Blasters and mez - Are we going about it wrong?

Tater Todd · 05-30-2012 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antigonus

Yet it is very conditional in it's availability, which you conveniently don't mention, making it technically free, but not often available since not all PBs want to team. Hardly the definition of a useful ability, but ok I'll grant you that.

Tannim222 · 05-30-2012 02:10 PM

Having multiple inherent abilities or even an ability with multiple effects insn't uncommon.

Controllers have 2. Overpower and Containment.

Stalkers have Assasination which: provides chance to crit from Hide (some powers don't or have a capped %), chance to crit increase based on team size and proximity, a Demorializing effect which can terrorize and has a to-hit debuff, they can crit on held or sleeping targets, now Assassin's Focus which allows the player to build up their chance to crit as well.

Dominators have Domination which: is has endurance recovery, doubles the magnitude of controls, increases the duration of controls by 50%, and provides mez protection.

Defenders: Vigilence which: provides a recovery buff based on low team health, and a damage buff that decreases with team size.

Kheldians have cosmic balance which can provide any combination of damage buff, damage resistance, a recharge slow resistance, and mez protection.

I'm not saying that all of these effects are perfect for each AT. But many of them stem from the fact that there were performance issues that the devs were able to assertain and in some cases (like Stalkers) it has taken many things to get them close or at where they "should" be.

Antigonus · 05-30-2012 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tater Todd

Cute. Looks like this thread has officially jumped the shark. I thought it was actually going pretty well till now.

PsychicKitty · 05-30-2012 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

I've never had my sarcasm, spurious, and schizophrenia alarms all go off simultaneously that strongly before.

What do you mean?

If you cant use your powers to annihilate a target with fire/fire blasters.....then what the heck are you doing?

And if this a reference to my hot feet comment.....thats hot feet...thats not burn.

not knowing the difference is not knowing how to play a character.

Tater Todd · 05-30-2012 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antigonus

Cute. Looks like this thread has officially jumped the shark. I thought it was actually going pretty well till now.

It seemed sufficient since MIB 3 is out and that's exactly how I felt when I read your last post.

StratoNexus · 05-30-2012 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antigonus

Well see I'm trying to get across that something should be done beyond simply piling more inherents on top of the heap that Blasters have become. I mean really, how many inherent abilities are they going to get? How well has that worked so far? But sure, instead of fixing the real issues, lets just keep throwing inherents at Blasters and see what sticks. Then we can listen to the other ATs complain that they only get one inherent ability and it's not fair blah blah powercreep.

First, I think most everyone who wants to see blasters fixed would be more than happy if that fix comes in the form of additions to actual blaster powers. While many suggestions involve adding stuff to the inherent, many are about adding stuff to the powers themselves.

Second, depending on what you want the concept of the AT to be, they can put as much stuff into the inherent as it takes to meet that concept. If they decide against adding control/debuff to attacks and just want an AT with a mix of range and melee attacks, they should feel free to add whatever is necessary to the inherent to make that concept function.

Think about brutes.
They are low damage.
They have good self armors.
Most of their attack sets have significant control baked into regular attacks and have a few attacks that are just more control.
All of their attacks also have taunt baked in.
All of those things are part of their powers.
Then they get +150% damage from their inherent. A massive boost. They get all their survivability from their powers and a huge chunk of their damage from the inherent. It might be worth noting that the inherent actually has several properties: it measures incoming attacks, it measures attacks made, and it notes when enemies of certain ranks are nearby.

Blasters could be the opposite if that was chosen. They could get all or most of their damage from their powers and a big boost to survivability from the inherent. I am not saying that should happen, but it is not a problem nor bad design.

Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.

Another_Fan · 05-30-2012 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Another_Fan
No that isn't even a particularly well thought out conjecture.

Defiance 1.0 encouraged blasters to be suicidal. It rewarded players for being near death. Defiance 2.0 changed that entirely around. While your conclusion may or may not be correct, the way you are trying to get there isn't even close to being correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

This would be a meaningful objection if the devs hadn't datamined blasters as being underperforming before Defiance 1.0 was introduced. That was why we *got* Defiance 1.0 in the first place, along with increased health.

Let me get this straight. I am saying you are trying to compare apples and oranges, and your response is "Look at the Kumquats" ?

OK.

If anything the only thing introducing pre defiance 1.0 blasters into the universe of discussion is to strengthen the argument that the methodology used to fix blasters in the past is fundamentally flawed.

Garent · 05-30-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Another_Fan

Let me get this straight. I am saying you are trying to compare apples and oranges, and your response is "Look at the Kumquats" ?

The logic chain seems apparent to me.

Another_Fan · 05-30-2012 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garent

The logic chain seems apparent to me.

Really would you care to elaborate ? That statement seems a little sparse.

I am curious how you are extrapolating from not even data but general statements about the performance of 2 different things to arrive at a conclusion about a 3rd data set from yet another entirely different circumstance.

Garent · 05-30-2012 07:54 PM

If I'm understanding it right, Arcanaville said that datamining showed a lot of information about blaster deaths, including that they die more than everyone and are much more likely to die while under a mez effect. Arcanaville said that the best explanation for this is that mez is a serious issue for blasters that should be addressed. You countered that the data could more easily be explained by defiance 1.0 encouraging poor gameplay, to which Arcanaville said if that were the case then the datamining from before defiance 1.0 would not have shown blasters to be underperforming as they were afterwards.