Mieux

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a fix. It is a -change-

[/ QUOTE ] Symantics. This is a fact: The game was designed around the even level encounter. The entire resistance vs defense balancing was based on even level mobs. As such, it broke down i.e. broken against higher level mobs. This has been identified over and over again by the /SR scrapper community which was one of the few sets based strictly on +DEF.

Let's look at Dev's OP
[ QUOTE ]
Because mobs higher level than a player possess an inherent to hit bonus, Defense isn't as effective over levels as Resistance.


[/ QUOTE ] Do you think they intended do design a game where +DEF lost out as you faced higher mobs? No. When the game was released, there was no slider so there was not the urgency to analyze +DEF against higher level cons.

This "change" will allegidly '"fix" the problem that defense didn't scale the way it was suppose to if defensive sets and resistance sets are balanced.

[ QUOTE ]
Saying invulns should've been experiencing a higher penalty is an arbitrary claim

[/ QUOTE ] No it is not. It is obviously an unpalatable claim by people who hate the debuff. You apparently don't understand the mechanics of +DEF.

[ QUOTE ]
why is this issue of such import to you that you feel the need to even assault the proposition that it be looked into or taken into consideration?...

[/ QUOTE ] I didnt assault that proposition. I specifically made a suggestion to address the concern. You are falsely connecting my questioning of your motivation or the basis on which your argue your position with an accusation that I am against consistency. One has nothting to do with the other.

[ QUOTE ]
I can point at an experiment and suggest that there is a problem with the setup without having a vested interest in how the experiment turns out... this is no different...

[/ QUOTE ] There is a fundamental difference. This is art...not science.

[ QUOTE ]
I took great care to craft my post in such a way as to present the mathematical proof that this change would expand an existing debuff without clouding it

[/ QUOTE ] I see that. But look at Arcana's proof where she acknowledges that debuff was having less effect on higher level mobs. Did you address that in your analysis...that the debuff may not have been penalizing properly under the old system?

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting... because this entire change is about a change in variables and boils down to a mathematical alteration.

[/ QUOTE ] That's true. The change is based strictly on a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't make it proper to subject everything else in the game to the same scrutiny.

[ QUOTE ]
This whole new system is actually a new "mathematical" system... so if you object to mathematics so vehemently, then why aren't you argueing that the suggested change itself is "hurting the game" because of its mathematical nature?


[/ QUOTE ] It's not a new mathmatical system. It's simply change to where the accuracy modifier is applied.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no vested interest in any particular mechanism of solution

[/ QUOTE ] And that is what I am trying to inculcate. The method is very important to what makes this game.

[ QUOTE ]
he defense debuff in unyielding is -5% for both tankers and scrappers. It represents a scaling imbalance from tankers to scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ] Be that as it may, it's not anything I'm contesting or concerned with in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
while the defense debuff is constant, so in effect its actually a penalty on lower level invulns more so than higher level invulns - which in many ways is exactly the opposite of what such a balancing debuff ought to do.


[/ QUOTE ] That's right...so the penalty was not as pronounced as you faced higher level foes...which was why I originally posed the question that maybe the penalty wasn in fact not scaling up properly prior to this global fix.

Inv's should have been experiencing a higher penalty and were not. I'm not saying that the penalty is or is not justified, but that due to the defensive scaling problems, the penalty because less detrimintal based on its intended effect against +0's.

[ QUOTE ]
...which in many ways is exactly the opposite of what such a balancing debuff ought to do.


[/ QUOTE ] but with this change...it would balance, or come closer to balancing or preserve what ever balance that they intended at against +0's. This strengthens the idea that it may have been intended for balancing.

[ QUOTE ]
Putting my design hat on, I believe that the -DEF in UNY is not there to balance the +RES in UNY. Its actually there to balance the +DEF in invincibility

[/ QUOTE ] I can't say I've come to that conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Then I honestly think they either forgot to adjust the debuff when the Global Defense reductions went in

[/ QUOTE ] That's possible, but it is tangential to the question of how the scaling defense change affects it.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not assumed anything...

[/ QUOTE ] Nor have I accused you of assuming anything. It was a general observation triggred by your response.

[ QUOTE ]
The tone of your statement leaves something to be desired...

[/ QUOTE ] Simply because I suggest you aren't interested in what is truly proper? Was the point of your inquiry completely unbiased in motivation? Perhaps you don't really care whether it changes or not, but I dont' think you suggested it because it needs to be increased.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly why does it bother you that I might bring to light an actual mathematical effect to see if this particular effect is really warrented?

[/ QUOTE ] None at all. But the game is more than just about the math. It's about an experience. When people insist on reducing everything to a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't factor in all the variables, then I do believe it hurts the game.

Every time a change gets made, people lobby for more improvements to their sets using what ever rationale is available to them. No one wants to have any negatives or penalties or weaknesses...and yet...they refuse to acknowledge how detrimental it would be to the game if they all got their wish.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that part of this process?... bringing to light potential problems that the developers might have missed?

[/ QUOTE ] It is. Which is my response to Arcana is not that the debuff should remain untouched, but to first understand the purpose of the debuff and determine what is the best way of dealing with it. A suggestion that seeks to preserve the experience the game creates and not just reduce it to spreadsheets on comparative damage mitigation.

[ QUOTE ]
My only interest is in seeing this change have the effect that is intended

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but let's not be too hasty in assuming we know what that full scope of that intended affect is.

[ QUOTE ]
The penalty is to offset a version of the power we no longer have.

[/ QUOTE ] Or perhaps the penalty is to retain an aspect of the power you no longer have. The one in which you were rooted and couldn't move. Being unable to move would suggest that you would be much easier to hit. The power is called "Unyielding"..not "Status Protection."

[ QUOTE ]
There are other penalties present in the set. *** ...requires the acquisition of three powers. That represents a cost

[/ QUOTE ] Having to choose powers is a "penalty." It is an opporunity cost. Choosing any power represents opportunity costs and are not penalties.

Tell you what, why don't we just remove the debuff and give you capped resistances... Anything else we need to fix? I know...the idea that some power might have a penalty associated with it is completely un-American. And God knows we can't trust the devs to use penalties to achieve any artistic conception.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this honestly your opinion?... or are you just playing devils advocate?

[/ QUOTE ] I find it funny that people always assume they aren't getting enough of a benefit but never concede they might not be getting enough of a penalty.

[ QUOTE ]
Let the developers take a look and say to themselves "wonderful... we finally get that debuff to scale like we always wanted it to"... or to say "this is definately not what we intended to occur with this change in how defense works... we'll have to adjust this to get the proper effect

[/ QUOTE ] Of course. But what if they determined that TH and Invinc were actually reducing the penalty more than it should, would accept them increasing its effect? Or is your objective only to change it if it benefits you? The reason I ask is you present the question as though you are really concerned that the "proper" effect is in place.

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that a penalty that causes you to take more damage with your defense active than shut off certainly qualifies as an "egregious penalty."

[/ QUOTE ] You are combining two separate arguments.

1) Is it egregroius to have any power work the way Unyielding does?

2) Is the consequence of being easier to hit offset enough by the resistance in Unyielding?

I am not offering any commentary on #1. The devs have created a power that causes Inv to get hit more as an apsect of their status protection. Obviously many Inv's don't like that in principle

I am saying that if the the point of the debuff is to simulate what it means to be unyielding...then the choice should be to increase the resistance rather than reducing the debuff....assuming the devs want them to cancel out in the first place.

Maybe they don't. Maybe the price Inv has to pay for its status protection is substantively more damage. Until recently, Inv tested out far better than half the scrappers set. With this change it may move back into first place.

I'm not here to debate what is balanced or fair, but suggest a solution that preserves an experience the devs may have been attempting to engender.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that with a multiplicative scaling effect in place, the defense debuff is also scaled such that it is more powerful than current levels.

I am just saying it should be looked into, the type of solution that may or may not be instituted is less important to me than the fact that it is at least "solved".

[/ QUOTE ]The other perspective is that it wasn't giving the debuff that it should have against higher level foes???

[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...

[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power? Then why create something only to cancel the benefit and eat up CPU cycles in the process?

Maybe the point is to create an effect of an unyielding foe, meaning you're getting hit because you're not moving. Then the resistance is there to create the effect without actually creating a true penalty for using the power. So reducing the debuff would reduce the effect. It would then seem a better choice to increase the resistance in the power. This allows you to retain this "unyielding" aspect of the power, but without an egregious penalty. The only remaining issue is where you set the base resistance considering slotting.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you guys really play tested this?
It's been running internally for all tests since October.

[/ QUOTE ] lol...obviously that was a rhetorical question and really based on the initial concern that a +5 would hit with the same frequency as +0, which my discourse with Arcana set aside.

I was going to remove it from my post as it comes across as an indictment, but figured you guys wouldn't take it at face value. It wasn't meant as a real question....but I guess it provided the opportunity to assuage any fears.

[ QUOTE ]
If the devs have done that, then in actual fact, +5s will hit SR more often than +0s, but just in a manner proportional to how much more often they tend to hit non-defensive sets.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, as I and others and yourself have said, it really depends on what they are truly talking about. Based on the OP statement, it sounds like we'll have the same 50% mitigation against +5's as we do +0's.

[ QUOTE ]
If a +0 has base 50% tohit...

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. This seems to be the most plausible approach/implementation of what States is saying and be a much more palatable benefit than the one I had initially inferred.

[ QUOTE ]
You could make an argument both ways at this point. Its the level and rank tohit buffs that primarily unbalance the two in PvE: if this defense scaling effect correctly nullifies those tohit buffs in a proportional way, that would bring all four scrapper secondaries closer in mitigation than they have ever been

[/ QUOTE ] Well, here's my quandary. I understand that +RES scales better. But on straight math does the negation of +Rank perserve the balance? Oddly enough, this is a situation where I think a simulation is very applicable and informative.

I also thought that the increased damage kind of offset the fact that resistance scaled better..but again...the straight math would prove or disprove this.

Lastly, my concern is more about the nature of the fix. In the past, where the devs have started buffing sets, we start getting power inflation and then ultimately nerfs. Why not just add unresistable damage to +Rank so that it is negated. SO'd teams are already back to missions on Invinc...why would you make it any easier for us?

[ QUOTE ]
If SR becomes overpowered with this change, then in effect *everyone* is

[/ QUOTE ] Well, I don't know about "everyone" but yeah, a lot of sets are a going to be blasting through Invinc missions....like a laser scalpel through soft cheese.

As far as /regen, I thought the +DMG from +Rank was essentially a counter to /regen? They are also victimized by the +acc from +Rank. Big difference between a mob with a 65 % acc versus one with a 95%, which is essentially the diff between a +0 boss and a +5 boss against a /regen. I don't see how a /regen will compete if that same +5 is hitting with only 65% acc?

I won't speak to any other sets, but do you honestly think /SR in particular needs this type of boost from a strictly PvE-challenge perspective? As I said in my other post, I got FA at 41...went to PI..and found I was easily beating down groups of +5 minions and Lt's with lvl 40 enhance, no inspirations, and no Elude. Now maybe I have better than average build, but good grief, if you reduce +5's to hitting me like +0's , I'm going to be bored out of my mind.


I guess we really need to see how this is done.
EDIT:
Let me make a point directly to the devs:

You nerfed Sappers
You nerfed Quicksand
You nerfed DE eminators
You nerfed Bosses
You nerfed AV's

This game is already so easy, I don't understand why you need to make it easier. Even more so, if you are going to give us a boost, at least make it something that requires a decisions or some active effort.

I agree that players have to generally feel like the game is balanced. Maybe there used to be a huge advantage for resistance sets...maybe in specific cases there still are. If so, I would ask the devs to use scalpel and not a shotgun to fix those things.

I'm not saying DoooooOOOOOOooooooM!!!!!, but hey...it's fun when it's a struggle against things that should be out of our league.

Hmmm...

I haven't played a low level /SR for a couple of months, so at low levels, this makes a difference. But at higher levels, with SO's...i'm fighting on Invinc...without insp. If you allow my defense to work this good against +5's....that's just too good, imo.

This can't be motivated by a desire to reduce slots because /SR just isn't slot intensive IMO.

This won't let us reduce powers taken, because the passives give us a different layer of defense which works when +DEF doesn't.

Have you guys really play tested this?

I have to say, I don't think we need this at all. I'd much rather you give us +RES to Psi/Toxic in the passives or some way to counter the massive accuracy in things like Aim or Rage (3/3 Rage just clowns a fully ED slotted /SR in PvP...and I mean the passives too, but not with Elude).

I'd also prefer you give us some more utility as opposed to flat defense.

Again, at low levels, this is a bigger deal, but at high levels, I can already fight +5 minions in PI..all I needed was FA. I really really think this should be reexamined because it's really going to trivialize Invinc missions if they don't hit me any better than even level minions.

And I have to ask, won't /SR out perform other sets if we have the same defense against +5's?!?

I guess this will make Bubblers the new FoTM....or does it apply to bubbles?

my $.10

EDIT:
Well, I guess we'll have to see just how this is implemented. I can understand if this is more needed for other defensive sets in PvE....but I'm concerned for /sr still finding a challenge in PvE.

Devs, you might consider scaling this back as we level up or something. I just can't imagine dodging +5's like they were even level minions. Very surprising.

[ QUOTE ]
My brute of the same powersets doesnt get anywhere NEAR one shotted when AS'ed in warburg.

[/ QUOTE ] I believe the math shows that any Brute ont on DP can be two-shotted by EM/* stalkers...without inspirations. So Quason could two-shot you such that you won't have time to react. And since he can just wait until he sees your DP wear off by watching your HP meter...it's pretty much guaranteed if you stop moving.

Stand still in Warburg after challenging any EM to do it without insp. They'll come a callin'

[ QUOTE ]
we point to someone smaller with more lunch money and yell, "That kid's easier to pick on

[/ QUOTE ] FYI...that is the schoolyard bully.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately I am beginning to think that this whole "stalkers are weak and can't stand up to another AT" argument is just a smoke screen.

[/ QUOTE ] It is actually based on a truth...like most lies.

Stalkers are very weak in early PvE, as are all toons. What makes them feel even weaker is:

1) They have to engage in Melee combat (traditional scrapping is often unavoidable on teams).

2) The AS draws massive aggro.

3) Unlike in PvP...going inviso doesn't stop someone from attacking you.

These three things are very critical and fundemental differences between PvE and PvP which are not accounted for as Stalkers enter into a PvP zone. These tools that allow stalkers to suvive PvE..especially on teams, are what create such a huge advantage in PvP.

4) Not all Stalkers get mez protection before they can enter PvP. /ninji and /SR get 'click' protection which is not permanent at until you slot 2 SO's. Which means that it is very possible to catch SR/Ninji Stalkers with holds and stuns in Bloody Bay. Getting held usually means death for stalkers because holds come from controllers....who tend to team.

5) EVERYONE wants to kill the stalkers after they start ASing your teammates.

6) Stalkers that first came into PvP had to face lvl 50 exemped heros. Scrappers in particular. A lvl 15 Stalker isn't going to last ten seconds against a scrapper in that situation.

So many of them experience extreme squishieness as they level up. This notion is perpetuated ad nauseum as a defense to AS one-shotting. As a result, it's engrained in many of their subsconsciouses. Good stalkers...like in Siren's and Warburg, can defeat scrappers even if AS doesn't hit on the first try. Fighting a Stalker is like playing roulette...depending on the sets involved. EM will kill you. They probably skew curve. If you could face all the stalkers in an even distribution, it would probably seem less egregious.

[ QUOTE ]
I this thread is about 1 shot kills

[/ QUOTE ] And I am here saying that this isn't the problem from my perspective. It is the combination of things.

[ QUOTE ]
There are counters to every power, and every AT in this game, and not very complicated ones either.


[/ QUOTE ] And for the last time..that doesn't make it FUN.

[ QUOTE ]
when is the last time you fought a Fire/Eng.

[/ QUOTE ] Kellen, what is your disconnect here? I can see every single solo Energy blaster that ever lived. Every single one. They have to get into melee Range and that is where a number of Scrapper sets can nail them. To get into melee range, they are open to ranged attacks. They have no +DEF in any of their sets. Ever see what Siphon Speed does to a blapper?

As long as you insist on comparing apples to oranges, your arguments are unavailing.

[ QUOTE ]
I was just in SC again fighting 1st as a Stalker, then as a Scrapper, and again the heroes had no problem evading and defeating the 4 or 5 stalkers that were there.

[/ QUOTE ] To the extent this typifies your observations, then we are operating on different data.

[ QUOTE ]
No stalkers def. numbers are not the same, they are less,

[/ QUOTE ] That's what I was waiting to see. As it was tested, /SR Stalkers have the exact same toggle values for defense that Scrappers do (I encourage Castle to correct me if I am wrong). In addition, they have Hide, which surppressed gives an /SR stalker better melee defense than an /SR scrapper. /SR Stalkers miss out on Lucky and the resistance associated with it. /Ninjitsu has the exact same values for the toggle as /SR. . In addition, they get their AoE defense with their ranged defense. The difference is they don't get the extra 8.5% you can get from six slotted Passives. In exchange, they get a Heal and more utility powers.

And Scrappers have the same holes in their status protection as Stalkers. Except CoH doesn't get EA and Invinc does not have resistance to Teleport.

/Regen works differently because the base health is different. But there is no evidence that the % are any different.

Kellen, there really is no point in debating this. I'm not going argue with you whether Stalkers are overpowered or not, because that isn't my argument. You don't think there there is a problem...I do. It' s a subjective call. I enjoy the presence of all the other Villian AT's...I enjoy the type of battles they create. Brutes are just what the doctor ordered for scrappers and tankers. Blstr/Def/Crpr battles are a delight. Dom/Cntr/MM are excellent match-ups. Gettting AS'd by stalkers isn't fun. Having to keep moving..isn't fun. Getting continually ganked by this process while trying to enjoy other battles and PvP outdoor content, isn't fun.

CoH/CoV is setup to be enjoyable by a casual player. The average person can expect success with an average build. What do you think the most profitible course is with PvP?

It is hypocrtical for the devs to make changes under the auspices that no powers should be mandatory and then create a situation that requires Tactics in PvP. There is a phrase for this..it's called the tail wagging the dog. Stalkers are the tail. They should not be dictating the landscape for PvP anymore than any other AT.

If you really think the devs don't have a problem here, then we aren't going to convince each other of the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
This would be considered a dangerous statement to make under some circles as there is still a debate as to what exactly constitutes an "observer".

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Little of the physics at this level is universely accepted. But you restated what I meant...
[ QUOTE ]
Quantum mechanics sets up boundary conditions for the level of predictability we may obtain, and when it is relativized we obtain methods to determine the direction of causality dependent upon the reference frame of interest.


[/ QUOTE ] Definitely. Which is why I used the non-descript "observer." I have no way of knowing how a photon "observes" a gravity well. We know how it affects the photon, but that is just another one of our observations.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately these are nice thoughts... but they do not get us anywhere.


[/ QUOTE ] Completely agree. Which is why I bring up the concept of "1." If we understand that our analogues are simply that, it may lift the veil. As you state..

[ QUOTE ]
What it really comes down to is that a "law" of nature does not necessarily mean what we think it means upon first glance..

[/ QUOTE ] This is what I am hinting at, but at a more fundamental level. Check out G J Chaitin's papers on irreducibility in mathmatics (if you haven't already).

This whole tangent was sparked, IIRC by Quason's statements about the "universe" and I am merely pointing out that we really don't know what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
I am functioning under the axiom...

[/ QUOTE ] Whatever the underlying truth, I am typing a mesasge on the Internet. Regardless of what that means to the "universe," it means something to me. Even if this is all local phenomenon, it's all I've got.

[ QUOTE ]
I am going under the assumption that you know what I am talking about

[/ QUOTE ] The first rule of quantum physicis is that if you think you understand it, you don't...

[ QUOTE ]
if for any reason I have mentioned something with which you are not familiar please let me know and I would be happy to explain.

[/ QUOTE ] I confess that some of the double-slit experiments are mind blowing. I have yet to actually "see" how the photon detector collapses the interference pattern. If there is a film or animation on the net that shows this, please send me a link.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet theory does not preclude us from adjusting the conditions of space itself such that the speed of light in a particular region is actually "faster" than this.


[/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Which is why I was careful to phrase the absolute as "acceleration to the speed of light." I meant this through conventional means i.e. relativistic conditions as you put it. But yes, I certainly believe it is possible to achieve FTL speeds with mass..and for that matter travel at light speeds. The point is that there are some absolutes depending on the reference frame (yes....I know...thin ice, but someone has to take a stand).

[ QUOTE ]
I'm perfectly willing to roll up a char.

[/ QUOTE ] Send me a PM when you get to lvl 20 with your PvE build. I'll set up some fights for you.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as deconstructing goes, that's been your MO in the majority of your posts.


[/ QUOTE ] Sure...just throw that out there with nothing to back it up.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as running away from as before the roll to hit you..well that's not much of an assassin strike now is it? It's

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah...that was the point Kellen.

[ QUOTE ]
Noone ever said stalkers are the best thing that happend to them or PvP, don't be dramatic

[/ QUOTE ] This is actually funny. You're the one who is finding 1 post in 50 and acting like this is the voice of the people. Kellen, do you think people just got together before CoV and voted that Stalkers would be the AT they'd all complain about regardless of the truth? You think people are just looking for the next thing to whine about and by coincedence they all stumbled on stalkers? Or is just possible that maybe they are not enjoying an AT that kills them without their getting a chance to see the attacker, fight the attacker, or defeat the attacker.

One /Device blaster with TP foe killing three Stalkers one night doesn't suddenly make it enjoyable for all the other toons. A lvl 50 Controller zapping lvl 15 Stalkers with no Mez protection, is not compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
and tips on how to easily beat them.


[/ QUOTE ] I read the Stalker and PvP forums. These so called "tips" work against noobs and the majority of them are wishful thinking....

but all that aside...you still haven't shown me that people enjoy this. This a game played for enjoyment. You just continually want to sweep that aside.

[ QUOTE ]
Noone ever said stalkers are the best thing that happend to them or PvP

[/ QUOTE ] that's right...and many people feel they could be the worst thing that's happened to PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Why were the Arenas no empty before CoV and largly remain empty now?


[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what you mean here. The Arenas were dead on Triumph. The Arenas were dead on Pinnacle. The PvP league had to go to the Test sever to find enough people to actually have a league. The Arenas were largely ignored because there was nothing to be gained by it. PvP Zones offer a lot. Badges, Missions, Powers, new content, and PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike you I'm willing to take a chance and be shown somthing I may not see.

[/ QUOTE ] Unlike me? Where did you pull that statement out of? Just making stuff up now?

[ QUOTE ]
And I have to work twice as hard to get a kill w/my stalker in SC than I do my scrapper or blaster, or controller

[/ QUOTE ] Well, I don't know what to tell you. The testimony says Stalkers do far better in SC than any other AT. I know /Nrg blasters can be pretty nasty. Thank god that isn't an AT hunh?

The devs can data mine the stats on what AT's collect the most bounty....I'd love for them to share it.

[ QUOTE ]
Which according to you would have more to do w/my lack of knowledge of the ATs capabilities, than w/the AT itself.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, let's meet on the test Server. I'll bring my squishies and we'll see how many counter attacks they get while trying to win a Hot Spot....or should I never stop to fight a battle in PvP?

Earlier you said people were looking for the easy fix....but you know what's funny? Stalkers got the easy fix didn't they? One shot kills, massive unresisted damage, Hide + Stealth, Toggle Dropping, Mez Protection, Scrapper level defense, if not better, Auto hit ranged Placate.

[ QUOTE ]
and I don't fight in BB anymore

[/ QUOTE ] anymore hunh? So this is probalby where you formed your opinion of Stalkers that has shaped your subsequent encounters. In BB, Stalkers feel very balanced. Without the global debuffs, squishies can survive their AS's. They don't have good defenses, and they are quite defeatable. While gettting AS'd by unseen attackers is still not fun...at least it isn't the total buzzkill that it is when they can consistently one-shot you.

But I personally don't find the Stalker element enjoyable in battles. It just isn't fun to have people jumping in and out of battle hitting you with massive attacks and being able to defeat you with that. As I said in a previous post, surviving long battles focuses on fending off repeated AS attempts by Stalkers and it gets old. IMO, it's just not fun after the first 5 minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as stalkers sticking and running, hell every AT does that when their HPs start to go low.

[/ QUOTE ] Right right right...deconstruct the argument and then strawman it. "running" isn't the problem Kellen...it is the combination of things. I've repeated that at least five times now, and others have as well. It isn't ONE thing. Give me the option of running away from the AS before it can roll to hit me, and we'll call it it a day. Sound good?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe it's you that is ignoring what people or saying

[/ QUOTE ] Right...those throngs of PvP posts by non-stalkers that Stalkers are the best thing to happen to Hereos. Yeah...I'm ignoring them alright.

[ QUOTE ]
had no problems what so ever evading, eluding and defeating stalkers.

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry...not buying it for a nanosecond. I've been there. Stalker get defeated on rare occasions for attacking a team...just like every other single toon would. Yet somehow this means that Stalkers are balanced? Nevermind...this isn't about whether they are balanced...this is about how they affect people's PvP experiences.

Look, you have your beliefs on how happy everyone is to fight stalkers, I have my beliefs on how they are driving people out of PvP. Let's give it a rest and see what conclusion the devs come to.

[ QUOTE ]
possess no evidence that would give me reason to divorce myself from the universe.


[/ QUOTE ] I use this argument when people tell me man-made things are "unnatural." ..."Man" occurs in nature.

But the difference here is that "1" is a symbol it is not a physical entity. I can think up a being called a snootkroodle, and we can all agree that it will represent something...that does not render it a truth of the universe. "1" is our construct. What we use it to represents, may exist, but there is no property of "1" outside of humanity. My thinking of "1" does not make it any more real than my thinking the sun doesn't exist makes it unreal.

The argument I think you are trying to make is a philosphical one. The idea that the mind cannot invent anything. That every thing we think of is an amalgum of some real thing. If so, that's why I say that 1 is just data compression of reality...the same way a formula is.

[ QUOTE ]
As such... if man is capable of recognizing the concept of "oneness"... then invariably a portion of the universe is also capable of recognizing that concept.


[/ QUOTE ] Hmmmm....I see this as putting the cart before the horse. We are drawing stick figures on a cave wall to represent the animals outside. The stick figures are not a property of the universe...the animals are. Just to avoid confusion...I'm not taking about langauge, i'm talking about the concept of '1' or '2', etc.

[ QUOTE ]
We are becomming increasingly adept at narrowing the scope of the heisenberg criteria...

[/ QUOTE ] But the fundamental principle is understood to be more profound now than when he published it. As the observers, we collapse the probability wave. To observe something is to interact with it. To interact with it, is to modify it at a quantum level. We may be more precise or be able to gather more information, but I've not seen any thing to suggest we aren't modify it through observation..

[ QUOTE ]
After all... at one point it was believed that FTL travel was utterly impossible...

[/ QUOTE ] But I think we need to separate impossible on a technological level from a theoretical. Time travel maybe technologically impossible, but not theoretically. But you or I will never be able to accelerate to the speed of light under these laws of physics. I don't think science has ever equivocated on that.

But like you, I regret not being able to find out, what we will one day find out.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've stated before I am aware of the full capabilities of stalkers.

[/ QUOTE ] What you are aware of is your capabilities with Stalkers. Spend more time fighting stalkers...a lot more time fighting stalkers. I'm not talking about the lowibes in BB who don't have Stealth, or are running TO's in their one-slotted defenses. I'm talking about lvl 40 EM/EA Stalkers who plop down with Overload running...and can hit you with AS+ET....lights out in the time it takes ET to animate after AS hits. Please go experience that and tell me how fun that is.

[ QUOTE ]
They weren't just fending off stalkers but the base mobs

[/ QUOTE ] As I said before....the army of Heroes storming the villian base is an absurd example to show that the situation is somehow balanced against Stalkers.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem avoiding or defeating stalkers AS, or stalkers for that matter.


[/ QUOTE ] Unless you have a /DA, /SR, Ice/ or /Devices, you cannot see Stalkers with Hide+Stealth solo at all. That is fact. My Rad defender got AS'd running Choking Cloud...in BB...when I stopped to assist a hero.

[ QUOTE ]
There have been several posts on here by people stating that they have no problem w/stalkers in PvP and infact find the element they add fun.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL..the people who have stalkers and don't want them to lose any advantage they have...or the one device blaster who took Tactics and TP Foe.

[ QUOTE ]
People that fight against the villains are getting better and better everyday at deafeating the new villain ATs.

[/ QUOTE ] I fight villians every day. I've probably defeated more stalkers than you have and I'll bet donors to donoughts I've fought probably about 10 times more stalkers than you have. You know when it's fun? When they fight despite missing or failing to kill me in two shots. Guess how many do that? Like 1 in 50.

I've fought every AT in the PvP Zones with toons from lvls 15-40. The Stalker AT Design pushes a playstyle that isn't fun on the receiving end. Oh...it's fun as a novelty...and that gets old quick. As a general rule, Stalkers don't want to fight unless they can get off a free AS. Once you deny them that opportunity, they won't fight. Explain to me how this is fun again?

ALL PvP Zones are set up to do many things outdoors: Hotspots, Rescue scientists, launch missles, defeat turrets. Everyone of these things sets you up for ganking by Stalkers. Blasters that try and pull that stunt, get defeated. We can see them. They dont' have mez protection, they don't have defenses. My lowbie defenders are looking for corruptors in BB because fighting them is fun. Fighting Brutes is fun. Getting AS'd by invisible toons is not fun.

Kellen, you can bury your head in the sand all you want. You can lie to yourself and pretend that their is some imaginary group of people who go running into PvP so they can get attacked by stalkers, but you're only fooling yourself.

Fighting the AT is fun...when you get to fight the AT. So what if this IS what stalkers do...I'm telling the devs, this is not enjoyable. I'm not alone.

Let me ask you Kellen, why surpress inviso at all? Why not let the person stay inviso the whole time? Oh...cuz that wouldn't be fun. So why does 10 seconds of suppression suddenly equal fun?

[ QUOTE ]
you have said twice that I probably don't know what a stalker is capable of.

[/ QUOTE ] Build a toon on Triumph...look up DaEvilWun....or Endar...just to name a few.

Kellen, do you know why Stalkers are the way they are in PvP?