Unanswered Pummit Questions

I don't think MMs need a design pass. They suffer more from gameplay issues (AI issues mostly) and "gimmicks" on TFs/Trials. Certain MMs are very good, others not so much.

Blaster OTOH are STILL in need for some tweaking. Crashing nukes for one thing.

Is that desirable in the game? Semi-serious, semi-rhetorical question for Synapse and the group.

IMO, the deepest issue with Stalkers is that they offer nothing that is greatly valued by the encounter design. There are few encounters where being a "single target burst damage king" would be particularly useful. It's nice and all, but this game for better or worse has become more about obliterating large spawns in seconds. The few times where strong single target damage is useful (i.e. big game hunting like pylons, AVs, GMs) sustainable high DPS is preferable to burst.

Stalkers have gotten many buffs, but still they are underperforming. Why not fix the real problem? If you want them to be single target focused, that's cool, then they need something else that supports the role of obliterating large spawns in seconds.

Just my two inf.

Really I think high ST damage is something that groups don't realize they desire. It's just nobody's good enough at it for them to go looking for it.

Most teams can obliterate a bunch of minions and usually lieutenants. But that leaves the bosses. If there was someone who was really good at taking out bosses quickly, the team could roll along faster instead of everyone pausing to attack the boss afterward. But even though that's "a Stalker's job" they don't exactly take out bosses in the same time it takes a team to blow up all the minions. Especially if we're talking about high end teams where people are just tossing out Judgement powers.

In trials we have a bunch of EBs and AVs that have to be taken down. Most of my chars don't even get a chance to catch up to the team to wipe out spawns of baddies if we're talking about things like the opening of BAF, Lambda, Keyes. But once it gets down to "kill these EBs" or "kill these AVs" then single target damage becomes more necessary. Though you're right that DPS is better than burst damage in that scenario, so hopefully Stalkers get to be good at both.

Slightly off-topic, but I have long since wished that on large teams (6+) the ending bosses of any mission you do were upgraded to EB. It's pretty anti-climactic to do a mission to take down a named boss when you've already fought two bosses per spawn on your way there. And it would slightly increase the usefulness of ST damage.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

"Trading off survivability" is not the same as being gimped. Stalkers being solid fighters is good design and I would NOT want to see them return to the days of being squishy. No, Hide should very much not be their main form of defence. In fact, I don't believe Hide should be a form of defence at all, but rather a form of utility. What Stalkers sacrifice is out-and-out performance in return for greater burst damage, and I'm honestly happy with that.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Howdy,

I think that (de)buff sets could do with a balance pass, also. And (de)buff sets have been around longer than Khelds.

Going into i9, Poison was, IME, the only real outlier in terms of performance.

But ... I think that IOs and Incarnate powers have amplified some of the differences between the upper and lower ends of the performance spectrum. I.e., set bonuses don't allow a FF defender to (de)buff better / harder / more often, they mostly just smooth over recovery issues and allow the bubbler to softcap positional defense. A Traps defender, however, can make out like a bandit because of having a higher base def value on FFG compared to Dispersion, and a large number of (de)buff powers that were originally balanced via recharge. Edit: FF also had a curveball thrown at it in that the large amounts of +def available through set bonuses allowed bubblers to softcap defense, but also tended to devalue large defense buffs in comparison to getting just enough to top oneself up.

Throw in Interface powers being triggered by pets, and ... well ... things get a little crazy once you have a BAF door, 3-stacked Caltrops and 2.5-stacked Acid Mortars.

I know the devs said they'd never balance sets because of IOs (and, IIRC, Incarnate powers), but I think that the disparity between outliers in (de)buff sets warrants some attention. [edit: specifically for IOed+ gameplay]

After bringing three Blasters to 50 through blood, sweat and tears, that's precisely what I ended up learning the hard way. In theory, a Blaster can kill stuff so fast he's never in danger. In practice, a Blaster dies LONG before he has the time to pump out even a fraction of his damage. Even as fast as it is, a Fire/Fire Blaster trying to use Fire Breath + Fireball + Rain of Fire in any order against a regular spawn is dead long before the enemies succumb to the damage. And that's non-resistent enemies, unlike Malta, Crey, most Praetorians, Longbow, the Arachnoids, Arachnos, the Rikti, etc.

I've been trying to argue a meaningful change to Blasters pretty much since Defiance 2.0 (which helped a lot, just not enough), and I've just about given up on the AT, having rerolled all three of my level 50 Blasters as other, less suicidal ATs. I get what the idea behind Blasters' design was, honestly, I do. But for the life of me, I will NEVER understand what the person designing the AT's power selection and stats (Geko?) was thinking. Blaster primaries are sometimes suspicious, with nukes and ESPECIALLY snipes being of questionable value vs. their drawbacks, but Blaster secondaries in particular are just a complete, frightening mess that I don't ever foresee being straightened out.

If we're being realistic, my list of ATs that need a revamp would have Blasters in spots 1 through 10, and probably have Kheldians on spot 11 and Stalkers on spot 12. However, BECAUSE my list looks like this, I simply do not play either of the ATs most in need of help, but I do play Stalkers because they don't die all the time, hence the first AT I actually want to see beefed up is Stalkers, which is what's happening.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Blasters and Stalkers seem to be in an Uncanny Valley of game design. It would seem that at higher levels, being able to one-shot a Lieutenant 'out of the box' is verboten, and yet it seems to be what they need to be able to do.

I can understand how being able to burn down a whole spawn in one power activation is a bad thing, but single target?

I honestly don't see why Stalkers being overpowered if they were coded to one shot instant kill critters of Lt and lesser rank with Assassin Strike, with that same attack doing 20% more damage than anybody else can manage with equivalent buffing and slotting against Bosses and higher.

It all comes down to the post-alpha (not Alpha) fight. After taking on a +4 spawn of 2 minions and 1 Lt at level 50, how hurt should a Stalker be compared to a Blaster or Scrapper? How long should that fight take compared to a Tanker or Brute?

Not to hijack the thread, but this happens to all ATs that are close to the extremes of offense and defense; they tend to be worse off than ATs that are more middle of the road.

Look at Tankers. They have more survivability than anyone, yet in any situation where another AT with better damage can survive, having 'superior' survivability really doesn't matter, does it? And the more powerful all of the ATs become (via Incarnate system, IOs, temp powers or what have you), the fewer the number of situations exist in the game they can't survive.

Furthermore, to flip it around, in any situation the developers intend to be lethal to everyone, that superior survivability is ignored and circumvented. A Tanker can no more stand in Battle Maiden's sword bombs than a Scrapper can, or a Blaster. And the Tanker will continue to do less damage regardless.


.

This is kind of my issue with a few ATs. Defenders, Tankers, Blasters*, and Stalkers. They're designed to be one-trick ponies. The problem is, the one trick they have can be done "good enough" by other ATs.

Most well-built Brutes can tank for a team. Especially if they have some support behind them (support, mind you, that is good enough on a Corruptor, Controller, or Mastermind in most cases). Adding even more HP, RES, and DEF isn't going to make you die less than "not at all." There's a cap on survivability, where you aren't dying (which is the goal of survivability after all). Once you hit that point, adding more does nothing. Except maybe allow the support to slack off more. Although I have Brutes who can do x8 by themselves with no support (one of them +4/x8, even though I don't because it's slow).

Defenders are really good on buffs/debuffs. But really, once you get 2 or more of any support AT (including VEATs), that no longer matters. I suppose in theory you could get by on a single Defender in some situations where you might otherwise need 2 of any other support AT. But with the way buffs and debuffs stack, I don't see why you'd run an 8-man team with that ratio if you have the option not to. Personally, I like my teams to be about half support just for good measure.

Problem with Stalkers is they fill a role that nobody feels like needs to be filled. Which for the most part, with the way the game is currently designed, I agree. ST burst damage is very unnecessary. ST DPS would be useful but probably not enough that people seek it out unless it was really something special.

And problem with Blasters is they sacrifice everything to just do damage. Which really, every AT already does just fine. Some of them dangerously well (Shield Scrappers, SS Brutes, Fire/Kins, and so on). And all those ATs have secondary functions and much higher survivability. Blasters, like Stalkers, are supposed to excel at doing a certain type of damage. So they should be really good at it.

Personally speaking, I have nothing against any of these ATs and won't deny them from being on my team. But in a void, if I had the option, I'd never take a Defender over a Corruptor, a Tanker over a Brute (okay, maybe for STF, even though I've tanked Recluse on my Brute), or a Stalker over a Scrapper. And I'd usually rather a Dominator than a Blaster (I kind of feel like Doms are Blappers with mez anyhow; at least that's how I play mine).

* Blasters less than those others because I still enjoy playing them a lot.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

I have to ask, isn't this problem also one of the reasons that City of Heroes is so fun to play? That you don't need to stand around looking for that one AT that can fill that one SPECIFIC role?

I understand what you are all saying, but I can't see anyway they could change any of that in a significant way that wouldn't cause City of Heroes to be WORSE off after such a change.

Let me put it another way, how much longer do you think forming for Incarnate Leagues would be if you needed to fill specialized roles?

I agree with that. But then that leads to the conclusion that we have too many ATs (we do). Too many toes get stepped on and it's too hard to make each AT feel special.

I wonder what would have happened when creating CoV, if they hadn't just given Fury (but a bit weaker) to Tankers and Hide Crits & Placate (instead of confront) to Scrappers. Left Assassin's Strike out altogether. That would have made two REALLY different ATs. Even with all the same powersets.

There are serious AT issues in this game that need hashing out, and the devs have been understandably reluctant to deal with it. It's just easier to ignore, let people who want to play the niche ATs do so, and maybe toss a bone when the moaning and complaints get too loud (hence the upcoming Stalker changes).

Off the bat, there's too many melee ATs at this point. They step all over each other and Stalkers and Tankers get the short end from Brutes and Scrappers. Also, they seemed to logically be balanced with survivability against damage, but in practice that falls apart: Stalkers are more fragile that Scrappers, but people feel Scrappers are better at dealing damage. Brutes are tougher than Scrappers, but again many feel Brute damage is better. And Tankers, Tankers are tough and pay for it in damage, but average to high end Brutes and Scrappers aren't exactly dropping like flies and just get tougher the more IOs and Incarnate powers you throw at them, while comparably, there's still less room to improve Tankers offensively. And again, I point to my assertion in my previous post about better survivability becoming less useful that more powerful everyone gets.

Then there's the gap between melee ATs and everyone else. For most players, melee is easy mode compared to trying to level a Blaster, Corr or Defender. It's down to the mez system, IMO. Melee gets mez protection and that is a big part of what makes the difference. MMs and Doms have it a little better in this area, as do Controllers when they get their pets, but the squishy stigma persists.

And Khelds versus VEATs...yeah don't even have to go there.

There's a myriad of other problems, and nearly eight years it's not getting any more likely they'll every be fully addressed. Devs come and go, inherent the old problems and then pass the buck themselves. In the end it's about keeping the status quo and trying not to make things worse.


.

I still wouldn't need those things even if they were really good at their roles. I could still beat anything just by throwing random melees and support ATs at it. Just because Tankers get a buff doesn't mean I'd start needing them.

The ATs already have roles, and people already mostly ignore them. What I'm saying is some of the ATs are so closely defined by their role that they lose in other areas. And not with the tradeoff of being really good at that role.

Even if Stalkers suddenly became really good at killing AVs, I wouldn't need to go find one and people wouldn't start requiring them for TFs and trials. It'd just be nice if you did have one. Just like any other AT. Right now, is anyone really excited to have a Stalker on the team?

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

I love this idea!

That situation sure sounds better when you're an AT that can more easily fill multiple roles (Brute) than when you're a closely related one trick pony that was built to fill one SPECIFIC role (Tanker).


.

But there's really no answer that would fix this and at the same time be palatable to the playerbase. I mean really, the devs could merge Brutes/Tankers and Scrappers/Stalkers. Ensure than the former is always more survivable than the latter and likewise that the latter is always a better damage dealer.

But SOE found out the hard way what happens when you start removing classes.

Likewise, you could just do what they've been doing to Stalkers since they were created....making them closer to Scrappers. That works too, but then you have the problem of two ATs that do the exact same thing in the exact same way. Stalkers have the entire Scrapper inherent effect (recognizing that critical hit really isn't a separate power) PLUS all their own tools from Assassinate. Yet, that has its problems as well as we will see if they ever successfully make Stalkers into a desirable AT.

That . . . would have been interesting. Maybe allow Scrappers to select Hidden Crits or to stay the same as they are now if they became villains.

Though I don't think they could have had the side switching mechanic up in time.

But hindsight and all that jazz.

Then maybe we need an Incarnate Ability that supes up your damage for some time. Ofcourse the hiliarious issue is that EVERYONE could also use it.

And that'd only be for the level 47-50 game.


That last line is pretty much nails it. The changes necessary to fix the things people list would require something on the level of another ED. Can a seven year old game take such another shock?

That's an issue I've raised countless times. In theory it should work like this:

Best to worst Defense:
1) Tanker
2) Brute
3) Scrapper
4) Stalker

Best to worst Damage:
1) Stalker
2) Scrapper
3) Brute
4) Tanker

Unfortunately, it actually works like this:

Best to worst Defense:
1) Tanker
2) Brute
3) Scrapper
4) Stalker

Best to worst Damage:
1) Scrapper/Brute
2) Stalker
3) Tanker

Brutes do a ton of stuff for their role. Not only do they get more HP (which means more health per regen and more health from heals), but a higher RES cap, and still pretty much do comparable damage to Scrappers.

Stalkers, despite being the easiest to kill, are largely considered to do less damage than the leading two ATs. And Tankers, while technically existing in the correct order, are essentially made unnecessary simply because Brutes exist.

There are tons of ways to approach the situation and plenty of room for error. Personally if it was my job to balance the ATs I'd start by making Stalkers have 1.125 damage scale and their BU doing 100%. Yes, they'd do more damage than Scrappers at all times. Which in my opinion they should, considering they're easier to kill. Some other options I've thought of would include nerfing Brute RES caps (personally I feel the RES caps should be 90%, 85%, 80%, 75% for the ATs respectively, following the defensive list), buffing other AT HP caps (and probably nerfing Brutes' HP cap since they're the only non-epic AT with a cap more than twice their starting HP). Other people have tossed around other ideas like making Hide and/or AS inherent and restoring some lost Stalker powers.

So there are a lot of ways to approach it. It just depends on what the devs' eventual goal for Stalkers even is. And it's also best to take it one small change at a time, since overcompensating and later nerfing usually makes for unhappy players.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

Your last line is my point. I really don't care what's on the team. I've found that more to be the case in Incarnate Content now, because everyone can bring the SAME Incarnate abilities.

I think that's a STRENGTH of City of Heroes tha shouldn't change.

I DON'T need to be excited to have this or that on a team. That smells too much like the things found in other mmos that have me not playing those other mmos.

SPECIFIC roles is something that should have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Which is why I LOVE the fact that there are no AT specific restrictions on any of the Incarnate abilities.

I don't see how we could push that towards the ATs without tearing out the point of the game: which is pickup and go, not standing around broadcasting for healer or mezzer that I see in other games.

And none of that would get me to invite stalkers more or less.

I'd simply still invite whoever was available to team.

Which is the point of the way City of Heroes works.

Also EvilG raised a good point, single target or even single target dps focus isn't really all that important in a game in which a team can AOE even bosses to death in a small amount of time.

The proposed DEV buffs to stalkers are great but I'm not seeing how they will make stalkers more desirable except in specific situations like fighting Nightstar or Lord Reclsue, which isn't 90% of the game.

Maybe my wording wasn't that good. I'm not talking about people being overjoyed that there's a Stalker on the team. What I'm saying is that right now your team might need one of a few roles: damage, support, tanking. You can toss whatever AT vaguely fits those criteria and succeed in most cases.

If I add a Corruptor to the team, I know what roles they're filling and how they help the team. If I add a Stalker to the team I get more of a sensation that they aren't that useful. I'd be much happier with the game if I felt more confident that adding a Stalker to the team would contribute the damage I was hoping to fill with that particular slot.

Or for people who just roll dice and get 8 random ATs, I'd feel more comfortable if I felt like that Stalker was as useful to the team as any other random AT. Right now I feel that Tankers, Defenders, Stalkers, and a few other miscellaneous things offer a sub-par contribution. And even if we can all get by on that, it'd be better if AT appreciation was more even.

I don't think the goal is to make you invite Stalkers more, but to make people more inclined to play Stalkers and have an increased ability to enjoy them. You may end up inviting more as a side-effect of them becoming a more popular AT.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

Ahh I see what you are saying. Getting folks to play an AT more is a very good goal. So by that Stalkers will get invited more because there are more of them.

I don't think they will get invited more because they fill some role that really isn't needed. If we take that to extremes then the lack of AOE of stalkers is still an issue, since single target dps isn't all that important except in specific situations.

Many Tankers are already bumping their head on their damage cap. It doesn't take much. 2xRage, Assault, Musculature. You're pretty much there. On a league or team, all it takes is one or two good Kins, some misc buffs, whatever.

So a big damage buff power wouldn't do all that much.

IMO, Tankers should have their damage caps raised to be comparable to Brutes, minus 10% for the extra 10% Max HP they get over Brutes and minus 15-20% or so to compensate for Bruising. Then, add a Patron/Ancillary pool just for Tankers that has some concept neutral damage/offense improving tools in it. That way you don't have to worry about the other ATs getting them. Maybe a buff power that works like Energy Transfer was intended to, burning HP for damage?


.