Unanswered Pummit Questions
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2011-11-19 19:03 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
The "break mez" effect was suggested when D2.0 was being fiddled with, but as above, I think the problem was that the devil was in the details. Exactly how it would work could easily make it overpowered, or worthless. It isn't immediately obvious there exists a happy medium.|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
Reducing a 30-second stun to a 20-second stun doesn't really help you when you're dead in 10 seconds.
Not that I think 30-second stuns have any reason to exist in the first place, see above. |
Don't even get me started on those stun grenades.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
I don't disagree with that. I thought of adding Blasters to the #1 spot of my damage list and #5 for my defense list above, but it was too much of a side-comment. Also, the last time I made that discussion it got derailed a lot with people trying to ascertain the "value" of ranged powers and tanking and saying the ATs aren't that black and white. Which I also acknowledge, but still believe as far as their roles and abilities, it should be something close to that.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The other reason why I think blasters really are in more serious need of a rethink is because many (not all) the arguments for reexamining stalkers are of the form "stalkers have less survivability than scrappers, ergo they should do more damage." Even when you factor range into the equation, that logic should be amplified massively for blasters.
|
I'm not sure what I'd do to Blasters. I have a lot more ideas for messing with Stalkers first. I think it would be important to get Stalkers to the place where they should be before deciding where Blasters need to end up. Especially if we're viewing Stalkers as the missing link between Scrappers and Blasters.
At the same time I also know it's possible the devs don't want to put Stalkers there. It's possible they don't want to open a can of worms by making it so technically, Stalkers outscrap Scrappers (even if some people will already argue that they do on large teams). Then some Scrapper players might complain as they thought they were supposed to be the best damage dealers and now they have to reroll as Stalker or whatever people are going to come up with. I think the devs may still have some ideas for making it so Stalkers have a point before just making them do more damage than Scrappers.
I think there's something to be said about there being 5 ATs that exist just to do damage and having to balance them together. Probably 5 was too many, but too late to fix that now. The trick will be making it so each rung of the ladder is a desirable option.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Quote:
Very late to this discussion and I am largely ignorant of the Stalker playstyle (it is an AT I have barely touched).|
Originally Posted by Dispari
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. |
I wonder though, would it be possible to scale damage across the board based on the class of foe? Say an attack does 50 damage to a +0 minion that has 250 HP. If a +0 boss has 750 HP (I am just making up values here), could that same attack do 150 damage against the boss? And even if technically possible, would it be balanceable? (maybe it's not scaled 1:1)
Suggestions:
Super Packs Done Right
Influence Sink: IO Level Mod/Recrafting
Random Merit Rolls: Scale cost by Toon Level
Quote:
At one point they experimented with letting AS do damage that scales with the rank of the target, so it would do more damage on bosses and up. It would do a lot on AVs. They realized though that it was hard to balance and a little out of control so they scrapped the idea.
|
Originally Posted by gec72
Very late to this discussion and I am largely ignorant of the Stalker playstyle (it is an AT I have barely touched).
I wonder though, would it be possible to scale damage across the board based on the class of foe? Say an attack does 50 damage to a +0 minion that has 250 HP. If a +0 boss has 750 HP (I am just making up values here), could that same attack do 150 damage against the boss? And even if technically possible, would it be balanceable? (maybe it's not scaled 1:1) |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Quote:
Sort of. If I remember correctly, it was straight up %health as damage. I believe it may have been the first place we saw damage that was a strict percentage of a target's health in play. (Now of course it's fairly common in the new end game.)|
Originally Posted by Dispari
At one point they experimented with letting AS do damage that scales with the rank of the target, so it would do more damage on bosses and up. It would do a lot on AVs. They realized though that it was hard to balance and a little out of control so they scrapped the idea.
|
It tended to nerf AS badly against minions, nerf it a little against LTs, and start to go nuts from there. If you could take the heat (or get someone to soak aggro for you) it was extremely easy to put down a Rikti Pylon with it, for example, which was quite something at the time.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
Quote:
There were a variety of options attempted on the test server that used enhanceable and unenhanceable damage that was based on the target's max hp. I think it started at 10%, unenhanceable, and changed from that point. At one point it was 4%, fully enhanceable - I remember that figure because I popped inspirations to get the damage cap (20% of the target's maxhp) and soloed Deathsurge fairly easily before they wore off on my DM/Nin.|
Originally Posted by UberGuy
Sort of. If I remember correctly, it was straight up %health as damage. I believe it may have been the first place we saw damage that was a strict percentage of a target's health in play. (Now of course it's fairly common in the new end game.)
It tended to nerf AS badly against minions, nerf it a little against LTs, and start to go nuts from there. If you could take the heat (or get someone to soak aggro for you) it was extremely easy to put down a Rikti Pylon with it, for example, which was quite something at the time. |
In addition to the ease of killing hard targets, there was a huge uproar about damage types, as the exotic typed Assassin's Strikes had a huge numerical advantage against the targets you would want to use them on. I'm not sure the exact reason that it was scrapped, but it was a legitimate attempt - then, later, the last round of Stalker buffs came out, and now they're looking at them again.
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.
|
Quote:
Yeah, I do remember that. My own dislike for it was for how much less effective it was against low-end targets. That mattered more to me at the time, because Stalkers had not yet gotten some of the more across-the-board damage buffs they have now (higher base damage, unconditional crits). I think they could have done some more complex things there with scaling only against say boss or higher rank foes and just large damage against lesser foes, but I think the ease with which Stalkers could melt big things would have remained problematic.|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
In addition to the ease of killing hard targets, there was a huge uproar about damage types, as the exotic typed Assassin's Strikes had a huge numerical advantage against the targets you would want to use them on. I'm not sure the exact reason that it was scrapped, but it was a legitimate attempt - then, later, the last round of Stalker buffs came out, and now they're looking at them again.
|
They could still somehow make Stalkers do more damage to high-rank critters, but I'm not sure that is actually something that would get them on teams, for example. I wouldn't hate it, but there might be more interesting options.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
I'm concerned that the Stalker changes will make AS better outside of hide. I'll need to run some damage calculations to see the full measure of the difference, but I'm pretty sure that for packing as much damage into a Build Up window from Hide, you won't want to open with AS. You'll be better off opening with a strong regular attack, getting your guaranteed critical and building Assassin's Focus at the same time. Then two quick attacks (for more AF) and an unhidden, standard critical AS. Depending on the set, there will probably be Build Up time left to pack in more attacks after that.
At that point there won't be much reason to use AS from Hide. The only advantages that come to mind are the ability to put off retaliation for a couple extra seconds, and Demoralize. Demoralize is a nice ability, but it's not nearly good enough to choose over significantly more damage.
Having AS outside of Hide better than in Hide also has the effect of reducing the utility of Placate. It's only uses will be minor aggro control, and increasing critical chance on AoEs. It's already too slow to be worth using with most attacks for a damage increase. Removing AS from that short list won't leave much.
So overall the proposed changes will have the effect of reducing the utility of a Stalker's unique mechanics and making them more into basic scrappers. While any damage increase might have that effect to some extent, I don't think it's necessary for the specific ways it's done to amplify that effect, but that is what I'm seeing here.
If Assassin's Strike outside of hide does become a more viable attack than AS from hide, it will be especially punitive for Dual Blades stalkers. A lot of my DB/EnA stalker's survivability at low levels comes from the Sweep combo. I'll definitely have to transfer (or recreate, if transfer is still broken) and test things hard when this hits Beta/Test.
Quote:
Thanks - guess it was too obvious an idea not to have tried that, and I figured it could get out of hand w/o some really tricky balancing.
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
At one point they experimented with letting AS do damage that scales with the rank of the target, so it would do more damage on bosses and up. It would do a lot on AVs. They realized though that it was hard to balance and a little out of control so they scrapped the idea.
|
Suggestions:
Super Packs Done Right
Influence Sink: IO Level Mod/Recrafting
Random Merit Rolls: Scale cost by Toon Level
Quote:
I don't think its anything trivially simple like stalker defense being between scrappers and blasters, so stalker damage has to be proportionately between scrappers and blasters or anything like that. But I do think Stalkers and Blasters are linked by dev statements, including the most recent ones in this thread, that those two archetypes are both defined as trading away survivability for some offensive benefit of some kind. That trade is specific to those two archetypes and no others. So how one of them executes that trade can shed light on how the other one should work, and conversely the problems one faces can shed light into the problems the other faces.|
Originally Posted by Dispari
Especially if we're viewing Stalkers as the missing link between Scrappers and Blasters.
|
You could argue a similar relationship exists for scrappers relative to tankers, but I don't think that relationship has anything to offer here. In broad survivability and offensive terms, scrappers and tankers function mechanically very similar. Probably too similar, but so similar that there's nothing interesting to learn in terms of what happens when this trade mechanically affects how an archetype functions.
Why is this trade so critically special? Because when you trade one kind of offense for another kind of offense (ranged attack for ranged control, say) you're trading one kind of tool for another kind of tool useful under similar circumstances. Those are easy trades to balance. Same thing goes for trading one kind of defense for another kind of defense. But when you trade across offense and defense, giving up one for the other, there are special problems. You need both, so giving up too much of one for the other is counterproductive. Give up too much offense for defense, and you end up being unkillable but slow. Give up too much defense for offense, and you end up dead (and no longer generating offense).
The former is a potential problem, but it can be mitigated: you can convert extra defense into rewards by using the difficulty slider. But the latter doesn't have the same mitigation option: you can use the difficulty slider to lower difficulty, but that comes with a reward penalty. There are ways to convert extra defense into something useful. Its much harder to convert extra offense into something useful if you do not have enough defense.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Extreme burst damage is still useful, especially solo. I use it to obliterate problem critters before they know I am there. That's not possible with the combo, not to an extent that absolutely prevents the critters from using problem abilities, like Sappers, IDF Scryers and Rikti Guardians (who all like to open with problematic or debilitating powers).|
Originally Posted by Supernumiphone
At that point there won't be much reason to use AS from Hide. The only advantages that come to mind are the ability to put off retaliation for a couple extra seconds, and Demoralize. Demoralize is a nice ability, but it's not nearly good enough to choose over significantly more damage.
|
It's not an immense advantage, but it's not one I would want to lose, and it's one I would still use regularly.
Quote:
| Having AS outside of Hide better than in Hide also has the effect of reducing the utility of Placate. It's only uses will be minor aggro control, and increasing critical chance on AoEs. It's already too slow to be worth using with most attacks for a damage increase. Removing AS from that short list won't leave much. |
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
As to the issue of Blaster's, would it be totally out of line to suggest some form of Mez Protection (not outright in the way of melee archetypes, but a scalar) attached to Defiance?
I realize that the Blaster issue isn't piecemeal, but I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to tie in some form of logarithmic defense/resistance to Mez tacked onto Blaster attacks in the way the damage buffs currently work?
So, for example, with your first blast, you receive a significant boost to hard mezz defense (stun/hold,etc.) with a sliding scale of resistance that lets you come out of it faster. Extra stacks of current defiance buffs would increase this defense/resistance further, but not so significantly as the first attack. It would keep Mez a threat but without being the overriding factor in faceplanting.
Obviously, I have no numbers to bandy about, nor have I given much thought as to whether certain attacks should provide more or less protection than others (snipes maybe?), but since even the playerbase has (in the past) voiced a certain distaste for out and out Mez protection, it would be nice to see at least a little more in the way of avoidance and/or resistance to said attacks.
Also, crashing nukes are very...2004. Enough already.
As to Blaster secondaries...well, we're pretty sure not to see a complete redesign (even if it were merited), so I have no idea where to even start with those. Would be nice to see a couple more though, probably more in the way of Devices or Traps, in so far as area denial, debuffs and/or personal mitigation are concerned.
In any case, just thought I'd throw that out there.
Quote:
You know what would make ME play Stalkers? And, mind you, I already do play Stalkers. What would make me play Stalkers more is if they fought better. If they died less and killed more. What would make me play Stalkers more is if their gimmicks weren't bugged and if they were usable more often. If I could hide easier and score Hidden criticals easier, if I could assassinate easier, if I could placate and not worry about the AI bug, if I could take damage and remain hidden and so forth.|
Originally Posted by Dispari
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.
|
I honestly don't care how Stalkers stack against the OTHER ATs in terms of role, just so long as it doesn't feel like I'm levelling up much slower or have a much harder time winning fights than a Scrapper would. As long as Stalkers can SOLO as well as Scrappers and Brutes, that's all I, personally, care about. Right now, they ALMOST do, but still suffer a bit in the damage-dealing department. In ever quite feels like I can outdamage my Scrappers consistently.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
You're right for two reasons beyond just that.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, mez itself makes this false even on paper. Because blasters don't have mez protection, they are in danger the moment mez lands. So "kill so fast he's never in danger" means killing before any foe can use a mez. And as a practical matter, that is very close to being able to instantly kill everything. Blasters are never going to get that ability, so they can't really get that "kill before being killed" ability designed into them.
|
1. Any AT designed to be able to kill enemies before they can even respond is simply broken by design. Simple as that. Killing enemies before they can respond and kill even a squishy trivialises content in an extreme fashion, therefore no AT can be allowed to do this consistently.
2. Any AT designed to be able to kill SOME enemies before they can respond SOME of the time, but gives up the ability to do almost anything else is broken by design, because said AT is screwed when it can't kill enemies fast enough. By design, the game has enemies who are intended to not be easy and quick to kill. I speak of most 40-50 bosses and elite bosses, specifically. There are also scenarios where enemies cannot be killed fast enough to stave off their ability to respond, such as in situations with ambush waves or stacked spawns or enemy-summoning critters. The fact of the matter is that any AT designed to kill or be killed will suffer, because sometimes killing fast is impossible by intentional design.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In practice blasters tend to survive not by using abilities they are designed to have, but rather abilities they are allowed to have, to a point. Mez and debuff, for example. Ice blasters survive on their holds and slows. Energy blasters survive on their knockback. These are not things blasters *must* have - Fire/Fire blasters don't in large part - but are *allowed* to have so long as its not too much.
|
This is actually the right mess that Blaster secondaries are. What are they supposed to do? Are they melee like the game called them in Beta? Are they support like Devices is trying to be? It seems like a Blaster secondary is "supposed" to do whatever it looks like it should to in your eyes. Some powers from some sets help us a lot while some powers from some sets feel completely pointless, like Blasters got whatever was left over when the other ATs were done. And I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
What I find the most unpleasant about them is Blasters are the ONLY AT I've ever played for whom an essential, vital, game-changing ability only exists in their Epoc poos - personal armour. And even then, this is weird. For instance, Force Mastery Temp Invulnerability only protects from smashing and lethal damage, making my Energy/Energy Blaster meat on the table for Siege's old minions, yet Charged Armour from Electrical Mastery provides the same smashing/lethal resistance AND as much energy resistance on top of that.
Blasters' biggest problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that they're just thrown together, more or less requiring players to break the AT's intended design, because the AT's intended design is broken at its core.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Seeing Stalkers as a "stealth" AT is a mistake. They're not. Stalkers are fighters who use stealth not for sneaking around but as a combat supplement. Stalkers could ditch their Stealth altogether and still be pretty much as good as they are now, so long as they keep their Hidden status, which has nothing to do with being invisible and all to do with scoring criticals.|
Originally Posted by Jibikao
And also, other games don't usually have that many "stealth" class. Rift, WoW, Lord of the ring..they only have one class that can stealth well. In this game?? Almost anybody can stealth if they want to. That really doesn't make Stalker that special. In fact, I find Brute with unsuppressed stealth a better "assassin" in some cases and Bane is just a superior Stalker in many ways.
|
Stalkers are not Rogues or Thieves, not in PvE anyway. Their "role" is not to sneak around the battlefield and look for targets of opportunity, their role is not to "explore the map," their role is not to skip fights. Based on how the game gives out progression rewards, none of that is rewarding, thus none of that has a point. A Stalker's role is to kill stuff, with their AT gimmick and definition coming into play in regard to HOW the Stalker goes about doing this. Brutes and Scrappers kill things in a straightforward fashion by walking up to enemies and cycling through their attacks. A Stalker kills by using and abusing his critical hits, therefore any change to boost Stalker damage without turning him into a Scrapper should boost the Stalker's ability to require his Hidden status.
I suggested a while ago that a successful kill in which the Stalker did the majority of the damage should cause a Stalker to immediately regain his hidden status and score a critical on his next hit. If that hit is another kill, then the Stalker should regain Hidden status once more. This would be a good way to reward them for single-target damage with even more damage for being the ones to kill single targets.
If Stalkers need more damage, then I don't think this damage specifically needs to come from AT mods ore buffs, but instead from very many more criticals. A Stalker dealing double damage criticals very often stands the potential to do a HELL of a lot more damage than a Scrapper, damage mods notwithstanding. In fact, I'd say up Stalker criticals from doing an extra 100% base damage to dealing an extra 150%-200%, so that Stalkers are HIDEOUSLY DEVASTATING when dealing criticals, but just average in a scrap.
---
When Stalkers were created, they were given a gimmick - critical hits while they were hidden. While this was a great idea, this gimmick was SO limited as to be next to useless. The most a Stalker could do was assassinate one person one time in PvP and essentially grief people, but once that ONE critical was gone, the Stalker was naked. Running away is a waste of time and a waste of performance, and without running away, Stalkers cannot use their hidden mechanic almost at all. If anything should change about them, this is it. Their Hidden status should be much easier to achieve, much easier to maintain (i.e. being uniterruptible by external forces) and much easier to exploit. Give Stalkers criticals they can rely on and their damage WILL increase.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Just chiming into the discussion again, and am so glad I'm not the only one that is at least questioning the new Stalker changes. They seem pretty awesome (too awesome, if you ask me), but it just feels off. From how I play Stalkers, there's generally 2 modes of play:
-Surgical Strike: Go in, find the target(s), and eliminate them. This may force you not to scrap because you have to break off melee so that you can actually move/find said target(s). Finding the target(s) are much easier when solo. By the game mechanics, a Stalker is actually rewarded for rushing a foe, kill it, back off to rush the next, etc. It's a necessary job for the AT's survival, like a Blaster Aim+BU and targeting the mezzer first. This is what makes the AT unique, it has an advantage over other melees with it's better surgical strike capabilities.
-Frenzy: Basically, finish the job. Getting as much damage as quickly as possible and leaving no foes left. Line up whatever burst advantages you have, but generally a button-mash fest. Depending on the fight, I may just skip the Surgical Strike part and go right into the frenzy.
I like that the new changes help with the Frenzy part. Stalkers need help there. But the changes make the Frenzy part a bit too attractive, so much so that it overshadows the specialty of the AT. And for what? So that they can output the greatest ST DPS? Well, I could overall be satisfied by that...but why? Couldn't there be changes to improve both the Surgical Strike and the Frenzy? If we're looking into changes, can't it be possible to make the Frenzy output more damage but make the Surgical part more efficient/faster?
I'd love for my Stalkers to be death incarnate, pumping out devastating waves of carnage constantly...but I like to glide through spawns, a path of discriminate death in his path too. Basically, I want the tricks Stalker can do to be made better vs just giving them the same Brute/Scrapper trick but better. I already play Brutes and Scrappers so I know how they play. I don't play Stalkers completely in that way but with these changes, I'd probably completely import that playstyle if only to get the most out of their tools...
Actually, after posting that, I thought of a powerful way to word my thoughts...
Right now, while a Stalker may be a bit rough and clunky (some of its tools don't work properly and their tactics are outside the norm), I am given a pat on the back and a bit of a reward by the game for taking that bit of extra road to get to the same town other DPS ATs are getting to (DeadFoe-ville).
With this change, I'm still given a pat on the back by the game for what I was previously doing...but I'm given a pat on the back, a cookie AND I get to DeadFoe-ville faster if I ignore what I was doing before. Okay, that wouldn't be too big of a problem, but then it's the exact same road the other DPS ATs take.
I want to be able to take that bit of extra road I was taking and be given more shortcuts between that road and the DPS AT road...vs simply ignoring that old hilly dirt road I liked taking before or just taking the old road for nostalgia reasons but getting back to the DPS AT road when everything's all 'serious'.
Just swapping the 1sec AS timer's condition (fast when hidden, conditionally slower when not hidden) still makes me want to take the extra road, but then I'd be taking it at jet speed then swapping to a car when I get on the DPS AT road...
You still do more damage AND apply a terrorize effect when assassinating out of Hide. All this change does is finally kill the need to back out and wait eight seconds for Hide to reapply in the middle of a battle. You're still being rewarded for getting the drop on unsuspecting enemies, as that's the only way to score an Assassination critical.
As far as I'm concerned, "stealth" in this game has been broken since day 1, because in this game, once enemies know of you, then you can be as invisible as you want and you can never hide from them. The best you can do is Placate, and that doesn't make enemies forget you, it simply makes them unable to target you, but they still know where you are and what you're doing.
With the broken nature of stealth, creating a "stealth" AT in this game is impossible, or at least very awkward and unproductive. You've said as much yourself. You were the guy who yelled at me until I got it through my thick head that Stalkers SHOULD scrap. I don't want Stalkers to be a "stealth" AT. That doesn't work. I want them to be a "critical hit" AT.
What I mean is I don't want Stalkers to spend hours sneaking around, I don't want Stalkers to run away from a fight and hide, I don't want Stalkers disengaging from a fight the team is leading and rushing off to the next fight. I want Stalkers to fight as fighters, but I want them to do their damage not through raw damage numbers, but through the careful application of their critical hits ability. Whether that's with or without Hide is - in my eyes at least - irrelevant. Hide should still carry some meaning, obviously, but I want to see it as a tool for achieving critical hits, not an abstract representation of the ability to not be detected.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Actually, I like your idea of a kill putting you right back into Hide. To my mind, it brings to mind the idea of Batman nabbing thugs one by one as they creep through a darkened area, or someone doing a series of 'flash step' kills on mooks in anime.
Since Hide doesn't make the critters lose track of you, it would not be broken solo by making you invulnerable, but it would help your Defense.
The only downside I see at the moment is how it could lead to Stalkers wandering away from small teams or complaining that teammates are 'kill stealing' them.
Hmmm...
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
The only downside I see at the moment is how it could lead to Stalkers wandering away from small teams or complaining that teammates are 'kill stealing' them.
|
It was suggested a while back that critical hits could put you back into hide. I liked that idea much better than the "must get the kill" option - those are always problematic on teams.
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
Quote:
One way to accomplish this goal (extra damage on crits) which would work on a sliding scale is to "borrow" some of the thinking, if not the exact mechanics, behind Scourge. Something akin to:|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
If Stalkers need more damage, then I don't think this damage specifically needs to come from AT mods ore buffs, but instead from very many more criticals. A Stalker dealing double damage criticals very often stands the potential to do a HELL of a lot more damage than a Scrapper, damage mods notwithstanding. In fact, I'd say up Stalker criticals from doing an extra 100% base damage to dealing an extra 150%-200%, so that Stalkers are HIDEOUSLY DEVASTATING when dealing criticals, but just average in a scrap.
|
- Determine fraction of Current Hit Points / Max Hit Points of target.
- Do a 1-HP% mathematical operation to determine bonus damage% to apply on critical hits (ie. +0% when Foe is at 100% of Max HP, and +99% when Foes is at 1% of Max HP)
- Apply extra damage buff when making a critical hit (that does damage)
It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for ...
Crazy, not very well thought out AT ideas ahead!
Stalker: When you hit an opponent with AS from hide it applies the 'Marked for Death' status on that enemy for x seconds. Any regular crits against an enemy that is 'marked for death' do triple instead of double damage (or your attacks do extra damage or you have a higher crit chance). If an enemy with 'marked for death' status dies, AS instantly recharges. So, AS a hard target from hide and get a boost to damage against that target for a period afterwards. Or, use AS to instakill a soft target and instantly get AS back to use again.
Tanker: All Tankers to come with large inherent debuff resistances to all debufss (like, all debuffs have half effectiveness/duration). So they may not do as much damage normally, but when other ATs have been crippled by debuffs, the Tanker will have kept a much larger proportion of their effectiveness.
Blaster: All(or most) Blaster primary attacks cause 'wounding', which reduces the magnitude of status effects dealt by that enemy. If a wounded enemy dies, the blaster gets a temp bit of mez protection(i.e. a mini break free). Essentially turning their damage into pre-emptive mez protection for them and their teammates.
Always remember, we were Heroes.
Quote:
That was my idea, that critical hits when NOT hidden would Placate the affected $Target(s) of the (Primary powerset) attack and put you back into Hide without dealing extra damage on the UNhidden attack. That then "sets you up" for an immediate 1-2 freestyle combo of the following attack gets a 100% chance to crit because you'd be attacking from Hide. It's basically a "Crit to enter Hide when Not Hidden" ... rather than a "Crit to do Extra Damage" ... which then chains into a set up to "Crit for Extra Damage from Hide" sort of system. It makes the Stalker(s) "flicker" in and out of Hidden Status, and gives them something akin to Brute/Tanker Punch-voke ... except that for Stalkers it would be best thought of as Placate-voke (or Hide-Crit, if you prefer) that would make greater use of the Placate game mechanics (if not the Placate power itself) and increase the importance (and relevance) of Hide to mainline scrapping combat (which is approximately 95% of the game).|
Originally Posted by Slaunyeh
It was suggested a while back that critical hits could put you back into hide. I liked that idea much better than the "must get the kill" option - those are always problematic on teams.
|
For the record ... I managed to snag both Synapse and Arbiter Hawk after the Powersets Panel and the Summit and put the notion to them as an alternative means to achieving the goal of "enhancing Stalker performance" to what they had announced during the panel on the Stalker Improvements slide. Synapse was ... intrigued ... enough by the idea that he asked Arbiter Hawk to come over and get in on our 1-on-1 discussion, and had me explain the mechanics and behaviors of what I was talking about to Arbiter Hawk. What's interesting is that both of them seemed to (at first) get off on the wrong track in mentally modelling what I was suggesting, but then after just a little bit of clarification both of them were nodding and thinking that something like this might actually work and be do-able ... at some point.
Now, to be fair ... they couldn't exactly "promise" anything on the spur of the moment ... nor did they have the time to run playtests and analysis to find out if the entire idea was fatally flawed in some way, or horribly overbalanced in some other way which would prevent it from being entertained as a release candidate possibility. We were just standing around in a room with chairs and no internet access at the time that we were discussing this. But at the very least, both Synapse and Arbiter Hawk seemed interested in the notion of modifying Stalker Criticals in a way to better leverage Hide in mainline combat and as a means of "freestyle combo-ing" (my words) extra critical damage for Stalkers in a way that didn't work exactly like the mechanics for Scrappers.
It's the end. But the moment has been prepared for ...
Blaster survivability does come mostly from mez, not from insta-kills. And blapping always involved megatons of mez. When total focus was mag 4, energy blappers could keep a couple bosses permanently stunned. Total Focus and Air superiority could wreck havok on a spawn in a way few ranged chains could.
It wasn't about efficiency, it was about staying alive.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)