Reposting from I19 Beta threads

Because you'll be getting said reward by simply doing what you're already doing? Tantamount to asking 'What good is it to a Brute to gain Fury by fighting the foe if it'll be dead in short order?'...because it's not as if he's going out of his way to get said fury...he's just doing his job.

And I say you should be more open in the scope of possibly improvements. My previous comment was directed more toward:

Then look to the other ATs Stalkers are in direct competition with: Brute, Scrappers, Blasters and Dominators.

How much would you need to improve their Burst damage to make any real difference in that ranking? And do take into consideration those ATs other functionalities.

The only reason to *really* improve Stalker's burst damage is if there is some type of imbalance with the AT. As is, Stalkers function perfectly fine on teams and solo. Why people want to improve Stalker damage is because they feel Scrappers do more and survive more...not because Stalkers don't do enough damage themselves.

Plus, I think Castle's whole point is that the burst damage of Stalkers is working just fine. They can't really enhance Stalkers' burst damage any further without imbalancing the Stalker in the short term, and they can't really enhance their sustained damage without reducing their burst damage.

The problem is more the systemic problems in which the Stalker loses his ability to strike from Hide. Which supposedly is where the scaling nature of the random Criticals on team size is supposed to come in.

And that's not really damage, for the Scrappers, it is that they have greater survivability and some tanking ability. If Stalkers just become damage specialists and contribute nothing else to the team, it just becomes easier to replace them. Demoralize is basically saying, "Well, you can't pull the aggro off your allies with your taunts, but you get a nice debuff and control effect instead."

I think the main thing we need to consider is that REPLACING a sustainable debuff with an on-kill debuff is not necessarily a good thing. It might be okay to supplement it, since right now that sustainable debuff doesn't function if the target dies. But we would lose way too much of the current functionality of demoralize if we replace it. I think Biospark either didn't mean that, or didn't realize it would be so drastic a change. (It would be possible to sustain the effect, but your focus would shift from the Boss to the Minions)

But I'm NOT already bashing minions first. Why would I? Unless you are playing an AoE stalker, which I currently do not, you will more likely be going after bosses if you can. So this change does nothing for me or any other Stalker who believes their best use on a team is killing bosses. This does not help.

Not even close to the same thing. Brutes gain and maintain fury by attacking and being attacked. They don't have to go out of their way to kill some minion if it is tactically not the best thing to do. They are in fact better off bashing a boss themselves and keeping its attention while letting their AoEs (or their team) damage minions. Being surrounded by live minions is actually good for them.

You act like I am just being contrary here. I have explained why I don't like on-kill effects. I think the idea is fundamentally flawed because of how it interacts with what most ST stalkers will want to do first: Kill bosses. If I do kill a boss, I get the on-kill benefit but only after killing the boss, which may be too late to be of use. It's also less effective on a team where teammates will take a percentage of these killing blows from me. I'll be for a change that is MORE useful on teams, which is where Stalkers need the most help. It also does squat in an AV fight where a Scrapper or Brute might pull ahead in sustained DPS. Do I need more reasons? That seems like a lot already.

You're telling me this like you think I disagree. Not sure why. I have always pointed to the Stalker vs. Scrapper damage comparison as "the problem". If we survive less, we should do more damage. Adding some control or debuff capability is not something I would be completely against in lieu of more damage but it would have to be done in a useful way. Getting that effect off of sweeping up trash minions is not going to do MY stalker any good. Perhaps those AoE stalkers out there feel differently, I suppose, but I don't.

Then you should.

A Stalker is not simply a boss killer. They are a stealth assassin and tactical opportunity melee. If you’ve decided to narrow the AT’s function to designated boss killer and nothing more, you do a disservice to the AT.

Bosses are finite and the ATs that can take bosses out quickly are numerous. Once the bosses are dead, you don’t twiddle your thumbs. Tactic-wise, your goal should be to attack the problem mob, be they minion, Lt or boss. Nowhere does it say a reward for killing would force or even favor killing a minion first. It would be purely up to the player what they choose more valuable: their on-kill buff so kill what goes down faster or removing the problem target/boss first in favor for ease and safety of battle. Each comes with their own advantage. When that problem target *is* a minion is simply win-win, just move on, placate and work on the boss next.

1.Teammate sometimes takes your kills? You can easily return the favor. Can’t count how many times I see my Brute teammate throwing down a couple hits on a Lt and then I walk up all hidden and take it out in one stroke.
2.Conceptually, it’s rewarding you for defeating already crippled foes…kind of like the original +crit on mezzed foes.
3.Vs AVs is where AS and the +crit aura is more useful. Arguably, we don’t really need help there.

The reason there’s no clear solution is because of how people view Stalkers. This skews the issues. What’s more important? Your own little battle vs that boss? Your total contributions to the team? Overall utility for broader choice in battle? Relative AT balance? Since a choice has been made, and Stalkers won’t be getting any more damage, I’m more inclined to favor utility of tactics for more choice.

Yeah, they’re trash minions until they heal that boss you just AS’ed back to full, sap you to 0 END or buff all their buddies…then they’re a problem you should have dealt with first while they weren’t looking.

Exactly Leo !

Castle has stated that they believe damage is fine....so... that really only leaves us with utility. And generating AoE FEAR does both Utility and Defense in one action.

The argument that someone presented about not being able to deliver the killing blow before the Fear Aura would provide any benefit. Seriously ??? We are talking about Stalkers here right. Last time I checked, my stalker was 2-shotting Bosses (AS being the first shot).

Doing the majority of the damage to a Boss is not the same thing as doing the final attack to a Boss.

All things equal, if you have four players in combat with a Boss, and his HP is low enough that any attack by any of them will kill him, and all four trigger an attack at the same time, then the chance of any one of them striking the killing blow is 25%. At the very least, whoever hits the button first is going to win. At the worst, lag will determine the winner.

I think it is a much more reasonable suggestion that ANY Assassin Strike has a chance to trigger a demoralize, whether it is a one shot kill or not. That way you can be assured that the Assassin Strike attack, not whether or not it kills the target, will be the producer of the demoralize.

Putting it another way, if it is the death of the foe that triggers the demoralize, then you shouldn't need to Assassin Strike. You can just trigger it every time the Stalker kills someone.

The good thing is, if you get a demoralize effect no matter who you attack, whether you kill them or not, then there's no reason to be choosy about whether you attack Bosses over Minions. You can just attack whoever needs to be attacked, and the Assassin Strike will work the same either way. Although you would still probably want to save it for Bosses since Minions will tend to die while you are still animating.

In order to do what you suggest, they just need to move the effect to spawn off the Stalker instead of the critter being attacked, OR... make it occur like a pseudo-pet regardless of whether the target dies or not.

In the end, I would be happy with that change, but it doesn't become very much of an improvement for teaming or solo. Also, it could cause some stalkers (bad ones) to go after easy pickings like minions. And finally, you are not seeing the effect over time of my suggestion, which is making stalkers generate continual Panic during an extended battle. The current demoralize lasts only 8 seconds and even with high recharge, I cannot see this being a continual effect. What I envision is that a Stalker who is "just doing his thing" will continually generate the fear effect as long as they continue "defeating" enemies and if they are particular in their targets (like Bosses and Lts) they can completely demoralize Minions without even looking at them. Perhaps even Lts and Bosses would be shaking in fear if the Stalker was doing it right.

The bottom line was just to give another way of looking at the Stalker concerns. More Damage seems like the wrong way to deal with the concerns of stalkers. I Watch my son regularly take on EBs with his 30-something stalker with ease (Solo). More damage would just be sickening. More Fear would not.

Were you level 10 last time you checked? A level 40 boss has 2000 hp. A level 50 boss has 2500ish. That's aside from any resistances they might have. I really doubt you are two-shotting them unless you've a stack of Fulcrum Shift buffs. And if your team has that, the fight will be even shorter all around.

Keep in mind. I am not saying you get NO benefit. I am saying that benefit is reduced by the fact that you have some work to do before it is realized. Build Up, AS, Placate, follow-up attacks.... all that is going to take ten seconds or more, which is a long time in combat, especially if everyone is hopped up on damage buffs. I'm not exaggerating when I say the fight can be as much as half over by the time you finish the first boss. Or even entirely over. In either case, the enemy will have been reduced in number and threat, again obviating the need for a debuff 10 seconds or more into a fight.

I can think of a few situations where fights are not over so quickly. The second mission of the ITF comes to mind where the spaws are entirely composed of bosses. But these are exceptions. In most teaming situations, this will provide little benefit.

I never said they were. Leo, you are cherry-picking a few responses and taking them way out of context. I attack whichever target needs to die first. I have ALREADY mentioned such things as Sappers and Surgeons so stop thinking you can teach me something here about how to play a Stalker. I am talking about the general rule here, not the exceptions to it. Most of the time, someone who has high single-target burst damage is best used against something that is high threat and has a lot of hit points. That usually, but not always, means a boss.

It's particularly effective when the rest of the team is focused first on AoE damage because they will be killing the weaker foes first. If your efforts to down the boss first cause him to fall at the same time as everything else then the fight is over and you can all move on. That is not a stalker being narrow-minded or selfish in going after a boss. That is actually contributing something useful to a team.

As I've explained, debuffs are more useful the earlier in a fight you can deploy them. If you have to kill to get the debuff then it follows the enemeis that can be killed fastest will get you the debuff sooner. If you scale back the debuff so you have to kill a bunch of minions then it favors AoE stalkers unfairly. If you prevent AoE from stacking buffs on a single AoE attack, then at that point you've made the debuff pretty undesirable unless you DO kill a boss and.... I've already talked about how long that can take.

This particular idea of demoralize on-kill wouldn't make me change how I target, so yeah... on ITFs it'll be nice with all the one-shot Surgeon kills. But this is my point. It's just not enough to get excited about. When last they buffed Stalkers we got scaling crits, demoralize chance on AS (if the target survives unfortunately but at least it's good against bosses), more hit points, etc. In short we got a lot of stuff that helps us pretty much ALL the time. This what we're discussing now is just not that big a deal.

I don't care whose kill it is. That's not my issue. It's simply the case that even everything I've said about the benefit of this on-kill debuff aside, a FURTHER reduction in its impact is due to the fact that you just won't get every killing blow you aim for on a team. That's not because anyone is doing anything wrong. There's no kill-stealing. Everyone is trying to kill the same enemies so statistically you will miss some opportunities to trigger this debuff on a team. That reduces its overall value even further.

Castle's post is broader than that. He talked about having added damage AND the demoralize debuff and then said that Stalkers were "strong enough". It's not clear to me that "strong" comment is limited just to damage. I don't think they're open to adding anything which does not directly address what they view as "systemic" issues. So all this jawing we're doing about this or that proposed buff for Stalkers is pretty much just academic.

It's only 'academic' because you're purposefully narrowing your viewpoint. You keep saying 'on-kill debuff' even though I said 'on-kill buff'. I'm not even talking particularly about some extra effect gained like an AoE fear or a +damage buff for every kill, I'm talking about an addition to combat the 'systemic' issues of the aggro and how it interferes with Stalker's burst damage, mostly.

Should I point you back to the initial statement that I commented on? Or can we simply agree that, if we gained some benefit (perhaps extended duration of demoralize, instant rehide, chance of instant placate recharge, ect.) for the death of your target, it is *not* disingenuous to the AT? It is a viable, possible and thematic addition. Do you have to favor the idea? No, but that's all it really is is an idea. Does it incur a style of play that is adverse to the AT? Not if I can prove otherwise, it doesn't.

Well, as I said above, I think I have concluded the reason the effect spawns on the target is not because of some technical limitation, but because the devs don't want the effect to stack. One Stalker could be prevented from stacking the effect, but two Stalkers would be able to, if each effect was centered on them. Likewise, a "dropped" effect would stack no matter who it came from.

My solution would be to cut the effect in half, and attach half to the target, and half to the Stalker. That way, if the target dies, you still get half of the effect. And if two Stalkers AS the same target, they get 1.5 times the effect. (Or 1.0 times the effect if the target dies) It's not a perfect solution, but it keeps some of the limitation on stacking, without requiring the target to survive.

Plus, if the Stalker goes around ASing Minions, he will not be able to stack the effect since it comes from himself, and his targets will all die. (Not that it should normally be all that easy to stack the effect, since it lasts 8 seconds, and without global recharge AS can really be up at best every 7.5 seconds)

Personally, it does make sense to me that demoralize WOULD have a slightly greater effect if the leader-type survives, as being hit in combat would disrupt his attempts to give orders and rally his minions. As his minions see him repeatedly being smacked every time he tries to regain control, they would be more likely to panic. Yet when he finally does die, that might bring back their morale. (Think of the death of Boromir scene in LoTR)

I suppose another alternative, in the spirit of Leo_G's argument, is to apply a foe debuff if the target lives, and a team buff if the target dies. The problem I see is that how do you apply an effect to the Stalker ONLY IF the target dies? You can't really determine that. I suppose what we really need to know is WHY the target power doesn't take effect when the target dies. Is it because the power must be marked usable either by a living or a dead caster, but not both? Is it because the effect fades when activated if the caster then dies?

Perhaps what AS needs to do is drop two powers, one that the target can activate if it is alive, and one it can activate if it is dead. The "dead" power then drops a pet that sustains the effect. Or, the target hits one of the team with the power, which then puts the AoE buff on him.

How? If it's an on-kill benefit of some kind it occurs *after* you kill something. Shared aggro is a problem *before* you kill anything. You get aggro shared to you from some Brute charging into the spawn and then you get hit and interrupted while waiting for AS to land.

I'm not convinced it's worth much to have an on-kill effect. And it's not happening anyway. Not because I'm "narrow minded" but because Castle has already said that they added damage and they added demoralize and NOW Stalkers are as strong as they want them to be. We're not getting more piled on top of that as on-kill buff/debuff/whatever. If you want to address Shared Aggro you do that by helping the Stalker avoid hits at the start of the fight. What else might be allowed eventually in terms of Stalker changes depends on what these other unspecified "system issues" are.

I would call that just the sort of systemic issue that Castle was talking about. The same goes with demoralize not being applied on kill. Is that an intentional restriction, or a systemic limitation based on Castle not wanting the buff to stack?

OR

Alter Stalker Dynamics so they aren't trying to avoid combat to get their benefit!

Get your head in the game!!

Leo, this is just what Castle did with the last Stalker buff. What do you think a scaling crit outside of Hide is meant to accomplish but to boost our performance in a way not related to obtaining that initial alpha strike? Read the bloody OP again. He says he's DONE that. Now the devs think Stalkers are strong enough and only want to directly address those systemic issue. They are done painting around them.

I know it's easy just to assume I am narrow minded, my head isn't in the game, or whaever your next creative insult will be... but I am not the one telling you how it is. Why your ideas aren't going to be implemented. It's not my decision. I'm just telling you why *I* don't like them, which is as I said pretty academic. I don't make the rules around here so my opinion doesn't count for more than that.

At this point, I've probably said all I can on the subject. This is rapidly becoming a waste of time. I better get back to my single-minded boss-killing.

That would be the best option for you, most likely, but I walked into this thread from the beginning knowing it wasn't going to be a truly effective use of time.

As far as being narrow minded, it's in regard to what you're assuming I'm saying. Adding a +crit rate for being near allies is making Stalkers stronger, a type of change we most likely won't get. Altering the means to activate demoralize or gaining hidden status that doesn't force avoidance of combat isn't making Stalkers stronger but a caveat for better assimilation into teams.

It's nice that you're parroting a redname, that's useful for when people lose perspective. But do understand all the information you're regurgitating.

Why would he have said they think Stalkers are as strong as they want to make them if their changes weren't working as well as they expected? Systemic means a problem "with the system". In that context I assume it means "as opposed to the Stalker itself". So the example of Shared Aggro being directly addressed would mean changing the way aggro is distributed on a team, NOT changing Stalkers again to compensate them for it.

Not by me. I am reading what he wrote and attempting to understand it. After all, these are the folks who decide what gets done and what doesn't. Armchair developing by the players can be a fun mental exercise but in this case it's all just theoretical if it has no chance of actually being implemented because the devs are against further changes to Stalkers themselves. And it sounds like they are.

He did START this thread afterall. You can take two ideas from that post, or just one.

The One that you are subscribing to is that they have identified the ONE problem they feel exists for stalkers and will only be looking at fixing that. So sorry Stalkers, sucks being you.

OR...

They feel that stalkers really have only this ONE systemic problem that should be addressed, but lets hear some thoughts anyway.


I chose the later viewpoint, and even if I am wrong, having a discussion about possible solutions to Stalker concerns should be perfectly fine and friendly.

For what its worth ZEM, I can see your point. Perhaps they will eventually address this from a game engine point of view and we will see Stalkers doing some very interesting things on teams. My viewpoint is pretty simple; If the Devs have identified the problem, then they should just FIX IT ! Otherwise, you have a segment of your player base being very unhappy with their team contributions. In light of Incarnates and how "team-centric" this could be, leaving Stalkers behind would really suck !

What one problem would that be? Castle said "problems"... plural. He gave only one example but presumably there are other systemic problems he just hasn't listed. But again, he's fairly clear that the problems are with the system not with the Stalker deisgn anymore. The design is what they want it to be and they don't seem interested in adding more. I'm sure Shared Aggro isn't the only problem. It can't be. On the other hand, you are right on target with that last bit. I DO think the subtext of the OP is "Sorry Stalkers. Sucks being you." He doesn't make it sound like the odds of these systemic problems ever being fixed are high.

I'd go farther and say that with these being related to the game engine, that they CAN'T be fixed with anything other than a COH 2.0. But that's me being a pessimist.

Maybe because they haven't had time to fully datamine these changes to the extent that they were able to datamine the issues that Stalkers had before? Heck, the fact that Castle posted says that they are still watching Stalkers, even several issues after the buff.

Unless the solution is to ensure that Stalkers get random criticals on the team, which compensates for the unreliability of getting a Crit from Hide when the foe becomes aggroed before the Stalker can strike.

If that's the criteria, then EVERY teammate that is capable of spoiling a Stalker's aggro should contribute a bonus, not just those in melee.

You sound like you have concluded that the bonus is ONLY supposed to come from other meleers, Tankers, Scrappers, and Brutes. (Well, and other Stalkers as well) Does anything in Castle's post support that conclusion?

Heck, if you conclude that that IS Castle's intended design, then it would be FAR more logical to add a per teammate bonus of 5% per meleer within range, and then cap that bonus at 20%. This would give the exact same spread of Crit chances as current, but with only 4 meleers in range instead of a full team of 7. How many teams of 8 are made up of all meleers?

Well, I'm assuming that's kind of what the random critical is supposed to do. Instead of relying on the ability to misdirect the foe at will, the Stalker takes advantage of distractions.

I wouldn't necessarily want to have Placate up more often because a) there would reach a point where further recharge would just be wasted and b) you still have to animate Placate, whereas the random Criticals don't cost any extra animation time.

OTOH, I was thinking that if it is too difficult to code a higher radius in the random Crit effect (I suspect it's not how much time it takes, but how much it would DELAY each attack) there could be an Inherent power running in the background that would, every second or so, determine a chance based on number of allies in range and automatically put the Stalker into Hide. His next attack would then Crit, but that wouldn't have to be calculated per attack.

The chance of this happening may have to be adjusted a bit, most attacks take more than a second to cast and thus would get multiple checks during their animation time, but it might be effective at increasing the range of the check. My original thought was to count the number of allies in range with this Inherent power and use that number when attacking, but this method would not require creating and accessing a variable to store that. The Hide mechanic already exists and can be set directly.

There would also be a chance, after the battle is over, that the Stalker will go back into Hide sooner than the expected 8 seconds. I don't think this would have too big an effect, but would be an occasional advantage.

Just went back thru the thread because I seemed to remember someone else's idea for a recharge boost (which is most likely where my idea came from) and found Shadestorm had suggested a reduction in the rehide timer based on number of teammates. With a 1 second per team-mate buff, you would practically be hidden full-time on an 8-man team. I like his idea even more, but I suspect that a team-mate in range buff that targets only one power might not be possible. But I would gladly be wrong about that.