Plonk

Nether, what are the overall specs on your computer?

First, I want to thank the people from the CO community who have extended their warm welcome to CoX players.

Secondly, I played CO for several hours last night to get some basic first impressions. Note: I'm entirely willing to accept that some problems may have been due to user error. I tried my best to figure things out and set the game up correctly, but maybe I missed some configuration options. For now, though, I'll note what I found. Onward...

1. My experience so far with the CO community has been pretty positive. There were some people being very negative about 'refugees' in Zone chat, and one person who blamed a failed mission on me being from CoX (that was definitely not the problem), but most people were friendly.

2. As in the past, I ended up finding the combat mechanic entertaining. It feels more similar to playing an arcade game to me, and I thought that was pretty cool.

3. I'm less of a fan of the aesthetics than I was the first time around. Maybe it's just that CoX looks better now than it used to. Faces, in particular, I think are the major problem. "Vaguely bloaty snake descendant" is how I might describe the female facial geometry. Seriously, necks are absurdly long in CO. Since there isn't a lot of control over many aspects which tend to help visually individuate faces, everyone looks like a subtle to not-so-subtle variant of everyone else to me. I found that peculiar, considering that CoXers share faces and a handful seem to dominate selection, but it stuck out to me in CO.

4. The UI is better than it used to be, but still pretty underdeveloped. I was shocked to see that, when I right click on someone to get info, it still says InvalidUserName and I have to click on them, then point the cursor to the status module above, and get info that way. There were other bits and pieces that were just surprisingly clunky for a game that has been around this long now. The way that you acquire and dispense with missions, and navigate to missions, is also exceptionally cumbersome to me. They really need a solid visual cue for the location of your waypoint that works like CoX.

5. As far as I can tell, costume pieces are effectively unbelievably expensive compared to CoX if you are just trying to mix-and-match from different sets. It appears as though you have to purchase entire sets even if you want one piece; most of the ones I saw were 475 Zen, or $4.75. Considering the sheer mass of pieces that are behind the paywall (even for Gold accounts), I'm more than a little disappointed.

6. Despite the costume creator gripe, I did find I could make some pretty snappy outfits with the pieces that were available and I liked some of the points of differentiation from CoX.

7. The voice acting and scripting is absurdly cheesy. Defender chews the scenery like he's trying to fatten up for the long winter and we haven't got time to lose. It's so over the top it seems like it's intentional, but I have to wonder why someone would do it.

8. Power availability feels both more and less diverse than CoX. The defense mechanic takes some getting used to and tends to make things feel a little more one-note compared to CoX in terms of gameplay. However, that maybe just takes some getting used to. More concerning is that, while there are several sets of different types, the variety on the melee side in particular feels lacking. There isn't really anything like the Claws set, for example. However, some aspects of the powersets are appealing so far so maybe I'll just give it time. I like the tap/charge mechanic, and how that interacts with various sets.

9. General critique - The game is a lot less polished than CoX, and some of the QoL stuff we take for granted in CoX is outright missing in CO. To be honest, the state of development on some core features of the game makes me concerned about Cryptic's commitment to it. It also feels like it's going to end up being a more expensive game, with RMT ("Zen") seeming to factor in more conspicuously into customization and character development (unless you grind a lot) than it ever did for me in CoX. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on with that latter part since the gear system is pretty opaque to me at the moment. So far though, the pay-to-play element feels more overt.

10. Overall - For me, this is a fun game with some fun people on it, and I think it's worth trying. It's definitely not like playing CoX and I don't think it really serves as a replacement if you're looking for something CoX-like. So, it would take a lot of adjustment. However, I had a great time playing and I think it still felt like a superhero-oriented affair, though a very different one from CoX. I think the game would benefit tremendously from the kind of boost in development that CoX saw in its later years, though it doesn't seem like people are anticipating that sort of thing so far. Particularly if CO sees a boost in development, I think it has considerable potential. I do hope they fix the voice acting/scripting...sheesh.

Unrelated: Nethergoat - I am finding CO runs, generally, smoother for me than CoX as well (both at mostly maxxed out settings). Have you tried different drivers? If you have a lower-end video card, or especially an older video card, sometimes older driversets provide better performance than the newer ones (at least that's been my experience).

I played CO a long time ago. Not during beta, but shortly after release. At least back then, it seemed like the mechanics of powersets were being changed dramatically every week. It also felt like I was still playing a game in its beta stage, as chat, teaming, and a lot of general UI stuff was fairly broken. That said, I found the art design OK and actually preferred the combat mechanic to CoX as it felt more spontaneous and kinetic.

I'd be willing to give CO a shot again, but I admit I'm kind of wary about rejoining due to the way development seemed to be last time I played. I had a less negative impression of the game than many others did at the time, though, so maybe I'd be OK. I do wonder if I'd be able to figure how to even set up a character now, though. The mechanics of building up a character, between power selection, how those powers interacted, how they interacted with stats, and then with gear as well, made for a rather complicated process.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's funny how mad some folks get at changes that aren't all even announced yet. So what if they take a power here or there and swap it... learn to deal with it. I mean, did the concept of flexibility disappear while I wasn't looking? It's not like any character will be "perfect" anyway; there is (and always will be) room for improvement on all characters. Why do you think people argue ad infinitum about slotting and power choices on practically every power combination, hmmmm? Because everyone has a different (and in most cases), just as good and valid way of doing things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant. I wish I could frame this and stick it on the top of the forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It exemplifies one of the biggest problems with discussion on the forums here. I think it's an arrogant and disrespectful manner of addressing someone and I think the forums would be greatly improved if this particular mode of argument stopped.

Such a response rejects the value of other peoples' preferences and denigrates their desire to speak out against changes which they do not believe improve the gaming experience. Suggesting that people 'adapt' is essentially substituting your own value judgment (or the devs') that this is an adequate or even desirable aspect of gameplay in this game in place of the value others may hold for a particular aspect to remain static or at least similar enough to maintain an enjoyable state of play for themselves. People are within their right to hold different values about what makes the game fun for them, and I really don't see why expressing those preferences in response to proposed changes is somehow unreasonable or worthy of the outright disrespect inherent in the sort of response you quoted.

People pay to enjoy the game; they don't pay to just take whatever a bunch of autocrats deem is in their interest. That's pretty evident by the praise people give towards devs that respond to user concerns and implement changes based on user feedback. I think in the long run, we're much better off getting a broad sampling of user input and opinions about a proposed change both before and after in order to draw on the combined experience and expertise of the community as well as to best respect the needs of everyone. The history of development in this game seems to indicate, to me at least, that it is important to give feedback and evaluation of a change at every step of the way rather than wait until it is already firmly entrenched and then bring up concerns. Right now, we're at the point where it's easiest to make changes and improvements, so it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me for people to give feedback.

I think that's more or less all I have to say about this.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Well, I thought there could be a chance to "reward" people who have been playing for almost 3 years instead of guaging them. It seems like this is the perfect thing to introduce into a rewards system, but you're right, why give something away when you can charge for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... I mean really... Wow. They intend to give a veteran rewards system, but because they want newer people to have a chance to get this stuff they're going to charge a measly ten bucks for it and your complaining because "You've already paid your dues"... Well I for one will happily pay my ten dollars in addition to accepting my 2.5 years worth of veteran rewards for playing since the game started. I certainly don't mind whatsoever. Thank you for your hard work Devs in making things I would actually like to pay money for. =)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I can at least see where Jeffrey is coming from. It would have been a nice opportunity to actually make good in a substantial manner on the concept of veteran rewards. Of course from a marketing standpoint it makes more sense to try to sell it, but I don't understand why we as consumers should be cheering them on for charging us for that which we'd have certainly appreciated receiving for free.

I seriously do not understand the MMO-community mentality that companies are entitled to or at least deserve customers cheerleading their efforts to maximise profits and defend them with great vigour when another customer expresses displeasure.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just made no sense to me that I could take that much damage in 1-shot from an opponent I never saw.

[/ QUOTE ] IMO, this is the fundamental issue. It really isn't taking that much damage...it really isn't the inability to see an opponent, it's the combination of those two things that players don't find "fun."

The question then turns on what length the devs expect players to go to, to see stalkers. Creating a situation where one side is forced to team and the other is not...is a position I do not agree with, nor is it consistent with any other philosophy or design promulgated by the game. In addition, forcing one side to team creates cascade problems. As someone pointed out, forcing every hero to stack perception, and most likely Tactics, means that +DEF based powers become less effective on average. It means that having just Stealth as a non-stalker becomes worthless on average.

There is no other AT..and I mean the entire AT, every set in the entire AT, which forces the other side into dramatic build changes like stalkers do. There is nothing unique about blasters that forces the villians to choose powers or builds simply to survive in PvP like all heroes do. Controllers are not the only ones with holds. Every AT has a status effect power that you need a break-free to counter. Every AT does not have the ability to stack Hide + Stealth without aide. Every AT does not have a single attack that is 7/8's unresisted damage that also knocks off two toggles.

I'm sure stalkers have more defeates in PvP than dominators...but that's not disproving anything. The point that Buffy makes...and that I emphatically agree with is that stacked Inviso+Massive Damage = Not Fun...unless you are the one doing it.

It might be fun once...or twice...but this a good 70%-90% of what PvP has boiled down to...avoiding stalkers. PvP could be so much more and so much richer. I can't see how letting stalker completely dominate PvP makes any financial sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I find people are grossly exxagerating what sort of effect Stalkers are having in PvP relative to other ATs. Before Stalkers were popping up abruptly in PvP and killing my Controller within a few seconds thereafter, Scrappers and 'Blappers' were...with impunity. The fact that Stalkers were more difficult to actually see was, while disconcerting, largely inconsequential to how often they got me versus other ATs. In fact, if anything, they were consistently easier to avoid because they were both easier to kill as well as easier to avoid due to their greater dependence on a single, interruptable, melee range attack.

I'm not saying no change in PvP is warranted. I gravitate towards difficult targets in PvP, so the changes are largely inconsequential to me since my targets were, at best, two shots and more likely three+ shots unless I had some reds to spare. I can sympathise with being concerned about Stalker kills, but I really can't sympathise with the bickering over how incredibly game breaking Stalkers are and how they have this unprecedented level of ganking dominance in PvP, and this is speaking from both sides of the equation.

I'm really glad this isn't affecting NPCs, though, as the so-called 'one shot' is pretty integral to me being able to handle multiple villains when I solo in a quasi-efficient manner (quasi because it's still more in bursts than sustained kill rate, but it at least works satisfactorily currently).

[ QUOTE ]

If you are going to weave theories and spin falsehood, you atleast need to start somewhere close to the facts.

"ED" was sugjested by players off and on going all the way back to Issue 3, maybe ever Issue 2.

Well before I5, HO's, and Arena PvP.

Care to try again? I think you dropped you hat, Ath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diminishing returns was suggested prior to I5 and its nerfs as a possible solution to balance issues as it was fairly clear by then that the devs were planning to make major changes (although I'm not sure everyone expected what came in I5). Most if not all of the suggestion posts I'd seen did _not_ include I5-like nerfs and were based on the assumption that the base efficacy of powers would be substantially higher than it was post-I5. So, I don't see why you're accusing me of being a liar. The fact that diminishing returns systems had been mentioned earlier doesn't make what I said false.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.

Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh okay, so it's just the usual bait-and-switch that comes like clockwork. Suppression still brings in a huge host of QOL problems and is as bafflingly asinine as the previous idea. They may as well just change the power name to "kinda sneaky...sometimes".

Well, so much for boosting my expectations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not one who believes that using stealth to click glowies was an exploit - you paid for it by getting less xp, for example.

However, I want to know - what kind of QoL problems does this change bring?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a few of them are: 1. It can greatly increase the length of time some missions will take. You already pay a penalty in XP not killing the baddies, and it seems pretty reasonable that a "stealthy" character could get the job done without having to tear through the opposition guns blazing. 2. It also creates issues when the clicky target is near a foe that the player is no match for and whose style is to outwit the foe by sneaking by. So basically the change punishes squishy soloers who rely upon this ability. 3. It also is damaging just in general to those whose playstyle or character's persona is to avoid up-front conflict in such a manner.

I just think it's a silly, petty change that has no reasonable basis designwise. It's amazing to me how obsessive some people are about someone gaining XP in some other way. I don't think risk v. reward is a sound premise for game design, so I can't really identify with changes made on account of it.

Anyhow, I'm not going to get involved in a big discussion about this except in PM. It will dominate the thread in an unnecessary manner.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.

Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to spoil the fun but you do realise those who predicted abait and switch were...right

The devs AI is as predictable as a vazalok cadaver without a mortie

[/ QUOTE ]

So...

Your not happy with the Dev's because they never listen to the playerbase, however, anything thats done that appears to be listening to the playerbase is all really part of some bait and switch?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more like they do some change that is extreme, and then like usual some players suggest something less extreme even though the original change in the first place was unneeded and the alternative is only reasonable in comparison to the original change, rather than being reasonable in itself. That's what is now happening with stealth powers. Changing them in the first place was asinine, and suppression still retains most of the problems and is nearly as unreasonable. Most clickies don't even give XP, and risk v. reward is making fun and time v. reward take a back seat even though they have a lot more to do with making the game enjoyable. I remember ED was also mentioned as "player suggestion" despite it being a suggestion in place of the I5 nerfs. We got I5 nerfs + ED and the blame was placed on "see! we listen to our customers!" in order to make it look like we're really being listened to.

What would probably be a more effective tactic in the future when changes like this come is to not offer an alternative for the devs. All we end up doing is giving them some sort of excuse to implement something largely similar when we wanted neither in the first place. Otherwise, we end up just pressuring them into implementing something we didn't even want in the first place, but merely would have wanted rather than the original change. It's not a productive cycle to be in, and the forums seem to fall into it every single time in an incredibly mechanistic manner.

People say Jack and co. don't know PR, but they've managed to rather successfully placate their customers _repeatedly_ even after the most egregious of changes. The best PR is the PR that people don't even recognise.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read Statesman's comment on it, yes supression of stealth will be coming in a future patch. They will be pulling the current method so they can code supression in.

Its only being pulled because otherwise idiots would use group and castable invisibility abilities to grief and harass players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh okay, so it's just the usual bait-and-switch that comes like clockwork. Suppression still brings in a huge host of QOL problems and is as bafflingly asinine as the previous idea. They may as well just change the power name to "kinda sneaky...sometimes".

Well, so much for boosting my expectations.

This means no suppression either, right? That would incur most of the same problems the original nerf brought, so I hope we're sticking with stealth as-is.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree fully. While I consider it possible that some folks, many even, are running around with speed boost, should it be so powerful that it completely negates many powers that are designed to slow? That seems...unbalanced.

And if all of these people that are getting out of the slow powers aren't using this and just using, say, super speed by itself, is that right? This is a case where testing needs to be done since there's a lot of unknowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair for Speed Boost to negate slows. Kinetics' main strength is offering buffs of that sort, besides being able to buff damage well in PvE. The buff isn't self targetable (siphon speed doesn't provide slow resistance, either), so I think it's okay overall.

Regarding Super Speed, no I don't think it should be resisting Ninjitsu's Caltrops as it does. It doesn't seem to resist Devices' Caltrops like this.

I'd also like to note that the people jumping and speeding out of my Caltrops _did not_ have Speed Boost on. I tested specifically to rule out that possibility (a few kind heroes helped me test this). The power is simply acting a bit strange, and I don't know why. What I do know is that, from the very start, it appeared to behave differently than my Blaster's trops, and I was surprised at how _few_ people the power actually managed to really slow down.

[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to point you to this thread I started a couple of days ago:
You click here.

There seems to be some debate as to whether they're working or broken in PvP. I don't think there's any debate about their PvE usefulness, but I am yet to experience anything other than frustration with using them in PvP. Teleporting someone into them only to have them instantly run out of them seems a little...odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

As KOS noted, they seem to not be working very well. I'm used to Caltrops on my /Dev blaster, and I'm certainly getting different results. Castle told me the sets all point to the same Caltrops power, but it really appears as if this is either untrue in some way or that the code to fix Caltrops in PvP (which came I think in I4) is somehow separate from the Caltrops power itself and so we've received the old broken version, anyhow.

Honestly, I think some of the characterisations of AS are also misleading. It isn't the most powerful attack in the game (both in BI and actual damage, as Stalkers have a weaker brawl than Blasters and Scrappers), and foes other than Defenders and Controllers can't be one-shot with AS unless you eat a bunch of reds. Additionally, two shotting someone has been around since before Stalkers even existed in PvP, and I can and do get two-shotted by /Energy 'Blappers' in Siren's Call. Additionally, there are being 'ganked' by other players occurred routinely before CoV was even out. In Warburg, I had to _constantly_ keep moving about and watching out for Spines/DA (and other builds) Scrappers as well as Ice/Energy, Ice/Elec, and Ice/Ice Blasters because if I stood still I would be two or three shotted in a few seconds. Stalkers have tools to help them get the jump on people, but I find them no less manageable, and really more manageable, than PvP-built Scrappers and Blaster/Blappers.

I honestly feel AS is pretty well balanced damage-wise considering the difficulty involved in executing it relative to many other attacks on top of Stalkers being the most fragile of the melee ATs. I'm not saying they stink at PvP, but they aren't what I'd pick (or even close, really) if looking to build something for high kill volume in PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Stalkers are overpowered, just the ability Assassin Strike. Of course there are ways to protect myself from it, the point is that no hero or villain should be given the ability to kill with one hit in the first place.

Unfortunatley, since it seems to be the only efficient pvp power early on in the powerset, it's the only one used. That seems unfair and unbalanced for both the stalker and their prey. can't we tweak the numbers a bit, tone it down a little and bring the other attacks up in damage a little?

All too often I find myself lying dead on the ground of Siren's Call simply because i stopped moving for a moment. I can't always be in motion, and I can't always have defensive buffs from other players, and I honestly don't mind being soundly defeated in pvp, I just find it impossible to enjoy myself when every moment spent in a pvp zone has to be focused on avoiding only 1 skill from 1 archetype.

The biggest problem with this issue is that the ability to kill with 1 strike is, of course, going to be EXTREMELY popular, and true to form, I am hit with an AS like clockwork, once every 2 minutes on average. This proves to me that Stalker with AS is the "best" build, and there can never be a "best" build in a multiplayer game where balance is absolutely essential.

As somebody who takes pleasure in being defeated by cunning and ability, and who looks forward to revenge, the complete and total lack of joy and desire for revenge after an assassin strike tells me that this power still needs a bit of tweaking, and maybe the rest of the Stalker set needs a bit of a powerup. I would love to see what other skills Stalkers possess, but they only ever use 1 skill on me, and that's sad, sad for them, sad for me, and sad for the entire pvp experience...

[/ QUOTE ]

AS _does_ require cunning and ability on targets who proactively protect themselves from Stalkers. Constantly movement is one rather effective way to avoid Stalkers, but there are other powers such as PBAoE repel or damaging auras that work quite well, too, against many Stalkers. I don't even have such an aura on my Controller or Blaster at the moment and I still manage to take out Stalkers more often than they take me out.

Try playing the AT into the 30s and you'll probably be come keenly aware of its weaknesses, which will make you better able to defend against them. Stalkers are not 'the best' in PvP by any stretch of the imagination. I'd still rather go in with an Ice/Energy Blapper or Spines/DA or Regen Scrapper before I'd go in with a Stalker.

What server are you on? If you're on Virtue, I'd be happy to meet up with you and help you out.

As far as spending every moment having to avoid people, that's the nature of PvP in general. Before Stalkers even existed in CoH PvP, my controller had to constantly be on the lookout and on the move to avoid Scrappers and Blappers swooping in on me and killing me in 2 or 3 shots which took about 2 seconds, and they were generally harder to kill than Stalkers.

[ QUOTE ]
They should probably do away with the one-shot kills. Other than that, we're fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess. I usually play my Controller in PvP (when I play as a hero) which means I'm suceptible to the one-shot, and I still don't find it to be particularly offensive considering the difficulty involved in actually landing an AS on me, in general. I find that, once one develops some basic skills to fend off Stalkers, Scrappers and Blasters remain greater threats, generally, in PvP.

Additionally, I'd actually rather have the one-shot. Changing it to two shots would leave me highly vulnerable to NPC kills, and thus debt. Changing it to three-shot, I think, would be pretty unreasonable towards Stalkers given their relative level of defense in PvP as well as the aforementioned level of difficulty and array of contingencies involved with a successful application of AS (and just playing as a Stalker in general).

Honestly, I'd rather give it some time and allow people to adapt to the AT. Stalkers operate on a different paradigm than do the other ATs, in general, which I imagine contributes heavily to the public misconceptions about them. Hopefully, with time, this will be remedied as players gain more experience with them.

[ QUOTE ]
yes. we all know it. everyone is saying that we are over powered. so i have a question, what do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find Stalkers to be overpowered, or unbalanced. Yeah, I see that people are screaming their heads off about Stalkers, but I imagine some of that will change, at least, when people begin to recognise and develop the skills and tactics that are really quite effective against Stalkers. Compared to other ATs, we _can_ pour out a lot of damage very quickly, however, it's almost all ST and our defenses are the weakest of any melee AT. Additionally, our 'signature' attack is vulnerable to a pretty wide array of powers that can interrupt it, not to mention it has to be executed while stationary, generally on stationary targets. These are restrictions that no other AT faces when outputting damage, and there _are_ combinations found in other AT builds that can output tremendous damage without facing these contingencies. So, overall, I find them to be pretty well balanced; perhaps the best of any of the ATs.

In PvP, I think players are going to need to become comfortable with the idea that they will be attacked by Stalkers when they are, generally, least able to defend themselves. So, it mostly becomes an issue of making yourself too difficult a target to be attractive, and accept being killed on those few moments you've let your guard down or are otherwise vulnerable. I already got used to that with my Controller when Scrappers would swoop down upon me in similar circumstances, so I guess I was already pretty well prepared for the advent of Stalkers in PvP. However, playing a Stalker into the 30s has also helped me develop anti-Stalker tactics tremendously.

So, again, I don't think the Stalker AT is overpowered, and this is coming from the perspective of playing as a Stalker and also playing against them as both a Blaster and a Controller. Yeah, they're dangerous, but it's simply false that they are impossible to defend against; in fact, many are fairly easy to defend against. Generally speaking, when playing a hero, I'm still much more worried about the Scrappers and Ice Blasters in Warburg than I am the Stalkers.

Edit - nevermind...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can do some distressing things with /Devices blasters (which also gives you sneakiness, perception, and the side benefit of being able to stick people in place). Anyone who's been TP Foe'd onto a stack of Caltrops + Trip Mines can attest to that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, how did you know? My eng/dev is by far and away my favorite toon for PvP. She is my ghetto Stalker, and I do screw with people all the time. Is she as strong of a build as a Stalker? I personally dont think so.

Her main weakness is no status protection. Any villain that is smart enough to stop trying to run out of the caltrops and put a status effect on me will at least get away if not whoop my butt.

Oh, and that perception bonus? Does nothing against well built stalkers (which are the ones I'm really worried about). They seem to hunt me down all the time.

A Brute will laugh off my damage, stun me, then beat me to a pulp. I can't find hide+stealth Stalkers, they just wait for that moment when I'm not moving to drop me.

Dominators will lock me down then either run away or take me out (unless I can stun them first). Corruptures and non-Personal Force Field Masterminds are usualy my pray, but well played responses to my opening strike can turn the tables pretty quickly.

That's what it really all comes down to. People want to at least have the chance to respond to an opening strike. It isn't fun otherwise. Yet that's exactly what the Stalker was built to do, drop people in 1 (or 2) shots.

How exactly you make those two things work together, I have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an En/Dev Blaster as well. Just surround yourself with trip mines and caltrops when you have to stay stationary and Stalkers will almost always leave you alone. It's not generally worth the effort for them when you have that sort of defense set up (and I say this both from the perspective of playing the En/Dev as well as from the perspective of playing a Stalker).

It's is very easy to mute Stalkers' core abilities. Running Tactics + IR Goggles in Siren's Call still lets me see Stalkers, and if I move around a lot, I rarely get confronted, let alone actually attacked. Additionally, Stalkers are extremely vulnerable once exposed, especially if you can get them ensnared in slows or stack holds (both of which are very realistically realisable).

As time goes on, people will hopefully start to figure out that Stalkers are not this unsurmountable enemy that they are being made out to be on this board. AoE auras and other effects can both interrupt AS and, for some of them, break hide. We're also visible even with hide+stealth if you have two +perception powers; though, not at long range, which I think is a good change from previously when my Controller with IR Goggles + Tactics could see Stalkers hundreds of feet out.

I'm sorry you're so worked up about Stalkers, but they aren't nearly the high volume killers that many other builds in PvP (Ice/En, Ice/Elec, Ice/Ice, Ill/Storm, Ill/Rad, Fire/Storm, Fire/Rad, Spines/DA, BS/DA, Kat/DA, Spines/Regen, and many more...) are. The counters available to you as an En/Dev are using Caltrops and Trip Mines, carrying IR Goggles to help you see them along with insights and using Aim, and keeping mobile. You could try spec'ing into Whirlwind if you want to unroot yourself while attacking, for instance.

Stalkers require different tactics to counter them than people may be used to. However, there are a _lot_ of things that one can do to fend them off. Some builds have these options available to them more easily than others, but at least one option is generally available to everyone.

That said, I've interrupted Stalker AS attempts with attacks before. It's a matter of practice and getting over conditioned responses to the methods of other ATs. Perhaps you should build a Stalker as it may help you develop at least some of the skills that will help you protect against them.

[ QUOTE ]
So energy transfer wont crit, even if you are stealthed? Is there any other stalker atks that work like this?
Thats kinda like ET not workin with fury, doesnt make much sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's balanced overall. ET is powerful on its own; giving it critical capability would probably be overboard.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, we can kill very quickly, but that's if a ton of contingencies are out of the way. It seems the focus is placed on those situations where this occurs, rather than the larger scope of all possible scenarios where this becomes a far smaller concern.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is because most people haven't played Stalkers and don't realize what kind of work went into their death.

To them, it seems like we just popped in, killed them and left. When in reality, there was a lot of stalking involved. There was a lot of dropping down, but retreating for some reason or another... A lot of watching and waiting.

I've actually spent a few neighborhood battles doing nothing by watching and waiting... Hoping that they do something stupid... And moving around as often as possible.(Since I always seem to be the only villain around)

And theres nothing like having everything fall into place, the target aggros more than they can handle, they stop moving around so much and stop minding their surroundings... Everything seems to be going your way and you miss. You drop down, hit build up and AS misses. If I were on teamspeak, my SG would have their ears violated with so much profanity everytime that happened...

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to generally be the case. I have waited as long as 45 minutes to kill a target in Siren's Call; waiting for that perfect moment to strike. The targets rarely realise how much time, patience, and effort goes into most if not all of my kills in PvP with my Stalker. It is substantially more effort than any of my other characters require in PvP, generally, but that's part of the attraction. Still, having the major strength, and one my ability to kill heavily relies upon, so easily muted was not particularly fun. I like a challenge, but this seemed out of balance. Perhaps things will change when more people actually play Stalkers and realise that they aren't what they've been hyped up to be by people killed by them.

Well, I guess we can stick to places outside of Siren's Call. Other than that, you can still pick off loners and people who do silly things like stand out in the open and not run off immediately after you AS them. Stalkers will probably remain a troubled AT, though. People, imho, grossly, and I mean grossly, exxagerate the inherent ability of the AT in PvP. Yes, we can kill very quickly, but that's if a ton of contingencies are out of the way. It seems the focus is placed on those situations where this occurs, rather than the larger scope of all possible scenarios where this becomes a far smaller concern. If we're now allowed to nerf herd anyone who could ever pose a serious threat and, in some situations, go infrequently killed, we should be talking about nerfing Ice/* Blasters in PvP.

Things may get better when we get more used to the AT and build our experience and builds up to the levels the heroes are at. I don't know how much that'll help, but I imagine it'll help some.

That said, it wasn't difficult to see a Stalker even before that. I've _never_ been killed by a Stalker in PvP; ever. Granted, I do *play* one so it could have something to do with being aware of tactics. Additionally, I take +perception buffs but those are attached to powers I wouldn't have gone without, anyhow. Still, I was amazed at just how easy it is to see Stalkers; I didn't even really have to take anything on top of what I'd already taken for PvE and pre-I6 PvP activity. That doesn't mean I'm defeating Stalkers left and right; I'm not. I just see them early on enough to avoid them. Scrappers and Ice Blasters pose a much greater threat I've found, overall.

After playing a Stalker and playing against Stalkers in PvP, I've found that it may be more fair if something like Tactics + IR Goggles would be able to see Hide+Stealth Stalker within 10-20 feet or so rather than what currently seems to be hundreds of feet. I do kind of agree that the devs are making it too easy to see us.