StratoNexus

Who said that and in what context?

I still like the idea of having Aim and Build Up both be usable while mezzed AND having them grant mag 6 protection to immob, kb, stun, sleep, hold, terrorize, and confuse for ~12 seconds.

Do the same for Full Auto and Hail of Bullets, maybe shorten the duration to ~8 seconds.

Give TD a steady on Mag 3 or 4 protection to hold, sleep, and stun.

I don't think it is likely, but I do think it would be interesting.

Hot Feet makes dead things efficiently. I take it and slot it early, since it is the best attack you can get. This was before inherent Stamina. It is even more awesome now.

I do agree that Seeds short recharge and long duration are a huge benefit early game (and it is nice late game too).

But you get Fire controls two best powers at 8 and 12? Its best control comes at lvl 12 in Flashfires. I know Seeds is way better early because of its faster recharge and longer duration, but Fire control is certainly not floundering until post 20.

I herd 10 +1 mobs into melee so I can destroy them with AoEs.

I prefer to play on settings where 10 (or more) +1 mobs are standing together so I don't have to herd and can leap into melee (or TP) into melee and destroy them. Fighting +1s, going for recharge is silly, IMO. I can AoE kill most of a spawn in under 10 seconds then have another 5 ro 10 seconds to finish a few stragglers. All of my AoEs recharge in under 10 seconds without Hasten and with just 17.5% global recharge.

I can see going for +recharge on Archery, Rifle, and Pistols, in order to get those sweet tier 9s up faster. +Recharge on Devices is also very nice (that way you can use your primary more...). And +recharge on MM is OK (although I find DP is up plenty often with just good slotting and perma-DP is not much better than DP every 50 seconds). But for most other blaster combinations it seems frivolous in the general sense.

Perhaps if you fight a lot of +3s and +4s, then maybe the +recharge could also be better in a general case. I am still assessing this by playing on +3 or +4 more often (or running the new TFs). In the old days, I found spawns at those settings would live long enough that I often got to use my AoEs twice a spawn (and wishing they recharged in 5 or 6 seconds instead of 8 or 9). However, that is not as common now. More often I have more teammates that can also do AoE destruction with me and even when the +4s take longer to kill they do so in a way that I can use the AoEs twice in spawn A and they are still recharged when we hit spawn B (or as is more often the case in the group I run with, 3 of us hit spawn A, while 3 hit spawn B and 1 hits spawn C, while 1 of us bops in between all three, then after the AoEs on spawn B go off I switch to spawn A for single target cleanup and maybe another volley of AoEs if necessary, then some of us go help on spawn C while others look for spawns D and E and F...).

One class vs. two assumes one is only talking about the balance of brutes and scrappers vs. stalkers.

TBH, they should probably lower Brute and Scrapper damage, rather than raise Stalker damage. But that is not likely to happen either.

But the -range is not the important aspect, rather the threat generation is. Auto-hit is good. Threat generation is good. -Range is helpful, but not vital; at least I do not think it is; am I mistaken? If they make Recluse immune to -Range, will this tactic no longer work for a taunting tanker?

The point is: the -Range is not what makes hover tanking Recluse possible. You can do it without -Range just fine.

Smersh suggested they would eliminate the tactic by making Recluse immune to range debuffing.

Ribic stated it would make no difference because the -Range was not the key to the trick.

New Dawn then stated, "Remember when -range was added to taunt and it was on test? I was against the change in PvE then, gave the very obvious reason and mentioned so on the European forums...."

Ribic then reiterated that -Range was NOT the issue.

New Dawn continued to insist that "The issue is with AVs and their resistance to -range."

-Range can be useful, but you can hover tank Recluse without it. The issue is that Recluse is not smart enough to ignore an enemy he cannot attack. Rather than continually jump at a target he cannot reach, or stand still staring at a target he cannot attack, he should wise up and either punch the stormy right next to him or go kill some people attacking his precious web device. It is an AI issue, not a -range issue.

It is one thing when he is attacking someone who is threatening him and his device. It is a bit different when he is not attacking. At least to me.

I still think the VEAT model is fascinating when compared to blasters. The Dominator is also of great interest. The guiding principle of Dominators is that have dual primaries of control and damage (Link to I15 dominator revamp thread). It is interesting to point out that the general gist of that conversation was that the blaster team role was so well defined, no one ever needed to ask what they brought to teams.

The issue with defining blasters aside from damage is that the AT is kind of all over the place when it comes to a secondary role. Control is mostly the secondary function, which is why Doms play similarly. However, that is not strictly the flavor behind the various blast and manipulation (devices) sets. Also, any improvements to the blaster AT that pushes more control at them just makes them more like dominators, which would be less than desirable, IMO.

I agree that they probably could do quite a bit to make the AT more entertaining and less prone to face-planting. I'd prefer to see them focus on the variety in the AT, rather than draw the various sets closer together (although a few changes could be AT wide, especially if it were to involve powers shared across many sets (nukes, snipes, AIM/BU)).

But /Devices seems to have a special need, IME. I'd rather address that one set first and see how it goes. In other words, I'd buff the crap out of /devices and then assess its state after several months. If it is in a good state, I'd re-work all the other sets then. And all of that is aside from the fact that Gun Drone going into melee is a bug (or an unfortunate consequence of how some new code functions, but either way, it should be a priority fix).

Indeed. But as far as I know, you can keep him from attacking even without -range. The -range is not the important part of the equation. It may make it easier, but the real trick is just the AI manipulation. He gets locked onto a target and even if he cannot attack it, stays locked on.

Interesting. I like the idea that it could affect pets.

I am not sure what the check twice part means. I thought the -perception was auto-hit, only the debuff portion rolls to-hit.

AND make it cost no endurance. Compare to Hide. IMO, you could even make it an exact clone of Hide, with all the AoE defense that comes while hidden.

I like the flavor of interrupt, just not the length. I'd prefer to see the total cast time dropped to 2 to 3 seconds, leaving the interrupt, but reducing it to 1 to 2 seconds and allowing the user to slot for interrupt.

I really like the idea of being able to detonate it remotely. I have never been a fan of the countdown timer. Give this the current Trip Mine cast and interrupt (allow slotting for interrupt), let it last 60 seconds. But the owner can dismiss it at anytime after it is dropped. Dismissing it makes it explode (as does the 60 second expiration).

I totally agree. I could sort of see leaving the interrupt, as long as it was a permanent pet, but even then the current cast is way too long. 3 to 4 seconds tops is plenty. Definitely fix the AI issue, this should not be entering melee.

That would be cool. I'd slot two on my Fire/Fire/Flame blaster and cackle madly.

Well, I did not click all 4 in a chain. I clicked the first one and my team said nothing happened, so I clicked the 2nd one and they again said nothing happened.

Later it got a bit full again so I clicked the third one. I ran out of the room, and it still looked like a whole lot of badguys were there to me. Eventually I also clicked the 4th one and I saw no visible effect, but of course I am in the room so I can't really see. But my team was reporting a lack of any effect to me.

That being said, I got to run it today on my tanker, and when the Stalker used the power, I saw enemies fall over dead. So, it seems to work fine.

Does that do anything? I just ran this on my Stalker and I think I must not know how they work.

So I went in to click the failsafe device, but some perceptive enemy had aggroed on me and stood outside the room shooting at my hidden stalker. Even with good defense, the click time on those things is so long he kept eventually getting a hit in. So after I killed it and ran back in, another 3 guys aggroed on me because I had left the room and they got bored with the rest of the team and decided to go beat on the stalker over there obliterating their buddy Joey the rifleman. But I digress.

Anyway, eventually I was actually able to click the thing. I heard a nifty sound effect. That was it. So I clicked the next one. More cool sound effects, but nothing else happened. I eventually clicked all 4, but saw no result. I am sure I am missing something, but am unaware of what.

TY for the perspective.

The To hit debuff in RttC is very small, slotting for it is wasteful, IMO.

The third LotG in IdomWill gives me a HP bonus which is much more improtant to me than more +regen. I do indeed need the +tohit of the Kismet as well. It allowed me to short slot accuracy and still be capped to hit +4s as an incarnate, but also allows me to EX and still hit well (normally when Exing I face even cons to +2s).

I like Taunt. I tend to notice my teammates are about to get in trouble and Taunt is one of many tools that can help me prevent it. I also fight AVs a fair bit.

While Fire Tarantulas do take an extra hit or two, I have never been hosed against fire resistant mobs. Dra'gon dies just fine (although his AoE incinerate has hosed me even through 65% fire resists). Infernal is a wuss. I had trouble with that EB Castle in AE, but once I got an ally to keep me alive he died just fine.

That said, Fire/Elec is an extremely strong choice. The single target damage on top of the AoE damage on top of some control on top of Power Sink makes it very, very good.

I think you are wrong as well. I think the tower order should change depending on the team.

Sometimes I kill the red first.
Sometimes I kill the blue first.
Sometimes I just kill the yellow and green towers.

The ability to vary the tactic depending on the team is more important to me than relying on a set script.

I agree with this concept completely. Starting a Task Force, Trial, Ouro arc, or an AE arc should boot you from a queue. Joining a team or running an instanced regular mission (normal contacts, newsies/scanners, or tips) should not boot you from the queue.

Once the queue is full and the system determines you can start, you should also not be INSTANTLY TPd to the location and teamed. Instead a pop-up with a countdown should come up. The countdown should likely be somewhere from 30 and 180 seconds.

I have never had this happen on my WP tanker. If I am neck deep in a spawn AND attacking, I do not lose aggro. If a Shield or Invuln scrapper jump in at the same time or only just after I do, sure, they can get some aggro since my aura does not just snap it up right away. But once I start using Whirling Mace and Crowd control, they snap right back to me. My experience with the Nerve Alpha suggests that a scrapper who slots for taunt, may be a different matter (although my WP is slotting the Nerve as well, so that may make up for it).

That would be covered in the following paragraph.

I would love to see improved drop rates for up level enemies. I do not necessarily believe the improved rates need to be directly proportional to the increased "difficulty". Even a small bonus would be a nice add, IMO.

If a problem with this concept lies in solo farming differences, only enable the bonus on teams (since drop rates already currently encourage soloing, this might help balance out that discrepancy).