vitally keep in mind, the primary point I am making is that blaster secondaries share enough power types in common with brute primaries that any new melee attack set design should include blaster secondaries.

Dominators, VEATs, and Khelds are melee ATs as well (the latter two have a lot of options, to be more precise). A large part of me wants to argue this same case for dominator secondaries, but THAT is truly a departure. Assault sets are NOT nearly as melee oriented as Blaster secondaries. While I see the transformation of a brute primary set to a stalker primary set as about the same level of change as the transformation of a brute primary set to a blaster secondary set, dominator secondaries are much different.

From what I can tell you actually agree with me. You have already stated that you think blaster secondaries are Build Up, a bunch of crap powers (most of which happen to be melee), and melee attacks (which also happen to be melee) that do not work for the AT. You are free to think they are crap and do not work well, but all the evidence demonstrates they are mostly melee. You may not think they have enough other tools to back up the high amount of melee they currently have, but they are designed with melee in mind (maybe poorly done in your opinion, but it is still integral to their nature).

This will likely be the last post I make in this thread regarding overall blaster performance. I do not disagree with anyone who states blasters have real issues surviving and keeping up with the other ATs, especially solo. BUT...

Blaster secondaries alone are not where you solve the problem (but that isn't to say I wouldn't make some mods to blaster secondaries if the imperative came down to make blasters more survivable). Blaster secondaries are not and from the bottom of my heart I hope they never will be armor sets or buff/debuff sets (I am not opposed to some elements of those sets being in a few blaster secondary powers, Drain Psyche, Chilling Embrace, Ice Patch, Burn, etc. nor am I opposed to maybe adding a little armor or some more buff/debuff, but not at the expense of the melee attacks, rather in addition to). I am certainly not going to suggest a secondary set design for blasters that goes well outside of the current rules until the devs change those rules.

That said, I would try to make sure most sets are more like /Mental (although with at least one more solid melee attack and I don't get all the /Dark love from people who normally complain of blaster deficiencies; I know why I like /Dark, but /Fire is my favorite secondary).

Indeed. The article even mentions the imperative they placed on team roles:
"Players want to feel that they have something unique to contribute to game play; if everyone is capable of having everything, it's impossible for any single hero to feel that he is distinctive and useful to a group."

While it could be argued CoH now allows many to have everything (and actually has for quite a long time), many still feel the strengths of individual ATs are distinctive enough to allow for feeling useful. I still think a blaster's best bet is to have a something else manage aggro and/or buff/debuff to alter the odds (to be honest most of my scrappers prefer that too, although they can certainly take much better care of themselves than my blasters).

Are blasters more team "dependent" than any other AT? I think so. Is that a problem? That is a subjective call, unless it is really hurting the popularity of the AT (in which case you have objective data to show that the subjective call of allowing them to be team dependent is not a good one). I stress really hurting it, because there is plenty of room in the game for some stuff that is less popular than other stuff.

I prefer to think they function best when mixing range and melee (many of the ones I witness do, but not all; it is possible those who try to use melee are worse off, but I cannot know which is true across the playerbase). I don't think most blasters should stand toe to toe and trade blow for blow. But they should float in the 30 to 40 foot range a lot. Range, range, melee, melee, range attack in melee, jump out, range, range, move to runner lt., melee.

This is much easier on teams of course, since enemies are not automatically running at you. With anyone else eating the alpha (even if that other person is not actually capable of surviving it, although for lots of reasons it is better if they are) a blaster can get solid contribution from melee attacks with much less fear (Fulmens understands removing blaster fear well and IME buffs are better at that than aggro control or debuffs).

Indeed! Considering my love of melee on blasters, you can imagine how happy /Dark has made me. It has flaws and there should have been considerations for blaster reality made to specific aspects of some of the powers, but the general concept and the powers chosen were excellent, IMO.

Well, people like corruptors for a reason! Their secondaries are much better at supporting ranged play for the most part. As for whether or not blasters need to be improved to utilize their secondary better (or for many other reasons), I leave that to the many other threads where it has been discussed.

Which argument are you talking about? The one where I propose blasters are a melee AT? Heck, Winterminal is proposing that the devs have moved in that direction MORE with the recent additions of /Mental and /Dark. All I am saying is that is the direction blasters have always had, not some new thought process. /Fire and /Electric are more melee focused than either /Mental or /Dark.

The discussion I am having with Winterminal is about the ORIGINAL design of blasters. Your point that those design concepts may no longer be in place is irrelevant (and incorrect).

>.>
<.<
Shhhh. Spines is one of those sets that when (if) it gets changed, will cause a mega-thread of how evil and stupid the devs are and how stuff shouldn't be changed after being in the game for years and how other sets should be improved rather than...

Well, you probably know the drill.

You speak with a lot of confidence about original blaster design for someone who only a short time ago posted this:
Original AT design thought process from 2003. It looks like this may soon be lost to us, my original link to rpgvault is dead.

Here is a good quote from that article to sum up the intent.
"The Tanker, Scrapper and Blaster were good in combat - but they needed the help of Defenders and Controllers to allow them to survive."

As far as primary and secondary are concerned, I used the tanker as my example hoping people would realize on their own that that line of reasoning would be fruitless, but alas, it did not help. Secondary powersets are just as much a primary focus for the AT, they just come later. Scrappers have to take and frequently (almost always) utilize their secondary to function best. Every AT does. EVERY AT DOES, INCLUDING BLASTERS.

Blasters do not get a pass because they want to play at range most of the time. That is like a regen scrapper who only takes the passives, toggle, and Dull Pain but still expects to perform as well as one who also takes all the other clicks. Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you really think about it), for blasters, you can choose to play without utilizing your secondary fully and still be sort of alright (some might say defenders and corruptors can ignore their attacks and still do alright, I wouldn't, but some might).