Circuit_Boy

Again, you found what you wanted to find, Pilcrow.

You are not telepathic. You can infer anything you want, and still be quite wrong. It is not my job to correct your inference. It is your job not to infer anything in the first place, unless you like being wrong quite a lot.

I'm the only one who knows why I post what I post. You do not. I choose not to reveal my motivations--if any--and that's my prerogative. Any assumptions you wish to make about my motivations are merely that--assumptions. My motivations for posting--if any--are not relevant to the fact that these issues have gone unaddressed for six weeks now.

Furthermore, I already answered that question, but I'll answer it again: if you think it's thread-bumping, then report it.

Otherwise, move on.

Electronite:

So you're basically saying you don't want to put your money where your mouth is.

That's fine.

Just so you know, though, when I wish to call _Castle_'s integrity into question on a public forum, I don't pussyfoot around about it (link). I come out and say what I think directly.

Just because neither you nor Pilcrow are able to distinguish facts from opinions does not make either of your interpretations valid. It means neither of you are able to determine fact from opinion and that both of you suffer from the paranoid belief that the presentation of facts is indicative of a hidden agenda.

Electronite:

If you think it was "thread-bumping", report it.

Pilcrow:

Apology accepted, but...

..."[my] post comes across as a chastisement" to you. This distinction is very important. You interpret my statement of fact to mean something more than what it actually says. This is not my issue; this is your issue. I cannot control how you will interpret something, especially something as neutral as a statement of fact.

I know that we in America have been trained by the media to be always suspicious of someone's "hidden intent", their "secret bias", and so forth. In fact, we've arguably become paranoid about "bias", interpreting bias into even the most basic statements of fact. What we typically fail to recognize is that these "hermeneutics of suspicion" (as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick labeled them) tell us more about our own particular neuroses than they expose any actual bias.

In short, you were looking for me to chastize "the devs for not checking in with a progress report in as timely a manner as they did for Defenders" and, not surprisingly, you found it, even though I never actually chastized the Developers for anything. You found what you wanted to find.

Electronite:

No, it would not be thread-bumping. I added something of value to the thread. I pointed out three new facts. Thread-bumping would be posting something of no actual value merely to put the post back at the top.

Pilcrow:

In fact, you did inappropriately use the quotation feature. I do not care whether your post "made it clear that [I] had not used such an a [sic] approach" or that you were "suggesting that perhaps [I] should have". You used the quote feature and signed my name to something I never wrote. That's wrong, no matter what your reasons are. It's misleading to quote something someone has never said. To paraphrase something one of the red names said a long time ago, "[. . .] not a huge fan of your [post] that quotes me as saying something I never said - [. . .] I would have thought you would understand the integrity of an accurate quote [. . .]"

Furthermore, "Would this have been so hard?" is about as explicit as you can get that you had a problem with my post. There was no "inference" at all in it--you were blatant and obvious. You can't even hide behind "thinly veiled". You were overt.

I stated three simple facts and nothing more. Any "subtext" you read into my post came from your own imagination; it is not supported or supportable by the text of my post.

You misread what I wrote, you mischaracterized me and, worse, you subsequently misquoted me to attack a position I never took.

Pilcrow:

It is inappropriate to use the quotation function to put words into someone's mouth that they didn't say.

Furthermore, I don't know why you have a problem with what I posted. It was just a statement of fact, no opinion ventured.

Tomorrow, it'll have been six weeks since _Castle_ posted on the Blaster Board.

To date, we've had no update on these issues. Defenders got a statement that their issues were taking "longer than expected" a little less than six weeks after _Castle_ said he'd be looking into them.

Arcanaville:

Stalkers have a Damage Cap of 500%, not 400%.

Not that the facts mean much here.

Statesman:

1. Kudos for admitting the error! Thanks for looking into it; it is appreciated. I hope the end-result will at least restore Endurance Drain to its former potency.

2. This "fix" seems merely cosmetic. It's not going to resolve the problem of Stalkers using Assassin's Strike to basically "gank" everybody else in PvP situations. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to match the heavy-handed nerf to Endurance Drain in PvP; you, the Developers, have traditionally argued that Endurance Drain was "too powerful" for PvP and thus needed to be nerfed to 25% of its PvE levels.

However, if you truly believe that dropping someone's Hit Points to 1% in PvP situations in one hit is "fair", perhaps you should apply that same "fix" to Endurance Drain in PvP. This would seem to me to be fair, as death is a far more severe effect than Endurance Drain is.

Actually, I'll throw one more on the barbie here:

A very, very long time ago, Statesman told us Electric Blasters that our strength was using Endurance Drain on Bosses and ArchVillains.

You may or may not be aware, but AVs are almost next to impossible to drain. I've spammed Short Circuit and Power Sink next to them and never seen so much as a budge in their Endurance Bar.

They have 800 Endurance, and insane Endurance Recovery.

Perhaps you could look at their apparent immunity to Endurance Drain.

Well, I'll throw my $0.02 in here.

$0.01:
The 25% Endurance Drain in PvP nerf. This needs to be re-evaluated in light of Enhancement Diversification.

$0.02:
PvP one-shotting. Blasters are the perpetrators of it and, much more frequently, the victims of it. A fix to this was promised over two months ago, and that's the last we've heard about it.

It's great that _Castle_'s looking at what issues we've mustered together, but...

That really fails to address the issue I was raising here. Personally, I don't think Blasters have that many issues. Personally, I'm actually with that star-spangled guy wearing the tin hat--I think, for the most part, Blasters are more or less balanced, more or less "baseline". I know that makes people like hephaestus crazy (sorry, heph, but I know it does).

That said...

The current situation vis a vis the various ATs is out of balance and, I'll be blunt, I believe that's partly because certain ATs have had community representatives, who play those ATs and who know those ATs inside-and-out, going to bat for them.

And you know what? I think that's fine. That's great!

But...

We should ALL have someone who's in our corner pitching for us.

Over two months ago, Statesman said we'd all get our own Community Representatives. While I was cynical--much like Revolver Law, because I too have seen too many promises made but not kept--I hoped they'd keep that promise.

More than a one-time patch, I'd much, much rather have someone in our corner who's a self-described "min-maxing Power Gamer", who plays Blasters and knows them inside and out, stumping for us on a regular basis.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...yet another unkept promise.

The Devs haven't said boo about getting Community Representatives for Archetypes other than Stalkers. Oh, and before you mention that _Castle_ picked up the Defender issues--he dumped them a few weeks later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did? Funny, I still read them every day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, in fact, you pretty much did:
Link to _Castle_'s post:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I grabbed a copy of the "Defender Issues" post a couple weeks ago and am working through it in my spare time. Considering the length of it, I will probably have gotten through it sometime in Janurary. (Circuit Boy's Note: Original Post Dated Tuesday, December 06, 2005)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick update: It's probably going to take longer than expected for this. I'm sorry, but things are busy, busy, busy here. I'm pretty much booked solid, but I'll find time to get through this as soon as I can. (Circuit Boy's Note: Post Dated Wednesday, January 18, 2006, almost six weeks later.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This was the last said on Defender Issues until yesterday, Monday, January 31st, 2006, forty-five (45) minutes _Castle_ posted here.

But it's great he's looking at our issues.

Over a month ago, Statesman announced every AT would be getting its own Community Represenatative, that they'd be looking into it "as soon as the holidays were over". The holidays are over, and nothing more has been said on the matter. Not even a "we're working on it".

...yet another unkept promise.

The Devs haven't said boo about getting Community Representatives for Archetypes other than Stalkers. Oh, and before you mention that _Castle_ picked up the Defender issues--he dumped them a few weeks later.

Thread-Hijack--

LivingHellfire, it looks like you're coming out of a toaster in your avatar.

strikertouch03:

Aim gives +62.5%, Build-Up gives +100%, so that total should be +162.5%. Added to the base, should be 262.5%, plus ~50% for the DOs (not sure if this is accurate--you'd be in the best position to know) would be 312.5% Damage. The Blaster Damage Cap sits at 500%. I don't know how Defiance scales, so can't comment about that.

Statesman:

First, let me express my pleasant surprise that a red name is posting in this part of the forum. It's been a long time.

That said, there's something wonky with Defiance. I can't speak to this specific claim, but I know with certainty that I've had Defiance kick in when I've been at 85-90% Hit Points (meaning I'm 10-15% injured). It wasn't much, but I noticed a slight damage increase and, if I recall correctly, it shouldn't have kicked in for a while.

It may help for us to have "full disclosure" here. I know you're opposed to giving out specific numbers, but knowing them would put to rest (or, alternatively, confirm) rumors that Defiance is erratic.

Mad_Badger:

Last time I checked, Defiance didn't add Accuracy, only Damage. I wish it did. If it did add both, it'd be more useful.

I know this is like Blaster "heresy" and I could get excommunicated from the Church of Blastiness, but...

I frequently find myself wishing I had Defiance on my Corruptor. She regularly gets beaten to around 20% health by the end of a fight, and her damage is, well, less than I'm used to. She's also Ice Blast / Cold Domination, which means no ability to self-heal like other Corruptors have.

Well, I, for one, am certainly glad to see Blasters get their come-uppance in PvP. After all, we all know they're running around, one-shotting everyone with Brawl and Sprint.

I bet with maximum Defiance and Build-Up and Aim, they could one-shot a tank!

This is a nerf, folks.

It disheartens me to see those of you who play primarily meleers actually celebrating that another AT is getting nerfed.

There's an AT that definitely needs... let's call it "balancing"... in PvP, and it ain't Blasters.

This just makes it that much harder for Blasters to deal with that AT in PvP.

Kudos to you, Jack. Seriously. You've helped clarify some things for me today.

LordAxion:

Did you even read anything I said?

* Stalkers have the same number of HPs as Controllers, Defenders, and Dominators. Unlike these ATs, though, they have Defense powers and Status Protection.

* Stalkers do the third-highest amount of damage in the game, only slightly behind Blasters and Scrappers.

* Stalkers have Defenses. Period. They have +Defense powers, they have Status Protection, and they have Stealth + Hide.

LordAxion, I've been on teams with Defenders with Tactics. I've been on lots of other teams that have torn Stalkers apart. You have no idea who I am, so don't try to make claims about how I must be "lame" in PvP. That's just a sad, and untrue, red herring argument as well as an argument ad hominem.

Stalkers are broken, probably in PvE as well as PvP.

sanchoxoi:

I can't let these untruths go by uncontested.

First, "stalkers sacrifice almost everytyhing for AS and CS". Really? What do they sacrifice? Let's explore that a little.

* They do 90% of Blaster Damage / 80% of Scrapper Damage. They do more damage than any other AT besides Blasters and Scrappers with their attacks.

* They share the 500% Damage Cap with Scrappers and Blasters, meaning their damage maxes out higher than any other AT besides Blasters and Scrappers; it maxes out at the same percentage as Blasters and Scrappers.

* Stalkers' Primaries are primarily drawn from Scrappers' Primaries. Their powers have the same BIs as their Scrapper counterparts.

* Stalkers have access to Status Effect powers out of the Energy Melee set. (I bring this up to cut off any argument about how Controllers, Blasters, Dominators, Defenders, and other ATs have Status Effect powers.)

* Stalkers have access to the Spines Primary set, which allows them ranged attacks. (I bring this up only to cut off any arguments about how Blasters have range while Stalkers don't.)

So, contrary to the Stalker PR Machine, they're not actually hurting on the damage front, even without AS.

* Stalkers' Secondaries are drawn primarily from Scrappers' Secondaries, and operate at exactly the same rates.

* Stalkers have access to +Defense powers from their Secondary sets. Blasters do not.

* Stalkers have access to Status Protection powers from their Secondary sets. Blasters do not.

What exactly have Stalkers "sacrificed" here? From my vantage point, it looks like they haven't sacrificed a thing.

* They have +Defense powers.
* They have Status Protection.
* They have the third-highest damage ratio of any AT in the game.
* They have the highest damage cap of any AT in the game.

Where's the sacrifice?

Second, it takes more than one yellow Inspiration to see through Hide + Stealth. You're grossly exaggerating.

Third, most auras that require a to-hit check actually miss most of the time due to the +Defense on Hide and other +Defense vs. AOEs (which Stalkers have access to).

Fourth, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on the boards (and from my own personal experience) that a moving target can be hit with Assassin's Strike.

Sorry, but Stalkers are broken. They should never have made it to Live in this state.

It's been several weeks, and the Developers have not proposed a single idea, much less implemented one, to end one-shotting.

Who wants to lay bets on when--or even if--they will ever do anything about one-shotting in PvP?

Deamongelous:

Apparently, as you cannot discuss things without engaging in personal attacks, you are not worth my time, either.