Focused Feedback: Blaster Secondary Revamp

[WindDemon21]

6 hours ago, grimreaper12k said:

Thunder strike is still kinda meh, but that's nothing new so whatever at least it's faster meh now.

Since most Blaster primaries have aoe covered, I would personally prefer FOT earlier and thunder strike at t8 or at least that at t7 and power sink at t8. Having FOT at t7 at the very latest, if not at t4 (cause it can't be t5 which is sustain)

[arkieboy72472]

Can someone please look at Time Bomb for Devices Blasters versus Time Bomb for Traps Corruptors. One starts the countdown as soon as it is activated, maybe after a second, and one has a 6-7 second interruptible wait, a graphics glitch during laying, and both have a timer that starts before the animation is done. I am testing fold space on both and it is currently next to impossible to fold a group with a blaster, where as with a Corruptor you at least get 2-3 seconds. On both ATs, you MUST have fold space que'd to even get a chance at it hitting. The animations, damage, and countdown are different for both, but i imagine damage is on purpose. Still, they should at least act close to the same.

Edited November 2, 2020 by arkieboy72472

[Ejlertson]

On 10/31/2020 at 11:22 PM, Chris24601 said:

 

 

I can then easily point out that "discourage exemping" and "one-time influence cost" aren't really good nerfs to the set relative to leaving the range alone and chopping the immobilize duration in half which would then force an actual playstyle choice between full t1 damage (slotting for damage) or immobilizing as long as live currently does with no slotting at all (slotting for immobilize) because you can no longer get both at full strength.

I feel that this quote regarding Tactical Arrow is really worth taking into condieration.

[laudwic]

•  End of Time
  • Recharge decreased from 22s to 17s
  • Endurance cost decreased from 20.176 to 16.016
  • Damage decreased from scale 1.552 to 1.232 (per the standard damage formulas)

I've posted about this one twice now, and it doesn't seem to get any traction.  Why is this change being made?  It looks like a change for change only.  The decrease in recharge and end cost is not a big deal as this is a 'oh, I'm surrounded power' on most blasters where damage is more of a premium.  Since, apparently, it is continuing to follow a formula, what is this change being made.

 

 Time Stop

• Hold changed from Mag 3, Scale 8 to:
  • Mag 2, Scale 10 (non stacking)
  • Mag 1, Scale 6 (stacking)

 

•  Time Shift
  • Stun changed from Mag 3, Scale 8 to:
    • Mag 2, Scale 8 (non stacking)
    • Mag 1, Scale 5 (stacking)

With the magnitude reduction we can assume that, at most, if you're lucky and don't have a resistant mob, one application of either may effect a lieutenant, but forget anything higher.  Right?

 

How will Time Wall effect these?

[Vanden]

1 hour ago, laudwic said:

•  End of Time
  • Recharge decreased from 22s to 17s
  • Endurance cost decreased from 20.176 to 16.016
  • Damage decreased from scale 1.552 to 1.232 (per the standard damage formulas)

I've posted about this one twice now, and it doesn't seem to get any traction.  Why is this change being made?  It looks like a change for change only.  The decrease in recharge and end cost is not a big deal as this is a 'oh, I'm surrounded power' on most blasters where damage is more of a premium.  Since, apparently, it is continuing to follow a formula, what is this change being made.

It was stronger than other monstrous PBAoE attacks like Foot Stomp, Whirling Smash, Frozen Aura, or Psychic Shockwave, while also being available to take much earlier than any of those. That was unbalanced.

[Runebound]

On 11/2/2020 at 11:05 AM, Vanden said:

It was stronger than other monstrous PBAoE attacks like Foot Stomp, Whirling Smash, Frozen Aura, or Psychic Shockwave, while also being available to take much earlier than any of those. That was unbalanced.

Balance is a matter of context  - for the set, the AT, and the game overall.

 

You can balance each set by setting each power to the same range, damage, hold time, and the like, but only at the cost of reducing diversity. Within each AT, the diversity of powers and playstyles provides a lot of the fun of CoH.

 

For game balance, CoH has it easier than a PvP game and can wield the nerf bat sparingly. No one is hurt if one powerset or AT can shoot a little further or harder, or stun a little longer, unless they become so relatively powerful that they dominate group dynamics.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Runebound

[Golden Azrael]

On 10/24/2020 at 4:17 PM, Eva Destruction said:

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the Electric Manipulation change.  It's a perfectly good Blapper set as is.  Force of Thunder works nicely as soft crowd control with a KB-KD IO in it, which leaves plenty of slots for the sustain portion, leaving Lightning Field as a damage aura.  The stun is meh, but that's fine.   Elec Manipulation isn't a controllery secondary, it's a melee-heavy secondary, and buffs should focus on making it better at what it already does, not trying to make it do something else.  I'm not a fan of balancing sets by making them more samey.  If someone wants a controllery secondary, there are plenty or others to choose from.

 

Thunderstrike did need a buff, no argument there.  Long animation times are the death of blappers.

Elec/Elec.

 

I thought it was fine as is.  (Though I do like the Sentinels' Tier 3 'High dam' blast better than two successive AoEs that put you in danger as soon as you hit the Hollows.  I wonder if High Dam Elec blast from the Sentinel set would be better than Short Circuit at Tier 4?)

 

As for Elec' Melee?  Not something I thought needed fixing.  

 

I'll try it on beta.  But the elec/elec blaster on live plays just fine.  I like the melee heavy nature of it from havoc punch (are you  watching BS from EM?) to the Shocking Grasp.

 

Having the LField cost no end is welcome though.

 

I was quite happy with the unique way Elec Blaster/Melee 'Thunderclapped' their buff.  Very 'I'm the boss' around here.  Force of Thunder.  Fine as was..?

 

I have(!) rolled the en/en blaster melee.  And I'm not sure I like the way it's been implemented.  Seems to lack HC's customary elegance.

 

Sure.  I like the idea of boosting the single target stun to an AoE.  And now you can boost that AoE stun to a 'ranged AoE stun fist...' at distance.  It's....ok.  Doesn't play as silky as auto snipe.

 

Couldn't power boost for en Blasters have something unique to them whereby Power Boost increased the chance to 'stun' in all blasts to various degrees of 'dis' (or would that be 'too much' on top of the erratic knbk?)  Power Boost seems the place to do that.  I'll test this some more.  I only had one brief play session.  So maybe I haven't given it a fair shake down.

 

Azrael.

[laudwic]

19 hours ago, Vanden said:

It was stronger than other monstrous PBAoE attacks like Foot Stomp, Whirling Smash, Frozen Aura, or Psychic Shockwave, while also being available to take much earlier than any of those. That was unbalanced.

So?  

 

First, lets look at the power itself.  Even boosting it with an aim type power, it will not take out minions.  It will hurt them.  If you slot this power well with an IO set or SOs it can reliably take out. . . Rikti Monkeys.  That is in its 'overpowered' state.  Oh, you have to get into melee range to use it on a predominately raged AT.  

 

Next, we have to reduce its damage because it is, gasp, higher than other sets AoE powers.  How is that a reason?  Every set is going to have powers that are better or worse than comparable powers of different sets be it differences in level of access, amount of damage, secondary effect, radius, or so on.  I do not expect there is a great migration to Temporal Manipulation because you can get a PBAoE power on a blaster secondary at an earlier level.

 

Even if we adopt the idea that powers have to be balanced across all sets, then you might as well get rid of all the diverse sets and turn them all into thematic reskins of the same powers.  Then there will be complaints because x power is stronger because it is not resisted as often as y so we need to bump them up, or this secondary effect is so much better than that one so there has to be a change. 

 

Also, Powers cannot be viewed in isolation.  Because power the Tier 3 power in set A is better than the Tier 3 power in set B does not mean that set A is better than set B.  The set must be viewed as a whole and some powers are going to be better when compared to powers in other sets and worse than others.  The only concern comes into being when one secondary dominates the game.

 

Is this set over-represented in the player base?  I highly doubt it.   

 

Continuing that idea, if the 'standard damage formula' is worth something, then leaving the power alone, assuming the original version still was appropriate under the 'standard damage formula' and the 'formula' is worth a darn, is an absolutely viable option.  If the 'formula' mandates for a change in damage there are required changes to include a reduction in recharge time and endurance to compensate the reduction in damage then you can balance the power at the current damage level by having a higher recharge time and end cost.  You can't have it both ways, either the formula is an end all be all balance tool or not.  If this power cannot be balanced under the 'standard damage formula' at its current 'live' damage level, then I would suggest that the 'standard damage formula' is broken.

 

Going forward, why in writing the patch notes did the Devs not state, as they did with another power in this secondary, that it was doing more damage than intended?  Why did they not state that they were bringing it in line as they did with two other powers in this secondary?  Personally, my guess is those should have been added but the patch notes were poorly written in a summary fashion so as to not provide basic information which would have avoided questions like mine.  

 

This is the DEVs game, and I appreciate what they are doing and bring CoH back.  Since they invite feedback, I'll give it.  

 

I still do not see a reason for this change as I do not agree that there is a need to balance powers between secondary sets as every set will have pluses or minuses when compared to others.  If the sets must be balanced against each other, then your going to have a ton more work to do as the only truly effective way to accomplish that goal is to make every powerset mechanically the same but reskin what they appear to be.

[laudwic]

19 hours ago, Vanden said:

You can save the "nerfs ruin diversity" spiel, thanks. It was stronger than an attack in a set that was literally designed to be overpowered but still available 10 levels earlier, and in a secondary set to boot. It's still very strong.

Because you do not find an argument persuasive does not give you free reign to state that an argument cannot be used or is not persuasive to others.  Are you really advocating that every set at every tier must be balanced to every set at the same tier?  That there cannot be areas in which a set has better powers in a certain area as compared to other sets?  That one set cannot 'shine' in an area as compared to another set?

 

Please explain the following statement: " It was stronger than an attack in a set that was literally designed to be overpowered but still available 10 levels earlier, and in a secondary set to boot."  First of all, what set was 'literally designed to be overpowered'?  Why would a set be designed to be 'overpowered' if there is a desire for balance in the game?  How do you know that the 'overpowered set' was 'literally designed to be overpowered'?  

 

 

[UltraAlt]

On 10/28/2020 at 1:27 PM, CaptainLupis said:

Yes, but if you are getting the buffs from a different time power from a Defender/troller/MM do you still get the bonus and not just from your own power?

That I don't know.

I'm assuming you would, but that's an assumption.

[Replacement]

@laudwic @Runebound

If you want end of time to intentionally overperform, a few things have to happen.

• It's now iconic. It becomes part of the set's identity, such as Energy Transfer or Rage.  I don't think anything about /time screams "best pbaoe damage" but enlighten me if you disagree.
• If a power is allowed to overperform, the same must hold true for underperformers. This means we are going to need to nerf some other powers in the set.  More than one, in fact, since we have to assume the player will be gunning for the strong move and trying to dodge poor picks.
  • If you disagree with this assessment, you are really saying "please let my character be intentionally overpowered" and I would suggest you are providing tears instead of feedback.  
  • Probably going to come out of Future Pain or Time Lord. That's ok, though, if we've determined those aren't the set's iconic powers. Rage turned out to be a great example of this: did you know the rest of Super Strength is absolute trash by the metrics, entirely because people insist on keeping Rage overtuned?

 

EDIT: laudwic, Vanden's statement about being intentionally OP was likely a reference to the fact that, at game's close, all "pay to play" sets were coming out overtuned.  Whether Paragon Studios was above intentional Pay2Win, I will leave for a different thread.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Replacement

[laudwic]

1 minute ago, Replacement said:

@laudwic @Runebound

If you want end of time to intentionally overperform, a few things have to happen.

• It's now iconic. It becomes part of the set's identity, such as Energy Transfer or Rage.  I don't think anything about /time screams "best pbaoe damage" but enlighten me if you disagree.
• If a power is allowed to overperform, the same must hold true for underperformers. This means we are going to need to nerf some other powers in the set.  More than one, in fact, since we have to assume the player will be gunning for the strong move and trying to dodge poor picks.
• If you disagree with this assessment, you are really saying "please let my character be intentionally overpowered" and I would suggest you are providing tears instead of feedback.  
• Probably going to come out of Future Pain or Time Lord. That's ok, though, if we've determined those aren't the set's iconic powers. Rage turned out to be a great example of this: did you know the rest of Super Strength is absolute trash by the metrics, entirely because people insist on keeping Rage overtuned?

I do not agree that End of Time is overperforming.  So, we do not begin on the same premise.

 

Nope, do not see it as iconic or as part of the set identity, but, apparently, if there is enough of a following then you are fine with things overperforming.  Therefore, overperforming is fine if popular enough.  Frankly, I do not see this 'overperformance' as to a level that justifies attention to this power when there are things that should be far more pressing based on over/under performance.  For example, is anyone actually taking powers from Munitions Mastery?  

 

Actually, multiple powers in Temporal Manipulation are being changed/nerfed in addition to End of Time.   Please see the patch notes for change to Aging Touch, Time Stop, Temporal Healing and Time Shift.  I guess you missed that.  

 

Actually, you justified overpowered powers in your first statements related to 'iconics'.  Interestingly, I wonder if they are 'iconics' because they are overpowered.  

 

Not failure with super strength, but taking your statement is true, people keep selecting a set when some powers are more powerful as compared to other sets and some powers are weaker sounds like design working properly.  To quote The Facts of Life: "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both. . . "

 

Also, I guess you missed it but they are changing future pain in the opposite direction of End of Time.  Don't care as much a I don't think Future Pain is a good power to begin with, but don't see the reason for that change any more than changing End of Time.  Again, no reason is given for the change which seems to be poor patch notes to me.

 

Oh, did you know that the 'Standard Damage Formula' does not take into consideration secondary effects?  Basically, the only thing that formula is good for is comparing damage for powers with no or the same secondary effects because I doubt anyone is going to argue that fear, hold, stun, knockback, and -end are all just as good and interchangable.

 

As for Time Lord, are you seriously suggesting that it is some great power now?  Basically, its like vanilla ice cream, its good, everyone likes it but it is nothing to get excited about.  The great thing about it is it is an auto power and no end for 20% blanket recharge.  Now, you can get Hasten, make it permanent (at 50) with one additional recharge IO (for a total of 2) sure you have some end cost but you now have perma 70% overcharge.  (Note, endurance is not a problem with this secondary.)  Yeah, don't see it.

 

If any power is 'iconic' for this set it would be Temporal Healing, and they are changing that one to mirror another power in another set.  Ie. they are now the same reskinned power.  

 

 

[CaptainLupis]

56 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

That I don't know.

I'm assuming you would, but that's an assumption.

I suspect it's what the other poster was alluding to as to why it says it happens when you are accelerated, as opposed to when you have used your own powers, as you can be accelerated by other people as well.

Edited November 3, 2020 by CaptainLupis

[laudwic]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

@laudwic @Runebound

If you want end of time to intentionally overperform, a few things have to happen.

• It's now iconic. It becomes part of the set's identity, such as Energy Transfer or Rage.  I don't think anything about /time screams "best pbaoe damage" but enlighten me if you disagree.
• If a power is allowed to overperform, the same must hold true for underperformers. This means we are going to need to nerf some other powers in the set.  More than one, in fact, since we have to assume the player will be gunning for the strong move and trying to dodge poor picks.
  • If you disagree with this assessment, you are really saying "please let my character be intentionally overpowered" and I would suggest you are providing tears instead of feedback.  
  • Probably going to come out of Future Pain or Time Lord. That's ok, though, if we've determined those aren't the set's iconic powers. Rage turned out to be a great example of this: did you know the rest of Super Strength is absolute trash by the metrics, entirely because people insist on keeping Rage overtuned?

 

EDIT: laudwic, Vanden's statement about being intentionally OP was likely a reference to the fact that, at game's close, all "pay to play" sets were coming out overtuned.  Whether Paragon Studios was above intentional Pay2Win, I will leave for a different thread.

Just to comment on the edit.  I'm not going to guess at what Vanden was referring too, I'll let Vanden clarify if that is their desire.  If the formerly 'pay to play' sets are overpowered, or any set is overpowered there may need to be adjustments.  (If your taking cash for xp boosts or other things in the P2W store, your pay to win.)

 

My points are:

1.  Sets should not be mirror images of each other.

2.  Diversity of powers, not just theme and skins, is good and should be encouraged

3.  Copying powers between sets should be avoided even if reskinned

4.  Sets can NEVER be absolutely balanced and balancing is an art not a science

5.  Some powers in a set should be better than comparable powers in other sets

6.  Some powers in a set should be worse than comparable powers in other sets

7.  It is ok that some power sets may be perceived as being better than others.

8.  Just because some members of the community perceives a power or set as being not as good, does not mean that they are as good and they may be better than other generally perceived better choices. 

9.  The 'Standard Damage Formula' is a tool and a guide to help balance but not an end all and be all in balance

10.  Change should be made when truly needed.  There should not be change for change sake

11.  Patch notes should be clear as to what is the rationale for the change.  Ie.  This power is doing more damage than we intended.  This power is more effective than other similar powers because . . .

12.  Numbers illustrating the change should always be given.  A note should never be: Changed power X to give it the same recovery rate as power Y.  It should be something along the lines of: Reduced the regeneration rate from X to Y but increased the amount of time for absorb stacking from 6 seconds to 12 seconds to make this power similar to <other power>.  That way the reader does not have to be an expert in two powers to understand the changes to one.

[Replacement]

@laudwic

Almost the entirety of your post to me is strawmen and taking me out of context.  None of what you've said about my perspective is remotely close to my point.  I had considered typing up clarifications but then I realized you'll just keep doing this.  

 

You gave your issue, I provided my perspective; we're done here.

[laudwic]

1 minute ago, Replacement said:

@laudwic

Almost the entirety of your post to me is strawmen and taking me out of context.  None of what you've said about my perspective is remotely close to my point.  I had considered typing up clarifications but then I realized you'll just keep doing this.  

 

You gave your issue, I provided my perspective; we're done here.

I addressed every single point you made.  If you choose not or unable to defend your position, that is on you not me.

 

Please note, your initial statement is the one that included dismissive statements like "I would suggest you are providing tears instead of feedback."

 

Despite that, I choose to treat it as a genuine discussion.

[Replacement]

1 minute ago, laudwic said:

4.  Sets can NEVER be absolutely balanced and balancing is an art not a science

I liked this post a lot more than your previous one.  Thank you.  I'm only pulling out this line because it feels rather cornerstone (I'm not trying to remove context of your other points):

 

I agree with this.  This whole thing is actually a perfect example of it: End of Time isn't that far off of Fire Sword Circle, for example (I believe they both follow the design formula).  But the art of it is understanding that higher recharge/higher damage is itself a large buff to a blaster, who doesn't feel the downtime as strongly (they have a lot of clicks to work with, relative to a melee AT, and aren't full-time in range to use a pbaoe anyway). 

 

My belief is you understand the rules, like an artist understands their assorted brushes and techniques.  Then you understand how to break those rules.  End of Time getting the mini-nuke the other secondaries wish they had?  If you're going to give any single blaster secondary the "larger than the rest" big damage/recharge aoe, does it really sound like it should be Time?

 

Sidenote: keep in mind this was a late set - in fact, it might be a Score-added set (it doesn't even exist on either wiki!).  Judging by comments elsewhere, Powerhouse believes most of the i24 and i25 blaster stuff was largely overperforming.  I think Temporal made it through that nerf-gauntlet pretty well, all told.

[S33k3r]

"After the game shut down, several new Blaster secondary sets were developed (eg: Tactical Arrow, Atomic Manipulation, Plant Manipulation), but these sets were generally quite overtuned in the crowd control department, whilst also lacking in incentives to get into melee range - both of these factors contributed towards the sets being a tad too safe."

 

I debated as to whether or not to respond in this thread, and finally decided I should at least try to get my voice to be heard. So here I go...

 

I disagree with the range changes to Tactical Arrow, and specifically take issue with this phrase: "whilst also lacking in incentives to get into melee range". Why does a Blaster need to be incentivized to get into melee range? Either a player has fun playing his blaster there and can pick a different set, or a player never wants to be in melee range and chooses their powers accordingly.

 

Said another way: Back in live, I never considered playing melee sets because I had trouble seeing around the melees, and I hadn't tried the melee-focussed archetypes. This resulted in fear of insta death if I were in melee -- with lots of confirmations on my Defenders, Controllers, Corruptors, etc. It wasn't until the game returned that I tried Tanks, Brutes, Stalkers, and Scrappers.

 

So my question is this: Why does game design insist on getting blasters into melee range? It just seems dumb, especially when there are so many, other melee archetypes. Because I know if I play a blaster, I do not want to be in melee.

 

Please do not reduce the ranges on Tactical Arrow.

 

Thank you.

[Vanden]

3 hours ago, laudwic said:

Please explain the following statement: " It was stronger than an attack in a set that was literally designed to be overpowered but still available 10 levels earlier, and in a secondary set to boot."  First of all, what set was 'literally designed to be overpowered'?

Titan Weapons. Whirling Smash in Titan Weapons on live is about 45% stronger than an attack following the standard damage formula, has a DoT on top of that, and End of Time still did more damage, while being available 10 levels earlier than Scrappers and Brutes get WS.

[laudwic]

4 minutes ago, Replacement said:

I liked this post a lot more than your previous one.  Thank you.  I'm only pulling out this line because it feels rather cornerstone (I'm not trying to remove context of your other points):

 

I agree with this.  This whole thing is actually a perfect example of it: End of Time isn't that far off of Fire Sword Circle, for example (I believe they both follow the design formula).  But the art of it is understanding that higher recharge/higher damage is itself a large buff to a blaster, who doesn't feel the downtime as strongly (they have a lot of clicks to work with, relative to a melee AT, and aren't full-time in range to use a pbaoe anyway). 

 

My belief is you understand the rules, like an artist understands their assorted brushes and techniques.  Then you understand how to break those rules.  End of Time getting the mini-nuke the other secondaries wish they had?  If you're going to give any single blaster secondary the "larger than the rest" big damage/recharge aoe, does it really sound like it should be Time?

 

Sidenote: keep in mind this was a late set - in fact, it might be a Score-added set (it doesn't even exist on either wiki!).  Judging by comments elsewhere, Powerhouse believes most of the i24 and i25 blaster stuff was largely overperforming.  I think Temporal made it through that nerf-gauntlet pretty well, all told.

I absolutely understand rule, but more importantly, I have a great understanding of rule making.  In doing so I have a strong belief that you do not create rules or change rules for every perceived problem, only when you have a good reason.  When you do make rules or change rules, you need to be transparent as to why.  Doing so speeds adoption and following of the rules, increases satisfaction, and avoids comments on rules which require work to respond to them.

 

My main complaint is that the patch notes are lacking in detail.  The amount of damage going from 1.552 to 1.232 is not huge or earth shattering.    I just don't understand why they are doing it.  They give the change but no why.

 

I just don't want to guess.  The patch notes should have something similar to Aging Touch where they explained that the power was doing more than it was intended to do if that is their point.  By just giving the 'Standard Damage Formula' they are giving the impression that the power was already following their guidelines but they are choosing to make it do less damage (As I said earlier, this is a power in it's current state that when slotted with an PBAoE IO set can not take out minion.  Rikti Monkeys, sure, but not minions) without giving a reason.  Frankly, I don't think the change makes much difference at all for a number of reasons, I just want to have an idea why this change is being made rather than my guesses.    

 

I don't see this as a necessary change as the damage is not sufficient to take out a minion in one hit or even the majority of a minions health, doesn't really fixes anything, and not a change that should be anywhere near the top of the priority list.  I'm curious why they did it.

 

I agree with your analysis that a blaster, being generally ranged, in using a PBAoE is probably using it as an 'oh <bleep> I'm surrounded' and wants more damage and the recharge/endurance costs changes are not an issue.  (End is not an issue with TM)  It isn't about feeling the downtime as strongly as not wanting to be in the position to use a PBAoE power on a generally ranged AT.   In my mind, this is a very situational power to be used in situations that are forced upon you more than ones you create.  (Power is darn good at Rikti Monkey clearance.)  The changes are not going to have a big effect on this power for anyone, me included. 

 

Also, this is not a nuke in any sense of the term.  If you tried to use this as a nuke (running into a large group to blow them up while hoping that one power takes them all out before they blow you to bits) you'll be face planted.  I would never try to use this like Psychic Wail (Psychic Blast: PBAoE, Extreme DMG(Psionic), Foe Disorient, -Recharge, Self -Recovery) where you can get into a middle of a group, use a red or build up and take out an entire or almost an entire spawn, possibly without them firing back.  Frankly, I'd take a cone over a PBAoE on a blaster any day especially the aggro generation of a PBAoE if your teaming.  Range is your friend, if they are close enough to be hit by a PBAoE you are in melee range bad for a no inherent defense toon. (I do not subscribe to the Blapper idea or that there are times you should get down and dirty as blaster is a damage AT not range.)

 

I do not see this change to End of Time as a priority or something necessary.  My guess would be that this set, I believe, is a post live addition and they are simply seeking to re-balance it since it has now been on live for awhile and there is more experience and data as to how it is working.  As for priority, I would guess it is because that they are looking at all the Blaster Secondaries and this is why this set came up.   I would have preferred they expended their efforts in other areas, but I'm still appreciative of their efforts, even when I don't agree or question them.

 

 

 

 

[Bopper]

8 minutes ago, laudwic said:

My guess would be that this set, I believe, is a post live addition and they are simply seeking to re-balance it since it has now been on live for awhile and there is more experience and data as to how it is working.  As for priority, I would guess it is because that they are looking at all the Blaster Secondaries and this is why this set came up

Both of those assumptions are correct and were basically expressed earlier this year as a direction the developers would be going.

[laudwic]

5 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Titan Weapons. Whirling Smash in Titan Weapons on live is about 45% stronger than an attack following the standard damage formula, has a DoT on top of that, and End of Time still did more damage, while being available 10 levels earlier than Scrappers and Brutes get WS.

You forgot to add that Titan Weapons in its current pre-patch version is also clunkie to use and requires momentum to add to your argument.  Although it also has knockdown.

 

The Devs have put out that the damage for End of Time is 1.552 do you have a source for the base damage level of Whirling Smash?  I have a TW/RA brute around the same level as my /TM Blaster.  My perception is that End of Time was not doing as much damage, but I don't have the numbers right now.  My Brute did run at far higher difficulty at the same level as compared to my /TM blaster.

 

Again, if you were a developer, and this was the patch note, that would be a vast improvement.  Especially if the base damage number was there as well.

 

 

 

[Vanden]

1 minute ago, laudwic said:

You forgot to add that Titan Weapons in its current pre-patch version is also clunkie to use and requires momentum to add to your argument.  Although it also has knockdown.

Yes, that's the main justification for TW being designed to be overpowered.

 

2 minutes ago, laudwic said:

The Devs have put out that the damage for End of Time is 1.552 do you have a source for the base damage level of Whirling Smash?

Whirling Smash does scale 1.15 damage, plus 3 ticks of 85% chance for scale 0.1 damage (which averages out to about scale 0.219 damage) for a total of scale 1.369 damage on average. Numbers are from the in-game info window.

[laudwic]

Just now, Vanden said:

Yes, that's the main justification for TW being designed to be overpowered.

 

Whirling Smash does scale 1.15 damage, plus 3 ticks of 85% chance for scale 0.1 damage (which averages out to about scale 0.219 damage) for a total of scale 1.369 damage on average. Numbers are from the in-game info window.

Sorry, at work right now avoiding election coverage, can't log on to the game.   I know I stumbled on a site before with numbers but I can't remember it.  Plus, if I could play, I would do that rather than continue on the forums.

 

Plus, I haven't played my brute for awhile once I learned the changes were coming.  I don't remember Whirling Smash being less powerful than End of Time, but I'll take your word.  Though, my brute has a far easier time soloing and taking on large spawns one after another in comparison to my blaster at the same levels.  (One big spawn my blaster can nuke it, but compared to the Brute it is a one shot wonder.)   Assuming your correct, I'm surprised they did not lower it more, but, again, the patch notes and explanation are lacking.

 

 

[Bopper]

14 minutes ago, laudwic said:

Sorry, at work right now avoiding election coverage, can't log on to the game.   I know I stumbled on a site before with numbers but I can't remember it.  Plus, if I could play, I would do that rather than continue on the forums

I can vouch that his numbers are correct. The average damage performance for Whirling Smash is 1.3686625, and those are numbers pulled directly from the game's pigg files, plus calculating the average damage performance for the cancel-on-miss DoT