EvilRyu

Originally Posted by Jade_Dragon

The problem is that it is not ALWAYS Brutes < Scrappers. Dispari said it, "Stalkers should do more damage than Scrappers, ALL THE TIME, because they are easier to kill." Well then, by extension that means that Scrappers should do more damage than Brutes ALL THE TIME, because they are easier to kill. But they don't. Brutes ARE ABLE to do more damage than Scrappers. They can't do it all the time, and Scrappers can't do more damage than Brutes all the time, but that's the truth, no matter how much Brutes complaining about the nerf want to claim otherwise.

So by that logic, Stalkers should do more damage than Scrappers some times, and less damage than Scrappers some times, which they do. Stalkers do more sustained damage than Scrappers when they have 7 allies in melee with them, and when they are facing a single target. You may argue that it's easier for a Scrapper to do more damage than a Brute than it is for a Stalker to do more damage than a Scrapper, but that's just a matter of degree. The circumstances under which a Stalker does more damage just needs to be tweaked so it happens more often.

And I like that "debuff resistance to Critical" idea.

To me, the comparison:

Tanker < Brute < Scrapper < Stalker

is in terms of BURST damage. Tankers can have a lot of burst damage, but they also have very low sustained damage. And their burst damage isn't as high as a Scrapper with the same Power Sets. Brutes are pretty much the antithesis of burst damage, they have to sustain damage just to build it up to a high level. Scrappers are pretty excellent at burst damage, both controlled and random, and Stalkers are the masters of it.

All comparisons about how much damage the meleers do always compare sustained damage exclusively. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to make a comparison of burst damage.

Originally Posted by Deacon_NA

Well... actually he said "as long as it's not a Stalker or Kheld" (true story) but I thought I'd leave the second part out...

Originally Posted by Steel_Shaman

These kinds of threads confuse me, because I have never seen a situation in which someone is denied a team based solely on their AT. Every time I see people forming TF's, they are usually saying things along the following lines:

1) LGTF forming, 3 spots open.
2) LGTF forming, need tank
3) LGTF forming, need controls
4) LGTF forming, need damage

When responding to someone advertising to fill a TF, I have never, not even once, been asked what my AT is when I tell them I'll go. Nor have I seen that done to anyone else. Lately I've been running my Warshade as I've decided to make him my "Incarnate Character". Despite all the hatred for Warshades and KB I have seen on the boards over the years I have never been kicked from a team or denied a team when on him. I've also not had anyone gripe about Shadow Cysts when they spawn because he's around. The most I'll ever see is the team leader say "Cyst" in chat and then the team promptly obliterates the damn thing, no fuss no muss.

So where are all these teams that pick and choose specific AT's? They don't appear to be on Liberty.

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison

I completely agree; stalkers should be the single target DPS kings.

To that end, I still push my idea of the "snowball buff."

The longer a stalker attacks a target, the more damage he should do. Make it so every attack against a target grants that target a 30 second "vulnerability to critical hit" debuff. The debuff is minor, like defiance, but after these debuffs have accumulated for 30 seconds, the stalker begins to dish out criticals at an alarming rate. Imagine this concept wise as the stalker striking key points to cripple his target, becoming more familiar with his target, and learning the best spot to strike his foe as he fights.

It benefits the stalker very little to attack minions and LTs, which is the larger portion of the game, as they die too fast for the debuff to really accumulate. Bosses will see some accumulation, while EBs and AVs suffer the most.

Now the stalker serves a purpose on the team. He is the largest source of damage when it comes to fighting the AV.

Originally Posted by Siolfir

Except that they still aren't, really: insert force-multiplying AT here.

I agree that they should do more damage - single target, at the least - compared to Scrappers at all times, though; it only makes sense given the rationale we were given for lowering the Brute damage cap. Given the ability to split PvE and PvP damage, it wouldn't even affect PvP at all, so "unbalancing them in PvP" can't be used as a viable excuse anymore. But that was almost explicitly ruled out by Castle's last post on the subject, so I'm not expecting to see that happen anytime soon. Or even Soon™.

Originally Posted by Pyro_Master_NA

2 things.

1. Show me pics and vids of ANY scrapper set to x8 solo taking damage to anything but its main type, on only SOs, and I'll consider this a valid arguement to /inv being a subpar set.



2. Playability is not defined as a character with a secondary of damage mitigation being able to survive off of a non specialized damage type mob set for an 8 person team coming at them.

Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA

This is completely and utterly wrong. Frankenslotting from level 30ish onwards will surpass SOs and still be dirt cheap if done right.

It isn't rocket science. An easy to follow example : Targetted AOEs : 1 Acc, 3 Damage can be replaced with Airburst Acc/Dam, Dam/Recharge and Detonation Acc/Dam, Dam/Recharge.

Oh look, I've now got an extra 40-45% recharge on the power compared to the SO slotting. And I don't need to worry about reslotting this power until I hit 50. I do this with every Targetted AOE every character I am levelling has (and laugh at posts where people call Air Burst and Detonation "worthless").

What's also neat is that you don't need to Frankenslot the entire build in one go, you can just replace SOs (generally in pairs) as you go or as nice things drop for you.

Originally Posted by Bonnes

Oh? Let's see what we can do at 30 with four slots.

SOs, level 30: Acc, Dam, Dam, Dam - 33% Acc, 94.93% Dam
Generic IOs, level 30: Acc, Dam, Dam, Dam - 34.8% Acc, 95.66% Dam

OH SNAP

... and they never need to be replaced!

Just for fun, let's look at what we can do with set IOs, again with four slots.

SOs, level 33: Acc, Dam, Dam, Dam - 38.3% Acc, ~97% Dam
Set IOs, level 33: Focused Smite 1, 2, 3, and 5 - 40.4% Acc, 84% Dam, 22.4% End, 40.4% Rec

OH SNAP AGAIN


Even though you are from the moon and such things as "numbers" and "facts" hold no sway over you, EvilRyu, here's a quote from the Wiki:


Oh, and your policy of using no less than level 49 IOs means that you'll lose all your set bonuses when you exemplar for any TF (except Dr. Q, you masochist).

Originally Posted by BrandX

Start IOing sooner?

I use level 33 IOs, while I use them for exemping purposes, that lets you use them as you level up and not just at lvl 50.

Originally Posted by bAss_ackwards

For me, once I hit 50 there was another journey - the road to IOing out my character. This happens on any of my characters that hit 50. I enjoy the hell out of the journey from 1 through 50, but it doesn't last forever. Level 50 does.

Originally Posted by bAss_ackwards

I've outlived Granite Tanks on my DM/Inv Scrapper.

Yes. Really.

Originally Posted by bAss_ackwards

There are sets that far outstrip others once they get into IOs. How do you not know this by now?

Nice clause on the "non-Smashing/Lethal" part. That is the most common damage in the entire game, y'know.

Originally Posted by Werner

So a set has to be great on SOs for you to consider... taking all the SOs out and replacing them with completely differently performing IOs?

Isn't that kind of like saying, "A set has to be great at level 20, or I'm not going to bother leveling to 50." It might be a true statement about how you behave in game, but level 20 performance has little to do with level 50 performance, and SO performance has little to do with IO performance. One should not be judged based on the other in either case.

Mind you, I'm confident that Invuln can do what you ask, but I don't feel any need to prove it, because I don't care if you play Invuln or not. Willpower IS great. Stick with that if you want. No skin off anyone else's back.

Originally Posted by Bonnes

Hmm... these two statements don't work well together. The second has no bearing on the first.

If someone shows you a video of a Dark/Invuln doing ridiculous things with IOs, would you then be willing to consider IOs in yours?

Originally Posted by UberGuy

Just to be clear, they are not more likely on a team. They have a fixed probability to drop from each mob, based on its rank, just like inventions. However, very unlike inventions, when a mob is defeated by a team, a chance is checked for every member of the team to get a shard. Because teams are likely to roll through foes faster than a single player is, the mob defeat rate is probably higher and thus the shard drop rate per player is probably higher on a team, even though the drop probabilities are fixed. (A team may also be more likely to fight more bosses and LTs, who have higher shard drop probabilities, which would basically translate into a higher drop probability while on a team.)

Originally Posted by LygerZero

<< .. <<

>> .. >>

~blink~

What?

Originally Posted by Daemodand

Stalkers really do need to be looked at again. It isn't fair that Scrappers out-damage and out-survive them. Brutes recently had Fury mitigated to keep them from stepping on Scrappers' toes too much, Stalkers need a buff to give them indisputably better damage than Scrappers given how much squishier they are.

P.S. This is another reason why making Incarnate rewards tied to teaming was a bad idea. Some Archetypes and powerset combos really do have a tougher time finding a team, especially in the crucible of the tougher Task Forces. Here's hoping for soloable options in I20.

Originally Posted by Werner

I doubt that.

If it's just the new Devouring Earth, it's no big deal, as they're easily avoided solo, and you'll probably be buffed to handle it on teams. If a lot more enemies are being given the 64% to-hit treatment, Shield Defense can be easily adapted and soft capped again. What CANNOT be adapted are things like my soft-capped Katana/Dark. It will no longer have the survivability, and lord knows it doesn't have the damage output of a */Shield. I'll stop playing that character, and probably IO out my Broad Sword/Shield, or maybe change the focus of my Fire/Shield, or maybe finish leveling my Shield/Dark Tanker and IO him out.

You might notice that the only characters I imagine playing in a 64% to-hit world are Shield Defense. So unless the dev reponse to Shield Defense supposedly being OP is to make it MORE OP, I assume the to-hit buffs either do not indicate a coming pattern, or if they do, the rationale has nothing to do with Shield Defense.

Originally Posted by Vidszhite

True... but Castle's gone now. >.>