Focused Feedback: Blast Power Set Updates

[TotalThunder]

6 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:

Like when Psychic and Dark Blast were proliferated to Blasters, for example.

 

That doesn't seem to matter to most people, because I'm assuming that when a power set gets proliferated it's considered a new set and "cottage" doesn't apply. Which is why Sentinel Assault Rifle has Aim, and Fire Melee is mid on Scrappers and Brutes, but overpowered on Tankers. See: Combustion.

Edited April 17, 2023 by TotalThunder

[Captain Powerhouse]

10 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:

Though simply replacing powers with Aim was done by the actual live devs. Like when Psychic and Dark Blast were proliferated to Blasters, for example.

 

Replacing powers during proliferation process is perfectly acceptable, and we do it all the time. It isn't the same as taking powers away from players that have a power already in their builds, no one likes their characters being drastically changed. Roughly a quarter of players have Beanbag in their builds, so this change would have ha required near unanimous reception, or nonsensical feedback. The feedback we have received here and via other sources, though, inform us that this would be disruptive to long-standing active players.

 

At the end of the day, just access to Aim does not make a powerset good, you can go and ask Sentinel users of Assault Rifle.

 

At its most recent build, AR is not just in viable, its a very good performer, without having to disrupt existing players.

[Captain Powerhouse]

2 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

ignored the suggestions for Slug/Beanbag combo entirely.

 

It was not ignored, its something that was considered very early among many other alternatives. We simply don't see it fit to give a T2 attack, doing 100% design formula scale damage, also having a 100% chance for scale 10 stun.

[@Ghost]

1 hour ago, FupDup said:

I mean, we did offer a ton of different ideas like a ranged "follow up" power that had a stun built in to it, or moving the stun to a different power like Slug or Incinerator. It didn't even have to be an either-or scenario. 

 

The Follow Up one imo seemed like a really strong contender for a reasonable fix, I wish that one had gotten more traction.

[Super Atom]

1 hour ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

It was not ignored, its something that was considered very early among many other alternatives. We simply don't see it fit to give a T2 attack, doing 100% design formula scale damage, also having a 100% chance for scale 10 stun.

 

Is it specifically because It's a 10 second stun and that might be overpowered in the first 10 levels? because that's a pretty bad reason to handicap an entire set. Just lower the damage of slug and add the stun. It'll still end up doing more damage overall becxause of aim.

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, I want to understand the decision because if the changes go out as is, AR may be viable, but it won't be very good.

 

You also say Aim doesn't make the set. This is true, but all the other changes you've made + aim does. It also makes a gigantic difference for Devices/Martial/Ninja who don't have build up.

 

I also like the beanbag follow up suggestion. It too would make all parties involved happy.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Super Atom

[Lithobraker]

At least the reasoning has been explained to us now, even if I find it to be frustratingly obtuse and nonsensical.

What was the point of putting in any effort to implement the change at all if you were making it with the full knowledge that any amount of backlash would result in a rollback- something which, by your own admission, you expected?

What is the point of taking feedback if you're just going to look at all of it and say "nope, we're doing it this way"?

I think at this point it should be pretty obvious the rollback has caused far more backlash than the initial change did, and up to now Aim has spent more time on AR on this page's beta than absent.

If all this focused feedback we're giving isn't an important factor in your decision-making process, then there's no point even posting here, at least as far as AR Aim is concerned.

 

Either way, I give up. The other changes seem fine to me, so since AR Aim related feedback is not being considered, I don't have anything else to add to this conversation.

 

Edit: Actually, I do have one thing to add. You say that approximately 1/4 of players have Beanbag in their builds, but I'm curious if you mean level 50 players or not. It might make sense to take Beanbag if you're starved for damage mitigation, even if it's terrible, while leveling- and then abandon it later.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Lithobraker

[Super Atom]

6 minutes ago, Gobbledigook said:

Maybe adding a very small +to hit to one of the AR powers so players can slot a Gaussian's could help some.

 

 

 Beanbag becoming follow up that stuns would also be fine.

 

This works with the recharge difference between aim/beanbag too.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Super Atom

[cmmnoble]

Most of the discussion around the changes to disorient/stun duration for Suppressive Fire has revolved around the changes for the fire/cold/toxic ammo types available through the Swap Ammo power. Missing from the discussion is the fact that Suppressive Fire can be used without taking Swap Ammo.

 

Also missing from the discussion is the effect of the changes for players who don't use set bonuses / procs, etc.

 

If you don't use Swap Ammo and have used only DOs or regular IOs, Suppressive Fire currently does so little damage that I would argue that its MAIN FUNCTIONALITY is the stun.

 

Everything that has been discussed regarding the impact of losing Beanbag's stun capability in the Assault Rifle set applies to Dual Pistol players too. (We also like to stun Lts during solo play in Striga Isle!)

 

Being able to stun enemies for a decent duration as part of the Dual Pistol kit also allows for more "blapper" style close in play, where you can make good use of the melee powers available in blaster secondary sets (such as in Martial Combat). With the changes to stun duration, this style of play is going to take a huge hit.

 

Before the change, my dp/mc blaster (level 50, Suppressive Fire enhanced with 2 vanilla IO disorient durations) has a stun duration of 17.49s. After the change, if I've done the math right, the stun duration with the same enhancements will be only 6.97s.

 

This feels like a "major disruption."

 

For solo leveling or small-team exemplaring, it will almost certainly be--since the stun is more helpful for survivability when you have access to fewer powers in the kit.

After the changes, the only way to regain more of the stun/disorient duration functionality I currently have would be to respec into Swap Ammo and OUT of one of the other fun powers I am currently using.

 

The stated reasons for the change is to make this a more damaging power for players who want to do more ST damage at range, but this should not come at the expense of blappers who want to make use of the melee secondary powers--and live to tell about it.

[Super Atom]

Stop deleting feedback.

 

I understand you deleting inflammatory posts that aren't contributing anything, but you've deleted valid feedback comments for AR. That is not okay.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Super Atom

[Mezmera]

26 minutes ago, cmmnoble said:

Before the change, my dp/mc blaster (level 50, Suppressive Fire enhanced with 2 vanilla IO disorient durations) has a stun duration of 17.49s. After the change, if I've done the math right, the stun duration with the same enhancements will be only 6.97s.

 

Neither side of these power sets have a Build Up power.  If you slot Suppressive Fire heavy with all kinds of procs it does lots of damage, but it also gives a great 1 in 3 chance for the Decimation proc to fire giving your follow up attacks tons more damage potential.  My one two punch is a proc'd Suppressive Fire into an Eagles Claw that is likely under a build up affect you'd normally not be able to get with this pairing.  

 

Everyone's balloon is being popped with this change and all to a sub tier power set to boot.  

[GM Impervium]

12 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

Stop deleting feedback.

 

I understand you deleting inflammatory posts that aren't contributing anything, but you've deleted valid feedback comments for AR. That is not okay.

Arguing with/Quoting other users generally isn't considered feedback.

So, EVERYONE, calm it down. Address the DEVS, not each other.

[Booper]

Everyone, Aim is not coming back. If you wish to discuss the matter, do so outside of the focused feedback thread (https://forums.homecomingservers.com/forum/57-homecoming-beta/ exists for that purpose). This thread is specifically to provide feedback for the changes that exist on beta and this on-going discussion is drowning out other player's feedback.

 

If you want to discuss the increased damage or the reduced cooldown for stun, great. If you want to discuss the numerous other buffs to AR, great. But the Aim discussion needs to move elsewhere. 

[Super Atom]

 

For continuing i guess

[Neogumbercules]

Can we discuss increasing the target cap of Full Auto to 16 to bring it in line with other T9 attacks from similar sets? What are some of the arguments against? Too many other cones?

[FupDup]

6 minutes ago, Neogumbercules said:

Can we discuss increasing the target cap of Full Auto to 16 to bring it in line with other T9 attacks from similar sets? What are some of the arguments against? Too many other cones?

Cones generally have lower target caps than targeted AOE or melee AOE attacks. Uniformity is likely the reason why. Even though Full Auto is a T9, it is still burdened by the limits of being a cone. 

 

As to why cones have lower targets, I really don't know. If anything I think their cap should be the higher one since they take more effort to line up. IDK why the easiest to use abilities get higher caps than hard to use ones...

Edited April 17, 2023 by FupDup

[Galaxy Brain]

2 hours ago, Mezmera said:

 

On that same token there was so many more people giving feedback to the dislike of DP's new Suppressive Fire on a range of things from the hold being less effective to proc damage among other minor things and yet it's going to get pushed through as is.  And the best counter argument using faulty testing numbers was that there was no real change in damage when at first non testers were exaggerating it to being 16x more damage when they couldn't have been bothered to test the power set from the outset of the change showing just how much they like playing the set.  

 

With regards to your AR it feels like they were looking for that one person to say it now breaks their immersion so as to reverse course and not give it to you too well.  If the two AR players that don't want Aim are going to limit it's implementation there I'm sure DP players would like to take it off your hands and we can trade you this new 'improved' Suppressive Fire.  

 

Been meaning to circle back to this, some screenshots in the spoiler section:

 

Spoiler

New character on Beta with the following slotting:

 

Fighting AE Punching Bags in the published "Office Mission Simulator" (Arc ID: 23659) that have 0 resists


Vs +0:

 

 

Vs +1:

 

Vs +2:

 

 

Vs +3:

 

 

Vs +4:

 

The swings in numbers are due to the Purple Patch multiplying the total output vs my targets by lower and lower amounts the higher level they are. At +3, such as when you are an Incarnate with a level shift, will multiply the damage taken by 0.65x. Going by the 1st screenshot, the damage was:

51.29 x2 for the Suppressive Fire base damage (the second shot is a smidge higher cus defiance 🙂 ) 

107.08 for Armageddon

71.74 for Ghost Widow's Embrace. 

 

Multiply each by 0.65 = 33.34 / 69.60 / 46.63, which is backed up by the screenshot of Vs +3. 

 

This is why the numbers I reported a little while back did not match up 1:1 from the tests vs a lvl 54 Cimorera boss. 

[Captain Powerhouse]

2 hours ago, cmmnoble said:

Most of the discussion around the changes to disorient/stun duration for Suppressive Fire has revolved around the changes for the fire/cold/toxic ammo types available through the Swap Ammo power. Missing from the discussion is the fact that Suppressive Fire can be used without taking Swap Ammo.

 

Also missing from the discussion is the effect of the changes for players who don't use set bonuses / procs, etc.

 

If you don't use Swap Ammo and have used only DOs or regular IOs, Suppressive Fire currently does so little damage that I would argue that its MAIN FUNCTIONALITY is the stun.

 

Everything that has been discussed regarding the impact of losing Beanbag's stun capability in the Assault Rifle set applies to Dual Pistol players too. (We also like to stun Lts during solo play in Striga Isle!)

 

Being able to stun enemies for a decent duration as part of the Dual Pistol kit also allows for more "blapper" style close in play, where you can make good use of the melee powers available in blaster secondary sets (such as in Martial Combat). With the changes to stun duration, this style of play is going to take a huge hit.

 

Before the change, my dp/mc blaster (level 50, Suppressive Fire enhanced with 2 vanilla IO disorient durations) has a stun duration of 17.49s. After the change, if I've done the math right, the stun duration with the same enhancements will be only 6.97s.

 

This feels like a "major disruption."

 

For solo leveling or small-team exemplaring, it will almost certainly be--since the stun is more helpful for survivability when you have access to fewer powers in the kit.

After the changes, the only way to regain more of the stun/disorient duration functionality I currently have would be to respec into Swap Ammo and OUT of one of the other fun powers I am currently using.

 

The stated reasons for the change is to make this a more damaging power for players who want to do more ST damage at range, but this should not come at the expense of blappers who want to make use of the melee secondary powers--and live to tell about it.

 

This is excellent feedback. Cant promise anything but will look at available options.

[Captain Powerhouse]

31 minutes ago, Neogumbercules said:

Can we discuss increasing the target cap of Full Auto to 16 to bring it in line with other T9 attacks from similar sets? What are some of the arguments against? Too many other cones?

 

In our internal tests, having a 16 target cap nuke at a 60s cooldown was simply too much. Increasing the target cap to 16 is not possible without also increasing its recharge significantly, but rather retain some of the set identity than homogenize the nuke.

[Crimsanotic]

7 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

In our internal tests, having a 16 target cap nuke at a 60s cooldown was simply too much. Increasing the target cap to 16 is not possible without also increasing its recharge significantly, but rather retain some of the set identity than homogenize the nuke.

Isn't that how Rain of Arrows functions?

[Mezmera]

1 minute ago, Crimsanotic said:

Isn't that how Rain of Arrows functions?

 

It's not quite as short a recharge as 60s but shorter than most other nukes yes along with Hail of Bullets.  They do have 16 target cap though so as Powerhouse is alluding to the recharge would need to increase and they don't want to homogenize it completely towards how other sets play.  Understandable.  I do hate cones though with the exception of something like Terrify and a few other control cones.  

[Super Atom]

32 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

In our internal tests, having a 16 target cap nuke at a 60s cooldown was simply too much. Increasing the target cap to 16 is not possible without also increasing its recharge significantly, but rather retain some of the set identity than homogenize the nuke.

 

 

Rain of Arrows does more damage, recharges only 5 seconds slower and hits 6 more people.

 

So i guess just make it 5 seconds longer?

Edited April 18, 2023 by Super Atom

[Captain Powerhouse]

23 minutes ago, Crimsanotic said:

Isn't that how Rain of Arrows functions?

 

And you will notice we didn't do any changes to Archery this page despite it being well known it lacks in damage in other areas.

[@Ghost]

20 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

It's not quite as short a recharge as 60s but shorter than most other nukes yes along with Hail of Bullets.  They do have 16 target cap though so as Powerhouse is alluding to the recharge would need to increase and they don't want to homogenize it completely towards how other sets play.  Understandable.  I do hate cones though with the exception of something like Terrify and a few other control cones.  

RoA has a 65s base recharge, although it's been bugged for an eternity and does 1 less tick of damage than advertised because of the pseudopet duration.

 

As intended it deals 225.2 base damage on a blaster at level 50, though in reality it's 150.13. Full Auto does 178.6 (on live, though there should be no change.)

 

It's possible RoA is designed around the bug or there were other concerns vis-a-vis the rest of Archery vs AR, though even with the bugged damage RoA hits 6 extra targets which winds up placing it solidly ahead in total damage.

[Neogumbercules]

Personally I would take a longer cooldown on FA if I could hit more targets. I'd be able to keep the pressure up on foes that I've knocked down with M30.

 

I understand the reasoning relating to wanting to maintain the sets identity, I guess I just don't agree. But...such is life.

[Gobbledigook]

I don't know why my post was deleted. I was only trying to help with a problem some had with AR not being able to slot a Gaussians. It was only a minor solution at best anyway.  Oh well.