Concerned about Scrappers.
By
Acemace,
Posted on: 2012-03-21 05:04 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Ya when you put it like that it doesnt make much sense. However the damage wouldnt increase anymore if the tank dips below 50% health. You point still stands I just cant help but correct that little bit.
Also the increase to the cap is there even if the tank does not leverage the mechanic. Even at 100% health if the tank gets fullcrum shifted to the cap it is still a higher cap than it is now.
Really brutes should not be as survivable as tanks. They are thanks to IOs and team buffs. Really I'd prefer a increase of tanker resistances to 95%, an increase of base HP and the HP cap, a 5%-10% higher base defence than all the other classes so that they only need 35%-40% defense to softcap, more targets in taunt, and a higher aggro cap of say 24 enemies instead of 16. As well as removing aoe taunts from other melee ATs. The tank is more tanky without being more bruty and the brute is less tanky. AE farming brutes will whine but they can still farm even with their AOE taunts removed. They will just do it less efficiently. Tanks can be made as villains now so there is no valid arguement that brutes need to be the tanks for villains.
Work in progress no more. I have decided that I'm going to put my worst spelling errors here. Triage Bacon, Had this baster idea, TL
R"I'm going to beat the Jesus out of Satan!" My Wife while playing Dante's Inferno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
They were not. Every archetype inherent was explicitly added for one reason only, to address a perceived weakness or deficiency of the archetype, until Vigilance. Gauntlet, Defiance, Criticals, and Containment were all added not for flavor, but to correct a deficiency. But when four of the five archetypes gained inherents, Defenders claimed they were *denied* an inherent as if they were left out, so the devs added Vigilance. Really, although the devs wouldn't admit it at the time, just to get the players to shut up.
It wasn't until CoV archetypes were created that the devs decided to take the concept of inherent powers and extend them to add differentiating features to the archetypes. But even there, in some cases they were more placeholders than anything else. The stalker inherent, for example, was just a description of a subset of its actual powers. That would be like calling Range the blaster inherent. And originally the Mastermind inherent was less than now: bodyguard was added later (the original was supremacy without bodyguard). In both cases, the inherent powers were not "perks." Perks implies its something extra. Stalkers didn't get hide, placate, and assassins strikes as a perk. They got hide, placate, and assassin's strike as their central set of powers. Brutes didn't get fury as a perk, they were originally designed to start low and build higher. Its just that fury has been the subject of bad balancing coupled with historical inertia. Gauntlet is not a perk. Gauntlet is an omission by the devs they should not have presumed all tankers would take the presence pool. Defiance is not a perk. Defiance is the consolation prize Blasters get for being designed to be dead. Assassination is not a perk, containment is not a perk. And really; fury, scourge, supremacy, and domination are not perks either. |
What about AS having a chance to cause fear, is that a perk? Please don't take this as in insult, but you seem to only look at the numbers. You are like a Vulcan, just so dang logical. My wife is an engineer and is the same way. Just because the numbers are right doesn't always mean something feels right. I guess part of what I am saying is that you are pretty much right, I know you are right, but I don't have to like it. Goes back to what Claws said about the Ferrari.
It has been made clear here that to most scrappers do feel right. So be it, I would still like them (yes want) them to have something that is unique only to them. Even if it is a power set, or as paladin said a costume option. I think a costume option would piss people off more than an end bonus though.
Crap, so much for being done here.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
By granting them features they were not originally intended to have, and putting them into conflict with other archetypes instead?
Right now we have two force multipler archetypes hero side, and two non-multiplier archetypes, and one solo-optimized archetype. If Tankers become direct team force multipliers by design fiat, then I'm going to demand that the only other non-solo optimized blue side archetype also become one. And furthermore, because tankers already have a strong team role, the remaining archetype should get demonstrably higher force multiplication. I'm sure the defender and controllers will want to jump in after that, to ensure their actual stated buff/debuff roles are preserved during that process, and I'm sure every villain archetype will not want to be left behind on an almost faction-wide buff. |
This is the definition of a slippery-slope argument. :P
Tankers do have a team role. They are, IMO, not that great at it relative to Brutes. So to make them have a better team role, you make explicit what was already implicit (that they add survivability). You are leaping to the conclusion that such a buff makes them equivalent to Defenders and Controllers when I said no such thing. Like any other buff, numbers would have to be sensible.
Quote:
Actually, I was stating an intent, not an argument.
|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
This is the definition of a slippery-slope argument. :P
|
[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:
|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
What about AS having a chance to cause fear, is that a perk?
|
Well now with the changed to Stalkers it's closer to being a perk, but when it was introduced in I12 that was not the case.
When Demoralize was added, Stalkers were in desperate need of a reason for teams to take them. Stalkers had 2 major problems on teams at the time, the first being that for Stalkers to get their Hidden Crit in a team situation they needed to attack before the team did. This is a problem because Stalkers are not good at taking a full team Alpha.
The Second problem is that Stalkers did not offer anything to a team, because the damage output they dealt was easily surpassed by Brutes and all the other AT's offered more than just damage which was the only thing a Stalker could do.
This led to Demoralize an unresistable 7.5% To-Hit debuff helped a Stalker survive an Alpha and the chance for a mag 5 fear offered a decent agro control option to the team while they set up their things(Brute agro,Dom Control, Cor (de)buffs.
So back then it was to give Stalkers something to help the team. Now that they can dish out the damage they've always been supposed to it's closer to a perk, but Demoralize helps keep a Hidden AS as a desirable option.
Quote:
Here's the problem I have with Tanker's utility:|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That implies that the problem with tankers is that they are not force multipliers, or lack team utility. But how do you justify saying that tankers, with their aggro control tools, lack team utility while blasters and scrappers, without even that team role, don't have the same or worse problem?
|
*) Tanking, as a role, saturates quickly. You don't 'need' as many of them as you do other roles. For example, if you're fighting an AV, you may need 1, possibly two tanks (depending on mechanics like sequestering). After that, additional tanking provides no extra utility. Debuffs are always useful; damage is always useful, control can saturate, but is still useful for redudancy. Tanking... not so much. Heck, the one debuff Tankers provides doesn't even stack from different casters.
*) Tankers are well behind Brutes in terms of threat generation to the point that they cannot outthreat them if the Brute wants aggro. Even if Tankers are better at surviving damage than Brutes, they have to have aggro to do that in the first place. (I don't have issues with a Brute trying to hold aggro out-threating a Tanker who doesn't.)
*) Survival as a primary is most useful either when leveling up (having mature defenses before Brutes/Scrappers) or in single teams that aren't power gamed (ie: stacking Colds & Rads for the STF). The more high end you go, the more irrelevvant base defenses become due to buffs (now AoE and league sizes), debuffs, IOs, and Incarnate abilities.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Tankers are terrible. Their perks just tend to "cap out" sooner / become irrelevent and they don't have anything to fall back on.
I thought Blasters and Stalkers needed more help than Tankers, but I think it's safe to cross off Stalkers now.
Quote:
This, I agree with. Hindsight says an AT with a role as dedicated to tanking and just tanking at the cost of all else, as Tankers are, was probably a bad idea. Brutes strike the balance of tanking and damage that the modern game needs more than a dedicated aggro monkey.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Here's the problem I have with Tanker's utility:
*) Tanking, as a role, saturates quickly. You don't 'need' as many of them as you do other roles. For example, if you're fighting an AV, you may need 1, possibly two tanks (depending on mechanics like sequestering). After that, additional tanking provides no extra utility. Debuffs are always useful; damage is always useful, control can saturate, but is still useful for redudancy. Tanking... not so much. Heck, the one debuff Tankers provides doesn't even stack from different casters. |
Quote:
| *) Tankers are well behind Brutes in terms of threat generation to the point that they cannot outthreat them if the Brute wants aggro. Even if Tankers are better at surviving damage than Brutes, they have to have aggro to do that in the first place. (I don't have issues with a Brute trying to hold aggro out-threating a Tanker who doesn't.) |
1. Brutes need aggro. It fuels their Fury. They have a need to seek it out, and if they want it, I say let them take it. Because...
2. ...As long as the aggo isn't on the squishies, that's all that matters. The team's tanking needs are being met. Period. It doesn't matter if it's on the Brute on the Tanker because...
3. ...It's a self-correcting problem. If the Brute can't handle the aggro, he'll faceplant and the aggro will revert to the Tanker. Problem solved. If he can, then there's no issue at all because...{Go to 1.}
As for suggestions I've seen about making Tankers into force multipliers, no thanks. Don't make Tankers into something they're not at all and were never intended to be. Tankers tank and they do damage. If the former is not as much in demand these days thanks to Brutes taking some of the burden, it's time to look at the latter and beef up their secondary focus, not invent a third focus eight years in. If I wanted a force multiplying melee AT, I'd be playing a SoA. If I wanted to buff people period, I'd be playing a Defender. Don't try to invent Tankfenders just because some people find the idea of improving Tankers offensively so disdainful. I also say this because down the road, I would like a proper, non-VEAT AT with melee/buff-debuff capabilities, but I don't want it to be Tankers.
.
There is nothing to be concerned about.
Quote:
That's actually false. Both debuffs and damage can saturate. Ask any debuffer what happens when damage exceeds a certain critical level: they end up deploying debuffs on corpses. And while damage doesn't saturate in the same way, it quickly reaches a diminishing returns area due to the discrete nature of damage. You cannot decrease the time to defeat a spawn by a fraction of one attack.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
*) Tanking, as a role, saturates quickly. You don't 'need' as many of them as you do other roles. For example, if you're fighting an AV, you may need 1, possibly two tanks (depending on mechanics like sequestering). After that, additional tanking provides no extra utility. Debuffs are always useful; damage is always useful, control can saturate, but is still useful for redudancy. Tanking... not so much. Heck, the one debuff Tankers provides doesn't even stack from different casters.
|
At the point where damage and debuffs reach diminishing returns levels, the optimum strategy is to split the team into two groups. This requires two separate aggro control sources to do effectively.
Moreover, while damage is always useful, its also something everyone actually always has. It is *far* more likely for a team to lack enough aggro control to function effectively than to lack enough damage to function effectively.
In that situation fighting one AV, how many Blasters do you need? How many Scrappers? A debuffing defender is often incrementally better than a blaster or scrapper in that situation specifically, even if we focus purely on offense.
[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:
Counting Staff Fighting 9 out of 12 (75%) Stalker primaries have a cone or AoE.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The archetype special bonus nonsense is nonsense because its inappropriately lifting individual properties from archetypes in isolation.
The Stalker special "bonus" is that it has mechanics to significantly boost single target damage, coupled with the fact that most stalkers have no AoE damage. That's not a bonus: that is a shift in focus, towards single target and burst damage, and away from AoE. |
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
Granted. The proper thing to say is that most stalker sets have significantly less than the average amount of AoE as Scrapper, Brute, or Tanker offensive sets do.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Counting Staff Fighting 9 out of 12 (75%) Stalker primaries have a cone or AoE.
|
[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:
QFT despite the current 4 chan attack.
|
Originally Posted by Xiang Shao
There is nothing to be concerned about.
|
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
I wuv you too. |
Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
QFT despite the current 4 chan attack.
|
It has gotten better, and moved to the scrapper boards. I don't think it is going to go away any time soon.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's actually false. Both debuffs and damage can saturate. Ask any debuffer what happens when damage exceeds a certain critical level: they end up deploying debuffs on corpses. And while damage doesn't saturate in the same way, it quickly reaches a diminishing returns area due to the discrete nature of damage. You cannot decrease the time to defeat a spawn by a fraction of one attack.
|
If teams were defeating spawns in one attack, and the AoE they used to do it recharged instantly and was ready for the next group, this would be on point.
Anyway, the reason I greatly dislike playing Tankers is that they are an AT pushed heavily toward a team utility that in turn (atleast I feel) is pressured to leave the team if too many Tankers show up, because they stack poorly. I would MUCH rather have multiple Brutes. Or really anything but multiple Tankers (even Stalkers). Even the Tanker's force multiplying Bruise ability doesn't stack on the same single target.
Quote:
| Moreover, while damage is always useful, its also something everyone actually always has. It is *far* more likely for a team to lack enough aggro control to function effectively than to lack enough damage to function effectively. |
Quote:
The actual issue was DOA without question. The 4 chan style attacks usually do stick around for a bit since that is the entire point of the attack in the first place.
|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
I wuv you too.
It has gotten better, and moved to the scrapper boards. I don't think it is going to go away any time soon. |
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
I'm pretty sure multiple brutes would take each other's potential fury. I remember after titan weapon's release trials were sometimes full of 6-8 brutes, and I sure as heck don't remember being able to cut wide swaths into enemy territory.
TPN trial guide video / MoM trial guide video / DD trial guide video / BAF trial guide video
/ Lambda trial guide video / Keyes trial guide video / Magisterium trial guide video / Underground trial guide
Quote:
In absolute terms you're right, debuffs and damage can saturate - at least in some circumstances such as AoE steamrolling through content. Having said that, they saturate much slower than tanking does. How many damage dealers does it take to be able to wipe out a spawn so fast that an extra damage dealer doesn't help? Come to think of it, when things get pushed to that extreme, "tanking" itself becomes less useful and you just need someone to eat the spawns' initial alpha.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
That's actually false. Both debuffs and damage can saturate. Ask any debuffer what happens when damage exceeds a certain critical level: they end up deploying debuffs on corpses. And while damage doesn't saturate in the same way, it quickly reaches a diminishing returns area due to the discrete nature of damage. You cannot decrease the time to defeat a spawn by a fraction of one attack.
At the point where damage and debuffs reach diminishing returns levels, the optimum strategy is to split the team into two groups. This requires two separate aggro control sources to do effectively. |
As for splitting the group, I don't personally see that as an especially useful tactic in general. Progressing through a mission is fairly linear and doesn't really encourage going in two separate directions. What is useful to me is steamrolling where the majority of the team sticks together and blows away spawn after spawn. You only 'need' one tank for that - they can leave the current spawn early and setup the next one while the group mops up and catches up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In that situation fighting one AV, how many Blasters do you need? How many Scrappers? A debuffing defender is often incrementally better than a blaster or scrapper in that situation specifically, even if we focus purely on offense.
|
Quote:
I agree with this. Playing my dm/nin stalker, definately feels more scrapper-like now. Now, that is NOT a bad thing, in general. I love scrappers, lots of people do. As someone else said a few pages back..they are about the most well rounded AT (or were) and its nice to just flip out and kill stuffs.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
If anything, the stalker buffs have done nothing but make stalkers LESS unique than they were before. Not in the idea behind them, but in the way people are actually playing them now.
My level 33 Electric/Energy stalker (who I am enjoying greatly btw) does not have Placate, and I have no plans to take it. I also rarely use AS while Hidden anymore. What it seems to have done, in an effort to appease stalker players, is make stalkers more like scrappers and less like a unique AT of their own. |
I never saw anything wrong with stalkers since I began playing in i8 or thereabouts. Don't think I would go as far as to say 'I am concerned' about scrappers..I think they are pretty spot on, but the stalker changes did make that AT very very..scrapperish. Good as the stalker changes are, I would have preferred something more unique to them..and to leave scrappers in their niche.
(Has Knight replied since his comments about stalkers NOT being able to crit outside of as got shouted down? I cheated and skipped 15 pages..)
Just because you don't like Something Mr.ClawsandEffect doesn't mean you need to change it.
I Play Scrappers because they always do there Job right and they are my first Arctype I got use and learn how to play.
Scrapper's possess Critical strike capability. Their melee attacks have a chance to sometimes do double The Amount damage.
Something that no Archetypes can do and there Survivability is far better then a Stalker.
Melee Damage is far better then a Brute, If you don't believe me look it up and now I don't no about you guys but this is what make them Unique alone.
Never play another NcSoft game, If you feel pride for our game, then it as well, I Superratz am Proud of all of you Coh people, Love, Friendship will last for a lifetime.
Global:@Greenflame Ratz
Main Toons:Super Ratz, Burning B Radical, Green Flame Avenger, Tunnel Ratz, Alex Magnus
Quote:
Stalkers have the same critical strike ability. Only that ATs version is better. As for survivability being "far better" the difference amounts to 138 HP at level 50 and less the lower down you go. At the same time Stalkers get Hide which is a no endurance defense power. Let's look at what Stalker secondaries give up for it:|
Originally Posted by GreenFIame
Just because you don't like Something Mr.ClawsandEffect doesn't mean you need to change it.
I Play Scrappers because they always do there Job right and they are my first Arctype I got use and learn how to play. Scrapper's possess Critical strike capability. Their melee attacks have a chance to sometimes do double The Amount damage. Something that no Archetypes can do and there Survivability is far better then a Stalker. Melee Damage is far better then a Brute, If you don't believe me look it up and now I don't no about you guys but this is what make them Unique alone. |
- Dark Armor gives up the damage aura so it trades damage for more defense and utility and the ability to have crits on demand;
- Electric Armor same thing;
- Ice Armor same thing;
- Energy Aura they give up...JACK. The other ATs have two passives to do what Stalkers do in one.
- Super Reflexes are in the same boat as Energy Aura. The AoE passive was rolled into the AoE toggle.
- Regen and Willpower are the only ones that are screwed in having to give up Quick Recovery.
So no, I don't agree that Stalkers are always less survivable than Scrappers. Placate & Hide more than make up for the Health base and cap difference. Other than that, Scrappers and Stalkers share the same caps and same modifiers. Scrappers and Brutes have a higher base and cap health difference and Brutes have a higher cap on resists. Which allows for the statement that they are ALWAYS better because Scrapper don't have anything that can shed aggro like Placate.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
By the way, I'm old. What is a 4 chan attack?
|
Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
QFT despite the current 4 chan attack.
|
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
The Stalker passive gives less total energy resist than the two passives for brutes/scrappers, and no endurance drain resist. On the other hand, Stalker /EA gets the defense bonus from Energy Cloak rolled into the shields, then gets defense from Hide on top of it, giving more total defense for less slots and less endurance, so it's easier to softcap, which is either a survivability bonus or a build flexibility bonus depending on perspective. Does that make up for the decreased HP (which widens in absolute quantity, but stays the same proportionally, at any level and for any amount of accolades/set bonuses, other than Stalkers reaching their hp cap slightly sooner) and lesser ability to wipe out a spawn quickly? Opinions vary, but IMO no.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
[*]Energy Aura they give up...JACK. The other ATs have two passives to do what Stalkers do in one.
|
Quote:
Stalker EA also gets Disrupt. Which really does make it more survivable than Scrapper EA. Whether people take it is up to them.
|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
The Stalker passive gives less total energy resist than the two passives for brutes/scrappers, and no endurance drain resist. On the other hand, Stalker /EA gets the defense bonus from Energy Cloak rolled into the shields, then gets defense from Hide on top of it, giving more total defense for less slots and less endurance, so it's easier to softcap, which is either a survivability bonus or a build flexibility bonus depending on perspective. Does that make up for the decreased HP (which widens in absolute quantity, but stays the same proportionally, at any level and for any amount of accolades/set bonuses, other than Stalkers reaching their hp cap slightly sooner) and lesser ability to wipe out a spawn quickly? Opinions vary, but IMO no.
|
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Whether people can look at it without migraines or seizures is not really up to them ;P It's such a widely disliked and frequently skipped power I wasn't sure it was even worth mentioning.
Right now we have two force multipler archetypes hero side, and two non-multiplier archetypes, and one solo-optimized archetype. If Tankers become direct team force multipliers by design fiat, then I'm going to demand that the only other non-solo optimized blue side archetype also become one. And furthermore, because tankers already have a strong team role, the remaining archetype should get demonstrably higher force multiplication.
I'm sure the defender and controllers will want to jump in after that, to ensure their actual stated buff/debuff roles are preserved during that process, and I'm sure every villain archetype will not want to be left behind on an almost faction-wide buff.
[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.)