Zem

Except in the sense that defense-sets go well with ANY stalker. When you assassin strike and demoralize hits everything with an unresistable 7% tohit debuff, it might as well be a +7% defense buff that stacks with your existing defense for 8 seconds. If you don't already have a decent amount of defense, this tohit debuff is fairly unnoticeable.

Aside from that, Caltrops can help in bunching up an ambush for AoE. Hide around a corner. Let them pile up into it. Then dash around and Burst before they can hit you and break Hide (which again is where defense is nice). Or dust a spawn with non-aggroing Blinding Powder before opening with Burst to give yourself a little more protection.

Or you might consider Ninja Blade. Doesn't have a PBAoE like Kin but has some nice soft controls in its KU and KD attacks Soaring Dragon and Golden Dragonfly, the latter of which is also a short range narrow cone (where again a pile up caused by Caltrops can let you hit multiple enemies with a very damaging attack). Divine Avalanche can over-soft-cap you on melee defense allowing you to shrug off Cimeroran defense debuffs on the ITF, for instance. Not to mention giving you some build flexibility in defense IOing. You can pretty much ignore soft-capping for melee defense in favor of other bonuses.

Mid's unfortunately by default shows you the total defense while Hide is engaged. The majority of Hide's defense value is actually suppressed as soon as you attack, are damaged, or click a mission object, including that huge chunk of AoE defense. What's left is a mere 1.875% base defense(all). Slotting this to the ED limit for defense gains you only about another 1% defense(all) while unhidden during combat. This is why most people don't bother slotting it for much, if any, defense.

Regarding Danger Sense... I don't see what you mean by only adding 3.4% defense. Danger Sense provides a base 13.875% ranged defense. Slotted to the ED limit for defense you'd gain another 8% for about 21.8% total. You don't want to skimp on defense slotting your main defense toggles.

The elves hate villains.

It's been two and a half years since scaling criticals went in! If they haven't datamined its effectiveness by now, do you honestly think they are still at it? It's not that I want to be the voice of doom and gloom but at this late date, when Castle tells me they think they have made Stalkers as strong as they want to make them, I believe them. Not that *I* believe Stalkers are strong enough, mind... just that THEY believe it.

I don't know how far back you are reading to come up with this conclusion, but I have in the past pointed out that I think it is mostly melee allies that DO account for the scaling crit we CURRENTLY have (and have had since 05/2008). I'm not saying I want it to be that way. That's just pretty much how it is. These are the folks who are most likely to be within 30ft of you. It's a generalization of course. There are always exceptions.

You are assuming that the current scaling crit along with all the rest of the post-i12 Stalker changes are not performing as well as they want them to. Castle's post seems to indicate that they are happy with all that and only believe Stalkers underperform due to issues outside the design of the Stalker. Obviously there are two ways to address that: Change the Stalker (again) or change the system. It would seem to be easier to change the Stalker but Castle's post seems pretty clear on this point. They would consider changing the system. And that's where I read between the lines, "but the system is so hard to change don't hold your breath."

What one problem would that be? Castle said "problems"... plural. He gave only one example but presumably there are other systemic problems he just hasn't listed. But again, he's fairly clear that the problems are with the system not with the Stalker deisgn anymore. The design is what they want it to be and they don't seem interested in adding more. I'm sure Shared Aggro isn't the only problem. It can't be. On the other hand, you are right on target with that last bit. I DO think the subtext of the OP is "Sorry Stalkers. Sucks being you." He doesn't make it sound like the odds of these systemic problems ever being fixed are high.

Why would he have said they think Stalkers are as strong as they want to make them if their changes weren't working as well as they expected? Systemic means a problem "with the system". In that context I assume it means "as opposed to the Stalker itself". So the example of Shared Aggro being directly addressed would mean changing the way aggro is distributed on a team, NOT changing Stalkers again to compensate them for it.

Not by me. I am reading what he wrote and attempting to understand it. After all, these are the folks who decide what gets done and what doesn't. Armchair developing by the players can be a fun mental exercise but in this case it's all just theoretical if it has no chance of actually being implemented because the devs are against further changes to Stalkers themselves. And it sounds like they are.

Leo, this is just what Castle did with the last Stalker buff. What do you think a scaling crit outside of Hide is meant to accomplish but to boost our performance in a way not related to obtaining that initial alpha strike? Read the bloody OP again. He says he's DONE that. Now the devs think Stalkers are strong enough and only want to directly address those systemic issue. They are done painting around them.

I know it's easy just to assume I am narrow minded, my head isn't in the game, or whaever your next creative insult will be... but I am not the one telling you how it is. Why your ideas aren't going to be implemented. It's not my decision. I'm just telling you why *I* don't like them, which is as I said pretty academic. I don't make the rules around here so my opinion doesn't count for more than that.

At this point, I've probably said all I can on the subject. This is rapidly becoming a waste of time. I better get back to my single-minded boss-killing.

How? If it's an on-kill benefit of some kind it occurs *after* you kill something. Shared aggro is a problem *before* you kill anything. You get aggro shared to you from some Brute charging into the spawn and then you get hit and interrupted while waiting for AS to land.

I'm not convinced it's worth much to have an on-kill effect. And it's not happening anyway. Not because I'm "narrow minded" but because Castle has already said that they added damage and they added demoralize and NOW Stalkers are as strong as they want them to be. We're not getting more piled on top of that as on-kill buff/debuff/whatever. If you want to address Shared Aggro you do that by helping the Stalker avoid hits at the start of the fight. What else might be allowed eventually in terms of Stalker changes depends on what these other unspecified "system issues" are.

I never said they were. Leo, you are cherry-picking a few responses and taking them way out of context. I attack whichever target needs to die first. I have ALREADY mentioned such things as Sappers and Surgeons so stop thinking you can teach me something here about how to play a Stalker. I am talking about the general rule here, not the exceptions to it. Most of the time, someone who has high single-target burst damage is best used against something that is high threat and has a lot of hit points. That usually, but not always, means a boss.

It's particularly effective when the rest of the team is focused first on AoE damage because they will be killing the weaker foes first. If your efforts to down the boss first cause him to fall at the same time as everything else then the fight is over and you can all move on. That is not a stalker being narrow-minded or selfish in going after a boss. That is actually contributing something useful to a team.

As I've explained, debuffs are more useful the earlier in a fight you can deploy them. If you have to kill to get the debuff then it follows the enemeis that can be killed fastest will get you the debuff sooner. If you scale back the debuff so you have to kill a bunch of minions then it favors AoE stalkers unfairly. If you prevent AoE from stacking buffs on a single AoE attack, then at that point you've made the debuff pretty undesirable unless you DO kill a boss and.... I've already talked about how long that can take.

This particular idea of demoralize on-kill wouldn't make me change how I target, so yeah... on ITFs it'll be nice with all the one-shot Surgeon kills. But this is my point. It's just not enough to get excited about. When last they buffed Stalkers we got scaling crits, demoralize chance on AS (if the target survives unfortunately but at least it's good against bosses), more hit points, etc. In short we got a lot of stuff that helps us pretty much ALL the time. This what we're discussing now is just not that big a deal.

I don't care whose kill it is. That's not my issue. It's simply the case that even everything I've said about the benefit of this on-kill debuff aside, a FURTHER reduction in its impact is due to the fact that you just won't get every killing blow you aim for on a team. That's not because anyone is doing anything wrong. There's no kill-stealing. Everyone is trying to kill the same enemies so statistically you will miss some opportunities to trigger this debuff on a team. That reduces its overall value even further.

Castle's post is broader than that. He talked about having added damage AND the demoralize debuff and then said that Stalkers were "strong enough". It's not clear to me that "strong" comment is limited just to damage. I don't think they're open to adding anything which does not directly address what they view as "systemic" issues. So all this jawing we're doing about this or that proposed buff for Stalkers is pretty much just academic.

Were you level 10 last time you checked? A level 40 boss has 2000 hp. A level 50 boss has 2500ish. That's aside from any resistances they might have. I really doubt you are two-shotting them unless you've a stack of Fulcrum Shift buffs. And if your team has that, the fight will be even shorter all around.

Keep in mind. I am not saying you get NO benefit. I am saying that benefit is reduced by the fact that you have some work to do before it is realized. Build Up, AS, Placate, follow-up attacks.... all that is going to take ten seconds or more, which is a long time in combat, especially if everyone is hopped up on damage buffs. I'm not exaggerating when I say the fight can be as much as half over by the time you finish the first boss. Or even entirely over. In either case, the enemy will have been reduced in number and threat, again obviating the need for a debuff 10 seconds or more into a fight.

I can think of a few situations where fights are not over so quickly. The second mission of the ITF comes to mind where the spaws are entirely composed of bosses. But these are exceptions. In most teaming situations, this will provide little benefit.

But I'm NOT already bashing minions first. Why would I? Unless you are playing an AoE stalker, which I currently do not, you will more likely be going after bosses if you can. So this change does nothing for me or any other Stalker who believes their best use on a team is killing bosses. This does not help.

Not even close to the same thing. Brutes gain and maintain fury by attacking and being attacked. They don't have to go out of their way to kill some minion if it is tactically not the best thing to do. They are in fact better off bashing a boss themselves and keeping its attention while letting their AoEs (or their team) damage minions. Being surrounded by live minions is actually good for them.

You act like I am just being contrary here. I have explained why I don't like on-kill effects. I think the idea is fundamentally flawed because of how it interacts with what most ST stalkers will want to do first: Kill bosses. If I do kill a boss, I get the on-kill benefit but only after killing the boss, which may be too late to be of use. It's also less effective on a team where teammates will take a percentage of these killing blows from me. I'll be for a change that is MORE useful on teams, which is where Stalkers need the most help. It also does squat in an AV fight where a Scrapper or Brute might pull ahead in sustained DPS. Do I need more reasons? That seems like a lot already.

You're telling me this like you think I disagree. Not sure why. I have always pointed to the Stalker vs. Scrapper damage comparison as "the problem". If we survive less, we should do more damage. Adding some control or debuff capability is not something I would be completely against in lieu of more damage but it would have to be done in a useful way. Getting that effect off of sweeping up trash minions is not going to do MY stalker any good. Perhaps those AoE stalkers out there feel differently, I suppose, but I don't.

So why reward that? That's my point. All you're doing is generating a weak debuff that a debuff AT can beat with the click of a button at the start of the fight.

I didn't say we needed more encouragement. What Stalkers need is more effectiveness at what they do. This proposal doesn't do that. If I go after the boss first, even if it generates a larger debuff I STILL have to kill it first. By that point on a decent team the fight is mostly, if not entirely, over. What good is a debuff/fear then?

If you're looking to make Stalkers better ask first what they DO best. Stalkers do burst damage whether in single-target or AoE-from-Hide form. If you're not improving their ability to do that then you're not improving Stalkers in a way anyone will care about. At least not on teams... and Stalkers are already fine soloists.

It would encourage Stalkers to go after weak minions instead of bosses first. No thank you to this and pretty much ANY on-kill buff/debuff for the same reason.

Recharge is already a diminishing returns kind of enhancement in the sense that the more you have, the less each % point of recharge added affects the overall recharge time of powers. People with high global recharge builds are likely to be disappointed by the recharge alpha. It's going to be far more useful to people who have not already slotted for recharge bonuses and/or don't have Hasten.

You might have to zone first before it starts working, I've heard. Also, it's only going to enhance powers you already possess that do regen and heal. Not your base regen rate. So it should have some positive effect on Health at the very least. Did you respec to inherent fitness? If not, do you have Health in your current build? How is it slotted? Only 1/6th of the common alpha bonus will be able to apply after E.D. So if you have a heal power already slotted up to E.D. with health enhancements, the common alpha will have very little effect... but still you should see some small positive increase in the combat stats.

I think it's worse than that. Even with five melee allies how many of them are within 30 feet EVERY time you use an attack? Just from my own experience spawns can be spread out and even teams can be spread out moving through a map. You eventually gather on a spawn, but not necessarily before you might have gotten in an attack or two with one or two of your teammates still lagging behind and outside your crit radius. Or just having one guy (or maybe you!) going off to chase a boss on the periphery of the battle.

In other words, even with 5 melee allies, the average number of them in crit range over the course of a mission or TF is likely somewhat less than 5. And that's an almost ideal team for stalker criticals. Consider the average team composition and I am willing to bet the true average number of allies contributing to the stalker scaling crit on a full team of eight is probably around 3. At any given time it could be more or less than that, but if you're comparing to a Scrapper whose damage output is consistent and unconditional, you gotta look at the average.

I'm not sure how to parse Castle's statement about Stalkers being "as strong as we want them to be". I don't know if that means Stalkers *would* do better damage than Scrappers if these "systemic" issues were addressed or if Castle even believes Stalkers *should* outdamage Scrappers. To me that's a given. Less survivable = More damage. Because I can't think of what else we bring more of.

Except style of course.

Anything is merely "viable" on SOs. But it seems likely you'll end up disappointed if you are comparing a billion-inf Brute to an SO'd Stalker. At the very least you will want to get either a -KB IO or pick up Acrobatics since Ninjitsu has no KB protection.

I've done two ITFs and one Moonfire TF with an entire pick-up team of eight stalkers. Not the easiest way to do a TF but it sure is a lot of fun.

If Helpy McHelperson can get a team, anyone on Virtue can. !

Is it really so unreasonable to expect people to get back into practice with their 50s before attempting to solo content that specifically advises you to grab some friends? On a toon that is not a strong soloer in the first place? Who doesn't have a decent IO build? The entire point of the Incarnate system is to go beyond IOs. If it has to be as accessible as everything else then what really is the point of having it at all? Just get rid of it and the new TFs are like any other TFs. Bleah.

Oh and the nonsense about practicing a game = a job. Please! Have none of you people ever tried to play golf recreationally? I guess I doubt it because it sounds like you would object to practicing your swing without first being paid to do it.

Test, this stalker nonsense is getting tiresome. You were all over the boards proclaiming how hard it would be to get Incarnate on a stalker too. I got my tier 1 alpha on my Ninja Blade stalker within a few hours of logging into i19 for the first time. According to you I should not only not be able to get a TF team but probably get kicked for not having the AoE "everybody" cares about.

Give it a rest already. Or leave Freedom. I've certainly not had these problems on Virtue.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not as popular on my stalker as on my Dark corruptor. I definitely get more unsolicited team invites on that corr. Point is though, you're exaggering when you claim most people will absolutely not team with a stalker. At least this is not true on all servers. Maybe it IS true on Freedom. You got me there. I don't play on Freedom.

I DO agree there are some idealistic viewpoints here that are indeed in the minority. The truth is that most PuG teams do care about team composition... but only to a point. Many will want to fill a couple roles like tanker/brute and one or two supporty types but few are as picky as to specifically exclude certain ATs. At least not in normal PvE gameplay like TFs and mission teams. Don't know about farm teams. Don't care.

It is just as often *fairly* demonized. Simple fact is that KB is usually a secondary effect on an attack power and while you always want the damage, sometimes you want the KB and sometimes you don't. KB fans like to claim it's all about skill, but if it's the skill to know when NOT to use a power then clearly KB has cost you the use of that power in that particular situation. Or at the very least some time spent positioning to reduce or remove the unwanted KB.

KB is a double-edged sword even in the best of hands. And it's usually not in the best of hands.