I'm guessing that it grants the power demoralize to the target which it then casts. No live target means no ability for said target to cast demoralize.
Quote:
I strongly suspect you are correct. If I'm not mistaken, this is roughly why the Dark Miasma target-based heal triggers on a dead enemy, but the Kinetics doesn't.
|
Originally Posted by Frosticus
I'm guessing that it grants the power demoralize to the target which it then casts. No live target means no ability for said target to cast demoralize.
|
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
So the target is casting demoralize? Around itself?
Why not just have the stalker cast demoralize around itself?
Conceptually, wouldn't that make more sense?
The issue is a little more nuanced than that.
Yes, they could make it fire off on you, but then it wouldn't be able to know if you killed the guy or not. Yes, they want to make sure that the guy doesn't die before the demoralize fires. Why?
Because you don't need help soloing when you can one-shot kill dudes. The demoralize effect is for when you're punching above your weight, taking on bosses in group environments. That demoralize effect is an AOE debuff that other people can capitalize on better than you.
(Cute trick? If you do kill an enemy who rezzes afterwards, the first thing they do will be to fire off the fear. Which is even funnier, because then they fear themselves as well.)
Quote:
Hehe, yeah. Love it when that happens on a Longbow boss: you have to wonder why they bothered reviving if they were just going to stand there, quaking in their boots.|
Originally Posted by Talen_Lee
The issue is a little more nuanced than that.
Yes, they could make it fire off on you, but then it wouldn't be able to know if you killed the guy or not. Yes, they want to make sure that the guy doesn't die before the demoralize fires. Why? Because you don't need help soloing when you can one-shot kill dudes. The demoralize effect is for when you're punching above your weight, taking on bosses in group environments. That demoralize effect is an AOE debuff that other people can capitalize on better than you. (Cute trick? If you do kill an enemy who rezzes afterwards, the first thing they do will be to fire off the fear. Which is even funnier, because then they fear themselves as well.) |
To the OP, yes, it would be nice if it fired no matter what. It seems like surrounding mobs would be even more demoralized if you suddenly defeated one of their number (especially a lieutenant after you hit build-up), but that's not how it works. As Talen said, they want it to work when you're fighting tougher foes. So keep that in account when soloing or teaming, and it's a great effect.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
I always wondered what the demoralize chance % is when that goes off, as well as the radius, it seems like a targetted AoE effect.
From Red Tomax:
It's a -7% non-resistible tohit debuff for 8s and a 25% chance mag 5 Fear for the same duration, within a 30ft radius.
For the stalker who has yet to have the means to softcap themselves, it can be handy in surviving the alpha when you're the one on the team starting things off.
Edit: Just checked it on Mids, with Weave, Shadow Meld and AS Demoralize not even a resistance based, non-IO'd Stalker should have an excuse in not being able to hit the softcap at least for when you really need it.
A Penny For Your Thoughts #348691 <- Dev's Choice'd by Dr. Aeon!
Submit your MA arc for review & my arcs thread
Quote:
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
To the OP, yes, it would be nice if it fired no matter what. It seems like surrounding mobs would be even more demoralized if you suddenly defeated one of their number (especially a lieutenant after you hit build-up), but that's not how it works. As Talen said, they want it to work when you're fighting tougher foes. So keep that in account when soloing or teaming, and it's a great effect.
|
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon
or
b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn
I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/
Quote:
Sappers fall to a stiff breeze. AS the meat, which will fear the sapper, then one shot it with your tier 8 or 9 attack.|
Originally Posted by trendee
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ |
Or just let something as puny as freezeray eliminate the sapper.
I'm 90% sure it grants a power to the target, which then fears it/its friends. Either way, it'll need the target to be alive to use it. Because of this (somewhat funky) functionality, it should still work even if the target is running away, and is outside the 30' radius when the AS finishes, provided that they did not break LoS and thereby negate the AS. It should also fear the targets around wherever the target has moved off to, rather than immediately surrounding yourself. Most of the time, those are the same position (plus or minus a few feet), but not always.
Rule number six of an empathy defender is NEVER underestimate a blaster's ability to die. I don't care if he has CM, Fort, both RAs, bubbles (both FF and Sonic), and is fighting next to a Storm defender with hurricane on. If there is a way to die in that situation, the blaster will find it.
Quote:
If the sapper is the biggest concern in the spawn, then drop it. AS's effects are helpful, but they aren't necessarily needed. Lieutenants and bosses are the most important targets most of the time for a Stalker, anyway. |
Originally Posted by trendee
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ |
You're butting heads with the divide between balance and concept... normally there isn't that much of a noticeable difference, but you can see one here. Just be glad we have an effect when AS goes off, as it didn't used to be there: it's a great effect while solo and on teams.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
I think that's the point.|
Originally Posted by trendee
It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ |
Personally, I don't see the conflict. I could either eliminate a very dangerous target or I could aim for another target even though I knew I couldn't kill it and pray to the RNG that either the -7% ToHit is enough to keep the very dangerous target from hitting me immediately or that the Fear takes effect on it.
Too much guess work. Kill the Sapper.
Head of TRICK, the all Trick Arrow and Traps SG
Part of the Repeat Offenders
Still waiting for his Official BackAlleyBrawler No-Prize
I'm in Grey Pilgrim's camp on this one.
I want the key target out of the fight immediately. If that means that
demoralize doesn't fire, nbd. I still have Placate in case I want to take
out the sapper and prevent the Gunslinger beside him from causing a
ruckus.
On teams, I expect the other guys to get involved.
Demoralize is handy when it works out, don't get me wrong. However, if
you're counting on it as a needed survival tool rather than a pleasant and
occasional bonus, I'd re-evaluate your tactics.
Regards,
4
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
Quote:
But don't you see that decision IS a tactical decision. Any time you have to make choices like that, you are playing tactically.
|
Originally Posted by trendee
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ |
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
Quote:
This, pretty much.|
Originally Posted by trendee
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ Quote:
|
Sure, if it always went off it'd be nicer for the Stalker, but having it set up this way adds an element of choice - in effect, increasing the number of tactical options. It's not much depth, but it's more than just "me am Brute, me wade into fight and mash buttons"*. It's also why I like Ninjitsu - the extra little things like Blinding Powder and the AI-wrecking Caltrops provide far more survivability than someone looking at the numbers for them in a vacuum would think about.
* - not all Brutes play that way, or that some Stalkers can't... but Brutes can certainly get away with it more often
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
My DM/Nin Stalker prioritizes his targets before using AS. If there isn't anything especially tough, he'll AS an enemy that might live through it who is closes to the center of a group for the demoralize. If there is an enemy that will give him a hard time, he'll finish that one off and duke it out/escape as needed.
Either way, he also has Touch of Fear, Blinding Powder, the immobilize in Midnight's Grasp, and Shadowmeld to use as well as his attacks, heals, and defenses. It's a very well-rounded character.
Too many alts to list.
It is a tactical decision, true, but only because of the incentive structure. Which I am trying to argue is flawed =/
(talking pve here) When the stalker is not taking out a healer/buffer, but focusing on the tank to get off an AS, I feel like it is pidgeon holing the stalker into a pure DPS role, instead of a surgical striker.
I'm not seeing why this should be a decision for me. If it wasn't for demoralize, I would definitely take out the support targets. With demoralize, I'm deciding between support and tank. It seems as if the powers design is incentivizing tank targetting.
Why? I would buy the argument that it is a bonus for tough enemies, but I feel like that wasn't the design. I feel like it was to add some team benefit for an otherwise solo centric class.
Quote:
no, it is a tactical decision because it changes the structure of the resulting fight due to different starting conditions.|
Originally Posted by trendee
It is a tactical decision, true, but only because of the incentive structure. Which I am trying to argue is flawed =/
|
Option A: Enemy group -1 target, all others full capabilities.
Option B: Enemy group at full compliment, 2/3 of them reduced effectiveness for a short time, at least one big, dangerous one angry at you.
Both of these are surgical strikes. You're striking the leadership (say a castrated prefect) to remove as fast as possible the most dangerous enemy. Or you are striking the key support (surgeon) to remove as fast as possible the most dangerous enemy. The after effects will vary, but both actions are a surgical strike. Though oddly only the one where the boss survives is really an "assassination" per se. When you shoot a grunt it's a kill not really an assassination =)
And the definition of "most dangerous enemy" will vary from spawn to spawn even within the same mission.
Quote:
| (talking pve here) When the stalker is not taking out a healer/buffer, but focusing on the tank to get off an AS, I feel like it is pidgeon holing the stalker into a pure DPS role, instead of a surgical striker. |
Sometimes I'll get the big guy, sometimes I'll get the support. It depends on the rest of the mob, how they are arranged, whether or not I think enough will get feared, am I teamed or solo, etc. And it will definitely not be the same every time.
Sure, my ideal is to hit the big guy, placate him then 1-shot the support before turning back on the big guy to finish him off. But 9 times out of 10 they are too far apart to pull off that particular move. I do love it when I get the best of both worlds though.
Quote:
| I'm not seeing why this should be a decision for me. If it wasn't for demoralize, I would definitely take out the support targets. With demoralize, I'm deciding between support and tank. It seems as if the powers design is incentivizing tank targetting. |
Reward 1: insta kill
Reward 2: debuff
Which one best helps you take down the group will vary from group to group. Consider Carnies. They have no support targets. Without demoralize would you go after the illusionist first or the Ring Mistress? With demoralize it *might* be worth getting the mistress depending on the rest of the group and your personal ability to survive psionic attacks (my main stalker is dark/dark/dark so I fear no psions). I would get the illusionist myself because I hate their phase and AS can drop her in one go but even a crit from midnight grasp won't. If there's no illusionist but only those hammer-guys, I'll go for the Ring Mistress.
By contrast in the malta example above I'd try very hard to hit a gunslinger, placate and midnight grasp a sapper. If there was a lieut near the sapper that's good enough, don't need a boss, most malta have high resists and can survive an assassin strike if I don't build up first, but save it for the scrapping-action after. Gives me lots of options I don't have against the carnies who are all rather similar in their abilities.
Playing tactically means making decisions that change the outcome of the fight. It does NOT mean always taking out the same target in every fight.
Quote:
| Why? I would buy the argument that it is a bonus for tough enemies, but I feel like that wasn't the design. I feel like it was to add some team benefit for an otherwise solo centric class. |
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
well put.
I've been rich, and I've been poor. Rich is definitely better.
Light is faster than sound - that's why some people look smart until they speak.
For every seller who leaves the market dirty stinkin' rich,
there's a buyer who leaves the market dirty stinkin' IOed. - Obitus.
So it seems like everyone's concensus is that having AS demoralize not work on a target it kills, was a design/balance decision, which among other things... encourages tactical thinking. Furthermore, any change to it (i.e., making a PBaoe fear around the player), would be robbing the player of a meaningful decision, and be frowned upon by those who replied otherwise.
I'm okay with that, but I just wanted to make sure I understood what was being said. If that is the case, I'll deal with it, but that makes me a sad panda =[[
Quote:
Solo, how bad do you need to be that you can't immediately off a surgeon or sapper without AS?
|
Originally Posted by trendee
I understand what you're saying, but that seems to be a rather strange design decision. It forces me as the player to choose between:
a.) AS a high priority target like a Sapper or Surgeon or b.) AS a target that will survive so I can demoralize a spawn I would think that it would be better to encourage players to play tactically than to attack the tankiest target =/ |
Quote:
wow. no questions about what difficulty settings or anything. just right into insults =/|
Originally Posted by Talen_Lee
Solo, how bad do you need to be that you can't immediately off a surgeon or sapper without AS?
|
I guess not being able to one shot everything means I should learn to play and not say anything. I'll just be keeping my mouth shut in the stalker forum then.
Quote:
This is accurate.| So it seems like everyone's concensus is that having AS demoralize not work on a target it kills, was a design/balance decision, which among other things... encourages tactical thinking. |
Quote:
| Furthermore, any change to it (i.e., making a PBaoe fear around the player), would be robbing the player of a meaningful decision, and be frowned upon by those who replied otherwise. |
The use of "robbing", "meaningful" and "frowned upon" are all loaded words that I don't think any of us would use, and I'm pretty sure none of us have used.
We have only mentioned how the current situation gives you options. Using options is tactics. Using a cookie cutter is not tactics. If the fear worked on every assassin strike, you'd have a cookie cutter. Well, mostly I mentioned it and other people agreed with me. Not the best definition of "we" I guess.
Anyway, many would not be opposed to that as it would also be significantly more powerful. May or may not be too powerful. I'm not sure. Might also be fun. But I have no preference either way. I can't speak to anyone else.
Right now I have a tactical tool that gives me lots of options which I enjoy. If it worked the way you want the options would be taken away and instead of thinking tactically you'd always know exactly what to do. That's a lot easier. Not as exciting, and not tactical, but definitely easier. And it is always fun to be more powerful so I am fairly sure that I'd enjoy that too.
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
Quote:
Absolutely. I mean, if you take a question as an insult, sure. |
Originally Posted by trendee
wow. no questions about what difficulty settings or anything. just right into insults =/
|
You aren't asking about the difficult mechanisms, the nuances, the tactics of the stalker. You're not able to glean the core of the mechanics through your own play, so you're clearly quite new to this; in which case, you shouldn't be dialling up the difficulty and expecting it to work out your own way.
In the simplest way I can express it: If you encounter a mechanic that works in a particular way, don't approach it with the idea this is wrong because it does not work the way I want it to, but rather why is this the way it is? I told you why it's that way - it's a tool to add value to stalkers on teams, because stalkers didn't need any help in solo scenarios.
Are you arguing that you do need help soloing?
Can anyone explain to me how demoralize works?
Specifically, why it doesn't work if your AS kills the target?