Jump to content

XaoGarrent

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About XaoGarrent

  • Birthday January 1
  1. I'm late to the party, but it really just boils down to Blaster melee numbers being really, really, really, really big. I'd say the only competition Blasters have for raw damage in melee is a handful of AoE centric Stalker builds. Unless you're playing Dev or TA (until they nerf it anyway) avoiding melee on a Blaster is a huge waste. Especially these days where you can comfortably get Scrapper-ish defense/resistance through IOs, and self healing isn't even completely out of the question. Not to mention that having pretty much every type of attack in the game makes slotting large IO sets and getting the specific bonuses you want way easier than it is on a character with an armor secondary. I keep putting off making a Blaster with more of a melee focus, and I keep regretting it, because I keep running into IOed Blasters that are just doming fools like it's going out of style. You'd be surprised how fast IOs + a support AT on the team can hit the soft cap for a Blaster. An IOed Blaster with Fort is basically the damn grim reaper.
  2. This sort of confusion happens when you make distinctions that don't really matter or even exist in reality. You're really just proving the point by demonstrating a consistency in range focused sets having this feature, showing that by being consistent on one rule, they're actually breaking another one. The way they're range focused is different, but none the less, they are, and now one reflects this properly, while the other doesn't. This is precisely why over homogenization is a bad, bad idea. It's a downward spiral because eventually you find that in your quest for balance you've effectively made pong.
  3. Well, that and maybe glue arrow and the new oil slick, but yeah. If you're not taking TA specifically for the buffs now, you probably should be looking at another set. All it does well now is the buffs. TA's gimmick has always been on shaky ground. It's a set that leans heavily on low damage control powers, on an AT where control powers are and have been universally mediocre at best... And this AT is an AT that does damage very well, about all it does well, and it exists In a game where more damage is always appreciated. It's always been in this situation where it needs to break the rules to be competitive, and in this case the rule it's breaking is actually a bad standard that should be overturned anyway. And here we are, stuffing the square peg into the round hole. Even if you put near controller level duration and recharge controls on Blasters, those powers would still be significantly worse, because of no critical control, and no domination. Bosses are typically the only thing you really want to use single target control on outside of solo play, so if you can't lock them down quickly for a meaningful duration, there's no point in even firing off your control powers. Control is so strong on Controllers and dominators not because they can stack the control, but precisely because they don't need to, often times they can just point at a hard target, or many less hard targets, and just straight up make them stop doing anything for 10 seconds. Blaster controls are already a losing proposition out of the box, and then you get massive nerfs on top of that and it's just no bueno. Better to ignore most control and go for more damage. The devs don't seem to understand that the old devs spreadsheets and standards were actually really bad, very unrealistic and ideological, in a lot of ways. EDIT: Also, I'm going to steal "carpet inspector." That term is great. 😄
  4. Hey, I realized a silver lining to the TA nerfs: We can dump the gimped crowd control and pick up defense granting toggles and other power pool stuff that allows us to slot global procs. It's not a great trade for those that make thematic characters, but this set just became one of the top twinking sets, it's basically made for munchkins. From this patch onward TA is going to be basically a prime candidate for being used as a mule set. Take the buffs, pull net arrow off your power bar (less to manage on an AT with two attack sets is always nice), leave most of the rest in the trash can. Grab the usual suspects and IO it to basically be a ranged scrapper.
  5. I guess you really want people to experience how outdated many of the design decisions in this game are. I mean, not that they were good decisions back then, either, but that was also before over a decade and a half of progress in the industry. "Bold strategy, cotton. Let's see if it pays off."
  6. lol so many nerfs for no reason Having a mezz focused blaster secondary was already of dubious value over going for one more damage focused, especially given the current meta. This is a mistake. I guess you guys really are trying to live up to the legacy of the live devs, Jack especially. I guess Devices is just a better Tactical Arrow now, since it was already as good at the very least.
  7. Elec/Shield is the Stalker AoE meme.
  8. Not even remotely on target. You still have this idea that I said something I didn't. I'm going to continue to leave it up to you to figure out where you went wrong, because I'm tired of arguing with people who can't be bothered to read and understand.
  9. No, but there wasn't a post where I said that, either. The error is on your side.
  10. 1. Doms get their T9 pets early. This really is more of a solo/small team thing. Also, Mind gets its AoE confuse earlier. Really, it would be nice if it got that psychic vortex pet that Penny has, but... Cottage rule makes that hard. 2. Doms get a higher consistency/uptime version of whatever their set's soft AoE mezz is. Shorter cooldown, higher base accuracy, more consistent knockdown, stuns roll to last longer on each target, etc. 3. Yet a little higher damage. Frontloading DoTs could help with this, but I think maybe focusing on the Assault sets would be a better idea. Especially the lower tier powers, which tend to be lackluster altogether. Some of the recent changes did already help with this, though, namely the sets that got reduced animations with little or no tradeoff. 4. Port Illusions to Dominators. ...A man can dream. EDIT: Also, making sure Domination works on everything in some way is a real good idea. That's a good suggestion. Domination rework: People probably aren't going to like this, but... Basically, domination is now a toggle. Some very important other things change, too, though. Dominators now get most of their mezz resist as part of their passive, and domination just increases it a bit. The Domination meter is split into 4 bars, it can be activated any time you have at least one bar, and when Domination is active it slowly drains. Deactivating Domination will eat whatever is left of your current bar, but you keep any full bars in reserve. Domination... No longer can be perma'd Still requires some commitment to use But also... No longer is all or nothing, can be activated earlier, and can be managed No longer is required for mezz resistance
  11. The problem with this is that the absorb was designed specifically the way it was for the purpose of sustain. It's designed, intentionally, to be a small but frequent value as it's supposed to help you shrug off/recover from a lot of small, constant hits, and in many cases recover when you get some breathing room between spawns. It's not just Blasters, either. Blasters just got it universally because it was a good catch all fix for some of the problems they had, that also went well with the concept of Defiance. A lot of the newer armor sets were also intentionally given some kind of ability that helps sustain for this reason. I can't remember exactly *when* but I think it was BABs that mentioned they had an epiphany in regards to a lot of the power sets that people considered 'good' all having one thing in common: Small but constant HP (also energy) recovery in some form. Be it a passive, a toggle, or a recovering click.
  12. Ice being that high suggests something about his methodology is producing skewed results... But all the same, it's not by much. Ice is easily A tier, but I think it's getting placed too high on account of certain choices he made in the testing format. Most notably, only using one secondary, and even then only using it for Build Up. I know why he's doing it like that, but it skews the results severely because how well or badly a primary can synergize with one or more sets bumps its viability up or down. There's some other questionable issues with the testing. +0/x3 is going to skew all sorts of things because different sets rotate in different ways, so you're going to get some really sus results that don't match real world performance, where TTK changes just enough to allow some minions or LTs to survive against a set that can't follow up with another AoE blast quickly. It gets more murky when you factor in differences between Blasters, Sentinels and Corruptors/Defenders, too. Ice actually goes up on Sentinels due to Blizzard being up so often that it's dependable from spawn to spawn. Sonic, as is well known, is a bit better on defenders, since a lot of its flaws don't matter as much as a support. It's not a bad test, but take it with a serious grain of salt. Interpret the data yourself and use critical thinking.
  13. The problem is most other things that blast sets do, they do so either so sparsely or so weakly that more damage ends up becoming the universally better option. Especially on the Blaster AT where damage is your primary goal, and your utility options aren't quite as good as say, a Corruptor. You're not wrong, but if we're using most other power sets as a baseline, Fire Blast is still "overperforming," and has been for a long time, thus it needs a whack. I actually don't agree with this, personally, and consider the entire category of blast sets to have fundamental flaws in their versatility, but that's what strict adherence to hammer-the-nail balance would have you do. Probably along side giving a few other, newer sets a whack, too.
  14. I've been through this discussion so many times that I really don't have the energy to do more than give the summarized version, which goes as follows: "Yes, it matters, but it's not a very high priority." This isn't just true for MMOs, either, it's true for pretty much all games. Balance is very rarely if ever the point of a game, whereas design and mechanics, story, atmosphere, etc, command a lot more direct player engagement. Balance can make a game better or worse, but it can never make a game, if that makes sense. This is the thing that Emmert and Cryptic on a whole didn't seem to comprehend in the early days of the game, and it's why they almost killed the game. I will say this, though: The dynamics of balancing games vary incredibly widely, just as the design of games does. Balancing a fighting game and an MMO or any sort of other primarily PvE game is VERY different, for one key reason: You completely control one side of the equation in a PvE game, whereas you don't completely control either side in a PvP game. Players can only drive the bus on one end of a PvE game and thus you have a lot more room to play with numbers, mechanics, AI, etc without ever touching the things players share control of. It's always far less risky to make adjustments on the E side of things than the P side of things, and the fact you even have two completely distinct sides to begin with, means you can balance them both separately and across the aisle to accomplish whatever you're trying to accomplish. Everything in that Core-A gaming video is actually more true of PvE games than PvP games because of this.
×
×
  • Create New...