Focused Feedback: Blaster Secondary Revamp

[Wavicle]

Just now, Jacke said:

Tactical Arrow is the Blaster Secondary equivalent of Titan Weapons ?!?

 

More exactly, Tactical Arrow's powers' ranges are the equivalent of Titan Weapons' overstrong performace under i26 Momentum ?!?

 

Tactical Arrow is overpowered only because Electrified Net Arrow and Ice Arrow have a range of 80ft ?!?

 

Please support this position without saying the nerfed powerset is still playable because a powerset can be heavily nerfed and still playable, example Regeneration.  Or that a complete attack chain can be made without the Secondary's powers, because that's true of almost every reasonable build, even with heavily nerfed powersets.

 

 

lol I didn’t say any of those things

the ranges aren’t the only thing that got nerfed, not sure where you got that

[Wavicle]

If you can’t accept that Tac Arrow had a nerf coming then I’m not sure what to say.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Wavicle

[Jacke]

10 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

lol I didn’t say any of those things

the ranges aren’t the only thing that got nerfed, not sure where you got that

The strong statements are all focused on the range nerfs to ENA and Ice Arrow.  There's very little discussion of the other nerfs to TA.  In fact, many are saying they'd take more nerfs to TA to have 80ft range on ENA especially as well as Ice Arrow.

 

So it is just about the nerfs to the ranges to ENA and Ice Arrow.

 

Please justify the range nerfs of ENA and Ice Arrow from 80ft on i26 to 60ft on i27p1.  And only the range nerfs of those two powers.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Jacke

[Saikochoro]

6 minutes ago, Jacke said:

The strong statements are all focused on the range nerfs to ENA and Ice Arrow.  There's very little discussion of the other nerfs to TA.  In fact, many are saying they'd take more nerfs to TA to have 80ft range on ENA especial as well as Ice Arrow.

 

So it is just about the nerfs to the ranges to ENA and Ice Arrow.

 

Please justify the range nerfs of ENA and Ice Arrow from 80ft on i26 to 60ft on i27p1.  And only the range nerfs of those two powers.

The devs have already stated in the first post that some sets were too safe. Some sets had too strong of CC, and tactical arrow was able to do everything at range and thus never had to get into melee range. These things lead the set to have too much safety.  They said they wanted to level the playing field. 
 

They nerfed the cc on some sets and nerfed the range on some tactical arrow powers to achieve a greater degree of parity. They didn’t nerf the range all the way down to melee range, but they did make it so they at least have to get a little closer. Tactical arrow is still a safe set and still a very good hover blasting set. 

 

The changes have been justified by the devs. People have tested the changes. Some hate them and some don’t. Just because you don’t agree with the justification does not mean the changes do not have justification.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Saikochoro

[Jacke]

16 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

The devs have already stated in the first post that some sets were too safe.

 

@Captain Powerhouse adjusted that statement 2 days afterwards.

 

On 10/26/2020 at 8:53 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

When we say we want to give more incentives to get into melee range, we mean that we want the melee powers that blasters get to be more useful. This is not about forcing all blasters to get into melee, but to reward the use of these powers beyond raw concept characters or set mules. No one will be forced to jump into melee range with a set they would not do so in the past. I could had phrased that part of the patch notes a lot better and avoided some confusion.

 

But right after that, he said:

 

On 10/26/2020 at 8:53 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

Net Arrow's high range was simply a mistake. There is one set that has some of its powers intentionally at higher-than-standard range, Mind Manipulation, as Mind attacks in this game have had bonus range from the start. You will notice Subdue is still 80ft range.

 

I'd say it was a mistake that was a good idea.  Tactical Arrow has no melee ranged powers and would be appropriate to be longer ranged to provide a second Blaster Secondary besides Mental Manipulation with powers ranged to 80ft.  And it avoids at least a few changes that seem to provide no improvement to City of Heroes while creating a lot of grief for players.

 

But I and others have made that argument in this topic before.  It appears to be not considered sufficient at this time to reverse the range nerfs.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Jacke

[ForeverLaxx]

13 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

They nerfed the cc on some sets

And no one is really arguing against it. Blasters with lots of CC did too much damage too safely while stepping on the toes of Controllers/Dominators in this department. From what I can tell, no one really has a problem with the reduction of CC magnitude for blasters (though I'm sure they exist). Most of the people upset with Tac Arrow's changes have nothing to do with this.

 

14 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

Tactical arrow is still a safe set and still a very good hover blasting set

I don't use Hover on my A/TA Blaster because he's supposed to be a more "natural human" kind of deal and ascribes to whatever doctrine that justifies Batman being so nimble and mobile without any real powers. Agility/Gymnastics/Combat Jumping are how he gets around in combat and this change specifically ruins that character appeal.

 

16 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

The changes have been justified by the devs.

Poorly. The changes stink of spreadsheet homogenization for the sake of making everything the same. I could give a little if Tac Arrow had melee attacks, or melee-ranged powers, that people were ignoring... but it doesn't. It has nothing but ranged damage/CC, mobility, and battlefield control powers. It's like a solo, active, offensive version of Trick Arrow. Which, I'll remind you, that Trick Arrow's Net Arrow and Ice Arrow retain the 80 foot range.

 

In comparison, the Psi secondary gets to keep it's 80ft range immobilize due to "increased range" being part of Psi's identity, yet Blaster Psi Blast is 80ft range while Defender Psi Blast (the one that set the precedent for increased range) is 100ft. On top of that, the Blaster Psi Secondary actually has powers that only work on enemies that are in melee range so the 80ft immobilize works against the set's design overall, yet it keeps the range because reasons?

 

21 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

but they did make it so they at least have to get a little closer

Unless you're a X/Psi Blaster, in which case, you get to keep blasting at your max 80ft range without a concern. The notion that Blasters with 80ft immobilizes were "too safe" don't seem to take account that it still exists due to the Psi Secondary and therefor is still a "problem" if you ascribe to this reasoning. You can't say that all Blasters have "too much range and had to be nerfed" when you can still do it with Mental Manipulation. Hell, the other Blaster secondaries actually got their ranged immobilizes buffed to 60, which runs counter to the "too safe" narrative you're trying to spin.

 

24 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

Just because you don’t agree with the justification does not mean the changes do not have justification

And just because you agree with the poor justification doesn't mean those justifications are sound. All evidence suggests this change is a fix in search of a problem, and in my opinion, no one has adequately explained why Tac Arrow deserves to have its two primary damage powers' range reduced in light of the game's design and surrounding set comparisons.

None.

[Kenweir]

9 minutes ago, Jacke said:

 

@Captain Powerhouse adjusted that statement 2 days afterwards.

 

 

But right after that, he said:

 

 

I'd say it was a mistake that was a good idea.  Tactical Arrow has no melee ranged powers and would be appropriate to be longer ranged to provide a second Blaster Secondary besides Mental Manipulation with powers ranged to 80ft.  And it avoids at least a few changes that seem to provide no improvement to City of Heroes while creating a lot of grief for players.

 

But I and others have made that argument in this topic before.  It appears to be not considered sufficient at this time to reverse the range nerfs.

Darkness Manipulation has ranged powers at 80ft also, an immobilize and a fear. So it's not just Mental Manipulation.

[Jacke]

6 minutes ago, Kenweir said:

Darkness Manipulation has ranged powers at 80ft also, an immobilize and a fear. So it's not just Mental Manipulation.

Looking at i27p1 RC1, Darkness Manipulation has also had a range nerf.  Current ranges are 60ft on the immobilize Penumbral Grasp, 70ft on the AoE stun Dark Pit, and 80ft on the fear Touch of the Beyond, with TotB not being affected by range enhancements.

[Kenweir]

2 hours ago, Jacke said:

Looking at i27p1 RC1, Darkness Manipulation has also had a range nerf.  Current ranges are 60ft on the immobilize Penumbral Grasp, 70ft on the AoE stun Dark Pit, and 80ft on the fear Touch of the Beyond, with TotB not being affected by range enhancements.

I fail to see "achieving parity" in this and everything else, comparatively, but what do I know?

I refer back to Tac Arrow getting "nine nerfs" as referenced by Moonlighter, not counting the blaster-wide nerfs.

Nine ... that's a lot. I didn't know Tac Arrow was THAT overpowered and I play one.

[Wavicle]

But it also got a completely new power. Now people may choose not to use that new power, but to refuse to use it and then base your opinion on the new set without it's tier 9 is not really making a valid argument.

[Saikochoro]

@ForeverLaxxinstead of quoting and taking up even more screen real estate I’m just tagging you instead.

 

First, I’m going to thank you for not including insults with your response. I appreciate that.  Heated debates are completely fine and expected with balance changes. If you feel I have resorted to insults previously please let me know and I will correct any statements and apologize. So that said, thank you for your reasoned response. 
 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled argument. Each of your points have been brought up in the thread a number of time. It’s not that I don’t understand that arguments are there, we just don’t agree on them. I think I am just thinking of them differntly, not necessarily better, just different. 
 

Big picture: the devs appear to be trying to balance the secondaries in relation to each other. Whether we agree on all the changes is another story. Their goal does indeed be to try to achieve greater parity between sets and adjust safety levels of some sets.

 

Big picture: in my opinion, keywords “my” and “opinion”, none of the changes to tactical arrow fundamentally change how it plays. It did get some range changes and I do agree it does change how it plays, but it doesn’t change its core. It is still a ranged secondary and not a blapping secondary. Like I said, big picture. 
 

So here are my final thought (famous last words “final”) on this matter. Do I like the changes? Honestly, not really. Though I am on the fence with oil slick arrow. Do I hate it? No, I don’t hate it either. Why? Because I feel like the set still plays as a good ranged secondary and none of the updates really change that.

 

I feel that nerfs overall were probably justified because tactical arrow was a very strong secondary. I don’t feel like it was overperforming to a Titan weapons degree, but I can at least understand the adjustments. I also understand wanting to making adjustments to try to achieve parity. Perfect parity will never happen because each set has their own unique element, but I understand the goal. 
 

I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other of their opinion. That is fine. I just don’t see a point in continuing to argue it because we both have said our piece. The devs have seen both opinions and will make their decision. Unfortunately, we won’t always agree with their decision, but I think it is only fair to understand that they do have reasons for their decisions. And to them, their reasons are good. That is honestly my whole point in these arguments.

 

I hope you can still enjoy the game even if all these changes go through.

[Troo]

5 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

First, I’m going to thank you for not including insults with your response. I appreciate that.  Heated debates are completely fine and expected with balance changes. If you feel I have resorted to insults previously please let me know and I will correct any statements and apologize. So that said, thank you for your reasoned response.

kudos

[Coyote]

5 hours ago, Moonlighter said:

That's pretty much the issue; you are defending the nerf but I haven't seen any good argument that lowering the range will actually do anything to make the game better.

 

I believe that it is, in general, better to balance powers and sets with formulas rather than by feel.

So I do like the idea of setting all similar attacks to a similar range.

 

However, Psy attacks consider bonus range as part of their secondary effect. If the range is such an important aspect of the power, I do not see why it wouldn't be reasonable to request that it gets a bonus range in return for lower duration, or longer recharge (but without getting greater cost and damage), or some other way to make it balanced against other Tier 1 Immobilizes that are 60'. Asking to be 60' just because "that's how it's been" doesn't fly with me, if it's an unfair benefit to a power. Historical bias is not a good reason for a power to be unbalanced.

 

But historical bias could be used to argue that this particular statistic is more necessary to /TA Blasters than to, say, /Ninja or /Rad, and it's worth giving up or weakening some other aspect of the power.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, Saikochoro said:

So here are my final thought (famous last words “final”) on this matter. Do I like the changes? Honestly, not really. Though I am on the fence with oil slick arrow. Do I hate it? No, I don’t hate it either. Why? Because I feel like the set still plays as a good ranged secondary and none of the updates really change that.

 

I feel that nerfs overall were probably justified because tactical arrow was a very strong secondary. I don’t feel like it was overperforming to a Titan weapons degree, but I can at least understand the adjustments. I also understand wanting to making adjustments to try to achieve parity. Perfect parity will never happen because each set has their own unique element, but I understand the goal. 
 

I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other of their opinion. That is fine. I just don’t see a point in continuing to argue it because we both have said our piece. The devs have seen both opinions and will make their decision. Unfortunately, we won’t always agree with their decision, but I think it is only fair to understand that they do have reasons for their decisions. And to them, their reasons are good. That is honestly my whole point in these arguments.

 

I hope you can still enjoy the game even if all these changes go through.

 

Well said.

 

Although I keep coming back,, I have the feeling since RC1 dropped, it's more tracking down bugs than any other changes.  Though I really hope my suggestion to rename "Shadow Slip" to "Shadow Fold" is accepted.

 

To have a greater influence, need to be involved earlier in the process.  Even before things start rolling on a new release to test.  I've got a few things I want to see in i27p2.

 

But the impact of these.  I really think the TA range nerfs are just too far.  Because increasing some or all of the powers up to 80ft would only give marginal improvements but a lot of QoL.  But there's a lot of range difference issues all around.  I like playing Defenders.  But why do Defender get better ranges than Blasters on so many powers?

 

But all that furball is something that has to hashed out over a while.  But it's likely to happen, as range expansions up to 80ft have happened in the past.

[Jacke]

5 minutes ago, Coyote said:

So I do like the idea of setting all similar attacks to a similar range.

 

However, Psy attacks consider bonus range as part of their secondary effect.

 

Psy attacks on a Blaster only have the snipe with a range over 80ft.  On a Defender, many are 100ft.  Even Mesmerize on a Controller is 100ft.  Why the range differences?

 

Do 2 differences of 20ft each (60 - 80 - 100) make that much of a difference?  Should they be different ranges?

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jacke

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, Jacke said:

 

Psy attacks on a Blaster only have the snipe with a range over 80ft.  On a Defender, many are 100ft.  Even Mesmerize on a Controller is 100ft.  Why the range differences?

I always wondered that. I assumed the snipe range buff, but not really sure.

[Coyote]

6 minutes ago, Bopper said:

I always wondered that. I assumed the snipe range buff, but not really sure.

 

I don't think the snipe range buff was in the game when Psy Blast was ported to Blasters and some changes were made.

Also, I'm not sure what is the relevance, but Psy Lance has 150 range for Blasters and 175 for Defenders. So the snipes themselves are also in the same "why not increased range for Blasters" scenario as the other blasts in the set.

 

On the other hand, Mental Manipulation does get the increased ranges, including 60' on its cone.

 

Just to add more data points, Psy Assault also gets the boosted ranges.

[Wavicle]

23 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

I don't think the snipe range buff was in the game when Psy Blast was ported to Blasters and some changes were made.

Also, I'm not sure what is the relevance, but Psy Lance has 150 range for Blasters and 175 for Defenders. So the snipes themselves are also in the same "why not increased range for Blasters" scenario as the other blasts in the set.

 

On the other hand, Mental Manipulation does get the increased ranges, including 60' on its cone.

 

Just to add more data points, Psy Assault also gets the boosted ranges.

Defenders don't have access to Boost Range...that's one possibility...

But also it might simply have been that Blasters do so much more damage it was deemed unfair for them to have such high range. Might even have been because of PvP.

[Jacke]

24 minutes ago, Coyote said:

...Psy Lance has 150 range for Blasters and 175 for Defenders.

 

I just checked in the character creator.  Psychic Blast's Psionic Lance has range 175ft for both Defenders and Blasters.

 

But the Defender has 5 ranged single-target powers with 100ft range.  And Psychic Tornado AoE with 100ft as well.

 

True for both i26 and i27p1.

 

7 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Defenders don't have access to Boost Range...that's one possibility...

But also it might simply have been that Blasters do so much more damage it was deemed unfair for them to have such high range. Might even have been because of PvP.

But only Energy Manipulation has access to Boost Range, so it's only some Blasters.   And I think it's bad to justify other Blasters to have a lesser range because of a powerset they don't have.  (Though the ranges of Blaster powers has to decided knowing that that Boost Range exists and could be applied.)

 

And I thought the Defender's advantage was all their many and stronger buffs.

 

I think range is more of a factor for AoEs, especially cones.  And because of tight maps, it can be rare that any toon can fight at max range.  With all the good PBAoEs, most need to be able to find a way to work at or just outside of melee range.

 

I think once over about 40ft, it's more the range difference affect play as an irritant.  AoEs can be worse.  Just look at Dark Blast's cone, different max ranges and cone angles.  More range is more security, but only marginally.  And all depend on good tactical employment of the teammembers.

 

I wonder if range seems to be such an important and unimportant factor is because we adjust other things.  At shorter ranges, either go up against fewer mobs at a time, have a Tanker hold the aggro, or be a tough build that can take it.

 

I think range is a factor that goes beyond Blaster secondaries and even primaries.  It would need to be addressed over time to find what could likely be adjusted in a new release without making an unintended mistake.  And once you tinker with the ranges, what about the rest of the power features?

 

Still, I think a start would be to say "Why should this single-target ranged attack differ from 80ft max range."

[Captain Powerhouse]

1 hour ago, Coyote said:

However, Psy attacks consider bonus range as part of their secondary effect. If the range is such an important aspect of the power, I do not see why it wouldn't be reasonable to request that it gets a bonus range in return for lower duration, or longer recharge (but without getting greater cost and damage), or some other way to make it balanced against other Tier 1 Immobilizes that are 60'. Asking to be 60' just because "that's how it's been" doesn't fly with me, if it's an unfair benefit to a power. Historical bias is not a good reason for a power to be unbalanced.

 

I saw these suggestions. Many will obviously disagree, given the feedback, but I dont want to nerf the immob or damage to accommodate a return to the higher range. If a player wants to prioritize range over damage or immob, then they can do this themselves by slotting that way. The boost to 60ft was precisely so that enhancements had an easier and more realistic chance to get a player to the 80ft mark. 2 even level SOs (now a standard at all level ranges) can get any of these powers past the 80ft mark.

 

Now, not a direct reply to you but just a quick few points while i have time:

 

Gymnastics is called that because it was a clone of Acrobatics, and that power does not provide jump buffs. I am not against it getting renamed back to Agility (the other power it was merged with) or something else, but also no time to be holding a long survey or suggestion thread on that.

 

Psi Blast for blasters likely didn't get the 100ft treatment because devs used to be terrified about the impact of that set in PvP, since so many armor sets lacked psi resistance. I thought I had fixed that range thing a long time ago, I'll have to look into it (but we trying to stick to a feature freeze right now so might not get revised until after page 1 launches.)

 

@Jackie I hear you about stealth in Darkness Manip, but as noted, feature freeze at this point. I wrote it down on my list of things to evaluate for future updates [insert standard "not promising it will happen" disclaimer here].

[Coyote]

Thanks for the clear answers, CP. I'm quite fine with the rationale as stated... especially given that the power can be slotted pretty well with 4 slots since it doesn't need Recharge given its short Recharge, so spending 1-2 slots for Range is doable. Builds at tight and not everyone would want to do it, but it's an option.

 

And I'm very excited to hear about the feature freeze... I'll clear up time for this weekend 😆😝

[Jacke]

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Psi Blast for blasters likely didn't get the 100ft treatment because devs used to be terrified about the impact of that set in PvP, since so many armor sets lacked psi resistance. I thought I had fixed that range thing a long time ago, I'll have to look into it (but we trying to stick to a feature freeze right now so might not get revised until after page 1 launches.)

 

Ranges are something that should be considered across more than just the Blasters.  But of course, once you tinker with one thing across a number of powersets, how to keep that tinkering to just that feature.

 

Didn't know PvP and resistance differentials were involved, but it makes sense.  Tangentially, I always thought it odd that to work and not have other issues, PvP had to be special cased.  It was like having two similar but related games instead of a unified whole.  I do understand it's wrapped up in the idecisions made early in the history of City that can't be really changed.  Such as the nature of mez, default hit chances, the true equivalences between players and mobs and how that changes to between players, etc.

 

(Always wondered why there wasn't a better design to mez, like making most of it a progression, like from slow to immobilize to hold, with others separate, knockback as a feature in more things and again a progression of balance between the combatants.  But that's quickly becomes a far different game.)

 

I look at a game that can make its PvE and PvP virtual the same as usually better, at least easier to comprehend and play across PvE and PvP.  But then the games that do succeed there, like SWTOR, have a whole different nature, and a whole other set of problems they tend towards.

 

Quote

 

@Jackie I hear you about stealth in Darkness Manip, but as noted, feature freeze at this point. I wrote it down on my list of things to evaluate for future updates [insert standard "not promising it will happen" disclaimer here].

 

Thanks, @Captain Powerhouse!  I understand about a feature freeze.  At least for Blasters and Darkness Manipulation, adding stealth should be relatively easy (balancing though...).  Solving the lack of a 35ft stealth power for a Dark/Dark Dominator is more tricky.  Especially considering the proposed Guardian AT.  Which I don't expect to see any time soon, as there's plenty that should be addressed before another AT is added.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jacke

[Indystruck]

1 hour ago, Jacke said:

 

Thanks, Captain Powerhouse!  I understand about a feature freeze.  At least for Blasters and Darkness Manipulation, adding stealth should be relatively easy (balancing though...).  Solving the lack of a 35ft stealth power for a Dark/Dark Dominator is more tricky. 

 

Dark Manip for blasters definitely needs something to spice it up, yeah.

 

[CaptainLupis]

11 hours ago, Jacke said:

 

Psy attacks on a Blaster only have the snipe with a range over 80ft.  On a Defender, many are 100ft.  Even Mesmerize on a Controller is 100ft.  Why the range differences?

 

Do 2 differences of 20ft each (60 - 80 - 100) make that much of a difference?  Should they be different ranges?

I've actually never understood why any psi powers have extra range, to me it just seems an odd choice. I could rationalise it not having a line of sight requirement, after all if you can sense someone's mind you can attack it, why would you need to see them to do it? And if the argument was you do need to see them, what part of the body do you need to see? The eyes would be the obvious choice, but if that is the case it is counter to it having long range as you are less likely to see the eyes clearly at long range.

 

Sorry, it's slighly off topic, but it is just something that never made sense to me in game.

[Chris24601]

13 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I saw these suggestions. Many will obviously disagree, given the feedback, but I dont want to nerf the immob or damage to accommodate a return to the higher range. If a player wants to prioritize range over damage or immob, then they can do this themselves by slotting that way. The boost to 60ft was precisely so that enhancements had an easier and more realistic chance to get a player to the 80ft mark. 2 even level SOs (now a standard at all level ranges) can get any of these powers past the 80ft mark.

Unless you're exemplaring down... as I mentioned both here and in the thread on Enhancement changes. Exemplaring below 32 starts the inevitable decay of your enhancement performance until two even level SO's net about a DO's worth of effect on a PosiTF. Even 6 slotting for Range (with more than half of it wasted by diminishing returns) won't get you to 80' if you're exemplared.

 

If this is the tact you're taking, may I suggest removing SOME of the enhancement types from the Exemplar scaling... scaling down Acc, Damage and the like makes sense... but Range is SO niche that anyone using it is almost certainly doing so to address a specific issue in their build to the detriment of the "more useful enhancements" and not being able to slot full sets into their powers. Having that fail (when it worked when you actually WERE level 15 using level 15 SO's) just because you're exemplaring removes a lot of the incentive to exemplar at all... why help that level 15 when you can run a level 35 mission without your range workaround being wrecked by the exemplar mechanics?

 

So there's my counter proposal if this is your hard line... remove RANGE (and perhaps some of the other edge-case enhancements like Interrupt Time) from the Exemplar scaling formulas.