Chad Gulzow-Man

That's not a bad idea... make Stalker criticals (or at least the ones that activate from hide) add a regeneration debuff. It even fits the concept of the severity of the wounds that Stalkers supposedly inflict, or allows the player to roleplay that he/she has struck with poison.

I like it. I'm not sure if it's enough to encourage teams to bring Stalkers along, but way to think outside the box.

You're just as welcome to post as anyone else, here. And you're right--Stalkers really aren't supposed to be compared directly to Scrappers in the eyes of the designers; unfortunately, most players see that they have the exact same powersets and assume they ought to play the same.

The main problem with the Stalker AT as it is now is that it actively penalizes the fast, frantic playstyle that Scrappers are known for and greatly rewards an almost unnaturally slow pace in combat. While this isn't an issue when soloing--a Stalker, played properly, is far less likely to die in a solo mission than a Scrapper--it causes issues on teams because the favored pace of the Stalker slows down the entire group at worst or is completely irrelevant to the team (i.e., you may as well be door sitting) at best.

As Ice_Wall said a few posts after yours, Stalkers were intended to be the villainous equivalent to Blasters when they were introduced, and the "glass cannon" metaphor is very apt for their intent. Unfortunately, it seems that they only got the glass part of the equation right; Stalkers are very squishy, but they don't do enough sustained damage to really warrant it. This is why some people are pushing for a buff to their defensive abilities and HP (remove the glass since there's no cannon), others are pushing for a straight buff to damage (fix the cannon and leave the glass), and some of us want some sort of balance of the two.

This is definitely true.

See, this is where I was getting confused. 125% damage to an enemy that has its attention elsewhere sounds like a fantastic idea (especially with the ability to still crit for +100% base damage). But since critical hits are currently 200% damage, that's what I thought you were asking for.

... A stealthy chainsaw? Sounds like Stalkers are gonna get screwed on that powerset (if it ever comes to be) just like they were with Shields.

Doesn't Vengeance give bonus damage as well? It would still leave resist sets just as comparitively screwed as ever.
(Note: I know this was just a joke on your part.)

Because your argument is that the only way to improve a Stalker is to make them play like a Scrapper, whereas I'm saying that they need to improve on their existing specialties.

There is no arguing that a Scrapper currently outputs higher DPS than a Stalker either on a team or solo... and despite my seemingly unpopular ideas, I'm not stupid.

They don't need to do well over Scrapper damage, they just need to do a small but obvious amount better. Making every hit on an otherwise aggroed enemy do critical damage is going to be the equivalent of giving a Scrapper a butter knife and a Stalker a chainsaw, and all it's going to do is make the Scrapper fan base complain.

Nope, they could very well limit the maximum amount of defense your character can have based on their AT, just as every AT has a max amount of hitpoints and a maximum damage buff. They've already done this with damage resistance--Tanks cap out at what, 90% resist, while Blasters cap out at I think 50%?

If I recall correctly, Castle was actually the one who shot down the idea, based on the fact that they'd just done the GDN fairly recently prior to the inclusion of the Inventions system, and said that a second set of defense nerfs would just be unfair.

I read that the issue with this is that apparently it would cause a lot of server-end lag, since the game checks any object within that radius (200ft?) to see whether it's a teammate before applying the critical hit buff. Obviously, a lot more can happen within 200 feet of you than within 30 feet.

And as I'm not involved in the coding to City of Heroes, I'm not going to say how easy or difficult that would be to change, except to say that it costs more CPU time to compare sqrt((x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2) to distance than it does to compare (x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 to distance^2.

(I missed that question on a test in college once. )

-----
Only if you insist on playing a Stalker as if it's a Scrapper. If a Stalker gains the ability to take down a boss in 2-3 hits fewer than a Scrapper, though, I'd consider that an advantage. As it rests now, even with the option to use Assassin's Strike, my Katana Scrapper will still usually take out a single boss more quickly than my Ninja Blade Stalker.
And... you don't feel like that would be overly powerful, especially now that you can get a Tanker on your team to hold aggro no matter what tasks you're doing? That just breaks balance too far in the other direction.

And to go further into your post, softcapped defenses vs damage resistance powers is an issue that plagues everyone in the game, not just Stalkers. Having a little bit of defense is ridiculous because you still get hit quite a lot and it hurts like hell. Having a lot of defense is ridiculous because you never get hit. It's a completely separate issue to what needs to happen to help Stalkers, and those who have softcapped their characters are very lucky that they decided to not lower individual AT defense caps to compensate when the idea was brought to the table after Issue 9.

Eh, this is getting further and further off topic, but it all goes back to how I learned to play the game. I spent most of my time as a duo on my Kat/SR Scrapper with an Energy/Energy Blaster. She would focus on the big baddies with her knockback attacks while I kept the lesser critters from getting too close to her. So on teams, I let the big damage dealers go after bosses, while I sweep through the lieutenants and any minions that might make things difficult (like Cimeroran Surgeons) before turning my attention to the boss as well. I've found that this makes things go a lot faster for teams in general and have been complemented for it more than a few times.

This extends to AVs as well, such as on the Katie Hannon or Statesman TF; I'll take out bosses while the rest of the team is focused on the AV and work my way down through the minions. It's about doing what benefits the group the most.

Of course, when playing solo, I hit the toughest dude in the group first and work my way down the chain, since that's what makes the most sense when you have no backup.

Stalkers do the second least damage of any melee AT and yet have the least amount of survivability. That's where that came from. It was also a bit of a tongue-in-cheek poke at the guy who said I need to be smacked in the head.

Anyway, I don't particularly want a nerf to AoE damage, I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind giving it up as a concession to greater single-target damage. If ST damage were buffed without an AoE nerf, that would be fantastic, and if both got buffed, my head would probably explode from the sheer awesomeness.

But sometimes you have to be willing to give something to get something; single-target damage is what Stalkers are supposed to be good at, and yet Scrappers are better in a straight fight. That never made much sense to me, so I voiced an opinion. It's obvious that I'm a minority in thinking the way I do, but I've always been a bigger fan of concept than min/maxing, so take that as you will.

Or maybe you just need to get over your idea that any attack that's not an AoE is a waste of a power choice, and realize that different ATs have different purposes both solo and in teams. You're more than welcome to not play a Stalker because you don't enjoy the playstyle, but demanding that they become something they simply aren't isn't going to help.

Even if you get your way, you're just going to turn Stalkers into a weaker version of a Brute, which is going to cause them to get discriminated against even more.

At least as far as I'm concerned, if the devs are going to say that Stalkers have a specialty, they need to really make them shine at that one thing as opposed to being "just okay" at it, which they are now. (And anyway, the 5% damage nerf I suggested for Stalker AoE attacks still puts them far above the damage those same attacks do in the hands of Tankers.)

I play Stalkers like Stalkers, because that's what they are.

Then again, I'm weird; I actually like that they're focused on single-target damage and spiking. I'd like to see them be better at what they're supposed to be used for so people will actually start using them in the intended manner instead of "lulz weak Scrapper!"

-----
Fair enough.

I disagree. The intended use of a Scrapper is crowd control, to take out minions and lts quickly while the Blasters aim for the bosses. The intended use of a Stalker is to spike the most dangerous enemy in the group and get him/her out of the way to limit the enemies' damage output as quickly as possible. I've been extremely successful with both Scrappers and Stalkers on teams by playing them that way, and haven't once been "lol Stalker"ed off of a team.

The devs have said more than once that a Stalker is more like a Blaster than a Scrapper, and if you adjust your playstyle accordingly, you'll find that it's actually pretty true.

And like I said, previously, I don't think they should be "weaker ST Scrappers," I think they should be stronger single-target attackers, albeit by a very small margin. It fits with the concept of the Stalker AT, in which they specialize in striking at weak points.

If they're going to have the fewest hit points and the lowest defense/resist numbers of any melee AT, then they ought to do more damage than a Scrapper to compensate, rather than less.

This is generally never a good argument to make when you want something. "Some people do X with Y, and that's how I want it, so obviously that's how it should have been all along."

I'm not saying I don't agree with everything you said. I completely agree with you that Stalkers could use an increase to base HP as well as their HP cap--they are, after all, melee fighters; they should still be the squishiest, but they do run a tad too squishy on teams right now.

I'm also starting to think that maybe Stalkers should actually have a higher base damage than Scrappers. Currently, Stalkers do about 89% of the damage for an equivalent Scrapper attack (based off of Katana/Ninja Blade base numbers) except for the Tier 9, which does 85% as much base damage. All these powers have equal endurance costs. Since Stalkers are supposed to be the single-target damage masters, why not have them actually do slightly more base damage than a Scrapper (no more than 5-10%, max) on their single-target attacks and adjust the penalty equally and negatively on their AoE powers to compensate for the buff?

Furthermore, I'd propose a slight adjustment to the "Demoralized" power that sometimes accompanies Assassin's Strike: change it from a 25% chance at a Mag 5 Fear to a 75% chance of a Mag 1 Fear and a 25% chance of a Mag 4 Fear. This has the Stalker unleashing more soft control, at least enough to stop a swarm of minions, that will increase his or her benefit on a team.

Ewww, I HATE ham. I guess I have to go redside.

Now, if the merits were made of bacon, on the other hand...

*points to his username* It was a joke.

In all seriousness, I can understand why people wouldn't want their identities to be known on the internet, even if they never break any rules at all. And the reasons that Blizzard seems to be giving for why they're doing this--"It's so players can develop more meaningful connections!--are horsehockey. A good third of my CoH friends talk regularly outside of the game, and we've all shared at least our first names and in many cases our last, but that was all due to our own choices.

I don't mind using my real name online, even though I've received my share of cyber-bullying in the past, but I'm also not a terribly well-known person on these forums or any other. I can understand why one of the more prolific CoH personalities like Snow Globe, Golden Girl or BeefCake might not want people knowing any of their personal information; despite the fact that they're all awesome people and generally respected around these parts, they've each attracted some troll attacks now and then.

I think you misspoke. Obviously, with a programmer that sexy, you meant to say "come on." But it's okay, I'd be intimidated too if I were speaking to Adonis-made-flesh.

The military also doesn't just let the new guy drive the tank or fly the helicopter. You have to put in the time for basic training (just like everyone else), then be approved for special training which will likely last even longer and then run special tests and simulations before they even let you touch the controls.

And for the record, "my daddy has money" doesn't get you through these programs any faster. Nor should "I have more money than that guy" get you earlier access to Vet Rewards. OH, FULL CIRCLE!

Yup.

Not everyone has a steady income where they can afford $15 per month; there are a lot of people (take teachers, for example) who have periods in the year of limited income. It actually behooves NCSoft to give an option that allows people in this category an option to pay up front, as it a) gives them a larger instantaneous profit and b) increases the chance that those people will continue to play (and thus pay), instead of deciding that they don't miss the game after they've had their forced break.

I agree with the former but not the latter. Shields is "okay" with SOs.

It's certainly a little disappointing if you try to compare it to other sets by straight numbers, but it's also more varied than those other sets; obviously the defense isn't going to be as good as Super Reflexes, nor is the resistance going to be as good as Invulnerability. It's got a really good permanent max health bonus to aid in survivability and that nifty, nifty damage buff from Against All Odds that help the set shine... even when you're getting your teeth knocked out.

(One With the Shield does kind of suck, though. Most of the time, I completely forget I even have it. Subjective feedback, of course.)

Actually, about a year ago they said that they changed the "don't ask for it" policy. It can no longer hurt your chances to get it, but it won't really help anything either, except maybe to let them know that it's something you're actually intersted in.

Other than that, I still have to agree with Kheldarn... any in-game rewards given out on a human being's whim to some people and not others are kind of unfair.