Circuit_Boy

I didn't "twist" anything at all.

"Twisting" would have been misrepresenting you.

I didn't. I represented EXACTLY what you said and pointed out EXACTLY why it was inaccurate.

That's not "twisting".

What you're doing right now, though... that's twisting. You don't have facts, so you're engaging in personal attacks to defend yourself. You know you were wrong, you're mad that you got caught, and instead of being gracious and admitting it, you're attacking me for having the audacity to point out your mistake/deception/lie.

When you engage in personal attacks, you've lost the argument. We're done here.

Thorizdin_LotD:

You are not in any position to make the following assertion with any kind of reliability:

[ QUOTE ]
In high skill level team PvP, Scrappers are not the AT that scores the most kills, blasters are by far.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, you simply do not have the necessary information to make the claim. You do not know this. You cannot know it. It's impossible; you do not know the results of every Arena fight and every PvP zone fight on every server.

Second, however, the rhetorical game you're playing--and, believe me, it's a game--will allow you to maintain the assertion even in spite of actual data or facts. You qualified it with "in the high skill level team PvP game"--but that's such a murky phrase that it has no actual meaning. You can continually redefine what "high- skill level team PvP game" means until your assertion becomes true, even to the point of ridiculousness. You can continually say "those players just weren't skilled enough so we need to throw the actual data we have out" until you get the results you want. However, this is bad statistics--anyone who's ever taken a stats course knows that. You don't toss the data out until your point is proven. You analyze what you've got and make your assertions from that, not the other way around (which is what you're doing, effectively).

Don't take this the wrong way. You MIGHT be right. I'm not disputing that. But without the data available, you simply cannot make the assertion you made with any accuracy or reliability, and it seems to me that you're trying to pre-ordain the answer so it'll fit what you want.

Black_Scourge:

Those were your words, not mine. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.

How is a reader supposed to know you did not mean what you actually wrote? How is someone reading what you write supposed to know you do not mean what you put down on the page?

Don't try to blame me or claim it's my problem because I "can't grasp a concept". You quite literally said "they'll run for the hills in PFF". I didn't "interpret" that. You SAID it.

Furthermore, I'm asking _Phantom_ to prove that specific claim he's made, so no, he hasn't "made his point". Just because I pointed out where you lied does not prove his claims are true. It just means you're angry that I caught you in a lie.

_Phantom_:

I think you must have me mistaken for someone else. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Whats really sad is to watch you patting yourself on the back on the blaster boards for admittedly causing aggravation in this fabricated, fantasy "Melee Community" you've chosen to create to entitle yourself to even more delusional, conspiracy theory martyrdom.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where exactly have I "patting [myself] on the back on the blaster boards for admittedly causing aggravation in this fabricated, fantasy 'Melee Community'"? Can you point to a single, specific post where I've ever done that on the Blaster Boards? And, by "specific post", I mean I'd better see a link, and it'd better be one of my posts, and it had better be saying exactly what you're claiming I said.

Otherwise, you've really just proven my case for me, haven't you?

And you're the one raving on about how I'm "delusional"?

By the way, _Phantom_, personal attacks are a violation of the boards' rules. Specifically attacking an individual, calling that specific person "delusional" and "paranoid", certainly qualifies.

BlackScourge:

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of the time [Blasters']ll run for the hills in PFF like a Mexican jumping bean on crack. This applies to arena and pvp zones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which PvP zone are you in that Blasters have access to Personal Force Field? At minimum, a Blaster has to be level 41 to get that power. Currently, the highest-level PvP zone auto-levels everyone to 38.

You do not help your case when you say things that can be proven to be wrong, especially proven this easily and proven to be this wrong. One lie destroys your credibility--it makes me, as a reader, suspect every other thing you say.

It's like the repeated Meleer Myth of the Bone Smasher PvP One-Shot. I disprove that one at least once every two weeks, and yet it persists. There's a paucity of truth-telling about blappers by meleers. It would behoove you guys to tell the truth to make your case, rather than exaggerate, deceive, and outright lie.

Thorizdin_LotD:

Who's to say that _Castle_ hasn't "datamine[d] kills in the [A]rena" "to see what is and isn't true"?

Ask him in a PM. He'll answer. Last week, I asked him to clarify whether Stalkers have a higher kill-to-death ratio in Warburg, too (which he didn't mention in the post I've got currently quoted in my sig). I got an answer (it was the answer I expected to get, but it's nice to get confirmation).

Hunter2357:

TJ_Solomon's over on another part of the board trying to argue that the "change to Placate" will entirely resolve the PvP imbalance and that no other changes are necessary.

In other words, he's not being entirely consistent with his arguments. Either it will balance PvP, as he's claimed elsewhere, or it will have absolutely no impact, as he's claiming here.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the information Castle gave, it has to be deluded with all the times in Bloody Bay and Sirens Call when the only people in the zone are perceptionless heroes and stalkers.
If the numbers only reflected times when Sirens and BB had decent teams going(you know the ones that use the dev provided tools against stalkers) then I suspect the Stalker killl to death ratio to be closer to that of a blaster but not as good since when teamed most blasters can 2-3 shot a stalker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Kill Count vs Death Count is higher. Right.

Now, is this Kill Count vs Death Count TOTAL? Because if it is, we could argue that it's due to stalkers having a high presence in Bloody Bay and Siren's due to most other villain ATs not shining at that level/refusing to go there.

Is this Kill Count vs Death Count judged by TIME? If I have a 10 kill 1 death ratio over one hour, I'll be performing substantially worse than, for example, a blaster who managed to score a 30 kill 20 death ratio.

That's all I'm going to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
well i agree that the kill count v death count was is most likely higher but then again there are more stalkers in those lower lv pvp zone than there are other villain ATs after all if stalkers want to become a viable choice in the pv3 game we have to come into our own earlier than other ATs around lv 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the question i have is...what's wrong with stalkers having higher kill counts? we are the assassin class

are all AT's supposed to be about equal? should stalkers have similar k/d ratios to defenders? mm's? doms?

[/ QUOTE ]

Amazing.

Truly amazing.

And I'm the one who gets accused of "spinning".

Denial's not going to help you. You know that, right?

Kahoru:

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever, he won't stop until blasters get mez protection and can auto-decimate every other AT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Am I the "he" you are referring to here?

Because if that's the case, you're just dead-wrong. I have NEVER argued that Blasters should get mez protection or that they should be able to "auto-decimate every other AT".

In fact, I have repeatedly argued against the idea of Blasters getting mez protection over on the Blaster board.

If you meant some other "he", I stand corrected and will allow that individual to defend himself against your maligning.

Now you're not only spinning _Castle_'s statements, you're spinning your own.

"[. . .]FAR out killing[. . .]" weren't even your own words. They were Lallendos's.

YOUR words were "in Bloody Bay and Siren's Call, but not in higher zones (emphasis in the original)".

By the way, don't think I did not notice that you edited out the two other times you said Stalkers did not outkill other ATs in Warburg after I called you on that point.

We really cannot have a reasonable discussion if you keep editing out the points I disprove. You were doing that earlier in this thread, too, when I disproved your claim that Blasters had Mez protection.

Kahoru:

Actually, you're the one who's "spinning" _Castle_'s statements here.

_Castle_ did NOT state "that Stalkers are FAR out killing in PVP in Bloody Bay and Siren's Call, but not in higher zones (emphasis mine)". He did not say anything about what their Kill Count vs. Death Count in Warburg actually is.

Instead, he said "players have plenty of options of dealing with Stalkers, which *should* force Stalkers to Team more. " This is a teleological statement, not an ontological statement. In other words, he's talking about what "*should*" happen, not what actually *does* happen.

You cannot assume to know that the Stalker "Kill Count vs Death Count" is not higher in Warburg as well. _Castle_ simply did not say anything directly about that.

It's possible that Stalkers' "Kill Count vs Death Count" is higher in Warburg than it is for any other Archetype, as well, just not so much "that it isn't even funny".

_Castle_:

Just to clarify the following statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, this change was mostly aimed at the Bloody Bay and Siren's Call levels where Stalkers are so far above any other AT in Kill Count vs Death Count that it isn't even funny. In higher level PvP zones, players have plenty of options of dealing with Stalkers, which *should* force Stalkers to Team more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I presume we can assume that the "Kill Count vs Death Count" in both Bloody Bay and Siren's Call is significantly higher for Stalkers than it is for any other Archetypes.

Is the "Kill Count vs Death Count" higher for Stalkers in Warburg as well?

When _Castle_ himself had already admitted that "[. . .]Stalkers are so far above any other AT in Kill Count vs Death Count that it isn't even funny", I don't think anything I say about them can be construed as "going a bit overboard on how much of a threat stalkers are."

The question is no longer whether Stalkers are unbalanced in PvP. Any reasonable person can see that they are.

The question is what makes them unbalanced in PvP and how to fix those PvP imbalances.

Sorry, Fury_Flechette, but you're changing the terms of your own argument in the middle to "prove" yourself right. Dirty pool.

You said Blasters get "ranged holds, defenses, and additional nukes". You didn't say anything about teaming with an Empathy Defender, and if you wish to go down that route, we can talk about Stalkers teaming with Thermal Radiation Corruptors or Kinetics Corruptors. But that wasn't what you were talking about initially, and opening that up now is just a rhetorical device you're using to try to "win" your point back.

It still doesn't work anyway. Six-sevenths (6/7) of Assassin's Strike's damage is unresistable, so Temporary Invulnerability, Fire Shield, Charged Armor, Body Armor, and even Force of Nature are virtually useless against them. This means Blasters will take in excess of 85.7% of the damage from an Assassin's Strike, regardless of whether or not his defenses are up. Of course, this depends upon whether or not these defenses remain after being detoggled by Assassin's Strike in the first place, though at that point, it hardly matters.

Even further, your argument about Stalker mez protection being "easily dropped" is totally bogus. It's no more easily dropped than any other AT's mez protections, and Stalkers also have Break Frees available to them in addition to the defenses available from their secondary power sets and the power pool powers. Sorry, but that argument is a non-starter, especially when using it to compare Stalkers' mez protection against Blasters' mez protection.

When someone who's got a FOTM PvP Stalker Build comes along to the Blaster Board and out-and-out lies about Blasters' capabilities--whether it's claiming that they were one-shotted by a Snipe or that Blasters have Mez Protection--I assume they're doing so on purpose and with the intention to deceive.

I'm sorry, but I've seen far too many of you spreading lies either about your own supposed weaknesses or others' supposed strengths, and I've caught far too many of you actually flat-out, bald-faced lying to others on these boards.

I've spent the last few months debunking lie after lie, claim after claim, myth after myth being put out invariably by people playing Stalkers.

I'm sorry, but as a group, you guys lie too much on the boards. I've caught so many others in exactly your position, Kahoru, that I'm not willing to extend you any benefit of the doubt. You can blame your brethren for that if you were "simply mistaken".

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Kahoru:

I love when when you members of the Stalker Defense League come here to troll the Blaster Board, get proven dead-wrong by one of us, and then act like you were right all along.

Face it. I demolished the one sad point you were trying to make.

Now you're just flailing around, grasping at straws.

Go troll some other board.

FoN?

Force of Nature?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Try again.

Force of Nature has NO Mez Protection in it. NONE. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Nothing.

Kahoru:

What "non-powerpool mez protection" do Blasters get again?

Fury_Flechette:

You ignored quite a few things to be able to say

[ QUOTE ]
Further, most blasters get ranged holds, defenses and additional nukes. I think in the 40+ game, stalkers will have to be, oh, I don't know, a bit more skilled.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) All Stalkers have Mez Resistance of one form or another. This completely negates Blasters' ranged holds. So your first point is moot.

2a) While Blasters get some defensive powers in the Ancillary sets, they have absolutely no Mez Resistance except that which is available in the Power Pools. With the sole exception of Force of Nature, any Mez will detoggle a Blaster's Ancillary defensive toggles.
2b) Stalkers' Patron Powers included ranged Mez powers. This means what little defensive powers Blasters have will be rendered more or less moot.

Great_Scott:

Over on the Defender board, you defended Stalkers' killing everyone in sight in PvP because they're "PvP specialists". Here, though, you're saying the problem with villain ATs in PvP is that they're not specialized enough. You did not specifically exclude Stalkers in that analysis in this thread.

Which is it?

I'm sorry, but Stalkers should not be getting access to any Snipe powers.

They certainly should not be able to critical with them.

The best ranged "epic" powers the hero melee ATs get is no powerful than the Power Blast / Lightning Bolt / Ice Blast level (tier 2?), and Stalkers already have Assassin's Strike available to them.

This isn't just profoundly unfair from a Blaster's point of view. If I were a Tanker or a Scrapper, I'd be righteously pissed off.

Players are warned, repeatedly, upon entering the PvP zones that these zones are meant for open PvP--that you can be attacked by another player at ANY time. This means that you can be attacked while you're attacking "mobs", or while you're doing a one-on-one fight on a rooftop, while you're running to a mission, or, yes, while you're engaged in a "Fight Club" (an unofficial event). None of these constitute harassment. A player can repeatedly kill you, over and over and over. That's not harassment, either. By choosing to enter the zone, you have acknowledged this.

Furthermore, it's clear that the Developers intended "mobs" to be used. This is a brutal fact about these zones, but they have team-flagged (and unflagged) "mobs" for a reason. You can get angry about a player using them, but any real warrior will tell you that's just tactics. War is hell, and all's fair in love and war. If you don't want to get debt for your "Fight Club", you need to set it up in the Arena.

Lastly, though, let me point out that everyone singling Catholic Knight out for opprobrium on this board is actually in violation of the rules of the board (link) themselves:

[ QUOTE ]
2. No character assassination threads

Threads that single out a player for ridicule or to accuse someone of actions in-game will be removed without notice. Repeatedly targeting another person is considered ongoing harassment and is a severe violation of the forum rules. In-game violations need to be reported via the appropriate channels, such as the GM system, and email support. If you believe that in-game GMs and the support system have not provided a sufficient or timely response, you may submit an inquiry to members of the forum staff via PM. Public posts of such accusations will be construed as attempts to cause antagonism for its own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, you're lucky this thread's still here and people specifically accusing Catholic Knight (or anyone else) of in-game harassment haven't been disciplined for violating the board's rules.

They ought to be.

Anyone who has an opinion about anything and expresses it is going to "alienate" some people.

That cannot be helped, and good writers understand that. The goal is not to appease every possible reader.

I learned that a very long time ago.

Furthermore, there are plenty of people who support me and my posts. They aren't always vocal, but I get plenty of supportive PMs and in-game tells.

Electronite:

I knew your response was going to insult my professional capabilities. How childish.

The fact is that I'm a very good instructor, and in this matter, I am correct. I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

You have a reading problem if you believe that it you bear no responsibility for your own assumptions and inferences.

You have a reading problem if you are unable to determine fact from opinion.

These are not my problems. They are yours.

This discussion is at an end. You can have the last word--I won't be responding further.

No, I'm not wrong.

I teach college-level writing for a living.

I know "how to communicate effectively" in writing.

*LOL*

You two are crazy.

It's not my job to prevent inferences. If you don't want to look foolish, don't make inferences in the first place. I cannot prevent crazy people from making crazy assumptions.

I could say "The sky is blue and water is wet", and you could still come along and "infer" that I was attacking _Castle_ for it. There's nothing I could do to prevent you from making that inference, but it'd still be a) wrong, b) crazy, and c) not my fault.

To paraphrase Freud, an analysis frequently tells us more about the anxieties of the analysand than it reveals anything about the analyzed.

I communicated effectively. I stated a few facts without any commentary. I'm sorry you two read more into that than I wrote, but you did. That's not my problem--that's yours.

One of the things we English graduate students are trained to do early on is to read the text--and only the text--first. All interpretations must be supportable from the text itself, not from anything outside that text. It's called "close reading".

So, stop trying to blame me for your imagination. You made the inferences, not me. You are responsible for that, not me. I did not lead you to those inferences. I did not even suggest them. You came to those conclusions on your own. That's your responsibility. Accept it.