Aeonian

Why not build different characters for PvE and PvP? Time. It's that simple. Some people won't spend the time to level up a second character in order to be able to experience a small aspect of gameplay. Why should they? They won't know if it's fun unless they can devote the time to building their second character.

If players are required to build for PvP, then all you will ever see is a small population of hardcore PvPers. This is a good way of killing off PvP for the majority of CoX players.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regard to powers I think that players should be able to engage in PvP without requiring a specific build

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...consider me blow away by this post. You KNOW that the computers AI is vastly different from a real player. You KNOW that even pathing for computer AI is differnt from the what a player can accomplish. Heck you even know that the computers AI make them execute power in specific orders. You teleport, it knows to face the direction that you teleported too ect ect.

You mean to tell me that a build that knows exactly how to handle the computer AI & only have the powers and pool abilitys to handle those contigencys should beable to do the same for a human intelligence who tactics are only limited by its imagination?

Wow...just...wow

[/ QUOTE ]

No...clearly i don't mean that. That would be stupid.
I mean that a player should not require Tactics to fight a Stalker and a Stalker should not require double-Stealth to be able to fight heroes.

Builds don't know how to fight AI and other players. Players do. I'm blown away that you think it is your build that determines success in PvE and not your skill.

...And no, i'm not including the intentionally gimped or moronic builds that do exist. I was referring to a build from an 'average' player who has taken some care in building their character, without needing to become a number-cruncher or specialist in PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
It's four attacks, Castle...

And I think it also proves a nice point... People will complain that AS needs to be nerfed to NOT one shot, but people will complain to the PLAYER that TPFoe+Trip Mines is a cheap tactic. But NOT that they need to nerf Trip Mines.

Ironically, my two mains are a /dev and a Stalker.
Funny lil world, idn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it just shows that if changes to Stalker 1-shots are being enacted, other potential problems need to be fixed too or we just end up with another Fotm.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate all scenarios where a defender is defeated without a chance to react. I think what is possible is the elimination of the defeat by a single attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

*nod* I think you're right. There's just always going to be situations where a player can be killed instantly or nearly-instantly without a chance to react. Just pointing out the fact that there are similarities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me or can't most of these PvP "problems" be solved by not standing still in a free fire zone. Seems to me that if I knew that I was going into a dangerous area, I'd be constantly ducking, dodging, and taking cover. If I cross the sign that says "now leaving the US controlled zone", I better put on my gear, get ready for battle, and put the pedal to the metal.

Maybe all of these problems can be solved by having the PvP zone rep say, "Standing around may get you killed." or maybe "Stalkers in mirror are closer than they appear"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to disagree here. Assuming that constant movement is effective against Stalkers and that all players learn this, Stalkers will need to do one of these:

1) Wait for the player to become bored of moving- No fun for either player

2)Wait for an unaware player to enter the zone - No fun for the, presumably, new player

3)Leave the Zone. No fun for the Stalker.

I think requesting that all other players move constantly to counter a threat some cannot perceive is not really a solution that leads to a fun PvP experience for more than about 2 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
#2 He who has the most toys usually wins. And siren's call, 99% of the time hero dominated is where the big offender is, and it's name is IR goggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in total agreement with you right up to here. You see I was expecting you to have a problem with Stalkers double-stealthed like most of the posts I see. It's interesting that you take the opposite view and suggests there is a fundamental problem with stealth and perception as they are currently.

I think it is the binary nature of stealth and perception that is the problem. I liked the idea I saw, I forget where, suggesting that the closer a stealthed character is to a player the less stealthy they become. I'm not convinced of the practicality of implementation but, then again, i'm not one of the devs who would have to code that. Thank goodness!

[ QUOTE ]
If Stalkers don't stop treating every post on this subject as a nerfherding of their AT, they're not going to have their voices heard on HOW such a system should be put in place and WHAT compensation Stalkers should receive to keep them viable in a world without 1 shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[ QUOTE ]
I often PvP with my Stalker and many heroes either have Tactics, IR Goggles, or some other type of Stealth perception and they do just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

With regard to powers I think that players should be able to engage in PvP without requiring a specific build; it discourages casual play in the long-term. As for IR goggles...

[ QUOTE ]
(since heroes have control of most of the PvP zones on every server atm)

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when heroes don't have control of the zone? What about a level 20 character with no influence? They shouldn't go into Siren's Call? That seems a bit harsh.

How about a shorter duration on Trip Mines for PvP or a limit on the number an individual player can deploy? Either that or harsh penalties for repeated ganking by players.

I think its a bit different since more checks occur. Having said that i'm all in favour of allowing every player a chance of responding to an attack. I think how the Stalker playstyle currently works is a problem and i'm willing to recognise that this is also an issue of similar significance.
I'm not sure the fix is the same but I suspect it would need to be deployed at the same time as any AS change.

I think this may be a problem because it is potentially doable by a single player, just like an AS combo. Casual players with PvE builds ought to be able to engage in PvP without being ganked constantly. I accept that it takes more time but i'm not sure it involves greater risk for the ganker.

[ QUOTE ]

That's the case when you're TP Foed into caltrops and mines. There's no chance of interaction by the defender, they're immediately killed. So yeah, by that criterion it's a one-shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean but if anything I'd call the use of TP foe the 1-shot attack not the Caltrops + Trip Mines.

I would say it is 2 or 4 attacks. Caltrops and Trip Mine are discreet powers and require multiple 'clicks' to activate. Since all the Trip Mines are the same power it can argued they are 1 attack but I don't see how Caltrops + another power is a 1-shot.

I don't understand where you get the idea from that I'm saying Stalkers are overpowered. I'm not saying that. I do think there are problems with the current playstyle.

As you can see from my sig, I have a Stalker. So this is not based on "Stalker killed me, I dont like Stalkers"

Even given all the factors you present, I would expect to see more MMs in PvP simply because they are such a large portion of the CoV population.

[ QUOTE ]
Running away is the most effective trick for "any" AT in the game when death is looming

[/ QUOTE ]

It is currently the most effective way of responding to a Stalker AS. Stalker AS == Death is looming? That just seems a bit...binary in terms of PvP combat.

[ QUOTE ]
it simply means I do not care if I die.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would suggest a possible problem to me. Death in PvP shouldn't be just a way of escaping further combat having got your reward. Then again, I wouldn't want to discourage people PvPing by implementing a penalty. So I don't know what could be done about this.

In conclusion, I don't want to see Stalkers nerfed. PvP and Stalker playstyle may need 'tweaking' though.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the other CoV ATs are a lot squishier than people really like, at the SC levels. It'd be one thing if everyone were bored and sitting at the level cap, but when you just get steamrollered all the time, you start to wonder... why should I be here instead of in PvE?

More than simple power, it's survivability that makes stalkers popular in PvP. Villains don't like getting ganked any more than heroes do, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, to a point. I think that what players are doing is seeing that Stalkers are much more survivable than other ATs and therefore using those in PvP.

Can you see the other Villain ATs being boosted though? I know I can't see that happening. By the same token, the devs aren't going to want to nerf heroes in any significant fashion for a while. That leaves making Stalkers current playstyle in PvP less attractive (not nerfing Stalkers as they need to be functional in PvE) and/or altering the PvP mechanisms in some way.

[ QUOTE ]
So, basically you are saying that many people that play Villains have opted to create Stalkers?...[snip]...It's simply the people who are paying to play have chosen to play certain AT's.

[/ QUOTE ]
What i'm saying is that if the majority of people who choose to PvP are deciding to use Stalkers it suggests that the other ATs are underpowered or that Stalkers are overpowered.
As far as I know, MMs are the biggest number of CoV ATs with a fairly even spread of other ATs. If PvP were to follow normal population patterns we would see more MMs.

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this tactic as well only it looks something more like TP+Rage+Insight+Luck+BU+AS and then SJ or TP or SS off (inspirations may vary or not be used at all). Nothing wrong with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
We'll have to disagree on this I suppose. There is greatly reduced risk in this strategy for the Stalker and little chance for the hero to respond. I don't see this as a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Avoidance is not only an option it's a tactic. Just as some may not want to engage with a Stalker a Stalker is going to be picking and choosing his targets as well. Not seeing an issue here.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is that, since running away is the most effective way to avoid losing to a Stalker, we end up with no-one fighting in PvP zones. Heroes move constantly and run when a Stalker appears. A Stalker has to wait for the hero to get bored of moving. This is boring for both ATs and doesn't help other Villain ATs to contribute to PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you and your team have at least a few skills to engage a Stalker that is not in hide?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, a Stalker able to land in a large prepared team and kill someone is doing a good job of Stalking. Doesn't make waiting for the Stalker to attack any more fun. Besides I've seen plenty of Stalkers happy to kill their target and die straight after. Would this be related to bounty?

[ QUOTE ]
It has already been said that one shotting will be going away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, I hope it does the trick but i think balancing is going to require more than this fix.

Finally, my comment about a player target bind suggests a variant on the Stalker attack. This is to engage a wounded hero in a big fight with the Arachnos in a hotspot. It's very hard to select the Stalker before they bounce off due to the other mobs. I agree this is a valid tactic but I would like to see a bigger opportunity for the hero attacked to be able to respond other than 'What was that? Oh i'm dead'. A bind might fix this without needing to nerf anyone.

I initially thought that there was no problem and it was just me being rubbish at PvP. I think I've started to see reasons for the imbalance now though.

1) Given equal numbers of heroes and villains in the PvP zone there are a usually a high proportion of Stalkers in the villain population. This means the heroes have to be built to be able to deal with Stalkers; not good for casual play.

2) Since the other villain ATs can be seen by the heroes they are quickly overwhelmed if the Stalkers do not gang up on the heroes to help out. There is certainly a PvP balance issue here.

3) TP + AS + SJ. I've seen this tactic and it is very boring to fight against. Stalker lands, probably one-shots, and runs far away using SJ. This, of course, requires the double stealth combo.

4) Attack avoidance also may be an issue. It is in the Stalkers interest to have the AS be uninterrupted by AoE or targeted attacks. If the heroes consistently find themselves unable to hit the Stalker when they spot him try to AS they will just learn to run away from Stalkers.

5) Teaming does not solve the AS issue as it gives the Stalker a clump of targets that are easier to find. Please don't suggest that the heroes should all have to stand next to each other in fear as a 'solution' to being one-shotted.

I'd look at scaling the cost of IR goggles dependent on level and capping Stealth and Perception effects much lower. One-shotting should not be possible.

Also, does anyone know a bind to target player opponents only?

Happy Anniversary CoH!
I will reach level 50 sometime in the next 12 months...