Give Scrappers a real inherent power
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2012-03-23 13:26 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Quote:
Different things push different buttons in different people. He happened to hit two of mine. Calling for nerfs, and what I took to be a personal insult over the internet. |
Originally Posted by Reiska
You weren't called stupid, your argument was. >_>
|
Nerf Herders are what got Regen gutted, and no I will never get over it. My main and name sake is retired because he is no longer fun to play.
TW is a cool set, and Reppu stated it was over powered and needed to be nerfed.
Quote:
| TW is a set that NEEDS nerfs. |
Let's take a look at another set people say is over powered Shield Def. Awesome set, I have 2 /SD scrappers at level 50. They both sucked till I put IOs in them. I even asked "When does SD get as good as everyone says it is?" the reply was "When you put IOs in it."
Sets like TW, StJ, and Staff are the future of this game. So why not bring the old sets in line with the new vision? That includes sets from all of the ATs.
I am not sure how long many of you have been here, the best I can do is go by reg date, and those are unreliable. I know I played for about 3-6 months before I joined the boards.
Any way, there was a time when the lead dev stated that each hero should only be equal to 3 minions. That was his vision for this game. Well, we the players did not find that vision fun and found ways to rebel. Which is where things like dumpster diving came in. Which brought even more nerfs.
The current dev team has not only turned out some of the best powers ever, they have also attempted to correct the mistakes of the past.
In the end it boils down to what you call balance, is not the same as what I call balance, or what Jack called balance. We are not going to see eye to eye on this. I will be happy when I can solo the STF, chump LR, and the head to space to defend the planet from the Battalion because I am just that bad ***. That is the balance I want in a super hero game.
So, if giving scrappers something unique throws the nonexistent balance even further out the window, IDC any more.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
Um, look again, I said blasters DO need buffs.
|
Originally Posted by Reppu
Indeed. You're just looking for a fight now, purposely ignoring key words, and are no longer going to be spoken to after this post;
Saying Blasters do not needs buffs proves how little you know of this game's balance, and that's ignoring you thinking the game should be as broken as possible. But then again, looking at the thread I'm posting in, I shouldn't be surprised. Good day to you. PS: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=284248 Wrong. |
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Wow, go away from the forums for a few days and miss all the fun.
As someone who started one of those "buff Stalker" threads, I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what I had in mind when I made the request. It wasn't that Stalkers couldn't perform, it was that there was no logical and rational person who could state that they were numerically balanced when compared to Scrappers, which was the at-the-time "balance point" for the melee ATs; keep in mind this was while Tankers had Bruising and a higher hit point cap for both higher damage and more survivability, Brutes had their damage cap reduced so that their damage-capped performance left them behind a Scrapper once criticals were accounted for and Fury was adjusted to "make it easier to maintain but harder to build to high levels" - a statement that's fairly laughable with the ATO proc, but there was a post by Castle stating that the gain/decay was targeting a 65% level when most people assumed 80% or higher for most sustainable damage calculations, and Scrappers and Stalkers were left alone. Scrappers consistently outperformed Stalkers in every damage metric outside of rare, hard-to-engineer corner cases in both single-target and AoE damage, while having a much higher hit point cap and higher base hit points - which were suspiciously similar to the arguments made about the Brute adjustment attempting to reduce the "nominal" Fury level.
Simply put, there was absolutely nothing in the game that a Stalker could do where you could not replace a Brute or Scrapper and do the same job better than the Stalker could. Sustained damage? Scrapper or (depending on set) Brute. Burst damage (under a Build Up window)? Scrapper or Brute. Stealth to the end of a mission? Anyone with a single layer of stealth and any amount of common sense. Ganking PvP n00bs who aren't paying attention? Psi Blaster.
Am I happy with the buffs that Stalkers received? Well, I would have gone about it a bit differently - I posted concerns when the announcement of how the buff was going to happen at the time and PM'd Synapse with them as well. If the unhidden Assassin's Strike is considered balanced for an entire AT as a whole I have to ask why Energy Transfer doesn't have its 1-second animation again, because with 2 stacks of Assassin's Focus the DPA for AS surpasses it. I was also only expecting either a damage or survivability increase and not both (of the two, I preferred damage). So do I think they were overbuffed? Yeah, probably. But sadly, that just puts them on par with the other "damage" melee ATs.
And if Scrappers get a fluff, team-mez-resistance buff that doesn't affect their solo performance, then why does it matter? But if it's just because you want Scrappers to be unique and special snowflakes with their inherent, that ship sailed long ago. Criticals as an inherent stopped being unique with CoV when both Corruptors and Stalkers got them - and yes, they were only 20% on held or slept targets for Stalkers (which is still there for PvP, not that you can leverage it given mez durations and suppression) or at a 2% per mob's health below 50% level for Corruptors, but it's the same functionality - you do double damage outside of hidden status because the random number generator decided to bless you with its magnanimous beneficence for that particular attack. Later there was a lot of these same complaints about Stalkers when their out-of-hidden criticals were changed to the current 10% scaling critical, but after a while it settled down because there still wasn't anything that they could do better than Brutes or Scrappers unless your team likes group-hugs and those situations were few and far between. But Stalkers got a recent buff - again - so here come the same old arguments - again - about how "they have our inherent waaaaahhhhhh" - again - that overlook the full picture of how the ATs stack up against each other - again.
And yes, I do think that Blasters need looked at; I didn't go back to quote it but it was said here that Scrappers should be top for DPS when combining both single-target and AoE damage, and unless they were talking only about melee ATs, and if so that clause was omitted, then that's pure crap: Blasters should be. If nothing else and there is a refusal to raise their uncapped performance then they need a higher damage cap - right now when all of the ATs are damage capped they're behind Brutes, Stalkers, and Scrappers for "effective" damage modifier, and can potentially fall behind Corruptors if you can guarantee Scourge on every attack.
I really don't have a problem with the suggestion in the OP. I think it's frivolous, but then so are vanity pets and travel powers. I'd rather have a new power set instead, but as stated before in the thread, it's personal preference. If it doesn't affect their performance, only the rest of the team's - and especially if it's made to not stack - then whatever. It's not like it's going to unbalance them further.
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:
Apologies, I swear I saw "DO NOT NEED". However, you claiming that the games needs to be as broken as possible? Is bad. Even the devs want the game to be more difficult, which won't happen if we decide to increase the power creep further and further and further. And it's the PLAYERS who have PLEADED for difficulty. For a CHALLENGE. This means YOUR dreams go against 'The Vision'.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Um, look again, I said blasters DO need buffs.
|
I disagree with you. Flat out.
And I agree with Regens initial nerfs. Toggle Instant Healing was overpowered. Energy Melee? Pre-Nerf Energy Transfer was too powerful, but the set needed tweaks after this. It sadly didn't get them, thus why it's where it's at... which is actually 'average'. It can't compete with overpowered set, but Energy Melee is fairly average now, although with poor AoE.
City of Heroes needs to be scaled BACK, not FORWARD.
Quote:
Yeah we do disagree flat out. You fit much better with Jack's Vision.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
Apologies, I swear I saw "DO NOT NEED". However, you claiming that the games needs to be as broken as possible? Is bad. Even the devs want the game to be more difficult, which won't happen if we decide to increase the power creep further and further and further. And it's the PLAYERS who have PLEADED for difficulty. For a CHALLENGE. This means YOUR dreams go against 'The Vision'.
I disagree with you. Flat out. And I agree with Regens initial nerfs. Toggle Instant Healing was overpowered. Energy Melee? Pre-Nerf Energy Transfer was too powerful, but the set needed tweaks after this. It sadly didn't get them, thus why it's where it's at... which is actually 'average'. It can't compete with overpowered set, but Energy Melee is fairly average now, although with poor AoE. City of Heroes needs to be scaled BACK, not FORWARD. |
For the record, Scrappers do not need a buff. They need something unique that is theirs. Tankers and Blasters DO very much need a buff.
I would rather move forward, because that is what super heroes do. I played Hero System Table top for years (over 20 actually) and I was always reaching for that cosmic level of power. That greatness that would allow me to single highhandedly save the world. I feel like I am getting that slowly now in this game.
The comment on the regen nerf was below the belt man. There were ten ways to fix the problem (there was a problem by the way) and they chose the very worst one. They chose one that completely changed the way the set played. That was just a bad call on their part. Regen did need to be brought down, but not shattered as it was. I also think the current game would no more than raise an eyebrow at the old regen. There would be no parking in the new DA, getting a sandwich, and coming back still alive.
I do think TW, and StJ are fin for where this game is headed (space it seems). I also think that the older sets (including the blaster sets) could use some buffs. Sure there has to be a stopping point, I just don't think we have reached it yet. Dang, we are still stuck in one city on one planet. There is all of the ocean and outer space to grow in to.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
Why do you assume I want 3 Minions = 1 Hero? I simply don't want the power creep to continue. Titan Weapons is too much. Now you're using a strawman against me, aka Jack Emmert, someone the community largely hates, against me.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Yeah we do disagree flat out. You fit much better with Jack's Vision.
|
You want the game to emphasize as overpoweredly broken as it can get. You want it to be the norm. I disagree with that. I think Titan Weapons has gone far too far on how powerful something SHOULD be. This does NOT mean I want everything balanced around Spines.
Quit using strawmans and discuss this rationally. Unless you can't, which is just a victory for me.
Quote:
We the players didn't understand what he meant either, and have perpetuated an inaccuracy that no amount of correcting seems able to extinguish.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Any way, there was a time when the lead dev stated that each hero should only be equal to 3 minions. That was his vision for this game. Well, we the players did not find that vision fun and found ways to rebel.
|
The "player = three minions" thing was never meant to suggest that in a fight with three minions, the players would win half the time or anything like that. In a heroic, now +0x1 mission, that's what the mission spawns. It spawns the equivalent of about three minions worth of critters per spawn point (three minions or a minion and an LT or rarely an LT and two minions). That was supposed to represent a reasonable challenge to players playing through an entire mission of those. If it wasn't, if everyone was simply blowing past that level of threat generation without even thinking or blinking, then clearly the standard difficulty setting made no sense: it was too low for anyone.
Except even today, I would bet most players play on standard difficulty, +0x1, when they solo. And I doubt most of them think that level of threat generation is ludicrously low. Player = three minions wasn't supposed to express what we were literally equal to, it was supposed to express what the game was supposed to throw at a player by default. One player entering a mission equals three minions placed at each spawn point.
With SOs becoming as common as dirt and invention slotting surpassing it, we're far stronger than that. But while the devs haven't been making wholesale moves to nerf us back down, they have started creeping the critters upward, so that three minions are more dangerous now than they were before in many cases. Because that's what the game is supposed to do: throw enough threat at us to be noticable.
Why can't the game allow us to be "equal" to nine minions, or twenty? Because then the game servers would explode from the load of spawning that much threat per player in large teams. Instead, the devs handed us the new difficulty scalers, so we can scale ourselves singularly to spawn threat meant for eight. So we become the equal of 24 minions (or minion equivalents in LTs and Bosses), which the game can spawn as long as we are alone. But it won't spawn for nine if we have a team mate, because that exceeds what the game servers can handle practically in the general case.
We're equal to three minions because we have to be equal to three somethings, because the game servers can't make us equal to ten somethings in the general case.
The fact that at the exact same moment Jack was saying we were supposed to be equal to three minions the dev team was testing scrappers against missions scaled for six (eighteen minion equivalents) should all but prove that the "three minions" statement didn't mean what many people still portray it to mean today.
But if the game lasts for another eight years, I'm sure people will still be saying it.
[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:
Oh, come now. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The fact that at the exact same moment Jack was saying we were supposed to be equal to three minions the dev team was testing scrappers against missions scaled for six (eighteen minion equivalents) should all but prove that the "three minions" statement didn't mean what many people still portray it to mean today.
But if the game lasts for another eight years, I'm sure people will still be saying it. |
Surely nobody on the internet would propagate misinformation and ignorance while deliberately ignoring or confusing the facts which may invalidate their viewpoint.
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, that was not my intention. But you do seem to want a far less powerful character than I would enjoy playing. I have no clue how long you have played this game, but I promise it is more fun now than in Jack's time|
Originally Posted by Reppu
Why do you assume I want 3 Minions = 1 Hero? I simply don't want the power creep to continue. Titan Weapons is too much. Now you're using a strawman against me, aka Jack Emmert, someone the community largely hates, against me.
|
Quote:
|
You want the game to emphasize as overpoweredly broken as it can get. You want it to be the norm. I disagree with that. I think Titan Weapons has gone far too far on how powerful something SHOULD be. This does NOT mean I want everything balanced around Spines. . |
or
The devs can start to balance powers around characters who are going to be using IO sets. I don't think that would go over to well though.
What I am saying is that TW is not OP if slotted with only SO's. I can see where after a heavy IO build, and incarnate powers it is OP, but by that point shouldn't it be at that level of power to face the threats it will be taking on?
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
I didn't go back to quote it but it was said here that Scrappers should be top for DPS when combining both single-target and AoE damage, and unless they were talking only about melee ATs, and if so that clause was omitted, then that's pure crap: Blasters should be.
|
What was said was that Scrappers should lead in "Raw DPS". This is not me suggesting it to anyone this is me telling you as fact but in context of other hero ATs.
An average Blaster with an SO build would be abit more burst like and out of endurance trying to keep up with an average SO Scrapper build.
Now you take a Blaster in a team condition being buffed then it's no longer Raw DPS.
It's not me suggesting, it's me telling you.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
Or something worse. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But if the game lasts for another eight years, I'm sure people will still be saying it. |
You are right though, they are scaling up the bad guys. The threat is growing, and the heroes need to grow to meet it. That's all I am saying. I have a feeling that even if they scale us back, they will not scale the bad guys back. I do like the idea of us all being like GL corps, or super man in space at some point. That would be fun to me.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
Tankers? Really? I wouldn't say "need". I think the issue might simply be taunt controlling mobs inspite of a Brutes presence but it's only because Brutes can do more to get the team killed if they don't know what they're doing whilst a Tanker can't do anything about it.
|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Tankers and Blasters DO very much need a buff.
|
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
You edited, and I just checked back.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Did you read the whole post?
|
I think StJ is right on the edge of acceptable, but TW went too far. It should be scaled back, and everything else needs a buff. If TW becomes the new norm (And it isn't, because Staff Fighting is looking to be, flatly, average), that is NOT a good thing.
My suggestions would be to try to nerf TW with out destroying the set. StJ should be the absolute MAXIMUM power creep (I do feel it needs to do less base damage, and more Combo Point damage. AKA - it does less up-front critical damage. It doesn't change the overall power, but makes it less BS on Stalkers, and I suppose Scrappers. It = Crushing Uppercut).
The older sets need buffs, flat out.
And, I'm sorry about Regen. I wasn't playing Regen back then, so ho-hum. Maybe it was the worst way to go about it, but you can't deny Old Regen was way over the top. Which... is what you want so it's hard to stress what was wrong with Old Regen.
The power creep DOES need to stop. There needs to be a new balance point, things need to be buffed to it, and then nothing should ever go above it by more than a single margin.
Sets like TW and StJ obsoleted many in performance. Martial Arts is now a mediocre set due to StJ, and TW just out-shines everything. Period. This is wrong. And we can't buff sets to those levels, because it increases the power creep and, eventually, we will have to enforce more auto-kill grief mechanics into fights for pseudo-difficulty.
And nobody wants that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Reppu
You edited, and I just checked back.
I think StJ is right on the edge of acceptable, but TW went too far. It should be scaled back, and everything else needs a buff. If TW becomes the new norm (And it isn't, because Staff Fighting is looking to be, flatly, average), that is NOT a good thing. My suggestions would be to try to nerf TW with out destroying the set. StJ should be the absolute MAXIMUM power creep (I do feel it needs to do less base damage, and more Combo Point damage. AKA - it does less up-front critical damage. It doesn't change the overall power, but makes it less BS on Stalkers, and I suppose Scrappers). The older sets need buffs, flat out. And, I'm sorry about Regen. I wasn't playing Regen back then, so ho-hum. Maybe it was the worst way to go about it, but you can't deny Old Regen was way over the top. Which... is what you want so it's hard to stress what was wrong with Old Regen. The power creep DOES need to stop. There needs to be a new balance point, things need to be buffed to it, and then nothing should ever go above it by more than a single margin. Sets like TW and StJ obsoleted many in performance. Martial Arts is now a mediocre set due to StJ, and TW just out-shines everything. Period. This is wrong. And we can't buff sets to those levels, because it increases the power creep and, eventually, we will have to enforce more auto-kill grief mechanics into fights for pseudo-difficulty. And nobody wants that. |
I don't think we have reached the line yet. I agree there is a line somewhere that we should not cross, I just don't think we are there yet. I have several reasons for that.
1. We can scale our missions to challenge our selves. We get to set the difficulty. If anything it is time to add some higher settings to it.
2. We have no clue what they have planed for the future. Look at the DA mobs using a better version of TW (because it has a ranged attack). There is still content that can make even the most elite of us struggle.
3. We have the ability to limit ourselves. Think your TW toon is OP, but still fun to play? Then don't take any blues, leave the inspiration bar closed.
you are correct though, I do want my characters to have an absurd levle of power, but I want them to face threats that warrant that level of power.
In seeing what the devs are doing, I think their plan is to give us those challenges.
On a personal note: I have a lvl 50 +3 TW/EA brute. It is the most painful toon I have to play in any incarnate content. Wanna know what I have always thought was broken in this game? Controllers, but you never see me calling for them to be nerfed.
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
That might be problematic if all our enemies look like this:|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
I do like the idea of us all being like GL corps
|
and this:
and this:
[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:
That's more the fact that Patron Pools and Epic Pools work dumbly with Containment, more so than the AT being dumb. But, that's another thread.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
I don't think we have reached the line yet. I agree there is a line somewhere that we should not cross, I just don't think we are there yet. I have several reasons for that.
1. We can scale our missions to challenge our selves. We get to set the difficulty. If anything it is time to add some higher settings to it. 2. We have no clue what they have planed for the future. Look at the DA mobs using a better version of TW (because it has a ranged attack). There is still content that can make even the most elite of us struggle. 3. We have the ability to limit ourselves. Think your TW toon is OP, but still fun to play? Then don't take any blues, leave the inspiration bar closed. you are correct though, I do want my characters to have an absurd levle of power, but I want them to face threats that warrant that level of power. In seeing what the devs are doing, I think their plan is to give us those challenges. On a personal note: I have a lvl 50 +3 TW/EA brute. It is the most painful toon I have to play in any incarnate content. Wanna know what I have always thought was broken in this game? Controllers, but you never see me calling for them to be nerfed. |
I have a TW, and it got boring. It was too easy. I couldn't challenge myself anymore. And, it was TW/Energy Aura Scrapper. Just... too easy. Way, way, WAY too easy. I felt it was wrong, so I've stopped playing her.
Oh, I feel the need to correct something. I'll be quoting someone else for this.
Ahem.
"Dude. Reppu's a girl."
Quote:
I would claim, an AoE set where all ATs have the same number of AoE attacks but while one AT gets a 10% crit chance on the AoE while another can get 30-50% crit chance is considered 'more AoE', don't you think?|
Originally Posted by Mad Grim
Everyone is pointing out AoEs- But there is not one set, not one, where stalker has more.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Reppu
I do not understand why people immediately attack one's own play experience when stating a case. It's almost like they all take a page from the same book of counter-logic. And it didn't work then, it didn't work now.
|
I'm not attacking my play experience, you just want to make excuses so it seems like you know what you're talking about.
Quote:
| BUT! I am ending the rambling here and point out your biggest failure; You could not state for a fact Stalkers could solo as effectively as Scrappers/Brutes/(Tankers?). |
Basically, what you're telling me is, is those Stalkers must have teamed to get where they are or are lying. Show me, for a fact, where you get the data to prove otherwise.
And before you go and 'reword' any BS, you can just fark away the whole 'solo as effectively as...' crap. If you think buffs should take into account ridiculous farming builds and point out *THAT* is why Stalkers are less effective solo? You lose all ground.
Stalker had its own style and means to solo missions. Hit and Run isn't a sole means of XP but a means to equalize fights so there weren't 'easy fights mixed in with a few hard fights'. Stalker can delegate all fights as 'easy' since they have the tools to do so which affects overall mission completion and rewards.
Quote:
|
And try to be more polite next time? People get on my case when I get even slightly aggressive, so if I'm going to start pointing out when people are pointlessly insulting others. |
You don't think Stalkers could solo well. They could and did.
You don't think so because they weren't farming x8 missions. I say that's full of crap. I could solo x10 missions on a Stalker...you just have to pick the right missions.
You don't feel stealthing is applicable to the subject of Stalkers. I say too bad.
That said, I'm not saying Stalkers didn't need a buff or even that the buff was only because people wanted it and not because the AT needed it. I will say, the people who so strongly advocated that buff didn't know a cent what the AT needed.
Quote:
What? You were harping on and on about the buff. In fact, you did so like two or three pages back IN THIS THREAD. In fact, YOU SAY IT IN THIS QUOTE! You don't BLUNTLY say it, but you say it.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
That said, I'm not saying Stalkers didn't need a buff or even that the buff was only because people wanted it and not because the AT needed it. I will say, the people who so strongly advocated that buff didn't know a cent what the AT needed.
|
You disagreed with the buff because you felt, if I remember from your beta ranting, that it 'ruined the point of Stalkers'. Which you felt was better in the 'Hit and Run' days. You know, when they couldn't solo for anything because their damage was too low (solo) and their survivability was too low (solo).
And you dodged my question again. The point is XP Per Hour. That is the metric that matters. You, again for emphasis, cannot answer this question. Do you want to know the answer from 2008?
It's "No.".
If I recall, Stalkers did get a buff, but it was a team buff. It meant nothing solo. That means, in 2008, Stalkers XP Per Hour was far worse than it's cousins.
So, no. Your argument fails. Stalkers needed the buff, even if it hurt the ideal playstyle YOU felt they had. They are a far more globally enjoyable AT, and do what they were supposed to do in the first place; Single Target Damage Kings.
And I'm done with you, Leo. You insist on being rude because you can, and I mis-quote "Do what I want within rules". Have a good day.
Quote:
I disagree, I very much had trouble solo, and may have complained once or twice.| I cannot state that for a fact because what data am I going to use to say it? I can't. I can only say this: there were Stalkers playing before the buff, *NONE* complained about solo and many said that was the AT's strength. |
Reppu never mentioned farms, merely 'xp per hour'. Stalkers got horrible xp, due to having to stealth their missions and only kill a few things. Horrible, at least, compared to the other melee ATs, which is what she was comparing them to. 'Hit and Run' may be a legitimate means of soloing, but it is not an efficient means. Compared to the ability to stick to your guns and fight it out, which the other Melees could do with ease.
Stalkers were bad solo and they were bad in teams. Unless there is some sort of limbo state, I think it is fair to say they needed a buff.
And no, I don't consider a higher crit rate that only applies when you have a group hug as 'more AoE'.
Quote:
Lol you don't know what the **** I said. You only hear what you want to hear.|
Originally Posted by Reppu
What? You were harping on and on about the buff. In fact, you did so like two or three pages back IN THIS THREAD. In fact, YOU SAY IT IN THIS QUOTE! You don't BLUNTLY say it, but you say it.
You disagreed with the buff because you felt, if I remember from your beta ranting, that it 'ruined the point of Stalkers'. Which you felt was better in the 'Hit and Run' days. You know, when they couldn't solo for anything because their damage was too low (solo) and their survivability was too low (solo). |
I could reexplain it but I'd be wasting my breath.
Quote:
|
And you dodged my question again. The point is XP Per Hour. That is the metric that matters. You, again for emphasis, cannot answer this question. Do you want to know the answer from 2008? It's "No.". If I recall, Stalkers did get a buff, but it was a team buff. It meant nothing solo. That means, in 2008, Stalkers XP Per Hour was far worse than it's cousins. |
No, I can't make a statement on XP per hour because I never made documented observations on that metric nor have I read anywhere about it. The only places I even read about that were in regards to Blaster's old defiance 1.0 and Defender old vigilance 1.0.
I'm not dodging the question, I'm telling you *I can't answer that question*. I'll even quote that for you:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
I cannot state that for a fact because what data am I going to use to say it? I can't.
|
Quote:
| So, no. Your argument fails. |
Quote:
| Stalkers needed the buff, even if it hurt the ideal playstyle YOU felt they had. They are a far more globally enjoyable AT, and do what they were supposed to do in the first place; Single Target Damage Kings. |
"Skill can divert clumsy raw power, and precisely applied force can solve many problems. As a Stalker, this is the core of your specialty. You do your best work when attacking from ambush, and can even hide in plain sight to escape foes. Deadly attacks and good defenses make you a dangerous combatant and assassin, but you can be overwhelmed if you're not careful. "No, the idea that they are suppose to be 'ST Kings' was an idea claimed by posters and then adopted by the devs with regard to the new changes. Basically, the prospect of 'ST damage king' for Stalker is entirely new. What they're suppose to be now and what they *were* suppose to be are two completely different (and now) unrelated things.
And before you claim I'm lobbying for 'good ol hit'n run', I'll just point out again, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about because you're only hearing the parts you want to hear.
Quote:
All I see lately from you is "Wah wah Stalkers wah wah nobody listened to me". And that's exactly what you're doing. You're crying over the changes and saying everyone should have listened to you. No. They shouldn't have. You were wrong then and everyone supporting "Scrapper Buffs" or "Changes" are wrong now.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Snip.
|
So if that wasn't what you intended, you kind of failed at it.
I'll go find the 2008 data again. It's not easy-access so it will be a bit. I'm sure someone else has it immediately at the ready and hopefully they post it for me, but if they do not I'll have it posted ASAP.
Also, don't be a fool, Leo. You know I can't magically answer you during your OWN posts. You JUST asked for the information, and I working on getting it to you. Really, stop it.
Congrats, Leo. You've become the J_B of Stalkers.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
Quote:
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're just 1 player. Not everyone had trouble soloing on their Stalkers just like not everyone has a +4/x8 spawn soloing Brute.|
Originally Posted by Mad Grim
I disagree, I very much had trouble solo, and may have complained once or twice.
|
Quote:
| Reppu never mentioned farms, merely 'xp per hour'. |
Quote:
| Stalkers got horrible xp, due to having to stealth their missions and only kill a few things. |
On a x2 mission setting, you're mostly dealing with 4-5 mobs, 2 if one is a boss. Are you telling me you could not AS 1 mob, cut that spawn to 3-4, placate + crit another cutting the spawn again to 2-3 then mop up the rest with ST attacks before moving to another spawn? And if you couldn't manage to survive that, run away before you die and hit them again just as they lose aggro?
I'd really like to know. What was hard for you? Because I can point to several Doms builds that are technically more complicated, several Scraps who are potentially equal and a handful of Blasters who are functionally worse.
Quote:
| Horrible, at least, compared to the other melee ATs, which is what she was comparing them to. 'Hit and Run' may be a legitimate means of soloing, but it is not an efficient means. Compared to the ability to stick to your guns and fight it out, which the other Melees could do with ease. |
Quote:
| Stalkers were bad solo and they were bad in teams. |
Quote:
The first Stalker update did let them get 30% Crit Rating, buuuuut it required your team to care. So... slightly better in teams.|
Originally Posted by Mad Grim
I disagree, I very much had trouble solo, and may have complained once or twice.
Reppu never mentioned farms, merely 'xp per hour'. Stalkers got horrible xp, due to having to stealth their missions and only kill a few things. Horrible, at least, compared to the other melee ATs, which is what she was comparing them to. 'Hit and Run' may be a legitimate means of soloing, but it is not an efficient means. Compared to the ability to stick to your guns and fight it out, which the other Melees could do with ease. Stalkers were bad solo and they were bad in teams. Unless there is some sort of limbo state, I think it is fair to say they needed a buff. And no, I don't consider a higher crit rate that only applies when you have a group hug as 'more AoE'. |
Also, Leo_G? You posting the Stalker description got shot down on beta and is being shot down now. An AT is not restricted to their description. Also, I clearly see "DEADLY DAMAGE" highlighted there. Pretty sure they actually do that now, instead of being sub-optimal, sub-par Scrappers/Brutes.
Indeed. You're just looking for a fight now, purposely ignoring key words, and are no longer going to be spoken to after this post;
Saying Blasters do not needs buffs proves how little you know of this game's balance, and that's ignoring you thinking the game should be as broken as possible.
But then again, looking at the thread I'm posting in, I shouldn't be surprised. Good day to you.
PS: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=284248 Wrong.