Leo_G

If I have to be hypocritical for people to stop being arrogant ***es and stop thinking about only their enjoyment, then so be it. I’m not protesting against the change only because it may go against the enjoyment of some players but also because it’s going down the slippery slope of min/max elitism. It’s a change only to exploit enemy AI in the least round-about way and *will* end up being enforced on teams.

No, not because KB is detrimental (it’s not, it provides great mitigation) but simply because it’s viewed as anti-AoE and anything that might go against that current will ultimately go by the wayside. So your psi blasters, MA scrappers, EM brutes, claws stalkers, and anything else primarily single target focused will be put on the bench for AoE oriented tactics.

It’s not my Tankers you have to worry about. I’m perfectly fine capitalizing on the mitigation my teammates provide. It’s the *other* people that *I’m* concerned about.

If you didn’t know, lots of people have thin skin. They get irritated by so much as a looping sound of a toggle or the flash of one of their electric control powers being too bright. While a few instances of clashing may not be an issue, outright disregarding the enjoyment of other players on your team is SELFISH. If one or more of your teammates don’t like a particular thing, the idea isn’t to shove it in their face until they don’t care.

For instance, I do NOT like teaming with Masterminds. I can handle teaming with 1…maybe 2, but if the team lead invites a 3rd or I join and its full of MMs, I will politely leave. And I tell leads this when I join and see a MM on the roster, that if they invite more than 2 MM, I’m going to have to withdraw from the team. By your logic, if more MMs will make the team work then screw me and just invite more. I’ll drop and make more room for MMs. Win win. But you could have been considerate of me and picked up a controller or just a Tanker or something not as intrusive as an extra 5+ NPCs clogging an office map.

Okay, just get out of my face and stop putting words in peoples mouth because you don’t know how to read (seriously, learn to read...I'm dead serious, you need to work on that reading comprehension). Just go off to your Lumiverse or whatever retarded duck shtick you do on the boards.

Well, Lightning Rod does have a range of 25ft radius vs Thunderstrike's 10ft radius.

That one has the potential to do 300dmg to 16 foes while the other can do 400dmg to 10 seems to be the balance. Hit more targets, do a bit less damage. Hit less targets, do a bit more damage.

Is that your problem with this power?

Right, because there's never a middle-ground. Either all KB/repel/intangible/immobilize all the time or none...

Yeah, and some recharge very slowly. All of them recharge slower than an equivalent or stronger ST attack because that's how they're balanced. And I don't 'not' use AoEs, I just use stronger ST attacks in the situation where they're meant to be used: vs the few scattered single targets.



No!

No, you do *NOT* spam it. The only time I'd condone spamming Gale is if you've got a wall or corner to push them in. Or maybe occupying a subsection/alternate group of foes. Because if you're spamming whatever the hell just because you want to, you're disregarding if that helps or hinders a teammate. It's just like AoE immobilizes on controllers. If I'm a Tanker trying to get a group away from another group and some dumb*** throws out an AoE immobilize just cause they shoved 3 damage procs in it, or if I'm an Ice or Earth controller using Ice Slick or Earthquake, you *DO NOT* spam powers indiscriminately. Do you have a human brain? Then use it. If the situation tells you Gale might eff something up, then you do not use it.

Don't try to play the sides and support a 'do what you want' argument just to counter EvilGeko. The idiotic spamming of things can interfere with allies, which is exactly the thing to support his claims.


And this is the direction the game would head to if we could straight out turn off KB.

I can think of a slew of enemy groups where, if people just tried rolling threw them without thinking, the battle would last *too* long. Where a battle with a group of Tsoo would normally last 20sec, forgetting about the Sorcerers can extend that to minutes. I've been on PuGs where multiple spawns aggroed and no one even knew how many Sorcerers there were. There were bosses all over the place, melees debuffed to hell, the support threw out everything they could and all they did was yell about the enemy not dying. When we finally started coordinating, some allies focusing together on one boss at a time while another couple broke off to chase after sorcerers, the battle finally started to whind down after communication. I was the Tanker on that team (SD/DM), and was probably on my list of 'Funnest Fight In-Game'. It wasn't *hard* and no one died, but just required....*GASP* Communication!

That's where the game should be headed toward. Not mindless spamming, one-star shows, me me me mentality.

So reality check. You're arguing the game was 'meant to be played' a certain way when in reality, if you're not some Tanker or Scrapper or hopped up on IOs, you might die or at least screw up synergy with the team...this goes for a lot of different effect, including just pure damage attacks. If you're telling me we're playing a game where no one needs to secure a plan of action or make sure everyones on the same page, then changing the game so it's even more mindlessness and simple is what I'm arguing *against*. Not how the game currently is, but where the game would be headed.

A nazi control freak leader is dickish? Well so is an idiot spamming powers, aggroing s***, getting his team killed and ultimately, trying to shoulder the whole team and carry them through the mission rather than supporting their efforts.

I think you're generalizing his suggestion. The idea of the suggestion isn't even to enforce what a Stalker can do, but generalize their capabilities. A Brute doesn't just SMASH, he can also tank. A Dom doesn't just control, they can also blast.

Why I play a Stalker? Primarily because it can burst damage targets and has more control than other melees. It's not so much 'why' as it is 'can', though. I play a stalker because it can do those. If it can do other stuff too, then I can choose a 'why'.

That's kinda-sorta the goal, though. You use debuffs to help yourself and others. On a team, their damage is your damage. Their victory is yours and all that jazz.

I have yet to imagine the concept of a Stalker is fully realized yet. An assassin can be a saboteur or a predator or a hunter or a spy. Because, as is, 'Stalker' is loosely defined. Sure, we have 'Assassination' but that doesn't mean that's the only angle the AT *could* take.

While I don't think the -regen/def/res would 'fix' everything, it certainly wouldn't hurt. But there are other issues of balance that arises with that change. But if Stalkers suddenly got some inherent toggles that added a debuff to some of their attacks, Stalkers wouldn't cease to be Stalkers nor would they become 'debuffers'. No, it'd just be another facet of the AT's abilities, same as Brute and taunting.

At this point, with side switching, the whole 'stepping on toes' think is pretty moot. So long as an AT's capabilities is balanced within those capabilities of other ATs (see Tanker>Brute>Scrapper), then it's just another choice.

I *still* want a debuffing melee AT (basically just a defender but with stronger melee attacks) simply because I don't favor blasting sets as much as melee sets. Can't say Stalkers would ever fit that bill (nor would I want them completely overhauled for that task) But it wouldn't be stepping on any toes as long as the other ATs aren't completely overshadowed by this new AT in every way.

Oh please.

If the pro group is demonizing the opposition, it's only because they're trying to put themselves up as victims.

But I'll one up your 'pro-choice' position with the 'pro-experience' position. While I've never said I was intrinsically against the option of turning off KB, I am against the direction it pushes the game toward. More mindless, tactic-less, communication-less, AoE steamrolling. Rather than trying to learn the variety of ways to exploit KB (or worse, a newbie being deprived the chance to learn because of pushy teammates), we're just going the route of simplifying an already simplistic game. Simple is nice but simple isn't always best.

No, you're just blind to alternative options. If 'most likely teams will be fine with KB' then there is no need for a toggle to nullify the effect. If KB isn't your thing and you're unwilling to use it, then use another set. Just like if I'm unwilling to having zero mitigating effects from Fire Blast, I'll choose another set. I'm not going to force a suggestion for more mitigation right out into the set.

If you were *really* pro-choice, you would be open to more than just a toggle to suppress the effect. You're not pro-choice, you're just being selfish.

Oh don't even pull AAOs out. I play SD on every AT and am no more hindered by some out-of-range foes. Hell, my MA/SD *uses* KB to stay alive. And like a couple of mobs not in the aura will make a huge difference. How many points of damage on a good tier 9 does 7-15% dmg make?


But what if...but what if...


They are just that. 'If's.

I can easily counter with 'What if I just knock foes *into* range of those effects?' Then where does that leave our arguments? Nowhere, that's where.

But I doubt someone so fixated on getting what they want and to hell with the consequences would care or acknowledge that. I won't even bother going on the 'If you're on a team, it's not all about you' tangent.

No, it's called variety. There's already foes that resist KB. It's not a nerf to KB, it just means the effect has its opposition. Same with foes that resist mez or with melee-ranged debuffs.

Lol, you really must be selfish. No one said people who nuke lots of stuff don't matter. As is, that seems to be the only stance that matters here. If something has the possibility to interfere with your spawn nuking, it must be supressed (oh, excuse me...the 'choice' to be suppressed which will ultimately be enforced by a majority of teams) and if we don't agree then apparently we don't think you people matter? Wow.

It's bad enough people think spawns must revolve around *their* auras and *their* AoEs, that they're the stars of the show. But now they're victimizing themselves if they don't get their way.

Honestly, if we got a toggle to suppress KB tomorrow, I wouldn't really care. It's not affecting my play because I won't bother using it. But the first incident where a Dark Melee/SD Brute or some such sees so much as 1 foe fly then requests I turn off my KB and I have to reply 'no'? Then yeah, it's affecting me.

DPS, for the most part, is in regards to single targets. Because once a group of foes is dead, leaving only the couple of hard targets that may be spread out, wasting endurance on AoEs is more often than not, a waste.

AoEs, for my playstyle, is primarily for burst attacking.



And my Archery/Psi blaster alternates BU+RoA and Aim+FistoArrows>Psychic Scream or Drain Psych > PsiShockwave depending on the team make-up.

My Stone/Shield brute throws the hammer down with opening SC from a distance then SchooloSharks>Bile Spray> (when he's high enough level) Arctic Breath.

But guess what? I'm not going to waste the endurance (or recharge) of those moderately recharging attacks on 1-3 foes when I could be using Flaming Arrow, Heavy Mallet/Seismic Smash to take out one quickly while the team removes the other two. I guess I overstepped my bounds saying 'no one' wastes their AoEs but I find it menial to save those for situations they really matter (especially on teams if you've got more than just yourself to rely on attacking).

No one said we weren't meant to decimate entire spawns with AoEs. I said, we weren't meant to spam AoEs all the time regardless of situation.

Honestly, you're not helping our case of keeping KB if you're just going to back AoE spamming of any power all the time because that includes KB powers. I'd hate it if people spammed Gale 'just because it's an AoE'.

Technically, the way the game is *suppose* to be played is communicating with your fellow teammembers to fully utilize each of your strengths or covering over each weakness. You're suppose to be coordinating how AoEs are spread, what each of you plan to do and support eachother with the knowledge of what the enemy may throw at you. KB wouldn't be an issue if people communicated.

But support mindless blowing up of mobs. The game is already quite easy for vets anyway, what's a little more dictatorship on the leader's part going to hurt, huh? So when I play my tankers, *I* will tell you when to use all those AoEs you want to so mindlessly spam, eh?

This was actually the angle I made with the [Tag] mechanic and my mind keeps gravitating to the idea in the mornings when I'm driving to work or on my jog.

The way I figure is, certain tags would make your attacks have advantages to certain enemies but disadvantages to others...like, again, the [Exorcist] tag would be flagged to do 'something more' vs ghost and demon types so I could make a spiritualist Shaman that has cleansing spirit fire that extinguishes those types of evil (Fire blaster with [Exorcist])...but then vs deities or god-like foes, it might be penalized in some way.

You can even aim it toward origins. Of course, if you decide not to use [Tags], then you're neutral with no advantage or penalty vs enemies that isn't already built in. And the only way to game it is to aim for certain enemies and run from others. Perfectly fine option but not always the case on teams. Or maybe 'game' it to cover a weakness...like adding the [Circuitry Surge] tag (which may do 'something more' vs robots and add an associated debuff vs Technology types) to your Psy Blasts and call it Technokinesis/Technopathy.

I've learned to use KB in a multitude of ways. One particularly easy way to use damaging KB attacks is to simply wait. You don't have to abstain from using it completely, just wait for some of the other AoEs go off (you have to play with your team a few spawns to get how long you should wait), then just unleash the AoEs so that a good portion of the spawn will be defeated. It may have the side-effect of pushing still-alive foes closer as there will be gaps where defeated foes lie now. Even if it does scatter, most of the spawn is gone and everyone is switching to ST cleanup.

In the meantime, target your one target.


I'd argue that poster didn't know what they were talking about or simply didn't clarify their argument.

If you give the opposition an inch...

Honestly, I'm not opposed to more choices as a pro-KB player. But how often do you think that choice will actually be a choice? Currently, if KB is present, those anti-KB just have to deal, quit/kick or communicate. If we get the choice of turning KB off, that'll probably change to order team to turn off KB and quit/kick. So this 'option', more often than not, won't be an option and it takes away the need to communicate in a multi-player online game.

Yay for progress...

This is false. And it *is* false because it was stated to be fact. As an opinion, I simply disagree.

Hard to sympathize with a victim that is also reaping the benefits of the mitigation that KB provides. Sure, dismiss the fact that an enemy KBed doesn't do damage and further doesn't do as much damage until they can run back to the melee and take another swing. Oh no, it's the KB that is the villain!

And when the extra mitigation is waved around, it's countered with the 'but the extra mitigation isn't always needed' to which I say 'then who gives a flip if they're knocked out of a buff aura range!? you don't need the extra mitigation that little extra percent gives anyway!'

A better way to accommodate both sides? Make more enemies that are resistant to KB (could definitely use more 'Always Flying' foes). So those that don't want to worry about it can target those. Could also make foes that are extra vulnerable when KB (somehow) so KB on those are welcome. This expands the game rather than catering to one style of play (the AoE herders which don't need anymore help than they already have).

Placate doesn't unsuppress hide, so unless you have AoE mitigation like taunts or knockback, or are only facing one target, a non-defense stalker will have more than a little trouble getting off another AS mid-combat.

Don't try and play dumb.

Well of course a hypothetical overly-complicated system is going to be complicated. It'd be annoying as crap if I had to find mutant enemies and 'mine' in their areas for specific number of dual-origin enhancements to combine them for single-origin enhancements. If I am off by even 1 component, it'll break or give me a red SO that won't enhance my powers. See? Hypothetical tedious system is tedious.

Basically saying, you can't really argue about how complicated something is if it doesn't exist...because then it can simply be argued 'well make it simpler'. I guess you *can* do that, but what a boring discussion that'd be.

Right. Now remove the 'number puzzle' argument and see where you stand. That you don't want the option of challenge? So you hate every person that loves a game so much, they play it all the time and can breeze through the 'easy stuff' so seek more challenge? But that's not even my point. I don't care about people wanting to challenge themselves. I'm mainly looking at this from a simulation point. You can wave away some stuff, like how your robot character can be just as effected by psionics as that human over there, but you're eventually hand waving a lot of stuff that *could* be an interesting system that'd be more robust than the rock-paper-scissors game we currently have.


I won't. Writing such posts takes time and I won't be putting that much effort into something that will get about as much actual discussion done as this thread. Have you seen how far this idea got even though it *could* have?

If it were, we'd already have an offensive debuff attached to AS when it was first suggested back before demoralize was added.

I think another point that should be considered for changes is secondary sets. You say yourself that everyone's thinking of optimized circumstances but fail to see how 'crippling' seems to favor defense over non-defense.

You can say demoralize favors defense, but then that's a defensive debuff. You're talking about attaching an offensive edge to a situational attack on an offensive AT. As is, you can use AS and possibly exploit that tool as often as you can or not. You're not particularly penalized for it. Then what happens when you add crippling and I simply can't take advantage of it? Because I cannot remain uninterrupted?

I wouldn't say Stalkers shouldn't be debuffing. The way it's setup now, it's more a powerset choice if you're a debuffer or not...kind of like an Ice/Ice Tanker can be a debuffer via extreme amount of slows...or how a Sonic/Ice Blaster can be a controller via stuns, sleeps and holds...or a Stone/Dark Brute....you get the idea.

Again, I wouldn't say Stalkers shouldn't be debuffers...that's a viable direction to take the AT so long as you don't alter the function of the AT to do it. If the devs should think that Stalkers should be a strong single target specialist with decent debuffing capabilities to offset that it has weaker defenses vs Scraps, I'd back it. But -regen/-def/-res on a single target situational melee attack does not a debuffer AT make.

Adding area to the AoE attacks stalkers already have isn't meant to 'fix' the AT. It was merely a suggestion but would primarily be a QoL addition. People complain *Stalkers* lack AoE damage. People complaining about Martial Arts and Energy Melee having weak AoE damage is a whole 'nother issue. As is, if you're picking MA or EM on *any* AT, you already know it's not going to be an AoE machine.

Well, you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish here. Is there a disparity within the AT? Does the AT underperform below a certain standard? Is it overshadowed by other ATs? Does it fulfill its role properly? Exactly what are you trying to fix?

Not saying Stalkers are lacking or overshadowed but if you're going to improve it, you really need to consider how you come at it. I just find it interesting how many threads have complained about the various issues of Stalkers and yet everyone finalizes a -regen debuff which is an effect even more situational than the power you're attaching it to.

Well, my ideal changes to the AT would be offering it a few more options for controlled bursting foes. It'd be far more involved than a simple addition to a power.

I agree. The issue isn't if -regen is useful or if it makes Stalkers stand out. It's just such an addition has so minimal of a use, it won't really do much to help the Stalker's role. You say their role is elimination of tough meaty targets? Well how frustrating do you think it'd be for players to be keeping that debuff going? How much damage (because in fights like that, DPS is where it's at) will the AT sacrifice in those fights just to get a pat on the back? It's also putting to waste that juicy +crit bonus you'll be getting because everyone is huddled around that AV.

I'm not opposed to such an addition, but I'm opposed to the idea that it'd have the drastic effect you think it will.

Well, it's not completely impossible for the devs to give Stalkers more AoE. But rather than going the cottage-destroying route, they can do a work-around that has precedence in current Stalker sets. They could simply extend the range of Stalker existing AoEs for more effective coverage. This is kind of already the case for One Thousand Cuts, as it is 10ft for Stalkers but 7ft for the other melees. And it's intentional too. 1kcuts used to be 7ft while the other melees had 5ft cones. When melee range was extended to 7ft, the devs simply left 1kcuts alone for Stalkers but later changed it to 10ft.

So what if the devs added an extra couple of ft (possibly some degrees) to their attacks? 10ft Shadow Maul? 15ft 1kcuts? 15ft radius Burst? 160 degree Slice? It's primarily just a value shift. Keep the number of targets in tact but being able to hit that target cap 75% would probably be better than plopping another attack in the set that I have to put slots into.

Now I'm not sure if you're discussing the issue out of concern for balance or some such or plainly arguing out of spite because some pissant l33T player ruffled your feathers.

On one hand, you complain about tedious character generation systems, such as a tenuous stat slider that gives the illusion of complexity when, in fact, sliders like that are probably way simpler than the enhancement system we have. Do you realize you've probably memorized how much (or ballpark) schedule A, B, C and D values and the ED cap line for enhancements of those values? Or the values of DO, TO and SO enhancements? That isn't more complex than simply adjusting a slider for the values so you at least know where you stand rather than guess/memorization work?

Then on the other hand, you argue how cheap the enemies are and that they aren't real challenge but cheap challenge. Well, the NPCs have no choice right now. They *have* to be cheap otherwise we'd mop the floor with them every time. It's no more cheap than invincible bosses that only have 1 point of their body during a particular duration of time that's vulnurable in nearly every game on the market. Quick-time events? Cheap substitute to make you feel like skill was required. It's all the same.

You're basically self-limiting your perception of any possibilities that might expand a game's ability to simulate combat while at the same time reprimanding the games for its limits. Dynamic does not equal cheap unless you can't be arsed with being creative enough to think outside the box.

That's more a skill system than an advantage/disadvantage system. Having a hacker that can handle a particular situation while someone else has to do it another way isn't an advantage to one and disadvantage to another. That's just giving one character a capability they didn't have...like one being able to fly and fight airborne enemies but the other can only run around fast.

Not that such a system is a bad idea. When it's brought up, I enjoy discussing it. You might want to post up another thread on it since we can't bump old posts on the subject. And I believe it *can* be possible to implement in this game...it'd just be a good deal of work. How it would be received by the players is another matter...

To conclude, while I'm arguing the possibility of an advantage/disadvantage system, I'm thinking from the perspective of something other than a vanilla +/- stat system. That's boring to me, and gameable. Wile I'm arguing the point, I'm thinking about something more robust, like the suggested 'Tags System' I suggested in another thread. Usually I go on a long post explaining an idea but I'll spare you. In a good advantage/disadvantage system, you can *try* to 'game' it to get the best buff, but there will always be that group (or groups) that will return the favor and there wouldn't be a way around it except perhaps running away.

I so hate internet memes. They start out kind of funny or possibly even clever but goes further and further into the annoying territory the more often they're used. And don't get me started on people that leak this BS into normal speech. Oh man, when people *say* facepalm or 'pwned' it's enough to make me want to resort to violence. Uhg...

/impersonal rant

Firstly, why would anyone be against micromanagement if it provides options not once available? Oh, let's not bother micromanaging character costumes and limit us all to 1 instead of 5. Let's not micromanage multiple builds, hurling us back to only a single build rather than the *option* to have another.

Yes, micromanagement can be tedious and time consuming, but it also comes with the prospects of a unique, personalized character/experience.

Personal perception. It can be a curse.

There's so much wrong with the thought of not giving people more options because their perception will perceive it as mandatory.

My opinion? Who cares what min/maxers do!? It's not like they're unpredictable. They'll look for the easiest road. But for this game, it's a catch22. The players will whine about another option for min/maxers to exploit (*ring* *ring* Hello! This is the Incarnate system with Alpha Slot on conference. We'd like to have a word with you) yet if you introduce measures to limit exploitation, people will complain you're limiting them...when in fact you're giving them more options in the first place.

A disadvantage system. I would like one but only with some kind of advantage attached. What about exploiters? Limit the system. You want to be weak to ice damage because you think that's the mildest disadvantage? Implement more enemies with ice attacks! I can think of an additional enemy for nearly any villain group that can do ice damage beyond just handing them a cryo-round or ice grenade (although it'd be hard for some groups since the majority of the enemies are carbon-copy gun shooters). Yeah, you can attempt to avoid certain enemies. Great. That's an option, but that's all you if you want your hero or villain to go shaking in their boots and running for the hills at the mention of enemies. Only you will know your character's a coward Those that want to customize their characters further *and* give themselves a challenge will face whatever comes at them.

But you're not finding an exploit in the game, you're exposing the fact that there aren't enough ice enemies.

You could even implement a Nemesis system along side it. No, not a vanilla villain that pops up on your mission and wrings his hands maniacally. Perhaps the villain could have informed your enemy before hand of your weakness, maybe even going so far as to give the group weapons/items to fend you off!

But that said, a plain boring -stat weakness is weak and uninteresting. Such a system is so plain...so boring it might as well not be there. I wouldn't bother even if it would help usher in a revamp in the enemies so they don't have to rely on cheap cheat tactics like idiotically long duration stun grenades or sapping guns that'll leave you dry within seconds.

As unlikely as it'd be, however, I still think it'd be a good avenue to add to the game if it makes player characters, NPCs and battles more dynamic. The idea has merit if you're willing to actually consider the possibilities.

I'm actually looking forward to Photon Seeker on my new PB and specifically aiming for a good deal of +rech on his build for that particular power (if they do ever lower the recharge, that'll be the power he focuses on casting then ^^). But I'm curious; in Mids', the power says it summons 3 pets and does 273 points of damage unslotted. Is that the damage of the 3 combined? So each pet does 91 damage individually? And if summoned with foes in range, would they instantly seek the foe and self destruct? Or is there some kind of delay involved?